Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/List and navigation management

Red links and title formatting in lists entries

It is my opinion and the opinion of many more editors, that lists full of red links are not advisable. The List of Austrian films contains an overwhelming majority of red link. I think this should be avoided. I take the List of Thai films as a good example of moderate use of red links, whereas most other articles are left unlinked. Don't forget that we have a project page for lists of films without articles by country. My idea is to link to this page in section "See also", so that if editors want to pick a red link to start an article, they can do it there. Also I think we should limit the use of bold text in titles. IMO if bold must be used, it should only be for the title as per article, while aka names and translations should be in normal text. Hoverfish Talk 08:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello new page! I agree that red links should be hidden for the time being and think bold text should be limited to the titles in the tables ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 11:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Size of lists and problems with splitting

The List of Australian films (and it's not the only one) has been split to pages of decades and individual years. This means that when one tries to do a maintenance round and see if the "overall list" is properly updated from, say, Category:Australian films, one has to keep tens of tabs open and edit them all separately and simultaneously. This seriously slows down the work and can discourage one to even do proper maintance. Someone from outside trying to do some checking will have much of the same problem. I suggest condencing to decades. I have checked for size and it's not going to be too bad, at least until the 2000s. I also did some sampling in titles without an article and found several films with an imdb rating of around 4 (example: imdb), with no awards or nominations, plus going to the uncreated page and checking for "what links here" only one had a red link in the screenwriter's filmography. Some critical prunning would help. We can have huge dumps (actually we do have several) in the lists of films without article, and we could give a "see also" link to each county's dump. We can also define in the lead section that it is "a list of most notable Australian films". I think if we use this key phrase in all the lists' lead sections, we will avoid oversize lists and at the same time we will have more "top" and useful lists. Hoverfish Talk 19:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

columns

As I was informed by Hoverfish, it was decided to agree on 5 columns in the film lists and that I shall tell my opinion, because I introduced a sixth column "Producer" in the List of Austrian films today (as I didnt know of the agreement until now - but thanks for the early information - I really just started the Producer-column-thing). So my opinion is, that it is a good idea to have a fifth column "notes", because there can also be mentioned the producing companies. The question is only, if it makes sense to call a column "notes" when there is always the producing company mentioned - because I really intend to mention the producing company of the austrian films, because I think a insight into the film economy (what are the biggest/most productive companies, are there any favours remarkable etc...) is necessary as well as to know which people worked on the movies. It always comes up to the producing companies, what kind of films get realised and which not.

But a column for notes seems also to be necessary, and there wouldnt be space for 6 columns. So a "notes"-column is probably the only senseful decision, even if I always mention the producing company.

But now another question: How do you handle the film-titles? I mean, it doesnt seem that you mention the english titles of all the french movies - and I guess, at least some of them were also screened in the USA/GB etc. and so there must be english titles. So dont you mention both the english title (if existing) and the original title? -- Otto Normalverbraucher 23:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I forgot something: How many films should be mentioned for every year? "Sir Blofeld" told me once I should add "as much as possible" (that was probably not serious, I'm not sure :-)) However, today I started to mention all (cinema-)films which are produced in Austria or in cooperation with an austrian company every year (that is about 20 to 25 every year). So is this OK or should I mention less. In my opinion, it would really don't hurt anyone to mention all known movies (if they started at least in cinemas) - because it is practically not possible to get an overview anywhere else, and why shouldnt it be possible in Wikipedia? -- Otto Normalverbraucher 23:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me introduce you to the story of this "agreement" and to the various editors working on the new system. Before Blofeld started the tabled lists of films by country, there were some simple lists for some countries. Examples from this time are the List of Italian films and List of Greek films, with release year in parenthesis and sometimes director. Blofeld then introduced columns for Year/ Title/ Dirctor/ Actors/ Date release, which after some discussion became as you found it in the Austrian list. However, the editors working on the lists (User:Aussiepete (Australian), User:Shawn in Montreal (Canadian), User:Wisekwai (Thailand), along with me (France and others) and Blofeld (Argentine and others), we decided to change Notability to Notes and to remove the year and release date from column. So this is our latest form and a lot of work has been done and continues to put them all in this format and to develop them further. No one has introduced producer in any film lists yet (by country or other). The only place where a discussion about producing company is left midway (without any changes implemented) is in the film infobox talk, where the much less important "distributor" is mentioned instead (!). Please, keep also in mind, that when we mention "Producer", we usually refer to the person(s), not the company. I think you are talking about "Studio", but correct me if I am wrong. I have looked into some archives in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films to see when we last discussed the issue of producer/studio, but need to look deeper in the past. The issue is not whether the information is worth noting or not, but how we conventionally present film info. I also think studio is an important thing, if we have articles on the various studios. In any case, the last column can contain it, and if you enter studio in all the films, we could rename the last column in "Studio / Notes", for the Austrian list.

Comment The producer section should definately be in notes in the end column which should be renamed )just for Austria which has all the studio details Notes/studio this should go in the end column in compliance with the other formats. And Otto I remember saying about add as many films as you can becuase the page was so dreadfully empty!! I mean most feature films which are worthy of an article not any 4 minute indepenent films that no one as heard of. If the film is worthy of an article hey add it!! We are lucky with the Austrian list as it can largely be copied from German wikipedia ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 18:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the number of films, Blofeld started with wanting to bring in every film mentioned in IMDb quite seriously, but then there was a row, and finally we have all agreed to bring in the "most notable" films. Now this can be somewhat subjective too, but it's up to each contributor to interpret it. You will notice the Greek list is strictly limited to the internationally well-known films, but the Australian list has gone to more lengths, although we may prune some loose ends soon. Anyway, I hope this helps and we get more opinions soon. Hoverfish Talk 13:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A quick note about this, essentially my work on the List of Australian films is a reformatting of the content available from the IMDb (with further titles to be added from various other sources listed in the resources page of the main article). My intention was, time permitting, to then go through and add all available encyclopedic details, sources, info etc to the tables of films, and from there, as mentioned above, prune back some of the really short or unknown or less notable films from the list completely. I don't think it is necessary to have all of these titles, some for instance are linked with others as part of a series or collection, some are minor directors or experimental films definitely not worthy of articles but I think borderline as to whether they deserve a listing. . Peter 05:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As it is still early days and country lists are in various stages of development flexibility will be needed in order to encourage folks and keep work moving ahead. It seems like we're agreed on the general formatting of the lists in table form, in five columns. This is good. Having a style established for others to follow and build upon is important. Otto has done a lot of work to make sure the studio is noted on the lists he's developed, which is something that hadn't been done before. And now he's agreed to move the studio info to the last column, which is encouraging. I think that fifth column can serve as a catch all, for whatever kind of information listmakers want to put in it: notes about awards, directorial or actor debuts; some lists even have IMDb links. — WiseKwai 17:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with WiseKwai. I had hoped studio would go in the notes column and yes it should really be notes not notablilty.

OK, I think thats a good idea to write the studio into the "notes"-column, and that this column is called "studio / notes" in the austrian list (and if someone else adds the studios in other country-lists, possibly there too). By the way: how is a "producing company" called in english - is it really only "studio"? because studio can also be the building/halls etc. where a film is produced - but not the whole company?

@ Blofeld: the german wikipedia list was also done by myself :-) But I'm not absolutely happy with the design and contents of it. But I can probably learn from the work here!

@ choice of the films: I intend to add every feature films - including films that are probably not really worth an article! (the [[ ]] can probably be removed at these films). But of course I dont add every "4-minute-film" - short films and independent films for special cinemas will not be part of the list - except for really notable "special"/short films, for example Virgil Widrichs oscar-nominated short film Copy Shop or the also numerous awarded short film Fast Film.

@ Hoverfish: As you said, it is not easy and it is of course subjective to decide which films are important and which not (for example: a big "flop" can also be interesting) Thats the experience I already made at the austrian film list in the german wikipedia! Of course, for countries with 100s of films every year, we have to pick out only the most important productions. But in the case of Austria we have in my opinion the possibility to add every feature film, because there are only 20 to 25 each year. In the silent era, the situation is different. At this time, even austria made more than 100 films each year - but only for a few years :) but in this case, not even the film history knows more than the half of the films produced that time ;)

and at least @ WiseKwai: I agree absolutely with you: The 5th column is the "flexible column" which can also serve for special wishes, if they come up ;-)

and by the way: my majour source until now wasnt the sometimes untrustfully imdb, but film history books (I read some of the most notable film history books for austrian films). The only thing to keep in mind is the difference between the year of production (which is mentioned in the film history books mostly) and the year of release (for.ex. imdb)! this should be stated in every list, that we mention only the year of release! -- Otto Normalverbraucher 21:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree about including all Austrian feature films and also that flops can often be (for some like me) much more interesting than tops. One thing we should be careful is where we red-link. Red links should represent only "encyclopedically missing articles", i.e. highly awarded films, world famous films, films culturally representative of a country's cinema etc. Most others should be delinked. I know red-white-red is very representavive of Austria, but here we'll have to add some black to it. Hoverfish Talk 22:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I will not red-link titles of uninteresting movies :-) thats a good decision, because I also dont like to link titles of films which should never have an article :) -- Otto Normalverbraucher 22:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

...but this is of course subjective too. Some dislinked titles could still be interesting for an article, and some of the linked titles will probably never have an article, though it would be very interesting. So the linking/not-linking of titles should not be seen as a definite judgement! -- Otto Normalverbraucher 23:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Too many external links

One thing I would like to bring to people attention is the seriously increasing number of external links now appearing in the list of films such as the Australian films. The page List of Australian films now has a directory of external sites which whilst being useful for finding out of Aussie films - will serve to direct users to other sites rather than staying at wikipedia. THis is also against WP:SPAM I dont see a problem with two or three links and several links to imdb but please no more than a few. I don't want to attract the wrong kind of attention unnecessarily. THanks and keep up the good work. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 18:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just glancing, and they all seem like useful, valid links and I don't see why they would cause a problem. Wikipedia isn't in competition for people's eyeballs like sites that depend on advertising. I agree that there are a lot of them, though, and perhaps ways should be looked at to narrow some of those down. For example, perhaps the film festival links could be put on an article or list that is dedicated to Film festivals in Australia. — WiseKwai 07:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would feel they are better suited in the Cinema of Australia article which has hardly any links ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 14:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think too that the links at the end of the article are good. I thought the problem was the imdb-links for nearly every film. -- Otto Normalverbraucher 18:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if there might be a way to have a notes and references section at the bottom of the lists page, so this way the links listed for each film just becomes a note and on the bottom of the page it can expand all the additional notes and details, links etc. This clears the notes column, moves the links to a more respectable place? Peter 05:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Copied discussion on wikifying missing links

This thing with the red links should be discussed by all of us who work on lists. I took them off the Australian list, but had in mind to run the list for famous ("needed") films and link them again. But I don't feel confident either way. This is why I think it should become a major discussion topic. Hoverfish Talk 15:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have got used to wikifying links automatically. Probably most are worthy of an article but there will be some which should only feature in the list and not have an article so many shouldn't possibly be linked. I too don't like to many red links but I really don't think we should shut every red link on every page down. Red links attract editors to try to fill in gaps and show what is missing even if its looks untidier and shows the weak areas of the project ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "SPECTRE"} 15:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

I guess its best when adding the missing films into the table titles from imdb to not wikify them until they are checked for notability. After al a red link does impose the idea that the film or actor must have an article when some certainly do not. I'll make a note of this when adding the CHinese films and Swedish films later. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "SPECTRE"} 15:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Actors and directors connect to more than one article, so red linking them helps to find in "what links here" of the unedited page, how many connections we have. But a film is just one item... either worth an article or not. The issue of notability and inclusion is still open. Don't think that because there is a silence lately, it's closed. And there are many who would would even AfD film articles for notability. Lists with massive red links is like waving a red cloth at the bull. Hoverfish Talk 15:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If the tables are empty with only titles then I agree it will attract the afd but if the lists are fully complete and notablity and details on the direcotrs actors etc are asserted no one can really complain about the missing titles -they just show what is missing. If there are articles on the actors and direcotrs which ar elinked in the table but no article on the film people will just see it is a missing article and hopefully encourage them to fill it in . It is cause for debate I agree as I too don't like to see too many red links either ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "SPECTRE"} 15:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Need for consensus on linking films without an article

(See above copied discussion)
As the films by country are being compiled lately, there arises the problem of red links present in the lists. I have to admit I am not sure what is preferable. Link all films and have lists full of red links, no links on films without an article, or some selective linking? Please, offer your opinion, so we can proceed in a way agreed by many editors. Hoverfish Talk 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Selecive linking only in cases of 1. films awarded by a major award, 2. films that are well-known world wide, 3. films that can be considered representative of a country's cinema. Hoverfish Talk 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Additional comment: Consideration must also be given to which title we link (English or foreign original).Hoverfish Talk 17:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • My thoughts on this point are that the English title should be the article title (as it is the English Wikipedia) but as foreign titles still get linked if English titles are unknown, all foreign titles should be created but just redirect to the English title. Peter 05:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Selective linking. This sounds like the best option, and will help prevent us from starting more articles that will most likely never surpass its stub status. The guidelines Hoverfish established sound like good criteria for determining which ones would be created later down the line. The only thing we can't control is editors not affiliated with the project who decide to create their own articles about no-name films which we have no control over. But by using selective linking, we're at least getting a larger control on the makeup of the lists. --Nehrams2020 17:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Selective linking. Having worked extensively to complete the List of missing Australian Films, I found it easiest to determine disambiguation pages, existing titles etc by actually linking and checking titles. I found also that titles were created over time and automatically linked. I think if all red links are there until further information is provided for each film, they can then be removed from the list or link removed upon determining the status of the film and what information is available and it's notability. Otherwise it could just as easily work the other way and have all films unlinked until further information is gathered, but this means that some existing articles may not end up getting linked and some articles or titles might start doubling up. Peter 05:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment: going by previous discussion about this issue, I really like the idea of keeping red links in the lists of films without articles (for reference and disambiguation and all reasons stated above) which keeps the main article clean and free of red links. This way just obviously notable award winning films or high grossing films can be red linked, all others are likely never to even have an article. Peter 05:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment This is why we have the project page for films without an article. There we (film gnomes) can do all the checking and developing. As for films with an article, they have to be linked in the main list. So is your opinion "complete linking" or "selective"? Hoverfish Talk 07:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about it and think selected titles should be linked. All other minor titles can be linked to from the missing articles page(s). As long as new titles being added can be easily tracked and checked to make sure they are also linked on the main list page. Peter 10:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Selective linking If only a few titles are missing just leave them red linked but if entire pages are majority red links like Australian and German films then black out the majority and leavejust a few which are the most notable linked ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 15:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Selective linking Per reasons already stated. — WiseKwai 15:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Selective linking - and in addition, would it be possible to make a note on those pages that whomever is adding a red link offer some reference where at least some information on it is available (i.e. AMG or IMDB or similar databases) I believe that would probably cover the concerns that the film had been awarded by a major award, it is well-known to some extent, and that it can be considered representative of a country's cinema. I recently removed several from the list of missing films because they were either hoaxes or there was nothing available on-line to verify that they actually existed or not. SkierRMH 22:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Very good idea. I'm doing this after Aussiepete introduced it in the lists. as for how to make guidelenes for the lists... Maybe at the top of the talk page and refer there in the lead section? Or directly in the article (a bit unusual)? Hoverfish Talk 22:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I was thinking of something like the AFC page's: "At least one published source for your information, such as a URL or a book title and author. If you do not list at least one source, your article will be declined." but modified appropriately. I don't know how many people adding to these pages actually look at the discussion page, that's the more logical place, but I don't think it would be seen; ergo in the lead section would probably be more useful. SkierRMH 10:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Selective linking - but this must not be seen as an irrevocable decision. If someone writes an article to an unlinked title, it should not be requested for deletion just because it was not linked in the list. If this is respected, there's no objection against the selecting. -- Otto Normalverbraucher 08:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There is no problem with creating articles that are not "red linked" (as per discussion here), or the problem may end up being debated in some individual articles. It has been established that "notable" films are any films that were ever screened and about which some reference can be found. It is only for the sake of not encouraging it by giving the impression that "here is an encyclopedically missing article". Hoverfish Talk 08:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Need to define what films should be included in the lists

Although I don't think we can (or should) find an exact formula for inclusion, all users concerned could try to define what is rather desirable and what should rather be kept off the lists. Having gone through the arguments given in the archived massive AfD of the lists and also having followed several threads of discussions on the issue, I feel it is important to define in the lead section of the lists some limiting criteria of inclusion. On the one hand this would help contributors decide how to best fill up the lists (there have been questions asked already), on the other we could prevent some very unimportant entries (the problem is already present in several lists). I suggest here some inclusion criteria. Please feel free to add your own or to debate them. Hoverfish Talk 22:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Films that have been awarded, or been nominated for awards.
2. Top grossing films, cult hits, highly rated films (IMDb, AMG ratings)
3. Films that have received good professional critics (found via Rotten Tomatoes or otherwise)
4. Films of directors who have been awarded or who can be considered fairly important (debated see below)
5. Films that can be considered representative of a country's cinema
6. Films from the filmographies of awarded or very famous actors (if the actor has a starring role in them) (see below)
7. Documentaries about significant historical events (debated see below)
8. Films with a prequel or sequel or part of a series (debated see below)
9. All films for which there is a valid article in Wikipedia (as the lists should also be our film articles' index) (debated see below)

I'm personally not interested in writing a list with all feature length films from Sweden. That would amount to over a thousand films and most of them wouldn't be interesting to the general audience. I think that categories, or imdb, is better for such purpose. But this is only my preference. Maybe someone wants to add all Swedish films to a list. If so, I won't revert them.

I have turned your bulleted list to a numbered list to comment on it. I agree with points: (1), (2) (this one is subjective, so I'll just focus on MY preferences, but will accept anyone to write about THEIR preferences if they have any notability), (3), NOT (4) (because a director may have spewed out dozens of films that are wholly unnotable), (5), (6) partially (even famous actors have made unnotable roles), and not the last three.

This is only what I personally am interested in writing about, I do not wish to dictate any guideline.

Fred-Chess 18:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Having knocked pretty much each suggestion, what other criteria could possibly be given to judging the importance or notability of a film article? Peter 08:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I guite agree with Fred Chess' points. Directors and actors filmographies should be checked for very unimportant films not worth listing. 7 and 8 should also be checked for notability/importance and as for 9 I still think we need them for indexing functionality, but I have seen several existing articles that aren't worth listing.

Thai film template

I notcied that WiseKwai has reduced the size template for Thai cinema. I actually like it smaller and looks better at the footer of articles and has the editing options bar on it but I feel it is perhaps just slightly too small. Looks much less bloated tbough. What does everyone think as I'd like a standard templating for each country rather than all different sizes appearing here and there ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 13:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was something I tried out after I noticed another editor changed {{CinemaofCanada}}. I inquired about it and found out that there is a standard template template, Template:Navigation, which has the edit, history and hide functions built in, and is, well, standard. I think the Thai film icon is too small on the present set up, but at least it is there. There is the option of Template:Navigation with image, but those work best on navigation templates with lots of text. I tried experimenting and it was too bloated. Anyway, if other folks like, I'd be happy to work at gradually migrating the other templates to whatever new standard is agreed upon. — WiseKwai 14:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd leave it at 16px to fit in the blue stripe, although for some flags it's a couple of px's too little. But it looks much more refined and is, well, standard. So I'm for it. However, I'd be glad if the list template (on the top-right) is made to look like the other counties, i.e. with a simple flag set to 30 px. Like this we have the series looking, well, posh (I say!). Hoverfish Talk 15:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Or (there should be an or), we could reduce the cinema-flag somewhat (30-34px is ok IMO) and apply it to all countries. Hoverfish Talk 15:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I very much think the smaller size is better particularly for bio and shorter articles where the larger template often looks a little strange even at the footer. However I wish there was someway the task bar and the flag icons could be enlarged a little to around 30px without affecting the line. If you could modify the existing templates this would be great Mr Wise. However in positioning them I'd like to see a guideline that they must be put at the very end of every article so they tack on neatly to the category divide. Often I see the templates above the stub icons with a significant gap underneath which makes it look a little untidy. Maybe this is fussy but I want our articles and templates to look professional and taken seriously ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 15:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I played around trying to make the stripe wider but it won't budge. Modifying the template, you mean make our own? Ghm... Hoverfish Talk 15:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I mean just keep the existing templates but put them in the Thai nomral format ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 16:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If needs be we may have to adapt the standard templates keeping the smaller text but incorporating a wider 30px blue bar across the topby making our own versions of the standard navigation plate ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 16:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's what I meant "make our own (ghm)". Ghm as per we might hear about it, but if you guys agree... As for the stub, it has been established that it comes after categories and before interwikis and it has been established that categories go after the last nav/footer template (director filmographies, series, cinema, all). I have been correcting it, so I am probably the one you mean. Hoverfish Talk 16:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC) But no extra space should be left (ie, only one line). Hoverfish Talk 16:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats ok ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 18:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

List navigation formatting

Here is a before & after & alternative 2 of the Canadian list navigation. I prefer the "Before", but Blofeld seems to think the "After" looks better, so he is substituting it where there are decades listed. Anyone else has a preference? Hoverfish Talk 14:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

List navigation options To display, click on [show].
Before File:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg Cinema of Canada List of Canadian films Pre 1940 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s	After File:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg Cinema of Canada List of Canadian films Pre 1940 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s	Alternative 2 File:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg Cinema of Canada List of Canadian films Pre 1940 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

Nicer style - which is also in fitting in coordination with the page layout with the horizontal blue bar. It doesn't really matter I'm just trying to make it look nicer ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 14:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with Alternative 2 either. Hoverfish Talk 14:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Actor filmography templates in films

There is a TfD on actor filmography templates taking place in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 11#Template:Matthew McConaughey. The main reason for the nomination is their inclusion in film articles, which creates an additional problem along with the numerous footer templates used in film articles. This one is a particularly serious case because of the number of important actors that can be part a film's cast. It has been suggested that a more general decision is taken in this department. Hoverfish Talk 07:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't like to see actor templates for many actors at all -they should stick to directors and possibly the iconic actors only. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 09:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What are iconic actors? Also what everyone is saying in the TfD is about not having actor templates in films AT ALL. If they haven't closed it yet you might want to comment there as well. Hoverfish Talk 20:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

further lists

As there shall be lists for films of every country, and as the navigation boxes for every country include links not only to films of a country but also for its directors, screenwriters etc., I suppose, that these people shall also have lists (and not only categories). Am I right with this supposition? Because I just created (copied) the List of Austrian film directors from de-Wikipedia to here. Is this OK? I am planning to create also lists for Austrian screenwriters, cinematographers, producers and of course actors. For these groups of film people exist links in the navigation box. But in the de-Wikipedia I did not create lists for all these people, but a list which includes all them, except the actors and directors, who have own lists (beacause there are so much of them). This "all together-list" can be seen here: de:Liste bedeutender österreichischer Filmschaffender. It includes also film composers (there are very much of them!), production designers (also plenty) and costume designers (a few). Own lists for all of them would not make very much sense - so is there a way to create a list which includes these groups together? -- Otto Normalverbraucher 19:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to post this in Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, since this is where biographic articles and lists are discussed and coordinated. Also there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Screenwriters. I hope this helps. Hoverfish Talk 21:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)