User talk:Theoneintraining/List of documentary films
The Obvious to do list
[edit]This is some really basic issues that have already been discussed elsewhere or are really obvious that need to be completed. I am not putting a table on this list until we agree what type of table and what to include is discussed.
- 1.Italic titles
- 2.Change all year Wiki links to link to year in film. Eg, change this 2000 to this 2000
Well I think that is it to start as they are very time consuming there is no rush so if we can just do a little bit every now and then they will get done. Feel free to add to this list.--intraining Jack In 05:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Can't you have a column for "topic"? Juzhong (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I just added a column for a topic I will fill it in after I have done title, year director and producer. Feel free to help if you want.--intraining Jack In 11:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
To Terraxos
[edit]I will start from from Zz to avoid conflicting edits.--intraining Jack In 16:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Sterry
[edit]Hi Sterry, If you want you can go through and add documentary's found in here.--intraining Jack In 09:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Okey doke, will see what I can do - no promises though!! (Have found one tonight, so that's a start) Sterry2607 (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Added 2 more - David Bradbury films which had been categorised as American documentary films but he's Australian and the films are Australian. If they had American funding then we could add American cat. too but until I know that I think we should leave them as Australian. OK? Sterry2607 (talk) 12:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi there thanks for joining me. Good work so far before we put this live I think we need to (at some stage) go through all categories. One thing that annoys me about the pedia is you can not watch categories so every time a new article is place in a documentary category there is no way of knowing. It will take a long time I understand your busy (as am i usually) just pop in when you want. I am from Australia also Adelaide to be exact. It good that a couple of Aussies are on this one.--intraining Jack In 13:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Um I just read your comment again I think I miss understood on first read. What I meant was to add documentarys that are in that catagory to this list as I am unsure that they are all on this list. Its a bit late sorry if I do not make any sense.--intraining Jack In 13:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi there thanks for joining me. Good work so far before we put this live I think we need to (at some stage) go through all categories. One thing that annoys me about the pedia is you can not watch categories so every time a new article is place in a documentary category there is no way of knowing. It will take a long time I understand your busy (as am i usually) just pop in when you want. I am from Australia also Adelaide to be exact. It good that a couple of Aussies are on this one.--intraining Jack In 13:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Added 2 more - David Bradbury films which had been categorised as American documentary films but he's Australian and the films are Australian. If they had American funding then we could add American cat. too but until I know that I think we should leave them as Australian. OK? Sterry2607 (talk) 12:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I think I am confused. I thought you wanted me to populate the category - so I found three that hadn't been correctly categorised? But, is it that you want me to add films from this category to the List of documentary films you are working on?Sterry2607 (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes that is right, the aim is to get this List to featured list status after the table is complete we can put it live in the main space..--intraining Jack In 00:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Terminology
[edit]I guess you are aware that a lot of documentaries - particularly small independent ones - don't formally have directors and producers but rather filmmakers? It is a real challenge in film description. The default of calling them director and producer is OK but not exact.Sterry2607 (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you are checking from imdb scroll down to the bottom of the films page and find a link titled "Full Cast & Crew" click that and that will tell you the directors.--intraining Jack In 23:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- If that is not the answer can you please provide me with an example.--intraining Jack In 23:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you are checking from imdb scroll down to the bottom of the films page and find a link titled "Full Cast & Crew" click that and that will tell you the directors.--intraining Jack In 23:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, no it was more a comment. Documentary filmmakers - particularly small independent ones - often don't credit themselves as DIRECTOR. They often do the whole kit and kaboodle ie direct, produce, write and photograph. It's hard to find examples as most institutional catalogues and lists compromise and use ready-made terminology like DIRECTOR and PRODUCER (usually because they use coded labels) rather than what is on the film itself. It's a bit pedantic and I suppose it's OK for wikipedia to continue this way but it is not totally accurate. The five people, for example, who made a little documentary called "Bread and Dripping" did not credit themselves on the film as Director; and I think neither did Ken Burns on his film "Brooklyn Bridge". I guess I'm just saying it because it is an important things to know even if we can't actually follow it.Sterry2607 (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- You will see that I am a bit of a pedant - you may be sorry you asked me to help! In the film world, I believe, people (Spike Lee, say) are Producers and companies (Granada Television) are Production Companies. Is Wikipedia not bothered about things like that? Do you think we should be? Sterry2607 (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't had a problem finding producers, you will notice that a couple of films have (uncredited) next to uncredited dir/pro's. When it comes to documentary's, producers have a higher credit than they do with normal films, often the producer is also the director. It is absolutely appropriate to add producers to this list and differently adds to the factual quality of the list--intraining Jack In 12:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- You will see that I am a bit of a pedant - you may be sorry you asked me to help! In the film world, I believe, people (Spike Lee, say) are Producers and companies (Granada Television) are Production Companies. Is Wikipedia not bothered about things like that? Do you think we should be? Sterry2607 (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I agree absolutely - documentaries are one of my big enthusiasms. As I said in my earlier message, documentary filmmakers often don't even clal themselves producers or directors - they just call themselves filmmakers. Anyhow, my point really was that Granada Television, for example, is not a producer but a production company. There is a difference. Should we be listing Production Companies in a column headed Producers? Sterry2607 (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well thats a good question, it seems that the production company may need to be listed to look like this -
| Title | Year | Director(s) | Producer(s) | Production Company | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0-9 | ||||||
| 7 Up | 1964 | Paul Almond | Granada Television | Granada Television | ||
Is that going to far? do you think we need another column for this?. my opinion has changed as to adding the topic, it seems to trivial but I guess it could be put back in if required.--intraining Jack In 07:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, though of course in this example you would have to remove Granada Television from under Producers. We are not always going to know the Producer AND the Production Company and sometimes there may not be both, but I think we either do this OR we don't put in the production company at all OR we have one column labelled Producer(s)/Production Company. I'm not sure that we need Topic. It's not always going to be easy to describe it in simple terms and people will find out what it's about when they click on the title to get the article won't they. Cheers Sterry2607 (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
| Title | Year | Director(s) | Producer(s)/Production Company | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0-9 | ||||||
| 7 Up | 1964 | Paul Almond | Granada Television | |||
---intraining Jack In 12:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I think this is good enough - and if we have both we just put Joe Blow/Fourex Productions (or whatever!!) CheersSterry2607 (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Red links
[edit]BTW What do you plan to do about red links?Sterry2607 (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's open for discussion, have you got ant ideas?.--intraining Jack In 00:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not at this stage - I was wondering whether to add to them!! As there are important films missing I think! Is it better to pop them in and then at the end decided if we want to create the articles or leave them red or remove them altogether? Sterry2607 (talk) 07:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I was thinking along similar lines, once we move this into the mainspace we will immediately get it reviewed and see what they say over there.--intraining Jack In 08:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not at this stage - I was wondering whether to add to them!! As there are important films missing I think! Is it better to pop them in and then at the end decided if we want to create the articles or leave them red or remove them altogether? Sterry2607 (talk) 07:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good Sterry2607 (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I actually think all films with out Wikipedia pages should be removed, After all This list does need to draw the line somewhere as in what to include and what not to include.--intraining Jack In 10:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)