View source for Talk:Film/Archive 1

{{aan}}

==Initial text==
Movies hasn't been created yet... is Movies too broad of a category?  Someone tackle it!  And how is "movies" different than "film" other than the fact that "film" is a more pretentious word for movie??  Maybe we shouldn't create the Movie category afterall.

Actually - there is a difference, "film" is preferred to "movie" in British English... [[User:Dave McKee|Dave McKee]]

----
# Movie should redirect to Film, the difference should be explained.
# A section [[:Individual Movies|Individual Movies]] or [[:Individual Films|Individual Films]] should be divided alphabetically.
# Where <b>is</b> the difference? --[[User:Yooden|Yooden]]
----
Another thing: For individual Movie entries I propose the following format:

:[[:Titanic - Movie 1997|Titanic - Movie 1997]]

The year should be included in any case. --[[User:Yooden|Yooden]]


==still (though progressive)?==
What does "still (though progressive)" mean? Does it mean "sequences of still pictures, like a slideshow"? If so, perhaps it could be worded better. [[user:The Anome|The Anome]]

==transfer to movies==
I have transfered most of this topic to movies.  I admit that until now in the course of preparing articles about individual movies I've tended to use the two terms almost interchangeably.  With one thing leading to another, I was led to look into the history of the [[AGFA]] company.  This has led me to the conclusion that "movies" should bhe used for motion pictures; "Film" should should be used for the more technical material on which photographs are made, and perhaps for other material of a chemical or similar nature.  To this point I could safely say that all(?) movies were on film, but not all films were movies.

Digital photography also takes us into a whole ball game since digitaly photographed movies aren't even films any more.  [[user:Eclecticology|Eclecticology]]
==DV - 35mm==
But they are all commonly referred to as "films"; you can't expect any Joe on the street to distinguish between DV and 35 mm.  Might as well quiz him on f-stops.  And BTW, I've never heard of a course on movies-studies, though there are many on film-studies.  Furthermore, while [[AGFA]] may be an authority on manufacturing film, they are (unlike the [[American Film Institute]]) hardly an authority on the art of film.  Registering my dissent,  [[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|Koyaanis Qatsi]]

: Sorry, Eclecticology, but I tend to agree here. People go to film school, not movie school. As someone who has been involved in the business, I also find that people generally tend to call their work films, not movies (but then again, I may have hung out with the pretentious art crowd a tad too much in my past). I've attended film festivals but never movie festivals, and I've participated in the production of documentary films, not documentary movies. My own experience is that "movie" generally refers to a Hollywood-style feature, leaving film for everything else (shorts, docs, foreign, etc.). [[user:Danny|Danny]]

Thanks for the comments. The statistics in hits from doing a quick exact phrase search on Google for the words movie and film in combination with each of festival, studies, school and documentary certainly seem to strongly support your approach.  I'll also be looking at the statistics on some other expressions that appear in the broad subject - which is not to say that statistics should be the sole determinative criterion.  Grammaticaly, both words work grammatically in every instance that I've looked at but one (film noir would sound just too weird as movie noir) so that doesn't help.  I can certainly promise that I will study the issue thoroughly before I go much further with my conversions.  In the short run my tendency will be to use movie as a stand alone term, and to retain film where the expression requires it.  I admit that I looked at changing many of the existing expressions, but I've been guided by my own observations which tell me to go easy.  Keep the comments coming. [[user:Eclecticology|Eclecticology]]

----

''formerly in [[Talk:Cinema]]''

This new definition is a little provincial. "Cinema" has been a common term for the movies, ordinary movies, in England, Australia, etc; 'le cinema' has had the same use in France. I put these comments in the past tense because I don't know the current idiom.  
----
I agree 100%, but i did this because [[:Film|Film]] is (until now) the place where information about <nowiki>Cinema/Film/Movies</nowiki> has been put up. I would also be keen to have it changed to [[:Cinema|Cinema]], but am not entirely sure. I think someone should inquire in [[talk:Film]] --[[User:Creaktop|Creaktop]]

OK. I'm not sure what to ask, though.--AMT

Well, I'll ask whether it isn't a better idea to move all the stuff under [[:film|film]] to [[:cinema|cinema]] --[[User:Creaktop|Creaktop]]
----
I think it should be under "film" or "cinema," but certainly not "movies" (since "movie," in the singular, does not refer to a body of movies the same way "literature" does a body of novels, poetry, plays, etc.; and "movies" carries that stench of commerce with it).  Why not just ask if anyone has an objection to relocating the central page to another name?  Then if no one responds with one in a reasonable time, just move it.  --Or just move it now and see if anyone complains.  The change is easily enough undone.  :-)  And I'd like to see what can be written about the word "cinema" itself, as well as the history of it.  I'm keen on film but not very knowledgeable of much before the 60s in the U.S., or much of it at all in other countries.

----

''formerly in [[Talk:Movies]]''

Is it just me, or should the contents of this page be at [[Cinema]]? [[user:Brion VIBBER|Brion VIBBER]], Wednesday, April 3, 2002

There or [[film]], where it was originally.  Either refers to individual movies and the art of moviemaking; "movies" does not.  My $.02  [[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|Koyaanis Qatsi]]

Yes, that's probably best. Nearly every [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/special:whatlinkshere&target=Film link to film] is about cinema/movies/motion pictures kind of film; the couple that are about [[photographic film]] can be changed. I'd tend to make [[Cinema]] just a redirect to [[Film]] as well. [[user:Brion VIBBER|Brion VIBBER]]

As Eclecticology pointed out above, given the rising prominence of [[digital cinema]] techniques, the term "film" to describe cinema may quickly become a misnomer.
I'd prefer to reverse the redirect and make [[Film]] a disambiguation page pointing to [[Photographic film]] and [[Cinema]].
--[[User:Damian Yerrick|Damian Yerrick]]
----

What are our priorities for writing in this area?  To help develop a list of the most basic topics in Film, please see [[Movies basic topics]].
----
I must say, I resent the "films for other than entertainment" section--many documentaries are quite entertaining.  But oh well, it does have that stigma of being mostly about [[dung beetle]]s or, thanks to the History Channel, about [[World War II]].  [[User:Koyaanis Qatsi|--KQ]] 21:43 Sep 21, 2002 (UTC)

:Do, how ''did'' World War II affect the life cycle of the dung beetle? --[[User:Brion VIBBER|Brion]] 22:13 Sep 21, 2002 (UTC)
::Better yet: how the dung beetle affected the outcome of WWII.  [[User:Koyaanis Qatsi|--KQ]] 22:20 Sep 21, 2002 (UTC)

==explaining important terms==
This page seems to be inadequate in explaining the important terms. I think first para needs rewriting --[[User:KRS|KRS]]

: I agree, it could be done better. Just start with it, [[be bold]] ;-) [[User:Fantasy|Fantasy]] 15:55, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

== Cinema or Film as the primary page ==

[[Cinema]] is a disambiguation page, so I assume that links to cinema as in film should be pointed here.  The top of the article, then, should use the word cinema (somewhere, preferably in bold) so readers following such links aren't confused --[[User:Spikey|Spikey]] 02:18, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I would suggest that the entire page be moved to [[Cinema]], with [[Film]] converted into a disambiguation page (see discussion above). My reason for preferring ''cinema'' to ''film'' is primarily that ''film'' has so many meanings unrelated to movies (membrane, sheet, coating) and is not necessarily the applicable medium anymore, whereas basically all meanings of ''cinema'' relate to movies. But I agree that ''movie'' would be an undesirable location, since it refers only to individual works and not really to the field of cinema in general. Depending on the reaction, I propose to do this in the next week or so, and am willing to take on the challenge of cleaning up the mess that would make in the links. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 22:19, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

:I'd support that.  Your swordfall is appreciated. :) --[[User:Spikey|Spikey]] 00:53, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

:I would oppose the move. People study "film," they go to "film" school, and they see "films." Also, if you do make such a move, the repercussions will be that you will have to fix every link to film. We've been here before over the film/movie debate. [[User:Danny|Danny]] 00:57, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

::Most Americans see "movies", not "films", which is why we had the debate initially. I recognize that ''film'' has a lot of sway in the academic world, but I expect that will dwindle the more we get away from the medium of film. Also, much of the rest of the world uses and recognizes ''cinema'', especially when speaking of the field of motion pictures, rather than any individual film. Basically, I think [[Cinema]] is the appropriate page for the field overall, with [[Film]] being a page that is more a definition of what constitutes a film. After additional reflection, maybe that's more than just a disambiguation page, and the stuff about feature films would still belong. But the material needs improvement also, and I think renaming it would better communicate what the page is about, and maybe produce additional contributions. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 04:28, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm late to this discussion, nobody asked me, and I don't care a whole lot what this page is called, but here's my opinion.

This page should stay where it is. It certainly  shouldn't be moved to 'cinema'. Nobody I know calls motion pictures 'cinema', any more than they call actors and actresses 'Thespians'. Some people might use those terms but they are both, to paraphrase my dictionary, "somewhat humorous and pretentious". (To many, the term 'cinema' refers to a place people go to watch a movie)

If someone is looking for the correct term for motion pictures (which is this page is about), it's 'motion pictures' - which applies to 'film' (meaning 'motion pictures'), cinema (meaning 'motion pictures'), videos (meaning 'motion pictures'), DVDs (meaning 'motion pictures') and 'movies' (meaning 'motion pictures')

Unless someone wants to move this page to 'motion pictures', which would be correct but cumbersome and a little pretentious, this page should stay where it where it is. 

Admittedly, the term 'film' has not caught up with the technology but, like many terms, it has historical inertia. For years people have been using video cameras and calling what they are doing 'filming'.

All things considered, 'film' is the best title for this page. That's my two cents; keep the change. I'm out. I love the silly names for articles on Wikipedia. My next stop is the "List of female actors" to see if a certain '''actress''' is on it - if I figure out what a female actor is, I'll let you know. :D [[User:Bluelion|Bluelion]] 03:55, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:Well, ''I'd'' be in favor of a move to 'Motion picture'.  I think Bluelion makes a compelling point...  --[[User:Spikey|Spikey]] 17:27, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

::"Motion pictures" is not the name of a field, and it's really the name of the field that I'm trying to get at. For that, I still consider "cinema" the preferable choice over "film", and certainly over "movies". Most of the discussion above has been about the appropriate name for the field generally.

::If you're just talking about what an individual movie *is*, then "motion picture" or "film" is the appropriate place. I would prefer motion picture, a more all-encompassing term than film, which is specific to one type of technology (plus it has several other meanings). The problem right now is that all of these pages redirect to film, when each has different implications that need to be explored.

::My conclusion: the film article should focus on the technology, and the cinema article should focus on the industry and the art form. If there's a separate motion picture article, it could address the different formats that have been used to create moving pictures. Also, a separate disambiguation page is probably needed for film, due to its alternate meanings. Right now, I'm going through all the links to this page, a long process, and checking to see how each link is being used so it can reach the most appropriate destination. Generally, if the usage is just "X is a film/motion picture made in 19xx", I'm leaving it alone, but if it refers to the field generally, I'm moving the link to cinema. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 19:08, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please revert Cinema back to the way it was. The proper place for the discussion of this artform is Film. [[User:Mintguy|Mintguy]] [[User talk: Mintguy|(T)]]

Adding my unsolicited opinion. =] I like the name [[film]] best, all things considered, though none of the options is perfect.  On a vaguely related note, I'd prefer we moved pages like [[The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (movie)]] to [[The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (film)]].  It's true that many ''films'' are more often called ''movies'', but it'd be nice to have one consistent naming scheme for all such things.  And while you can call LoTR a ''film'' (even if it's usually called a ''movie''), there are some ''films'' that you '''cannot''' call a ''movie'' (or at least nobody would), such as most artsy type films.  Additional reasons: we already call these ''films'' in the prose (see Return of the King page) and we have pages like [[1993 in film]]. --[[User:Delirium|Delirium]] 09:55, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Movie is a parochial American term. Film is used internationally. [[User:Jooler|Jooler]]

The two posts above appear to primarily address the question of whether to use Film or Movie. That question is, I believe, resolved. Additional contributions should please focus on whether to use Cinema or Film. I agree with Delirium as far as pages of individual films. I would welcome anyone who would like to address my reasons for preferring Cinema as the name of the field (not the term for an individual film). To recap: 1)Film has meanings unrelated to motion pictures; 2)All meanings of Cinema relate to motion pictures; 3)Cinema is widely used when discussing the field of motion pictures in other countries and languages; 4)As a cinematic technology, film is in the process of becoming archaic; 5)By itself, the term Film does not distinguish between motion pictures and [[photography]], two fields of visual art for which it is equally important; 6)Cinema, on the other hand, clearly communicates to anyone which field the page is about. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 17:35, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:I don't have a huge preference either way, but slightly prefer ''film'', mostly because ''cinema'', at least in this part of the world, has an archaic ring to it (a ''cinema'' is what one might have gone to in the 1930s). --[[User:Delirium|Delirium]] 05:12, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

::I prefer ''film'' as well, especially for an article about motion pictures. If the subject is the art or business of making and distributing motion pictures, that, according to the dictionaries I consulted, is not ''cinema''; it's ''the cinema''. ''Cinema'', without a ''the'', refers to motion pictures, or to a motion picture theatre. The art of making motion pictures is ''cinematography''. Why there couldn't be an article about film as well as an article about the cinema and/or cinematography, I wouldn't know. But, again, if the subject is the finished product (motion pictures), I prefer ''film'' to ''cinema''. [[User:Bluelion|Bluelion]] 12:31, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:::We seem to be talking past each other a little bit. Hopefully that's because we agree on more than we realize. And perhaps it's not clear what my current proposal is, because I did originally suggest something different. I don't see any problem with having separate articles for cinema and film; each serves a purpose. And I agree that when talking about a motion picture as a product, it usually makes more sense to link to film. I've been linking to cinema only when the reference is to motion pictures in a collective sense. BTW, there is a [[cinematography]] article too (although right now it's signed and unwikified - needs work). --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 23:52, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As an American (although I wish there were a different term to distinguish myself from Canadians or Mexicans or others who live on the American continent(s)), I'd prefer Film to be a disambig page, and Cinema or Cinematography to be the main page discussing the arts and sciences of the thing we go into a dark room and watch moving images on a screen. I don't go to see films. I go to see movies (from moving pictures, akin to 'talkies' from 'movies with spoken words). Academically, it's Cinema (as in the [http://www-cntv.usc.edu/index.php USC School of Cinema-Television]). - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] 15:49, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

: USian :) [[Alternate words for American]] - [[user:zanimum]]

All this discussion shows me it'd be worth having a section in this article on "use of the word" or something like that.  I propose putting it after "History" and before "Industry."  The section would discuss different connotations of the words "cinema," "film," and "movie" as used in American English, vs. British English, and maybe other languages.  I only know the American English though, so I can't do this alone.  Are there objections to putting that in the article?  --[[User:Zandperl|zandperl]] 15:47, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:No objection by me, I might even recommend putting it higher up. The history and industry sections are copies of what I originally wrote on [[Cinema]] (since expanded), and I consider them less critical to what this page should focus on. If you start an explanation of the connotations, I'm sure we can rely on other people to add meanings when they come along. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 19:37, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There are lots of kinds of film besides cinema - photographic film, plastic wrap film, thin oil films on water, thin film electronics, etc.
There are not so many for cinema.
I think Cinema should be the lead article, film should be a disambiguation page IMHO. (I am a North American anglophone, by the way, so ''movies'' is my native term.) [[User:Leonard G.|Leonard G.]] 02:57, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As a speaker of Australian English, I say "I am going to the cinema to watch a film/movie". I think of cinema only really as describing the physical projection amphitheatre, or at most the industry of providing such services (companies such as [[Hoyts]]). On the other hand, those ''making'' the productions are part of what I would call the "Film industry". As a result, I feel the article should stay here at Film. - [[User:Mark|Mark]] 12:51, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:I was thinking along similar lines &ndash; a cinema is a [[movie theater]].  I've set [[cinema]] as a disambig page &ndash; [[cinemas]] is already a redirect to [[movie theater]], I think that is sensible enough. [[User:Violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 17:57, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
::Just as significantly, it should be noted that the various sub-articles to this one - the ones on more specific aspects of Film - have the same problem, both in title (Cinema of [insert country name here]) and within text, where "movie", "show" and "cinema" may all appear within the same text, while "film" may not be used at all.  The primary term used in this particular article will be rendered meaningless if not accompanied by extensive textual editing elsewhere.  (And, BTW, I have heard/read the statement "I saw a great motion picture last week".  All the terms under consideration do, in fact, have widespread usage, at least in the USA, particularly if you look back through time:  "film" and "cinema" may dominate in contemporary academia, but I think a check of most other encyclopedias will find the topic title "Motion Pictures".  But I'd much rather see everything just get organized under one common term rather than quibble over which is better; and "film" will do as good as any.)  [[User:12.73.195.41|12.73.195.41]] 20:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

: I must agree with the arguments above, however, I think with the coming of the digital age where cinemas get harddrives delivered instead of rolls of film could have an impact on the word choice. Considering "film" refers to the medium on which the movie has been captured, I don't think many people will be caught saying, "I saw a good film on a DVD last night". Also another argument for a possible split in the future is that "film" is ambiguous, whereas movie is not. --[[User:K.Nevelsteen|Kim Nevelsteen]] 12:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
::Note: the above two responses were made to a refactored version of the arguments; see [[Special:Permalink/22026123|the way the talk page looked at the time]]. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 15:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
== Scope of this article ==
==Standardization==
Is there a page on Wikipedia somewhere where the standardization of articles is hammered out? I think the articles on movies need to be decided and figured out. Their structure, organization, and content varies from article to article, and I think it would be best if we had them all in the same format (the way we do for countries, for example).

Also, as a somewhat minor note, I think it would be best if the external links had a certain order to them: first the official site(s), then the IMDb page, then whatever other links there are. -[[User:Branddobbe|Branddobbe]] 23:29, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

:Some articles are starting to order their external links by Alexa traffic rankings; I think that would be a good idea here.  --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik]] 19:05, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

== External links ==

There are ''waaay'' too many external links in this article.  Did all of these websites send their minions to spam the Wikipedia, or what?  --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik]] 19:05, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

I agree- there are way too many external links. I don't want to start deleting them for fear of backlash, but some kind of discussion here would make sense. --[[User:DevanJedi|DevanJedi]] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 18:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)</small>


=='Film' doesn't seem the correct heading==
I think the article should be '''[[Film industry]]''' (currently a redirect).  In fact &ndash; because [[movie theater]] and [[cinematography]] already exist, and are decent stubs &ndash; I was just about to jump in with both feet and change the redirect at [[Cinema]] thusly:

<nowiki>'''Cinema''' can be:</nowiki>

<nowiki>*a '''[[movie theater]]''' where movies or [[film]]s are shown</nowiki>
<br><nowiki>*the academic art of '''[[cinematography]]''', or the [[technology]] involved</nowiki>
<br><nowiki>*the collective output of the '''[[film industry]]'''.</nowiki>

<nowiki>{{disambig}}</nowiki>

... but then I thought that might be rather contentious, so I stayed my hand. 

I think film should be retained (partly because even a group effort would take ages to resolve all the redirects that would require elision) as the home for discussion of film genres and styles.  Film industry could take the stuff about (business) history and film studios.  Cinematography would be about media and technology, and some history as well.  [[User:Noisy|Noisy]] 09:16, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:NB, there is a competing article, and quite a bit longer, [[History of cinema]], which needs to be examined & integrated in terms of relevant content, and the balance consigned to subarticles.  There is also a contradictory section title, Cinema, in the site index at the Culture URL at the top of the 'pedia main page, and this leads to a number of different subtopical articles not linked to Film.  The redirect process only works on the site-search field, and only if you enter the word "cinema" (or "movie", "motion picture", etc.) by itself. 

:We are working at consolidating all these link-points as a "table of contents" to Film.  One reason, we can't stand scatter or mess! Also, hopefully, getting all these articles collected and classified in one place should help define the scope of this particular article insofar as it can't, alone, cover *everything* which can be said about film technology, film industry, film personalities and film product, but can serve as a summary lead-in to the details.  Then comes the laborious process of conforming all the article titles to the word "film".  [[User:12.73.195.41|12.73.195.41]] 19:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There has been a possibly misguided effort to pull in the content from other articles (timelines, etc) into this one.  I say misguided because (1) the result is far, far, less readable and (2) the information was merely duplicated instead of moved entirely.  Still, we really should have a consensus-based roadmap for what belongs in the various articles, and until we have one of those to point people to.  So as I don't have the time at this exact moment to constructively do so, I'll just voice my opinion and hope someone else agrees and fixes it.  Will the person/persons doing the merging edits identify themselves and present their rationale?  [[User:Metaeducation|Metaeducation]] 22:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
:Note: the above two responses were made to a refactored version of the arguments; see [[Special:Permalink/20652231|the way the talk page looked at the time]]. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 15:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

== Film awards, film ratings, etc. ==

"The movie was a major critical and commercial success when it was released and has remained a popular favorite since. [[Kevin Kline|Kline]] won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for his work. [...]

<u>In [[2004]] the magazine ''[[Total Film]]'' named ''[[A Fish Called Wanda]]'' the 41st greatest British film of all time</u>."

How many more "best film ever"/"worst commercial flop since 1952" lists can Wikipedia digest? Where should we draw the line? Would it be more appropriate to have '''one''' list containing the complete ''Total Film'' rating rather than having it spread over 100 or so film articles?

The idea behind my question of course is that not all those lists refer to film '''awards'''. (Is there a generic article [[film award]] or [[film awards]]?) While the [[Academy Award]] has a loooong tradition which is duly respected also here at Wikipedia, any one of us might be lucky and get a job at some movie magazine or obscure film academy and then simply publish, in printed form or via the Internet, a highly POV list of their favourite films (I could do that any time, and you too, I guess) which then would be the subject-matter of a strictly NPOV Wikipedia article.

I'm not saying we should delete the ''Total Film'' additions. But what if someone adds yet another&mdash;their favourite&mdash;rating? While it's so easy, isn't it, putting an article on [[VfD]], this would be a more complex problem.

What do you think? [[User:KF|<KF>]] 21:03, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

:<sniff>Nothing?</sniff> [[User:KF|<KF>]] 03:02, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

::By the way, the same thing is happening with literature topics. For example, I've just discovered [[100 Best Characters in Fiction since 1900]]. Could this help to get a discussion going? [[User:KF|<KF>]] 14:06, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

== Oscars and Escapism ==

"Every year, the best motion pictures are awarded an Academy award. Also known as an Oscar, this award is given in many different categories."

I would argue that often the "best" movies, do not win Oscars. I think this needs to be be re-worded.

"Film is a way for some viewers to escape their own realities."

This is a strange paragraph and what has it got to do with The Motion Picture industry? While it might be true it doesn't really add any useful information to the article. --[[User:Peter Tribe|Peter]] 05:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:Your first point is valid, but I disagree with you on the second one. Whilst it may need rewording, I feel it is important to mention the various theories of film. This article is about the medium as well as the industry. - [[User:Mark|Mark]] 04:59, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not relevant to the article, but that paragraph is under the heading "The Motion Picture industry" and it should probably go in a different section - perhaps "Film as Escapism" or something similar? Also a one sentence paragraph is not very encyclopedic. --[[User:Peter Tribe|Peter]] 05:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:Ahh fair enough. You are right then :) I didn't bother to check where in the article you got the quote from. - [[User:Mark|Mark]] 05:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

==Lev Vygotsky==
Felt obligated to do some fairly major restructuring of the article, since I go to movie school (err...film school, I mean).  I preserved just about everything, but eliminated redundancy and put things under their proper headings.  Didn't take out any facts or opinions, except the following sentence...which seemed like a non-sequitir.  It mentions not even an editor of a film, but a relatively obscure assistant editor...I'm hard pressed to see why this bears mention.  Saying that films have been applied in education is already stretching relevance, I kept that but cut this.  Just mentioning it.

[[Lev Vygotsky]], one of the twentieth century's leading educational theorists, understood the importance of film and assisted Eisenstein in the editing of "[[The Battleship Potemkin]]". <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.30.126.2|24.30.126.2]] ([[User talk:24.30.126.2#top|talk]]) 10:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)</small>

Upon further editing, I think a general rule should be that this article not mention in general passing specific films or actors, unless it REALLY fits with the point being made.  The history of cinema breaks down a timeline of movies of historical significance -- so saying "in year blah blah the Great Train Robbery was a famous movie" is unnecessary.  I think knowing details like the "first color film" could be relevant, but the "first popular color film" is very subjective.  In light of this, I have moved many specifics into "History of cinema" <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.30.126.2|24.30.126.2]] ([[User talk:24.30.126.2#top|talk]]) 20:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)</small>

== F.I.L.M. acronym-as-origin ==

194.243.7.199 wrote:

:The use of word '''film''' in the sense of movie derives from Fabbrica Italiana Lamine Milano, an italian factory leader in 1920's market of cinematographic pellicles.

I couldn't find any support for this.  It seems to me that the acronym was probably chosen because of the prominence of the existing term, and not vice versa.  If someone can cite a historical reference for this "FILM" organization, then great, but I couldn't find anything about it that wasn't in Italian.  [[User:Metaeducation|Metaeducation]] 23:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

:I only have document in italian for this, and the entry in dictionary.com is of little support
:''Thus a word that has been with us since Old English times took on this new use, first recorded in 1845, which has since developed and now refers to an art form, a sense first recorded in 1920.''
sorry. But if someone is interested in it,  :
*http://www.db.avvenire.it/avvenire/edizione_2004_03_25/articolo_428686.html 
*http://www.reflex.it/storia_00.htm
Bye.

== New template "Future film" for tagging upcoming films ==

Adding the tag automatically adds the article to [[:Category:Upcoming films]], which is a subcategory of [[:Category:Future products]]. Note that [[:Category:Future films]] would propably be more in line with [[:Category:Future products]], [[:Category:Future games]] and [[:Category:Future events]].

ps. How come there isn't a portal for movies? It's talk-page would have been a more approbiate place to inform about this template. --[[User:The Merciful|The Merciful]] 13:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
:Silly me, of course there is [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Films]]! --[[User:The Merciful|The Merciful]] 13:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


== Improvement drive ==

A related topic, [[Pulp Fiction]], is currently nominated on [[WP:IDRIVE]]. Vote for this article.--[[User:Fenice|Fenice]] 06:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

== Timeline ==

I just finished re-reading the timeline. It seems slightly bereft of information following the 80s. The 90s and the 00s may not have seen the same radical changes as the decades before, but there's still a lot to talk about with the rise of DVD and the distribution of movies illegally via peer2peer (and the MPAA's attempts against that movement), as well as other issues --[[User:Harmonica|Harmonica]] 03:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
:This should be addressed in [[History of Film]]. For whatever reason someone copied what was there and put it here, and no one has condensed it down into the appropriate summary yet. [[User:MechBrowman|MechBrowman]] 03:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

== Scope of this Article ==

Currently, this article is about the medium as well as the industry, and has a focus on history.  [[User:Noisy|Noisy]] suggests that the [[Cinematography]] article could be left to cover media and technology, and some history as well.  More content is covered in [[Movies basic topics]].

There has been a possibly misguided effort to pull in the content from other articles (timelines, etc) into this one.  I say misguided because (1) the result is far, far, less readable and (2) the information was merely duplicated instead of moved entirely.  Still, we really should have a consensus-based roadmap for what belongs in the various articles, and until we have one of those to point people to.  So as I don't have the time at this exact moment to constructively do so, I'll just voice my opinion and hope someone else agrees and fixes it.  Will the person/persons doing the merging edits identify themselves and present their rationale?  [[User:Metaeducation|Metaeducation]] 22:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

:I'd argue that the timeline actually reads as a fairly decent outline.. of something. But is it about ''Film'' per se? Or Cinema? Or is it in fact an amalgum of both? I realise that the two are inexplicably linked, but it starts out as talking about film (ie, the technical aspects/development) and then moves to talking about films (that is, Film) and the development of cinema.

Perhaps a timeline isn't a very helpful way of starting off this article because it conflates all the aspects of Film into one piece. I'm going to think about how this can be dealt with. Thoughts?--[[User:Harmonica|Harmonica]] 03:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

:Does anyone know where the word "film" is originated from? [[User:64.231.177.76|64.231.177.76]] 00:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
::I came here looking for that precise information! (or the word 'cinema' in actual fact) --[[User:Harmonica|Harmonica]] 03:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
:I have tried to address the transition to digital theater display, and point out that HD home entertainment is soon to be a
big risk to the theater business, as 2K cinema is only a little better than home HD image 

That list is too long and needs categorised; either that, or some entries should be removed. [[User:Fourohfour|Fourohfour]] 10:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
:"Films with plot twists"? This is a list? Films without are documentaries, aren't they? Or deadly dull...  [[User:Trekphiler|Trekphiler]] 07:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

== Film dating ==

Not sure if this belongs here or where, but... There seems to be a problem dating movie releases. I've seen discrepencies of a yr source to source; somebody needs to check. This isn't a problem unique to Wikipedia: I've seen 2 diff movie guides with diff dates, & the dates the newspaper uses don't agree always. More than that, & is it yr of release, yr filming ended, copywright yr, or what, that actually gets mentioned? Absent the exact release date, the year is a toss.  [[User:Trekphiler|Trekphiler]] 07:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

== name of this article ==

should it be named [[Motion pictures]] - wouldn't this be the most unambiguous, straight forward, formal, and thereby proper name to use? [[User:Mayumashu|Mayumashu]] 03:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree.  '''Motion Pictures''' are often but not always on made on [[photographic film|(photographic) film]]. [[User:AjaxSmack|AjaxSmack]] 07:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

:I also agree. "Motion pictures" is probably the most accurate name, and while the term "film" generally refers to motion pictures, the word only literally refers to the most common format of motion pictures. To me, it seems that a page entitle "Film" would be more likely to describe [[photographic film]], rather than motion pictures. Of course, that's just me, and I'm not trying to call for a change in where "film" directs (although I would probably support such a change), but the name "Motion pictures" does seem more logical. --[[User:Shroom Mage|Shroom Mage]] 23:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

:I also agree.  Motion Picture is less ambiguous.  [[User:Wayne Goode|Wayne Goode]] 19:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

::I disagree, the point about "film" only literally referring to the most common format of motion pictures is incorrect in my view, the term evolved from those origins but now refers to all forms of motion picture. The English language is littered with examples of a term which originally had a limited and specific meaning, but evolved to become a more general and non-literal designation.
 
::Moreover the term "motion picture" is rarely used in some English speaking parts of the world outwith North America - it's not at all common in Britain for instance where "motion pictures" are referred to almost universally as "films". You could argue that this would subsequently be taking the side of [[British English]] to use the term "film" for this article, however I would contend that point given that "film" is still used extensively in North America, it simply has a more formal meaning than it does in BE - it should also be noted that there's a discussion further down this talk page which concluded that keeping the name "film" was the correct course of action. [[User:Blankfrackis|Blankfrackis]] 19:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

== List of Movie types ==

good job on the listings
:But you all forgot, Movie based over video Games
When i get back, i wanna see it:P
:[[User:Xino|&gt;x&lt;ino]] 08:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It should have a list of movies based on books.  All I saw was a list of songs based on films or books, which I think was put in by mistake.

== Chinface ==

Does anyone know which articles I should link to the [[Chinface]] article? This is a unique type of performance, there are only so many ways one can act with the human body. [[User:Kernow|Kernow]] 15:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

== size of pic ==

The size of the pic (the one of the reel) is a little large in my opinion. Does anyone mind if I scale it down? --[[User:Osbus|Osbus]] 15:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


== Endurance of film ==

Does this section really belong there -- or does it need a rewording? I wouldn't call it NPOV, exactly, but it seems to read more like a short essay than a part of an encyclopedia article. [[User:Eeblefish|Eeblefish]] 02:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
:Sorry I'm late, but I wholeheartedly agree. I was tempted to severely edit that piece just now, but I realised it was unsalvageable because of its complete pointlessness. It should get the axe. Anyone else have an opinion? [[User:Elvenscout742|elvenscout742]] 08:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

== Notice: Quarterly Review of Film and Video bounty ==

See [[Wikipedia:Reward_board#Quarterly_Review_of_Film_and_Video]]. [[User:Matt Crypto|&mdash; Matt <small>Crypto</small>]] 19:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

== external link ==

Do you think that [http://www.moviecritic.com.au Film Reviews & Discussion] would be worthy of putting in the external links section?

== A Filmmaking Wiki ==

I apologize if this is somehow considered spamming or vandalism, but I thought this might be of interest to people who contribute to the Film Portal. If this should be deleted, by all means do so. I've created a filmmaking wiki, at http://wikifilmschool.com. My aim is not to duplicate the efforts of the Film Portal or any other project that seeks to catalogue films themselves (though, in truth, that may be an eventual effect if the project grows as large as I hope it will), but rather focus on the art and craft of how films and movies are actually made; cataloguing technique, terms, resources, and all knowledge that is related to how one would actually put together a motion picture. My goal is to cross the spectrum of filmmaking, from informing on the arcana of names and terms used in professional filmmaking that are only generally privy to professionals and people who have accumulated schooling and/or experience to cataloguing every possible way to achieve professional level results with as little money and as little "industry standard" equipment as conceivable. I hope some people will be interested in contributting, as Wikifilmschool could benefit from people with general wiki experience (formatting, templates, community building, etc.) as much as actual content. I intend to post this in a few other spots related to film, so I apologize in advance to anyone who comes across this message more than once. [[User:HamillianActor|HamillianActor]] 19:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:It might not be appropriate in the [[film]] article, but perhaps in the [[film school]] and [[filmmaking]] ones. I'd say be sparing in your use of linkage and only place it in articles which are very closely (ie not generally) related. [[User:Girolamo Savonarola|Girolamo Savonarola]] 11:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
::I agree in principle, and certainly wouldn't start posting on things any more tangentially related to filmmaking than the [[film]] page, but in my opinion, it's relevant enough to warrant it. [[User:HamillianActor|HamillianActor]] 16:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:::It's not directly important enough to warrant a link to the article designed to discuss the entire discipline and artform of film in the past 100 years. Simple as that. External links should always be kept to a minimum, which was the rationale behind the extreme deletion of links recently. Relevant it may be, but not relevant enough to warrant inclusion in a serious encyclopedic article about film in general. [[User:Girolamo Savonarola|Girolamo Savonarola]] 17:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
::::Certainly not in the main article, and I would never edit the actual article unless it were a noteworthy inclusion (even then, I wouldn't make the edit myself) but do those same principles also apply to talk pages? As I stated in the original post, the last thing I want to do is engender a lot of ill will and if somebody feels their toes are being stepped on, I'm more than willing to entertain concerns and reverse edits.[[User:HamillianActor|HamillianActor]] 21:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

== Request, if I may ==

The article on [[Satyajit Ray]], Bengali filmmaker, is up for a peer review. Please take a look. Thanks--[[User:Shmitra|ppm]] 17:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

== International Film ==

Having worked on various international cinema articles, I saw the opportunity to improve this section here. I have moved moved the few international cinema links to an "International Film" section under "See Also".
As an alternative to this, the <nowiki>{{World Cinema}}</nowiki> template could be added, but I'll leave that up to the editors of this article.

I removed the few cinema by country links, as they were woefully incomplete, and added film by continent links in their place. If you wish to add a full list of cinema by country articles, check the [[World cinema]] article (but there are loads, so you may wish to avoid repeating the info that is already there). [[User:Gram123|Gram]] 15:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

== GA Re-Review and In-line citations ==

Members of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles]] are in the process of doing a re-review of current [[WP:GA|Good Article]] listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the [[WP:WIAGA|Good Article Criteria]]. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found [[Wikipedia talk:Good article candidates|here]]). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to [[WP:CITE]]) to be used in order for an article to pass the [[WP:V|verification]] and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles|talk page]] or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. [[User:Agne27|Agne]] 04:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

== Semi-Protection ==

I have semi-protected the article based on frequent vandalism/link spam by IP users.  Said users can request changes on this page to be reviewed deemable for admission, by any member or they can get an account. :) [[User:Cbrown1023|Cbrown1023]] 03:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

== definition ==

The definition isn't specific enough. According to it, each episode of TV shows like Family Guy and Nip/Tuck could be considered a motion-picture film. [[User:Herorev|Herorev]] 19:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

== Start of Collab ==

So what needs to be done to this article to make it a FA? First thing I notice is no inline cites, which is an instant fail. I think the endurance section should mention [[film preservation]]. Crew is an exceptionally short section that should include at least who are the main crew people. Film theory needs at least a sketch of realism vs expressionism and the major players. In the venues section we should mention how films are now framed with TV in mind. These are all off the top of my head, so if we agree we can start refilling the todo box.--[[User:Supernumerary|Supernumerary]] 03:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

== "Theory" vs. "Criticism" ==

Is there a difference between "[[film theory]]" and the academic style of [[film criticism]]? If not, perhaps we should combine the two subsections.  --[[User:GHcool|GHcool]] 04:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:There is a HUGE difference. Film theory is much more academic, while film criticism is just reviewing movies.--[[User:Supernumerary|Supernumerary]] 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::Same comment as his, I was going to reply then he gave my answer. :-P [[User:Cbrown1023|Cbrown1023]] 16:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::Certainly there is a difference between film theory and film criticism of the newspaper review variety, but that doesn't answer my question.  My question was "Is there a difference between '[[film theory]]' and '''the academic style of [[film criticism]]'''?" --[[User:GHcool|GHcool]] 00:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes there is. The difference is that academic film criticism applies the film theory to a specific film, director, series, genre, etc. It's film theory in action. (See reviews written by André Bazin.)--[[User:Supernumerary|Supernumerary]] 00:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

== With the invention ==

of [[celluloid]] film by [[Goodwin]] in [[1887]] . . .    Why not like that in the main article ? [[User:80.219.134.64|80.219.134.64]] 22:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

== Roundhay Garden Scene ==

The still from Roundhay Garden Scene, carries the caption "world's first motion picture," though the article refers to it as "the earliest surviving film."  What's the truth here.  Is there a distinction between motion pictures and films in this example (i.e., is this a reference to the use of celluloid film?)  Do any of Muybridge's earlier experiments count as "motion pictures?"  Does the fact that this is the earliest surviving film depend on the fact that earlier films haven't survived, in which case this is not the "world's first motion picture?" <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Zadignose|Zadignose]] ([[User talk:Zadignose|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Zadignose|contribs]]) 00:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

== Wait a minute ==

Wait a minute...
I thought the first film was released in 1896. And the oldest film was released in 1888. Something seems to be wrong. When was the first film released? Comon people, lets get our facts straight. [[User:Factual80man|Factual80man]]

1888 is when the FIRST ONE was released. 1896 is when the FIRST BRITISH FILM was released. [[User:Pro Game Master87|Pro Game Master87]] 10:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:Here's the quick and dirty version - the first successful experiments into motion pictures were completed by Le Prince in 1888. Many other people were working simultaneously on the technology, with varying systems and degrees of success. All of these systems involved specialized viewing systems which were essentially the original "peep shows" (think arcades, not red light district). The technology and concept of ''projecting'' a film took several more years to refine, and culminated around 1895. The Lumieres are often given the credit, although the truth is that they had many predecessors - no one person can claim much behind the creation of films. It was a very incremental process. [[User:Girolamo Savonarola|Girolamo Savonarola]] 12:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

== first feature film ==

Surely there would be room for mention in the article about what is considered the first feature length film, [[The Story of the Kelly Gang]] (1906, Australia)?? [[User:Aussiepete|Peter]] 12:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

== The second paragraph ==

The second paragraph, "Films are cultural artifacts created by specific cultures...," seems out of place.  The paragraphs before and after it are appropriate introduction defining the topic.  All the statements about the power and importance of film sound like commentary trying to impress the reader. It's also not well written in my opinion, and it brings up an arbitrary collection of subtopics that do not define the scope.  I suggest deleting it. [[User:SandyFace|SandyFace]] 05:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

== Disambiguation request ==

[[Movie]] redirects here, so please put a link to [[Movie (disambiguation)]] on the head.--[[User:60.46.134.218|60.46.134.218]] 16:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
== Title Change? ==

I think the title should be changed to Movie.[[Special:Contributions/70.234.245.53|70.234.245.53]] ([[User talk:70.234.245.53|talk]]) 00:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is that? Film is much more commonly used so it makes sense to use it. [[User:SP900|SP900]] ([[User talk:SP900|talk]]) 14:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the title change. The word "film" may be more commonly used, but its primary meaning is the celluloid medium. "Film" means a thin coating or layer. I guess the most correct title would be "Motion Picture". Film is just the most common nickname for motion pictures. For example, my nickname is much more commonly used than my full name, but my full name is still my proper name. The only reason why "film" is more commonly used is because its short and neat, easy to use. However, its meaning is not as accurate as "motion picture" here. [[Special:Contributions/88.112.228.30|88.112.228.30]] ([[User talk:88.112.228.30|talk]]) 12:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

'Film' means what Americans called 'Movie' in the majority of English speaking countries (it's also interesting to note that the French language uses the word 'film' as well, not 'movie'.   <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.156.12.236|86.156.12.236]] ([[User talk:86.156.12.236|talk]]) 00:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:I agree, and so does [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/film Merriam-Webster]. [[User:Binba|Binba]] ([[User talk:Binba|talk]]) 05:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

== External links ==

I'm proposing that the following external links be removed as off topic.  The article is about films in general, while the links are all to movie review sites.
* [http://www.allmovie.com All Movie Guide] - Information on films: actors, directors, biographies, reviews, cast and production credits, box office sales, and other movie data.
* [http://www.filmsite.org Film Site] - Reviews of classic films
* [http://imdb.com/ The Internet Movie Database (IMDb)] - Information on current and historical films and cast listings.
* [http://www.rottentomatoes.com Rottentomatoes.com] - Movie reviews, previews, forums, photos, cast info, and more.
What I think would be appropriate are links to sites and articles about the topics covered in the article. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 16:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
:I would be in support of that if you replace those external links with better ones you can find. It's arguable whether those are off-topic or not and since the external links section is not cluttered, you named 4 of the 5 links in it, I think it would be a bit silly to remove all the external links without replacing them with better ones at the same time. [[User:LonelyMarble|LonelyMarble]] ([[User talk:LonelyMarble|talk]]) 21:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

::May I suggest The British Film Institute's [http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/searches.php search engine], similar to those listed above however it is purely factual, listing things like release format, date, cast, credits with a synopsis etc. To fully declare my interested I was one of the developers who helped develop it although I no longer work for the original company nor the BFI itself. There are already a significant number of links from wikipedia into the results, the database itself is updated by the BFI every so often however the design ensure the updates keep links stable as it were. [[User:Philipmather|Philipmather]] ([[User talk:Philipmather|talk]]) 21:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Philip Mather

The title should be motion picture.--[[User:Gladboy101|Gladboy101]] ([[User talk:Gladboy101|talk]]) 23:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

== How about the term "cinema"? ==

I've seen a bit of the discussion about using the terms "film" versus "movie".  I tend to think, however, that neither is appropriate.  Film refers to the physical storage medium, the traditional name for the entire industry, and a common name used by a number of European English speakers.  Movie refers to the actual motion picture, a modern name for the entire industry, and a common name used by most American English speakers.  This dichotomy reflects a lack of consensus or reason, so the name of this page, in my opinion, should shed any conceptions of a storage medium or cultural attitudes: cinema.  Cinema refers to the field as a whole, and does have a hold as seen with [[world cinema]] (foreign film) and [[cinema of the United States]] (US movie/film industry).  Nevertheless, I admit that most cinematic terms are based around the term film. Some of these may be easy changed to more ''correct'' terms as needs present themselves. For example, '''history of film''' would work well '''history of cinema''', as this term refers to the industry instead of individual films/movies. In the cases like [[filmmaking]], where traditional terms have a strong hold, the term may either be used or changed (movie production), but explained more appropriately.  In other words, ending the debate between film and movie would allow the most fitting terms to explain each concept individually.  [[User:CaseyPenk|CaseyPenk]] ([[User talk:CaseyPenk|talk]]) 00:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC) [amended]
:No, I disagree. This article is not just about the industry of cinema, but it's about the actual cinematic productions themselves. "Film" has evolved to mean much more than just the medium of recording, anyway. If there were to be a strong objection to the current title, then I guess the proper alternative would be "motion picture". But I support keeping it as it is. [[User:Eurosong|EuroSong]] <sup>[[User_talk:Eurosong|talk]]</sup> 13:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
::I fail to see how your suggested alternative, "motion picture" would encompass the entire production and distribution process.  And I furthermore fail to see how "cinema" does not include all the aspects "film" refers to.  I'm not suggesting changing any of the scope of this article: it will still include much information on the actual motion pictures and their making, without the weight of an objectionable term.  [[User:CaseyPenk|CaseyPenk]] ([[User talk:CaseyPenk|talk]]) 22:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
:::I fail to see how "motion picture" would ''not'' encompass the entire production and distribution process of motion pictures :-) [[User:Binba|Binba]] ([[User talk:Binba|talk]]) 05:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

== History section - typesetters' quotation found ==

"motion pictures." needs changing to "motion pictures". I'd do it myself, but the page is semi-protected. Can someone else do it, please? [[User:Avengah|Avengah]] ([[User talk:Avengah|talk]]) 00:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, fixed (I forgot the S). The page, however, still needs fixing! [[User:Avengah|Avengah]] ([[User talk:Avengah|talk]]) 01:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

:Page fixed. [[User:Avengah|Avengah]] ([[User talk:Avengah|talk]]) 15:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

== Translation ==

The [[:fr:Cinéma|French article]], is an extremely promissing featured article candidate. Any French-English bilingual interested in the topic willing to make a translation for an eventual FA here? '''<span style="font-family:Kristen ITC">[[User:Zouavman Le Zouave|<span style="color:#000000;">Zouavman</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Zouavman Le Zouave|<span style="color:#229922;">Le</span>]] [[User talk:Zouavman Le Zouave|<span style="color:#000000;">Zouave</span>]]</span>''' 16:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
== Interwiki ==

Please add this: <nowiki>{{Link FA|fr}}
</nowiki>. [http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film This article] {{In lang|sv}} is also a good article but I don't know how you call them. Thank you :) [[User:Dodoïste|Dodoïste]] ([[User talk:Dodoïste|talk]]) 10:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
:Added the French tag. The Swedish one I left alone; we only label FA-level articles, not GA (to the best of my knowledge). [[User:EVula|EVula]] <span style="color: #999;">// [[User talk:EVula|talk]] // [[User:EVula/admin|<span style="color: #366;">&#9775;</span>]] //</span> 16:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
== 'Talkies', 'Film', 'Cinema', 'Movies', 'Video of film', 'Video of film on DVD', "Hollywood" as adjective ==

I lectured on film at Stanford from 1984 to 1992 ([[Tarkovsky]] was my thing).  
* A question I was typically asked was "what is the difference between 'film' and 'cinema'?".  I would answer they are the same.  
* "Talkie" usually means "movie made shortly after "silent film". 
* Another question is on the difference between a "film" and a "movie".  The answer is more subtle, but the former is usually more used for artistic focus, the latter more for entertainment focus.  However, "film", in the expression "silent film" could refer to an entertainment focus.  Often "commercial film" and "movie" have similar meanings, but "commercial movie" still has meaning, as an entertainment vehicle that is also intended to make money.
* Then I would hear people say "I 'saw' 'Andrei Rublev' on DVD, and it was boring".  I would respond, "No, you saw 'a DVD, of a video, of the film'".  A good way to make the point is to ask a person if they would claim to have seen the Grand Canyon if they merely had seen a picture book on the Grand Canyon.  Surprisingly, I hypocritically would make this argument, then go on to talk about Copolla, and say I had seen "Godfather" ten times or more, but I never saw it on a screen until 2003.  I went back three times in a row in 2003.  I then corrected my own error and started saying that I had seen the Godfather film three times, and a 'video of the film' more than ten times. 
: This article shuold make this point, or Tarkovsky may die a second death because the "video of the film" is confused with the film.  But I do not want to edit an article that seems so otherwise essentially complete. 
: The most clear way to make this point is using Ken Russel's Davils, in which shades of white (contrast) are used to create a symbolic language, related to purity and sin, and related to a whole lot more.  This is almost impossible to see on a "DVD of a video" of the "film".  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:EricDiesel|EricDiesel]] ([[User talk:EricDiesel|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/EricDiesel|contribs]]) 15:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
* I used to use the expression "Hollywood", as in "It is Hollywood", as a disparaging adjective, similar to "commercial", but more specific, as a "noncommercial Hollywood film" is still usually "Hollywood".  For example, Copolla's "Rumblefish" and Lynch's "Elephant man" are Hollywood films, but they are not "Hollywood".  I now live in Los Angeles and run with the crowd here.  No one here uses "Hollywood" as a disparaging adjective.  When I first came here and met a person remaking a Kurusawa film, to star Tom Hanks, I mistakenly thought it was suppose to be a joke, and I laughed loudly in front of everyone, and the person has been ice cold to me ever since.  That is because she is Making a film in Hollywood that is not "Hollywood".

I am not making any changes in the article, as it seems to have a lot of thought having gone into writing it, but these issues shuold be included, as they were things most often dicusseed in outside the theater conversations in places like the Pacific Film archive, when it used to be under the basement of the Berkely museum.  
[[User:EricDiesel|EricDiesel]] ([[User talk:EricDiesel|talk]]) 15:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:"''Another question is on the difference between a "film" and a "movie". The answer is more subtle, but the former is usually more used for artistic focus, the latter more for entertainment focus.''"
:Maybe from a USA-centric perspective. However, in British (and other varieties of) English, "film" is absolutely the correct standard word for the feature production; whether it's been produced primarily for the purpose of art or for entertainment. When I saw "There's Something About Mary", I watched a film. [[User:Eurosong|EuroSong]] <sup>[[User_talk:Eurosong|talk]]</sup> 10:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
== Photography ==

why are there no references to photography?

Films are produced by recording images from the world with cameras, or by creating images using animation techniques or special effects.
would be more accurately put as 
Films are produced by editing photographic and or digitally originated footage.
[[User:Research Method|Research Method]] ([[User talk:Research Method|talk]]) 22:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
== Gaping holes? ==

How could we claim this article is anywhere near completion, when there isn't even one sentence about documentaries? I'd suggest we add an introduction to key concepts of fiction vs. nonfiction, live action, animation, and the VFX & [[Motion_capture|mocap]] inbetween, and that would allow to present the four basic types of films: live-action/narrative, documentary, experimental, and animation. <br />Meanwhile, I cleaned up and rewrote the Production section's beginning. You're welcome to revise, of course. [[User:Binba|Binba]] ([[User talk:Binba|talk]]) 05:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
== Including Moviefone as an external link ==

{{tn|editsemiprotected}}
Please include the following in the external link section of the Film page:
* [http://www.moviefone.com Moviefone] - Find comprehensive information about movies, celebrities, theaters and location-based showtimes
[[User:Varcyb|Varcyb]] ([[User talk:Varcyb|talk]]) 04:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
::And how does this meet the requirements of [[WP:EL]]? [[User:Girolamo Savonarola|Girolamo Savonarola]] ([[User talk:Girolamo Savonarola|talk]]) 05:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
::Request to edit semi-protected article '''not done''' at this time. The article has had problems in the past with external links. Whilst it is impossible to be 'fair' about this, the existing external links are certainly more commonly known movie review sites. There are many, many websites with reviews similar to 'moviefone', and it would not improve the article if we added them all. 
::Any decision to add further external links would require a discussion here, in the talk page, and a clear consensus wish to add the link.
::In the external links section of the article is a 'hidden comment'; "NEW LINKS SHOULD NOT BE ADDED WITHOUT PRIOR DISCUSSION ON TALK PAGE AND WILL BE DELETED OTHERWISE".
::I'm sorry that I couldn't accede to this request. 
::Best regards, <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background-color:darkblue; color:#FFFFFF"> &nbsp;Chzz&nbsp;</span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B; background-color:yellow; border: 0px solid; ">&nbsp;►&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 05:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

== Reference ==

I don't know where to get a new source, but under Industry, where it says that bollywood has the highest amount of produced movies annually, the link [http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/04/07/india.sexywood/index.html|1] which is supposed to back this statement up goes to some completely different article, which is about how bollywood is getting to making "hotter" movies, not more, and not most in any way... [[Special:Contributions/213.67.62.172|213.67.62.172]] ([[User talk:213.67.62.172|talk]]) 20:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

== 2 Factual Errors ==

Sergei Eisenstein is not European; he was a Russian filmmaker b. 1898 in Riga (now in Latvia), died 1948.

Also, in the 1920s, New York City was a filmmaking hub as much as Hollywood. In fact, in the early 1920s, Hollywood was not yet the mythical movie-making mecca it would become in the studio-era.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.190.32.80|71.190.32.80]] ([[User talk:71.190.32.80|talk]]) 14:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:While definitions may vary, most geographic distinctions include Russia as a part of Europe. As for NYC vs Hollywood, all of the major studios were founded in Hollywood in the 'teens, and output surpassed New York by 1915. [[User:Girolamo Savonarola|Girolamo Savonarola]] ([[User talk:Girolamo Savonarola|talk]]) 18:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please add the interwiki link [[kn:ಸಿನಮಾ]]. -- [[Special:Contributions/59.96.58.8|59.96.58.8]] ([[User talk:59.96.58.8|talk]]) 12:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

== Lack of mention of free video editors ==

I just noticed this part in "Independent films":
 "non-linear editing system pro-level software like Adobe Premiere Pro, Sony Vegas and Apple's Final Cut Pro, and consumer level software such as Apple's Final Cut Express and iMovie, and Microsoft's Windows Movie Maker"

This only mentions proprietary software. Considering that even Windows Movie Maker (!) is mentioned here, I believe that a short mention of a free (as in freedom) video editor, like [[PiTiVi]] is needed.

I don't want the article to be biased towards specific types of software, so I find it important that both e.g. Movie Maker ''and'' PiTiVi is mentioned. And in terms of popularity, PiTiVi (as well as other free editors) are quite popular, so mentioning it would not more wrong than mentioning iMovie.

It seems that I've been too lazy a Wikipedian, so I'm currently not even autoconfirmed, which is why I didn't just edit this. [[User:NqpZ|NqpZ]] ([[User talk:NqpZ|talk]]) 19:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

== Automate archiving? ==

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--[[User:Oneiros|Oneiros]] ([[User talk:Oneiros|talk]]) 21:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
:{{Done}}--[[User:Oneiros|Oneiros]] ([[User talk:Oneiros|talk]]) 00:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
== Film redirect ==

In general a film is a thin layer. The reason that motion pictures are called "films" is because that is the medium the pictures are/were traditionally stored on. This page should be called '''Film (motion picture)''' instead of just '''Film'''. Logically then '''Film''' should go to the [[Film (disambiguation)|disambiguation]] page or one of the scientific film pages, preferably [[Thin Film]]. [[User:Bbolen|XXVII]] ([[User talk:Bbolen|talk]]) 04:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

== Unnecessary focus on Europe in the History section? ==

In the History section, the seventh paragraph (at the time of writing), beginning with "The rise of European cinema..." focuses specifically on the history of the medium in Europe. While this fact alone doesn't seem inappropriate by itself, it just seems odd to devote a paragraph to one geographical area, while not doing so with any others. Not to mention, in doing so, the paragraph seems, IMO, awkward and out of place, being the only regionally specific paragraph.

Just my observations. Not sure what would be the best way to go about fixing this, if it is indeed a valid observation so I'm just bringing it up here without editing.

(Sorry in advance if I'm not following Talk-page protocol... this is my first time posting to an article's Talk page.)

[[User:Zerotonin|Zerotonin]] ([[User talk:Zerotonin|talk]]) 06:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
== Split ==

Why do "film", "motion picture", "movie", and "cinema" all redirect here? They are different concepts and should get their own pages. "Film", "motion picture", and "movie" may all have similar meanings (with slightly different connotations and technicalities) but they are usually used interchangeably colloquially. But "cinema" does not mean "movie". I think there should be two separate articles, one for '''the field of film as an art form and the motion picture industry''' another for '''individual motion pictures'''. Many other arts do this. Compare [[literature]] with [[book]]. Or [[photography]] with [[photograph]]. Why does film have to be different?

Also, some other languages do not have the same word for both concepts as English does, which makes it difficult to create affective interwiki links.  See [[:fr:Cinéma]] versus [[:fr:Film]] and [[:es:Cine]] versus [[:es:Película]]. -- [[User:Secundus Zephyrus|Secundus Zephyrus]] ([[User talk:Secundus Zephyrus|talk]]) 15:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

:The article about what we would understand as a cinema is the [[Movie theater]] article; which really should be moved to cinema. I understand your compaints that "film" and "movie" are different - but in English they are used pretty much synonomously, and don't merit two articles. I understand other languages have different (and seperate) concepts, and this can confuse interwiki links, but I would focus on improving this article, rather than trying to split it off. [[User:YeshuaDavid|YeshuaDavid]] ([[User talk:YeshuaDavid|talk]]) 22:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
::No, I'm not talking about cinema in the sense of a movie theater--I'm talking about cinema in the sense of the art of moving images. [[User:Secundus Zephyrus|Secundus Zephyrus]] ([[User talk:Secundus Zephyrus|talk]]) 05:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:How would you split the content of this article between the two? At a glance it looks like this article could be left as it is and renamed Cinema, and a new article would need creating on the concept of a film (the object). What would you put in that? Would it be a summary of the content linked from [[list of film formats]]? That could be nice. Perhaps you could create the new page at [[film (motion picture)]], say - if you're volunteering - and then we could quibble about naming afterwards. [[User talk:Flowerparty|Flowerparty<span style="color:#91dacf;"><sup>☀</sup></span>]] 06:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
::Yup! That's what I was thinking! It's just like the article for [[photograph]], which just gives a brief history of the medium and the different types of photos. I would do the same with the new motion picture article. --[[User:Secundus Zephyrus|Secundus Zephyrus]] ([[User talk:Secundus Zephyrus|talk]]) 07:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
:::Go for it. Sounds good to me. [[User talk:Flowerparty|Flowerparty<span style="color:#91dacf;"><sup>☀</sup></span>]] 11:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
:::There's also [[film stock]]. Not sure how much that overlaps with what you have in mind. [[User talk:Flowerparty|Flowerparty<span style="color:#91dacf;"><sup>☀</sup></span>]] 11:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

::::There's still a tag to split the article up despite this discussion being over a year old.  Shall we remove the tag now? [[User:ENeville|ENeville]] ([[User talk:ENeville|talk]]) 03:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::Agree. [[User:Eurosong|EuroSong]] <sup>[[User_talk:Eurosong|talk]]</sup> 11:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

== Can't make out History section ==

I can't read this bit from the history section at all: "Much terminology later used in film theory and criticism applied, such as [[mise en scene]] (roughly, the entire visual picture at any one time). Moving visual and aural images were not recorded for replaying as in film."

What are we trying to say, there? I'd change this section myself, but I'm really not sure what it's supposed to say. -[[User:Miskaton|Miskaton]] ([[User talk:Miskaton|talk]]) 16:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
== Edit request from 68.164.115.223, 12 September 2010 ==

I DIRECTED THE OPEN TITLE HOT ACTION SEGMENT  FOR THE 1985 MOVIE "HOT MOVES".  ALSO DIRECTED THE HOT SHORT, "ROLLER SKATE FEVER' 1981, WHICH OPENED WITH E T AT THE HOLLYWOOD CINERAMA DOME
PAUL SHAPER

PLS ADD THIS TO THE CREDTIS  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.164.115.223|68.164.115.223]] ([[User talk:68.164.115.223|talk]]) 18:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Edit request from Wildeq, 3 January 2011 ==

{{tlf|edit semi-protected}}

"Rather than leave the audience in silence, theater owners would hire a [[piano|pianist]] or [[organ (music)|organist]] or a full [[orchestra]] to play music fitting the mood of the film at any given moment." - not true, first music in cinemas had purpose of covering noise of movie projectors.

I would say: 
<!-- Begin request -->

"Rather than leave the audience with noise of early cinema projectors, theater owners would hire a [[piano|pianist]] or [[organ (music)|organist]] or a full [[orchestra]] to play music that would cover noises of projector. Eventually musicians would start to fit the mood of the film at any given moment."

<!-- End request -->
[[User:Wildeq|Wildeq]] ([[User talk:Wildeq|talk]]) 23:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:Logan|Logan]] <sub>[[User_talk:Logan|Talk]]</sub> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Logan|Contributions]]</sup> 02:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
::It would be nice to have a source for this to verify the information and justify adding it to [[History of film]]. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 03:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
== 'Story' ==

As a film student with a passion for experimental cinema I already have a massive problem with the opening line of this article: "A film, also called a movie or motion picture, is a story conveyed with moving images." This implies ALL films are 'stories' conveyed with 'moving images', and this is massively biased towards commercially dominant western modes of film-making, ignoring many important and loved works from various avant-gardes throughout cinema history. Derek Jarman's 'Blue', for instance, is the last film by an important director, which tells the story of his struggle with AIDS, though the film itself consists of no 'moving images'. There are also countless examples of non-narrative films which in no way convey any kind of 'story'. Could this opening line please be changed to remove the bias towards narrative film?  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/94.2.136.60|94.2.136.60]] ([[User talk:94.2.136.60|talk]]) 17:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:thanks for the info i support what he said...[[User:Babumonsms|Babumonsms]] ([[User talk:Babumonsms|talk]]) 04:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
::I agree completely. How should we change it? [[User:Donniedarkofan2006|Donniedarkofan2006]] ([[User talk:Donniedarkofan2006|talk]]) 15:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
:::I have changed it myself. I think it now more accurately reflects the reality. [[User:Donniedarkofan2006|Donniedarkofan2006]] ([[User talk:Donniedarkofan2006|talk]]) 21:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

== Lead caption ==

:''A 16 mm spring-wound Bolex "H16" Reflex camera, a popular introductory camera in film schools''

Was certainly true in the 1980s and early 1990s, but in this day and age, I just don't believe it anymore.  Most film students are using digital cameras.  I'm going to remove it. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 01:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

All the major film schools in the east still use Bolexs or other 16mm cameras in the beginning. Ryerson University, York, Humber, Concordia in Canada. The New York Film Academy, and others all still use 16mm widely. I am reversing your mistake.
([[User:Yohowithrum|Yohowithrum]] ([[User talk:Yohowithrum|talk]]) 16:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC))
== "Future State" Section has no Citations ==

I would just like to point out there there are no citations in this section. This makes me, even though I would think some of this information is true, doubt the validity of the section.  One could even argue that it is an unnecessary section because film (in any format) is still a wildly used medium for recording motion pictures. 
Question to all you guys reading this: Should the section be fixed or Deleted or What?  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Zekeman95|Zekeman95]] ([[User talk:Zekeman95|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Zekeman95|contribs]]) 02:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


dievg;en gwoigneiowe';

== Edit request from 98.191.109.146, 9 August 2011 ==

{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->


<!-- End request -->
[[Special:Contributions/98.191.109.146|98.191.109.146]] ([[User talk:98.191.109.146|talk]]) 19:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> Submission is blank [[User:Topher385|Topher385]] ([[User talk:Topher385|talk]]) 20:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
== Ratings ==

hey there. wanso when most people search for a film title on wikipedia, they probably want to know how good it is. as it stands, most pages have a section "reception" that describes how critic reviewed the film. however this part is usually at the bottom of the page. 


i propose we start adding film ratings into the main panel at the top of each film page. along wth the year of production, director etc, we should show how good the film was.

i know this is supposed to be an exncyclopedia and thus should deal with facts, but i think adding a numerical number is still farly scientific, and honestly, its artm it doesnt make sense to show all the info but not how "good it is. opinion is still information, and we should show people what they want.

please reply on my page so i know you replid.

[[User:DJLO|-DJLO]] ([[User talk:DJLO|talk]]) 01:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

== Current templates ==

This article currently has the following 3 heading templates
{{Refimprove|date=July 2010}}
{{More footnotes|date=July 2010}}
{{Globalize|section|date=December 2009}}

The  '''Refimprove'''  and '''More footnotes''' should probably stay but not sure about the '''Globalize''' template, bearing in mind that it's been here for nearly a year and a half anyone care to contribute exactly what needs improving? [[User:Zarcadia|Zarcadia]] ([[User talk:Zarcadia|talk]]) 21:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
== Movie ==

change the title to movie and make film redirect to that   <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.249.73.200|209.249.73.200]] ([[User talk:209.249.73.200|talk]]) 18:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:That's not necessary. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 18:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

::Per Wikipedia's naming convention, the article should be located at the title that is the most commonly used name for the topic. I think "movie" is more commonly used than "film", so I would support moving the article. [[User:Rreagan007|Rreagan007]] ([[User talk:Rreagan007|talk]]) 19:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

:::Not all films are movies - or even talkies. [[User:Headhitter|Headhitter]] ([[User talk:Headhitter|talk]]) 07:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you have some narrow-minded editor insisting on renaiming a "movie poster" to a "film poster" eventhough they are not called "film posters."  He cites this article.  Can you at least change "film poster" back to "movie poster" on THAT article?  Thank you.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/50.131.34.246|50.131.34.246]]([[User talk:50.131.34.246|talk]]) 18:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Dickson ==

Attached is a link to WKL Dickson. It seems odd that the name appeared with no context or link on [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Film&oldid=170818777| Nov 11 2007]] and stayed that way for 4 years.  It remains a rather underdeveloped, unexplained reference.  [[User:Sojambi Pinola|Sojambi Pinola]] ([[User talk:Sojambi Pinola|talk]]) 05:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
[[Jak-I the Pak-I]]  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/83.84.199.244|83.84.199.244]] ([[User talk:83.84.199.244|talk]]) 14:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== First public movie projection in the world ==

Worth to be mentioned, I guess :

"La première projection publique des Lumière a lieu le 28 décembre 1895 au Salon indien du Grand Café, boulevard des Capucines à Paris. La séance est présentée par Antoine Lumière devant trente-trois spectateurs. Charles Moisson, le constructeur de l’appareil sera le chef mécanicien et supervisera la projection. Le prix de la séance sera fixé à 1 Franc" : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auguste_et_Louis_Lumi%C3%A8re#Projections_priv.C3.A9es_et_publiques_de_1895

"The first public screening of the Lumière brothers takes place December 28, 1895 at Salon Indien du Grand Café on the Boulevard des Capucines in Paris. The session is presented by Antoine Lumière in front of thirty-three spectators. Charles Moisson, manufacturer of the device, is the chief engineer and supervises the projection. The price of the session is set to 1 Franc". (Translation : Google, corrected by hand)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Programa.JPG/220px-Programa.JPG

[[Special:Contributions/82.226.27.88|82.226.27.88]] ([[User talk:82.226.27.88|talk]]) 08:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


== Referencing ==

The following categories need referencing material to be considered 'fact' in Wikipedia, currently the pages that need referencing are: Distribuion (minor) Future State (currently has no references) the former has not been changed since 2009, the later has not been done since 2007. This is a seemingly important page and needs referencing if it is to be trusted in the future.
Please change this.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/118.210.11.110|118.210.11.110]] ([[User talk:118.210.11.110|talk]]) 02:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Translation from French ==

Hey everyone,
As requested on the main page, I made an attempt to translate a part of a section from the French article. Please find it below:

'''''Film and music'''
After the introduction of [[sound]] to cinema, the development of the dialogues and original soundtrack quickly became a crucial element to films. Music would help in the creation and development of the ambiance, as well as emphasizing the characters emotions and feelings. 
While cinema was being born, films were silent. To overcome the lack of sound, a musician, usually a pianist, would play along with the projection. Such musician would reinforce the rhythm and emotions, and the producers would catch up on it quickly. From 1909, classic music started to be included on films. They had to wait some time before the songwriters could compose original scores for the cinema. However, if at the premiere the music was still not entirely finished, the film would be accompanied by a speech, called by [[Igor Stravinsky]] as‘wallpaper’. http://www.filmmusicsociety.org/news_events/features/2003/101003.html''   

Let me know if you think this will contribute to this article! Many thanks, [[User:Zalunardo8|Zalunardo8]] ([[User talk:Zalunardo8|talk]]) 16:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

== Edit request on 1 April 2013 ==

Take off filers so I may view the web. {{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->

<!-- End request -->
[[Special:Contributions/69.171.178.90|69.171.178.90]] ([[User talk:69.171.178.90|talk]]) 06:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)now...

:[[Filer]]s? [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 07:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
: {{not done}} for now. Your request is unclear, and may have been posted on the wrong page. -- [[User:Diannaa|Dianna]] ([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 14:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

== Film Ratings ==

Hello everyone,
I am wondering if it would be helpful to have posted under the director, actors, etc. the film's  rating? Generally, before wtching a film I look it up on Wikipedia. This is nice...     ...however, I do like to know the rating of the film I'm going to watch. [[User:MayhemMaster|MayhemMaster]] ([[User talk:MayhemMaster|talk]]) 17:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
:This has been discussed before, with consensus being against it - [[WP:FILMRATING]] explains Wikipedia's take on film age ratings. Basically it's because they vary from country to country, and we'd either have to arbitrarily pick one for the infobox, or list all of them. If you think it's worth looking at this again, [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film]] would probably be the best place to start a conversation. --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 18:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
::Okay. I really dont think it worth quibling about. And really, if you think about it, it would be a LOT of work to go through every single film page to add ratings. Thanks[[User:TheMouthofSauron|TheMouthofSauron]] ([[User talk:TheMouthofSauron|talk]]) 17:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
:::Don't be afraid to make suggestions; if something turns out to be a good idea, we can always draft in the manpower or create a bot to implement the change. --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 17:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

== Edit request on 30 May 2013 ==

{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
;The Role of a Film Festival Curator:

Film Festival Curator also known as Film Festival Programmer or Film Festival Designer at various part of the world. 

Over all programming - A curator is responsible for entire design of a film festival. From the basic concept development or research on the theme of the particular section or the whole festival. Suppose a film festival is based on Asian cinema, that case the curator have to keep a tab on all the Asian countries from Japan to Turkey. The curator should have a clear idea of the geography as well as a brief history and recent political development of these region, beside the recent development in the sector of not only film making but also the news from the film festival circuit. 

Programming of sections - There are also various section of a film festival based on a various themes, like the birth / death centenary of a great personality, retrospective to a persona or a film studio/ company or any other theme relevant to the respective film festival.

The above mentioned process are completely based on research and one need to spend a lot of time on research.

After completing the research process one need to find out the source of the films. The source can be the actor/actress, director, producer, distributor, crew member of the film or journalists. One need to have very well network among the film fraternity and the journalists.

Acquiring film rights for the festival one of the very important process. Lot of the distributors or film sales company charged a huge amount of money as screening fees, the curator is responsible for the negotiation with the party to wave out or bring down the screening fees as much as lover side possible.

Even among of the few Indian distributors or producers have a tendency to charge the screening fees or other favour such as asking for Business class travel and hospitality. The curators job is to negotiation towards getting the right of the films, according to the terms and condition of the film festival.      

Curator is also responsible for the travel and hospitality of the guests related to the films up to some extent. Mostly the film academician, journalists, critics have less tantrum but the so call stars and few directors always carry a huge ego along with them. The curator is the person who have to deal with all the tantrum and have to satisfy the ego of such guests. This is one of the unofficial but very crucial part of the film festival which make the festival great or bad name. Because mouth of word publicity through the film fraternity is extremely important to sustain a festival.

Curator is also responsible to maintain the secrecy. As curators use to get film screener before the film even commercially released. Curator is completely responsible to handle the screener in a strict manner so that no one can make copy the screener or promote piracy. This particular responsibility add a huge credential to the film festival. As of now not a single film leaked from the film festival fraternity, but we know from the report that even the noted laboratory was responsible for making pirated copy of films.   

Usually a film festival curator work through out the year (24x7x365) for the programming. All the noted film festivals have their curatorial team works through out the year, it can not done on a part time basis. The job need complete devotion and loyalty towards the work. In India Osian’s was one of the big and good private film festival there they use to have a full fledged working force for the festival through out the year with a good package of remuneration from forty to sixty thousand rupees per month, according to the person’s capability.

Film festival curation is not a 9am -5pm office job. It’s need extensive field work, like attending seminars, talk, press conference, film screening, workshop etc. and also attending party or social gathering are most integral part of a curatorial job for networking. A curator may need to sacrifice his own religious / social / family function to attend film festivals or other film related events. 

A curator need to be available anytime of the day, he need to be activate through internet and mobile all the time. He need to travel within a short notice or a prior notice. The person should be a good computer proficiency and need to have good knowledge on Microsoft Word, Excel and Access software along with the software like Datakal which are essential for various aspects of programming. 

Due to all these aspects the curatorial job need full time attention and that to for sustainable time of the period of at least two to three years. Once the curator involve full time in a particular film festival they can’t not work simultaneously with any other project, as they have to put their full concentration, devotion and loyalty towards that particular festival only.   

The curator should get a remuneration on an average of rupees fifty thousand at least per month, which can cover their local travel, internet charges, mobile phone bill etc. In any case one employer need to pay little more for the short term service, as in the short term service there is no provident fund, gratuity, life insurance and other facilities are available, which are available with full time government services.        

Even for the Commonwealth Game, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting have hired professional for media arrangement, through BECIL, those who are less qualified as compare to the Film Festival Programmer but drawing a monthly salary of above fifty thousand rupees. 

Also the festival committee need to send their programmer to the important foreign and domestic film festivals, so that the curator can build a solid network among the various film festivals and also bring good films, invite respected guests to the festival.

[[User:Santanu ganguly|Santanu ganguly]] ([[User talk:Santanu ganguly|talk]]) 22:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

<!-- End request -->

:What you are looking for is an article written about the role of [[film festival curator]]. I know that Anita Monga would be a notable example from the San Francisco Silent Film Festival; she was called a "film programmer" by the local papers: [http://www.sfgate.com/style/article/Film-programmer-Anita-Monga-s-5-star-places-3280639.php "Film programmer Anita Monga's 5-star places"] and [http://www.sfbg.com/39/07/cover_castro_theater.html "Coming soon?"]. Another common title is "Artistic Director" of a film festival. I am sympathetic to Wikipedia hosting an article on the topic, whatever it is called, but the place where new article requests are handled is [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation]]. Tell them I sent you. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 00:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

== Request to change trailer definition ==

{{edit semi-protected|<!-- Page to be edited -->|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
The definition of trailer should have this: Movie trailers have now become popular on DVDs and Blu-ray Discs, as well as on the Internet and mobile devices. Of some ten billion videos watched online annually, film trailers rank third, after news and user-created video.
And in the end, external links should have this one: http://movieshornet.com/
Thank you for your time
Regards--~~Ana~~ [http://movieshornet.com/]
<!-- End request -->
[[User:Anafsp1|Anafsp1]] ([[User talk:Anafsp1|talk]]) 01:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

:[[File:Yellow check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Partly done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> the first half of this request is a copy of a paragraph from the lede of [[Trailer (promotion)]], and that has a citation, so I've included it with the citation. (Without a citation, I wouldn't have). movieshornet.com appears to be nothing more than a gateway to lots of trailers hosted on youtube. Please correct me if I'm mistaken about that, but if that's what it is, then it doesn't belong here. Sorry. --[[User:Stfg|Stfg]] ([[User talk:Stfg|talk]]) 16:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2013 ==

{{edit semi-protected|<!-- Page to be edited -->|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->

<!-- End request -->
[[Special:Contributions/182.180.101.136|182.180.101.136]] ([[User talk:182.180.101.136|talk]]) 15:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
http://uploadwire.com/file/74d2003d3c0

:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> I don't know what you would like done with a Godzilla trailer, but it doesn't really belong in this article. --'''[[User talk:ElHef|<span style="color:red;">El</span><span style="color:orange;">Hef</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>([[Special:Contributions/ElHef|<span style="color:black;">Meep?</span>]])</small> 23:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

== Grammar ==

Shouldn't the introduction to this article be "a '''film''', also called a '''movie''' or '''motion picture''', is a series of still images which, when shown on a screen, creates the illusion of moving images due to ''the'' [[phi phenomenon]]"? The phi phenomenon is a single, specific phenomenon, so it should have the definite article, no? [[Special:Contributions/193.90.55.157|193.90.55.157]] ([[User talk:193.90.55.157|talk]]) 16:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

== CfD nomination of [[:Category:{{ucfirst:Films by country or language}}]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|40px|left]]
'''[[:Category:{{ucfirst:Films by country or language}}]]''' has been nominated for {{#ifeq:|yes|deletion|{{#ifeq:|yes|merging|{{#ifeq:|yes|renaming|deletion, merging, or renaming}}}}}}. You are encouraged to join the '''[[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion{{#if:2014 July 19|/Log/2014 July 19}}#{{#if:CfD section name|CfD section name|Category:Films by country or language}}|discussion]]'''  on the [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion|Categories for discussion]] page.<!--Template:Cfdnotice2--> [[User:068129201223129O9598127|068129201223129O9598127]] ([[User talk:068129201223129O9598127|talk]]) 19:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

== universal word ==

It appears everyone [http://www.ezglot.com/word.php?l=eng&w=film understands this word]. so maybe someone can write a bit more about the origin of the word. Wiktionary has some info about it.. but I think more details are needed. [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/film#English] [[Special:Contributions/178.222.7.33|178.222.7.33]] ([[User talk:178.222.7.33|talk]]) 17:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

== Criticism section ==

The line It's often obvious that screenwriters or directors have had a failure of inspiration or craft and have decided to punch up their flagging effort with heavy doses of gore." form Violence section should be removed. Its an opinion sentence. Its even written that way and is totally subjective. Unfortunately article is locked so I can do nothing.  <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.198.20.98|68.198.20.98]] ([[User talk:68.198.20.98|talk]]) 02:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Removed.  I would actually take issue with the entire section.  It seems to be more of an agenda driven inclusion.  It has cherry picked criticisms and is poorly sourced. -[[User:Xcuref1endx|Xcuref1endx]] ([[User talk:Xcuref1endx|talk]]) 23:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

== Film, or other art form? ==

I had removed this section entirely.  There was not one citation in the entire section and read like a grad school thesis paper.  -[[User:Xcuref1endx|Xcuref1endx]] ([[User talk:Xcuref1endx|talk]]) 23:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2015 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Film|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
is not french is american
<!-- End request -->
[[User:Benjaminvelasquez2015|Benjaminvelasquez2015]] ([[User talk:Benjaminvelasquez2015|talk]]) 23:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:Stickee|Stickee]] <small>[[User talk:Stickee|(talk)]]</small> 00:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

== Remove template ==

{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}}
Remove <nowiki>{{Expand French|Cinéma|fa=yes|date=January 2012}}</nowiki>. There should not be a template of this type on a popular article, especially for three years. Also, is it the case that there is material in the French article that can be used here? [[Special:Contributions/203.109.161.2|203.109.161.2]] ([[User talk:203.109.161.2|talk]]) 21:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:Stickee|Stickee]] <small>[[User talk:Stickee|(talk)]]</small> 01:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

== Terminology ==

I find this section confusing on the differences between 'film(s)' and 'movie(s)'. The gist seems to be that in US English you go and see a movie but study a film? So the two are actually the same thing.  So what does ''"Cinema" either broadly encompasses both films and movies, or is roughly synonymous with "Film"'' mean? Also, I think the cultural cross-over between terms is much more common than implied by e.g. ''In British usage, the name of the medium is "film". The word "movie" is understood, but seldom used.'' Used by whom? We've already established that journalists in both regions are going to use 'film' in their critiques, a British 'cinema' will refer to itself as a 'theatre' as in "Please respect the neighbours when leaving this theatre." and suggesting "Do you fancy seeing a movie?" is just as likely as "Shall we go and see a film?" I think 'the pictures' sounds a bit dated like 'the movies' in the US. I'm not rewriting because really this needs some sources otherwise it's just opinion. [[User:Btljs|Btljs]] ([[User talk:Btljs|talk]]) 08:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
:Try reading ''Variety'' or ''The Hollywood Reporter'' regularly for a few months and the distinction in how those terms are used should become obvious. "Movie" is the motion picture as mass-produced product or entertainment. "Film" is the motion picture as artwork, cultural artifact, or subject of serious academic study.   --[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] ([[User talk:Coolcaesar|talk]]) 10:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This sentence has a problem in its parenthetical: "Films were originally recorded onto plastic film which was shown through a movie projector onto a large screen (in other words, an analog recording process)." The problem is this: film is neither digital or analogue in terms of how information comes to be stored. Obviously, film is not digital, because information is not stored in discrete, binary bits in that medium. And, neither is film an analogue medium. Analogue refers to linear pieces of information. Film does not do this through its photochemical process that works similarly to the chemical changes in the human eye's light receptors. Because another definition of the word, analogue, includes anything that is not digital, common-use English can use the word, analogue, to describe film; however, doing this creates confusion as to how information comes to be stored in it as a medium. Therefore, Wikipedia has a duty to avoid creating that confusion by not using the word, analogue, to describe any photochemical medium, still photography in film included.  <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Arthurblenheim|Arthurblenheim]] ([[User talk:Arthurblenheim|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Arthurblenheim|contribs]]) 20:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Link addition suggestion ==

Here is a pretty exhaustive classification for  films. [http://www.filmrally.com/category/movies.html Similarkind Movies classification]
Should we consider adding it to external links.<small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Astronomyfanboy|Astronomyfanboy]] ([[User talk:Astronomyfanboy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Astronomyfanboy|contribs]]) 07:15, 24 November 2014‎</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
http://thelivepc.com  <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/182.187.107.125|182.187.107.125]] ([[User talk:182.187.107.125|talk]]) 15:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2015 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Film|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->

<!-- End request -->
[[Special:Contributions/182.187.107.125|182.187.107.125]] ([[User talk:182.187.107.125|talk]]) 15:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
http://thelivepc.com
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.<!-- Template:ESp --> -- [[User:Ferret|ferret]] ([[User_talk:Ferret|talk]]) 18:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

=="Cinema"==
The usage of "[[cinema]]" is under discussion, see [[talk:movie theater]] -- [[Special:Contributions/70.51.44.60|70.51.44.60]] ([[User talk:70.51.44.60|talk]]) 05:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2016 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Film|answered=yes}}
<!-- Be sure to state UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes; editors who can edit the protected page need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests WILL be declined. -->
<!-- Begin request -->

'''Sound'''

The ''Photo Drama of Creation'' introduced to audiences in 1914 was the first major screenplay to incorporate synchronized sound, moving film, and color slides.

The presentation premiered in January 1914 in New York, and in the summer of 1914 in Germany. Over 9,000,000 people in North America, Europe, New Zealand and Australia saw either the full Photo-Drama or an abbreviated version called the Eureka-Drama.

Shows that combined magic lantern slides and films were common at the time, but the addition of recorded speech was unusual, and the magnitude of its distribution for a single religious production was particularly notable. 

<!-- End request -->
[[Special:Contributions/71.14.29.143|71.14.29.143]] ([[User talk:71.14.29.143|talk]]) 20:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
--[[Special:Contributions/71.14.29.143|71.14.29.143]] ([[User talk:71.14.29.143|talk]]) 20:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please &#123;&#123;[[Template:re|re]]&#125;&#125;</small> 00:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Since I am talking about the effects of movies, or how the movies affect people’s lives, the introduction does not give me so much information regarding this topic. After I read the contents of the whole Wikipedia page, it pays more attention to the film history, industry, production or even technologies. I need some concrete examples of movies affect citizens or even the whole society. Or Wikipedia can list some classic films that had made people been talking about for a long time.  <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2602:306:C5DC:2000:BCE5:E940:B7D4:D90D|2602:306:C5DC:2000:BCE5:E940:B7D4:D90D]] ([[User talk:2602:306:C5DC:2000:BCE5:E940:B7D4:D90D|talk]]) 11:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== How to make page ==

Pls help i can t make page [[User:Muloge milmo|Muloge milmo]] ([[User talk:Muloge milmo|talk]]) 10:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2016 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Film|answered=y}}
<!-- Be sure to state UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes; editors who can edit the protected page need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests WILL be declined. -->
<!-- Begin request -->
Need to add one movie site bhoothnike.com, please provide me permission for same.

<!-- End request -->
[[User:Arumanketki|Arumanketki]] ([[User talk:Arumanketki|talk]]) 08:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
:{{Not done}} - we do not add spamlinks to any article

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on [[Film]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=730743205 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070407224839/http://www.cinemaweb.com:80/silentfilm/bookshelf/18_car_1.htm to http://www.cinemaweb.com/silentfilm/bookshelf/18_car_1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19970122085113/http://imdb.com/ to http://imdb.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 22:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

== Change of title ==

This article is very complete about the USA Film Industry, I think that Film should be a more general article, about the film production in ALL the WORLD.
Being this article linked to that general article about Film with the name of [[USA Film Industry History]] which per se is very extended, maybe also divided in articles about technical issues which lead to all the historical milestones, also the development of different cinematographic genders, and so on.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/189.233.106.197|189.233.106.197]] ([[User talk:189.233.106.197#top|talk]]) 22:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Actors and Actress ==

I would be interesting to note that the concept of a film or a show eludes the audience.  It's almost as if it were never filmed at all.  There is something missing.  If you don't catch up with it, it's no problem whatsoever.  Don't think everything has to be laid out for you.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/64.235.154.42|64.235.154.42]] ([[User talk:64.235.154.42#top|talk]]) 16:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on [[Film]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=757589734 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110111153547/http://www.adox.de:80/english/ADOX%20Films/Premium/ADOX_Films/ADOX_CMS_Films.html to http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX%20Films/Premium/ADOX_Films/ADOX_CMS_Films.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 15:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

== Synonym of term film ==
Adaptation is a word, that is not rarley used for films, especially, when the film is made out of a book. --[[Special:Contributions/77.56.118.154|77.56.118.154]] ([[User talk:77.56.118.154|talk]]) 11:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

== Still protected mode ==

why is this article still protected?? thats not serious! --[[Special:Contributions/77.56.118.154|77.56.118.154]] ([[User talk:77.56.118.154|talk]]) 16:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2018 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Film|answered=yes}}
 [[Special:Contributions/172.56.5.232|172.56.5.232]] ([[User talk:172.56.5.232|talk]]) 03:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Disney Buys Parts of Paramount<ref name="Disney" group="Disney Buys WB and Disney Buys Columbia for March 1, 2018">{{cite web|last1=Williams|first1=Bradley|title=January 15, 2018|url=http://www.cnn.com/news/film/disney-will-buy-parts-of-paramount.html|website=cnn.com|publisher=CNN|accessdate=January 15, 2018|ref=Disney's Announced Warner Bros. Killed Paramount Home Media Distribution by July 16, 2019}}</ref>
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn]] [[User talk:Eggishorn|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Eggishorn|(contrib)]] 04:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

== Change "Film" to "Movie" ==

Please change the name of this page to "Movie". No one calls movies "films" anymore. [[Special:Contributions/96.240.4.127|96.240.4.127]] ([[User talk:96.240.4.127|talk]]) 00:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
:What leads you to believe that the word "film" is less used than the word "movie"? [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 00:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
::{{ping|Bus stop}} The word "movie" is more common in describing motion pictures. Also, no one ever calls movie theaters "film theaters". Change this page's name, please. [[Special:Contributions/96.240.4.127|96.240.4.127]] ([[User talk:96.240.4.127|talk]]) 00:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
:::There is a separate article [[movie theater]]. This question is slightly addressed in that article in the section called "Terminology" in which I read "A movie theater may also be referred to as a movie theatre, movie house, film house, film theater or picture house." In the [[Film]] article I read "The most common term in the United States is movie, while in Europe film is preferred." I think we should wait for other editors to weigh in but I find the term film more serious and the word movie more lightweight, therefore my personal preference is for "film". [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 01:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Bus stop}} I still want this page's name to be changed. Wikipedia covers a lot of American movies, so someone should just go ahead and change the page's name right now. My personal preference will always be "movie". [[Special:Contributions/96.240.4.127|96.240.4.127]] ([[User talk:96.240.4.127|talk]]) 03:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
:::::I think other editors could disagree with the move. Therefore you should consider following the processes suggested at [[WP:RM#CM]]. This will allow for the wider input that I think is called for. But before doing that, I would simply wait awhile as your suggested title change is merely hours old. You could also consider posting a request for your suggested title change at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film]]. That too might generate the wider discussion that I feel is called for. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 05:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2018 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Film|answered=yes}}
In the 4th paragraph, beginning "Films were originally recorded onto plastic film through a photochemical process ..."

This link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photochemistry is inaccurate. The photochemistry article deals with the production of light by chemical means. If the sentence remains unchanged, the reference should be to this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_halide which deals with the recording of images by means of a chemical reaction. 

Alternately rewrite the sentence thus
Films (motion pictures) were originally recorded on cellulose film (link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_film ) ... [[Special:Contributions/2601:644:8101:903C:68DB:2F05:948C:F304|2601:644:8101:903C:68DB:2F05:948C:F304]] ([[User talk:2601:644:8101:903C:68DB:2F05:948C:F304|talk]]) 15:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> Changed to [[Photographic film]] for the above reasons. [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn]] [[User talk:Eggishorn|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Eggishorn|(contrib)]] 16:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

==Earlier film==
The article described ''Sallie Gardner at a Gallop'' (1878) as the earliest film, but ''Passage of Venus'' (1874) is 4 years earlier.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2001:8003:A8BD:2E00:3D6D:C12F:39E0:3097|2001:8003:A8BD:2E00:3D6D:C12F:39E0:3097]] ([[User talk:2001:8003:A8BD:2E00:3D6D:C12F:39E0:3097#top|talk]]) 00:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Unprotection ==

Can semi-protection be removed from the article and full protection from redirect [[Movie]]? [[Special:Contributions/103.208.62.201|103.208.62.201]] ([[User talk:103.208.62.201|talk]]) 08:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2018 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Film|answered=yes}}
Remove: Some have criticized the film industry's glorification of violence,[2] and have perceived in it the prevalence of a negative attitude toward women.[3][4]

This is not relevant to the introduction, it should go in the criticism section. Also the film industry being referred to is hollywood, whereas hollywood only comes into the film industry after several decades. There are hundreds of film industries. This comment is entirely US centric. [[User:Red1200|Red1200]] ([[User talk:Red1200|talk]]) 04:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:L293D|<b style="color:#060">L293D</b>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:L293D#top|<b style="color:#000">☎</b>]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/L293D|<b style="color:#000">✎</b>]])</span> 19:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

== Concerned about Notes and References sections ==

Concerning the page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Film&oldid=921183874 as of now], it seems like there's some improper formatting for the sources. Normally, the References section gets the reflist in it, but on this article the Notes section got it. The references section also appears to basically be an extension of the Notes section. I might do this later as I don't have the time now, but could somebody look into moving the content from the Notes section to the References section, and moving the pre-existing content in the References section to where you find it appropriate (whether that be in the reflist, External Links section, or Further Reading section)? --[[User:Apathetizer|Apathetizer]] ([[User talk:Apathetizer|talk]]) 21:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

== MR.NXVXN ==

Love [[User:MR.NXVXN|MR.NXVXN]] ([[User talk:MR.NXVXN|talk]]) 08:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

==Requesting wider attention==

I felt article [[Islamic_literature]] is in bit of neglect so I added my note on talk page there, requesting to take note of [[Talk:Islamic_literature#Article_review]]. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at  [[Talk:Islamic_literature]] is also welcome. 

Posting message here too for neutrality sake


Thanks and greetings

[[User:Bookku|Bookku]] ([[User talk:Bookku|talk]]) 08:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

== Another language ==

Hi! I wrote this article on the Zulu version of Wikipedia and I was trying to link it to this one as a new language but I can't because this one is locked. Can someone help me? [[User:SmangaMbongwa|SmangaMbongwa]] ([[User talk:SmangaMbongwa|talk]]) 01:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
== "James Groening (film producer)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect [[:James Groening (film producer)]]. The discussion will occur at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 3#James Groening (film producer)]] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> [[User:TU-nor|T*U]] ([[User talk:TU-nor|talk]]) 07:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

== "Cory Murphy (film producer)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect [[:Cory Murphy (film producer)]]. The discussion will occur at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 3#Cory Murphy (film producer)]] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> [[User:TU-nor|T*U]] ([[User talk:TU-nor|talk]]) 07:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

== Bsm ==

Good [[User:Peter jadu|Peter jadu]] ([[User talk:Peter jadu|talk]]) 17:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-10-04">4 October 2021</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-12-09">9 December 2021</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/New_York_University/Research_Process_and_Methodology_-_RPM_FA_2021_-_MASY1-GC_1260_200_Thu_(Fall_2021)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Amber MWY|Amber MWY]].

{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 21:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}}
== Immersion ==
A good movie immerses viewers and does not make them [[Analysis|pick apart]] its [[Plot (narrative)|plot]] structure or movie [[cliché]]s. When a quality [[media]] is consumed – wether it is a quality [[book]], [[video game]] or movie consumers are so infatuated they are under the illusion that the [[fictional world]] the story takes place in is authentic.<ref>{{cite book
|last1=Rigby
|first1=Scott
|last2=Richard M.
|first2=Ryan
|author-link=Richard M. Ryan
|date=18 Feb 2011
|title= Glued to Games: How Video Games Draw Us In and Hold Us Spellbound: How Video Games Draw Us In and Hold Us Spellbound |url=https://books.google.se/books?id=H3MipRj4Id0C&pg=PA82&dq=why+did+they+put+this+music+in+the+soundtrack+is+this+the+end+of+act+1&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvxumwnb73AhVWAxAIHS39DW4Q6AF6BAgEEAM
|location= Santa Barbara. California
|publisher=ABC-CLIO
|page= 82
|isbn=0313362254
}}</ref> [[Special:Contributions/217.21.239.230|217.21.239.230]] ([[User talk:217.21.239.230|talk]]) 13:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2022 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Film|answered=yes}}
I wanted to add text about movie immersion and the fact that when we watch a good movie we don't get into a meta mode thinking "Oh here we are at this part in the story arc" or "here comes this cliché again".
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 13:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2022 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Film|answered=yes}}
In the caption of the horse in motion, the year is wrong. It is written that the sequence was shot by Eadweard Muybride in 1887 but like it is correctly stated in the article under the section Before celluloid it was in 1878. [[User:Maximilian.zenz|Maximilian.zenz]] ([[User talk:Maximilian.zenz|talk]]) 10:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

{{done}} [[User:PianoDan|PianoDan]] ([[User talk:PianoDan|talk]]) 21:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)<!-- Template:ESp -->

:That sequence was actually recorded between 1883 and 1886 at the University of Pennsylvania, published in 1887 as part of ''[[Animal Locomotion]]'', so the 1887 date was better than the totally incorrect 1878 date. To avoid further confusion I just replaced it with a GIF made from 1878 recordings (or rather, an animation made from the images on a retouched 1879 version of the card). [[User:Joortje1|Joortje1]] ([[User talk:Joortje1|talk]]) 20:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

== Rating system ==

The MPAA was created in 1964 because many parents were aggressive by seeing Violence, Sexual content and bad words the film had. Here are the ratings

G (General Audiences) All ages admitted. '''This film contains no content that would offend parents for viewing by children'''

PG (Parental Guidance Suggested) Some material may not be suitable for children. '''<s>Some material may not be suitable for children.</s> Parents are urged to give parental guidance as the motion picture contains some material that parents might not find suitable for their young children''' But a General suggestion is that films with a PG rating may not be suitable for children under <s>10</s>''8''. 

PG-13 (Parents Strongly Cautioned) Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. '''Parents are urged to be cautious as the motion picture contains some material that parents might consider inappropriate for children under 13 years.''' 

R (Restricted) Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian. '''People under 17 years may only be admitted if accompanied by a parent or guardian.'''

NC-17 (No One 17 and under admitted). '''This film is exclusively adult in content and people under 18 are not admitted.''' 

For more information about the ratings see here: [http://www.mpaa.org/film-ratings/]

Sources that said PG carries an age limit of "10" which the MPAA didn't say: [http://www.ign.com/wikis/content-ratings/MPAA] [http://www.wikihow.com/Understand-the-Differences-in-the-MPAA-Movie-Ratings-System]<small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:The Amazing User|The Amazing User]] ([[User talk:The Amazing User|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/The Amazing User|contribs]]) 22:37,<s>''':38'''</s>,<s>'':39''</s>, 2 October 2014‎</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

== Film Acting/Cast ==

It seems that in at least the Production section or elsewhere, acting and the role of the cast seems to be overlooked in such a seminal overview article.  Thanks! -- [[User:Mscuthbert|Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert]] <small>[[User_talk:Mscuthbert|(talk)]]</small> 08:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

== Movie ==

The 1st Nepali film made in Nepal is Aama.
The 1st colourful film in the world is Gone with the Wind.
The 1st actor of Nepali film was Shiva Shankar Mandhar.
The 1st motion picture made by Nepal film corporation was Paral Ko Ago.
The 1st Hollywood film to win 11 Oscar awards was Ben Hur.
The first Nepali Colour movie is Kumari.
Carvan(Himalayan) is 1st Nepali film made in India.
Tatum O'Neal was 1st child star to win Oscar for her portrayal of Addie in Paper Moon.
The 1st Nepali film nominated for the Academy Award was Carvan(Himalayan).
The 1st Bollywood film to win the Oscar awards was Slam Dog. [[Special:Contributions/2400:1A00:B050:D9DB:10E3:BD5B:F365:EAF9|2400:1A00:B050:D9DB:10E3:BD5B:F365:EAF9]] ([[User talk:2400:1A00:B050:D9DB:10E3:BD5B:F365:EAF9|talk]]) 04:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

== Flim is not an exculsively american thing ==

"Film (..) is an American work of visual art" is wrong. Films can be produced by any country. No other langugage for this article calls film an American work.

[[Special:Contributions/2001:8003:B03B:1A00:34C3:9679:327:3370|2001:8003:B03B:1A00:34C3:9679:327:3370]] ([[User talk:2001:8003:B03B:1A00:34C3:9679:327:3370|talk]]) 08:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

:Thank you for the pickup. That was recent vandalism, which I have now reverted. [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 09:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2023 ==

{{Edit semi-protected|Film|answered=yes}}
Under History > Film Evolution, the sixth sentence needs ‘is’ to be added in to it, making it “It *is* this relationship that makes all film storytelling possible.” [[User:AndroidFV|AndroidFV]] ([[User talk:AndroidFV|talk]]) 03:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

== Salah Zulfikar ==

One image that seems out of place to me is a portrait of Salah Zulfikar, an Egyptian Cinema actor. It sits at the end of the History section and the beginning of the Film Theory section, so the location of it doesn't seem to work. It's super specific, an actor in the golden age of Egyptian cinema. I've never heard of him before. This may work better in an article about Egyptian Cinema, but I don't think in this article about Film as a whole. There's another picture of him and I believe his wife at the very bottom of the article, by the Animation section. Again, not relating to the topic it's near. In the entire article, there's only two mentions of Salah's name, and it's in the caption of these two photos. Is there an explanation as to why this man is pictured here twice? Any information we can add to the article? Thanks! -[[User:SlipperySpinner|SlipperySpinner]] ([[User talk:SlipperySpinner|talk]]) 06:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

== Additions to Color ==

I've added some pertinent contributions to the "Color" sub-section with great print sources. I recommend giving them a read when you get a chance. Anyway, please let me know what you think and how it can be improved.

As always, would love to discuss! :) [[User:DiamondPuma|DiamondPuma]] ([[User talk:DiamondPuma|talk]]) 22:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

== Vidmet ==

Hindifilm [[Special:Contributions/131.117.160.252|131.117.160.252]] ([[User talk:131.117.160.252|talk]]) 19:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

:Hello, unregistered user @[[Special:Contributions/131.117.160.252|131.117.160.252]]. I will be removing this talk entry as it doesn't clearly convey your suggestions or advocacy, and it contributes to clutter on the talk page. If you have any objections, please provide a reasonable response. Thank you! [[User:DiamondPuma|DiamondPuma]] ([[User talk:DiamondPuma|talk]]) 22:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

==Wiki Education assignment: Language in Advertising==
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_New_Mexico/Language_in_Advertising_(Spring_2023) | assignments = [[User:Smulumba22|Smulumba22]] | start_date = 2023-01-17 | end_date = 2023-05-11 }}

<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:Smulumba22|Smulumba22]] ([[User talk:Smulumba22|talk]]) 20:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)</span>