Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:05, 17 June 2010

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 WikiProject Film and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? 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, 84, 85, 86Auto-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, 85, 86

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

35 mm film's FAR

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamerPro64 (talk • contribs) 17:51, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Requested parameters for Indian films

Hi. Have a look at Mooga Manasulu. This is a common feature in Indian film articles in that people list the crew in the article because the infobox does not cater for certain requirements. In Indian films, Choreographers, playback singers and art directors in particular are extremely important. I am led to believe that they considerable influence on the films in how they look and sound. Could you please add three new parameters to the infoboxes. Choreographers, Art_director and Playback_singers. Once added clean up can begin removing these ~"crew" sections from the articles. Dr. Blofeld 09:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Dr. B - good to see you round these parts ;). What about an infobox just for Indian films - I believe there are specific infoboxes for Korean films, for example. Lugnuts (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You too! Mr. Onguard! Well seems as only three paramters would be required we may as well keep this infobox. The paramters though would not be compulsory so people can leave them out if they want and use them if really necessary. I know that for western films occaisonally art director is useful to mention.. But for Indian films the three I mentioned I think are important. If there is support for an Infox Indian film with specifications then I'd support that. It could be made to also cater for box office takings in rupees/crores etc with set programming. Dr. Blofeld 14:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Those parameters could either be added to infobox film (as some other countries' films could also use them), or Indian films could have their own separate infobox similar to the Korean or Chinese film. I would prefer to see the parameters added to infobox film, with instructions specifying what types of film articles should include them. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I am preparing many pages about Telugu films. I think the infobox films is not sufficient and thereby forcing us to leave some important contributors credited for the success of these films like playback singers and art directors. There should some method to include them in the infobox. Because the guidelines does not permit us to keep the cast and credits in the main articles. A separate infobox for Indian films is welcome.Dr. Rajasekhar A. 11:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion for Aladdin (1992 film)

There is a discussion here about moving the article to another title. This is a GA-class article, additional opinions are welcome. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Casting rumors

Sometimes I see that casting rumors are in film articles that are already been deemed not true or true. So would this be adequate to add, "Jennifer Aniston was once rumored to be in the cast of Scream 4". Since Aniston is a A-list celeb, is such verbiage acceptable (while of course sourced)? Or is there no point to add something this inconsequential? Mike Allen 15:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think rumours such as that add nothing of value to a film article. Even if they have sources (most of the time they don't), the vast majority of those sources will not be of the RS type (basically blogs and tabloids). Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Big Bird, in most cases only actual casting are notable (for example: "X" was cast in the role but was replaced by "Y").--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion regarding filmographies

There is currently a discussion at WP:Village pump (policy)#The use of colors in filmographies on the color of filmography table headers. Please join in that discussion if you so wish.  Chickenmonkey  23:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Non-English posters

Ok so what poster do we use for a non-English film? The poster I am talking about is from the film Dogtooth, which is a Greek film called Kynodontas. The original Greek poster has just "Kynodontas", while the new English poster has "Dogtooth". I replaced it with the English title poster, since that's the name the article uses. A user did not like that I changed the poster and cited the Template:Infobox, "Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox". I would think a poster that is written in the English language should be used for the English Misplaced Pages and for the Greek Misplaced Pages, the original poster. Right? Mike Allen 01:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it was common practice to use the poster from the original theatrical release - certainly the case for every film article I've been involved in editing. decltype (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If it is available, I think the original language poster should be used, as it is the actual theatrical release. If the English one is significantly different, it might be justifiable to include it later in the article, but the English one should not take precedence just because it is in English (even if the article title is in English). This is the same with foreign language novels, and anime/manga series. The original language is generally preferred, if available, as it is the actual original poster, cover, etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You are correct MikeAllen. Consensus was reached long ago that a films original poster (no matter what the language) should go in the infobox. You might want to direct the editor who removed to this discussion so that they can understand why you put it in to begin with and why you should put it back in eventually. MarnetteD | Talk 11:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

So should the poster be the rather plain wave form, or the one of the girl in the swimming pool? BTW - the film is amazing - go see it! Lugnuts (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If it can be determined which came first or was most widely used, then that one, else I'd probably go with the girl in the pool though the wave seems unusual for a film poster. Best of all would be if there were reliable sources explaining the drastic changes between the two :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the one with the pool the festival poster? I was under the impression that festival posters could be used more like DVD covers, as a second choice when nothing else is available. Otherwise we would have to change many posters for films which premiered at festivals. And I too prefer the Greek poster because it's more memorable than the alternatives. Smetanahue (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

On a similar question to this, when I was working on the article for Hard Boiled, I could not find a really good quality image of the Hong Kong poster. I assume to take this into consideration when uploading posters to to use the best quality poster you can find in general first before using an original language poster. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, quality should be taken into consideration. If the only images are too low quality to meet our basic standards, then I'd go with the original language home video release cover, if it is available. If neither is available, then English poster, and if it isn't available, English home media release cover. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? I'd still go with an English poster over a VHS or DVD image from the original country. Especially since posters generally look better than DVD covers and they aren't plastered with film ratings (like on UK DVDs) or just bad general art like on some old Hong Kong ones. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Posters are preferred over home media covers, original language posters are preferred over English translation posters and higher resolution images are preferred over low resolution ones. Sometimes those three guidelines will work against each other, hence WP:IAR exists. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this is accurate, but a Google Image search shows that the pool poster is used more often. Mike Allen 20:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Not if you search in Greek: If "theatrical release" excludes festival screenings a festival poster should be regarded just like any promotional poster. Like the ones that were released prior to the theatrical poster for Inglourious Basterds. Smetanahue (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

IMDB reliable source?

The Misplaced Pages:Notability (films) page states that, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I have a question about notability in regard to the popular Internet Movie Database. If a film is listed as forthcoming in the IMDB, can this source be considered reliable? I know that anyone can enroll in the IMDB for a fee and list his or her credentials and upcoming films whether these credentials or films are fantasy or not. Does the IMDB qualify as a reliable source, given that IMDB film listings and film information may have been put there by people who are not "independent of the subject"? Is the IMDB a reliable source, given that people can list information there that is in their own self-interest and not objective? Thanks in advance to the community for taking this under consideration. SCFilm29 (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

After "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", WP:NF goes on to state "... excluding the following: Trivial coverage, such as ... the Internet Movie Database." IMDb is usually considered fairly reliable for basic information (such as cast, etc) but it does not count as "significant coverage" to deem a topic notable. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

To expand further on IMDB being reliable, its considered "okay to use it to build out a cast list" but it is not really considered a reliable source in terms of actually citing it in the article. It is a convenience versus having to type up the credits from the film, and it is common to put a link to the IMDB page in the EL section, but nothing more. As Big Bird notes, inclusion there is considered trivial coverage, as IMDB pretty much lists any film. Significant coverage would includes multiple news reports (not including press releases), magazine articles, etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Again expanding, its considered "okay to use it to build out a cast list" of released films. IMDB has been found to be unrelieable when it comes to future films, often posting speculative information and rumors.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all for considering this topic. The reason I brought it up is that the Julie Dash article (Julie is a director) has for some time listed two movies, "Making Angles" and "The Seraporist," that the article says Julie is currently shooting and will be released soon (the article originally said the films would come out in 2007; now it says 2009). As a source, the Wiki editor cites the IMDB, but I wonder if the IMDB is reliable. It looks to me like these movies aren't going to be made, and I wonder if it's proper for Misplaced Pages to list them. It seems right to me to wait until a movie is actually shot and released to list it in Misplaced Pages, especially if the movie is an indie and funding is precarious. SCFilm29 (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's a indie film, it's a good chance that someone associated with production, maybe even Julie herself, added it to IMDb. Especially if it's on IMDb Pro (and it is). Though it's still not good enough. Keep an eye out on IMDb news, it's a repository for third party news articles. Check to see if any of the notable and reliable sites have anything saying she is attached to either film. Mike Allen 23:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying these film titles should be removed from article, pending a better source than the IMDB? SCFilm29 (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Moonrunners

The article has the entire openning credits. Is that normal or even desirable? 203.35.135.136 (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the section. You're correct, it's not something that should be included in Misplaced Pages film articles. The infobox should list the major roles whereas a "Cast and crew" section can be created to describe other production and film crew in prose. Thanks for bringing this to our attention! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I figured that was the case. BTW, good call on the other changes to the page. Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Chinese nudity, problematic editing

Following repeated addition of unsourced/OR material to City Without Baseball by User:Tai kit and anonymous IPs, I have attempted to start a discussion at Talk:City Without Baseball. Before it becomes an edit war, I would appreciate any opinions or comments from uninvolved people, at the article talkpage. It affects other film articles too, but the recent activity has been on this one. As I've gone on a bit there, the issues in a nutshell are: unsourced claims about media coverage of nudity in the film, too much detailed description of genitals, too much info about other films that doesn't seem relevant in the article and, most importantly, a WP:BLP violation with details about the actor being ashamed of the size of his penis, and then quite pleased after all because it was comparatively big - unsourced.--BelovedFreak 09:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

OR and box office currencies

In Box Office Mojo's international section the revenues for a number of film markets are reported weekly in dollars, for example South Korea May 28–30, 2010. Above the chart the current exchange rate is shown between dollars and the local currency, which also is updated weekly and corresponds to the rate at the end of the reported week. Would it be considered original research if I multiplied the dollar numbers with the exchange rate to get the gross in the original currency? Or do I have to present the gross in dollars if I can't find any other source? Smetanahue (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:CALC, as a subsection of WP:OR, states "This policy allows routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources." Strictly speaking, your scenario would not be considered original research in that case. I would, however, always suggest first presenting the figures provided in a source and then (perhaps in parenthesis) presenting the approximate converted figure. Also make sure that you are using the conversion rate listed for that particular week rather than the current rate. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Need help determining copyright for old publicity still from Laurel and Hardy film "Babes in Toyland" (1934)

Hello,

I found a neat publicity still from the 1934 Laurel and Hardy film Babes in Toyland in a thrift store. I am trying to determine the copyright status of this, as it would add to its Misplaced Pages. Can someone please tell me how to research this to find out if this film and its advertising materials are public domain?

Thanks. JGKlein (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You can try leaving a question at WT:PD and see if someone more knowledgeable as an idea. Although the film is in the public domain, I don't think that related marketing items count. I could be mistaken though. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, you may get an answer at media copyright questions. I believe that a work published in 1934 is PD unless it was published with an explicit copyright notice. Even with such a notice, copyright would have to be renewed for it to be protected today. decltype (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion at P.O.W. The Escape

There is a proposal to move P.O.W. The Escape to Behind Enemy Lines (1986 film). Additional input would be welcome on the article's talk page. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)