Project
Workgroups
Subprojects
WikiProject Film General information (vte) Main project page + talk → Discussion archives Style guidelines talk → Multimedia talk → Naming conventions talk → Copy-editing essentials talk Notability guidelines talk Announcements and open tasks talk → Article alerts → Cleanup listing → New articles talk → Nominations for deletion talk → Popular pages → Requests talk Spotlight talk Film portal talk Fiction noticeboard talk Project organization Coordinators talk Participants talk Project banner talk Project category talk Departments Assessment talk → B-Class → Instructions Categorization talk Core talk Outreach talk Resources talk Review talk Spotlight talk → Spotlight cleanup listing Topic workshop talk Task forces General topics Film awards talk Film festivals talk Film finance talk Filmmaking talk Silent films talk Genre Animated films talk Christian films talk Comic book films talk Documentary films talk Marvel Cinematic Universe talk Skydance Media talk War films talk Avant-garde and experimental films talk National and regional American cinema talk Argentine cinema talk Australian cinema talk Baltic cinema talk British cinema talk Canadian cinema talk Chinese cinema talk French cinema talk German cinema talk Indian cinema talk Italian cinema talk Japanese cinema talk Korean cinema talk Mexican cinema talk New Zealand cinema talk Nordic cinema talk Pakistani cinema talk Persian cinema talk Southeast Asian cinema talk Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk Spanish cinema talk Uruguayan cinema talk Venezuelan cinema talk Templates banner DVD citation DVD liner notes citation infobox plot cleanup stub userbox

Scope[edit]

Of course, one of the most foundation part of this task force is to decide the scope of the project. Here is my opinion (changeable) what what should go on the main task force page:

This is a draft, and expandable. Thoughts? TheAE talk/sign 18:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few tweaks, both for clarity and for completeness. Loopholes make me nervous. How about this:
The only other thing that bothers me is the example that's used. I've neither seen nor read The Da Vinci Code so I only have a vague understanding of what it's about. And, while I certainly don't like what little I do know of it, I wonder if we might be able to think of a more... egregious, I guess, for lack of a better word... example so as to avoid argument from those who don't mind the representation of Christianity in that particular film. Mind you, this example may be very powerful and I just don't know it. Feel free to smack me down if that's the case. :) -- edi(talk) 21:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stigmata? The Pope Must Die? Dogma? Monty Python's Life of Brian? PC78 (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Good examples. And I'm really, really sheltered! I knew Life of Brian (though I didn't think of it), but all the others are shocking to me. Yep, I'd say any of those would make a better example than TDVC. If it were up to me alone, I'd say Stigmata is the most vivid [that's the word I've been looking for!] example simply because I think even the poster art would be offensive to most Christians, but that's just me. I'd go along with any of them. -- edi(talk) 22:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps another question to throw in the discussion for consideration is: should Catholic films be included under Christian films? Catholicism is arguably quite different from Christianity, but I know a lot of people don't necessarily think so... At any rate, I think AE's scope, along with Edi's amendments, are good. -- Filmcom (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can be broad in this case and tweak the scope later if necessary. How would a Catholic film differ from a Christian film? Any examples to cite? Also, regarding films' approaches toward Christianity, how would The Last Temptation of Christ be categorized? I found it through Category:Anti-Christianity in film, but the article's "Critical reception and interpretation" section has some positive words. May be worth considering that even films of this nature helps create dialogue. For example, The Da Vinci Code surely spurred a lot of dialogue. (The article is kind of messy at present, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were some good resources analyzing the film's approach to Christianity.) Also, in designing the scope, it may be worth considering WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE. (Like obviously, not all Christian films should be written positively... some Christian films may just be badly made.) —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I've said before and I still say that I have no problem with the task force covering films that are sort of on the borderline between positive and negative statements about Christianity (though, again, I haven't seen The Last Temptation... for myself so I don't really know where it falls on the spectrum). For one thing, if you ask a thousand people who call themselves Christians what the word means, you'll get maybe 850 different responses. And for another, I think there very well could be a lot of films that say both good and bad things about it. If we rule out 100% of the negative, what are we to do with those? I do think that films like the ones that PC78 listed above are way past the borderline and shouldn't even be considered, but in this particular case I guess I'd prefer to include arguable ones than to exclude them. I am open to discussion about it though.

On the question of Catholicism, I totally understand your point, but it is, by our own definition (and by almost any other definition as well), a form of Christianity. Catholic doctrine is very different from Protestant doctrine in many, many ways, but it is based ultimately on their view of the teachings of Jesus, just as Protestant doctrine is based on their view of the same. I think we need to be very careful about cutting out various groups simply because we don't happen to agree with their teachings. This is, after all, called the Christian films task force, not the Protestant films task force or the Baptist films task force or the Methodist films... well, you get the idea. :) If a group calls itself Christian and to any significant degree bases its teachings on the deity of Jesus, then I think we have to accept it. There are several groups that I personally think are more questionable than the Catholic church, such as the Latter Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, etc, but I'm not sure that we can make a distinction without completely changing the nature of the task force. (And, just for the record, lest anyone question my neutrality, I'm an evangelical Protestant to the core.)

Remember: As much as any of us may feel compelled (and for good reason, I think) to express our own beliefs, this isn't the place for it. If the task force is to succeed, we have to present NPOV and just tell the facts. What it is, how successful it's been, who agrees with it and why, what the controversies are, things like that. Anything beyond that and I fear that the existence of the task force that we've worked so hard to form might be challenged, and that's the last thing we want. -- edi(talk) 15:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Righto, I got to thinking about that, and I agree with you... Wikipedia isn't the place to be making that distinction. As for including both films with negative and positive views on Christianity, I can see where there can be pros and cons of doing just the one, or both. For one thing, there are plenty of films out there that have negative presuppositions about Christianity, quite possibly more than have positive ones. Would we want those to be covered under the scope for this task force? -- Filmcom (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may help. Remember that even if the scope is expanded, you and the other editors who signed up recently are interested in working on films intended for Christian audiences. It does not mean you have to go and be involved with films that challenge the notion of Christianity. However, for the sake of neutrality, it is best to encompass films that have positive and negative approaches to Christianity. Think about it... does it look neutral for someone to create an Anti-Christian films task force? Better to be all-encompassing. In addition, I think that the benefit of an expanded scope is that prominent films that challenge the notion of Christianity will usually draw Christian responses. I am not familiar with Christian publications, but I imagine that in addition to reviewing films for Christian audiences, they also provide commentary on films that are not as positive. That could be a task for this task force (with caution to avoid undue weight) for the long term. For example, Angels & Demons will certainly draw Christian responses, so it seems within the scope of this task force to contribute to that. Again, I know that the focus of most editors will be films with Christian audiences, so there's no requirement on any one editor's part to be involved with that kind of task. Providing the proper venue for various outlooks, though, is beneficial in the long run. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point, Erik. Although I personally don't want to work on The Da Vinci Code (or films like that), you have given a good reason to include them in this task force. Any ideas for a revised scope? TheAE talk/sign 03:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; you make a completely valid point. Filmcom (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

This is a formal proposal to adapt the following as our defined project scope. It can, of course, be modified at a later date, but we need to get past this for now. American Eagle (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dogma appears to be solely satirical Christian humor. It does not have a Christian message, is not made for Christians, and was not made by a Christian company. Just because something is a spoof of Christian films doesn't necessarily mean it should be included in this task force. "Spoofs" such as Monty Python's Life of Brian would be covered in the "This does not include films that use Christian images, teachings, history, or themes in such a way that Christ, Christians, or Christianity is shown in a negative way" clause. Several other of the films would require individual discussion, but the scope should be the underlying guide. American Eagle (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that may be, but wouldn't articles about films which touch extensively on Christian issues be better served by also being within the scope of a group of editors who have more expertise on Christianity and interest in films than the average editor? I happen to agree with Erik here - the group's expertise is needed in all films which substantively deal with Christianity, regardless of the creators, ideologies, or context. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, for example, is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history despite being an offensive hoax about Jews precisely because that is why their input is needed to help give context to the inaccuracies of the work. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand that, but it isn't my point. If someone want to create a project "anti-Christian films", then that fine. But this should be generally be films about Christianity (not just spoofs). However, I have some leeway for films which are fully about Christian history, as long as it isn't simply comedic. (In some areas of Christianity, The Passion of the Christ is pure blasphemy, etc.) If a film, for example, is the story of Jesus but parts of it goes against a specific denomination, it is still generally considered Christian. I meaning more like Scary Movie 2, which is in Category:Anti-Catholicism in film, but is certainly not part of this task force. Like I said, we can discuss borderline films at a later time. American Eagle (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, our definition is too wide

I agree with the above definition, and I believe the whole "Christian Film" article should be renamed "The Christian Film Industry", since it is the primary focus of the page. Then we tighten our definition of Christian film to films of, by and for the people of the Church, and we have no need to bother with long discussions every time there comes a studio movie with a Bible-quoting, triggerhappy desperado or a philantropic overclass woman that sees a black kid trough college. The music articles on Wikipedia has a clear distinction on these matters, here is a qoute from the article about "Contemporay Christian Music": "Also, several mainstream artists such as The Byrds, Bob Dylan, Van Morrison, Elvis Presley, Lifehouse, U2, and rapper DMX have dealt with Christian themes in their work but are not part of the CCM industry."

The way the "Christian Film"-article is written now it DOES NOT follow our own definition, and lists up "secular" productions that deals with faith-related subjects. What do you think? --Janibanani (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article tagging[edit]

Note: I've requested User:Bluegoblin7 tag all articles in Category:Christian films be tagged for this task force. He said he'd have it done soon. TheAE talk/sign 20:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On WT:FILM, several websites listing Christian films were mentioned. It may be worth checking for the films' Wikipedia articles to make sure they are categorized and also tagged as part of the Christian films task force on the talk pages. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a good idea and I may do it sometime. For now, I want to get the articles in the category tagged. I'm not sure why it hasn't been completed yet. I'll try to look into it. TheAE talk/sign 02:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this something I could help with? -- Filmcom (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does BlueGoblin have a bot or something? Erwin Springer [talk] 01:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and he said he'd have it done by now. (...) TheAE talk/sign 02:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey gang, i'm just about to run it now, sorry for the delay! BG7even 20:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, still not got it started yet - wiki politics! But a question, do you want all the sub-cats doing as well, such as Category:Catholic films and it's sub-cat Category:Anti-Catholicism in film? I would guess not the second one... Regards, BG7even 11:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that top level subcategories would need tagging, as well... But you should probably get a second opinion on that. -- Filmcom (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, i'll wait for some more because it's kinda important ;). Thanks, BG7even 16:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say "Catholic films" is fine. In my opinion, skip Category:Anti-Catholicism in film, as it is fairly small and some of the would need discussion (as I can't see how Scary Movie 2 has a place in this task force, etc.). The Latter Day Saint ones are questionable, so I'd say to skip them for now (we haven't discussed them at all). Do all the rest, Goblin. TheAE talk/sign 18:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okie kokie, thanks a bundle! BG7even 18:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, we should do anything that isn't for Christian values, no just movies that are related to christian ideas. Erwin Springer [talk] 20:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – I used AWB to tag all articles in Category:Christian films and Category:Catholic films. I have skipped all the other categories until we fully decide our scope. American Eagle (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The icons look very good! Personally I like the 3rd one the most because it includes a symbol which further defines our beliefs (as even nonbelievers sometimes wear cross necklaces, etc.) It'd be great if we could come up with something simple yet more comprehensive in what it indicates like a plain black Bible with three gold crosses on it. Anyway, thanks for making those; we certainly appreciate it. Invmog (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Task force icon[edit]

I've had some appropriate icons created for this task force. Feel free to use whichever, or indeed none of them, as you prefer:

Regards. PC78 (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, those are great! I think they are all good. But, I prefer #1, as #3 clashes colors a bit and #2 is highly default (everything Christianity-related uses that blue cross). I think #1 is awesome, and strongly support using it. TheAE talk/sign 02:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Yep, I agree, number 1 is the best. -- Filmcom (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that I like 3 very much but I agree that the colors are a little off. Given that, I agree that 1 is the best. Thanks for taking the time to make them. :) -- edi(talk) 21:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but Sodacan deserves the credit for creating these. If you're in agreement over using #1, I'll request that it be added to the project banner. PC78 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who is able should update Template:Film with this icon (as I cannot). TheAE talk/sign 03:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. PC78 (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CFTF[edit]

Is there any objection to creating WP:CFTF (Christian films task force) as a shortcut for this task force? It seems like a good redirect as "Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Christian films task force" is long and hard to type. TheAE talk/sign 20:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Works great for me! —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see a problem. Erwin Springer [talk] 20:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – WP:CFTF is now the project shortcut! :) TheAE talk/sign 20:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we use the ((shortcut)) template on this page then. Erwin Springer [talk] 20:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just did. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration: To GA?[edit]

As a task force, we currently have two "good" articles: The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian and Andrei Rublev, and we need more. I was considering trying to get one of the following to GA, Facing the Giants, Fireproof, Amazing Grace, The Ultimate Gift, One Night with the King or End of the Spear, all of which have the potential of a GA, but need work. Would any of the task force members like to collaborate together on any of these articles with me? Thanks. ;) American Eagle (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to! -- Filmcom (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone who would like to help, I've left some comments at Talk:Fireproof (film)#GA comments (which had the most potential to become a GA). God bless, American Eagle (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent of my ability and my availability I'll help you work on 'Fireproof.' Invmog (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rapture?[edit]

Is this group looking at Rapture related films? The Book of Eli is set in a post-rapture world, but the thought police keep changing the synopsis to being "post-apocolytic" given the film is clearly a Christian film and relates to the Rapture (hence why all the good people are gone), do you think you can add a section in that films article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.147.83 (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your request. The film is tagged as a part of this task force, and is actually mentioned on the Christian film article. Adding a section to the article about this would have to be discussed on the article's talk page. :) American Eagle (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sources[edit]

I thought it might be good to create a list of some good websites that might come in handy as sources for film articles. Feel free to add/discuss links. - Filmcom (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I use a lot of those often. Here are some more I've come across:
–American Eagle (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP 1.0 bot announcement[edit]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced living people articles bot[edit]

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Christian films task force/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you. Okip 02:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Secrets of Jonathan Sperry[edit]

Someone with knoweledge of this film should take a look at the article. The "plot" section is written as if the article is an advertisement to entice the reader to see the film. This section should accurately sum up the film's plot. It should not be a "cliffhanger", or leave the reader in suspense.Mk5384 (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity portals[edit]

I am currently trying to get together some lists of articles relevant to each Christianity-related portal which could be used, at least potentially, to help bring all the extant portals up to Featured Portal status. The current, admittedly incomplete, list of articles, images, etc., relevant to each portal can be found at User:John Carter/Christianity portals. I also think that, at least in theory, we would probably best use a single article only in a single portal, and that we probably have enough articles to do that, although there might be a few exceptions. I would welcome input from anyone on the associated talk page regarding which articles and other materials they would like to see associated with which portal(s), any suggestions for additional portals or changes to existing portals, etc. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Women's History Month is in March[edit]

Hi everyone at WikiProject Christian films!

Women's history month is around the corner, in March, and we're planning the second WikiWomen's History Month.

This event, which is organized by volunteers from the WikiWomen's Collaborative, supports improving coverage about women's history during the month of March. Events take place both offline and online. We are encouraging WikiProjects to focus on women's history related to their subject for the month of March. Ideas include:

  • Improving coverage about Christian women filmmakers, directors, producers, and executives
  • Developing content about women owned Christian film businesses

We hope you'll participate! You can list your your project focus here, and also help improve our to-do list. Thank you for all you do for Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nefarious: Merchant of Souls[edit]

The article about the Christian film Nefarious: Merchant of Souls has an ongoing featured article candidacy here. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus May 2018 is available[edit]

* Read this Ichthus in full * Get Ichthus delivered to your Talkpage * – Lionel(talk) 11:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus June 2018 is out now![edit]

* Read this Ichthus in full * Get Ichthus delivered to your Talkpage * – Lionel(talk) 04:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus July 2018 is out now![edit]

* Read this Ichthus in full * Get Ichthus delivered to your Talkpage * – Lionel(talk) 08:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool[edit]

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on ecclesiastical titles[edit]

There is a proposal for a new subsection on ecclesiastical titles being conducted at MOS:BIO. Interested editors are encouraged to participate. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categories