Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Skip to Table of Contents Skip to Table of Contents • Add new section
WikiProject Films announcements and open tasks
watch · edit · discuss

Articles needing attention • Article reviews • Assessment • Requested articles • Stubs needing expansion
Featured article candidates 
Other featured content candidates 
A-Class review  
Good article candidates 
Full list...
Articles for deletion
Featured article review 
Revenge of the Sith
Peer review [Attention needed!] (update list)
Boarding Gate • U2 3D • Pather Panchali • Portal:Star Wars
Articles needing attention 
...and copy edit • ...to expand beyond Stub • ...to add requested images • ...to add infoboxes • ...to add a synopsis • ...to add a cast section • ...to turn sections into prose • ...to trivia • Unassessed • Requested
View full version (with task force lists)
Shortcuts:
WT:FILM
WT:FILMS


This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II.
Any sections older than 20 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.
Archive
Archives (Index)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
About archives

Contents
WikiProject Films
General information ( v • d • e )
Main project page + talk
 → Discussion archives
Style guidelines talk
Announcements and open tasks talk
 → Articles needing attention talk
 → Nominations for deletion talk
 → New articles talk
 → Requests talk
 → Stubs talk
Resources
Showcase
Film Portal talk
Fiction noticeboard talk


[edit] Weak section on Pan's Labyrinth

I frequent the Pan's Labyrinth article, not because I feel I can add anything to it (GA already, yay!), but because it was *probably* my favorite film of '06. It's on my watch list, and I try to help manage what I feel is unnecassary. As of May 18, roughly 10 o'clock EST, nobody has responded to my concerns that a section entitled "Del Toro on this film's ending" may be problematic. From the start, it showed spelling and grammar problems. Those were corrected, but what we're left with is pretty uninformative. Mind you all, it is interesting, but I find it weak in comparison to the rest of the article, especially when we could take the sliver of information and add it to another section. Anybody agree? MwNNrules (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A section on critical interpretations may be warranted; within the context of such a section, his thoughts could certainly be added. In any case, it's far too thin to command its own section, and definitely not within the plot section, which is strictly supposed to be devoid of any outside interpretation (even from the creators). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. MwNNrules (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Marychan41 added it back a few days ago. I've been slow to it, but I plan to find a way to add the information somewhere appropriate. I'm still surprised by how long it's been there, considering how meager it is. --MwNNrules (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I've moved it to Reception for now, although a separate section for critical themes and interpretations may be warranted should sufficient references exist. The Plot section should be a straightforward and uncritical description, per our style guidelines, and any outside elaboration on the contents would be POV (even if it is by the filmmakers - see intentional fallacy). The work itself should be the sole source for the content of that section. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that. --MwNNrules (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question: Low-Budget Films Taskforce

Has there ever been call for a task-force to focus on notable low-budget films, or is there an existing task-force with this subject in it's remit? Many fantastic directors such as Christopher Nolan, Robert Rodriguez, Darren Aronofsky, Peter Jackson and Richard Linklater, not to mention greats like Stanley Kubrick and David Lynch, have started their careers with films made for as little as a few thousand dollars. A cursory glance through wikipedia will reveal film articles like Eraserhead, Slacker (film), Following (film), π (film), Clerks, El Mariachi and Bad Taste, not to mention articles like Low-budget film, which are in need of attention. With so many low-budget films being produced now given the low cost of digital video equipment, it'd be great to show a little love to those articles covering the best in low-budget filmmaking. JMalky (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting topic; George Lucas and Steven Spielberg also had begun their film careers with student-made films which nonetheless showed promise. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC).
Exactly, the list is endless. I wonder though: would there be too much of a crossover with 'independent' films (a very loosely defined label), and perhaps even amateur filmmaking? If such a task force were to exist would it have to have a broader remit? I'm not sure how these things work.JMalky (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The crossover problem would be significant I agree, the article could turn into a haystack and would probably require budget information. All of my edits and new articles are pretty much of low budget films but they also fall into the b-movie, exploitation, independent, trash, ect...Is there even a category for "low budget films"? I don't see it in the list. If not then it should be made at least, in response to these inquiries.Mike P (WHAT?) 15:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess the other problem is that 'low-budget' is a very subjective category. As far as I'm aware, $1 million is considered low-budget in Hollywood. JMalky (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I would still like to know about a low budget films category. I asked above if there is one as I don't see one in the cat list, unless I missed it. Shouldn't there be one? I will wait for responses on this. Thanks. Mike P (WHAT?) 13:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If you feel like there should be one, why not make one by yourself? Don't be afraid, you're more than welcome to make a category if you find it reasonable. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I've read the page on creating cats and I'm still not clear, can someone give me a little help on this, I'm willing to do it. (create Category: Low budget films)Mike P (WHAT?) 19:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
May I refresh my question above regarding creating categories? It seems that a "Low budget films" cat is wanted, by the above statements. Thanks. Mike P (WHAT?) 16:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I would err on the side of precision. "Category:Low-budget films" is rather amorphous in scope and can lead to large-scale fundamental disagreement about inclusion characteristics. On the other hand, "Category:Films produced for less than X" is more precise. That being said, you're still going to walk into a mess of problems, mainly because of issues of currency conversion, inflation, and relative budgeting (ie - a million-dollar film in some regions and periods is a big budget, in others is measly; so what is the category trying to organize?). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Low budget films category

I would still like to know about a low budget films category. I asked above if there is one as I don't see one in the cat list, unless I missed it. Shouldn't there be one? I will wait for responses on this. I've read the page on creating categories and I'm still not clear, can someone give me a little help on this, I'm willing to do it (create Category: Low budget films). Mike P (WHAT?) 14:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Once you're done, I'd love to see a link to that category on this talk page. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there a clear definition of "low budget"? I'm just trying to pre-empt someone taking it to CFD if/when the category is created! Lugnuts (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Something clearer probably has a better chance of success. (E.g. Category:Films produced for under $1 million. But this will still encounter problems for various reasons - inflation, exchange rates, and OR in some cases. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I will hold off for now. Mike P (WHAT?) 23:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe help expand/improve the article low-budget film? Lugnuts (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree the article needs work. Among other things, it includes the statement "For example, a comedy film made for $20 million would be considered a modest budget, whereas an action film made for the same amount of money would be considered low budget." Based on whose criteria? This to me constitutes POV, not fact. Also, nothing in the article is referenced. MovieMadness (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Once again, an IMDb question

Is IMDb regarded as reliable source for the list of awards an actor received?--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think stuff like the official Acamedy award website is more reliable. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest using IMDb as a stepping stone. Sometimes non-notable awards are listed, so you can take the keywords from a film's award page and search for the main website (like the Academy Awards, as TheBlazikenMaster suggested). If you can't find a main website or if you find a website that seems too bloggish, then it is probably not worth inclusion. Another way is to check to see if an award has a Wikipedia article and review its references to see how prominent it is. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, guys. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
If the IMDb is the only source for the award, I would imagine the award probably isn't notable - between official websites and press articles, there should be some more reliable source to mention it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure awards are newsworthy. That being said there must be a news report about them. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject films peer review of Pather Panchali

I am not sure whether it's against the rule to advertise a peer review here. Still doing. Please excuse me in case I am not following the protocol.

Pather Panchali, an Indian film directed by Satyajit Ray, is one of the Core articles in wikiproject film. The article is at the WikiProject Films' peer review section here. Please provide inputs. Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Letters from Iwo Jima: ridicoulously long plot (Continuation)

Okay, since it would ne unlikely that anyone would look at the previous section, I would like new posts to be centered here. Me and some editors have taken out quite a bit, but I still think that the plot section is overly long. So, I would like some editors to take a look at it again. Yojimbo501 (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely getting there! I would suggest taking a few days away from it, in order to give yourself "fresh" eyes. It still feels fairly blow-by-blow, so I'd recommend continuing the process of minor pruning and consolidation/summarization. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re-evaluation of article, please

I would appreciate if someone could please re-evaluate Jacques Brel Is Alive and Well and Living in Paris (film). It was originally pegged as a stub, but the article has since been expanded and that original designation may not be adequate. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Reassessed to start. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! If anyone else has input on this article, feel free to weigh in. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want a more extensive review, then a project peer review might be in order. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I substituted an image of the videotape cover for the inappropriate sketch of Brel and completed the missing infobox data. I also rearranged the structure of the article and added a couple of additional production details I found. MovieMadness (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hancock

Hello, there is a dispute about the "Release" section at Hancock (film) having weasel wording. A couple of editors believe that this section has weasel wording and that it sounds like a press release. I'm in disagreement and have explained my stance on the article's talk page. I've been working pretty closely with this article, though, so I'd like some independent opinions and fresh eyes to review the passage and the arguments. Feel free to put me in my place if you think there is an issue after all. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Movies that have began filming.

I have a question, how do we know the release dates of movies that have began filming? How do the movie makers know that? I mean for something like a fantasy movie it might be a harder job than it looks. There have been some movies that are in production but are sometimes been delayed because they are harder to make than the directors/producers thought. So my question is how do directors or producers know when the movie is going to be released? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It can be assumed any release date announced for a film still in production is somewhat tentative. Studios with a potential blockbuster frequently will reserve a highly desirable holiday weekend opening as much as two years in advance in order to keep the competition away. MovieMadness (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I would think that the film industry can depend on historical data to know the schedules for pre-production, production, and post-production. I'm sure that if filmmakers hire WETA Workshop, that company can tell them how long it would take to create effects based on their previous work. I agree with MovieMadness about holiday weekends -- after all, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull took in a huge haul over Memorial Day weekend. There are also summer weekends to consider. I read an opinion that Prince Caspian did not do as well as anticipated because it came out after Iron Man but before Crystal Skull. Also, films that may have a chance at winning awards is usually released before awards season around March. That's why the later winter months have very few quality films -- the possible award winners were released before the deadline, and studios save tentpole films for the summer. 300 is an exception to this and possibly a reason to why it hauled in so much, with so little competition. There is an film, Ashecliffe, being worked on by Martin Scorsese. From what I can tell, it's pretty well along in production, yet its release date is October 2, 2009. That's the October after the next. I think this goes with what I said about awards season -- Ashecliffe may not be guaranteed to come out for the 2008 awards season, so it's being held off until it's close to the 2009 awards season. It would be cool to expand film release with this kind of information from reliable sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Erik, have you ever been to a movie school? I somehow have feeling that you have since you have so much knowledge on movie making. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dwayne Johnson

WP:FILMS input would be welcome here. This is debate amongst the WP:PW booger eaters for some time. Check out this, too. --Endless Dan 19:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cats & Dogs

Moved to Talk:Cats & Dogs#Moved discussion.

[edit] Help with U2 3D critical reception

I've been working on U2 3D since its creation and all I need to do is expand the critical reception section before I nominate it for GA-status. I'm having a bit of a problem figuring what to write because it is a non-fictional concert film and with a 92% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, every critic seemed to say the exact same thing in their reviews. If anyone could help me out or give me some tips, I'd really appreciate it. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Horror films

Could someone review this article? It is currently B-class, but editors have suggested that it doesn't show an exact global view of Horror Films. Could someone give feed back? Yojimbo501 (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Excorcist-subliminal?

In The Excorcist talk page, one editor has been trying to prove that certain edits in the film are not subliminal. Though one editor who contested him/her didn't bring up great sources proving that the imagery is subliminal, it seems the editor who first posted that the imagery is not subliminal has no real source to prove this. Though the imagery might not be subliminal, a number of wikipolicy's were bought up showing that it was nobody's place to correct it if it wasn't, and that there should be no line saying that the imagery wasn't subliminal. The editor who first posted it didn't seem to listen to that, though. Yojimbo501 (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I am just wondering if we really need a section discussing weather or not the images are subliminal. Yojimbo501 (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need some help on The Flintstones (film) article

Some user IPs and users have been expanding the plot section and has been tagged for being too long. Also, I need some help fixing it up and it needs some sources. Can you come up with any ideas? It would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Greg Jones II 17:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A question regarding categories "Films over X hours"

This note is being placed on the talk pages for both the film project and the television project as the discussion will overlap their articles. Also, I am posting this on these projects discussion pages as there are too many articles involved to list these on each separate shows talk page.

Recently User:24.129.100.84 began adding [[Category:Films over xx hours long]] to the pages of various television serials and miniseries. I have removed these based on the fact that these categories have usually been reserved for films that have had a theatrical release. I cannot find this listed as a specific criteria so this is the first point to which I would like both projects to come to a consensus. Should TV programs be considered films for these categories?

Some made for TV films may fit this category as long as it is the official runtime, sans commercials, that we are basing this on. But to list television miniseries and serials as films is a misnomer. They are usually broadcast over multiple nights and have breaks which include closing and opening credits between the episodes.

As one example this editor keeps adding Category:Films over three hours long to the Prime Suspect page. None of the episodes in the nine stories that made up the seven serials was ever more than two hours long. Even if one serial was broadcast on one day (as happened a few times on cable TV in the US) one still saw the closing credits of episode one, then a break which included other programing such as highlights of shows to come, and then the opening credits for episode two.

A look at this users contributions page [1] will show how many TV programs and miniseris have had these categories added to them. Should a consensus be reached that these categories might apply then we will need to set some criteria for what does and what does not fit the wording of the categories. My thanks to you for your attention in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 20:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If the work hasn't been released theatrically and was expressly created for television presentation, then the work should not be in a film category. (Whether or not WP Television wishes to create Category:Television programs over... or the like is their prerogative, of course.) Therefore, Berlin Alexanderplatz is okay, since it's seen theatrical release, but Prime Suspect would not since it hasn't (IIRC). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

According to IMDb, these are all three-hour TV movies. I have not added any "mini-series" to the category.--24.129.100.84 (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware that IMDb is not a reliable source for entries on Wikipedia and this is a good example why. For one thing they have their own terminology for things which does not match ours. You have added several miniseries to the categories including Salem's Lot (1979 TV mini-series) and V (The Original Miniseries) which tell you in their titles that they both multinight TV programs. MarnetteD | Talk 21:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Today, these "mini-series" are ALWAYS aired as one big film. They are never re-run in different parts.--24.129.100.84 (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, if they are created to air on television, they need to fit within the Television category scheme, not Film's. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Got an encyclopedia of exploitation/cult movies?

Then you might look in it for Black Mama, White Mama: This looks to me as if it was lifted from somewhere. Morenoodles (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've taken care of that a bit, it truly is a dreadful article. Yojimbo501 (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Task Force)

I propose a Texas Chainsaw Massacre task force, because I believe the film franchise is significant enough to warrent it. If the task force is made, and grows big enough, it could possibly a future Project. --EclipseSSD (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be more appropriately proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises, which was expressly created earlier this year for this purpose. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I doubt it would become a Project because Projects generally need more than just 6 or 7 articles to work on. They are supposed to deal with dozens of articles. "Taskforce" is more realistic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I meant proposing this task force at that project. That is exactly what WP Mf is designed for. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL, I was referring to Eclipse's "If the task force is made, and grows big enough, it could possiblye [be] a future Project." Sorry if I wasn't clear on who I was directing my statement to.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I, Claudius (film)

There is an AFD for this film ongoing here [2]. Even though this is also listed here Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film I am posting this here to try and get a wider reaction (at least more than the four or five that seem to be the norm for these items) from any editors that are interested. Thank you in advance for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 06:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] meta:Ideas on how to write about--and how not to write about--film

Hello,

This page, that is linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines ([3]), has been proposed for deletion on Meta. Do you think it would be appropriate here? Korg (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not? It'd be nice to create an essays section, anyway. I'll copy it over to my userspace for now. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guatemalan/Haitian films

There seems to be an error with the List of Guatemalan films. The films in this list are Haitian. LeRoc (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peeping Tom - Horror Film?

Is Peeping Tom a horror film? SteveCrook, an editor, doesn't think so. So every time some one tries to put a link that suggests it's horror in, he takes it out. All the while, the very simmilar Psycho which has links suggesting it is a horror film, doesn't get the same treatment from him/her. I think that Peeping Tom is certainly a horror film, and that this should be labeled so in the article. Yojimbo501 (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the revision history he only edits this article every few months or so. I want to tell you that it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, if you want to prove Steve wrong find a reliable source that suggests it's in fact a horror movie. That's the only way to make it stay in the article. If you can't find a reliable source, it can't be part of the article. In fact the last time (according to history) he removed any references to it being a horror movie is in January this year. I fail to see how any of his more recent edits in that aritcle cut out where it says "horror". TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me add a comment here regarding the editor in question. Steve Crook is a historian, archivist and expert in the films of The Archers. He has been a very dedicated Wiki authority "on call" in regards to the works of director Michael Powell and writer Emeric Pressburger. There is considerable controversy over the subject matter of Peeping Tom that has led to its modern re-evaluation as a psychological thriller rather than a "pure" horror film, although I must admit, the distinction is rather nebulous. If it is germane, a note to Steve always produces a full and comprehensive answer to questions. He may not constantly monitor his email or wikisite but when he will respond, I can assure you that a thoughtful and reasoned explanation will result. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC).
Oh no, I'm not doubting he's a good editor, and I think that the article is pretty good, but I am still wondering how it should exactly be classed. Yojimbo501 (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Production history articles

As part of the ongoing tug of war the people at the GAN page seem to be having over whether or not The Devil Wears Prada has been properly reviewed and listed, someone finally called me out on a tag I placed over a year ago calling for a separate article on the movie's production history, as the article is overly long. That followed this discussion here. I said I'd do it at the time, but I was so burned out after having worked on the article so intensely through December 2006 and January 2007 I just didn't want to go right back and do it anytime soon. So I kept putting it off in favor of other things.

I finally created Production history of The Devil Wears Prada this morning, and Girolamo asked me not to. I did, and after discussing it with him I decided to see if there was still the same consensus for doing that that there had been in March 2007.

I feel that this is justified not only in this particular case, since (unusually) almost everyone involved with the movie has said an awful lot (in interviews and the DVD commentaries) about the creative decisions they made and why they made them, information I believe is relevant and encylopedic; but also for other films with notable production histories (Blade Runner, for one, after the release of the 25th anniversary DVD set, has enough relevant and encyclopedic material in that long documentary about the making of the film).

So, does current WP:FILM consensus still see this as a good idea? Daniel Case (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC on WP:FICT

A request for comment has been made to determine if the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) proposal has consensus. Since this project deals with many fictional topics, I am commenting here. Input on the proposal is welcome here. --Pixelface (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How much is too much?

I know at one time the plot synopsis sections of film articles included a spoiler alert if key details were revealed, but these no longer are in use. How do editors feel about a plot synopsis that is so detailed it reveals everything about the film? I just saw Derailed and never anticipated a major plot twist which is revealed in the article about the film (which fortunately I read afterwards). Actually, had I known about it in advance there would have been no reason to see the film at all. Aren't there some things that should be kept under wraps for the benefit of those who haven't seen the film? Someone may refer to an article simply to get an idea of whether or not a film appeals to him or her, with no expectation of having the surprise twists or shocking ending revealed. Is there such a thing as going too far in a plot synopsis? Thanks for your feedback. MovieMadness (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That is appropriate. Wikipedia is not a spoiler free zone. All film plots should include all major plot points/twists, including the ending. No, there are no things that should be kept "under wraps" for those who have never seen the film. If they don't want to know the full, they can get an idea of the film from the lead. The plot section's general link and heading (usually Plot), should be a clear indicator of its contents. See also the film MoS and WP:SPOILER. For a partial quote from the former: "Include plot twists and a description of the ending, content which is often perceived as a "spoiler". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement, so spoilers should not be excluded or deleted under any circumstances; this would directly contradict the Wikipedia-wide content disclaimer." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Film Set Indices

There are a lot of films that need disambiguating through their own pages: Category:Film disambiguation pages and making them set index articles can help with with resolving the issue. {{SIA}} has been changed and you can now use {{SIA|films}} which will put it in "Category: Set indices on films" (which currently doesn't exist but can be put under Category:Set indices when it is started). Obviously it is down to the project whether you want it or not as they work best when under the supervision of a project. For example, it relaxes WP:MOSDAB so you can tailor the articles to suit your specific needs but it'd be wise to reach a consensus on any MOS changes, which could include:

  • More than one link per list item, but the link should be helpful - which here would probably involve the most notable person attached to this like the director or the star.
  • Redlinks are allowed but they do need to be referenced (using footnotes for neatness) and WP:REDLINKS still applies so someone's home movie can't be included.
  • Templates can be used

Anyway the ball is in your court - it strikes me this would be useful and The War of the Worlds (film) certainly helped with the problems that were occurring with so many films of the same name released in the same year. (Emperor (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

Maybe you could elaborate? I was under the impression that most dabs look more or less like the War of the Worlds example you illustrated. (Minus the template, of course.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The WotW example isn't a good one for formatting, it just demonstrates how a focused set index can help disambiguate very similar articles on the same topic (. Better examples I've worked on include Sandman (comics) and Tempest (comics). Different topics have different requirements though, however, I note articles like Hitman (film) are not formatted according to WP:MOSDAB (compare the current version with my edit) but it could be argued that having the extra links for each list item, as well as redlinks actually improve the helpfulness of the page and make it more usable than the more general Hitman (disambiguation). It also makes it a separate and distinct article to the general disambiguation and avoids it being simply turned into a redirect (which happens often). Also note with the WotW example that hatnoting works on the various film pages (because the set index is so specific) where they'd otherwise be removed in accordance with WP:NAMB. So it is about creating an article focused on pages with similar names and similar topics to help differentiate between them and you may require extra formatting tools to help with this (as can be seen with the Hitman article) - the WotW set index is an example of how helpful such articles can be (more useful than a large general disambiguation page, if the project thinks this is helpful they could look into extra formatting that could be used to make the pages more useful - it may be nothing beyond WP:MOSDAB is required (in which case the pages themselves are useful), although the Hitman article suggests ore flexibility is seen as a good thing. (Emperor (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC))
You're going to have to forgive me, but those all look to me like dab pages. Having links within the brief phrase descriptor for each item does not - to my mind - create a vastly different beast or require a new name or type to describe it. But that all being said, please do as you like - I just don't understand what it is you are asking of the project. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The bottom line is the examples I give don't conform to WP:MOSDAB (it is the strictest of the MOS), equally in the usual run of things they'd be converted into redirects to the more general disambiguation page. As I say I have found the WotW article more useful then the general disambiguation page, I thought it would be helpful to have guidelines which allow you to make these pages and have more flexibility in what you can do with them.
I'm not trying to do anything with the disambiguation articles that are specific to films - I've largely been working on the comics-related ones and working with other editors from other topic areas to get a set index system up and running. I was noting that something like this looks like it would be useful for the films project (as it is for others I have contacted or will do). It is up to you all to decide if you want to make use of it. (Emperor (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

[edit] New templates

User:Last Contrarian has recently been created a number of new templates for film awards, including Template:FilmfareCriticsAwardBestMovie, Template:NationalFilmAwardBestFeatureFilm, Template:NationalFilmAwardBestActor, possibly more as well. This could, conceivably, result in some articles getting a possibly excessive number of templates. Has anyone any ideas about these templates, and the possible use of them? John Carter (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, and I do not think that there is a way to implement the templates. All the templates link to decent layouts of the awards, so I think it would be best to point to these articles instead. Perhaps a note can be left with the editor explaining the possibility of excess and linking as a less crowded alternative? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to note - I believe the current precedent for the Oscars is that we have a winners template only for Best Picture. It might not be unreasonable to permit equivalent top awards as a sole exception to such a rule. Otherwise, succession boxes should be sufficient for all other awards. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm not sure if that's the best precedent, either. What seems to work OK is the succession box like at the bottom of Gladiator. Why do we cover the Oscars, the BAFTAs, and the Golden Globes in the succession box, but Oscars are the only one to have a full-blown template. The succession box itself links to the list of winners. Why are we compelled to show all the Oscar winners of a particular decade? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see an overwhelming problem with doing it either way, so long as we are consistent. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Those would be very useful for awards sections, but I somehow doubt they will be at the bottom of the page. Why not? We have template for movies like Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King and No Country for Old Men, so why not? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)There are templates for all the major awards categories for Oscars, and in my opinion, they are bothersome and redundant and only serve to clutter up the bottom of the page. If it were up to me, I'd banish all of these types of templates. The succession boxes fill this need nicely and it's just too much busy-ness at the bottom of the pages for me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)