Talk:Sintel

Animation: Films Bottom‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Bottom	This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Animated films work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Film: Animated

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Animated films task force.

Sintel Video

I tend to disagree. Firstly, the video quality of the excerpt is horrendous...even in the small frame that its in. And secondly, the full video should be there simply because of its value - it is the entire video of the subject that the article is focused on. If someone wants to watch it in a bigger frame, they can click on the video's information tab or navigate to youtube themselves. But providing a short (and low-quality at that) excerpt does the film a disservice, in my opinion at least.

Oh, just by the way, the video that is uploaded on Wikipedia is in pretty decent 480p. I'm not sure how that resolution is "small".--haha169 (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The embedded full film was Sintel movie 720x306.ogv. In the article, it was at 320px, which within a letterbox frame is very small. Sintel is somewhat longer than previous Blender films (15 minutes), and it is not ideal to watch the whole film at this resolution when it is available at up to 1080p on YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New video

The new video clip is twice as large as the old one at 6.3MB, and is of considerably better quality. As a comparison, there is also a WebM version at around the same size here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit: It is not worth a big edit war, but it is unlikely that many people will watch the full 15 minute film on Wikipedia. The 720x306px version on Commons is too small for a good look at the detailed animation, and people should be encouraged to watch it at the better resolutions offered on YouTube and Vimeo. The issue is not copyright, as the film is CC.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally agree with haha above that the EV is higher for the whole movie. Many of us don't have screens big enough to benefit from 4k resolution (and even more don't have the internet connection to handle it), so the link to Youtube can suffice for those wanting the highest resolution. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WebM clip available

The new Wikipedia video player supports HTML5 and WebM. There is an extract from the film here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fan game what?

So some fans are making a fan game of this film and Blender is going to let these people do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.44.144.215 (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Game artical

Should we create the Sintel Game a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.51.195 (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would need to meet the general notability guideline.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GAME!

I saw screen shots of the game,you think you could add them here?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.176.128 (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The website of the game version is here. At the moment, this has WP:TOPIC and notability issues, because it has not picked up much (if any) coverage in reliable sources. Also, it appears that the game is still under development and has not been released yet, so WP:FUTURE applies.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha versions have been released now. Maybe we could add a section to talk about it. Pamputt (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sintel movie 720x306.ogv Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sintel movie 720x306.ogv, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Sintel movie 720x306.ogv)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source quality

Primary sources template

This template was recently added to this article, and I'm not really sure why. Sources 2, 3, 4, 5, 13 and 18 are not primary sources, and I think this should be sufficient. Both primary and non-primary sources have their benefits, so a good mixture is always the target, and primary sources are mostly used as references to dates and facts, which is what they are very good at. Therefore my question: What's the reason for this template? --Julian H. (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a great deal wrong with the article, WP:COI is not an issue here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do, then? I'm not really sure what you are implying, please forgive any misunderstandings as I'm not a native speaker. --Julian H. (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI applies to statements that are likely to be challenged. The statements about the production of the film made by Blender are uncontroversial.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP:COI is not a big issue here, but what about WP:N? That is more doubtful. The short has been covered quite briefly, and mostly in technology magazines. Also: №3 is an interview, not really independent; 4 appears to be a passing mention at best, but I am not sure; 5 is a dictionary definition of "cinder", not really about the subject; I am also unsure if 13 is independent. Keφr (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the difference between independent and primary sources. The term "primary source" does not say anything about a source being related, close to a subject or dependent. Any magazine reference is per definition almost always secondary. It would only be primary if the story itself would be the topic of the article. --Julian H. (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the film is based on the word cinder.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, and yet the tag says: "primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject". Perhaps the template should be split for this reason. I would welcome it, actually. (Yes, I understand why the dictionary is cited. It just does not talk about the short, so it does not help in establishing notability. By the way, the more you know: [[wikt:cinder|]]) Keφr (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the discussion of the template. There is at least one template specifically for references too close to the subject. --Julian H. (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party references template

The tone of the article is not blatantly spammy, and Blender should be considered a reliable source for statements about how the film was made. Secondary sources would probably repeat what Blender said. My main concern is the trivia section, which is completely unsourced and should be axed per WP:TRIVIA.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1 on that. --Julian H. (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]