Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Filmmaking task force/Archive 2

Film Advertising / Marketing

I was hoping to find a wikiproject to adopt the Category:Film advertising material category and related articles for a major overhaul, cleanup, reorganization, etc. For example, the movie poster category is (in my opinion) in need of a lot of work -- it seems like this category should be renamed/reorganized and it should be brought in line and categorized under film, filmmaking, etc.. The problem is that "Film Advertising" straddles two categories: Advertising and Film. Since the Filmmaking WikiProject covers film studio pages, I was curious if anyone thought it would be appropriate for all film marketing related articles could receive attention from this project? Any opinions, help, suggestions on this? -Jca2112 03:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why we couldn't do it - after all, marketing is usually considered a normal stage of filmmaking in the post-production/distribution end of things. Girolamo Savonarola 23:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate the reply. Anyone else interested in helping with this? -jca2112 20:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Film Lighting?!

I don't wish to overload this main discussion page, but this seems like a pretty huge deal - how is the issue of film lighting (which some would argue is what film is all about) addressed in wikipedia? There are articles about lighting in general, theatrical lighting, cinemtography, as well as specific entries for gaffers, 3-point lighting etc. But let's say a moviegoer sees a film with nice lighting and is curious about it - where should he go in wikipedia?
I think the majority is already written, it's more about information management and organization; perhaps all that's needed is a main article like lighting (filmmaking) with comprehensive linking. Maybe I just got it all wrong, or missed a big discussion somewhere? Binba 00:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What specific topics would you like to see covered? Girolamo Savonarola 04:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. I also think that the fine points of lighting, ie. tv or film could be addressed by professionals. This is a vastly complex subject, the least of which is to satisfy the technical requirements of the particular medium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.62.231 (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that many of the articles which already exist on the subject probably could be expanded upon considerably, it is difficult if not impossible to write an article explaining aesthetic choices and how to apply them. Why do poets choose a particular meter? Why do musicians use a particular key? What is beautiful cinematography? There's usually not much specific that can answer the question at large. For example, it can be mentioned that soft light generally is more flattering than hard light, but the particulars of each lighting setup of a film are so quirky, personal, and dictated by logistical factors that it's hard to create any rubric for their usage. Discussing the development of the technology and technique is probably a better way to approach the subjects. Otherwise, it tends to come down to a case-by-case basis. Girolamo Savonarola 04:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

CineVoter

File:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg

You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as Film.Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

Cbrown1023 00:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Motion Blur

It should be noted that the article concerning motion blur states that computer-animated movies have a fixed frame rate when rendering. This is not true as the file can be rendered at whatever framerate one wishes. Should the phrase be removed?

Okan170 15:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Okan170

Are you sure that this isn't a poorly phrased way of saying that renders must commit to a fixed frame rate, as compared to an unrendered model? Otherwise, I'm out of my depth. It might be worth discussing on the article's talk page, but if you feel bold enough, by all means correct the article! :) Girolamo Savonarola 00:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Printing-in process extensions

In my The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film) article, which is currently undergoing a peer review, I have included some information taken from an American Cinematographer article by Herb Lightman. The magazine article includes a reference to "printing-in process extensions". A suggestion was made to include a wikilink to this so anyone unfamiliar with the term would have a reference point. But I admit that I am not quite sure what Lightman meant. Here's the passage in question: "To visually enhance the size of this set, the camera was equipped with a 40 mm Panavision wide-angle lens and mounted at the opposite end of the stage, giving Crosby the ability to frame the scenes in his camera with extra space at the bottom and at either side. These areas were filled in later by printing-in process extensions of the set, doubling its size onscreen." I suspect this is just a fancy way of saying matte painting, so I wikilinked to that. But I may be completely wrong. Anybody have any guesses? Thanks!-Hal Raglan 03:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin needs reviewers over at FAC

Hello, I have self-nominated the Aaron Sorkin article over at FAC and would appreciate if y'all could review the article. It chronicles the rise of a Screenwriter, and how Screenwriters collaborate with filmmakers, and it's about one of the more popular Screenwriters of our day: Aaron Sorkin. Let me know what you guys think. I would appreciate it.-BiancaOfHell 04:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Subtitle (captioning) & Closed captioning

WikiProject Filmmaking is already a part of Subtitle (captioning), and so is WikiProject Deaf, so I added {{WikiProject Filmmaking}}, however, these two articles really should be merged. Maybe WikiProject Filmmaking and WikiProject Deaf can work together to merge them. Taric25 08:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

B movie FAR

B movie has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Upside-down filmographies

If you spot a filmography, or a list of awards, that is in reverse-chronological order, please either correct it to chronological order as per WP:LOW, or tag it with the template {{MOSLOW}}. This template looks like this:

+

Swish pan and streak

I've looked and looked and am pretty sure swish pan is the correct name for a stylized kind of panning sometimes used for scene transitions. Or maybe streak pan is the scene transition effect and swish pan is a kinder, gentler version. I think I saw a strange name written in some movie—maybe Bikini Carwash—where they made a lot of use of the effect and at one point froze the image and showed a title, like "This effect is called a …" then whatever it was: seems like it had a few Zs in it, like swishazzatti or something. Anybody know what I'm talking about? —EncMstr 03:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of names for it - I personally prefer "fast pan", as it is succinct. That being said, I don't see why this needs its own article. Girolamo Savonarola 23:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

William Monahan article under review at FAC

Hello. I recently self-nominated the article on the recent Academy Award winner for Best Adapted Screenplay, William Monahan at WP:FAC. Please read the article and comment, as well as copyedit if you wish. It's a fascinating read.-BillDeanCarter 20:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Scope

Does the scope of this project include marketing of films once made? --Lexein 15:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. See above. Girolamo Savonarola 12:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

equipment maker articles.

The article on Keystone Camera Company was removed from project filmaking as being out of scope, I presume because most Keystone cameras were aimed at the non-professional filmmaker. Now someone has proposed that the entire article be deleted (as not being notable). I don't have the references to add to that article, and wonder where to turn to for assistance in improving the article, and demonsrating the firms importance.cmacd 12:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I honestly can't remember my reasoning for removing it, so I've restored the template. I also support this article not being deleted, but have discussed it on the article talk page. Girolamo Savonarola 12:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I made some effort to improve quality scale linked to by the project box, and to list the categories that we use that are not in the standard list. One consequence of this is now that Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking/Assessment#Quality scale is complete, but Category:Filmmaking articles by quality is not. Is there a good solution? I guess the extra information could be duplicated (seems a recipe for future divergence), or a {{Filmmaking grading scheme}} could be used instead of {{Grading scheme}} (but is that a waste?). Suggestions?

Either way, the WP 1.0 bot doesn't support nonstandard categories, so they just aren't going to show up in the statistics anytime soon. jhawkinson 04:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

When I created the page, I mainly was cutting and pasting from other articles and doing some copy editing as needed. I suppose that these categories slipped my mind - they're non-standard because they are purely administrative. I felt that tags with the ??? in the class assessment space would suggest that they needed to be assessed. Although these pages clearly don't, it helps to keep it clear and also allows for some categorization along common grounds. So Template and List should be quite easy. NA usually is used for project pages, redirects, and other miscellany. Although these could each be sorted into their own classes. There's no intention of using these for statistical purposes, only organizational. Girolamo Savonarola 14:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Scope limited to MP?

Is it intentional that the Scope section fails to address whether still photography articles are in the scope of WikiProject Filmmaking? Actually, the words "still" and "MP" don't even appear on the project page (and the word "motion" does not meaningfully). I'd think this should be clear.

I was surprised to notice that some articles about concepts in still photography with no discussion of their mutations into MP are tagged (like Contact print, which has absolutely nothing about MP, and obviously should). jhawkinson 13:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we have no intentions of encroaching on purely still-based concepts, although articles which are applicable to both, like contact print, have been tagged. One of my first priorities when the group was getting started was to tag everything asap so as to get a feel for the size and scale of the project. Being as we're just above 1000 articles, there is plenty that needs work. Girolamo Savonarola 14:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder... (The entire subject of filmmaking and motion pictures)

Motion pictures is an extremely advanced form of communication. To make a motion picture requires at least 20 different disciplines. Therefore, writing articles on all aspects of filmmaking will be a huge task. ~~~~ Robert Elliott, August 18, 2007 Instructor, Wikiversity Film School. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robert Elliott (talk • contribs) 01:00, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Matte painting

There is an ANI report regarding this article. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Article review

One of this WikiProject's Good Articles, Silent Film, has been nominated for Good Article review. Everyone is invited to contribute to the discussion concerning this article's GA status there. Drewcifer 03:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed PROJECT MERGE into WikiProject Films

Having been mulling over many organizational issues for several months now, I've raised a proposal at WP Films for expanding the scope of the Films project to cover all aspects of Films and Filmmaking. What this would mean is that the Filmmaking project would remain largely intact and would move to become a Task Force of WikiProject Films. Our proposed task force would retain our own assessment statistics through a task force parameter in the {{Film}} banner, and most of our other pages and templates would not be fundamentally changes. Additionally, we would be more tightly integrated with the Films project, which will make for more editors able to help us out and join in the discussions.

If anyone has any questions, comments, concerns, or objections, please raise them. Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola 01:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• No objections here, it sounds like a good idea. -Fadookie ^Talk 01:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah, that sounds like a good idea :) Black Mesa 07:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Ultimately the issues arising from the two topics will converge, merging is a good idea. --OldCommentator 22:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Some articles I have worked on have been an the edge between the two topics so a merger would probaly reduce enthropy. cmacd 12:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree and mildly object to the proposed merger: Filmmaking is about making films and film production. Films is about the films themselves. User:Pedant 23:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, but that is the point - we are looking into expanding the scope of the WP Films project to cover all aspects of film, not just the films themselves. Much like MilHist. I believe that the proposal linked above makes it much clearer. Girolamo Savonarola 23:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• G, I'd have to be in favor of it, with a caution. You designed Project Filmmaking to be a specialized and focused and the articles we've been working on require a specific expertise that may not necessarily be present in the other groups. There is also a concern that the more technical and specific articles may get lost within the larger scope of project film. Then again, there is nothing wrong with getting more editors working on an project to improve the coverage of both projects a little better. I feel remiss that I have fallen into busy times in my non-wikipedia existence and I have not been active in some time. Perhaps there can be a sub group of technical articles within the larger project film? All the best, LACameraman 04:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with your caution, as it was the reason why this project was started, but I have become dubious as to the effectiveness - users will edit what they will, and any sort of group will increase vigilance against errors. And just to assure you, the actual working process of this project is not going to disappear - we are merely transforming from a WikiProject to a task force, not dissolving entirely. Girolamo Savonarola 06:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Understood. Then I'm all for it. All the best LACameraman 16:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• I believe that the total merger of video and film items was too much as it is, so I'm not going to object to this merger, but just point out that each merger removes specific details that are more encyclopedic than the generalities that result from such mergers. --tonsofpcs _(Talk) 15:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit confused by what you mean. We're not merging any articles - this is a WikiProject merge. Girolamo Savonarola 16:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, this is a project merge, a merger of people with seemingly similar ideas. It leads to multiple users with different ideas fighting over which one is more true in the project's goal set and with two different views in the goal set, it leads to one becoming predominant and the other not being represented at all. --tonsofpcs _(Talk) 13:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't see how that stands to reason. There are many other WikiProjects with large scopes, such as WikiProject Military history and WikiProject Biography which were formed from the merging of several other projects in order to create a unified project covering an entire field. We will still exist as a task force and have responsibility for forming process such as style guidelines for the articles within our purview. And neither group has exclusivity conditions - any editor is free to comment on both article and project-wide issues, so there will be no difference in how discussions are carried out. And nothing's ever stopped WP Films editors from working on Filmmaking articles in the past, either. (Or vice versa.) Girolamo Savonarola 18:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • an example might be wikiproject:ships' insistence on labelling ships as USS this and HMS that, which were never, ever USS or HMS. And then because it is a 'project policy', no editor can correct what is certainly and clearly a mistake without weeks of discussion and repetition with dozens of editors. User:Pedant 00:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be a project problem - not a project merge or project vs. task force problem. And that's also why we'd still exist as a task force - we'd have the autonomy and influence to be able to set the appropriate style guidelines for particular classes of articles that fall under our purview. At the moment the style guidelines only cover films, so any decisions regarding non-film articles would primarily defer to the appropriate task force, especially when it's a non-title task force. Much like the Weaponry task force of WP MilHist. Girolamo Savonarola 00:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)