Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Future films/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Suggestions

I know this is a work-in-progress, so I hope you won't mind a couple of suggestions:

  • Slight reword of Resources section. Current text reads: "The IMDb should be regarded as an extremely unreliable source, most especially for future films." This is very strongly-worded, and may contradict general Wikipedia policy on the IMDb, which regards the site as reasonably accurate when it comes to information not relating to future films. Suggest reword to: "The IMDb should be regarded as an unreliable source for information relating to future films." Which is no less clear on the disallowing of its use.
  • The Process section, which restates the WP:NF guideline that film articles shouldn't exist until the start of production. Should it be mentioned that there will be exceptions from time to time, perhaps with examples? Or a mention of films with a notable development hell period, or productions which collapsed, yet are still especially notable? Erik makes the point that explicitly mentioning such things would give an argument to editors who watch over articles of films which are "still dwelling in the deepest depths of development hell", but a clear enough guideline, with heavy emphasis on notability, should be able to head this off.

Good work! Steve T • C 08:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with the suggested text change, but I worded it as such so as to make it clear that IMDb is over-relied upon to the detriment of the article and guidelines. Personally, I think the more stringent, the better - it forces people to actually rely about real research. As for notable unproduced films, I believe that the NF guideline addresses them well enough, but they definitely would be extreme exceptions, and usually bear merging into other topics anyway. Girolamo Savonarola 13:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Films release list

Would it also be productive to compile a list of future film articles sorted by release date? That way we have a schedule for reassessment out of Future-Class? Girolamo Savonarola 13:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ideas

Girolamo's put together an excellent page for future films. The process is well-covered. I look forward to using this page to centralize discussion and to provide resources on how to improve articles on future films. I'm considering importing (and updating) a couple of the worklists at the bottom of the page. The production listings at The Hollywood Reporter definitely serve as a resource to gauge when production has begun per the WP:NF criteria. Should we establish subpages to maintain our own lists based on these listings? Another thought is to create a release date subpage. Perhaps we could set it up in a way that would be easy to copy to the newsletter. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(Question: Should I move something like User:Erik/Clean-up to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Clean-up?) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that's your call - depends on your comfort level of control vs. collaboration. I linked to them because at the least they are useful reading, but as they are currently in your userspace, you still technically "own" them. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've created the following:

Based on the WP:NF criteria, articles should not exist for the first two entries, but they should exist for the third entry. Within the week, a release dates subpage should be created. We may want to look at articles like 2008 in film or 2009 in film and see if they're helpful or even worth keeping. Girolamo, in response to you, the production listings are now part of the project. For the clean-up, I'll continue on the project space instead of the userspace from hereon so it can be reviewed. We can set up subpages for articles that may need to be deleted or merged. We can work out a more specific system in time. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To avoid systemic bias with the current focus on American productions, I'd like to include resources covering films from other territories. We can start with finding similar production listings or release date tables for British and Australian productions. Perhaps a step down the road would be to include editors who deal with non-English films (a certain editor involved with S.P.E.C.T.R.E. comes to mind). Does anyone know of any unique resources for non-American English-speaking territories to implement? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
A quick Google reveals:
There's some duplication in the Screen Daily listings with the information from the Hollywood Reporter, but it does include non-US productions and a reasonably-efficient search engine which allows for the listing of different countries' productions. I'll have a look for some more production listing resources later this evening. Best regards, Steve T • C 16:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks good! I'll have to take a close look, too. I've set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films/Release dates, starting with January 2008. Some links may need to be cleaned up. Also, I've created a shortcut, WP:NFF, to specify the section that this department will refer to multiple times down the road. This should be more convenient for all involved. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
What does everyone think about centralizing discussion for this department under this talk page? We can leave notes on the subpages (such as the worklists) to initiate any discussion here. That way, we don't need to keep all these subpages on our watchlist, only accessing them of our own accord. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Twinkle unlink

Most probably know about this already, but it's worth mentioning for the few who don't: when projects which don't meet WP:NFF are successfully deleted, tracking down everything on the "What links here" page to de-link mentions of the film can be a bit of a chore. A handy tool to use if you're a Firefox user is twinkle, which has recently added a tab which does this automatically. Best regards, Steve T • C 08:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Backlinks

As of 17:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC), backlinks have been removed for the following deleted articles:

/Proposed deletions - 1 through 48 (up to The Mirror (2007 film))
/Articles for deletion - all

Actually, instead of going through the rigmarole of updating on this talk page, would it be better to simply strike those which have been scrubbed of backlinks? Steve T • C 17:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that'd be a good idea. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A Serious Man

As per WP:NFF, the article for this shouldn't exist yet; it's due to film after the Coens have finished with Burn After Reading. However, I'm slightly hesitant to prod it as, technically, production has started, with one scene being shot well in advance of filming proper. Thoughts? Steve T • C 13:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I wouldn't prod it but instead redirect to Coen Brothers#Upcoming and planned films. Considering that there could still be casting issues or budgeting issues (with the preliminary scene apparently being minor), I don't think this project is quite a shoo-in. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

When to remove {{Future film}}

U2 3D was put in limited release today, but it will only be playing in about 25 theaters in the United States. It doesn't get its wide release until February 15, 2008, when it will be shown in over 1,000 theaters throughout the world. With that being said, should the {{Future film}} tag remain on the article until February 15, or should it be removed now? –Dream out loud (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's technically in the public eye, so it can be removed. There should be a good number of reviews following this limited release. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles for consideration of AfD

Mary Queen of Scots (film) and Sunset Boulevard (2008 film); both at the moment appear to qualify for AfD. Any takers? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool department

Apart from that, I just wanted to mention that the website comingsoon.net is full of information that could probably be used by this new department. Someone else from WP:007 found it while researching info on Quantum of Solace. Regards, Cliff smith (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation -- I've actually used it to put together the Release dates subpage. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My feelings about future film articles

I recently stumbled across two articles - From Within and Twilight - that seem to provide excellent arguments in favor of banning articles about future films until more concrete information is available or until the film actually is on the verge of release, i.e., trailers are in theaters, ads are on TV, an official website is available, etc., or the film at least has very distinct notability due to its source material (a best seller along the lines of The DaVinci Code), its impressive cast (every one of them has won an Oscar within the past five years), or its history (Evita and Chicago, for example, started and stalled and restarted and stalled yet again for years). With no disrespect to the editors who created these particular articles intended, I think they're a mess, and the subject matter not very notable. They contain a handful of meager bits of data that was culled from a disparate variety of sources, leaving the reader with the impression a lot of unnecessary filler has been added to give the impression there's some substance there. Let's be honest - neither of these emperors is wearing any clothes. Shouldn't there be a limit as to what future film merits an article and in what stage of the film's production it should make its debut? If it doesn't fall into the notability categories I mentioned above, I think at the very least we should wait until the film is completed. That's just my two cents . . . thanks for the opportunity to spend them! MovieMadness (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You are probably right; I've been guilty of adding filler to upcoming film articles to bulk them up a little more. For example, mentioning when an actor comes aboard. (That would not be very relevant unless the circumstances were unique, like joining the project after shooting has begun.) I assume you're OK with the likes of articles like The Dark Knight, since they have rather rabid fan bases? :) From Within is likely very low-tier, barely passing the threshold. Twilight, I think, would be more appropriate for full-fledged article existence because there seems to be a fan base for the books.
It's not always easy to write articles when they're very early in the production stage. Recently, I just fixed up The Soloist from its original state. I've usually tackled more untouched future film articles (I have a few listed on my user page that still haven't been edited by anyone other than me) partially out of interest and partially to establish a "wave" of structurally coherent articles, having the film infobox, the sections, and the categories. Not always easy to do, and I can't figure out where some editors copy over badly-conditioned film infoboxes from. :)
The current threshold is from when it begins shooting, but general notability guidelines would also apply. The threshold exists because we are near certain to receive a product as all the resources are invested into making it. It's very rare that a film would completely stop in the middle of production (even The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is fighting to get back on its feet). I don't think that there's a major harm in having somewhat messy articles if they can provide some relevant factoids. You have to remember that they will be created any way by someone who may not be familiar with setting it up appropriately. Hence, some of us have probably taken the initiative a bit strongly to "prep" such articles for their inevitable future existence. We do try to tackle films, upcoming or released, that are non-notable, but in the majority of cases, I think most films establish a degree of notability that shows it will have a future as a more comprehensive article. I think that sometimes, excess is appropriate because there's more to work with and discuss. The Jake Weber example at From Within is likely just bad reporting, but it's nothing that can't be addressed when the wave of press information about the film comes. Some editors here, especially Alientraveller, have taken on film articles in a big way to sort out the bloat and make it more coherent. Sometimes the pieces can fit. Sometimes they can be discarded. Ultimately, even though I'm biased in a lot of regards, I think that the layout of these articles override issues with stubs having disjointed content. Do you have any opinion about how the threshold could be treated? I doubt that we'd be able to move the goalpost forward from "start of filming", as the threshold has caused some grief in addressing articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I think we agree in most cases a future film article needs to be rewritten drastically once it's been released, and a lot of the data that served as filler tends to be deleted. (Will anyone care that Jake Weber was or wasn't cast in a project once it's released? If the actor in question were Brad Pitt, for example, it might be a fact worthy of mention.)
In answer to your last question re: how the threshold could be treated, I reiterate I think it would be best to wait until the film is completed and actually on the verge of release unless it has a very distinct notability, examples of which I noted above. At the moment there are future film articles that are longer than those about films released long ago, in some instances rather noteworthy ones (when I stumble across these I usually expand them). MovieMadness (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
What if Jake Weber becomes a Brad Pitt in the future? ;) Then his near-showing in From Within could be relevant! (Of course, I'm reaching here.) I try to avoid such claims to notability, though, because after the A-list, it could be disputable who is worthy to mention. If you really want to remove the Jake Weber mention, you could probably do so. I guess my thinking is that Variety got the information from somewhere, and it seems odd that nope, it was completely wrong to mention it in a handful of names.
One of the issues with "preventing" articles on future films that may be seriously underdeveloped is if it's really an issue about content or notability. The Hollywood Reporter has a production listing for films that are not attached to studios, and I haven't truly considered creating articles for them because the coverage is zero to minimal. I think part of my going-overboard nature is to reflect the numerous instances a film has been mentioned. For example, Twilight has been covered twice, in detail, by MTV, as you can see from the References section. Thus, I think it's fair to say that it would be a topical film even this long before its December 2008 release. It's hard to set up arbitrary criteria for beyond the start of filming because in a lot of cases, we have to "assume" whether a project is notable or not. I try my best to leave it to headlines to show that this project's been making the airwaves even before its release. If you're not familiar with WP:CRYSTAL, I suggest reading it. In the past, it was cited to keep very stubby film articles, but WP:NFF was established as a more topical guideline, considering how projects can come and go in the film industry. However, WP:CRYSTAL indicates that it's OK to cover such a topic if it's nearly certain to be released and is able to establish notability.
Believe me, though, I know that there are quite a few prominent film articles that don't get the attention they deserve. I believe Girolamo has put together a "Core" list of articles that deserve more attention. I was looking at Citizen Kane the other day (not an insubstantial article in itself) and thinking that it was more deserving of Featured Article status than most others. Sometimes we like to work in our niches, though. I've expanded Fight Club considerably, and others have had their own specific successes. Most of them seem contemporary, and I think it suggests that the obstacle is the research required to expand classic films. I would probably oppose a Featured Article that failed to utilize any kind of print sources if it came out before the Internet was around. Not to mention research and actual writing of content is a lot of time to invest. With future films, I think it's easier to grab a headline from an RSS feed and implement it bit by bit. Most future or recently released films are not going to have books or academic studies related to them, so we have to rely on a mish-mash of sources, generally from headlines and credible websites. Hence the messes you may occasionally see. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

While I'm sympathetic to the concerns expressed here, my opinion on the matter is fairly straightforward - if the article can establish sufficient notability per WP:NOTFILM and WP:NFF, then essentially what you're concerned with is that the articles are stubby. But we don't delete stubs just because they're stubs - the nature of wiki (and the situation of the films being unreleased at present) is for most articles to start this way and "grow into" a quality article - at least that's the hope! :) As a quick look at the project assessment statistics will show, the vast majority of our articles are Stub or Start-class. While we'd obviously love to bring all of them up to FA in a heartbeat, I really don't see Stubs going away anytime soon, unless films suddenly stop being made. It's just the nature of the field we're covering. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Cell

I recently made a Wikipedia page for the 2009 film, Cell. The people here at Wikipedia erased it and redirected it to the page of the novel it's based on. Can you tell me why this page was erased and possibly help me get the film's page back up? Thank you. --Creamy3 (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. The notability guideline for future films stipulates that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is for very good, practical reasons. Many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. We've seen so many projects fall by the wayside at the last minute that it's the only way of ensuring that this place doesn't get clogged with stubby articles about films which were never made and thus would ultimately fail the general notability guideline. It should also never be assumed that because a film is likely to be a significant release that it will be immune to the usual pitfalls which can affect these productions, especially in the current climate. Look at how many productions were postponed, even shelved indefinitely, because of the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike, including the very high profile Justice League film, Pinkville, Shantaram among many others. It's not just those affected by the strike; Jurassic Park IV, which many would consider a no-brainer for a speedy greenlight, was actually supposed to be released in 2005, and we don't even have a separate article for the (now delayed by another year) Hobbit film yet. The Fahrenheit 451 and Logan's Run remakes are another couple of examples of films in perpetual development. In accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated without prejudice when principal photography is finally confirmed to have begun, which (as the the article itself admitted) is not likely to be any time soon. All the best, Steve T • C 15:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting

Does anyone think that there is any need to keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films/Release dates? It does not seem frequently used and requires more maintenance than seems necessary. The only major reason I could to see to keep is to reformat the page so the format can be copied and pasted into future newsletters, saving Nehrams2020 a little grief as the lead editor. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, what do others think about WP:FUTFILM#Production listings? I was thinking about basically combining preparation, pre-production, and production, maybe implementing show/hide templates to improve readability. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea for the latter case, but I think that my idea for the release dates was never fully implemented. What I had in mind was a thorough listing of all of the articles within our relevant categories, sorted by release date, not just larger budget US studio films. The reason had nothing to do with the newsletter, to be honest, and more to do with project admin needs. This would allow us to turnover the project rating from Future to a standard class on a regular schedule as the articles needed it, and also would probably identify a fair number of NFF fails in the process of organizing it. This is a major concern, because anything in the Future class is classified as "removed" from the assessment logs, and while in this "invisible" mode, could have the project banner deleted without our being able to notice it in the logs. Therefore, moving articles out of the Future class as soon as they qualify needs to be a high priority item for this department, IMHO. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking about going ahead and retiring the preparation, pre-production, and production sub-articles. What is the best way to handle this? Also, should we follow up on the release dates sub-article? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a very good idea keeping up a list of such films which have been announced but not commenced shooting, so that we can track any potential NFF problems immediately and resolve them quickly and efficiently. I don't really think there's any need to differentiate between prep and prepro, though, and obviously production qualifies for an article anyway, so those can be done any whomever's leisure and don't need to be included on a list. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The Hobbit film duology

Just a note to my fellow film article editors, I've invoked WP:IAR here. I feel there is too much info to be crammed into a single section at The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. Alientraveller (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there no way that this could be integrated into a general Film adaptations of the works of J. R. R. Tolkien article? (Or something to that effect?) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Future-Class?

I was just wondering what the rationale was for using Future-Class. I've seen it discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia, and the main criticism of its use (which I sympathize with) is that is says nothing about the quality of an article, i.e. the very thing we should be assessing in the first place. Consider Avatar, which would quite easily meet the standards for Start-Class (and perhaps even C-Class if we were to go down that route), though this is perhaps an atypical example. With regards to simply identifying and tracking such articles, I would expect {{Future film}} to have this covered. I'm not really questioning its use (I'm fairly ambivalent about it, really), just looking for an opinion from someone more aquainted with its application to this project. PC78 (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the class really serves as a placeholder because a film article cannot usually "peak" in available content until the film is released. There can be no external voice about the film until it is received by critics and audiences, and I think that this voice is critical to Wikipedia's presentation of a film. Production and cast details could potentially sound great (filmmakers and actors will almost always make their experience sound wonderful), but it's not a truly neutral perspective. I don't think that a film article can be a true Wikipedia article without a neutral, external voice weighing in. I guess there is an imbalance in this regard, but I'm not sure if I see another way to handle assessment of such upcoming releases. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no way for a film to realistically meet most of our style guidelines prior to release. This also alleviates subjective and generally fruitless discussions regarding where and how to assess such an article at these stages. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments; what you say makes a fair bit of sense. I've looked at a few of the "Future-Class" articles, and some seem to be redirects (as a result of AfD?), effectively placeholders for future articles. I suppose future film articles might also be more susceptible to change, meaning that regular assessments might easily become redundant. PC78 (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think that redirects are supposed to have these templates. They should be removed where necessary, since there is no article to assess in the future. (A redirect does not mean it will one day become a full-fledged film article again.) I'm pretty sure that you should remove it or at least assess it another way, but preserve any discussion there, like at Talk:Wonder Woman (2009 film). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I've just changed Talk:Beverly Hills Cop IV to an NA-Class rating; hope that's ok. PC78 (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
...or it could just be deleted. That works too! :) PC78 (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Tracking future films

Is there some sort of method for identifying those films which are no longer "future"? I sometimes stumble across an article which is still Future-Class even though release has been and gone (I've just reassessed Cthulhu (2007 film), for example, which was apparently released over a year ago). Or is it just a case of being vigilant? PC78 (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

To respond to this, I think it's a case of being vigilant. It would be nice to have a system in which we could automatically update templates based on the plug-in of release dates, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Nehrams proposed adding a release-date parameter to the banner template which could somehow either sort or categorize only Future-Class articles by date. Might be worth a spin... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there not a bot feature which could remove "Future" from class= and list the article (or its talk page) somewhere for assessment? I just updated the "Release dates" subpage using ComingSoon.net, but it seems to encompass films that have debuted elsewhere already. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not very bot-saavy myself, so I couldn't say, but the advantage of having it in the template is that it should automatically be transcluded, so the results are relatively instantaneous. Bot dependency is not always a good thing if the bot is not well-maintained, or only sporadically is put on the job. It is also very easy to make it so that films which are assessed as Future but don't have a release date parameter could automatically go to a maintenance category like "Future films needing a release date" which could be watched by members of this department. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Done. Check the new documentation for {{future film}}. Gary King (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It's good work, but has two problems - one, I wasn't referring to that template; I meant the {{Film}} one, and two, we need to be able to track release dates by at least month and year if not exact date. Furthermore, while having the future film template transclude a year category is undoubtedly good, it creates the small but significant inconvenience that when the template is removed upon the film's release, the category will presumably also disappear unless the removing editor is diligent enough to remember to re-add a year category. Perhaps it is best, therefore, not to intertwine these two needs. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The year category will still exist when it's empty. Also, this new parameter will add the films to categories that already exist. Gary King (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough then. I don't think that the year template really addresses our specific concerns here about tracking them, but it certainly is an improvement overall! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

← If we're tracking future films, and if ideally the {{future film}} template is on all future films, then shouldn't that template have the date rather than the assessment one which rarely changes? I mean, when someone comes across an article with a future film template and sees that the film is actually released, then often they will remove it, thereby removing it from the category as well. It all works out :) Gary King (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the main concern really is assessment. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm not sure if I understand what's going on. I was thinking of a way for a bot to remove class=Future from {{Film}} on a film article's talk page when it is the date of the film's public release. How does the year= in {{Future film}} help assess articles? It seems redundant and not as useful to have year=2010 when we can add Category:2010 films among other categories permanently. That way, when we remove {{Future film}} upon release, we don't have to work to add the category again. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I had only just been thinking about {{Future film}}. Would it not be an idea to have a date parameter such as there is in {{Unreferenced}} and others? (This would be the date the template was added to the article, not the release date of the film.) Knowing this, and having the articles subcategorized accordingly, would be useful if you work on the assumption that those articles that need checking the most are the ones that have been tagged the longest. If you get what I mean. PC78 (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Grading scheme update

I've rewritten the Future-Class description for the {{Film grading scheme}} based on some of what was said above, in order to provide greater deatil and clarity. It may need a few tweaks, but if no-one objects I'll add it to the template later. PC78 (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Future
{{Future-Class}} 		Used exclusively for articles of films that have not yet been released, but which meet the WP:NFF criteria. The article may be of variable length or quality, but significant components such as critical reception and box office data will not yet be known. The content of such articles may be subject to rapid change, making regular assessment unreliable. Should not be used for redirects. May be useful, depending on quality and depth of coverage. The article should receive more attention as the film approaches its supposed release date, and details may be subject to change. The article should be tagged with {{Future film}}, and will require updates as new information becomes available. See the Future films department for further support. Avatar (film)
(as of July 2008)
Looks good, but I think we could revise the "Criteria" section to be more about the quality instead of the quantity. If you look at the other "Criteria" sections, we're vague about the content and instead focus on the integrity of the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean. As discussed, Future-Class doesn't really have anything to do with quality. Articles can have minimal content (Brother, Cheri, Autopsy), or be quite substantial and well-written (Death Race, Defiance, Friday the 13th), i.e. "The article may be of variable length or quality". A Future-Class rating rests solely on whether or not a film has been released. PC78 (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, I see that it's separated from the other criteria with the header "WikiProject Film Related Class". I guess that makes it OK to talk about specifics in the article. It's just that the other criteria were purposely vague about an article's elements so it would apply everywhere. Seems good to me, then -- and glad that you mentioned two substantial articles that I've developed! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Right, I see what you meant now. Thinking about it, do we use Future-Class for award ceremonies and such, or just films? PC78 (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

When should we remove Future-Class ratings?

Do we go by first public release (limited or otherwise), or is a festival screening sufficient? PC78 (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The first public release, definitely. Films, even major ones, are barely on the radar with festival screenings. I think it's because print media covers the film more prominently for readers' interest when the film is actually accessible by the public. I personally don't think there should be a festival release date in the infobox, either... it's too miniscule of a date to really highlight. 300 was at some kind of film festival in 2006, yet it's still regarded as a 2007 film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Films can pick up awards at festivals though, and with that comes media coverage. Festivals also allow critical review of a film. PC78 (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree; Hamlet 2 got some recognition. I just mean that a lot of times, films are "shopped around" at these festivals, which seems to me to mean that it hasn't struck maximum distribution. (Are we talking about the rating or the release date at this point?) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The distinction between festival release and public release is clear-cut; it's the limits of the rating that I'm wondering about. I was reviewing some of the Future-Class articles, and specifically it was Yesterday Was a Lie that caught my eye. This film was completed last year and has been shopped around the festivals since January, where it has picked up several awards. Still no sign of a public release, and no guarantee that it will ever get one (it certainly wouldn't be the first). It just made me wonder when we stop regarding a film as "Future". PC78 (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that there's a fair point that if the film has been touring festivals for some time (like a year) with no release date in sight, it might be eligible for normal assessment. On the other hand, virtually everything eventually winds up on DVD now anyway... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saw VI (2nd nomination)

All hands on deck. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Tracking is (about to be) functional!

Just wanted to give everyone a heads up that I've finally gotten around to writing a release dates tracker for the Future class films. With the support of two new parameters, futyear and futmonth, this will automatically categorize Future-Class articles into [[Category:Films to be released in (month) (year)]] or, if no month has been specified yet, [[Category:Films to be released in (year)]]. If the release date has passed, then it also adds the article to Category:Released Future-Class films. If the parameters are used, but the article isn't Future-class, it codes to Category:Incorrectly tagged WikiProject Films articles.

Lastly, articles with faulty parameters or no parameters at all are added to Category:Films with incorrect Future-Class coding. This will automatically add all Future-Class articles, since none at the moment have the new parameters. This will also be a good time to go through everything in the class, adding the parameters as appropriate and re-assessing where a release has occurred. This should only be a one-time occurrence, though - the above categories are designed to the make it easy to watch for mis-coded articles or newly-released films as a regular maintenance task instead of a trek through hundreds of miscellaneous articles.

The futyear parameter should be entered as a four digit year, while the futmonth parameter can be entered as either a full name (January), an abbreviation (Jan), or a number with or without leading zeros (1 or 01). The month parameter is also case insensitive.

These changes have been extensively tested on my userspace and on the template sandbox, and a protected edit request has now been made to the project banner template. Unless any major problems are voiced, I expect that this will become functional within the next day or two at the latest. Please feel free to ask any questions you may have! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice work! I've already made a start and have created some of the necessary categories. One thing though: all pages are being categorized under T (as in "Talk:"). Any chance you can get them to sort by {{PAGENAME}} instead (I think that's how you do it,anyway)? PC78 (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, how important is it to sort by pagename? Also, PC78, I've seen you go through a few articles on my watchlist -- nice work! I think that what we need to do here is veer away from the more commercial films (which will almost certainly be addressed) and focus more on films around the world. Maybe we could put together some links for international release dates or world premieres? —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking for the purposes of sorting and navigating the categories. And thanks... I've picked off all the films I know of that are due 2010-2013, which thankfully isn't that many. :) PC78 (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've created a "Tracking" section for the department's page to explain the tracking system and what editors can do to help. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:FUTFILM is an essay

I added the "{{essay}}" to this article. The tag was deleted, with the reasoning: "this is a department, not a guideline or an essay"

I partially agree, WP:FUTFILM is indeed, not a policy or guideline. Created in October 2007, WP:FUTFILM is an essay written by four editors.

But if this article is simply a "department" why are editors quoting it like it is a policy and guideline? :

(more)

There needs to be a tag on the top of this page to explain to misguided editors that WP:FUTFILMS is in fact nothing more than a "department" which should not be quoted as justification to delete other editors contributions. Inclusionist (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems like people are citing WP:FUTFILMS instead of WP:NFF, which is a guideline regarding future films. Might need a dablink at the top of this page, but nothing more. PC78 (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with PC78. This is a departmental page that suggests steps to preserve content when a future film article does not meet the notability guidelines. I think that considering your handle, you should be happy that this page provides alternatives to outright deletion of such information. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that the problem is that some people have the misconception that this page is a guideline, and are thus linking to it as such. This is regrettable, but their mistakes are not our liability. In any case, we do link to the germane policies and guidelines from this page, but to call it an essay is to misunderstand the function and place of this page within the WikiProject - we're not trying to espouse opinions or to give prose-type advice. This is just a central resource and discussion area for film article editors who choose to specialize in future films. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

January 2009

To give everyone the heads-up, I've reassessed all the film articles that were marked as being released in January 2009. Most were released in that month, while some others will be released later in 2009. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just reassessed the remaining articles that were marked as having been released. There were about five films I wasn't sure about, for which I just removed the |futyear= parameter. In case anyone else wants to have a look, these were:
—PC78 (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Vettaikaaran

This article has been deleted and recreated numerous times: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vettaikkaaran (2009 film) for a summary. And as soon as that one was deleted, this new version pops up. The latest article does at least contain much more information than previous versions, and boasts an impressive number of references, so I'm reluctant to go down the AfD route yet again. Could someone else cast a fresh pair of eyes on this? PC78 (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I was going to speedy delete it, but you are right, there are a lot of new references. The planned filming start date is not too far off, so maybe we don't have to do anything right now and see if it does start as planned. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Just a reminder that the films due for release last month still need reassessing. I'll try and do a bit myself as and when I get the chance. Also, I've been slowly working through this list and found a few films which may or may not have been released (or may have stalled) but for which I could find very little information online. In case anyone else wants to have a go, they are:

Regards. PC78 (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Any opinions...

...on Chennaiyil Oru Mazhaikalam, Dagaw and Citizen Brando, all of which appear to have stalled during filming? PC78 (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

They can be reclassified as unfinished films. I think we are more tolerant of these as stand-alone articles since there was a tangible product being made once upon a time. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
If you look at the refs for the first two, there actually is no evidence that they ever started shooting, despite what the articles say. AfD? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The first one seems to check out from a cursory google search, but Dagaw seems a bit more dubious. PC78 (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Well spotted. This seems to suggest that it only started shooting last summer, so it would be a bit early to presume its unfinished or even stalled. Sorry, the other links all said that only the photo shoot had happened; in any case, we really should clarify for the benefit of the Indian task force that a photo shoot is a PR exercise and does not count as production beginning, because this is the third time I've seen that happen. Also, wrt the Brando project...despite the fact, it still might be in the best interests of the content to bring it back to the Brando article itself under an unfinished projects section - more as a general merge/split question than an NFF one, since the info is less than considerable in size. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I've got this source from last month which mentions the film being left uncompleted. PC78 (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Still, not so uncommon, even in Hollywood, for things to stall in between post and premiere or festival premiere and public release. Given the amount of time which has(n't) past, it might be worth waiting to hear it from the horse's mouth before writing it off as officially shelved. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking for RS for upcoming film

For Michael Haneke's upcoming film Das Weiße Band (The White Ribbon). Could be listed to compete at Cannes next month, but I'm struggling to find sources. Any help would be grateful! Lugnuts (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Some German sources appear in a Google News search, along with appearances that at least confirm the entry in Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and at FirstShowing. Give it another week or two and there should be a brief production notes .pdf at www.festival-cannes.com/en.html too. Steve T • C 12:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion?

Green Lantern (movie) has popped up again. I have had it deleted it once before since filming has yet commence on the project. Should this have been sent to Articles for deletion or should it be recommended for speedy deletion instead? TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Per guidance, an article recreated after deletion via a PROD should be sent to AfD next. Only if recreated after the AfD (if successful) will it be eligible for a speedy. All the best, Steve T • C 12:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks I have sent it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Lantern (movie). TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Assistance...

A user keeps recreating A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film), even after I have informed them that it currently fails WP:NFF. Per the future films guideline, the film must be in production and the production itself must be notable. At this time, all of the reliably sourced information about this film is at A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise)#Future, and none of that is production info, but casting and the announcement of a future film site. The user is throwing things out like "IMDB talks about it" to justify the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thor (2011 film)

Page has once again been recreated, you may vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thor (2011 film) TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Vote is currently 4-3, please vote and help rationalize arguments.TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
There's no rush here; the AfD will run for several days yet. And please be aware of WP:CANVASS. That may not have been your attention, but to someone looking in it might not look good. Steve T • C 14:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning, I'll edit my posts. TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wicker Man

Any opinions on The Wicker Man Trilogy, which concerns two as of yet unreleased or unmade films? I've already prodded Twilight of the Gods (film); the second film is lumped in with the novel at Cowboys for Christ, though I'm not sure if this falls under our scope or not. PC78 (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I gather, it does not deserve its own article. Robin Hardy (film director) is sparse, so I think coverage about this intended trilogy can be placed there. It is misleading to treat the trilogy as reality, giving it its own article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed rewording of Template:Future film

Discussion here if anyone is interested. PC78 (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Future films not rated Future-Class

There are currently 140 articles tagged with {{future film}} but not rated as Future-Class for this project -- the list is here if anyone is interested. I've been slowly working my way through it, removing tags or reassessing as seems appropriate, but others are welcome to join in. :) PC78 (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

I would like to archive the following pages to condense this department:

If there is a desire to hold onto the concept, we can revise the "Clean-up" section of WP:FUTFILM to have more condensed versions of these pages. From what I can tell, though, Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Article alerts and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film are better tools to keep editors up to date, even though the scopes are a little wider. If no one has an issue with this, I will go ahead and mark the pages as archived. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No issue with that. The pages were useful for keeping track of the initial dissemination of WP:NFF, but now that seems to be widely accepted, these pages seem less necessary. Go right ahead. :-) Steve T • C 00:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Deprecation of Future-Class

I've been following the discussions at WT:FILMC and it seems like there is an emerging concensus to remove Future-Class from our assessent scale. What does this mean for the month/year subcategories of Category:Future-Class film articles? I was thinking that these could be preserved in main space to help keep Category:Upcoming films organised. A new template could be created to populate these categories the same way as our banner currently does, but unlike the recently deleted {{future film}} it would have no visibe output in an article. Thoughts? PC78 (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we do not need to do anything new. Can we not use the {{Start date}} template in the film infobox to determine when a film came out? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 12:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
{{Start date}} is to do with microformats (not something I know much about or am particuarly interested in), it's not something that could be used for what I'm talking about. Of course, if you're happy for all of these categories to go then that's fine too. :) PC78 (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Future_films/Archive_1&oldid=1154537602"