Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film: Difference between revisions

Skip to table of contents • Skip to bottom • Start new discussion

Shortcut WT:FILM

Template:WP Film Sidebar

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Film page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

I have nominated 35 mm film for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

I have started a discussion at Talk:Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy#Notability? regarding the notability of of said film (which is a DVD documentary) and its need to have its own article. Please provide opinions on the above linked page. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking for more comments on this article's notability. Right now, a part from 1 person (who just showed up today), everyone else is in agreement that the subject is not notable and does not warrant a page to itself. That said, there were still IP additions to the page (which kind of looks more like the back of the DVD box now), so I'm still waiting to see if anyone changes their mind based on the additions or if it's still a topic that does not need an entire page to cover it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I already mentioned this on the Talk page for the style guidelines, but thought I should drop a note here as well. I've created a couple of user talkpage templates, template:uw-plotsum1 and template:uw-plotsum2, that can be used in cases where editors are significantly bloating plot summaries in violation of the guidelines. I'd appreciate any feedback you may have, preferably left on the talk pages for the templates themselves rather than here. You're also welcome to make any changes that you feel will improve the templates. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These could be helpful for helping to guide editors to the guidelines on plot summaries. Thank you for developing the templates. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and you're welcome! :) Doniago (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for chiming in this late about the templates. I don't think templates such as this are necessary but, if we must have a template, it should serve as a notification to the user, not a warning. I would be in favour of a single-level template (not an escalating system of warnings) that avoids classifying edits to a plot summary as not constructive. Calling something not constructive can easily make a bad first impression and alienate a new editor who came in good faith to add something from his knowledge to the encyclopedia but hasn't been around long enough to read MOS:FILM. Editors such as that need to be educated, not warned. I would suggest a template that contains no wording notifying the user that their edits are not wanted but to state something along the lines of:

• Thank you for your recent contribution to [film article]. It is preferred for film articles on Wikipedia to follow a manual of style that serves as a guide on how film articles are best improved. If some of your recent edits have been changed or removed, it is possible that another editor attempted to improve upon your addition by conforming it to the manual of style. Please feel free to ask any questions you may have about the above manual of style at WikiProject Films' talk page where the members of the project will be happy to help you.

That's just a draft. It's not perfect but you get the idea. If a user keeps making further non-MOS conforming edits after a template such as this is posted on someone's talk page, I suggest using your own words to talk to them. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there...I hope you don't mind if I number your points in my response, to keep things better organized for me-

1. Well, I don't think this template should be necessary, and it's certainly not a must-have, but I've been in more than one situation where users inflated plot summaries by significant amounts, and having a standardized warning around, for me at least, was preferable to writing-up essentially the same message on repeated occasions, especially if I wanted to include links and attempt to be thorough. I certainly don't feel that any editor should feel compelled to use these templates if they have issues with them.
2. I modeled the wording for the templates from the standard vandalism templates, where level one is defined as AGF, while level two is a no-faith assumption (in this instance I can't really imagine issuing a level two without a level one having already been given). If the feeling is that even the level one wording is too 'warning' and not enough 'advice', I'd welcome suggestions for how to change it (see below notes, though). If a user were to continue inflating plot summaries after receiving both warnings, I'd think they're at risk of being considered a vandal and potentially looking at a 3RR issue.
3. I think people tend to overlook the actual wording of the template. It doesn't call edits unconstructive, it says they -appear to be- unconstructive. The key difference to me is that an element of doubt is explicitly indicated.
4. I'm somewhat concerned that your suggested wording is film-centric, while I intend for the templates to apply to other areas where word-count and such is stipulated as well, such as novels, non-fiction books, etc. If you think a more specific template is the way to go though, I'd be curious to hear from others on that point.
5. One of the reasons I prefer templates is that I -don't- trust my own words not to be poorly-constructed and/or misinterpreted and I find it comforting for there to be a standard that others have reviewed and (generally) agreed upon as well.

In any case, while we seem to have a difference of opinion on how best to approach this issue, I certainly appreciate your feedback and hope that you understand where I'm coming from. Please let me know if you have additional questions/concerns! Doniago (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those style guidelines are pretty long-winded. The Film MOS tackles the subject of plot length directly so maybe it would be better to direct editors to WP:FILMPLOT. Betty Logan (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? That makes the template purely for Film usage, where as Doniago seems to clearly intend for it to be useable for all media articles. I think his idea makes it a much more globally usable template, and properly directs people to the appropriate reading for a specific article (Film's plot guidelines apply only to films, after all). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's for use on all media articles why are we discussing it on the Film Project? Betty Logan (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

because folks replied here instead of at the template talk page as requested :-P And we are one of several projects who would likely want to know it exists. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'd appreciate a link to the main discussion then so I can consider everyone's point of view. I don't see much point in having separate discussions about the same template spanning different projects. Betty Logan (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally the template talk page itself would be where the main discussion occurred...which is why I did request that discussion occur there, rather than, say, here. I would favor moving further discussion there and just linking back to this conversation. Doniago (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an issue with it being a template spanning several different WikiProjects and subject matters and I do see a clear benefit in it being that way; I only object to the issue of it being a warning and being worded as such. By nature, warnings can be interpreted as somewhat forceful and aggressive. Warning someone of unconstructive edits can easily be seen as an unnecessarily more aggressive approach compared to a gentler approach of informing someone of something they didn't know (as opposed to something they did wrong). Whenever a gentler or more cordial way of resolving any issue is possible, it should be preferred over a more forceful one. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. Perhaps just a single level, like other single issue notices? While it is aggrieving to deal with, unless it is an OR or copyright issue, it isn't a warnable offense per se. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd definitely be open to this approach if people feel this is more appropriate than the two-tiered version (FWIW I never intended to take it beyond that, since I think if a user actually needed a level-three version there's probably larger editing issues at stake). Doniago (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Betty, there isn't a centralized discussion on this. Notices were posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles) and here. The anime talk page has some feedback, the other pages don't. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to request that, per my original request, further discussion of the template(s) take place at their talk pages rather than here, so that anyone with an interest in them can see the discussion without having to peruse the various project pages for possible discussion. Of course, linking back here would probably be useful. (smile) Doniago (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have created a thread at Template talk:Uw-plotsum1 copying over all comments made up to this point. Please take any further discussion to the template talk page. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why has Erik retired? He was like the most straight laced editor on here!! At times he was almost too professional. What happened? I was about to offer to sell my Tyler Durden leather jacket to him which is too small for me and he said he loved it previously when I uploaded a picture. Certainly the last thing I expected was to see a retired tag. If nobody wants to say here feel free to email what happened. It is certainly a huge loss to WP:Films on here, even if I didn't always see eye to eye with him. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He edited an article about someone, and the subject of the article threatened an innocent person who he thought was Erik. Betty Logan (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone had a psychotic episode towards Erik and he thought it was best he took some time off. You can probably still email him though. Mike Allen 21:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don Murphy is an [redacted].  Chickenmonkey  21:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a current request for comments HERE that is discussing whether the article Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy should be merged and redirected to the Elm Street franchise article at A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise), or whether it has met, or has the ability to meet notability inclusion criteria in order to remain an independent independent article and be allowed to grow through regular editing. Findsources: [1],[2] All viewpoints are welcome. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to the members of the project. I just wanted to amke everyone aware that the category status for Criterion Collection films has been resurrected today. The cat was created by User:Deathawk and worked on by this IP 97.124.69.84. Although it has been a few years the members of the film project have reached a consensus that this should not be a category on our films pages. Here are a few examples of previous discussions. [3] [4] [5] [6]. There are others though I don't quite have time to find them now. As soon as I am done here I will make the editors involved aware and open a new CFD. Any additional thoughts and assistance will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 21:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like User:Rodhullandemu has gotten the ball rolling on this here. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_17#Category:Criterion_Collection_films so please feel free to add your thoughts there. MarnetteD | Talk 21:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current plot for V for Vendetta (film) is at 1200 words. I have made several attempts to condense this but I do not believe that it can be reduced to the 400-700 word range that is customary. I would like to know what members of this project believe should be done. Talk: V for Vendetta (film) --Iankap99 (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the RfC? I don't see any section discussing it. My quick response is that it could easily be trimmed down if the excessive flowery language was cut back and some of the minor plot points more condensed. When it passed its FA, the plot was within the guidelines. Why not just restore that, with any needed corrections? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may see if I can't get it at least under 1000 words? May I ask why the plot isn't tagged for being overly-long? Doniago (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh what's that? Where can I find the code for the tag? --Iankap99 (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{plot}} -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for future reference, however Nehrams has fixed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankap99 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to the FA plot and made some minor modifications and further trimming. I haven't seen the film in a few years, so feel free to correct any errors. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nehrams as always, --Iankap99 (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I more or less dropped out of this project a while back. The reason was that I started assessing New Zealand films for importance and had to stop when I realised that the importance parameter belongs to the parent project. Thus, while Goodbye Pork Pie would be of top-importance in the history of New Zealand film (as the first homegrown film to be a significant commercial success), it is low - medium importance on a world scale. I see that some other project templates now support task-force specific importance via additional parameters. While this project has many task forces (possibly more than any other Wikiproject), I think this would be a valuable addition. dramatic (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! We removed the importance parameter from the project banner a few years ago for several reasons, mainly because of the extra effort with our ever-growing article base as well as constant back-and-forth between editors on interpretations of the importance of each article. Instead of worrying about the importance of each of the project's main articles, it's better to center on the article's content and determine how each article can be expanded, sourced, and further improved. It's hard enough to keep all of our article's assessed, and our editing time would probably be better spent on article improvement. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's added MPAA approval numbers. Is this considered excess/fancruft by others before I remove them? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two quite obscure movies, Lost on Mars and Empire of Danger, are up for AfD deletion.

I wanted to highlight it here, in case any movie buffs are able to locate any coverage in reliable sources.

Best,  Chzz  ►  15:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you who may not know, User:Dr pda/prosesize.js is a very useful script in determining page size and word count. In edit preview mode, it also calculates section size and word count. Among other things, this could come in pretty handy for anyone working on bloated plot summary sections as it makes it extremely easy to get an updated word count. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section prose size sounds useful. Do you know if it "plays well" with the DYK script? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which DYK script? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! I can't be certain but I would say they should play well together. I searched through the archives of WT:DYK and couldn't find anything about the issue. But I did start this thread so we'll see if anyone else knows something about it. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, looks like they do, so will give this one a whirl. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely better than copying over the section to Word just to get a count. Thanks for sharing. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join a discussion I just started at Template talk:Infobox film#Adding crew members to the infobox after contribution is nationally honored. Thanks. 72.244.204.18 (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

At the end of The Smurfs article where the navigation templates are. There is a space between "The Smurfs" and "Theatrical Hanna-Barbera produced films" templates. What is causing this? Mike Allen 03:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a hard return at the end in the Smurfs template. All fixed. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it was a problem with the template it self. I was just looking at the article. Thanks. :D Mike Allen 03:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to open this discussion for a while, but only the recent page move has prompted me to get around to it. Erik and I discussed it before he left, but we never got around to doing anything about it. Anyway ... the film project style guideline is named as if it were a manual of style. It's long been my opinion that we've misnamed the guide. For the most part, it is not a manual of style, but a content guideline, much the same as Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines and similar. It gives guidance on structure and content, but very little—if anything— on the things traditionally covered by the main MoS pages. Therefore, I propose that we detach the guide from the official manual of style and move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Article guidelines. This change would more accurately reflect its content and perhaps allow us more scope to make changes in the future. IMO, doing this wouldn't affect the way we wield the guide; it would still have the authority, backing and consensus of the film project. With a bit of luck, it would be no more than a paperwork exercise (and should we decide to go ahead with this, I'm happy to do all the donkey work with page moves, sorting the redirects, etc.) I've placed this message here, as WT:FILM has a wider audience than the style guide talk page, but I'll place a message over there and at WT:MOS pointing to this discussion. I welcome your comments, suggestions, support and objections! All the best, Steve ^T • C 09:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about splitting the content and stylistic advise ? I think these things work better when style and content are separate Gnevin (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, usually, but in this case it's not necessary. While some minor changes may be required to the page, a split wouldn't be needed as any bona fide style guidance is covered by about two lines. In all cases, we defer to the main Manual of Style, with limited guidance here about how that should be interpreted for film articles. Steve ^T • C 10:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I've no objection Gnevin (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as I don't really see what the difference is, and certainly not without seeing an example of what, exactly, is not a "style guideline" about the current one. It might be a quibble to say this is really "content" but it is reflective of all of the other major media style guidelines out there, other than the pointed out video games (which I honestly do not consider a project to "look too" for examples of how to edit). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is ... it's not a manual of style by Wikipedia's use of the term. It doesn't give advice on formatting, fonts, language and typography. It's a content guide, in that it gives advice on what to put in articles, while not dwelling on how to present that information other than its structure. Steve ^T • C 13:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It covers structure and content in one. I don't see how that is an issue. There are 9 MoS related to content in the general MoS alone, and I really see no reason at all to basically render the whole thing useless by removing the content suggestions? What's left, nothing? Novels is the one media that has a "split" of sources, with a MoS that is basically a copy/paste template, and the actual content guide. They quickly went in two different directions, directly contradicted one another, and neither was kept updated rendering both absolutely useless. I just don't see any reason at all to not have one document, in one location, easy for newer editors to find. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about splitting this page, just moving/renaming it. I'm not entirely sure what about doing that would render the page useless; it's just more accurate is all. Best, Steve ^T • C 13:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MoS related to content was create by me and as it says This Category is concerned with the Manual of Style and stylistic choices affecting content. For the guidelines on content itself see Category:Wikipedia content guidelines. It's not about content ,saying that it's now down to 8 with a other under review. Gnevin (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Subject specific guide if accepted would cover this guideline as it stands . Gnevin (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, please be kind to me as I'm a little new to the world of Wikipedia. First of all, I just want to say how much I respect the hard work and dedication involved with everyone here in making sure that movie information is complete and accurate. I was discussing the possibility of including another source for movie reviews with Nehrams2020 and he suggested that I bring it up here. Please forgive me for a rather lengthy post.

I'm writing because I work for a movie review site, MRQE.com, the Movie Review Query Engine, that may be helpful in providing useful information to movie articles. MRQE has been around since 1993, and its search engine provides links to nearly every review accessible online for about 80,000 titles (this includes classics, indie movies, foreign films, and current releases). I've noticed that many movie articles cite Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic in the "Reception" section, and I'm wondering if MRQE can also be included, or at least be placed amongst the External Links. Like RT and MC, MRQE supplies an average score for each film (called the MRQE Metric); but unlike RT and MC, MRQE also includes links to the original reviews written at the time of the film's release (so long as they've been archived online somewhere). This can be very interesting for people reading up on classics and older titles like the original King Kong or Casablanca.

Along with original reviews, MRQE uses a graph to compare the overall critical reception (the percentage of critics that give the movie an A, B, C, etc.); the MRQE Metric is the average of all the reviews, a number between 0 - 100. MRQE's graphs have been included on sites like Variety.com and EW.com (powering Entertainment Weekly's Critical Mass graphs) to help their users see the overall response to movies. It could be interesting to cite the graph percentages, but I'm sure the easiest thing is to add MRQE to the "External Links" section. I am more than happy to help out either way, and I can provide some documentation for linking.

Here's MRQE on Wikipedia. MRQE has already helped supply some information for existing Wikipedia articles, such as this one.

While MRQE has been around since the beginnings of the Internet, it's only recently that any investment has been made into the site. MRQE is by all accounts a start-up, and getting press has been a tricky task. Be that as it may, MRQE does get mentioned from time to time, and remains one of Roger Ebert's top movie review websites. He name-dropped the site in an interview last year with The Onion's AV Club. MRQE was also mentioned in Ebert's intro to the 2004 edition of his Annual Movie Yearbook.

Even though Social Times hated the site's name, MRQE was named one of their Top Movie Review and Rating Sites

MRQE also has a sister-site called Flicktweets, which aggregates and filters Twitter for relevant movie review tweets.

All in all, MRQE could help provide interesting information and links to reviews. While RT and MC are fantastic general resources, MRQE could supply an extra dose of information that some people might be interested in. I'm hoping that we can work together to supply some compelling links and valuable information. Let me know your thoughts, and I'd be happy to help out in any way. mliss4816 (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]