Wikiquote talk:Templates/Films

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

Dialog separation[edit]

I believe I've come up with a simple solution to the ongoing controversy of delimiting dialog segments in film and television show articles. I invite everyone who has found this a frequent irritation to participate in the discussion at Wikiquote talk:Templates#Dialog separation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


Template:Theatre-cleanup currently points here, but it should probably have its own template instead that omits all the film-specific stuff. 121a0012 23:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ideas about screenplay transcription...[edit]

I am wondering if it would be worth considering that, in writing a screenplay, the screenwriter uses a specific format to emphasise meaning and pacing. Can we not incorporate that in the quotes? This would require a reference of the quote from a screenplay, but it would give the reader the best bang for their buck, and it would give better meaning to non-verbal actions in the scene which may relate to the meaning of the quote. Anyhow, that's my 2 cents. Rhetth 21:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I see some basic problems with this. First, screenplays aren't what people see and hear, generally; it's the films that enter the public consciousness and become of interest as quotable works. Screenplays can sometimes help to decipher some hard-to-understand dialog, but they aren't the finished work. Furthermore, screenplays aren't generally available as reliable sources that readers can track down to use for verification of quotes. Finally, we have a hard enough time keeping quotes focused on the actual quote material, as opposed to lengthy stage directions that aren't really quotes per se, but really scene transcriptions. Wikiquote is about words, not actions, gestures, looks, or sounds. There is certainly interest in having that kind of material recorded for reading by many, but that does not fit in well either with Wikiquote's purpose or its medium. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarification & consistency with links...[edit]

Loking back I see that the template has always been somewhat inconsistent in its suggestions as to where we should link people (directors, writers, actors, maybe even characters). I'm just starting out in the Wiki* world having served time on Project Gutenberg / Distributed Processors where precision is everything(!), and beginning to get my head around the intention of this template.

As I understand it, the "Directed by..." line at the top of the template contradicts itself. At one point 'static' links to WP articles on "Film director" and "Screenwriter" seem to have been suggested, e.g. the name of the film director. But the added comment implies linking to the individual's name, in WQ (by preference) or WP. Further down, the suggestion is to link actors to WP. Generally this guidance doesn't seem too have been followed - links seem to go off to WP or WQ at random. And the few films I've looked at have never retained the 'static' links to "Film director" and "Screenwriter".

So my proposal would be to update this template as follows.

  • NOT link to WP articles about "Film director" and "Screenwriter" - remove that guidance from the template - I don't think it adds anything.
  • Offer links to both WQ and WP wherever they are found.

So my template modifications would be coded as follows.

Directed by name (see Wikiquote and Wikipedia). Written by name (see Wikiquote and Wikipedia).

For example -

Directed by Peter Jackson (see Wikiquote and Wikipedia). Written by Fran Walsh (see Wikipedia).

Then for the cast -

For example -

We could enrich (or complicate?!) this further by linking to the Wikipedia entries for many fictional characters -

For example -

I'd really appreciate some feedback on this. (roddr 15:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC))

I think the "see link" idiom is too much clutter. It is better to hyperlink the text itself without adding extra verbiage. As a general rule, we link to the local Wikiquote article if there is one, and that article should link to Wikipedia. We link directly to Wikipedia when there is no corresponding article at Wikiquote. I think linking to both is too much. ~ Ningauble 18:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for your feedback - it's much appreciated. As a newcomer, it's not so easy to see how and where to start, nor to identify the general rules that established contributors understand. And my question should perhaps have better been posted at the Village Pump (I just found). Anyway, thanks for not biting(!) and I'll proceed with care and caution. (roddr 23:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC))

Augmenting the page[edit]

I've just augmented the page.  I don't anticipate that this edit will be found controversial.

First, I created and added [[Category:(DIRECTOR films)]].

Second, I found a number of relevant templates here that merited being added.  These included (1) {{amg movie|id=AMG_ID|title=MOVIE TITLE}}, (2) {{metacritic film|id=MC_ID|title=MOVIE TITLE}}, and (3) {{Mojo title|id=MOJO_ID|title=MOVIE TITLE}}.

Third, I added an About section.  It is common for film pages to contain quotes from film reviews, and it seemed only reasonable that this common practice be reflected in the template.

Finally, I replaced The official [http:// title] site with {{official|}}.

If anyone finds anything objectionable about this edit, please let me know.

allixpeeke (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

While I didn't have any objections when these changes were made, I am now seeing one thing as it is being used: I don;t know that we necessarily need to have a director category created for every film. In my mind, we should only have such a category when there are enough films that would fit it to make it worth it. If there is only 1 or 2 of a director's films that have pages, I don;t know that we need a category for them. Perhaps a note would be helpful in the template that says something like "Only use this category if there are x number of films that would fit it." But I don;t know what makes sense for the threshold either - to me something like 5 would work, but I am open to other suggestions. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)