m →Spider-Man: Homecoming: fix |
→Spider-Man: Homecoming: follow-up |
||
Line 165: | Line 165: | ||
Regarding [[Spider-Man: Homecoming]], there is a content dispute regarding the "See also" section. Please see the discussion [[Talk:Spider-Man: Homecoming#See also bits|here]]. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 19:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC) |
Regarding [[Spider-Man: Homecoming]], there is a content dispute regarding the "See also" section. Please see the discussion [[Talk:Spider-Man: Homecoming#See also bits|here]]. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 19:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC) |
||
The matter has now involved a 3RR report. Editors are invited to comment about the content dispute so we can resolve this already. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contrib]]) <sup>([[Template:Reply to|ping me]])</sup> 19:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:57, 5 December 2017
WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks [] | |
---|---|
Article alerts • Articles needing attention • Assessment • Cleanup listing • Deletion sorting • New articles • Popular pages • Requests • Reviews | |
| |
Did you know
Featured list candidates
Good article nominees
Featured article reviews
Requests for comments
Peer reviews
| |
View full version with task force lists |
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
Producer categories on film articles
Has anyone seen any precedent regarding producer categories on film articles? I saw Category:Films produced by Bradley Fuller and Category:Films produced by Andrew Form today and was wondering if it qualified as overcategorization. Technically, their names are probably mentioned routinely in sources that recap credits, but they don't seem to be "household" names like Category:Films produced by Michael Bay. (Or should we even be categorizing Bay's producing credits?) Wanted to get some thoughts before deciding on doing WP:CFD or not. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- WP:FILMCAT suggests creating categories for any director with an article. I guess it follows that people would do the same for producers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- This is one of several issues that should be made clearer in WP:FILMCAT. It all depends on what we want categories for. But this is a more general categorization issue I plan to bring up for discussion (when external circumsatnces permit me to do so). In this case I think WP:OVERCAT applies. Just think of what would happen if such categories were added to ALL film articles... Hoverfish Talk 09:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- " Just think of what would happen if such categories were added to ALL film articles." Articles would be easier to locate. The same purpose as any other Wikipedia category. Dimadick (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- The issue here as I see it is two fold, 1) Multiple producers are often attached to one film where with directors it's usually one, and 2) It's not always clear what producers bring to the table other than money. What this means is adding a category for every producer would quickly bloat the article, and not always for a good reason. --Deathawk (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- " Just think of what would happen if such categories were added to ALL film articles." Articles would be easier to locate. The same purpose as any other Wikipedia category. Dimadick (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- This is one of several issues that should be made clearer in WP:FILMCAT. It all depends on what we want categories for. But this is a more general categorization issue I plan to bring up for discussion (when external circumsatnces permit me to do so). In this case I think WP:OVERCAT applies. Just think of what would happen if such categories were added to ALL film articles... Hoverfish Talk 09:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
User splitting award lists by decades & disabling sortability
User:Michael 182 is changing film award artiles by diasbling sortability and splitting the lists by decades.[1] I reverted once in Palme d'Or, User:Filmested has reverted them in Golden Bear and User:Brian W. Schaller has adviced them against doing this in Academy Awards. However they revert back and continue with this scheme. Any opinions? Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 20:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe hold an RFC? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Since this is an issue spanning various award articles, where would the right place for an RfC be?
- I guess this would probably be the best place. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Since this is an issue spanning various award articles, where would the right place for an RfC be?
- Splitting by decade is usually done when there is a need to split a list due to size issues, per Lists of horror films. I don't see much point in doing it within the article itself, especially if the table is sortable. It seems to me it is reducing the functionality and not gaining much in return by breaking up the table. Betty Logan (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The changes done to the article are necessary in order to achieve a better understanding of the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael 182 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Michael 182, your statement is contradictory to the comments by Betty Logan. Please explain how the article is not able to be understood as details are presented today, and what your revisions enhance or adjust in terms of understanding material. AldezD (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Michael 182: You really need to stop edit-warring on articles such as Academy Award for Best Picture and Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Limited Series or Movie. You have been reverted multiple times by multiple editors, and you are going to end up being blocked at this rate. You need to take it to the talk pages, lay down your arguments and win support before continuing with this campaign. Betty Logan (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- The format of the Academy Award for Best Picture that is being used in recent modifications is he one being used in articles of Golden Globe Award categories and International Film Festivals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael 182 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Premiere date of Hunt the Man Down
AFI says February 16, 1951, but there are a number of semi-reliable sources that say December 26, 1950 (see discussion here). The AFI listing shows the December 27 issue of Variety as one of its sources. Does anybody have access to that issue by any chance? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Release dates can be confusing for older films, and the AFI generally goes with the LA date for roadshows or the general release date. In both cases a film can play prior to either of those dates. The AFI Catalog is a superb source but it is not infallible. Betty Logan (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Inclusion of soundtrack information on Side Effects article
There's a discussion happening about whether to include soundtrack album art and tracklisting in the Side Effects (2013 film) article. Input appreciated. (Sorry if this isn't an appropriate place to request comments; I think I've seen them here before, hope I wasn't imagining it.) Popcornduff (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
If anyone is free, your participation in this discussion would be appreciated as there is only myself and Film Fan involved and we are opposed to each other so discussion goes nowhere and there is edit warring going on over the poster so input would help. Thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- If he's edit-warring, note that he's under a 1RR restriction on all pages. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Classification of TV movies
A filmography should only include films (duh), and TV work should have its own section, but where should made-for-TV movies go? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- One vote for filmography. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- I have noticed that in many biographies TV films are placed in the TV table (if two exist), but I am not sure I agree with that approach. We don't really discriminate between feature films, short films and TV films here at the film project, so I would have no objection to grouping them all together in a filmography. The problem though is that it's not just down to the film project to decide because the TV project also has jurisdiction over these decisions. Still, my preference would be to group all the films together regardless of format. Betty Logan (talk) 07:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Add them to the main filmography, and if it's in a table, add a note in the notes column to say "TV film" or something along those lines. If the person has a lot of TV films in their credits, then maybe split that out to its own section. This is a good example of the latter. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Epic Sci-Fi film category at CfD
Please see this discusssion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Categories again
Is it just me or are categories created by Jason elijah (talk · contribs) getting out of control? For example, Category:American children's animated adventure films, Category:Canadian children's animated adventure television series, Category:American children's animated fantasy films. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- I could swear that there was once a policy/guideline on not creating triple-intersection categories, but I can't find it. That aside, these do seem total overkill, esp. with the "Children's" part of the examples above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, these categories are a textbook violation of WP:NARROWCAT. Betty Logan (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Fictional film page move
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Annual-overview articles: introductory sentence copyedit
At present the opening sentence of the annual-overview articles (e.g. 2016 in film) reads as follows:
- 2016 in film is an overview of events, including the highest-grossing films, award ceremonies, festivals, and a list of films released and deaths.
This is awkward—especially "…and deaths". I think better phrasing would be:
- This article is an overview of the year 2016 in film, and includes a list of films released that year (along with a list of the highest-grossing among them), as well as relevant notable deaths, awards ceremonies, and festivals.
From my understanding of AWB, such mass-editing could be achieved relatively easily. Would there be concensus to make this change? — Hugh (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Update: I had originally thought the 2017 article was the same as the rest, but it's different. I've discovered another change I think should be made: most articles seem to have "Award ceremonies" as a sub-heading of "Events". Correct grammar would be "Awards ceremonies". — Hugh (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- That sounds good to me. Maybe give it a full seven days here, incase anyone (stongly) objects, or has a better wording. Thanks for looking at it. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Looks ok to me. I would just get on with it. If people object you soon find out when they revert you, and then we can have the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Lugnuts and Betty Logan:Thanks for your support. I don't know how to use AWB, and haven't registered for it. Is there someone who can make these changes for me? Thanks. — Hugh (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Looks ok to me. I would just get on with it. If people object you soon find out when they revert you, and then we can have the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- That sounds good to me. Maybe give it a full seven days here, incase anyone (stongly) objects, or has a better wording. Thanks for looking at it. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Probably just as quick to copy & paste that paragraph into each year, working backwards, changing the year as you go. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Untitled Avengers film
A request has been made to move Untitled Avengers film. The discussion can be seen here. Editors are invited to comment. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:AALERTS need some help on Community Wishlist Survey
Many of you use Article Alerts to get notified of discussions (PRODs and AfD in particular). However, due to our limit resources (one bot coder), not a whole lot of work can be done on Article Alerts to expand and maintain the bot. If the coder gets run over by a bus, then it's quite possible this tool would become unavailable in the future.
There's currently a proposal on the Community Wishlist Survey for the WMF to take over the project, and make it both more robust / less likely to crash / have better support for new features. But one of the main things is that with a full team behind Article Alerts, this could also be ported to other languages!
So if you make use of Article Alerts and want to keep using it and see it ported to other languages, please go and support the proposal. And advertise it to the other film projects in other languages too to let them know this exists, otherwise they might miss out on this feature! Thanks in advance! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Draft help requested
There is a draft that falls within this projects purview that could use some assistance with the content and editing. The discussion can be found here. Thank you for your input. Primefac (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Film
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 12:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Does the Re-release Matter?
I intend to nominate Dunkirk (2017 film) for GA, but I'm aware the film needs to be out of theatres to do so. According to Box Office Mojoi, it closed on 23 November, but on 1 December, they issued a re-release (presumably for the Oscars). Can I nominate the article, or does the re-release also prevent that from happening? Cognissonance (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Where does it state you can't nominate the article before it's out of theatres? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Lugnuts: I don't know, but I asked the same question here a month or so ago, and was told that the film needs to be out of theatres. They didn't remember where they read it either. I can recall it was a user I trusted, and said I would wait. Cognissonance (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think the criteria is specifically about being out of theaters. It is more about ensuring broad coverage, per Good Article criteria. For example, an unreleased film's article could not be a Good Article because it lacks coverage of arguably the most important part (for Wikipedia), the reception of the work, even if its production is very well-covered. Details of a film's re-release would be a small portion of the article body and not a big deal. However... I personally am not crazy about nominating films who will likely be covered more during awards season. The film may or may not win accolades, or the film may be written about more, meaning a potentially incomplete and unstable article. I admit I don't really do anything GA-related anymore, but I think it would be ideal to do this kind of nomination after all the awards are said and done for a given film. Most of everything will be settled by then, in terms of content and editing activity. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Erik - that makes sense, esp. with regards to the award season. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Lugnuts: I don't know, but I asked the same question here a month or so ago, and was told that the film needs to be out of theatres. They didn't remember where they read it either. I can recall it was a user I trusted, and said I would wait. Cognissonance (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- The article covers all the main aspects of the film, considering awards are more ancillary information. I wrote the Production section from the book The Making of Dunkirk, which makes me doubt there is much more to add. Stability is the only thing that worries me. I must admit, after so long, I'm impatient. Cognissonance (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- You don't have to listen to me. :) You could just go ahead with the nomination now and pay attention to additional coverage while the film is in the running and then nominate it as a Featured Article next year post-Oscars. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yep, go for the GA if you wish, and with the feedback and improvements to the article in the GA process, you can then push for a FA after the Oscars. The whole GA/FA does take a long time though. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Done, thanks for replying guys. I've never done a FA (from what I've seen, it's a pretty overwhelming process), but if you think it's good enough, I just might. For now I'll just brave the first hurdle. Cognissonance (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yep, go for the GA if you wish, and with the feedback and improvements to the article in the GA process, you can then push for a FA after the Oscars. The whole GA/FA does take a long time though. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- You don't have to listen to me. :) You could just go ahead with the nomination now and pay attention to additional coverage while the film is in the running and then nominate it as a Featured Article next year post-Oscars. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- The article covers all the main aspects of the film, considering awards are more ancillary information. I wrote the Production section from the book The Making of Dunkirk, which makes me doubt there is much more to add. Stability is the only thing that worries me. I must admit, after so long, I'm impatient. Cognissonance (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
FYI Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
RfC: Use of the term "Soft reboot"
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Once Upon a Time (season 7)#Use of the term soft reboot. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
New Zealand films by decade
Hi. Please see this discussion at WP:CFD. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
PostTrak
I created a Wikipedia article for PostTrak since it is appearing more often in coverage about films. It is essentially a competitor to CinemaScore. (Created that article back in 2008... feeling quite old.) Leveraging both would be good for reporting audience response for a given film. I've also boldly updated MOS:FILM to mention PostTrak alongside CinemaScore. Any thoughts or comments about the article itself or general use, feel free to bring up here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Spider-Man: Homecoming
Regarding Spider-Man: Homecoming, there is a content dispute regarding the "See also" section. Please see the discussion here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The matter has now involved a 3RR report. Editors are invited to comment about the content dispute so we can resolve this already. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)