This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:
Film This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you canjoin the discussion and see lists ofopen tasks andregional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation. To improve this article, please refer to theguidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm

This template was considered fordeletion on2016 November 17. The result ofthe discussion was "keep".

I would argue that, as a region, the Middle East should be broken out from Asia; for one thing, with Egyptian cinema as prominent as it is, it makes no sense to include it in Asia (Egypt's not); equally, it makes little sense to separate Egyptian out from the rest of its regional counterparts (and the same will be true at the point at which Morocco, Tunisia, or Libya get their own article). In the same way, Egyptian film has relatively little in common with African cinemas, and is much logically grouped with counterparts in Lebanon, Iran, the Gulf, etc. A strong case can be made that Middle Eastern films are distinct from Asian ones, in the same way, that the region is treated as a distinct political entity. To be tied strictly to geography seems pedantic. In the meantime, it seems odd to have Egypt under "Asia", and so I'm moving it Africa.Robertissimo07:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was really stupid on my part to move Egypt under Asia. Thanks for your help. —WiseKwai08:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well on the otherside Egypt is also a part of Africa ...?! In terms of genres, Indian cinema is as far from Iranian cinema as it is from chinese cinema. Also Turkish cinema, Egyptian cinema and Israeli cinema differ significantly.Sangak10:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the recent change to alphabetical order, inspite of some inconveniences (like Middle East away from Asia), as it really follows NPOV lines. I had in mind to do it myself for a while, but someone else did it now. Let's leave it so, please.HoverfishTalk23:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need the “world” image in the header of this template? I find it unattractive, it has no purpose in relation to the template’s content, and I can’t remember having seen such an image on any other country list templates, so it’s not because it’s customary. –Fred Bradstadt17:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's so small you can hardly see what it is. It would be cool to have a little symbol, likethis one orthis one, but with a globe icon.Cop 66301:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great discussion to be having. The clapperboards are useful images, but would also be too small if used in this context. If someone were to put the globe inside a clapperboard and then use that image in the header, the globe would be about the size of someone's eye pupil - too small. I tend to agree with the gist of Fred B.'s questions, that the image isn't really needed. —WiseKwai10:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See alsoTemplate talk:Filmsbycountry --Fred Bradstadt10:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd rather have nothing than the present image (ditto the other template).Cop 66311:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, use a blank clapperboard image, or something likeFilm.PNG.Gram12316:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Template-Class film pages
• WikiProject Film articles