1510:“Making the argument that executive producers do not provide creative input belies the fact that individual films have unique histories and stories. Making the statement Lucas doesn't have any producer roles?? that alone fails as a statement as he is renown for his involvement as an executive producer, including Red Tails which extended far beyond just being a money man, he actually took up the reins as a second unit director. FWiW, individual articles have to be treated in isolation and left to the authors/editors that have made thoughtful and relevant submissions.” “As a general statement, that might be true as executive producers usually are backroom people, but folks like Lucas as notorious "tinkerers" that just have to get `involved. His role in Red Tails was so complex as both creator, originally screenwriter and then personally financing the production that it stands out as a unique role, and again, I did not contribute the original note or infobox, but am confident that a reasonable "exception" can be made to retain a mention in the infobox for the casual reader.” “Infoboxes are there to give relevant information "at a glance" and even in The particular article already has an extensive background as to the role Lucas played, but that isn't the question. I feel that it is an issue of removing content where it matters, disregarding that the original contribution was a reasonable "exception" and follows WP:Bold, rather than a, dare I say it, "drive by" reversion.” “Not that an exception should be made for "who they are" but for "what they did" in individual films should lead to consideration of the actual contribution of an individual to the creative element of a film. How that appears should be relevant to the reader and the case that infoboxes are there for a "at the glance" type of information is one possible solution. Take a look at Red Tails now to see my out-of-the-box solution. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC). As to the assertion that "consensus was that no executive producers should be included" is not at all what was the jist of the arguments. In reading through the "strings", it is evident that many editors made the case for allowing individual and unique situations to be identified in the infobox when an executive producer made a substantial or significant contribution to the production.” “Even making a clarifying note to the reader is not acceptable? What became of AGF editing?” “Sorry, the outdents are an affectation that resulted from my involvement in "circle jerk" arguments. The issue, however, should not come down to an editwar which was precipitously being created. The reader actually does not have a full or complete picture of the role of George Lucas in Red Tails which may end up being a last effort of the ubiquitous filmmaker in the creative process. FWiW, the need for concise and "to-the-point" editing is the flag behind which I am fighting.” “This convoluted discourse has now devolved into an examination of the role of the executive producer, and I am now questioning the "consensus" that is being bandied about.
1528:“People continue with this fiction that "Executive producer" is a completely different role to that of "Producer". Not all Executive Producers are stereotypical managers or lawyers or studio heads whose credit is questionable. As I explained at Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 21#Executive Producers producer credits are not specific anymore at all. They have come to mean very different things on different films. It is now not at all unusual for the line producer to be given the title of Executive Producer, while the initiating producer takes the "Produced by" credit. But on other projects, including all Lucasfilm productions, the reverse happens, with the line producer taking the "Produced by" credit. So the two credits have become effectively interchangeable, with no precise definition. As an example from a less famous person, Robert L. Rosen was John Frankenheimer's line producer on six films. On the first, French Connection II, he got "Produced by" credit. On the second, Black Sunday in 1977, he got "Executive Producer" credit, even though he did the same job. (For what it's worth, I think he and others should have objected -- that switching the then-common meaning of the two titles was not a good thing.) The two credits became increasingly interchangeable on feature films ever since.
1484:“To be fair, these navboxes are there to identify creative authorship. Actors can have creative input in films too, and we don't include a navbox for every actor whoever ad-libbed a line. The production designer probably had more creative input than Spielberg in the executive producer capacity. According to Robert Zemeckis, Spielberg didn't interfere at all on Back to the Future; a lot of the time—especially in the 80s—Spielberg would act as an executive producer for his friends just so they could get their movies made. It's important for Knowledge (XXG) to not get caught in the fame game; the issue is really the creative authorship of the film.” “Personally I think the Spielberg filmography is fine as it is, I wouldn't want to see data fragmented just for the sake of it. With the filmography, each column is sortable, so if you want his director credits it can be sorted that way, same with his producer credits, and if you want to view all his credits for a particular film they are all there on one row. In truth I think the editing decisions for filmographies are best left to the individual article editors; they are restricted to the article the filmography is on, it's not like like a template that is dumped across a load of articles.” Ambivalence by Betty Logan.
1687:
conversations that went took place on different pages at different times and, thus at a minimum, have lost their context. Some of the conversations also bounce back and forth between "Infoboxes" and "navboxes" which are two different things. The "votes" that you tallied by
Gothicfilm and Bzuk are only about infoboxes. BettyLogan - for which you took two different statements that were responding to different comments and then spliced them together so that the context is lost, states that the "filmography" is fine and her last sentence "it's not like like a template that is dumped across a load of articles" which might indicate that she doesn't want it cluttered up, though you should ask her for clarification. Darkwarriorblake would seem to be stating that he does not want the navbox bloated which is hardly ambivalent, though again you should ask him to clarify the statement. In fact all of the editors that you mention should be informed of this conversation so that they can comment on how you have used their words. Your failure to indicate when and where these conversations took place is disingenuous at best and in no way can it be considered a consensus.
1399:. The results of the discussion were either inconclusive or negative. Either way, there was no clear agreement as to whether to adopt his proposal, and he was its only supporter. The other contributors were either ambivalent or negative. Yet he implemented it anyway despite a clear lack of consensus. He simply declared it w/o actually having achieved it. As I’m not a regular, I don’t keep up with the day-to-day activities of this article, but when I viewed it about three weeks ago, I thought the changes odd and reverted them. They were reverted back, but I didn’t notice as I’d moved onto other things until today. The main editors seem to be Sinden, who insists upon enforcing his 1-man consensus, and Marnette D, an administrator notorious for harrassing and stalking editors who disagree with her. Marnette has even gone so far as to single-handedly reverse consensus on
1471:“Yeah, i reverted that. Spielberg's role in film is notorious, so those film, those he's only an executive, had Spielberg's creative input. The infoboxes don't allow exec producers in as only the main producers can be included, these navboxes allow us to fill it with all of Spielberg's filmography, from directing to producing.” “Yeah, i reverted that. Spielberg's role in film is notorious, so those film, those he's only an executive, had Spielberg's creative input. The infoboxes don't allow exec producers in as only the main producers can be included, these navboxes allow us to fill it with all of Spielberg's filmography, from directing to producing.” ”Then what do we do with them? They are part of his career, and navboxes cover all career aspects, but since that doesn't apply anymore, what becomes of them?” Clear nay vote by RAP.
1753:
talk about how exec producers never have any creative role, that "Executive producer" is a completely different role to that of "Producer". This not based on any consistent facts, just your own beliefs. I have given examples that show how that is untrue, and I could give many more of the same producer doing the same job, yet going back and forth on which of those credits he gets on films he worked on. For many producers today, the titles are interchangeable. But you don't care. Exec producers are to be removed no matter what under your dictates, despite the fact that clearly not everyone agrees with what you're doing here. -
407:
99:
397:
379:
148:
130:
231:
481:
463:
491:
1559:- based on the false belief that there's a hard and inviolable difference between Producers and Executive Producers. I could show many examples of the same producer doing the same job, yet going back and forth on which of those credits he gets on films he worked on. For many producers today, the titles are interchangeable.” Clear nay by Gothicfilm.
862:- that's three, now. Can we discuss this instead of reverting back and forth? So far, it's just one user who thinks Episode IV should be listed as just "Star Wars". My contention is that that term now more commonly refers to the entire saga, or to the franchise, than to Episode IV alone. For clarity and for consistency with the other
725:
This is not the case with 'Howard', 'Willow', 'Tucker' or the
Indiana Jones films. The point I was making is that 'Empire' and 'Jedi' are special cases, not subject to the same rules that apply to other films Lucas Executive Produced. If that is a "double standard", so be it. Rules were meant to be broken.
1655:
As of now, I’m recusing myself from this discussion, and I’d advise RobSinden and
MarnetteD to do so, as well. Let this be an objective debate about the worthiness of the changes rather than an ego-clash. I’m sure there’s a WP: something for what I’m suggesting, but I don’t quite know the terminilogy
1541:
The infobox is supposed to accurately reflect who made the film. When if comes to the
Producer category, the most important criterion is not a strict telling of who got the "Produced by" title, but who actually initiated the film and oversaw it - this guy is the effective principal producer, whatever
1713:
are included on this template, as Lucas wrote them, and I'm not sure what the hell the Walt Disney example refers to, as there's no template I can find that lists the man himself as exec producer in the navbox. I would also suggest that if the IP wishes to continue the discussion, it is centralised
1700:
MarnetteD is quite correct. The IP is picking and choosing what (s)he likes and trying to cobble together their own consensus from bits and pieces and clearly twisting the different points of view to their own end. The heading is clearly directed personally at me, yet the IP will now have realised
1752:
I stand by what I said in the section quoted above, and you guys have no valid argument to the points I made there. And I was talking about navboxes in my last posting on this. They are usually collapsed on the bottom of the page, so they're not like infoboxes. You declare consensus and continue to
1013:
It’s only been marketed as such since the release of the prequels, and even so, most people still simply refer to it by the original title. If anything the policy you cite encourages the use of simpler titles. Several reviews do refer to the film by the shorter title, including those by Roger Ebert
724:
I don't even know what you mean by that. Lucas controlled every aspect of the production of 'Empire' and 'Jedi', even telling the director what to do in several instances. In this way, it can be argued (and has been many times) that they are Lucas' films, despite not having a director's credit.
1054:
It has been marketed by the longer title since 1981 which goes back a long time before the prequels. Please don't use the term "most people" when you are referring to your own feelings about the subject. Has been stated before there is a current consensus to use the full title and that is how
1686:
Actually you do not have the right to demand what other editors do and you certainly can't cut editors out of a discussion especially when you have posted a wall of text that needs some examination. Next, consensus is not a vote. Next, in your cut and pasting you have cherrypicked different
1415:
probably is an embarrassment to him, but Wiki policy does not mean we simply pretend embarrassing things ever happen. If that were true, Nixon’s article would contain no mention of
Watergate. I will not make any further edits to this page until a definitive consensus is reached.
1572:
While it’s semi-debatable in the case of
Spielberg (not really, but whatever), consensus was clearly against you when it came to Lucas, and at least 2 other editors accused you of simply declaring consensus without reaching it. He only had executive producer credits on
1457:
policies before commenting further. Your accusations are also full of mistakes. I am not an admin, I have no notoriety for the items you mention - oh and you have the gender wrong as well. Per the links
Robsinden has provided a consensus currently exists.
1497:“Aren't navboxes meant to highlight important links related to their topic? If you're going to have something as bloated as Spielbergs navbox, you might as well just replace all of that with a link to his filmography.” Ambivalence from darkwarriorblake.
1317:
I give up. Obviously, the
Knowledge (XXG) rules are only applied when it serves a particular administrator’s bias, and twisted to make them the opposite of what they are when they don’t. I have more important things to do than waste my time on this.
296:
1350:
Browsed your posting history for about ten seconds, and JESUS! Do you do anything outside of editing
Knowledge (XXG)? Eat, sleep, work? Hang out with friends, anything? 500 edits a week? I doubt I’ve made that many edits in five
1701:
this is not a "1 person consensus", and what they have said about
MarnetteD is clearly not acceptable, and possibly blockworthy. If the IP wants to continue making false accusations, I would suggest that they read up on
1714:
on one of the project pages for continuity's sake, as we're having the same conversation on two pages now, and the above makes reference to changes on the Spielberg template, confusing the situation further. --
1512:
Isn't a consensus derived when all parties to a solution agree to the decision, rather than one adherent taking/making a statement that consensus has been reached? Perhaps further elaboration and discussion is
988:
reached - probably more than once - on various talk pages. My apologies for not having the time to link to those tonight. If you need to see those I am sure that other editors can direct you to them.
345:
1403:, as previously established in this talk page (personally, I agree that it shouldn’t be counted, but going with consensus here). Now I believe that the exec producer credits should be counted as
903:. The fact that the year of release appears next to the title more than clarifies that it refers to the original film. I’d also point out that Francis Ford Coppola’s template simply refers to
1814:
1153:
First you need to establish why that should be a relevant metric. The title in this template should match the title of the article, and it should match the other films in the series.
1214:, as well as the 1997 re-release trailers. That said, if you wish to be pedantic, I propose a compromise that should hopefully satisfy everyone. List the long-winded title, but put
1190:
In essence, because I think the casual observer shouldn’t have to click on the link to discover what film you’re talking about. As I said, I wasn’t even aware of the specific title
1585:
in between 1977 and 1999? Hell, Walt Disney didn’t even receive executive producer credits. He just received presenter credits. Presumably, he creatively had nothing to do with
603:
Can we please get a better color scheme on this template? Its pretty garish. It works more for the SW template simply because there's only a single instance of yellow on black.
613:
I concur. The color scheme should be improved if the template is going to be used. I don't normally edit templates, but I'll change the colors if there are no objections. --
1432:
773:
Kill anything he hasn't directed, IMO. Most film director templates only cover what the said person has personally directed, not just productions or anything (otherwise,
817:
After seeing a lot of discrepancy on Knowledge (XXG) and elsewhere as to the correct name of the film, I looked at the film itself. Technically the name of the film is
825:(whom I believe owns the film) lists the title as "Electronic Labyrinth: THX 1138 4EB". So I've changed the article title, as well as the George Lucas film template.
333:
264:
39:
888:, and so has everyone I know. In fact, I wasn’t even aware of the episode structure until the prequels came out, and even then only vaguely. I discovered that
74:
1253:
Other than you how would any casual observer be confused when all six films are in the template. You are certainly free to continue typing about this but the
1555:
I agree with Bzuk that Infoboxes are there to give relevant information "at a glance", and that is why I believe instances like Lucas should be included.” “
900:
upon its initial release, as trailers, the Internet Movie Database, and even George Lucas admit. Hell, here’s a YouTube clip that shows the original crawl:
1789:
1333:
Neither of the editors that have responded are an admin. Everyone who edits has a bias including you and twisting was popular back in the 50's and 60's.
563:
Perhaps the title of this template should say "Films directed by George Lucas" rather than "George Lucas' films". Because even though he didn't direct
1794:
1705:. The accusations, and the obvious bad faith shown by editing various comments together call into question the integrity of the IP. Incidentally,
80:
1804:
1799:
1207:
to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name.
1396:
A couple weeks ago, a user named Rob Sinden raised an issue on the WikiProjectFilm boards regarding exec producer credits. Here’s the link here:
168:
1809:
984:
is the correct title. As pointed out it has been known and marketed by this title for 30 years now. I am sure that this has been discussed and
260:
1824:
1305:
1819:
429:
839:
I re-organized the template as a list of everything he has produced, as he has been much more prolific as a producer than as a director.
1657:
1630:
1417:
1352:
1319:
1225:
1099:
1025:
942:
349:
1829:
1024:
is the common name, and the guidelines even state that it’s better to use the common name rather than the long-winded “official” name.
509:
428:
and its affiliated companies on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
155:
135:
781:
746:
This box is quite large. Any chance we could pare it down a bit? I was thinking about removing the short films and/or mentioning "
20:
1220:
69:
420:
384:
243:
110:
253:
1194:
until about a week or two ago, although thanks to the prequels, I was vaguely aware of the episode structure. To pull regs,
1015:
304:
60:
521:
513:
517:
504:
468:
310:
Under Early Life. Fix grammar of "towns (plural) predominantly Protestant technical college" to "town's (possessive)..."
1431:
Consensus has been reached not to include executive producer credits in navboxes. There's the link you mention above,
844:
702:
587:
272:
1436:
321:
116:
167:
saga on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1661:
1634:
1421:
1356:
1323:
1229:
1103:
1029:
946:
425:
1195:
1095:
978:
960:
Yes, it was the original title, but it's been "Episode IV - A New Hope" since 1981. That's thirty years.
938:
628:
Even though he did not direct ESB and ROTJ, its pretty weird that they are not on a George Lucas template.
340:
840:
697:
582:
1254:
985:
50:
24:
65:
1758:
1377:
attacks are going to be in your repertoire. Please try to remember we all have the same goal here.
935:. In truth, I was hoping to prompt this discussion and I will abide by whatever the majority votes.
726:
680:
826:
289:
1719:
1692:
1463:
1444:
1338:
1293:
1276:
1262:
1129:
1060:
993:
614:
667:. He only helped with the financing and got a Exec. Prod. credit for it. It can be argued that
1308:. Until a consensus is reached to change that title, it should remain as-is on this Template.
1285:
896:
originally had those titles, so I’ve left them alone. But the original film was simply entitled
406:
46:
315:
774:
1702:
1454:
1754:
1210:” I’ve shown several reviews by prominent critics where the film is simply referred to as
788:
647:
1715:
1688:
1459:
1440:
1439:. This is why we have filmography pages, not every minor role needs to go in here. --
1334:
1289:
1272:
1258:
1125:
1056:
989:
572:
230:
1783:
1378:
1309:
1257:
is to use the full title and I don't seem to have persuaded anyone to overturn that.
1154:
961:
867:
751:
651:
412:
396:
378:
822:
629:
147:
129:
1271:
Parentheses are not needed as they make no difference to the way the title looks.
675:
are George's films even though he didn't direct them. The same cannot be said of
508:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can
1762:
1723:
1695:
1665:
1638:
1466:
1448:
1425:
1381:
1360:
1341:
1327:
1312:
1296:
1279:
1265:
1233:
1157:
1132:
1107:
1063:
1033:
996:
964:
950:
870:
848:
829:
804:
801:
791:
767:
764:
758:
755:
729:
707:
683:
654:
632:
617:
607:
592:
575:
496:
297:
Category:Star Wars articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction
901:
604:
486:
480:
462:
402:
1018:
747:
162:
1284:
Followup: A cosmetic change like parentheses makes me worry about the same
1092:. As I showed, even the 1997 re-release trailers used the original title.
1020:), and even the 1997 re-release trailer: (). I think I can safely say that
821:
and the "THX 1138 4EB" part is the subtitle. The corresponding page on the
1542:
title he actually got. He should be listed for the article to be accurate.
525:
915:. I don’t see any problem with referring to the original film simply as
777:
would be even bigger). Producer credits should be spun off into, say,
1435:, the history of the page, and I know you've seen the comments on the
663:
No, you wouldn't. Lucas himself had nothing to do with the making of
911:, although people often refer to the first two films as simply being
1224:. I’ve seen several sources do that. Can we at least agree on that?
866:
films in the template, we should list it under its complete title.
1204:. The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred
282:
278:
1581:, but does that mean we just assume he had nothing to do with
1304:
More to the point, any page move discussion should be held at
1198:
specifically states: “Article titles should be neither vulgar
92:
15:
884:
until I came across this. I’d always referred to the film as
1088:
Find me one source that markets it under the long title pre-
880:
fan, but the truth is that I had never even heard the title
571:, I think most of us would still consider them "his" films.
249:
Tag the talk pages of Star Wars-related articles with the
159:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
1397:
859:
219:
214:
209:
204:
763:
Another possibility would be to remove the years. --
424:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1407:is as integral and important to Lucas’s legacy as
800:It looks much better with this change. Thanks! --
259:banner. Update the classification of articles in
1815:Template-Class Disney articles of NA-importance
1557:You came in and declared consensus was achieved
919:as many other franchises do exactly that- from
524:. To improve this article, please refer to the
109:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
265:Category:Unknown-importance Star Wars articles
8:
1288:issues that I noted in my edit summaries.
1124:That would be my videotape set from 1990.
520:. To use this banner, please refer to the
457:
373:
238:Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
192:
124:
1409:Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace
459:
375:
126:
295:Remove any In-universe information at
261:Category:Unassessed Star Wars articles
1306:Talk:Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
502:This template is within the scope of
418:This template is within the scope of
177:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Star Wars
153:This template is within the scope of
98:
96:
7:
115:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
1373:I daresay that's a good thing, if
1221:Star Wars (Episode IV: A New Hope)
438:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Disney
14:
1790:Template-Class Star Wars articles
1218:in parentheses, so that it reads
646:, you would also have to include
346:Articles with notability concerns
45:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
1795:NA-importance Star Wars articles
982:Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
534:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Film
518:regional and topical task forces
489:
479:
461:
405:
395:
377:
229:
146:
128:
97:
40:Click here to start a new topic.
1453:You will also want to read the
1805:Template-Class Disney articles
1800:WikiProject Star Wars articles
805:21:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
180:Template:WikiProject Star Wars
1:
1810:NA-importance Disney articles
876:Disagree. I’m not even a big
849:08:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
754:series". Other thoughts? --
618:22:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
432:and see a list of open tasks.
171:and see a list of open tasks.
37:Put new text under old text.
1825:Template-Class film articles
1382:22:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
1361:15:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
1342:15:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
1328:15:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
1313:14:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
1297:14:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
1280:14:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
1266:14:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
1234:11:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
1158:11:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
1133:14:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
1108:06:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
696:No double standards please.
196:WikiProject Star Wars To-do:
1820:WikiProject Disney articles
1064:13:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
1034:04:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
997:02:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
965:02:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
951:21:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
871:18:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
441:Template:WikiProject Disney
1846:
1055:Knowledge (XXG) operates.
1017:) and James Berardinelli (
907:by that title, and not as
759:17:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
1830:WikiProject Film articles
768:20:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
684:12:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
655:03:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
633:07:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
537:Template:WikiProject Film
474:
390:
191:
141:
123:
75:Be welcoming to newcomers
1763:21:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
1724:22:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
1696:21:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
1666:20:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
1639:20:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
1467:19:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
1449:19:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
1426:17:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
830:19:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
823:USC Moving Image Archive
782:George Lucas productions
730:14:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
708:08:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
608:17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
593:05:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
576:04:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
322:Category:Star Wars stubs
1707:The Empire Strikes Back
1575:The Empire Strikes Back
890:The Empire Strikes Back
792:05:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
426:The Walt Disney Company
1216:Episode IV: A New Hope
350:WikiProject Notability
70:avoid personal attacks
254:WikiProject Star Wars
156:WikiProject Star Wars
1515:” Clear nay by Bzuk.
909:The Godfather Part I
819:Electronic Labyrinth
813:Electronic Labyrinth
640:Empire Strikes Back
565:Empire Strikes Back
510:join the discussion
1711:Return of the Jedi
1579:Return of the Jedi
1437:Spielberg template
1392:1-Person Consensus
894:Return of the Jedi
644:Return of the Jedi
569:Return of the Jedi
421:WikiProject Disney
183:Star Wars articles
111:content assessment
81:dispute resolution
42:
1098:comment added by
941:comment added by
841:The Wookieepedian
556:
555:
552:
551:
548:
547:
512:and see lists of
456:
455:
452:
451:
372:
371:
368:
367:
364:
363:
360:
359:
91:
90:
61:Assume good faith
38:
1837:
1110:
953:
786:
780:
775:Steven Spielberg
542:
541:
538:
535:
532:
505:WikiProject Film
499:
494:
493:
492:
483:
476:
475:
465:
458:
446:
445:
442:
439:
436:
415:
410:
409:
399:
392:
391:
381:
374:
258:
252:
233:
226:
225:
193:
185:
184:
181:
178:
175:
150:
143:
142:
132:
125:
102:
101:
100:
93:
16:
1845:
1844:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1780:
1779:
1627:The Jungle Book
1615:Sleeping Beauty
1405:Howard the Duck
1394:
1093:
936:
856:
837:
815:
784:
778:
744:
727:Rhindle The Red
706:
681:Rhindle The Red
648:Howard the Duck
638:If you include
626:
601:
591:
561:
539:
536:
533:
530:
529:
495:
490:
488:
444:Disney articles
443:
440:
437:
434:
433:
411:
404:
356:
256:
250:
224:
182:
179:
176:
173:
172:
87:
86:
56:
12:
11:
5:
1843:
1841:
1833:
1832:
1827:
1822:
1817:
1812:
1807:
1802:
1797:
1792:
1782:
1781:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1619:101 Dalmatians
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1393:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1345:
1344:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1137:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1090:Phantom Menace
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
970:
969:
968:
967:
955:
954:
925:The Terminator
860:this reversion
855:
852:
836:
833:
814:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
795:
794:
743:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
700:
689:
688:
687:
686:
658:
657:
625:
622:
621:
620:
600:
597:
596:
595:
585:
560:
557:
554:
553:
550:
549:
546:
545:
543:
501:
500:
484:
472:
471:
466:
454:
453:
450:
449:
447:
430:the discussion
417:
416:
400:
388:
387:
382:
370:
369:
366:
365:
362:
361:
358:
357:
355:
354:
353:
352:
324:
311:
300:
285:
273:Citing sources
268:
237:
235:
234:
223:
222:
217:
212:
207:
201:
198:
197:
189:
188:
186:
169:the discussion
151:
139:
138:
133:
121:
120:
114:
103:
89:
88:
85:
84:
77:
72:
63:
57:
55:
54:
43:
34:
33:
30:
29:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1842:
1831:
1828:
1826:
1823:
1821:
1818:
1816:
1813:
1811:
1808:
1806:
1803:
1801:
1798:
1796:
1793:
1791:
1788:
1787:
1785:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1725:
1721:
1717:
1712:
1708:
1704:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1694:
1690:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1667:
1663:
1659:
1658:67.234.68.198
1654:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1640:
1636:
1632:
1631:67.234.68.198
1628:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1576:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1558:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1514:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1465:
1461:
1456:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1418:67.234.68.198
1414:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1391:
1383:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1353:67.239.63.243
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1343:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1320:67.239.63.243
1315:
1314:
1311:
1307:
1298:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1226:67.239.63.243
1223:
1222:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1208:
1203:
1202:
1197:
1196:WP:COMMONNAME
1193:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1159:
1156:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1135:
1134:
1131:
1127:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1100:67.239.63.243
1097:
1091:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1065:
1062:
1058:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1026:67.239.63.243
1023:
1019:
1016:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
998:
995:
991:
987:
983:
980:
979:WP:COMMONNAME
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
966:
963:
959:
958:
957:
956:
952:
948:
944:
943:67.239.63.243
940:
934:
930:
926:
922:
921:The Godfather
918:
914:
913:The Godfather
910:
906:
905:The Godfather
902:
899:
895:
891:
887:
883:
879:
875:
874:
873:
872:
869:
865:
861:
853:
851:
850:
846:
842:
834:
832:
831:
828:
824:
820:
812:
806:
803:
799:
798:
797:
796:
793:
790:
783:
776:
772:
771:
770:
769:
766:
761:
760:
757:
753:
752:Indiana Jones
750:series" and "
749:
741:
731:
728:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
709:
704:
699:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
685:
682:
678:
674:
670:
666:
662:
661:
660:
659:
656:
653:
649:
645:
641:
637:
636:
635:
634:
631:
623:
619:
616:
612:
611:
610:
609:
606:
598:
594:
589:
584:
580:
579:
578:
577:
574:
570:
566:
558:
544:
540:film articles
527:
523:
522:documentation
519:
515:
511:
507:
506:
498:
487:
485:
482:
478:
477:
473:
470:
467:
464:
460:
448:
431:
427:
423:
422:
414:
413:Disney portal
408:
403:
401:
398:
394:
393:
389:
386:
383:
380:
376:
351:
347:
344:
342:
338:
337:
335:
331:
329:
325:
323:
320:
318:
317:
312:
309:
307:
306:
301:
298:
294:
292:
291:
286:
284:
280:
277:
275:
274:
269:
266:
262:
255:
248:
246:
245:
240:
239:
236:
232:
228:
227:
221:
218:
216:
213:
211:
208:
206:
203:
202:
200:
199:
195:
194:
190:
187:
170:
166:
165:
164:
158:
157:
152:
149:
145:
144:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
122:
118:
112:
108:
104:
95:
94:
82:
78:
76:
73:
71:
67:
64:
62:
59:
58:
52:
48:
47:Learn to edit
44:
41:
36:
35:
32:
31:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1710:
1706:
1626:
1623:Mary Poppins
1622:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1556:
1511:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1395:
1374:
1316:
1303:
1255:WP:CONSENSUS
1252:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1206:
1205:
1201:nor pedantic
1200:
1199:
1191:
1136:
1123:
1094:— Preceding
1089:
1021:
986:WP:CONSENSUS
981:
937:— Preceding
932:
928:
924:
920:
916:
912:
908:
904:
897:
893:
889:
885:
881:
877:
863:
857:
838:
818:
816:
762:
745:
742:Big template
676:
672:
668:
664:
643:
639:
627:
602:
568:
564:
562:
503:
419:
348:, listed at
339:
334:things to do
327:
326:
314:
313:
303:
302:
288:
287:
271:
270:
242:
241:
161:
160:
154:
117:WikiProjects
106:
25:George Lucas
19:This is the
1411:. Granted,
599:It burns...
581:Yeah, fine
497:Film portal
1784:Categories
1755:Gothicfilm
1716:Rob Sinden
1607:Cinderella
1587:Snow White
1441:Rob Sinden
1375:ad hominem
1192:A New Hope
882:A New Hope
854:A New Hope
789:hbdragon88
526:guidelines
514:open tasks
341:Notability
332:* See the
1689:MarnetteD
1629:, et al.
1611:Peter Pan
1591:Pinocchio
1583:Star Wars
1513:required?
1460:MarnetteD
1335:MarnetteD
1290:MarnetteD
1273:MarnetteD
1259:MarnetteD
1212:Star Wars
1126:MarnetteD
1057:MarnetteD
1022:Star Wars
990:MarnetteD
917:Star Wars
898:Star Wars
886:Star Wars
878:Star Wars
864:Star Wars
827:Alcarillo
748:Star Wars
174:Star Wars
163:Star Wars
136:Star Wars
83:if needed
66:Be polite
27:template.
21:talk page
1595:Fantasia
1286:WP:POINT
1096:unsigned
939:unsigned
933:Predator
835:Reformat
703:Complain
652:AnonMoos
588:Complain
305:Copyedit
107:template
51:get help
630:Cvene64
290:Cleanup
210:history
1703:WP:NPA
1455:WP:NPA
1413:Howard
1379:Powers
1351:years!
1310:Powers
1155:Powers
962:Powers
868:Powers
802:Mrwojo
765:Mrwojo
756:Mrwojo
677:Howard
669:Empire
665:Howard
573:Coffee
435:Disney
385:Disney
244:Assess
113:scale.
1603:Bambi
1599:Dumbo
929:Alien
858:Note
624:Films
605:EVula
559:Title
336:page
328:Other
316:Stubs
220:purge
215:watch
105:This
79:Seek
1759:talk
1720:talk
1709:and
1693:Talk
1662:talk
1635:talk
1577:and
1464:Talk
1445:talk
1433:this
1422:talk
1401:Duel
1357:talk
1339:Talk
1324:talk
1294:Talk
1277:Talk
1263:Talk
1230:talk
1130:Talk
1104:talk
1061:Talk
1030:talk
994:Talk
977:Per
947:talk
892:and
845:talk
698:....
673:Jedi
671:and
642:and
615:Erik
583:....
567:and
531:Film
516:and
469:Film
283:Sith
279:Jedi
263:and
205:edit
68:and
931:to
927:to
923:to
1786::
1761:)
1722:)
1691:|
1664:)
1637:)
1625:,
1621:,
1617:,
1613:,
1609:,
1605:,
1601:,
1597:,
1593:,
1589:,
1462:|
1447:)
1424:)
1359:)
1337:|
1326:)
1292:|
1275:|
1261:|
1232:)
1128:|
1106:)
1059:|
1032:)
992:|
949:)
847:)
787:.
785:}}
779:{{
650:!
281:,
257:}}
251:{{
49:;
1757:(
1718:(
1660:(
1633:(
1443:(
1420:(
1355:(
1322:(
1228:(
1102:(
1028:(
1014:(
945:(
843:(
705:)
701:(
679:.
590:)
586:(
528:.
343::
330::
319::
308::
299:.
293::
276::
267:.
247::
119::
53:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
