Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-06-25/WikiProject report

WikiProject report

The world where dreams come true

Share this

This week, the Signpost visited the land of Disney, blockbusters, explosions, dream sequences, and cultural masterpieces: film. WikiProject Film was first created in September 2003, though the project's homepage wasn't filled out until the following year. With around 500 members, it is one of the largest wikiprojects on the site. It boasts over 225 pieces of featured content, 626 good articles, and still has three A-class articles from a long-shuttered review process. We talked with Erik, Favre1fan93, Corvoe, NinjaRobotPirate, and Lugnuts.

What motivated you to join WikiProject Film? Who is your favorite director?

Erik: I joined WikiProject Film because as a moviegoer, I like to follow movie news, especially for upcoming releases. When I made small edits around the winter of 2005-06, I realized how easy it was to edit, and I learned to contribute details about films to their articles. I also found films to be an uncontroversial set of topics that was fairly easy to research.
Favre1fan93: I believe WikiProject Film was one of the first WikiProjects I joined on Wikipedia. I tended to gravitate towards the media areas of the encyclopedia (films, television, video games and comics) so once I started edited and began to understand it better, I began to gravitate to certain articles under the project that I thought I could contribute to.
Corvoe: I joined the project close to a year ago, and it's the first one I've dived in to. Though I'd worked on music articles for a considerable amount of time beforehand, I've never felt more at home than at WikiProject Film. Its collaborations far outweight its solo ventures, and there are a large amount of us just wanting to improve as many articles as much as we can. As a film lover, I recreationally look up large amounts of information regarding films, and I'm a sucker for featurettes and commentaries, so I have the information in my head already. I want others like me to have any amount of information that we can find at their fingertips, so that those as curious as I am have one centralized hub for any films they might be interested in. Favourite director: David Fincher.
NinjaRobotPirate: I joined a little over year ago. I had already been casually editing film-related articles off-and-on for several years, so it seemed like a good idea. I was primarily drawn by the wealth of information: a list of reliable sources, detailed manual of style and notability pages, a lively talk page, and many help pages. I feel very comfortable editing film-related articles now, and my time spent in WikiProject Film has given me the experience and confidence to create my own articles.
Lugnuts: I joined in 2006 after working to populate the category Category:Black-and-white films. I saw the category from the article for Eraserhead and noticed it only had a handful of articles within it. I was shocked at the time that there wasn't much coverage on silent films, so I started to work on them starting with Charlie Chaplin's filmography. My favourite directors are David Lynch, Ingmar Bergman and Michael Haneke, amongst others.

It has been five years since our last interview with WikiProject Film. Has the project seen many changes in that time? Has the project reached any significant milestones? What challenges does the project face today that weren't on the radar in 2009?

Erik: I think the biggest change to WikiProject Film is that we no longer have coordinators. At the time, we wanted to emulate WikiProject Military history in how it organized itself, but we were not able to collaborate that formally. My feeling is that many editors like to work on their own topics of interest and to have their own schedules to follow. However, I think WikiProject Film's talk page is one of Wikipedia's most active. It is a good place to ask for input. As for challenges, I do not think we have any major ones. The Manual of Style for film is occasionally revised to help resolve disputes. I would say a perennial challenge is how to identify the key countries related to a film. There are more and more multinational collaborations, and it can be difficult to ping down the degree of countries' involvement. Even reliable sources can differ.
Lugnuts: I think we agree a consensus quicker than other projects on Wikipedia and update the relevant manual of style to reflect that. More challenges from 2009 include editors adding in copyright material, esp. plots, into articles and spotting them quicker.

Have you contributed to any of the project's Featured or Good Articles? Are article promotions becoming easier or more difficult to accomplish? What unique challenges does the project face in getting its articles to FA or GA status?

Erik: I wrote the Featured Article Fight Club and contributed a bit to American Beauty and Changeling. I have also written a few Good Articles, both on my own and in collaboration. However, I have not actively pursued promotions for a few years. The GA nominations were pretty frequently backlogged, and I fell out the habit of striving for GA promotions. As for FA promotions, I think it takes a lot of work to truly research a film. Older Featured Articles about films were usually based on online sources and did not often incorporate books as references. It's a challenge to go that above and beyond since resources can be hard to access and since we have only so much time to devote to what is essentially a hobby for most of us. Aside from that, I would say that a challenge in getting more promotions is that we do not review each other enough. I think it's easy to contribute incrementally, but it's hard to review others' articles in the same manner, especially if it is very detailed.
Favre1fan93: I have contributed to multiple featured content. My main area of work for the WikiProject is working on all of the articles related to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Myself and a few other editors really started to make a strong push once I started becoming a main contributor, continuing some of their work from before I started. Since I've joined the project, I've contributed to Iron Man 3, Thor: The Dark World and the main Marvel Cinematic Universe pages to becoming Good Articles. In addition, we are preparing to get Captain America: The Winter Soldier to become a GA probably in the next month or two, in further advancement of attempting to make the film articles of the MCU a Good Topic. Some challenges that the project faces is that, in reality, all of the articles can not get to Featured or Good status. In my opinion, it takes a good amount of teamwork to get an article up to that status, or a very ambitious editor to do it themselves. It also depends on the amount of information one can get to help fill out the article.
Corvoe: I have contributed to several film articles that either gained good/featured status or already were good/featured status. I created and wrote The FP from scratch, mostly on my own. It is currently a good article under consideration for featured status. After my work with that article has wrapped up (or at least slowed down), I'm wanting to work on more established articles and get their statuses up to good or featured, particularly Children of Men (a film I believe to be one of the best).
NinjaRobotPirate: No. I have contributed in a minor fashion to one article that is definitely headed toward Featured, but my contributions were limited mostly to advice, copy editing, and other support roles. My biggest accomplishment so far is cult film, which I rewrote from scratch and greatly expanded. I believe it to be nearly ready for GAN or even FAC, so we'll see how that goes. Most of the film-related articles that I edit are obscure art-house or cult films, barely notable horror films (I have created about 30-40 articles on zombie films alone), or independent films with limited releases. I consider it a major victory to get these articles up to C class, but there are a few that have possibilities. The kinds of films that I edit go quietly to direct-to-video hell, and I'm frequently the only thing standing between a vandal and Dolph Lundgren's being described as fighting waves of banana-men in a tutu.
Lugnuts: No. I create stubs. Lots of stubs. I tried promoting a filmography for an actress to FL, using an existing FL as a guide, but it got shot down quicker than a Ukrainian jet-fighter.

Have you participated in any of WikiProject Film's task forces? What can be done to bolster the work of efforts by closer-knit groups?

Erik: I helped set up the comic book films task force since I liked to contribute to such articles early on, but I've since moved on. As I stated earlier, I think many editors are usually content to work on their own projects, so collaboration does not come so readily. I would say an exception to that rule is the Indian films task force because of the growing film industry in the country and a growing number of Indian editors who write articles about these films. As for general bolstering, I do not think there is much to be done on a task force level, but I think we can try to encourage pairings or mentorships since two editors can collaborate easily enough.
Favre1fan93: I am a part of the comic book films task force. The members of that group all have a similar work ethic and I can look to many of them to be adding content to these pages to help make it a simple process to nominate it for GA status. In my opinion, this is the genre of film right now, so I try to take pride in have fulfilling articles for these very popular films.
Corvoe: I am a member of the comic book films task force, though I don't contribute there as often as I'd like to. Due to my tendency to only work full force on one article, I haven't done much more than grammar fixes, copy-editing, and reverting vandalism. I'm hoping to get more involved with this task force as I am able.
Lugnuts: Yes. Mainly the ones around various elements of world cinema. I think others should be setup too (Polish cinema, for example). Although not many people are involved directly with them, lots of editors cross-over them with their work and they can be useful. I recently updated the scope of the Film Festival task force (can I do that? Yes, I Cannes).

Are some genres, time periods, or geographic areas better represented than others in Wikipedia articles? What can be done to improve the coverage of neglected film topics?

Erik: Franchise films tend to be well-represented. These films tend to be the most visible and also have the most ongoing news coverage. For example, a franchise film's development process is followed much more closely than an independent film's filming process. Box office performance is also commonly reported. In addition, I think franchise films are well-served by the "average Wikipedian" demographic, as defined here. As for improving the coverage of neglected film topics, we can watch such articles and help new editors contribute to them. If a film with a neglected article makes headlines for whatever reason, we can use that as an opportunity to add content about films to educate visitors who will likely stop by.
Corvoe: I agree with Erik. The more popular, big-budget franchises are almost always the ones with the most information, as they draw the largest audience. Even in the same basic genre, you have huge differences, like in comedy. You're never going to see films like The Grand Budapest Hotel or Chef get as much coverage as 22 Jump Street or This Is the End, unless you dedicate your own time to it or work with other editors. Independent films, especially those that don't win awards, get the short end of the stick, which is why I personally like to work there more than on big-budget films. As far as what there is to be done for this, all we can do is ask. If you're working on an article that you think needs some love from more than just you, go to WikiProject Film's talk page and ask someone for assistance. We're nice here.
NinjaRobotPirate: You'd be surprised what isn't represented. Or maybe not. We all know that Wikipedia has certain biases. I have recently begun to create articles on contemporary South American horror films, and even the biggest blockbusters frequently have no article. I have also begun work on independent Canadian horror films, and I've crossed off about a dozen articles on that list. British, American, French, Italian, and Australian films are all well-represented, but we need a lot of work on even the most prestigious German films. We desperately need people who can translate articles from the German Wikipedia. As a direct-to-video connoisseur, I try to make sure that those films are create, updated, and kept free of vandalism. But we need more people to spend time on these obscure films. Surf Nazis Must Die has been a stub (of less than 250 words) for almost nine years. Rabid Grannies hasn't even hit 200 words yet in seven years.
Lugnuts: When I first joined, I was shocked at the gaps in Ingmar Bergman's filmography, so I created all the missing articles. I thought this was because it was Swedish films on the English-language WP, but was even more shocked to find similar gaps in John Wayne's filmography! Most modern-day US/UK cinema is now very well covered on WP (by that, I mean at least having a stub). Step outside of that, and there are some big holes. The work I've done on the big film festivals crosses over lots of areas of world cinema and the coverage has increased alot since I've been here (you can thank me later). Maybe some work directly with the various over-arching WP projects (eg, WP:Poland, WP:Peru, etc) to focus on these under-represented sections.

How are forthcoming film releases treated? Are they required to meet the same sourcing and notability requirements of other film articles? Do deleted or merged articles about forthcoming films tend to be recreated after the film's release?

Erik: The general rule of thumb is to only have a stand-alone article about a film once filming has begun. In the late 2000s, it was common to see articles created for films solely based on news reports that rights had been bought by a studio. In reality, that is a long way from validating the production of an actual film. We wrote guidelines for future films to address such articles, though there are interesting exceptions where a film languishes in development long enough to basically warrant writing the history of its struggles. It's hard to say what percentage of articles are recreated, but it does happen. What can happen is that news of development can be summarized in a broader article, such as the director's article or the source material's article, and when filming begins, the coverage can be put into a "Production" section of the new article to serve as background.
Favre1fan93: This information has to be handled with care. Per WP:NFF, it is generally desired that films do not receive articles once they have started production. However, recently we have flirted with the idea of special exceptions, creating "Development of" articles. For example, before Star Wars Episode VII began its filming process, information regarding the film was at Development of Star Wars Episode VII. Especially on the articles I work on, there is such a strong desire for information, that we have to work really hard to make sure all information comes from reliable sources, and if the information is merely rumor or perhaps an exclusive news item. As for deleted or merged articles, it again goes back to WP:NFF. If once it has started production and still meets notability, a page may be recreated. I have also been drawn to the new Draft space, and encourage editors to use it, or use it as an alternative to deleting. It is also an area where we are crafting new MCU film articles, as we know that they will exist, but they do not warrant an article, just pertinent info in a section on another article.
Corvoe: Upcoming films are a tricky area, since they are often surrounded with rumours. Like Favre1fan93 said, editors who mean well often add information that boils down to hearsay, and those editors get reverted unless they provide reliable sources. I actually think sourcing and information for upcoming films might be under stricter surveillance than films that are already released, as we try our best not to report any falsehoods. There is also an increasingly prevalent issue involving plagiarism, as many editors will quote an official synopsis (usually filled with weasel words) and pass it off as Wikipedia's own writing. Overall, though, I would say upcoming film articles are among the best-monitored.
Lugnuts: Working on the film festival side of the project, I do create a fair few future films (f-f-f-f...). A small minority of these have been proded by other editors or taken to AfD. They all end in keep. WP:GNG > WP:NFF. The deletion discussion goes along the lines of "but the film hasn't even been released!" To which I reply, "no it hasn't, but it's been selected to compete for the Palme d'Or in 2 weeks time!" A quick Google search will find a ton of coverage on even the most obscure films in competition.

How often do the project's members deal with disruptive edits by fans, publicists, or detractors of a particular director, performer, or film series? What are the best ways to respond to these individuals? Have you seen any become productive members of the Wikipedia community?

Erik: In my experience, disruption tends to happen with non-notable films. Once in a while, a filmmaker will try to create an article about their film. We editors have to explain the notability guidelines, and it's rare to convert the filmmaker into an editor since their goal on Wikipedia was to have their article for the film. As for detractors, we are usually able to go through the dispute resolution process and figure out a solution. Since controversies are usually rooted in reality, the solutions are just a matter of structuring content. WP:STRUCTURE says, "Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other," and that's what we try to do.
Favre1fan93: Again for the articles that I work on, there are constantly rumors and other information released on unreliable sources. So editors or IP who come to the article having seen that info on those sites, and don't see it on the article, add it. So in those cases, it is generally a good faith edit, not knowing our policies. Other times, you will find someone really persistent that takes more of the community to deal with, but that does not happen a lot. Many of these disruptive edits come once the film has released. And sometimes, these edits create more work for regular editors of the page to fix, that it has to warrant protection to keep it under control. I don't believe I have ever experienced a director or performer trying to edit on one of their films.
NinjaRobotPirate: I agree with Erik. Every once in a while, I'll check my watchlist and find that an IP editor replaced a fully-developed reception with, "It was met with critical acclaim. Only people who misunderstood the director's intent disliked it." It's a simple job to revert this. It's rare that I find a completely unresponsive vandal. Most people are reasonable when I contact them on their talk page, and a few have been downright friendly and helpful once I politely explained my issues with their edits. However, I have run into publicists, filmmakers, and vandals who were immensely frustrating to clean up after. Page protection seems to be the only way to stop them.
Lugnuts: Revert all IP edits and treat them with the disdain they deserve. But what about WP:AGF? Well after the 876th IP vandalism edit, it doesn't wash. I had one IP claiming to be the film's director and demanding I stop removing his edits. They weren't constructive and less than biased. Attention insects, the foot of reckoning is here.

What are the most urgent needs of WikiProject Film? How can a new contributor help today?

Erik: I would say that we could always use more content. While it is great to see new editors make adjustments to the film infoboxes or the plot summaries, the reality is that changes can go back and forth, and that plot summaries are constantly rewritten. In contrast, if you can add real-world coverage about a film, such as its production or critical reception, it is very likely to have an enduring place in the article. If you're new and want to contribute, be bold and be willing to ask questions!
Corvoe: A lot of films that meet our notability guidelines are nowhere to be found in our article space, and that issue will likely exist indefinitely. That said, users are welcomed and encouraged to make articles with reliable sources. Experienced editors are almost always willing to lend a helping hand, and are always polite when informing an article's creator that the subject matter may not meet the notability requirements. Often, newer editors struggle with finding good sources, but there is a surplus of editors who are more than capable of helping with that. I would say that new contributors should do what I did, and dive straight in. Worst case scenario, you do some stuff wrong and you learn from it. If you mean well, there will always be people there to help you out, so ask away!
NinjaRobotPirate: Plot summaries. Anyone can write a plot summary. Don't worry about length or grammar. I'll be around eventually to clean it up. Try the template {{Rotten Tomatoes score}}. It uses a bot to retrieve Rotten Tomatoes scores.
Lugnuts: Better coverage of non-US films.

Anything else you'd like to add?

Erik: One of the reasons I enjoy working on film articles is that it is an opportunity to tell the story of a film to a global audience. Coverage of a film can be scattered, and Wikipedia is a great tool to bring together all that coverage. If you work to make a film article comprehensive, you are basically making that web page the best place anywhere to read about a film. It's a satisfying feeling to put together all these details and see the article traffic statistics and know how many readers learned new things about the film.
NinjaRobotPirate: If you see a plot summary that ends with a question mark, it's probably a copyright violation. Normal people don't end a plot summary with a question mark or teaser. If you see something like "95 min." in the infobox, then everything in the infobox was probably copypasted from the IMDb. Double check the data in a reliable source to make sure that the values are correct. If you see a link to Rotten Tomatoes in the External links, but there's no reception section, the film probably received a negative reception. I guess that's just a sardonic observation.
Lugnuts: Whoever brings me the head of Tim Burton will get a shiny new donkey.