Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:55, 15 September 2014

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

Shortcuts WT:FILM WT:FILMS WT:MOVIES

WikiProject Film
General information ( v t e ) Main project page + talk → Discussion archives Style guidelines talk → Multimedia talk → Naming conventions talk → Copy-editing essentials talk Notability guidelines talk Announcements and open tasks talk → Article alerts → Cleanup listing → New articles talk → Nominations for deletion talk → Popular pages → Requests talk Spotlight talk Film portal talk Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization Coordinators talk Participants talk Project banner talk Project category talk
Departments Assessment talk → B-Class → Instructions Categorization talk Core talk Outreach talk Resources talk Review talk Spotlight talk → Spotlight cleanup listing Topic workshop talk
Task forces General topics Film awards talk Film festivals talk Film finance talk Filmmaking talk Silent films talk Genre Animated films talk Christian films talk Comic book films talk Documentary films talk Marvel Cinematic Universe talk Skydance Media talk War films talk Avant-garde and experimental films talk National and regional American cinema talk Argentine cinema talk Australian cinema talk Baltic cinema talk Belgian cinema talk British cinema talk Canadian cinema talk Chinese cinema talk French cinema talk German cinema talk Indian cinema talk Israeli cinema talk Italian cinema talk Japanese cinema talk Korean cinema talk Mexican cinema talk New Zealand cinema talk Nordic cinema talk Pakistani cinema talk Persian cinema talk Southeast Asian cinema talk Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk Spanish cinema talk Uruguayan cinema talk Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates banner DVD citation DVD liner notes citation infobox invite plot cleanup stub userbox

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, 85, 86

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

Wikiproject film template

For info, I've requested this change. Thanks. Lugnuts 13:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sigh. We've got a jobsworth admin (no surprise). Anyone against this change? Thanks. Lugnuts 18:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

First film article

Hi all: I've been editing for a while, but I haven't created an article for a film before, and I'm not sure of WP:FILM's style when it comes to these kinds of articles. If you have the time, could you check out The Battle of Waterloo (1913 film) and make sure I haven't done anything too horrendous? JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice work! Just had a quick check and made some very minor changes. Always great to see a new film article from the silent era. Thanks. Lugnuts 09:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Naming conventions for award categories

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts 14:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Reboot debate

An editor has put in a third opinion request at Talk:Planet of the Apes#"Reboot" dispute. I am leaving this note to make WikiProject Film editors aware of it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do we erase the schedule when awards are announced?

We shouldn't have to dig through old versions for the schedule content. here is an example of why these schedules are still useful.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Fictional character disambiguation

For fictional characters, what is the proper disambiguation? Character (character), Character (fictional character), Character (Show name character), Character (Show name)? I.e., I have recently created Crazy Eyes (character), but should it be Crazy Eyes (fictional character), Crazy Eyes (Orange Is the New Black character), or Crazy Eyes (Orange Is the New Black)? However, I have also created Frank Underwood (House of Cards), Titus Andronicus (character) and Malcolm (Macbeth). I am beginning to wonder what is correct.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If two articles exist about a fictional character with the same name, then I'd disambiguate it with the show title in the parenthesis . If a character is clearly a primary topic, however, I would just use "character". (If there's nothing else to disambiguate besides other characters, I'd put no disambiguation at all for the primary topic.) ₂₃W (talk · stalk) 18:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with 23W. Softlavender (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with the above, with the exception that if a character is from a series, the show title is sufficient disambiguation, and the word "character" is unnecessary . Otherwise, the word "character" is sufficient, and should not be expanded upon, unless there is more than one character article with that name, per WP:PRECISE. But the default should be "Character Name (Show Name)" if disambiguation is needed. Fortdj33 (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC))

23W, Softlavender, and Fortdj33. I am not talking about disambiguating two fictional charaters from each other (I have never seen that case). I am requesting clarification on how to disambiguate a fictional character from biographical articles with a shared name. What is the proper disambiguation in that case. I.e., I have created two pages that are at Character (character) (Crazy Eyes (character) and Titus Andronicus (character)) and two that are at Character (Show name) (Frank Underwood (House of Cards) and Malcolm (Macbeth)). Which way is correct for a character versus biographical subjects?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, I think that the default should be "Character Name (Show Name)" if disambiguation is needed, otherwise, the word "character" is sufficient. Therefore, of the examples you provided, the only one I would change is Crazy Eyes (character) to Crazy Eyes (Orange Is the New Black). Fortdj33 (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I would opt for Crazy Eyes (fictional character). Crazy Eyes (Orange Is the New Black) isn't really that helpful if you are not familiar with the name of the show (and sometimes characters appear in more than show) while Crazy Eyes (Orange Is the New Black character) is probably more precise than it needs to be (but would be a good disambiguator if different characters share a name). Betty Logan (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

As a note, nearly everywhere else (video games, TV shows, etc.), we use "character" if that's sufficient, and then use the work name if more specificity is needed; the idea is that if we're disambiguate it anyway, a user is never likely to arrive on that page on a single search, and thus the shorter dis. is fine as needed. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Crazy Eyes (fictional character) is unnecessary disambiguation, as the word "character" is sufficient to convey that it is fictional. But I agree that Crazy Eyes (Orange Is the New Black) is probably only needed, if there is more that one article about a character named Crazy Eyes. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

On reflection I agree with that. I'm not in favor of having "individual" disambiguators (i.e. name of book/show) unless further disambiguation is necessary. If we just use (character) that pretty much covers everything unless we need to disambiguate characters from each other. Betty Logan (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• If Crazy Eyes (character) is correct, that means I should move Frank Underwood (House of Cards) and Malcolm (Macbeth) to Frank Underwood (character) and Malcolm (character) no?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The article for Malcolm needs cleanup. It shouldn't have the entries for the given names and surnames since there is already Malcolm (given name). The only entries for those should be cases where the person is primarily referred to by that name only. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Article cleanup is a whole other issue. I am asking you what the page should be named.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I would leave the Frank Underwood and Malcolm articles alone, even if the disambiguation may technically be more precise than necessary. But since there aren't other character articles for either name, in this case "(character)" would also be acceptable. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure how helpful it is if you just tell me to leave everything alone. It seems to me that at least two of my articles need to be moved. It can't be the case that both Crazy Eyes (character) and Titus Andronicus (character) are properly named and Frank Underwood (House of Cards) and Malcolm (Macbeth) are properly named.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, the standard disambiguation for articles about characters from TV shows, is to use the name of the show as disambiguation. So personally, I think that Crazy Eyes (Orange Is the New Black) and Frank Underwood (House of Cards) are the most accurate titles for those articles. But as pointed out above, some see that as being too precise, since there are no other articles for characters with those names. If you agree, then titling them Crazy Eyes (character) and Frank Underwood (character) would be sufficient. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

List of film accents considered the worst at AfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts 18:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

How to deal with a minor character's description in a disambig page

Matt Ellis is a disambig page that includes the fictional POTUS from the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The character appeared Iron Man 3 but was also specifically name-checked in Captain America: The Winter Soldier. The current description implies he was a character in only the former film, but this is required because the actor only portrayed the character onscreen in that film. We can't say "portrayed by William Sadler in the Marvel Cinematic Universe" since assuming he will not only appear in future movies but be portrayed by the same actor would violate WP:CRYSTAL. However, currently the only article wiki-linked is not the actor but the film.

Should we drop the actor's name entirely and refer to President Ellis as "a fictional President of the United States of America in the Marvel Cinematic Universe"? It seems to me like if we aren't wikilinking the actor's name there's no need to mention him, and mentioning the series in which the character appears seems like it might be more useful to readers, but I'm not sure. Thoughts?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering it's a disambiguation page to disambiguate between articles and there isn't actually an article about the character then why does he need to be mentioned at all on the disambiguation page? Betty Logan (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Betty is correct. WP:DAB pages are not list articles. Not every person, place or thing that has the same name belongs on a DAB page. Having said that the description on a DAB page is also to be kept brief and succinct I would be inclined to use your phrase in quotes except I would shorten it to "a fictional President of the US in the MCU". There is no need to mention the actor(s) at all. MarnetteD|Talk 19:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed renaming of Christmas films categories

Just an FYI that it has been proposed that Category:Christmas films and Category:American Christmas films be renamed to Category:Films featuring Christmas and Category:American films featuring Christmas respectively, for additional clarity. Those wishing to offer opinions can find the discussions here. Cheers! ...or would that be Merry Christmas? DonIago (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Ho, ho, ho. Lugnuts 13:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Look into a bot's function

I was hoping someone with bot knowledge could investigate Theo's Little Bot's Task 22 (to populate data on film articles that utilize {{Rotten Tomatoes score}}). The bot has not made a positive contribution to a template subpage since April 17, 2014, with the few attempts at the end of August/early September 2014 producing the template's error message. I have personally created a template subpage for use on a film page (Guardians of the Galaxy (film)), in hopes of intially "kickstarting" the bot to come by, but soon realized that I would have to manually update it (as seen in the edit history). I have attempted to contact the bot's owner, Theopolisme, as well as Technical 13 as they have previously helped with the template/bot, but did not receive any answer from either. I'm hoping someone here can look into the bot's operation, the code, and how the task is being executed, to find out if the bot is the problem, or possibly Rotten Tomatoes' API has changed, preventing the bot from working as it needs to. This bot was really helpful for updating this data, and it will be a shame (though not the end of the world) if the task no longer works. Thanks in advance. Note: This was originally posted at the WP:VPT, as well as WP:BON. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

3 Ninjas (film) WP:Disambiguation matter

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:3 Ninjas#Any good reason why this article title is not covering the first film only?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

List of African film awards

Can anybody think of any more?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

List of FESPACO award winners. Obviously. Duh! Mr Thicko! etc, etc... :D Lugnuts 14:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Those entries should really be sourced in some manner that establishes their significance. DonIago (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Forthcoming

A couple of enthusiastic contributors asked me to drop by and explain why I had edited the lede on some articles about forthcoming film releases. Briefly, forthcoming is the established term - in all varieties of English - for an event which is imminent. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forthcoming for a formal definition. 'Upcoming' is a redundant neologism; a recently made-up word which does not do anything useful. Some readers will be able to work out what it means, of course, but it could confuse English learners or elders. Like all informal terms, it is not appropriate for use in an encyclopedia when a formal, readily understood word is already available. 'Hope that's helpful. John Snow II (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

wikt:upcoming: "Happening or appearing in the relatively near future." Since 1949 it has been a synonym for forthcoming. However, wikt:forthcoming: "Approaching or about to take place." Slight difference in meaning, the latter implying more imminence, which is the incorrect use for a film that is in production but has no confirmed release date. BOVINEBOY2008 22:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting detail there, thanks! But no, they are not two formal terms with slightly different meanings. 'Forthcoming' is a formal term with a clearly defined meaning in English dictionaries (all varieties of English) for centuries. 'Upcoming' is not a formally defined term in scholarly published dictionaries (sorry Wiktionary, you're not quite up there with the OED just yet), and until very recently was only used informally in US English. It would be a real headache to have to use a different term just for American films, so it makes a lot of sense to use the correct term throughout the Film project. John Snow II (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see what's wrong with using "upcoming". Just because "Forthcoming" has more history does not make "upcoming" not an English word. Is there a requirement that we only use words that are in the OED, because if so, I have not come across that suggestion in any policy or guideline. BOVINEBOY2008 23:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

According to the OED it is a term that is mainly confined to the US, but it is a word that has been in general usage for the last 50 years in American English. That said it does seem largely synonymous with "forthcoming" which is common to all varieties of English, so I don't really have any objections to the switch; however, if editors are resisting the switch then WP:RETAIN should be observed on articles about American films. We should probably consider renaming Category:Upcoming films though, since it is a category that applies across all films of all nationalities. Betty Logan (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

EVERY "upcoming" film I have seen in the Bollywood film space, and there are LOTS of them, mostly created as far as I can tell by editors from the Indian subcontinent speaking Indian British English, uses "upcoming" and not "forthcoming". Claims of usage only in the US will need actual sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming would make more sense, esp. with the Category:Upcoming films as mentioned above. Lugnuts 08:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

My vote = Upcoming; it's clear, precise, commonly used, and unmistakable in meaning. "Forthcoming" is too uncommon and abstruse and has too many alternate meanings, as in someone not being "forthcoming" with something -- i.e., being stingy or withholding. Softlavender (talk)

I am finding that "upcoming film" is far more common than "forthcoming film". The former has 24,500 results in Google News where the latter has 864 results. In general (on Google with domain-specific search operators), Variety has 1,030 vs. 5, The Hollywood Reporter has 3,500 vs. 435, Los Angeles Times has 6,630 vs. 518, but it does look like The New York Times has 2,370 for "upcoming film" vs. 3,530 for "forthcoming film". Looking at other highly-circulated newspapers, The Wall Street Journal has 2,670 vs. 105, and USA Today has 4,260 vs. 209. Clearly "upcoming film" is a very acceptable term in major periodicals, so I don't think there should be a systemic change. Since "forthcoming film" is acceptable, I am fine with having it in cases of WP:RETAIN, if it is an editor's personal preference in developing an article. Erik (talk | contrib) 12:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

To add on, I realize that I focused on U.S. sources. Here are how "upcoming film" vs. "forthcoming film" compares for non-U.S. sources: BBC News has 2,950 vs. 1,160, The Independent has 253 vs. 1,400. The Guardian has 488 vs. 1,160. The Times of India has 70,400 vs. 17,200. Sydney Morning Herald has 472 vs. 75. The Japan Times has 45 vs. 1. New Zealand Herald has 434 vs. 34. UK-based Empire magazine has 339 vs. 73 (I used -inurl:forum for article results.) It does seem like "forthcoming film" is more common than "upcoming film" in traditional British press, but other non-US sources seem to prefer "upcoming film" instead. Honestly, in all my years here, this is the first time I've seen someone take issue with the word "upcoming" used, and I really don't think that readers are being thrown off by it. So I stand by not doing a systemic change and being fine with use of "forthcoming" in cases of WP:RETAIN. Maybe I'll use it in British film articles. :) Erik (talk | contrib) 13:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Erik for the (as ever) stellar research. Per WP:ENGVAR and WP:STRONGNAT using "forthcoming" for UK films would seem to be acceptable. OTOH it should not replace "upcoming" in the article for US films for exactly the same reasons. MarnetteD|Talk 19:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming, is NOT generally understood in the UK, nor to 'oldies' like me, to whom it also has a very 'promotional' feel. MarnetteD, makes a sensible compromise proposal, but often how do we know whether films are UK (in terms of funding etc. … or in terms of 'source or spirit'). I don't any reason to not recommend the (slightly more formal), but internationally understood 'forthcoming', though, like Erik, I wouldn't get very upset unless EITHER word was IMPOSED as standard.Pincrete (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

If BBC News, The Independent, The Guardian and Empire magazine are using the term "Upcoming" to any extent, one would expect it is generally understood in the UK. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Raising Genius

I've proposed that the article Raising Genius on the 2004 film of the same name be deleted. Please contribute there if you have an opinion on this. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Boris Malagurski documentary films … neutral editors help required

I have been advised to post here about help being required on a number of pages, these relate to documentary filmmaker Boris Malagurski, whose films include The Weight of Chains. What you need to know, is that these are VERY controversial films about Kosovo and FYR - and US, NATO and EU involvement there. These film's main audience is on YouTube.

There have been constant neutrality problems on the article pages and frequent POV from both the pro and anti-Malagurski camps and quite a lot of vandalism from anonymous IPs, so a strong stomach and a very discriminating commitment to neutrality would be an advantage. I'm not watching this page, so editors are advised to just 'jump in' on the relevant talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs) 14:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The latest dispute on Talk:The Weight of Chains seems to be whether a Vice article is an promotional blurb or a professional review. It could probably use more input. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy

I have submitted the article Not My Life for a featured article candidacy here. The article deals with a documentary film about human trafficking. Any constructive comments you are willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:American films

This category (among others) bears a hatnote indicating that all articles about American films are to be categorized within it. Is that still the case? If so I'd be happy to run it through AWB and add the category where necessary. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, this is still the case. I mistakenly removed it from a few articles, and Lugnuts explained to me that it's non-diffusing. That was a little while ago, but it seems as though there's still consensus for it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. I ask only because I started using AWB on some articles earlier, and I was surprised to see that a lot of them didn't have it when I was expecting they would. I'll go ahead and see what I can do with it, then. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop. It is Misplaced Pages-wide general principal that parent cats should not be added to articles which already have child cats. Noone has overturned that as far as I have heard, so this AWB action needs to be stopped. BMK (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I don't know what Peter Noone has to do with Misplaced Pages policy, but the category itself says that it is non-diffusing. WP:FILMCAT seems to indicate that Category:American documentary films is sufficient and Category:American films is not necessary. This should either be changed to match Category:American films or the category should not be marked as non-diffusing. In any event, mass-reverting someone's good-faith edits that are backed by policy is rather disruptive. Using rollback to do so is especially dispruptive, and I'm tempted to bring this to AN/I to have your rollback rights revoked. You need to stop immediately. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh stuff it, don't try to threaten me with "disruption", I'm not a fucking newbie, I've been here years longer than you and have 20 times more edits. It's much more likely that the editor who misuses AWB will have their AWB rights revoked then that I will have my rollback rights removed for upholding, with notice, a basic categorization principle -- that parent cats should not be added to articles with child cats.

If someone wants to explain to me why the action of adding Category:American films to articles which already have Category:American Western (genre) films is an exception to that principle, I'm all ears. BMK (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• WikiProject Film talk pages