WikiProject Films
General information ( v • d • e ) Main project page + talk  → Discussion archives Style guidelines talk  → Naming conventions talk Notability guidelines talk Announcements and open tasks talk  → Article alerts  → Cleanup listing  → New articles talk  → Nominations for deletion talk  → Popular pages  → Requests 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 Films based on books talk Future films talk Missing films talk Outreach talk Resources talk Review talk Spotlight talk Topic workshop talk
Task forces General topics Film awards talk Film festivals talk Filmmaking talk Genre Christian films talk War films talk National and regional American cinema talk Argentine cinema talk Australian cinema talk Baltic cinema talk British cinema talk Canadian cinema talk Chinese cinema talk French cinema talk German cinema talk Indian cinema talk Italian cinema talk Japanese cinema talk Korean cinema talk New Zealand cinema talk Nordic cinema talk Persian cinema talk Southeast Asian cinema talk Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk Spanish cinema talk
Templates banner DVD citation infobox plot cleanup stub userbox

Contents 1 page WAY to big 2 Updating list 3 How comprehensive should this list be? 4 Some lists to compile from 5 Film notability guidelines 6 Actors' filmography red links 7 new articles and stubs 8 Missing movies by country 9 list of films without article by film award

[edit] page WAY to big

Just looking at only one year, there's over 1000 titles you could add which have interlinking significance with directors and actors in Wikipedia. I think for this reason, the full list should be split by decade, and have a list of films for ever year. ie. each title would be Films in 1900s and that page would have links to each individual year 1900 in film, 1901 in film. This will also make it easier to update the movie release details in each individual year in film. This also allows the current list to be really bulked out for each year/decade. I've gone ahead and linked the titles but I don't want to tread on anyone's feet! Peter 07:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That the list would eventually get too long was my guess too. What "release details" are you reffering to? Apart from year, the rest of the information should point to notability (famous director, actor, awards, etc) to help determine a priority in creating articles. Hoverfish 08:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed what you did. The reason I put all films alphabetically in one decade is that if someone doesn't know the exact year, he/she would have a harder time finding a film by name in individual year lists. I'll think about it and let you know. Hoverfish 08:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If someone doesn't know the exact year, they can add it to the main page "uncategorised" or each decade has an "uncategorised". So if you know of a film made some time in the 60s, but not the exact year, just put it in 60s/uncategorised. I guess each decade doesn't have to be split into individual years like that, it depends how many films are notable. As I mentioned, even just one year can have 100s of titles added, which would make it easier to add to the individual year in film when the article is written. You could also have duplicate lists sorted by year, but also by director, genre or nationality. Peter 09:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If we are going to add all films ever made, it will become indeed long. I have found somewhere a guideline saying only notable films should be red-linked, but don't ask me where as I forgot it. Duplicate lists will create need for more work updating and controlling. I'd rather go along with one list only. Directors should have filmographies in their articles (many notable ones do), which we don't need to repeat here. Genre and nationality could be simply marked in abbreviated form (and unlinked) after each film, if needed. One good thing about listing in individual years is that the year-in-film link is not neede, which will take a lot of reduntant code away. Hoverfish 09:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I will assist you later today with the changes. Good work, by the way, and please keep the started articles in the new lists. Have to run :) Hoverfish 09:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the big list will be removed in favour of the individual lists. Not sure what you mean by keep the started articles in the new lists, I'm assuming it's what I've just mentioned then. I'll need to read the notability guidelines for a film as there are thousands of films but a lot of them may be too small to recognise unless it links with a listed director or actor/ess. Peter 09:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's ok, you are keeping them. I meant the links that turn blue. It will be a bit more complicated to keep track of started articles now, but the split is not avoidable. For the notability you'll have to wait until I find my way back in the maze. Hoverfish 16:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I found these instead. They could be equally enlightening: Wikipedia:Red link and Wikipedia:Notability. If I find the more specific one, I will add it below. Hoverfish 19:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have also posted in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines about some guidelines needed. One thing we should try to establish before all kinds of films start pouring in, is to mark clearly some notability factors, or the lists will only be useful as a monitor of started articles. I will write a guideline encouraging the updating of Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable films from these lists here. Hoverfish 20:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think the initial list was a good idea to have one list of Notable films. Otherwise there could be literally thousands of films, a lot being possibly not worth an article. IMDB for example has 6-10,000 titles or so for most individual years, some of these films possibly don't need a wikipedia article. I guess notability depends on a persons interests in era, director, movie genre, and how complete wikipedia should be. There does need to be some kind of label of "important" and "not so important". Peter 04:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the latest trend (after tons of work on stub sorting) is to mark importance of film articles. It's in the new Film Newsletter too. Surely personal interest is a factor, since we get input. I don't think it will be possible to make fixed rules, but surely some directors are more notable than others (could a director/actor priority list be defined somewhere? -hard but possible and most helpful). Note that Category:Filmographies is anything but complete. And surely genre will play a role. SF fans may want all SF titles mentioned and linked, cult films, etc. Yet, Wikipedia will be as complete as editors make it be. If someone starts some hundreds of hopeless stubs with only a line and infobox, it will look more complete but only until one clicks on some links. It's just that it will be one bit harder to define importance in red links, than in started articles. Genre will help if there is a careful use of it, but this may be hard to control. At best it can help to update from here the appropriate categories (List of cult films for example) with possible missing or misspelled red links. Hoverfish 09:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updating list

Just to be clear, if I find that a title on this list is misspelled or otherwise doesn't match the actual article, should I delete it from the list, or strike it out, or make a note? Thanks - Her Pegship 22:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If an article has existed for a while under another spelling, it helps to delete the line, with a short note in the edit summary. Your Pegship is very thorough in tidying up, but for any other editor, please make sure the mistakenly spelled title has no "what links here"'s (apart from this list) before deleting. Additionally, since you are most thorough in categorizing, stub sorting and all, you are the one who knows best when a marked started article can also be deleted. Thank you for your help here. Hoverfish 09:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How comprehensive should this list be?

I'm not sure how comprehensive this list is intended to be.... but please see Harry Carey :) TheMadBaron 15:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the wikipedia guidelines should be followed to make sure articles aren't created that have no use or a bunch of stub articles for movies. But if a movie is accessible, it does warrant all details about budget, box office, main actors/actresses, directors, writers, summary synopsis, posters/screen grabs. All Harry Carey titles in red have been added to the list(s) :). Peter 10:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why I included the "No importance" mention in the guidelines. We could use this list to filter out some. Hoverfish 17:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some lists to compile from

Here's some actors/directors that have a few films in their filmography that are either redlinked or could possibly be further linked. Maybe cross them off as they're added... Peter 11:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I will indent the ones I plan to cover soon. I also have a waiting list of prominents to check. One thing: if a different date is given in amg than imdb, I have observed a huge percent of our articles align it with imdb. So unless proven wrong, let's follow imdb when in doubt. I hope we don't have to start a page for this list soon. From what I've seen around, this is a small fragment. Hoverfish 15:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is only a random brose of actors/directors to see some red/unlinked films. There are plenty more. I almost think a list like this might be useful to know what bases have been covered when adding red links to the decade lists. Otherwise people will be adding blindly. At least from these pages we know for sure that they're being linked. We can also make sure the link spelling is the same. Peter 22:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Alan Alda Bette Davis Bob Hope Bud Abbott Burt Reynolds Cesar Romero Charles Rocket Cloris Leachman Conrad Nagel

David Niven Diane Keaton Don Ameche Edmond O'Brien Ellen Burstyn Erich von Stroheim Ernest Borgnine Gene Kelly George Lazenby

Glenda Jackson Helen Hayes Jack Lemmon James Coburn John Gielgud John Huston Jonathan Demme Karl Malden Kevin Costner

Liza Minnelli Martin Landau Mary Pickford Meryl Streep Michael Douglas Paul Hogan Peter Finch Philip Seymour Hoffman Red Buttons

Richard Attenborough Robert Shaw (actor) Roberto Benigni Robin Williams Russell Crowe Sammy Davis, Jr. Sean Penn Shelley Winters Thelma Todd

Timothy Dalton William Holden ZaSu Pitts

• List of International Emmy winners (all these films should be linked)
• Academy Award for Writing Original Screenplay
• Academy Award for Writing Adapted Screenplay
• Academy Award for Best Art Direction
• Academy Award for Costume Design
• Academy Award for Documentary Feature
• Academy Award for Visual Effects
• Academy Award for Sound

[edit] Film notability guidelines

There was this article about film notability but is now considered not followed. Might be of interest... Wikipedia:Notability (films). Peter 11:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting but I can see why it got deprecated. The most useful I found is the link to Wikipedia:Notability (people), which I find most enlightening. So, thanks for the link. Hoverfish 19:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actors' filmography red links

In actors' filmographies, some films are given as red links, where the actor is only cameo (or sings a song in the end). Such cases may qualify the films for Collection Criteria, but IMO they should not be red linked in the filmography. It may be subjective as to where the role is important enough, but I think in most cases it is obvious. If in doubt we could let it red and include it here with a note "in the cast" instead of "starring". It could be a hint for someone better informed to filter the list. Hoverfish 19:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In the names I removed from the list above as "done", I have not included such films, although I have not removed the links from the filmographies. If this is any problem, I could go back and include them. Hoverfish 19:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new articles and stubs

You could start a lot of these articles with a simple stub line, but you'd probably want to encourage a bigger write-up than that. So some of the newly created movies from these lists might just end up being stubs, so I think they should either stay in the list crossed out, or create a secondary list of films started from these lists that are still stubs. Peter 23:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There are stub categories through which film stubs are monitored, plus a number of members actively monitoring and assessing. From a recent event I am following (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Finnish films), my feeling is some film guidelines may become defined soon and it would be good to wait for them before we start any number of stubs. Hoverfish 00:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify this, there are a couple of movies I would love to adopt. But I don't have time to write a full writeup. Is it bad if I let it go as a stub for a week or so, and then come back to write the full plot synopsis etc.? There are two movies I have on video and really would like to write about. I know that stubs are not favored, but I was wondering if the practice for movies is more stringent.--Silverscreen 15:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I'll just wing it. I just added an article on Killers From Space, one of the worst movies ever made and one of my favorites.--Silverscreen 01:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with starting some stubs, especially when you plan to develop them. I just wrote this guideline to avoid the misunderstanding that all the films of this list need a stub and users start creating them massively. Hoverfish 08:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying.--Silverscreen 15:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing movies by country

I've just played around with the movies by country (Australia) a bit and I think there's just too many films. The notability and relevance of films really needs to be noted somehow. It feels as though these lists might be OK for each country film list (such as List of Australian films but they're too messy and have a lot of irrelevant content and a lot of work required. Any thoughts? I think part of these lists once compiled and condensed could still be transferred over to the films by decade. It definately feels like it's steering away from the simplicity of the original list(s) by year/decade. Peter 05:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we compile a list of important Australian directors and actors? Then we can mark all films which are an important part of their filmography (I mean, if an important actor just appears cameo or is 20th down the cast, it shouldn't be mentioned as a primary factor). Any awards and nominations (even in local festivals), international film festival participations, Australian top-grossing factor could be of help. Films that belong to a series of several ones, could also be a factor. Yes, it's a big work and since we are just a handful of editors focusing mainly in the lists, we shouldn't attempt to do all and everything at once. E.S.Blofeld has created a broad framework, which, given time, will become very useful. Yet for now, let's work with some priorities in mind. IMO, since this is the English Wikipedia, we should check for all missing notable English language films first. Then we can check for any foreign films that have attained international notability (my focus is on awards for it mostly, but there may be other factors too). In the meanwhile, some other users may work on particular countries. Maybe E.S.Blofeld could contact wikipedians from these countries to help there. Maybe they could provide us with a list of their notable films and we could cross them with ours.

Just yesterday I went through the series of Cinema of (European country) and in some are well-filtered list of notable films. Some have the lists in the main article, some separately. I am positive it's more practical to have a complementary series of articles-lists, such as "List of notable Australian films" (or tmake sure we define up on the top very clearly in "List of Australian films" that the list contains only the most notable films). Also to avoid further arguments from users who think such lists should be left to categories, we should enrich the lists with informative text in the lead section and notes after each entry. Hoverfish 09:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. This could then lead to having films by broad genre also, if they could be defined (ie. drama, thriller, comedy, horror, documentary). I think those notability points should be documented and listed on the main page, I think they're a good starting point for films (ie. The film has actors/directors/writers that are in a notable list, awards have been won or nominated). I guess another point is films that have a lot of information about them should have an article simply because they are popular enough to have information written from many verifiable sources. Older films are more difficult unless their historically significant. Peter 11:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, lots of info from acceptable sources we can reference, some professional critics that say it was important. If you have any good cinema history book from someone with a degree in cinema and printed by a reputable edition, it could also justify notability. Hoverfish 13:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] list of films without article by film award

I've added a few pages for missing films that have been nominated or won awards. I would assume that these have a high importance as they have been acknowledged as good (or bad) films and the lists could also be used to compile further information on years in film pages for each major award. Because there are so many different film awards, some of these pages may be merged as there might be none or very few missing titles in some awards. Peter 10:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been compiling awarded films in the decades and marking them for awards. Yes, in this case we can merge awarded/nominated films. But if we create another listing only for missing awarded films, then we should change the names of the lists (ie. "Awarded/nominated films without an article" and "Non-awarded/nominated films without an article"), but we should sort both lists by decades, IMO. By the way, when we have the awarded ready, it can move or be copied to the missing notable films page. Hoverfish 12:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It does complicate things I know! I don't want to create more mountains of things to do but I think awarded films definitely steer the list into getting articles created that have some kind of notability above any other film. The list once compiled can then be moved or copied to the main decade lists. Again I don't want to be treading on anyones toes or starting something that is irrelevant or steering away from the initial goal of the project. Peter 13:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)