Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

Open peer review request for Kaneto Shindo

If anybody here is interested, there is an open peer review request for Kaneto Shindo. I have been expanding this article about since I started this account on Wikipedia using mostly Shindo's own bios for reference. There was one response to the peer review asking to add a photo, but so far no feedback on the article content. Please respond at the peer review if you are interested in commenting. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Plot summaries

Can someone answer this question about plot summaries? I don't really know what the answer is. Ryan Vesey 11:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Plots are supposed to be 400–700 words. There are some relevant tags if they fall outside this range: {{Long plot}}, {{No plot}}, {{More plot}} and {{All plot}}. Betty Logan (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Ryan Vesey 14:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Cast list in the article

I just noticed Betty Logan took out the whole cast list from Halloween (1978 film), with the edit summary Redundant; just replicates names already included in the plot summary. It had been there since February. Rather than just revert it right away, I decided to raise the issue here. I've noticed a couple of editors here seem to have something against cast lists if the characters are mentioned in the plot section. I believe these lists are useful. I don't want to have to scan the plot section to try to put together the names. I'm sure most readers who come to WP would agree, and apparently most editors do too, as most film pages with any detail have cast lists. I don't want to see them removed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I very much agree with you. One should not have to leave WP to get a list of the cast. The writers of FAs seems to disagree though; I opened 10 film articles in Category:FA-Class film articles at random and only 4 had a cast list. jonkerz ♠talk 11:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This may stem from BL's comment in the Expendables 2 thread above where BL states a need for info about the casting process in the cast section. I am not sure where that comes from as that has never been a requirement. It is suggested in the MoS for films but it is not required and indeed it is stated that

"Of course, some film articles will lend themselves to one style better than others" and

"a cast list inserted into the body of the article may be appropriate" and " It should be longer than the list in the infobox, and, depending on the number of minor characters in the film, can be furnished with a dozen or more credits"

Yes it also says that some editors frown on these but that is no reason to remove them when other editors approve of them. I concur that I do not want to have to read through the entire plot section to find the name certain names and since, per WP:PLOT, we are to keep plot sections brief there will be cast members characters who do not even get mentioned. To revert an edit from last February is a bit extraordinary and I have to wonder if it has anything to do with Halloween being the first one mentioned in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film)#Cast section. Another thought is, since IMDb is unreliable, why would we be directing are readers towards it when we can provide the proper info here? In any event the film MoS already allows for their inclusion if we need to make the wording stronger about there in inclusion I would support that. MarnetteD | Talk 13:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Adding a cast list was unnecessary. The cast was already adequately named in the plot summary and there was already a casting section. It just repeated what was already in the article, and we don't need two cast sections. In fact WP:FILMCAST recommends Halloween as one of the acceptable styles, so there was no need to add this extra section. In fact the MOS recommends not doing it:

  Background information about the cast and crew should be provided, ideally as well-written prose. There are several ways to provide such information: Halloween contains "Writing", "Casting", "Direction" and "Music" subsections within the "Production" section, which uses well-written prose to describe the casting and staffing decisions made, as well as discussing the reasons behind some of the cast decisions, the thoughts of the actors themselves about their roles, and some brief explorations of their careers before and after the film...The key is to provide significant behind-the-scenes production information. Of course, some film articles will lend themselves to one style better than others. Failing that, a cast list inserted into the body of the article may be appropriate, though some editors frown on lists inside articles.

  We don't need a cast list naming the cast any more than we need a crew list naming the art director. The casting process was already covered by a style consistent with the MOS. Betty Logan (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This is unrelated to the fact WP has no category for art directors or most other crew. Most people who come here are not looking for that. I wish it weren't the case, but more people care about the actors in a film than everything else put together. - Gothicfilm (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Betty, and I am one of the editors that does not like a "cast list" if it can be avoided. Meaning, if there is information on the casting of an actor, then that should be in prose and probably under "Production". The cast is typically mentioned in the lead, the infobox, (sometimes) the plot, and a "casting" section. How many more places do we need to list them? I get "not wanting to leave Wikipedia to look at a cast list", but if that was all you came to the page for then it's not a real lose to click the IMDB link and get an entire list of every credited person in the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The infobox should only list the actors in starring roles, usually as seen on the poster. It does not include what role they played, obviously. The cast list usually gives a few more names, at a given page's editors' discretion. That is the way most WP film pages are now, and it works well. I know I don't want to have to scan an article again to get info that can and should be in a list. I'm confident most readers don't want to either. If an editor has gone to the trouble to put in a cast list, it shouldn't be deleted. - Gothicfilm (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, editors go through the trouble of adding a lot of things that should not (or at least need not) be in an article. If an editor decided to go through and take the time to add needless details about cast and crew should we just leave it there because they made an effort to add something to the page? I don't think so. Again, if people are only coming here for a cast list, then why bother adding any production info at all? The point of that section is to house an area where we talk about the cast from an encyclopedic point of view, not by simply taking an IMDB approach and just giving them a list to view. We're pushing for substance over quantity. If they do not want to read the lot, then there should be a casting section where they can see who is in the film and read about relevant production information that pertains to the actor/character they are playing. If there is none of that, THEN a cast list is appropriate. What Betty did was remove a list that was redundant to 2 other sections that covered actor/character information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not for keeping everything - but cast lists are well established. I don't get this some editors frown on lists inside articles thing. Lists are good. Lists work well in an encyclopedia. Lists are easy to scroll past if you don't like them. Often I return to articles I've read before to check on one aspect or another - I should be able to find it quickly. I should not be forced to scan paragraphs when someone earlier had made it more easily accessible before someone else who frowns on easily accessible info, i.e. lists, deleted it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The list thing has been around for quite some time. Unless it's a page that is a list, the issue is that the list breaks up the flow of the page. Everything else on the page tends to be pure prose information, and then right in the middle is this arbitrary list that just repeats information already on the page. Like I said, if there is a legitimate casting section then there is not a reason for a list. The lists are used in times where there isn't that information. In Halloween's cast, we're talking about a page that was established without a list, and has a pretty developed casting section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The cast list is not arbitrary. People expect it. And I'm sure many people find it more important than me, but when I do want it I want it to be easily accessible. And WP articles should be broken up. They shouldn't be continuous blocks of prose. That would make it even harder to scan and quickly find the info you're looking for. People should not have to re-read the whole article when they come back to it to check on one aspect. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

None of you have answered the question of why we are sending people to a website that is unreliable and that we do not trust for use as a reference here at Wikipedia. As a reader I want one stop shopping not "We will give you a bit of info but you will need to go to other (untrusted) websites if you want more." MarnetteD | Talk 15:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I use a number of websites, but I usually start with WP for researching any given film or other subject. So I'm not looking for one stop shopping, but info I know could be here should be here - particularly if indeed it was here before someone who objects to lists deleted it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, look, the purpose of these articles is not to reel off production credits; a production credit is not inherently notable. Who played the drunk homeless guy in Back to the Future is not any more notable than who did the lighting, and the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to explain why something is notable, which a bare cast list does not do. I'm not against casting sections being structured as lists, like the one at Alien (which is basically bulleted prose describing the casting process), I'm against just reeling off production credits. As per WP:ELYES, the whole point of external links is precisely so we don't have to have a list of credits in the article; if you don't believe IMDB fulfils this function there are other options such as the AFI and BFI sites. The existing style at the Halloween article is recommened by WP:FILMCAST, which only advocates a bare cast list as a 'better than nothing' option. Betty Logan (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You and I may feel the identity of the cinematographer is more important than a supporting actor - I'm certainly more likely to notice the former first - but most readers do not. And again, they're not directly comparable. Apples and oranges. The WP:FILMCAST recommendation should be changed, as MarnetteD seemed to also be moving toward. I believe we should put this up for a vote, as it has bugged me for some time. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Again we are directed to keep our plot sections brief. There will inevitably be cast members who are a part of the film who don't get mentioned in it. They would still deserve a mention in a cast list and no I am not asking that background artist in the film be listed, indeed I have seen and agreed with other conversations where we said that we did not want to do that. As to IMDb it has nothing to do with what I believe. Wikipedia's own consensus is that it is unreliable so why would we send readers there? As to AFI and BFI they are hardly comprehensive when it comes to the films included on their websites and our EL sections do not contain links to them on anything near a consistent basis (though as a wikignome I would be happy to set about adding them.) MarnetteD | Talk 16:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well this cast listing at the AFI catalog is more comprehensive than the one that was added to the article, and it includes other pertinent production credits too, so I don't see the problem with it. But again, notability is the sole reason for inclusion on Wikipedia, and notability needs to be established. Our MOS reflects the aims of Wikipedia, which is documenting notable content in an encylopedic manner, and bare cast lists are not consistent with that approach. We have many articles such as Fight Club that have been rated at FA standard that do not contain bare cast lists, and we shouldn't be altering the MOS to reflect personal preferences. If articles are developed without them then that is an editorial decision that should be respected. Betty Logan (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, we also have {{WP:IAR]] and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and you keep avoiding answering my concerns regarding plot length and the fact that there will be notable cast members who will be left out. BTW "notability" and "encyclopedic manner" are terms that are every bit as subjective as anything else. Hiding behind the FA banner is also highly subjective as I have seen the standards for what is and is not FA change over the years and, just as consensus can change, those will change again in the future. MarnetteD | Talk 16:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I doubt Betty wants plot sections expanded to justify listing every major supporting actor. I think she is taking the idea that the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to explain why something is notable too far. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

As I also have, unfortunately, used the terminology in the past this essay should also be considered WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC MarnetteD | Talk 17:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

What notable cast members are "left out" on the Alien article by not having a bare cast list? What notable cast members are left out on the Blade Runner article by not having a bare cast list? By the same token, what notable cast members were left out on the Halloween article by my reversion of a bare cast list? Adding cast lists to these articles does not increase the coverage of notable cast members. If you think some notable cast members have been omitted you can add them to the sections that deal with the casting, explaining why they are notable. The accusation that I am preventing the inclusion of 'notable' cast members is a red herring, because their notability has not been established in bare cast lists, which is what I'm arguing for. I also dispute the claim that I am hiding behind FA class articles; the purpose of the MOS is to get articles to conform to the highest standard on Wikipedia, and this demonstrates there are plenty that are without adding wholly unnecessary bare cast lists. Betty Logan (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This always comes down to a case-by-case basis. With films like Halloween or other horror films, the cast is usually small enough that they are easily fit into either the plot section, or they're in a casting section. Larger films are probably a different story, obviously. Betty's point, and mine as well, is that a list that is just that...a list...should be avoided because it really does not add anything to the page. The only purpose is to what, allow a reader to quickly identify an actor in a film? I'm sorry, I don't find that a very persuasive reason to have something. I imagine that trivia sections were once "useful" for readers to quickly find some interesting tidbit of information. Now, they have to read an entire production section to find that same information has been transitioned into an appropriate section of the production. How is that different? We've erased the "ease" of finding some little nugget there as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

False. Lists can indeed be a part of a page. See WP:LIST. And a cast list does not have to be done in a prose style (such as in the plot section). Lists are just fine. And by the way, this is a great example of where a primary source is absolutely allowable. Because it doesn't require synthesis or interpretation. - jc37 18:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

As you say Bignole we can pick and chose films on case-by-case basis. Since when is not bing able to find the info you want quickly not "useful" to readers. To use the trivia example is, again apples and oranges as those often contained much more than just production info. As neither of you has answered several of my question I don't find you explanations very persuasive either. But that it just the way things go and, as ever, I commend the work you both do here at WikiP in film articles and elsewhere. MarnetteD | Talk 17:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, apples and oranges, but last time I checked they were both fruit. It's the same principle. As you pointed out, we're not talking about the random teacher in scene 196, just like I'm not talking about the irrelevant easter egg trivia. I'm talking about legitimate trivia that can easily be seen as valuable information to a reader. We got rid of trivia lists and opted to instead say that any valuable information should be worked into the article. Thus, it no longer "easily accessible" for readers, which is the same argument being spun by Gothic. So, apples and oranges seem to be comparable. As for your "question(s)", I don't know what specific questions you were asking. If you asked something other than "why are we sending people away from Wikipedia?" then I didn't see it. To answer that, it's because we do not (and should not) house every time piece of information out there. There is a reason we have external links, so that people can get other information outside of Wikipedia. Otherwise, you're saying that we should have everything here and simply do away with external links period. I mean, that's the only way to keep people on this website and not "send them away".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. Neither MarnetteD or I are advocating any such thing. That is a strawman argument. I often use the external links, and certainly don't want to see them omitted. We are only talking about the Cast list at the moment. Your desire to force the reader to have to scan the article for what he wants is inexplicable to me. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

What question? I have asked a couple at least twice. Perhaps if they were put in a list you would be able to find them. Heehee. As Gothicfilm states nowhere in my posts to this thread will you find me advocating that we should have "everything here" and I am not sure we you keep intimating that we are saying that. I never saw a trivia section that was confined solely to production details so we are not comparing the "same fruit." Lets simplify things. You and Betty don't like them others of us do> I don't see that we are going to change each others minds. I will close by saying that I concur with Jc37's recent post. MarnetteD | Talk 18:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The fact that we have a ton of FA and GA class articles that do not utilise cast lists indicate that there are many editors that prefer not to use them, besides Bignole and myself. Also, we have a MOS that advises against using them, and I had nothing to do with writing that part of the MOS. Betty Logan (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

FA and GA have nothing to do with nothing. Their focus is style over substance. This discussion is a.) whether certain content can be in an article (content-related); and b.) how it should best be presented (style-related).

So as for point A, yes obviously the cast information should be included. And for B, the current practice is mixed. At this point it's a question of whether a guideline concerning whether cast lists should not exist, has consensus. I might venture to say it does not. So what I'm hearing above is a case of IDONTWANTIT/IDONTLIKEIT. If you feel I'm misunderstanding, I welcome clarification. - jc37 01:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Recap I think you may be misinterpreting my position in the debate, but since the discussion is becoming unwieldy, I will try to recap the pertinent points of my stance. This debate was triggered by my edit at the Halloween (1978 film) article. The reason for this edit was not because I don't like cast lists, but because I felt adding a cast list was redundant when the casting was already covered elsewhere in the article; the main members of the cast are named in the plot summary, and there is also a casting section that deals with the casting of the principal actors in more depth. My edit did not remove any information from the article that was not already present; I simply removed the redundancy! If you look at the article before and after my edit, this will clarify my point. But to summarize, I am not against cast lists, I am against redundant "credit rolls"; for example, the Alien (film) article lists the cast members with details of their casting, which is an approach I support (so you see, I am not against cast lists per se). I am against adding bare "credit rolls" to articles that already have sections discussing the casting. Likewise with Back to the Future, I would be against a "credit roll" being added when we already have a section that covers the casting, mainly because I consider it poor editing to have two sections basically covering the same thing. WP:CASTLIST, similarly, is not against "cast lists", it merely emphasises that the focus should be on the real world background to the casting of the actors rather than just a basic list of names. The point I was making about our many FA and GA rated articles was that they tend to have casting sections where they discuss the real world background to the casting of the film: those sections may be structured as a bulleted list like the one at Alien or it may be structured as prose like the one at Halloween, but either way both of these casting sections deal with the casting of the actors, and my objection—my sole objection—is adding a bare "credit roll" (like the one that was added to Halloween) to articles that already have casting sections. In the case of articles that do not have casting sections I do not oppose these bare bones credit rolls; the issue for me is adding a section that duplicates to an extent another section. Betty Logan (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This does not persuade me that readers should be forced to scan the article prose looking for info that could be easily accessible. And we expect spoilers in the plot section, but what if they haven't seen the film yet? If they want to know who's in it beyond the stars in the infobox, they have to read about the plot? You have not answered MarnetteD's concerns regarding plot length and the fact that there will be notable cast members who will be left out. The Halloween (1978 film) article is now missing two actors who were there until you removed the cast list. In this case they're not terribly famous, but they deserve to be mentioned. I doubt you want plot sections expanded to justify listing every major supporting actor. The Halloween cast list at the AFI catalog is good. The problem with it is there is no link for it or the BFI on the article, or most other WP film pages. By the way, I agree the Alien (film) page doesn't need a separate bare list because it's easy to find and go over the casting section, but that is because it's bulleted. I would prefer it were in the billing order, though. Usually casting sections are blocks of prose and difficult to quickly scan. Tell you what - you agree to make casting sections bulleted and I'll drop this, even though that would be less clean (than having a separate cast list) on film pages with larger casts than Alien. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

(de-dent) - In general, our focus should always be for the readers. And if presenting something clearly in a list helps the reader's navigation and/or understanding, then that outweighs concerns of redundancy. This is actually fairly common practice. (Math and science articles immediately come to mind. Same with filmographies for actors/directors/producers/etc.) So in this specific case, having a cast list does just that. - jc37 16:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget the film infoboxes which are mostly repetition from the prose of the articles but are kept anyways because it is a great service to our readers. The same should be true for cast lists. jonkerz ♠talk 17:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of assumptions regarding why readers are coming to the articles, and what is "a service to them" or "helps them".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's safe to assume that our readers are interested in reading about major and some minor roles. How do we present this information? Plot and casting sections are both great but hard to scan. This is how a simple cast list is helpful to the reader. jonkerz ♠talk 19:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not safe to say that that is the only, or even the primary reason they are coming to our pages. I'm a regular reader and it isn't my reason. I do come, from time to time, to look up a role for an actor, but if there isn't a cast list it actually does not bother me to click IMDb or any of the other external links to look up the role. I usually come back to wikipedia when it's apparent that they are not offering me anything but that. It's not actually a hassle in any way. As for the "reliability" of IMDb, we've long established that cast lists for released films are reliable because they are using the finalized credits. It's future films that we have reliability issues with, and future films on Wiki generally do have cast lists because there typically is not enough information for anything but a list. Sorry if I don't think we need to hold the hands of our readers when it comes to supplying information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It's still not addressing the central contention with my revert though. If someone had re-worked the Halloween casting section in the style of the Alien article that personally would not have been a problem for me either, but does anyone in this debate actually support having two cast sections in an article? It seems to me whichever side of the fence you're on, the solution is in further development of the section that already exists rather than merely duplicating it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

A casting section is different from a cast section. A cast list is a quick reference, and the Halloween article does not have such a section. jonkerz ♠talk 19:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Our MOS advises us to cover the casting process, not cast credits, which Halloween currently does do. Even if we did add a list of cast credits, it couldn't be complete anyway so you would need to have some arbitrary cut-off point. WP:ELYES states that external links are for the purpose of linking to movie and TV credits. If you feel that the casting section on the Halloween article is not structured in the best way to serve readers then you are free to make adjustments to it, but I disagree that having a separate section dedicated to just cast credits is necessary. Betty Logan (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It's as if you haven't heard us - Why do you and Bignole insist people should have to read whole blocks of prose? It's like you think the encyclopedia isn't worth anything unless everyone is forced to go over an entire article every time they come to look at it. As I said, I myself often revisit pages. And even if someone is looking at a page for the first time, and all they want is the cast list, that is not a sin. It doesn't lessen the value of the rest of the page, which will still be there for all others - myself included - who want all that production and reception information available, but don't necessarily want to have to scan through it all the time.

MarnetteD and I have said the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film)#Cast section could use adjusting on this point: In any event the film MoS already allows for their inclusion if we need to make the wording stronger about there inclusion I would support that.

And as to your statement Even if we did add a list of cast credits, it couldn't be complete anyway so you would need to have some arbitrary cut-off point. Hardly a problem. This has already been done by multiple editors on many pages, including Halloween, until you deleted it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anything of the sort, but I also don't think that a blanket section just to list cast is necessary. Forgive me for not thinking that readers would somehow be bothered by having to read. I mean, it's not hard and it doesn't actually take long to read most casting sections, especially since most of the actors are bolded in that section and stand out. That said, awhile ago I think that Erik either proposed, or started using, these mini cast list tables that would be inserted into the casting section. They were not full sized, I think the text was a little smaller to allow for them to fit within a reasonable amount of space. Personally, I have not and probably would not use them, but if a group of editors that regularly edit a page feel that it would be appropriate we could probably start using them again. (Here is an example of some of Erik's work.)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, and better than nothing, but I suspect most editors would only be willing to use that kind of cast box for films with quite small casts. From what I've seen most actors are not bolded, they're regular blue links - which don't really stand out in a block of prose with other non-actor blue links. And you should be aware your claim in your first sentence is somewhat contradicted by the second... - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither first nor second statement had anything to do with the "entire article". I was referring to a specific section, so there was no contradiction. I also misspoke regarding the "bolding", I meant "linked" (thus the blue highlight). I jut scanned the Fight Club section and in 3 seconds was able to identify 6 different actors mentioned, and that was nothing more than a glance. That's because they were linked. There isn't an over abundance of links in sections that that would create some type of camouflage for the names. As for the table, unless we're talking ensemble cast here, it's probably do-able if there is a lot of casting information. Again, it comes down to identifying which cast members are worth mentioning. If you look at that example, you'll also see that the text size appear to be just slightly smaller than normal. Either way, it isn't like the list couldn't dip down a bit into another section, as it's not like we don't have images doing that already. That said, please try not to speak for "most editors", as it comes across like you're unwilling to compromise. If anything, it solves you beef with the Halloween page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really, as based on what I've seen over the last year, I seriously doubt most editors would want that cast box extending down into the next section. In films with small casts, I'll go with it if others would. I'll go with it on films with large casts, too, in the unlikely event others would, though I don't think it would look very good breaking sections. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Although I not a fan of bare cast lists, I would actually go the other route and remove the names from the plot as they only add to plots length if redundancy is the biggest concern. It should be noted that cast and casting section are two entirely separate entities. A casting section simply details how a actor came aboard the project while a "good" cast section dives deeper into the actor's roles, exploring their preparations, motivations, etc.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, everyone. I wanted to comment about having cast lists in film articles. First, the "Cast" section at MOS:FILM is the oldest section of the entire page. We have overhauled the other sections or added new ones. It has wound up that way because like others have indicated, there are a variety of approaches one can take. The approach will depend on the film and on the main contributors' preference. When it comes to preference, it should be respectful of the readers, and it can be difficult to know what works best for them. In the case of Fight Club, I originally left out a cast list since there were not many major roles in the film, but the actors Jared Leto and Meat Loaf and their roles were added repeatedly. I attempted a stand-alone "Cast" list section, but it looked bare-bones and created extraneous space. The miniature table was ultimately created, and it works well to finally include the two secondary roles in some capacity.

For cast lists, we should consider two kinds of navigation on Wikipedia: 1) navigating within an article, and 2) navigating across articles. For many films, to list actors and their roles is superior to embedding them in the plot summary. That opposition to a simple cast list embedded in a film article is probably that it stands in stark contrast with prose sections. For this sub-topic, we frequently deal with just two pieces of information (actor and role), as opposed to a sub-topic like awards, which regularly makes good use of their section space. In response to these stark lists, we have encouraged real-world context to flesh out a "Cast" section and bring them closer to the other sections. In this process, the purpose of the list changes from being presentable for navigation to being presentable for grouping information (i.e., a bullet focuses on one actor and role). In some cases, the ease of navigating actors and their roles can be somewhat lost when a lot of information is grouped under each bullet. I think we should adapt ways to present for navigation whenever possible, such as having a cast list in multiple columns, having a cast list precede prose about some cast members, or having a side table for a smaller cast. Collapsible tables could also be used. We should do this in addition to adding real-world context, which will vary in amount and scope. This brings me to the second kind of navigation. We should be able to clearly give readers access to actors' articles and avoid having to send them offsite. It is unreasonable to have a reader consult IMDb because we editors erred on the side of exclusion or embedding. We should be able to route them within Wikipedia, for them to identify an actor in one film and to see the actors' other films and to visit these articles too. We cannot fully know what they want to see, but it would help to ensure that they can see what they want to see. It goes without saying that this should be within reason, ensuring such lists are not indiscriminate and applying other criteria (such as named characters, speaking roles, blue links).

In terms of taking action, I suggest finally overhauling the "Cast" section in MOS:FILM, which we treat as our bible. We can define all these options to find the best balance between providing information of encyclopedic value and also providing navigational capability so other sources of information (actors' articles, other film articles) can also be reached. Considering how there can be such a variety of films and also a variety of articles (in terms of substance), I recommend listing several different cases, such as for an ensemble film, for a film with a very small cast, a Stub-class article on a film, etc. (Note: To preempt questions of my whereabouts, I have been awfully busy personally and professionally IRL and am not sure if I am really back except for pursuing specific initiatives. I hope you're all well.) Erik (talk | contribs) 20:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Donnie Darko and time travel

Over at the Donnie Darko article, InedibleHulk added a long (nearly 3,000 characters) subsection to the plot with a description of the "philosophy of time travel". He and I had discussed this issue on the article's talk page and I had objected to its inclusion, arguing that this information is external to the plot, is never really explained in the context of the film, and would likely be OR. He went ahead and added it, and I reverted. The information he added was sourced to http://www.donniedarko.org.uk/explanation/, which does not look like a reliable source to me. I would like some other editors to take a look at this and offer their opinions. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a fansite so isn't RS. It needs to come out on RS grounds alone, but it also violates WP:INUNIVERSE as well. Betty Logan (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The fansite just vouches for the last paragraph, putting names to roles. The rest is in the Director's Cut of the film. The pages of this book are shown onscreen throughout it. It is the core of the story. I made no interpretations aside from the obvious (and sourced) one. Just paraphrased what is explained in the film. Here is the verbatim text from the film. I'm not offering this as a source, just to show my version is not original research. Removing this section would greatly hurt the educational value of the article. This book is what makes this movie make sense (and how the main character comes to understand his mission). I understand the problems of giving undue weight to minor fictional things, but in this case, the content of the book is significant to virtually every scene in the movie. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you specify how this fails INUNIVERSE? I've read the section a few times and I can't see a problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:INUNIVERSE says we should prefer a "real world" perspective to that of a perspective offered by a fictional piece of work. That means we shouldn't be discussing the film's alternate universe theory unless secondary sources also discuss it. The plot summary should be a basic overview of the story, and does not require an in-depth treatment of the film's version of time-travel; it's just gobbledegook to the casual reader and belongs on a fan wiki. Betty Logan (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

By that logic, we should prefer to not have plot sections at all. Everything's inherently fictional in them. Just below this section is WP:PASI. It says Even with strict adherence to the real-world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source. It says information from primary sources can include history of fictional locations (the Tangent Universe) and the plot itself (Manipulated Dead and Living assist Receiver in returning Artifact and saving Primary Universe). This is not an indepth treatment of a theory. The article does not "discuss" anything. This is literally spelled out onscreen and the article reflects it. I see no need for secondary sources in this case, but if you insist, they are abundant. But then I must insist they are used for the main plot section (speaking of gobbledygook). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Plots are technically WP:INUNIVERSE, but we make an exception for a brief synopsis in the case of fictional works because it is generally useful to tell the reader what the film is about (see WP:PLOTSUM), but even plot summaries should be kept brief; WP:FILMPLOT recommends a limit of 700 words. What you are doing is perpetuating an INUNIVERSE perspective to no end purpose, that is not especially relevant to the casual reader. Betty Logan (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

FILMPLOT also says exceptions can be made for unconventional or complicated stories, and this film definitely has both. Have you seen it? My purpose in summarizing the "rules" of the Tangent Universe it is to educate readers who saw it, didn't get it and hit up Google for help. I'd bet more first time viewers do this than don't. As Wikipedia is usually a top search result and many people seem to rely on it solely, it should have the info people are reasonablly likely to be seeking. That is, "What the hell's going on here?" As it is, the POTT info is separate from the plot section, so those readers who find it irrelevant can skip over it as easy as any section. But those who wish to learn why the world was ending or why Frank exists can find out here. Who loses? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This is why we have external links, where we place links to sites which post the kind of information we do not allow. This kind of highly-detailed in-universe information is not appropriate here. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I've provided links to policies and guidelines that say this information can be allowed, and provided reasons it should be allowed. I've rebutted arguments that it should not be allowed. Therefore, I'm allowing it. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT actually states The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, and technical detail. I think this would come under 'minutiae' and 'technical detail'. Both http://www.allmovie.com/movie/donnie-darko-v237115 and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0246578/synopsis provide good descriptions of the plot and neither go into detail about the film's theoretical time-travel. Furthermore, you have yet to obtain a consensus to add the content, so I suggest you don't restore it until you do. Betty Logan (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I very strongly agree with Betty. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 20:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This is in no way minutiae. The entire story is Donnie Darko's quest to return the Artifact, and the various ways he is guided by the Manipulated. Virtually the whole film is set in a Tangent Universe. The book explaining this is also a fundamental plot device, directly responsible for causing major plot developments (if Donnie hadn't gone to Sparrow for answers, Gretchen and Frank wouldn't die; if Frank didn't die, he couldn't wake Donnie; if Donnie hadn't woken, there'd have been no story).

You may consider those reviews' descriptions "good", but that's a matter of opinion. The IMDB one would violate the "scene-by-scene breakdown" rule here and the other would be considered original research. I find this one much more informative. As it says, "To understand what actually occurs in “Donnie Darko,” it helps to have read “The Philosophy of Time Travel,” by Roberta Sparrow.". If Wikipedia is about educating readers, we should probably mention what actually occurs.

As far as consensus, Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. I've shown in my argument that WP:PASI and WP:FILMPLOT support the addition, and refuted claims that anything in FILMPLOT prohibits it. So I have indeed obtained it. Even if you two had instead, Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale (such as the consensus behind FILMPLOT and PASI). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The involved parties do not get to determine the quality of the arguments, or indeed whether they are being interpreted accurately. If the involved parties do not reach a consensus then they must appeal to the wider community. TheOldJacobite did that by requesting a third opinion here, and I have not been convinced by your argument. If you want to persist with this that is your prerogative, but you should either wait for more editors to contribute opinions here or you should appeal beyond the Film Project by filing an RfC, rather than repeatedly reverting editors who have removed the content. Betty Logan (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I ask that while we seek consensus, the addition temporarily stays rather than temporarily doesn't. It is verifiable, informative and violates no clearcut rules. Just has disputed significance. It does more good than harm. Those who don't wish to read it needn't, and those who do can. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not the way Wikipedia works. This content clearly violates a number of rules, as Betty has pointed out repeatedly above. In your most recent reversion, by which you violated 3RR, you falsely claimed that consensus had been reached here. It quite clearly has not. You have now been reverted by three different editors, all of whom have stated their opposition. By what basis do you continue to revert, other than simply claiming that you want it in? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't falsely claim anything. I mistakenly believed something. I stand corrected. Thanks, Betty! I was reverted by two editors, by the way. The section doesn't clearly violate anything. There's just a disagreement over interpretation of a guideline and general significance. I'll lay off the reverting till we hear from more editors. If you think my argument is simply "I want it in", re-read it. Carefully. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The plot section says what happens in the film. Other material is interpretation and belongs in a different section. In this case, the Philosophy of Time might be a candidate for its own section. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Ring, Betty, and Jacobite. I looked at the prior version (with the added content) and it just doesn't read well. That said, the plot summary in the article doesn't seem well-written to me; I've seen the film, and after reading this summary I'm even more confused about the plot. "For once, Donnie, now smiling, seems at peace as he watches the jet carrying his mother and sister fly over a wormhole. Donnie uses telekinesis to tear the engine from the plane and into the wormhole" — This comes seemingly out of nowhere, there having been no prior mention of wormholes or telekinesis or that these concepts have ever been introduced into the character's thinking. Much of these concepts are indeed introduced to Donnie through his reading of The Philosophy of Time Travel, so the book does seem worth mentioning in the plot summary. But it needs to be done differently, in a way that integrates it into the flow of events and explains why Donnie is reading it and what he gleans from it, rather than appended after the summary as its own section. It just doesn't flow to explain it that way, especially since a plot summary is meant to be a description of events. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I was the one who added the "this section may be confusing" tag to the plot. I tried thinking of ways to integrate the book into the plot section, but it just makes it more confusing and then really becomes an interpretation exercise, full of original research and secondary sourcing. But on it's own, it isn't an interpretation. The words are on the screen. We just relay the words the same way we translate the pictures into words. All primary source. Readers could see the telekinesis bit in the plot, the bit about Fourth Dimensional Powers in the POTT section and understand it on their own. No synthesis needed from us. Also, the section did explain why Donnie was reading it and precisely what he gleans from it.

I wouldn't be opposed to having it in a separate section from the plot. Would anyone else? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It really really isn't that hard a movie to understand, if a brief discussion of the book's contents are included. There's a LOT of subplots - however - and I recommend that appropriate use of the cast list can help expand some of those out without getting into the main plot. But in any case, I have rewritten the plot to remove a lot of the confusion and include two sentences that summarize the concepts of the book (which set the stage for the entire film). Plus I found that Salon.com ref that affirms telekinesis is involved at the end (since its not obvious in the film). --MASEM (t) 13:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. I'm willing to accept this as a compromise. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I see others have been banging away at the article's plot summary. I hadn't watched the film in years, so I threw it in and cranked out this 620-word version for consideration. It's based on the director's cut, so there may be differences from the theatrical version (which I've never seen). Feel free to use it, not use it, or modify it as you like. I'll post it on the article's talk page as well:

Extended content

On the night of October 2, 1988, troubled teenager Donnie Darko (Jake Gyllenhaal) is awakened and led outside by a vision of a figure in a monstrous rabbit costume, who tells him the world will end in 28 days. He awakens on a golf course and returns home to find that a jet engine of mysterious origin crashed through his bedroom during the night. Donnie tells his psychotherapist Dr. Thurman (Katharine Ross) about his continuing visions of "Frank", the figure in the rabbit costume. Acting under Frank's influence, he floods his school by damaging a water main. He also begins dating new student Gretchen Ross (Jena Malone), who has moved to town with her mother under a new identity to escape her violent stepfather. Conservative gym teacher Kitty Farmer (Beth Grant) blames the flooding on the influence of the short story "The Destructors", assigned by English teacher Karen Pomeroy (Drew Barrymore), and begins teaching attitude lessons taken from motivational speaker Jim Cunningham (Patrick Swayze). Donnie rebels against these lessons, leading to friction between Kitty and Donnie's mother Rose (Mary McDonnell). Donnie asks his science teacher Dr. Monnitoff (Noah Wyle) about time travel after Frank brings up the topic, and is given the book The Philosophy of Time Travel written by Roberta Sparrow (Patience Cleveland), a former science teacher at the school who is now a seemingly senile old woman. The book tells of a disruption in time creating an unstable "tangent universe" which will destroy all existence within a few weeks unless a "living receiver" possessing superhuman powers can guide a metal "artifact" back through a portal to the "primary universe". Donnie begins seeing channels of water projecting out from himself and others, which lead him to find his father's handgun. He interprets these as indicators of fate or the will of God. Dr. Thurman tells Donnie's parents that he is detached from reality, and that his visions of Frank are hallucinations symptomatic of paranoid schizophrenia. Donnie disrupts a speech being given by Jim Cunningham by insulting him in front of the student body, then burns down Cunningham's house on instructions from Frank. When police find evidence of a child pornography operation in the house's remains, Cunningham is arrested. During a hypnotherapy session Donnie confesses his crimes to Dr. Thurman and says that Frank will soon kill someone. With their parents and younger sister Samantha (Daveigh Chase) out of town, Donnie and his older sister Elizabeth (Maggie Gyllenhaal) throw a Halloween party to celebrate Elizabeth's acceptance to Harvard University. Gretchen arrives, distraught that her mother has disappeared. Realizing that only hours remain until Frank's prophesied end of the world, Donnie takes Gretchen and two friends to find Roberta Sparrow. They are attacked by two school bullies (Alex Greenwald and Seth Rogen) who are attempting to rob Roberta's house, and the fight spills into the street. An oncoming car swerves to avoid Roberta but runs over Gretchen, killing her. The driver is Elizabeth's boyfriend Frank (James Duval), wearing the same rabbit costume as the Frank of Donnie's visions. Donnie shoots him using his father's gun. Seeing a portal forming above his house, Donnie drives into the hills and watches as an airplane carrying Rose and Samantha descends over the area. The plane is wrenched violently as one of its engines detaches and falls through the portal. The events of the previous 28 days are shown quickly in reverse, and Donnie finds himself in bed on the night of October 2. The jet engine crashes through his room, killing him. Others with whom Donnie interacted during the month of October are awakened by haunting dreams. Gretchen rides by Donnie's house and learns of his death, but says she did not know him.

--IllaZilla (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

To follow up on this, there are editors objecting to the inclusion of material in the Plot section that is not in the theatrical release of the movie that is further explanation (not interpretation) of the movie's plot present in the director's cut and in the commentary from the director on the home media DVD. While the movie can be told as shown only in the theatrical release, it makes very little sense for why things happen. Because we write plot summaries in out-of-universe manners, inclusion of additional explanatory sources like the director's cut or commentary can be used to expand plots to help them make sense to the reader. I would completely agree that for an allegorical movie, including third-party interpretations within the plot is not appropriate, but we're talking direct, quotable material from the persons that made the film that explain what is going on. No, we don't need a 3000 word section about the fictional book here, but without explaining what the book states, the events of the movie make little sense. --MASEM (t) 19:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the events of the movie are supposed to make little sense. Was it time travel? An alternate universe? A dream? Is Donnie just insane? Are the events predetermined by fate? The will of God? The way events are presented, they seem intentionally left largely up to interpretation (as they often are in films like this). The plot section should stick to a description of events and not try to delve into the explanatory. Explanation, analysis, and interpretation (from both primary and secondary sources) are of course perfectly valid content, and I would expect to see a section on such in an article about a film of this nature (unfortunately this articles lacks such a section), but not within the plot summary. I suggest starting an "interpretation and analysis" section and putting the primary- and secondary-sourced explanations there. Examples of such sections can be seen at Blade Runner#Interpretation and Fight Club#Themes. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll give that section a shot in the near future (if nobody beats me to it). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is here that if we used your plot summary you've just provided (which I am fine with), based on the director's cut (and nothing else), there are editors saying that can't be used because its not the theatrical release. I can appreciate if there are major significant changes between theatrical and directors that changes the actual plot or intent of the film (Richard Donner's Superman II) but that's not the case here. Yet, there are editors arguing the director's cut is not a valid source for the film's plot, that's the problem now. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would appease those editors if we explicitly cited the Director's Cut inline for the parts that aren't in the theatrical version. I notice the Star Wars article has its DVD in the reference section. I would think the scope of the article covers both versions, but apparently there's disagreement. How about it, objectors? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, on Director's Cut vs. Theatrical Release: the Plot summary should be based on the theatrical release, not later director's cuts or other revisions. The summary I submitted above was based on the director's cut simply because that's the version I own; I've never seen the theatrical version. If you decide to use it, I'm hoping someone with better knowledge of the 2 versions can rework it to accurately reflect the plot events of the original release. The Director's Cut and any changes it makes to the story/themes should be discussed in a separate section, a la Alien (film)#2003 Director's Cut or Blade Runner#Versions. Plot sections should generally describe the plot as presented in the original theatrical release, and should not reference material added or changed in later versions. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

We have a problem, then. The only major difference between the two versions that is mentioned in the summary is the revelation of the POTT's contents. If we stick that in a separate section alone, we're back at square one of this argument. October 2, you could say. I think it might be better, in this case, to just add one citation or footnote. Like Masem says above, this is no Superman II (or Blade Runner). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If the PoTT contents aren't mentioned in the theatrical version of the film, then they don't belong in the plot summary. They're not necessary to understand that time travel is a thematic element of the film; take the 1 sentence about the book's contents out of the summary I posted above and the summary makes the same amount of sense as far as conveying the series of events in the plot. If the book's contents are only included in the Director's Cut, then they can go in a section about the Director's Cut, hopefully with some description of why they were added in that version of the film and what elements of the plot the director hoped to clarify/expand on by including them. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

To add, the reason I say the plot summary should reflect the theatrical release, with descriptions of later "cuts"/"editions"/"versions" relegated to another section, is because the theatrical version is, for all intents and purposes, the "finished" version of the film. It's the version that was approved and marketed by the studio, generally the one that reaches the widest audience, and the version by which that critics and analysts assessed the film at the time of its release (and, in almost all cases, the version that sequels are based on). In other words, it's the "canonical" version. Later cuts/edits of the film may also receive critical attention and wide release, but the theatrical version has primacy because without it there would be no context in which to discuss the later versions. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If it is the case that FILM wants to take the case that the plot summary should reflect the film as shown in theaters originally and not any director's cut, unrated version, extended version, etc. that's released to home media, that's fine, but then we have to go back to the original issue that started from this, in that the director's version of DD has itself has significant analysis on its own around the subject of the fictional book "The Philosophy of Time Travel". No, I'm not saying a standalone section on the book should be added, but we are going to need to add a section on the director's cut that describes the additional explanations of the plot within it, including a brief summary of the time travel elements.

There is one small caution in the "theatrical release" approach in that there may be the case that a released film when it is put on home media distribution is changed in a significant manner to alter the plot to a degree, as we would not be able to talk about the verifyability of the theatrical version. It's not an example, but the trend of George Lucas trying to modify the original three Star Wars to suit his vision, changes elements like "Greedo shot first", would be what I'm worried about here. (It's not an example since at some point the original theatrical versions were put out to home media). Now I'd have to pull out my DVD of Darko here but I'm pretty sure both versions are included, so that's not an issue here, but just consider this a caution about having plots "staying true" to the theatrical version if that can't be verified. --MASEM (t) 12:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Tron (franchise) cast table

Could someone lend me a hand? I recently added a cast table for the article that represented the cast of both films and it's currently untidy. I have it hidden as it's too much of a monstrosity right now. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 21:53 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Olympic films

Hi all, there is a proposal to rename this category, it might be good if some film guys contributed to the discussion. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comments at the MOS

Please direct your attention to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Critical reception for older films. There is a debate about how and when to use data from Rotten Tomatoes when it comes to older films. The original argument stemmed from a request to include a table collecting all RT data for a set of films in a horror franchise that spans 30+ years to compare them, and whether or not those figures are comparable. The current debate is still partially focused on that, as well as whether "sample size" is actually important when it comes to presenting RT data. At the moment, the debate is largely between 3 people (myself included) and we definitely need more editors to come and provide input, as this debate is influenced by the interpretation of the Manual of Style, the essay on Rotten Tomatoes, and how all of that relates (or does not relate) to interpreting statistical data.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Why? I don't see what is at issue. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Seven Psychopaths infobox

Can anyone figure out why this infobox is so wide? I have looked and cannot find anything out of the ordinary. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's the Toronto Film festival thing, it doesn't wrap it it just stretches the BOX to accommodate. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I wondered if that wasn't it, but I do not mess with those things. Thanks! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Cinéma pur vs. Pure cinema

Hello, One of the items on my suggestion (SuggestionBot) list was to merge Cinéma pur with Pure cinema.

There are aspects of the write-ups that sound similar - but I could be missing finer nuances. For instance, within the "Pure cinema" article, there's a link to the other article which says: "For the French avant-garde film movement of the 1920s and 30s, see Cinema pur."

Do you have an opinion about whether these should remain as two separate articles - or if they should be merged, with perhaps a bit of conversation about some of the nuances between the two - if they are fairly similar?

Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me make this a bit easier, I hope:

• Should the 2 articles: Cinéma pur with Pure cinema remain as separate articles?

In that case, I'll remove the merge notices on both and post a message why

• Should I merge Cinéma pur with Pure cinema?

Otherwise, I mean if nobody responses, I'm going to guess that the articles probably should be moved since someone had tagged it that way.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Do I have the wrong Wikiproject?--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Princess Mononoke

There is an important discussion on how we should get the Princess Mononoke article up to GA status at Talk:Princess Mononoke#GA push?, as I am doing a major revamp of the article. Comments, thoughts, ideas and input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

ITNR

Contributors to this project may be in a position to give insight on the notability or otherwise of film festivals at Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items#Remove Venice Film Festival. Please note that the closer of that discussion will disregard support or oppose votes: any consensus will be determined based on the validity of the points made. Regards, —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 08:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Cast in lead

I have a concern about the lead section of Princess Mononoke. 188.242.61.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) removed my addition of the cast members in the lead section in my improvement to Princess Mononoke. The IP in question insists that the cast is not needed because "it's really redundant how you say". However, per WP:MOSFILM#Lead, the first paragraph should also mention the stars in the lead. As such, I reverted his edit. Other than that, I have been trying to cleanup Princess Mononoke, as the article as a whole is already a mess and needs to be cleaned up as noted in Talk:Princess Mononoke#GA Push?. Any thoughts on this matter? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not insisting on that, don't make muddle please. You yourself said such things about redundant text. So don't play with rules, please. Well, if you insist on WP:MOSFILM#Lead, then I will not delete it. But really I think common sense is more important than that guidance. And I think it is really redundant, coz there are separate "cast" section and what is more we have "starring" in infobox. "stars in the lead" - means "chief stars", not all voice actors... and I don't even see sence in mentioning some chief voice works in that case (like Ashitaka and San). P.S. Sorry for not very good english. "Anon with IP"

I'd say keep the stars in the lead. Any and every lead "should be able to stand alone as a concise overview" of an article per WP:LEAD, so it is inexact to say that the presence of the starring cast members in the lead of a film article is redundant. Cliff Smith 19:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's stipulate that the lead paragraph, at least, shouldn't get into the supporting roles. The infobox list is slightly more permissive. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then On another note, can anyone please look at the plot summary of the relevant article? I think we need to rewrite it extensively to explain unfamiliar readers and I am especially concerned about the last part of the plot section, "Though Ashitaka means much to San, she still despises humans for their actions and decides to continue living in the forest. Ashitaka decides to stay and help to rebuild the town. However, Ashitaka tells San that he will visit her in the forest. Eboshi, amazed by the efforts of Ashitaka, San and the wolves to save her and the people of Iron Town, vows to rebuild a better town." I feel that the facts added by the IP are correct and accurate, but is obviously trivial information and excessive detail per WP:FILMPLOT and WP:NOT#PLOT, and also gives a "minute-by-minute" account of the matter. Also, I am concerned that the IPs edits contain original research and synthesis, which is not allowed on Wikipedia, and are unintelligible. I have tried to copyedit this matter to make it more intelligible, but I the IP rewrote it (unintelligibly of course) and stated what I believe to be some baseless arguments in his edit summaries (i.e. "stop changing right words and facts, that's destructive") as indicated in the article's history page, so I want to ask more opinions about this matter. Also, despite the relevant section header recommending that we should only use the "Accolades" header, the IP also insists that "Awards and accolades" should be included in the header. However. I think we should just list the "accolades" part on this matter. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It's been a while since I last saw the film, so I'm reluctant to comment on how to word the plot summary. However, I agree that the section header you're talking about should be "Accolades", not "Awards and accolades". All awards are accolades, but not all accolades are awards. Cliff Smith 21:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sjones23, your accusation in original research of my edits is full absurdity, coz I was one who deleted your or.res., not inside out. Accusation in synthesis are baseless and slanderous too. Don't push your edit's by rough strength, this will not work. Let's find agreement then with other participants of Wikipedia. About "Awards", well I think then "Awards" is better as it was without word "accolades", becouse all of them are just awards, this word is more correct in that case, when "accolades" sounds like it is something unofficial. "All awards are accolades" - I don't think so, coz awards =/= accolades. This is different terms.

And I don't even know why this man start to rewrite all, just after I started improvement of the article. Before that it was not even needed to Sjones23. And now I don't know why he is doing so. Coz in spite of quite big wiki experience of user he making something like edits wars and some destructive edits with only his opinion (that have no common with authenticity of that work of art, I mean subject of article; at that time when I really improved authenticity and plot section in article)... But I still trying to assume good faith in his edits in this article. Overall I turn your attention that Sjones23 (and personally Sjones23) really has Wikipedia:Wikilawyering in every small case. Don't behaviour like that, please. Lean on common sence and facts, not on imperfect rules. "Anon with IP"

Please don't insult me or make baseless assumptions about me. If I did something to upset anyone, then I am deeply sorry. It was not my intention to hurt or upset anyone nor cause any trouble. I believe my edits were not really considered original research and I maintain good faith edits when editing and cleanup unintelligible edits as well whenever it's necessary, and I do not intend to cause destructive edits or be disruptive in doing so.

Also, being a rule-abiding editor, I do not intend to push my edits too far, nor do I intend wikilawyer anyone (even in small cases) or break Wikipedia protocol in doing so. I usually seek advice on how to improve the article as a whole and I was bringing up these edits made at the time for others to review or comment on the matter, but no Wikilawyering was absolutely intended on my part in doing so as I do follow the policies (including no original research, neutral point of view and verifiability) and guidelines where appropriate. For the article, I am doing a complete overhaul with the intention of complying with the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines (i.e. WP:MOSFILM, WP:MOS-ANIME) and get the article up to GA/FA status. Usually, I try to resolve content disputes and edit wars by seeking advice from various users of the project either here or on the talk page. If anyone does need help (no shame in that), there's always the immensely helpful help desk for newcomers.

Not only do we need the plot section to have unambiguous facts, but we must stay between the 400-700 words per the relevant guidelines at WP:FILMPLOT (the plot summary on the article is like 610 words, so that's a good size, but we may need to trim it down if it goes over 700 words). For the Awards section in the article, I feel that it should be changed to "Accolades" per the recommendations at WP:MOSFILM#Accolades and also, I don't think consensus applies here since this article has not gotten much attention historically. I can't find a discussion where there is a consensus regarding the use of "awards" or "accolades", but If there is a need for a consensus, please discuss this matter at the relevant MoS discussion page or on the main article's talk page. Also, I find that being civil and assuming good faith towards fellow editors helps as well.

With that said, we should just move forward and focus on other aspects of the article, such as the production section. If there are other additional disputes, we should discuss these on the main article's talk page or the project's page to get further input. Hope this helps. Also, Cliff Smith and Ring Cinema, thank you for the helpful advice. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

@Sjones23: You're welcome.

@"Anon with IP": An award is a type of accolade. The word accolade has a broader meaning than award, which, I believe, is why "Accolades" is the section header prescribed by the Manual of Style. Saying "awards and accolades" is comparable to saying "handguns and firearms"—all handguns are firearms, but not all firearms are handguns. Cliff Smith 04:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sjones23, same, don't insult me or make baseless assumptions about me. Excuse accepted, I'm sorry too for sharp expressions.

I understand your rule-abiding role here, but I just turn your attention on Wikipedia:Five_pillars and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, simply saying that common sence in many cases higher than any rules or guides.

So... the plot section is good, I think we found something like cons., there are no or.res. or other infringements. Will not dispute futher on that small things, it better to take attention on something more important places (I agree with you about "production" section). And yes, let's discuss if it's will be needed further on the main article's talk page.

Sjones23, Cliff Smith, Chummers, I see WP:MOSFILM#Accolades, but you know that huge quantity of articles have "Awards" name section, not "Accolades"? You offer to rename all sections in all articles from "Awards" to "Accolades"? Oh, c'mon chums, it's just absurdity. Let's move further on more important things. "Anon with IP" 12:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Directory of World Cinema = user generated content?

As far as I can see, the directory of world cinema is user generated content. What is the opinion of others on the validity of this website? JoshuSasori (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the publisher's site says: "A series of printed volumes for each world region, of about 300 pages per volume. For each region, a new volume with original content will be published every two years." and "The Directory of World Cinema aims to play a part in moving intelligent, scholarly criticism beyond the academy by building a forum for the study of film that relies on a disciplined theoretical base. Each volume of the Directory takes the form of a collection of reviews, longer essays and research resources, accompanied by film stills highlighting significant films and players." and "Whilst Intellect’s vision is focused on the author rather than the commercial market, we maintain a rigorous vetting procedure at the beginning of production to ensure that the publication is of high academic value." – It's not exactly a collection of blog contributions. I consider it to be serious and reliable eough.--Robert Kerber (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify this discussion, the site clearly solicits content from users. This seems to be vetted to some extent, but the IMDB is also vetted and the IMDB is not useable as a reference because it is considered user-generated content. The "Directory of World Cinema" seems like a borderline case of user-generated content. What do the users of Wikiproject film think? JoshuSasori (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this passes as an RS. First, this is different from IMDb because it is published first on paper by an established academic publisher, Intellect ([1]). Each volume has an editor. The Japan volumes (which I have), for instance, are edited by John Berra, a film academic ([2]), and held by many university libraries ([3]). The contributors vary, but they include major academics and film critics. I doubt just anyone can write for it (the section you cited demands that people who want to write for it send in samples: they must be vetted first). Also, I assume the net version does not allow you, like IMDb or Wikipedia, to change an entry as a user: this are all single-authored pieces, so the reliability of the author can be verified. While one can argue with specific entries, or with general editorial policy (I find some of the British academic publishers, like Continuum, to be somewhat lax about editing), if we start removing these as reliable sources, we'd have to remove a lot of the sources we use. Michitaro (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Just a small point, but regarding it is published first on paper, it seems to be published on the website and then on paper: This pre-print web-based database [4]. JoshuSasori (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Just for the others, this: Onibaba (film) is the article in question, and this statement: "softly swaying susuki grass, filmed in slow motion", from the "Directory of World Cinema", serving as a source that the film uses slow motion, is what the debate is about. J. has been repeatedly deleting the source/statement (which I had added) arguing that the source is (in his eyes) "not reliable" (calling it, quote, "an abomination"). Thanks for at least finally opening a discussion here instead of judging alone, J., I hope you will also accept the "verdict". Btw, I agree with Michitaro. – Robert Kerber (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Box office bombs navbox

I see that this was just created and is being added to articles. Is this really necessary? I cannot formulate a good argument against it at the moment, I am just curious what other editors think. Are people really going to be searching for this kind of information? If so, is this the best way to present it to them? If I am reading about one film, say The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, that happened to be a box office failure, am I necessarily interested in all the other films that are also considered failures? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Beat me to it. Just seen it slapped on Burnt by the Sun 2. The category states "This Category is for films that grossed less than 20% of total cost." Why 20%? Why not 17.5% or 32%? And I thought templates had the main use of a common theme (film series or director), not something with an arbritary cut-off and borderline trivia. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 18:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I find these films interesting, as there's often a good story behind their failure. As to whether a navbox is the best way to go I'm not so sure. The big failing is that by confining it to an arbitrary percentage it misses some arguably more notable films. Zyzzyx Road didn't make any of it's $1.3 million dollar budget back, but if I was a backer of The 13th Warrior which lost $98 million I'd think that was a much bigger bomb. Suggest that each of the films in the list have List of notable box office bombs added to a 'See Also' section. yorkshiresky (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Strip the film titles out of it and it might serve some use to navigate between relevant overview articles like box office bomb, list of notable box office bombs and maybe Hollywood accounting; otherwise you're always going to have to rely on some arbitrary definition of what is and isn't listed. GRAPPLE X 18:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This particular navbox needs to go, but I do like Grapple X's suggestion of having another box that has some of the main links. Something like "Film box office" or "Film finances" (nothing good is coming to me right now) that could group together main links and lists about funding films, film gross lists, lists of most/least successful films. BOVINEBOY2008 19:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There's this template; Template:Lists of box office number-one films which could be used as basis for a future film finaces navbox. As always depends how much detail you want to put in it.yorkshiresky (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not make a single template Template:Financially notable films (or something more interestingly titled :P) that contains links th all the lists of financial notability. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Nominated for termination at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 14#Template:Box office bombs navbox. Betty Logan (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Betty. I've also added the category at CfD here. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 10:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I've created a navbox for 'Financially notable films' as suggested by Darkwarriorblake. It can be found at my sandbox User:Yorkshiresky/sandbox, please have a look at it and let me know what you think. yorkshiresky (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Spirited Away

Hey, guys! Spirited Away is up for peer review here. I am thinking about getting the article up to GA/FA status with the intention of making the article a TFA on the 15th anniversary of the film's first release, July 7, 2016. Comments and input from project members would be appreciated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal for Nakoula Basseley Nakoula

A discussion has begun here to decide if the article Nakoula Basseley Nakoula should be merged to Innocence of Muslims. An AFD was recently closed as "Keep" with the suggestion that the article could be proposed for merger. Please help collaborate on a consensus. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind

Lately, I have been thinking about getting Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film) to GA/FA status. As such, I've started a discussion here. The objective is to get the article up to TFA on March 4, 2014 (which is the film's 30th anniversary). Input, comments and suggestions from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

CfD of Category:Films set within one day

Input from project members is welcome at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 16#Category:Films set within one day. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

1958 in film

Can a neutral editor please look at a 1958 in film. The chart ranks films by theatrical rental (roughly half the box-office gross). Anyway, an editor has started randomly adding box-office grosses to certain films, so now the chart mixes box-office grosses and theatrical rental. I have pointed out it totally screws up the chart because you can't have some films ranked by theatrical rental and others by box-office gross. The reason we use theatrical rental on the older charts is because this is how Variety did it at the time and didn't switch to box-office gross until the 90s, so many grosses aren't available. My argument at Talk:1958 in film is that you have to use one system or the other, you can't mix them but the editor is just ignoring my argument, so I would appreciate a thir opinion. I have no objection to converting to box-office gross, just against mixing the two systems. Betty Logan (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not ignoring your argument. I addressed it by saying it is not valid. If no one else inserts the grosses for the other films soon, I will. But in the meantime, the top films should be listed by their box office gross and not their rentals. The column under which the numbers are listed is called "Gross," and listing the rentals under that section is a fabrication. Shipofcool (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

At the moment the chart is meaningless. If you wish to replace the chart with one based on box-office grosses, I suggest you draft one out in your sandbox and replace the current chart once you can switch it completely. While referring to theatrical rental as "gross" is confusing, it is not nearly as confusing as having a chart that currently has films in the incorrect order because you have taken it upon yourself to mix box-office grosses and theatrical rental. Betty Logan (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong. At the moment, the chart is still accurate as you can compare it to this[5]. There are some details to fix but for right now it's not meaningless as it was in your last revision where Vertigo was listed as a top ten grosser (regardless of what your intention was, that's how it appears) when in fact the movie was an outright bomb and has no business being on a list called "Top Grossing Films." Shipofcool (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo gives a totally different figure ([6]) for Vertigo; what that means is that Vertigo's gross needs to be cross referenced against other sources to ascertain the true figure, but that doesn't have anything to do with the issue of mixing up box-office grosses or theatrical rentals. It doesn't make any more sense than say ranking films interchangebly by US dollars and British pounds. The chart should use the same metric throughout. Betty Logan (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The amount listed on Box Office Mojo includes the additional gross of the 1996 re-release. You wrote on my talk page that you had a third opinion that sided with you on the matter. Can you please direct me to that person before I proceed? Shipofcool (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the same figures - box-office grosses and theatrical rentals - should be used consistently. Shipofcool does not seem to have listed what his source for grosses on the pre-1990 films would be. If only rental figures are available on the older films, that's what you go with, right? - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Vertigo

More NPOV issues at Vertigo as per this edit. Shipofcool insists on re-writing Vertigo's reception to say it was a box-office failure, where there are some high quality sources that state otherwise. The fact is, calling it categorically a box-office failure is not reflective of the entire analysis of Vertigo's financial success, and he has removed sources by:

• Dan Auiler, a film collector, teacher, and historian, is the author of Hitchcock's Notebooks and North By Northwest: The Making of Hitchcock's Classic Thriller. (calling its performance "average")
• Peter Lev is Professor of Electronic Media and Film at Towson University and author of American Films of the 70s: Conflicting Visions. (who called it a "break-even" picture)

I feel he is misrepresenting the range of analysis, and that we should mention that while some analysts consider it a "failure" others don't, so could someone else please take a look. Discussion here. Betty Logan (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Seven major publications, each from a different year over the course of three decades, state that it was a box office failure. This is more than enough to outweigh the two book pages that you give. Additionally, they're all right there for one to see and gain quick access to, whereas who knows if those books you are citing actually defend the statement you are pushing. Shipofcool (talk) 06:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Well for start, a reference does not have to be online to be verifiable. Online sources do not trump offline sources, and what you consider "relevant" is what WP:NPOV guards against. There are plenty of other sources around that don't refer to it as a "box office failure": "a break-even film",barely broke even, "a modest success on first release". Secondly, NPOV states Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints; there is enough qualified opinion around that regards the film as something other than a failure so the article should state that. Calling it a "box-office" failure and not qualifying that makes it sound like it was a money loser when that was clearly not the case.

Betty Logan (talk) 06:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Opinion is the key word. The two sources you give are opinion, yes, but the publication URLs that can be clicked on above are not opinionated, just facts. Shipofcool (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Two of the sources I provide above state that the film broke even. Those are the facts. Calling a film a "box office failure" when it broke even is a subjective opinion based on your preconceptions and expectations of how the film should have performed. If we are documenting box-office performance then stating it just broke even is sufficient. There is no need for all the hyperbole. Betty Logan (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Saying that the film broke even is a lie as proven by the box office numbers. If you were to include the figures for the 1983 and 1996 re-releases, THEN it would have broken even. But those figures do not belong in "Contemporaneous Reception." Shipofcool (talk) 07:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all you don't know what the box-office figures are. All I see are the US box-office figures in that article, so I don't see how you can possibly know whether it broke even or not without knowing what it made worldwide. If you know what it made worldwide then why isn't that data in the article? Betty Logan (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Greatest roles of all time lists

I am trying to find out if there are greatest role lists or greatest fictional character role lists. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters#Greatest roles of all time lists with any advice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC about retrospective altering of XXXX in film lists

User:Shipofcool has persisted with retrospective altering of the charts on the "XXXX in film" articles. On the historic lists we use Variety's theatrical rental charts mainly because box-office gross is unknown for many older films. User:Shipofcool proceeded to replace rental figures with box-office gross for films where it was known, but this had the adverse effect of mixing gross and rental. The previous discussion arrived at the consensus that while box-office gross is preferred, they should only be converted if the lists can be fully converted to gross.

He has now decided to game the consensus. He is converting the charts fully to gross, but dropping films where the gross is unknown and replacing these films with entries where the gross is unknown. This has resulted in him dropping Butterfield 8 and Ocean's 11 from the 1960 list depite the fact they were among the top ten films of the year, and the gross is just unknown for them. To take an extreme example of why we shouldn't do this, imagine if we didn't know the rental figure for Star Wars, we wouldn't drop it from the 1977 chart and promote another film to the number 1 spot!

I have started an RFC at Talk:1960 in film and would appreciate comments. Betty Logan (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

For these actual year-end charts we should be reflecting other sources in the ranking of them rather than ranking them ourselves based on a criterion—if we have a source that gives the top ten draws for the year then that is our top ten chart. Additional box office information can be added but I'm uncomfortable re-ranking something that an organisation that knows more about this than we do has already compiled. GRAPPLE X 14:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer to use these charts for the "New Hollywood" period, which provides explicit rankings. However, I can't access the 1960 page. The source that was in place before Ship reverted me was the Finler list, which while doesn't provide explicit rankings, provides a huge list of films ordered by their rental success. The fact is, while The Numbers may be reliable for box-office grosses it is incomplete, so the order of the revised chart is synthesis. Betty Logan (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It is time for User:Shipofcool to come here and explain his actions. I read Betty Logan's post at RSN, and I agree that the new rankings devised by Shipofcool are improper synthesis, and he has offered no good reasoning for his changes. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

British stage, film and television database help

I'm still trying to create the Willy Loman article. If you know anything that might be analogous to www.IBDb.com for West End theatre please chime in at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Theatre#West_End_theatre_database. Also, looking for BAFTA data.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"I'm still trying to create the Willy Loman article." The article has been created. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 18:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Youtube links in the External links section

User:Lazlocollins keeps adding links to Youtube for films (mainly silent) now in the public domain. I see this as linkspam, but they say it's OK per the External Link policy. I don't see how promoting Youtube is OK. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 08:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If it really is in the PD then it has probably been uploaded to Archive.org too, which is a non-profit organization. You could suggest that they link to the film on that site, if it is just the free advertising of a commercial organization that bothers you. Betty Logan (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it's more the user of Ex Links as a dumping ground, rather than the commerical aspect. We don't put Youtube trailers in articles, so I don't see how this is any different. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 09:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Just my opinion: It's educational/informative, the entire purpose of Wikipedia. Early cinema is my passion and area of expertise, which is why I have a personal desire to direct people towards learning about and watching these films. Just like I believe that every film entry should link to its corresponding IMDB page within external links. If needed, I will make sure that when updating External Links, the 3 primary items most used for Public Domain films -- IMDB, Archive.org, and YouTube -- are all checked for availability (as not all films are on Archive.org and/or YouTube). I hold YouTube as just as valid an option as Archive.org for a couple reasons: 1. Familiarity/usability by a larger number of people i.e. people may skip watching if there is only an Archive link, but choose to watch if there is a YouTube one; 2. Quality - It is of my opinion that YouTube often has the higher quality video of Public Domain films between the 2 sites.

Also, I consider the actual existing works to be a completely separate topic from linking trailers. Besides being separates works, trailers are also much more murky in regards to being Public Domain or containing copy-written material. And again, the articles are about the actual works, so it makes sense to empower users with access to those works. Thanks, all. LazloCollins (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Lazlo on all points but one: YouTube is not as good an option, since it doesn't work with the PS3 browser (at least not through the actual YouTube site, which would be linked). Granted, PS3s are not a widespread means of Wikipedia access. But this problem may exist for some mobile browsers as well. Better to be as inclusively user-friendly as possible. Unless Archive.org has similar technical problems for a greater number of other devices, it should be preferred when available. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So how about when I'm updating existing pages and creating new ones for notable public domain films from early cinema, I include 3 External Links in this order: 1. IMDB 2. Archive.org (when available) 3. YouTube (when available) Seems to me that would be the best way to be inclusive by providing multiple options without cluttering the area. LazloCollins (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, but is only your opinion. Lets get a consensus before LazloCollins starts adding more linkspam. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 17:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't mean that in a conclusive way. I have no authority. I'm not even a member of this Wikiproject. After re-reading it, I notice I misunderstood something; having three (or two) links to the same film on different hosts does not sound good to me. That's redundant. But I like that order of preference. And I believe the actual film (or video, technically) provides more educational value to an article about a film than anything else could. 24 frames per second = 1.44 million words a minute. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What does it take to get a consensus? And how about lets get a consensus before Lugnuts continues to remove links which have previously been acceptable? By the way, labeling it linkspam is truly opinion, and also slander. LazloCollins (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

My impression is that we are wary of YouTube because of the likelihood of copyright infringement. We do not have that issue here. I would rather have links to Archive.org as a more authoritative external link, though I am curious about the claim that public domain trailers on YouTube are better quality than on Archive.org. Why is this the case? Anyway, regarding my logic about authority, the YouTube links are basically linking to a person's userspace, which falls in the spirit of WP:ELNO #10 and #11. Archive.org is basically more trustworthy in the long run. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

A consensus is determined to be the argument that is considered the most consistent with the policies and guidelines, and it is usually decided by neutral opinions i.e. someone not involved in the dispute. I am not quite sure what you are proposing, so perhaps you will clarify it for me. Are you advocating the addition of three separate download links for these films, or just one with IMDB/Archive/Youtube indicating your order of preference? It's important to clarify what external links are for: they are for linking to extended material not covered on the main article itself that furthers an encylopedic understanding of the subject. I think you have a reasonable argument that providing a link to a copy of the film in the public domain will fulfil this function (I would be interested in how the Books project approach this issue since public domain films are a relatively rare phenomenon in the film industry at the moment); however, Wikipedia is not a download site, so providing a bank of links won't fly. For instance, a link to the film on Youtube does not offer any further encyclopedic value if a link to a film on Archive alreay exists; I have a preference for Archive because it is a non-commercial site unlike Youtibe, which makes it more consistent with the guidelines. That's my take on it; I think a single link preferably to a non-profit site is probably ok, but it would be useful to ask WikiProject Books what they do about links to books in the public domain, since it will be a much more common scenario for them. Betty Logan (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but if the films are in PD, can we not upload them to the Commons?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Afaik there are size restrictions. For short films however that option could be considered.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Topic now raised at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#YouTube Public Domain films18:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no problem with linking to youtube videos, as long as they are legal (in particular for readers) and beneficial for readers in relation with the article's content. If the video is provided by a non-commercial project liek archive.org as well such a link may be preferable and can be used as a replacement. However this is not an argument for simply deleting youtube links but only for their replacement by an alternative soluton.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I might be worthwhile to point out that the general question (youtube links) is not just affecting film/movies related articles but sourcing in general, since you find plenty of (legal) newscasts and documentaries on youtube, usually uploaded by the original broadcasters themselves using youtube as an (additional) distribution channel. Another area strongly affected are musical artists, who often run their own youtube channels.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Erik - Correct that copyright infringement is a non-issue here with these Public Domain films, and I would say the person's userspace topic is a non-issue (otherwise all YouTube links would fall under this and so there would be an overall blanket ban). I agree that Archive.org is more trustworthy, which is why I made the argument to include it as the 2nd external link below IMDB. However, there are many public domain silents of note which are on YouTube but not Archive.org. As for the quality argument, there are simply instances in which the available bitrate quality in the YouTube instance is higher than that of the Archive upload (as there are many instances in which the reverse is true). Likewise, not all platforms will equally play each site, which is again why I argued for giving the page viewer the option (and again, there are times when Archive.org is not even an option). But placing a higher importance on Archive.org is why I suggested keeping YouTube as the 3rd link. LazloCollins (talk)

I would say some spaces are different than others. There are company spaces instead of user spaces where they "sponsor" film trailers, music videos, etc. The host of these public domain videos on YouTube is not such an authority. For example, I noticed that the first YouTube link you added to Wikipedia had a nonworking video because the person took it down for whatever reason. I think it would be good to do Archive.org first, then YouTube as a backup, provided others support that prioritization. I am not sure if video quality should overrule this ordering. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Betty - I am proposing that for notable public domain films from early cinema, I include 3 External Links in this order: 1. IMDB 2. Archive.org (when available) 3. YouTube (when available) Though I have a preference for Archive.org, that doesn't mean that everyone does. Likewise, not all films are on archive.org, some are available in formats that do not play on all platforms, and there are films that are uploaded and available at a higher quality on YouTube. My thought is that by making these 3 the standard, in this order, then it would be the best way to be inclusive by providing multiple options without cluttering the area, as well as keeping consistency in formatting. My thought is to increase the likelihood of visitors watching the movie and I felt this strategy would accomplish that while remaining under all the guidelines. LazloCollins (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

In the case of public domain films, I see no problem at all in linking to youtube (or whatever other site might host them). Of course, if we have a better link (like archive.org), we should use that. And if we have uploaded the film on commons, we should link to that. But if neither has the videos, a link to youtube is perfectly fine. --Conti|✉ 18:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Cast in plot

I'm sure there was a discussion about this recently but can't notice it. Is there a policy on cast in the plot because I was certain policy was against it. Just need to make sure that is the case. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You mean like "Will Graham (William Peterson) does a thing..."? I'm pretty sure it's encouraged; I certainly encourage and use it. GRAPPLE X

I mean like that yes, but when its covered in the lede, the infobox and the cast section it seems excessive. Not having them in has worked well at articles like The Avengers. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• I am glad you have restarted this discussion again because I did want to suggest an idea I had recently. Opinion was split about this (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Cast_list_in_the_article at the top of the page), with some of us preferring a parenthesised notation in the plot (which Gothicfilm argued against on the basis that he didn't want to search the plot for names), and I was against bare cast lists because I think plonking a list in the middle of a prose based article doesn't look good. Anyway, I have been thinking about this and would like to propose a compromise version for when we have a bare cast list. Using the Halloween (1978 film) as a test case:

1. Parenthesised names in plot: [7]
2. Bare cast list: [8]
3. My proposed compromise: [9]

Anyone think that would fly? Betty Logan (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I like that approach. I sort of did that at Panic Room#Cast (same table from Fight Club#Casting). I only put it in "Cast" because with the current lead section's length right now, the table would not really be next to the plot summary. One drawback is that it may be hard to predict how that kind of table will present in different browsers; the infobox may push it down further in other browsers and settings. Yet another approach could be to have a two-column tabled cast list right above the plot summary, kind of like what Apt Pupil (film)#Cast has but with invisible table boundaries and under "Plot". Erik (talk | contribs) 17:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

As a test, for Apt Pupil, I moved the actors and roles to the plot summary. Here is one look and here is another look. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I do prefer the boxed versions; either your customised infobox or my hacked quote box would work I think. I think they satisfy the concerns of the other editors who are in favor or bare cast lists, and I find them aesthetically pleasing: they break up the wall of text similar to images but don't interrupt the flow of prose. I'm less keen on the Apt Pupil style, although I find it less intrusive than just having a bare cast list section. Betty Logan (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the boxed cast because it can serve as a visual aid, as Betty noted. I'm not sure if I like it in the plot section or not. I think I prefer it in the "Casting" section, like Erik did with Fight Club. If it has to be in the plot, then it needs to be in a way that does not create a gap (like what happened in Betty's Halloween mark up). I don't care for the Apt Pupil way, because it looks weir starting the section like that. Maybe it would look different if it was after the plot information instead of first thing?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "create a gap"? Do you mean by where it is situated, or is there an actual 'gap' I am not seeing on my browser? Personally I don't object to it going in the "casting" section, but in some cases a casting section may not exist, so we'd probably have to permit some editorial discretion in regards to its placement. Betty Logan (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

When I looked at it in IE, the text did not wrap fully around the box and there was a big gap between the first paragraph and the second paragraph. It does not appear in Firefox that way, but in IE it does.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah right, I'm on Opera so I guess it's a browser issue. I guess it could easily be solved by putting the box before the first paragraph in whichever section it does go if there are wrapping issue in Internet Explorer. I recall having table issues once before in Internet Explorer, but as it's the most used browser I suppose we have to accommodate its idiosyncrasies. Betty Logan (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Guys, guys, guys, I just don't think its necessary to have the cast in brackets in the plot when they can appear above, to the immediate right and directly below the plot. I don't think replacing what should be a relatively small section ideally with info with a box in the plot is a great way to go. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

First thanks to everyone for the time and effort they are putting in on this. I too prefer a cast section that stands on its own no matter where we place it. Speaking as someone who has reading glasses at every spot in the house where I might need them I also prefer Erik's Apt Pupil layout as the cast in a box appears in a smaller size. Anything that shrinks the font size makes our pages more difficult to read for some. Now that is just me and if consensus for a box comes to pass that is okay as having a cast list is still preferable to culling through the plot. MarnetteD | Talk 00:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Betty's example. That said, I also don't think we should take a one size fits all approach. Different articles can and should be allowed to take different approaches depending on the information available and the general preference of the article's contributors.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree it should be judged case-by-case. Betty's compromise can work well if the cast list isn't too large. I could go with Erik's as well. A reader wouldn't have to scroll from the plot to the cast list to see who the actor in a part is. The font needs to be large enough so people can read it, as MarnetteD mentions. I have nothing against having the actors' names also appear in parentheses in the plot - but it's more important to have the cast list, so readers don't have to scan the plot. Three people (MarnetteD, Erik and I) in the just-now-archived Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 43#Cast list in the article mentioned a desire to tweak the MOS:FILM to address this point. This should be done. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ditto Triii and Gothic. I'm a huge fan of case by case for these kinds of style issues. Some articles are just going to be more fitted to one style or another. As an aside, however, has anyone taken a look at how Betty's box example (which I love on a full browser for that particular article) looks on a mobile device? I've been reading wiki on my phone an awful lot lately and keep running into things that are part of the MOS for various projects but turn out to be less useful once you're on a mobile gadget. I haven't looked at the examples in this case (because my phone is slow as crap and I lack patience), nor am I saying we should change MOS stuff for the project just to accommodate mobile devices in every case. But there may be some where we want to consider how those readers are impacted. Millahnna (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I started a discussion at WT:MOSFILM#Cast rewrite. Please let me know your thoughts! I tried to ensure flexibility depending on the film with suggestions for different approaches. Some Featured examples may be needed. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that the font size is a good point. I use the "infobox" table at Panic Room#Cast and Fight Club#Casting, and I found that this code makes the font size the same as the article text. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I will respond to your comments at the MOS a little later, Erik (for the most part they are fine by me), but in regards to Millahnna's I think you will find that many pages—especially those with tables and images—have viewability issues on mobile phone technology. Wikipedia does address this issue to an extent (or perhaps dodges it) by requiring us to make all pages viewable at 1024x768 resolution as you can see at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Resolution. This isn't quite at mobile phone level, but there is an implicit understanding in the guideline that we can't really accommodate all resolutions, especially the very low ones without compromising layout for the typical reader. However, Wikipedia does offer a mobile phone variant at http://en.m.wikipedia.org which you should use on your mobile phone. You can test the various mobile phone resolutions at [10], and as you can see the table renders ok at Android 240x320 resolution; the table is positioned after the first paragraph, but this is down to the fact that is where I stuck it in the wiki mark-up so is easily fixable. Betty Logan (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd strongly oppose mandating a particular style here or enforcing a template. All of the 3 versions described at the top are essentially ok (in addition one can use the film infobox itself). In particular if we expect our authors to at least read our style manuals (nevermind adhering to them), they should be short and stick to an absolutely required minimum of rules--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that's pretty much the view of everyone here (or it's certainly where I stand) and it seems to be the essence of Erik's re-write; if everyone's happy with a particular style on an article I would be absolutely against altering it to fit some MOS convention. Nevertheless, there have been disagreements on some articles between some editors who have preferences for one style over another, so offering a range of potential solutions where those disagreements exist would be beneficial. In the case of my example above, I was suggesting it as a solution in the case of one specific article that was the subject of some specific criticisims. The outcome here should not extend to articles where the status quo is fine. Betty Logan (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The Intouchables - release dates

Is this really necessary? Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 09:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No. This is listcruft and people can access this information in the ELs. We really only need to point out notable release dates. BOVINEBOY2008 09:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bovineboy2008. The information is indiscriminate, and we should focus on the most relevant parts. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 13:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Shaun of the Dead

This is tediously trivial, but I'd like some other editors to take a look at this article. An IP-hopping anon. keeps adding a last name to the cast list for Shaun, claiming he saw the character's last name in a newspaper article in the background during the film. This is not useful. Now, he says the last name is confirmed in the DVD commentary. Even if true, so what? None of the other characters have last names listed. Why do we need it for this character? Other opinions are requested. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

List by the credits and the credits alone, I say. GRAPPLE X 02:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit. I intended to post a report to the Admin noticeboard, but upon reviewing the page history I noticed that you are engaging in an edit war with the anon and have reverted 5 times in the past 24 hours. Thus, if I report the anon then any decent admin will most likely block you as well. Might I suggest you not do any reverts (they don't have to be on the same content to count) for a day or so. I'll monitor the page and if the anon continues then I will report him for continuing to edit war about the subject. I will not though, revert him every time he changes it, but I will keep an eye on the article and go from there. You should just let it go for the time being, otherwise you'll end up getting blocked yourself, I would imagine, when the edits are reviewed by an admin.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Grapple and Bignole. We shouldn't be crediting names differently to how they appear in the credits. Both the BFI and AFI have the credit down as "Shaun". Betty Logan (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate these comments. Bignole, you are correct, and I said the same thing to myself, which is why I did not revert the most recent change, and came here instead. Of course, this is what I should have done hours ago. Thanks to all of you for your attention. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

assessment requested

I've been asked on my talk page that this be re-evaluated. Now that filming has commenced and uses the talents of many high profile notables, the project is gaining in coverage. The author's thoughts that readers might expect a Wikipedia article at this point in time are reasonable and, if returned to mainspace, I do not think it will lack from continued constructive contributions. Please see at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Saving Mr. Banks and assessment template on Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Saving Mr. Banks. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the bureaucracy is needed. Can't we go ahead and move it to the mainspace? It's a pretty solid consensus to have articles when filming has begun, especially with this kind of project that will be well-covered (as opposed to something more indie). Erik (talk | contribs) 20:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I wished to follow the established steps, but fully agree. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

Fair enough. :) I just think that this is an obvious call. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue has been addressed. Thanks much. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Film adaptations in writers templates

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Literature#Adaptations.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Japanese Movie Database

Please come participate in the discussion at Talk:Japanese Movie Database#JMDB. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Lazy links; unlink or redlink?

I am continually coming across "lazy links", like the one removed here. What is better, remove them and change to unlinked, or redlink them like Kazuo Shimizu? JoshuSasori (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that you will ever get a definitive answer to your question. One rule of thumb (and even it is iffy) is to judge whether there will ever be enough reliable sources available to meet wikipedia's requirements to establish notability for an article. Having said that we have 1000's of articles that are stubs that have turned a red link into a blue one. I don't see a problem with your removal of the link since it went to an article that was not about this person. You could have turned it into a red link by DABing it into Kazuo Shimizu (producer) but that certainly isn't required. Over the years I have seen one editor remove all red links and then a year or so later another one come in and restore them. Of course, this is just my opinion and other editors may have other ideas. MarnetteD | Talk 02:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Redlinks encourage article creation. If the target could possibly get an article (and, of course, is notable), then the redlink should stay. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 07:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Redlinks are sometimes set for clarity. When you see John Smith as a redlink you know that this is a John Smith who mustn't be confused with namesakes who are already portrayed in existing Wiki articles. On the other hand some redlinks just indicate wishful thinking by suggesting that something would be important enough for a Wiki article while it isn't. NordhornerII | Talk_The man from Nordhorn 12:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

For whatever reason, I have long been under the impression that redlinks in the infobox are against some guideline or another. I have no idea if that's actually the case and tend to just skip over any edits related to the concept in favor of edits that I actually know something about. Millahnna (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against them; I tend to include them in both film and television infoboxes (see Zelly and Me, Nude per l'assassino, etc). How I tend to figure out whether a link is needed or not is when its target meets WP:N but just hasn't been created yet; a bit-part actor listed under a television episode's guest cast isn't worth the red link but a composer for several films might be. If you feel it's likely that you'll create the article yourself then by all means red link it for now; if you won't then it's up to you whether you do or not but something that realistically could make for an article shouldn't be hard-and-fast said to deserve a red link or not. GRAPPLE X 22:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Innocence of Muslim

I have added this project to the article Innocence of Muslims. We have an edit war beginning that I wish to nip in the bud (one way, or the other). Guidelines suggest asking at the involved projects and I am very much about Wikipedia WikiProjects so....... I am asking if the film article Innocence of Muslims should include a full section detailing the protests or just a mention alone in context and with secondary sources be included?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel the less mention of this "film" in general, the better. Do not feed the trolls, especially when the resulting flame war involves actual killing and embassy storming. Wikipedia is not a shitstirring newspaper. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, unfortunately it is being used as an international shitstirring spoon right now. Help from this project is very much needed to get some sort of handle on this as a film article. We have enough articles on the protest etc..--Amadscientist (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

If it weren't for the protests this film is totally non notable and would have been speedily deleted. It's a political/religious article first and a film article some way down the line.yorkshiresky (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree to Yorkshiresky. It's a political/religious article first of all. NordhornerII _The man from Nordhorn 11:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)(talk)

Braveheart

There has been some edit warring among registered editors at Braveheart. I've requested full protection of the article at WP:RFPP, but if any admin is watching this page, I ask them to review the situation. I also ask outside parties to review the discussion on the talk page and weigh in since the current parties are being uncivil toward one another. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't make head nor tail of what the dispute actually is. The disputed text seems to have morphed over the last few days, and the discussion doesn't really clear up the issue. Is there any chance that the dispute can be summarised in the style of an RFC statement on the talk page, so impartial editors can get a clearer idea of what's actually being disputed? Betty Logan (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I will summarize the dispute on the talk page. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. see Talk:Braveheart#Recap. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Eraserhead and a MOS-ignoring IP

Any opinion that could be added to Talk:Eraserhead#Character naming would be appreciated; apparently the opinions of half-a-dozen FA reviewers are trumped by an IP who can't abide by WP:SURNAME. GRAPPLE X 22:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

There are exceptions to every rule, and this is a good one - when characters are primarily referred to by their first name in the film, the plot section should do the same. Harry Potter is not usually called Potter in plot summaries, is he? - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Voiced my opinion on Potter et al on the talk page; but there are several characters in that franchise who share surnames, creating a need for disambiguation which is simply not present here. GRAPPLE X 23:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It's well more than disambiguation, it's reader familiarity and feeling for the characters. I refer people to the Talk:Eraserhead#Character naming Talk page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't seen the film so can't really comment on the appropriateness of this particular case. However I am not sure if WP:SURNAME is applicable here, since it is a biographical guideline and characters are not strictly people, they are facsimiles. At the same time the guideline doesn't explicitly rule out characters, so it may be worth asking for clarification at the guideline page. I think what I would do is check the video or DVD box and see how the characters are identified in the synopsis if it were an issue on an article I am editing. It may be worth getting the article semi'd until the issue is resolved; the IP shouldn't be pushing through a contested edit on an FA class article. Betty Logan (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion either way, I just tend to refer to them as they are commonly known in the film. See Dazed and Confused for an example, people are referred to by nicknames like Pink, surnames like Wooderson and O'Banion, and first names like Tony. Even as someone who has watched it a few times, when I read the plot and it referred to someone as David (wooderson) I had no idea who it was talking about. Similarly, referring to Tony as Olson again causes issues because he is never referred to as Olson in the film. Pink you can get away with anything, he's referred to by Randall, Pink, and Floyd, but Pink is his primary identifier. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of The Hobbit (1985 film) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Hobbit (1985 film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hobbit (1985 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article..

This film is the Soviet ballet-style adaptation. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Film - to do list?

I have analyzed the condition of various film articles and i feel if there was a list people added titles to, then various editors could take on a seperate project to improve it's standards. Any thoughts? RAP (talk) 23:49 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You have been asking for "any thoughts" and apparently you are looking for a general list (instead of one especially for the cinema of a certain country). So I suggest this list which is based on the September list of most visited film articles. In regards to the numbers of vistors these are the most evident construction sites.

Other lists of flagged articles are available here: Cleanup listing

User:NordhornerII _The man from Nordhorn 21:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC) (talk)

I removed the table you inserted. I assume this was by accident? And the request was from last April, FYI. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Who answered in April or in the meantime? I thought it was high time to response when I just recently came across this request. If there was an answer than it occurs to me it was well hidden.

Well, thanks anyway.NordhornerII_The man from Nordhorn 22:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC) (talk

Studio Ghibli WikiProject/Task force discussion at WP:ANIME

There is an important discussion whether we should form a task force or WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Studio Ghibli. The discussion is at WT:ANIME#Studio Ghibli WikiProject/Task force?. Comments, input, ideas, or suggestions from project members would be encouraged. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Following the recent discussion over at WT:ANIME, I have created the task force here. Anyone who is interested in the project please feel free to sign up at the participants section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Films about the ten plagues of Egypt

The section "in popular culture" (present in many articles) adds not impoverishes. In fact I am amazed that a year and half ago has been removed. See this discussion: Section "in popolare culture". --Kasper2006 (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Definition of incomplete or partially lost films

I propose deleting films that are in the List of incomplete or partially lost films even though they were simply cut by the director or studio. I've already removed The Wizard of Oz, but there are a lot of others, e.g. Freaks, King Kong, Greed. Comments? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No comment, only a question. There are many Wikipedia articles about lost things. The Holy Grail, the Amber room, the Ark of the Covenant... But seriously: Why should only available items deserve a Wikipedia article? The Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a sales catalogue, is it? _The man from Nordhorn 02:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC) (talk)

Your question does not make any sense. The OP is not suggesting that we get rid of this article. It is an article completely dedicated to lost things. The OP wants to narrow the topic down so it is manageable. It was pointed out that if you include every film that was cut in editing, you will need to expand the list to every film ever made. At stake are the criteria for inclusion, and I support the OP's suggestion for the reason I just gave. Common sense applies: films that were released as complete do not count. Elizium23 (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Clarityfiend. Lots of films have director cuts, or extended scenes - that list is not for those films. It's for films that have parts of them missing (usually reels of film). Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 06:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So "cut by the director" refers to the term "Directors's Cut"? Well, all films are cut by the director. Promoting a "new version" of a film as a so-called "Director's Cut" is a marketing trick. Why pleasing the distributor by handling them as different films? A footnote in the article on the actual film is enough anyway.

When I studied literature we were always advised to stick to technical terms.

The mere idea to declare the original theatrical version of a film retroactivly as "partial" because of a recently published "Director's Cut" is staggering.

Also, "deleting films" is supposed to mean "stop mentioning films on a list"? Then I understand that this is no "nomination for a deletion" and doesn't refer to the film article.

One article on one film does suffice for sure and of course a related list should mirror that.
NordhornerII _The man from Nordhorn 11:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Not all films are cut by the director; this is a common enough mistake. A director can have final cut on a film but often a large studio will insist on it; "blockbusters" can generally be taken as having been cut by a studio executive as they don't tend to want to err towards higher age ratings that might eat profits. In the earlier days of Hollywood, I believe studios may have always had the final say; films like The Magnificent Ambersons suffer tremendously because of the cuts that the director was unable to stop a studio executing. If you want to see how quickly a good mood evaporates, ask David Lynch about Dune some time. GRAPPLE X 22:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

During the making of a film the director "cuts with the camera" and thanks to modern technology he can check the material already on the set. The editor who receives this material is certainly chosen and instructed by the director himself and needs to have his work endorsed - again -by this very director. Before the film gets released it will certainly be watched by one or more producers. But who can tell anyway what is decided behind closed doors? It is easy for a director to claim retroactively he had wanted another version of his film. Especially if the blamed producers are not named and are perhaps even provided with another payday when the film is sold a second time to the same audience. That is what looks to me like a marketing trick. Of course, before films were digitalised and distributed on DVD, many films have been sloppily stored or otherwise physically messed up. I am only saying that these are two different topics and if you think so too, I support that and welcome all according changes in concerned lists. NordhornerII _The man from Nordhorn 23:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)(talk)

Bibliography of encyclopedias: film and television

Hi. I've started this in coordination with a bibliography of encyclopedias and reference dictionaries I'm drawing up. Erik in particular might be interested in this, being reference material related to cinema and perhaps Lugnuts. If you could go through google books and search things like "Encyclopedia of actors", Encyclopedia of cinema" etc . Look http://books.google.com// Paste in urls into http://reftag.appspot.com/ , it'll help you to quickly draw up citations. Click on last name to put authors first, and then remove the date and ref tagging and copy and paste the made reference into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Blofeld (talk • contribs) 08:47, September 28, 2012

Hah, that's fantastic! I did not know about reftag.appspot.com either. One good way to look up relevant encyclopedias in Google Books Search is to have intitle:encyclopedia or intitle:encyclopaedia as the primary keyword and have secondary keywords like intitle:film or intitle:cinema. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah search anything also like Cinema biography, screen dictionary etc. Also in other languages like Pelicula diccionario /enciclopedia etc Should find a lot. Cheers! If you want Eric I can show you how to add the gb ref maker into your itinery for easy access. I find it invaluable when coming across poorly sourced articles and improving sourcing. You just simply google book search the film, paste a url into the maker and copy and paste into the article..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by adding it to my itinerary? I'd be happy to try that out. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Depending on what skin you use, at the top of the page is project page, talk, edit, new section, history, move, watch. etc I can you show how to add Gb and Gb ref links.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It occurred to me Erik that like you lists of topics within films we could have pages listing bibliographies of books about certain areas of film. Bibliography of James Bond, Bibliography of Star Wars, Bibliography of film noir etc. What do you think?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, are there any guidelines about bibliographies? Wasn't sure how narrow the scope could get. Like how much of WP:FILMRES#Books could be in the mainspace? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don;t think there's any guidelines to list of specialist topics within in film like diabetes etc so shouldn't be a problem with books!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, some individual film articles have talk pages with lists of resources. I wasn't sure if such lists belonged in a Wikipedia article. For example, Talk:Starship Troopers (film)/references. Could that become "Bibliography of Starship Troopers (film)"? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't thinking quite that narrow. The subject matter doesn't want to be so obscure it looks like trivia. But I can certainly see a need for ones like Bibliography of Turkish cinema. perhaps that would be a better place to start.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Blofeld has his limits, huh? ;) So wider scopes such as film genres, national cinema, film directors, filmmaking, then. I assume it's preferable to focus on titled subject matter. I know there are "genre reader" books out there; I suppose this could go in a "Bibliography of film genres" article. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind really, so long as there are at least ten books on any subject which can be listed. I think a general reference bibliography for film genres or national cinemas in particular could be useful for people looking to study film and seeking out material. I think I'll create some national cinema ones though to start with, might not be for a bit though as I'm concentrating on the core encyclopedia topics first! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography of film by genre would be a good place to start. If sections become too bloated then split. I'l make a start on that first I think. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Gov't. film agencies

Over at The Guard, I removed Irish Film Board and UK Film Council from the infobox, where they were listed under studios. Do we generally credit such gov't. film agencies as studios in infoboxes? I do not believe I have ever seen that done before. Clarification on this is requested, please. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk about involvement from multiple parties! This shows that the UK Film Council is "in association" with the rest and that the film had "the participation" of the Irish Film Board. I personally eschew using that field in the infobox when there are too many companies to list; it becomes indiscriminate and takes up space. I prefer to mention them somewhere in the article body. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The UK Film Council has been a major financier for some films, so I think you may find opinion split on this. Traditionally under the studio system financing and production was "in house", but in this age of globalization financing is increasingly sourced from all over the world; however, film production itself is usually still limited to one or two companies. I'm generally of the opinion that financiers should not be included in the 'studio' field, since I think there is a fundamental difference between an investor and the actual production company that makes the films. Betty Logan (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to make that distinction? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, since most sources generally just bundle all the companies under the single umbrella term of "production company". Government film bodies generally just provide funding so we could easily eliminate them on that basis, but beyond that we are dependent on sources identifying them in that capacity. If they can be identified I am all for pulling them though. Betty Logan (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

What about the multi-national MEDIA Programme then? Should their support also be pointed out in the infoboxes? NordhornerII_The man from Nordhorn 23:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)(talk)

The article about MEDIA Programme states their involvement can extend to development, so they are clearly much more than just a funding body. If they are credited as a production company or producer and their role cannot be shown to be restricted to just funding then they should probably be listed. Betty Logan (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC) EDIT: Actually, reading that article it seems very much like a support programme, so even if they have involvement in the production at some level they don't really meet the infobox criteria of being the "company that produced the film". Betty Logan (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that was more complex than I imagined it would be. But, the gist I am getting is that we need to differentiate between "finance" and actual "production," with government film agencies falling in the former category, yes? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but that is just my personal opinion though; many sources do not distinguish between "producers" and "financiers" so other editors may disagree with my view and even if they didn't it is difficult to differentiate. Before pulling government agencies from all the articles the MOS ideally needs to reflect the distinction first, so perhaps it would be best to first propose a revision to the infobox guidelines. Betty Logan (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

French cinema task force

There are several reasons for the English Wikipedia to provide information on French cinema:

1. Many French film stars either have already appeared in English-language films or are about to do that.
2. Many French films have either inspired English-language films or have even had official English-language remakes and there is no end to that yet.
3. Many people all over continental Europe (and elsewhere) like to watch French films although their French is poor. Consequently they find it difficult to watch the original films and prefer therefore regularly versions which are dubbed or subtitled. For the same reason they rather use the English Wikipedia than the French one.

Even so the subpage for the French cinema task force hasn't had many updates recently. You can easily verify that by checking the history. I did. Am I the only one who seems to care about this? NordhornerII _The man from Nordhorn 01:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)(talk)

It's really just up to the editors involved where they prefer to work; personally I enjoy Italian and American cinema so my work in the film project is mostly based on the works of David Lynch or the giallo genre; other editors will have their preferences. We just seem, by luck or misfortune, to be missing someone who's primarily interested in French cinema; though nothing's stopping you grabbing Subway or La Reine Margot by the shoulders and shaking a GA out of it if you'd like. GRAPPLE X 01:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Grapple X, thanks for your quick response. Some weeks ago I discovered that Alain Delon's filmography was flagged because it was non-chronological. I fixed that. Since then I have been taking care of biographies of French filmstars. I made filmographies chronological, extended them or just put them into wikitables. When I found new images in the French Wikipedia, I added them to the English Wiki. That is what I also did just today for the bio of César-winner Marina Hands, where a filmography had been completely missing. Taking care of the filmographies I saw a whole lot of French film stubs with non-translaed role descriptions and incomplete or missing infoboxes. I am also currently reading a book about Eurospy films and moreover I saw that we have a general article about gangster films where some words about French gangster films could fit in just fine. Grabbing an article in order to elevate it to GA status is a new idea and I like it. NordhornerII _The man from Nordhorn 03:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)(talk)

I do alot of work on world cinema articles, and by the volume of films, lots of them fall into the French cinema taskforce. I guess I lead on the annual drive to improve all things related to the Cannes Film Festival, as well as starting many new articles for French films. I also work on filmographies (Isabelle Huppert being a good example). The task-force might not look that active, but it is. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 09:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Lugnuts, in regards to filmographies of French actors I am actually your student. Isabelle Huppert's filmography was the model for Alain Delon's current filmography. That's how I got started. If that's not flattering I don't know what is. All I want is to avoid to spend my time on something that you've got already in the making. Besides, you can check for yourself if all the official task force members are as active as you are. What I learned nobody on that list is as prolific as you are. Quel dommage !. NordhornerII _The man from Nordhorn 12:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)(talk)

Thanks! Always nice to hear something good coming from my work. I have nothing in the making at the moment, just picking up bits and pieces as I go. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 12:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

AFC notability assessment

Can someone take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Freck Langsam? I have no idea how to assess notability of movies. Ryan Vesey 21:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Here you are: Notability Guidelines for films NordhornerII_The man from Nordhorn 16:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC) (talk)

Talk:The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Hi, I have some questions on Talk:The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. Someone is asking me for proof that cast members in a list must be sufficiently notable. It seems to me that this is common sense. No film article lists every bit part for everyone, the criteria are, in general, that it should either be a notable role or a notable actor in that role. But I can't find guidelines to that effect. The other issue is: can an "official" Facebook page be used as a primary source for casting decisions? I visited the page in question and it required me to "like" the page before I could see the information... not an obstacle to use on Wikipedia, but I would be interested in hearing opinions. Elizium23 (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The standard of notability is applied to article subjects to determine if they should be covered by an article in Wikipedia. It does not apply in the way you mention above. Every sentence or mention does not have to be notable. Just the article subject. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't mean that every single actor and character in a film should be documented in a cast list. WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here. There is usually some threshold for inclusion; sometimes this is who is included on posters, sometimes a list of starring roles per official PR, but we never see "Jane Roe as Woman 2" included. We are talking here in specific about tributes from other Districts whose sole 5 minutes of fame is to be killed by another tribute in the arena. For a specific example of the inclusion threshold being even stricter than WP:GNG, see Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2#Cast - there are many notable actors not even listed because they aren't on the film poster. Elizium23 (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ring is correct, notability does not really apply here, but there is an analogous guideline in that lists must not be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There are no Film project guidelines as to who should be covered in cast lists, it basically comes down to editor judgment, but there are several rules of thumb I personally employ: i) does the character have a real-life counterpart? ii) is there third party coverage of the actor's casting? (there usually is in the case of a famous actor appearing in a cameo or minor role that normally would not be worth mentioning) iii) is the actor's character mentioned in the plot summary? If the answer to any of those is yes, then they are generally worth including; if not, then the onus is on you to make a case for their inclusion. Betty Logan (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a balancing act, but consider someone who would like to double check the filmography of an actor for completeness. They would like to search us for all that actor's mentions. If there is nothing on the pages of the films they played, Wikipedia seems to be letting them down. Especially in the current context, where we are the first stop for basic info. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:CASTLIST may assist. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's not a very good guideline. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

So are you are arguing for including every actor in the film? If we went down that route we would definitely have to shift over to collapsible tables, otherwise we would have a list a mile long in some articles. Betty Logan (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Not arguing for it but considering what would be okay or useful. I get the impression that for some films the coverage of the cast can be inexplicable. Sorry if I'm off topic. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Guidelines for cast information

All, we have a working draft of guidelines for cast information at WT:MOSFILM#Cast rewrite. This will replace what is at MOS:FILM#Cast, which has not been overhauled in years. It seems that the response to the working draft has been largely positive, with various suggestions implemented. Please take a moment to review the draft and share your thoughts; please comment on whether or not the guidelines are too flexible or inflexible or too specific or vague about the recommended approach to cast information. Thanks. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

FIlms banned in Malaysia

At some point last night, IP 24.185.195.224 (can't remember user template for links to contribs, sorry) added unsourced claims of films banned in Malaysia to a metric crap ton of articles, usually to the reception section. Does anyone have any experience with digging for sources for this sort of thing? I'm a little pressed for time right now so I don't have the time to revert all of them or do the research to see if I can find sources for any of them. Millahnna (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The contribs link is {{User|24.185.195.224}}, giving us 24.185.195.224 (talk · contribs). Not to sound prejudiced or anything, but aren't a great deal of "western" (not the genre...the western world) films banned in Malaysia? If I recall correctly Malaysia is pretty restrictive in that regard. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

If it's a common practice for Western films to be banned there then it probably isn't a particularly "stand out" fact about the film. Being banned is just another form of classification really, which as a rule we don't cover unless there is something unsual about the nature of it. Personally I think it would be better covered as a self-contained article i.e. List of films banned in Malaysia. Betty Logan (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That's kind of what I was thinking, too (I knew it was common enough that we had an article about it). I think the IP made some updates to that article, in fact, but based on what he did on the individual films, I doubt sources were included, unless that article ties to some list that's active that we use as a source. I have no idea. Like I said, really pressed for time today (working two jobs today) and saw that it happened so I wanted to drop a note so that someone could beat me to it since this is likely my last wiki thing for about 12 hours or so. I don't like to tackle lots of problem edits from one editor unless I've got the time to sit down and plough through all of them at once. I lose my place otherwise. Millahnna (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Images from IMDb?

Can film poster images from IMDb be used for film infoboxes here? I see a few being used, but am thinking that if it were okay, there would be a lot more. BollyJeff | talk 01:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they can be used. From what I recall, there is a small handful of editors who are expeditious about uploading film posters whenever they're revealed. IMDb tends not to be the source; it is usually impwards.com or comingsoon.net. I guess IMDb only shows the posters after. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

They are definitely not ok for commons due to copyright issues. They may however be ok on en.wp under the fair use policy.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• On a slightly different note—but relevant here—what about the cases of older films? Fair use only applies in the cases where "free" alternatives do not exist. However, in the case of pre-1964 films, the trailers for those films fell into the US public domain due to not including a copyright notice, but in many cases we still use the theatrical poster under a FUR to identify the film, where the title card from the PD trailer would probably do the job just as well. Does anyone else think this possibly violates our FURs and we should perhaps use the title card from the trailer for pre-1964 films? I'm no expert on copyright law, so I'm just floating the idea to see what other people think. Betty Logan (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  Betty, I would be fine with this. I actually did this for Casablanca (film) as seen here. I do not frequent the pre-1964 films' articles often enough to make this kind of change, but I would endorse it. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I've used IMDB film posters in the past (this film, for example). I think all the relevant fair-usage policies were OK. I've uploaded a few others too, but I generally don't bother due to time/effort to get one image. However, there are several users who add hundreds of IMDB film posters to infobox (and do a really good job, too). Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 09:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Where are you based? "Fair-usage policy" sounds lovely but if I should upload an image in order to have it published by the English-language Wikipedia, which law does apply then? The law of the country where the upload was done or the law of the country where the perhaps illegally uploaded image is stored on a server? I wouldn't know. NordhornerII _The man from Nordhorn 22:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC) (talk)

The UK. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 09:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyrights#Governing copyright law may help. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should translate this article into English: Günter Freiherr von Gravenreuth. Also, wasn't the German Wikipedia was once sued for having published pictures of... stamps? I don't want the Wikipedia to be molested because of mine. On these grounds I refrain from uploading any images unless I can prove I produced them totally on my own. I am not really asking anybody in particular where he (or she) is based but unless you are a lawyer yourself you might have to worry whether your country's lawyers could become a nuisance for the Wikipedia. Even a far-fetched argumentation might look attractive for a lawyer and might be all the harder to refute. NordhornerII _The man from Nordhorn 22:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC) (talk)

www.filmsdefrance.com

Hello, today I just wrote another article about a French film and used one more time www.filmsdefrance.com as reference. But while I was writing the article the page disappeared. Recently I haven't been happy with this page because the advertisements were somewhat too intrusive for my liking. No it is already unavailable for hours. I am very disappointed and I am going to remove their links from my articles because that is not what I regard as a "reliable source". If somebody thinks I was overreacting just tell me or "undo" the changes. However, I won't undo these changes myself, no matter what. NordhornerII _The man from Nordhorn 23:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC) (talk)

The page seems to be back but I removed the links in my old articles anyway and if somebody puts them back, well, then the flags are "yours". I also removed links to another page I found once on myself because the information there is sometimes different from what IMDb and/or Allrovie would say. NordhornerII _The man from Nordhorn 01:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC) (talk)

It's always a concern with online links, that is why books are preferable. Anyway you can alleviate the problem to some extent by archiving any pages you link to at http://www.webcitation.org/archive. If they are archived, then the links can be replaced should the original die. Betty Logan (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this recommendation. The French Wikipedia has its own archive, hasn't it? NordhornerII _The man from Nordhorn 12:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC) (talk)

Jkta97's edits

I would like fellow Film Project members to take a look at the recent contributions of Jkta97, who has all the makings of a problem editors. First of all, he never uses edit summaries, despite being asked to do so. Second, he has been expanding plot summaries and character lists recently, for example, Marathon Man (film), the plot summary of which was expanded to 1,231 words. The character list was similarly expanded, to include every single role, probably copied and pasted directly from IMDb. These kinds of edits, which are certainly unhelpful, are worse when combined with a refusal to explain or discuss his edits. It is time that he slow done, or stop altogether, and come here and explain himself. But, I would like to hear from other editors on this matter. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at his contributions, I found it amazing that this editor has never made a single talk page comment, not in any namespace. I do not even know how that is possible if one has been editing for any considerable length of time. But, I do find it telling. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

John Wayne filmography navigation template at TfD

Please add to the disucssion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 09:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• User:MarcusBritish did in fact design a lovely and comprehensive template, and we don't exactly encourage participation by letting people spend hours on the template and then chuck out their work. Lugnuts correctly challenged the template under the current consensus, but is there anything we could do to make our template guidelines a bit more visible? We cover it in the MOS, but should we be covering it somewhere else as well? Betty Logan (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Betty. The Film Project MOS already covers this under the navigation section - "WikiProject consensus is against including actor templates since not all actors have substantial appearances in all their films and since multiple actors in a film would overpopulate the bottom of a film article with actor templates regardless of role prominence." Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 19:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note that the TfD is still live. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 19:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

American film studios at CfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 08:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Marketing sections

All, I recommend keeping your eyes open for "Marketing" sections in film articles that do not comply with the guidelines at MOS:FILM#Marketing. There is a tendency to create such sections to highlight bland information, such as to merely announce that a trailer has been released. A "Marketing" section ought to be based on reliable sources that can provide insight about marketing techniques. This scope is not evident to all editors, especially those who do not follow WT:FILM or MOS:FILM, so please remove such sections and link the editors to the guidelines when you can. It is too easy for such a section to be a proseline dumping ground for various screenings or advertisements. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Odd credits

I was looking at Anita Loos' filmography and attempting to understand her credits. She has many credits for things that I don't understand such as titles, scenario, and intertitles. I have created {{Anita Loos}} and am not sure if I should place it on certain pages. What do these types of credits mean?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Intertitles were used by silent films to set up scenes inbetween reels. It was mainly done to give the projectionist time to load the next reel, but they also advanced the plot of the story. I don't know what a "scenario" writer is, but I imagine because silent movies obviously didn't require screenplays, writers would probably just describe the scene, and that is probably what the scenario credit is for. Don't quote me on that last one though, it's just a guess. Betty Logan (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I assume it's essentially a "story" credit from a time when dialogue wasn't used so "screenplay" and "story" weren't two defined things yet. Just a guess. GRAPPLE X 23:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Betty and Grapple X are both right. I don't think "scenario" was quite as definite as "story", but it is quite similar. According to Loos and John Emerson, a scenario is "a detailed synopsis of the plot in ordinary short story form. Originally it referred to the continuity, but this meaning has recently gone out of date." This was written in 1920. Cliff Smith 01:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I added the template to all the works not listed as uncredited.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Marvel Studios

There is a debate going on at the Marvel Studios article regarding the dispute about the Disney/Paramount distribution. The discussion can be found at Talk:Marvel Studios#Disney Distribution. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I have now filed a request for comment at Talk:Marvel Studios#Request for comment. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

New article on actor Robert Boulter

• Robert Boulter

I've created this new article. If you've got additional input for secondary sources, please feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page, I'd really appreciate it. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Psy (film)

Psy (film) is about the 1992 film by Polish director Władysław Pasikowski. Four of the five interwiki links, however, point to the 1989 film by Russian director Dmitri Svetozarov (originally titled "Псы", but a transliteration of the title cannot be avoided). I would remove the interwiki links, but fear that a bot would immediately re-add them. What now?

It would be great to have articles about both films, as Psy (1989 film) and Psy (1992 film), to which Psy (film) would have to be moved (with Psy (film) then redirecting to Psy (1992 film), which would then need a dab hatnote). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted the links to the 1989 film. If the inter-wiki bot re-adds them we'll have to add the article to its exemption list. Betty Logan (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for a Hong Kong Cinema taskforce

Hi, I would like to request a taskforce for Hong Kong Cinema. I know you may categorise Hong Kong Cinema as Chinese cinema but a different lanauge is spoken compred to China as a whole, they have their own flag and are recognised as a different county by the Olympic board. There are so many articles of Hong Kong Cinema that are neglected and I think a taskforce would help. I already run one called Hong Kong Cinema Taskforce part of wiki project Hong Kong but I feel it would be better to have it under wiki project film.

Hope you agree Kelvin 101 (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I support this request. Until Hong Kong was re-connected to the mainland of China, the differences between films from Hong Kong and films from the Republic of China were comparable to the differences between German films made in the "BRD" and those made in the "GDR". The very prolific HK film industry ran for example unique cooperations with Italian producer Carlo Ponti and Hammer Studios from the UK. In regards to the question of language the Wiki article on Cantonese says: "The Cantonese language is also viewed as part of the cultural identity for the native speakers across large swathes of southern China, Hong Kong and Macau. Although Cantonese shares much vocabulary with Mandarin Chinese, the two languages are not mutually intelligible largely because of pronunciation and grammatical differences." NordhornerII _The man from Nordhorn 12:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC) (talk)

Support. Hong Kong cinema in my opinion should be treated separately to the cinema of China, a number of factors make it different. Up until 1997 Hong Kong was under British rule, this had a massive impact on the very culture of Hong Kong and as such can been seen in its movies. In addition Hong Kong has a lot more freedom in terms of the movies that can be produced compared to those of mainland China. Tsange ☯ Talk 17:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any comments on a possible Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Hong Kong cinema task force. A taskforce already exists here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Hong Kong/Hong Kong Cinema Task Force, so it would simply be a cut and paste job. However I don't know about creating the assessment table if anyone can help by generating one it would be much appreciated. (Some categories have already been built here [11]). Tsange ☯ Talk 19:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Goes To The Movies

Anyone in the NYC area is invited to come to Wikipedia Goes To The Movies an editathon at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts at Lincoln Center, on Saturday, November 3, from noon until 5 pm. It's a great way to take advantage of the library's collections (in particular their clipping files) to create or enlarge articles. (Many of the files contain contemporaneous reviews and information on many lost films.) Feel free to add your name to the signup page. -- kosboot (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in NYC anymore, but this should be promoted more widely! Are there plans for

• One-liner promo to all NYC area editor Talk pages, based on their infobox categories?
• One-liner promo at top-of-watchlist (dismissable, of course)
• Planned IRC group collaboration for those not in NYC, but are interested?
• Live UStream 'cast or any other video interactivity?
• Access to NYPLFPA online resources for non-NY Wikipedia editors?

--Lexein (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You should post the above to the main project page. I know there are some people in the NYC group who are very fond of IRC and that could be a way to participate remotely. As far as the promotional ideas - I guess I'm not advanced enough to know how to do that, although the head of Wikimedia NYC will look at the main page. Thanks! -- kosboot (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox Korean Film

I'm opening a new, actually redug, post on Template Talk about Infobox Korean Film. Any thoughts would be appreciated. ₪RicknAsia₪ 05:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Now with a poll to try and move things forward. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The Crazies

There is a request to move The Crazies (2010 film) to The Crazies. The request, with a fuller argument, can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Advertising tags at EFILM

Greetings, the article EFILM is tagged for advertising and other concerns; an editor stating a connection with the company has stated the company wants the article to look good since they have some upcoming commercial activities. Accordingly there's some concern of the site being used as an extension of the company's advertising.

Could some folks familiar with Film Industry issues take a glance to see what is and is not notable for an encyclopedic reader? Thanks for any assistance in maintaining WP:Neutrality. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Portal idea: American film

Would anyone be interested in starting a Portal:American film or Portal:Film of the United States? The French have fr:Portail:Cinéma américain but the English Wikipedia doesn't have it yet. Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't see why there shouldn't be one. Cliff Smith 17:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I will always support any request to copy French achievements. NordhornerII

Actresses' categories at the Village Pump

Please see this discussion. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Cast members in the plot summary of Looper

Please see Talk:Looper (film)#Cast members in the plot summary. Thank you. Cliff Smith 23:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Henry V (1989 film)

The plot summary of Henry V (1989 film) currently stands at an absurdly long 1,900 words, the longest I have ever seen. I wanted to bring this to the attention of fellow film project editors, in hopes that we might address this, and also because the article's talk page does not see much action. The article itself doesn't get much attention, either. The summary has been this length for a long time. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It's been a while since I saw the film, but I've taken a quick pass at condensing the plot summary. It's still long, but it's a start. Cliff Smith 18:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The 1,900 words provide a lot of information on how the film is shot and edited. The plot description might not be the right place for these technicalities of storytelling but let's keep them anyway. I suggest an additional section such as "Background" or something. Also, all the direct speech could be taken out and shifted to another additional section titled "Quotes". I suggest we discuss what elements ought to be removed before doing more. NordhornerII_The man from Nordhorn 19:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's keep the rest of the discussion at the article's talk page. Cliff Smith 19:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)