Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

WikiProject Film announcements and open tasks []
Article alerts • Articles needing attention • Assessment • Cleanup listing • Deletion sorting • New articles • Popular pages • Requests • Reviews
Today's featured articles 06 Jun 2024 – Saving Private Ryan (talk · edit · hist) will be Today's Featured Article; see blurb Did you know 24 May 2024 – Avatar Studios (production company) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Zingo156 (t · c); see discussion 24 May 2024 – South by South Lawn (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by TheSandDoctor (t · c); see discussion 24 May 2024 – I Am Human (film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by TheSandDoctor (t · c); see discussion 23 May 2024 – Trust Machine: The Story of Blockchain (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by TheSandDoctor (t · c); see discussion 23 May 2024 – Dazed and Confused (film) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Lbal (t · c); see discussion 21 May 2024 – Score: A Hockey Musical (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Reidgreg (t · c); see discussion 19 May 2024 – Pearl (X) (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by FishLoveHam (t · c); see discussion 16 May 2024 – Haikyu!! The Dumpster Battle (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by NinetyNineDragon (t · c); see discussion 13 May 2024 – Zombie Plane (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (t · c); see discussion 05 May 2024 – The Great Mecca Feast (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Crisco 1492 (t · c); see discussion (1 more...) Featured article candidates 23 Mar 2024 – Mission: Impossible – Fallout (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Darkwarriorblake (t · c); see discussion Featured list candidates 20 May 2024 – List of roles and awards of Liza Soberano (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Pseud 14 (t · c); see discussion 17 May 2024 – List of accolades received by Joker (2019 film) (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Sgubaldo (t · c); see discussion 15 May 2024 – List of accolades received by The Boy and the Heron (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by TechnoSquirrel69 (t · c); see discussion 07 May 2024 – Peter Capaldi filmography (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by OlifanofmrTennant (t · c); see discussion 05 May 2024 – List of accolades received by Hacksaw Ridge (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Sgubaldo (t · c); see discussion 19 Apr 2024 – Outline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Trailblazer101 (t · c); see discussion Good article nominees 16 May 2024 – Pearl (X) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by FishLoveHam (t · c); start discussion 13 May 2024 – Jane Fonda's Workout (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Binksternet (t · c); start discussion 26 Apr 2024 – 18×2 Beyond Youthful Days (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Prince of Erebor (t · c); start discussion 14 Apr 2024 – Kristoff (Frozen) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Fieryninja (t · c); start discussion 06 Apr 2024 – Apocalypse Clown (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Bilorv (t · c); start discussion 06 Apr 2024 – Metro Theater (New York City) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Epicgenius (t · c); start discussion 06 Apr 2024 – Hounds (film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Mooonswimmer (t · c); start discussion 03 Apr 2024 – Godzilla Minus One (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Eiga-Kevin2 (t · c); start discussion 03 Apr 2024 – The Asylum (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Famous Hobo (t · c); start discussion 29 Mar 2024 – Sam Bahadur (film) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Twinkle1990 (t · c); start discussion (6 more...) Peer reviews 18 May 2024 – Pedro Pascal on screen and stage (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by BarntToust (t · c); see discussion 14 May 2024 – Knives Out (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by DAP389 (t · c); see discussion
View full version with task force lists

WikiProject Film - to do list?

I have analyzed the condition of various film articles and i feel if there was a list people added titles to, then various editors could take on a seperate project to improve it's standards. Any thoughts? RAP (talk) 23:49 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Tron: Legacy Peer Review

Would anyone be willing to provide a review for Tron: Legacy so I can move forward with the GA nom? RAP (talk) 15:24 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"Uncredited" writers in infobox?

I see some film articles that list "uncredited" writers, and wondered if there is a rule about this. I have removed such credits in the past when the body of the article gave no indication or offered no source to back up the claim. In general, should these simply be removed? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It depends really. Sometimes the WGA will retrospectively assign a credit, and some writers weren't credited in the 50s due to being blacklisted but have since been acknowledged as the "true" writer. As a general rule I would say uncredited writers shouldn't be included, but there are legitimate exceptions and in those cases they should be backed up by a strong source. Betty Logan (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as it's verifiable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, as long as it's verifiable, then there's no problem. Same with directors who aren't credited. They still directed the work (see the Dogme films, for example), so it should be mentioned. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 18:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I say include them as long as it's verifiable, but don't put the "(uncredited)" disclaimer. The article body can explain the writers and why some went uncredited. If there are edit-wars over it, leave a hidden note in the infobox directing editors to read the relevant section within the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate these responses. You all make good sense. Your idea of not including "uncredited" disclaimer in the infobox is reasonable, IllaZilla. That information should be in the body of the article, with an explanation. Thanks! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is fair to say that the standard for the infobox should be a little higher than for the article. For example, Robert Towne wrote a scene for The Godfather that Coppola mentioned when he accepted an Oscar, however the consensus on the page was that it was not quite significant enough to merit inclusion in the infobox even though it is well known and uncredited. There is some reasonable limit on the cast listed in the infobox, and by analogy I think a similar editorial discretion is all right for the writers. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, case-by-case editorial decisions should be made in situations like The Godfather. I was thinking along the lines of Alien vs. Predator, for which Shane Salerno co-wrote the script and stayed on for revisions throughout production yet went uncredited. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

As said before, the infobox and the lead should reflect the film's credits. I believe most uncredited writers do not belong in the infobox - some are mentioned even when they only wrote one scene. I am for describing such instances in the article body if they're notable. Case-by-case judgment is necessary. In a situation where an uncredited writer or director is deemed to have contributed enough to also be listed in the infobox, below the credited writer and/or director, than the name should certainly be tagged with "(uncredited)" - as most are that I have seen. I would be against any new policy that would put uncredited names in the infobox without that tag. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Onibaba (film)

I'm having a dispute with another user while adding information to Onibaba (film). I've given five sources for my additions, but they are still being reverted. I'd like to hear some opinions. Thanks. – Robert Kerber (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion has now moved to Talk:Onibaba (film). I'd be happy to hear some more opinions there. Thanks. – Robert Kerber (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Come on, no-one interested in participating? – Robert Kerber (talk) 06:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Well it's not actually clear what you are disputing, can you summarise the dispute please? Betty Logan (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The main dispute concerns the intro: "Onibaba (鬼婆?, literally Demon Hag) is a 1964 Japanese drama film based on a Buddhist parable. Thematically and visually, the film incorporates elements of the Noh theater and the horror film." User Joshua repeatedly reverted my changes although I had given 5 sources to undermine the categorization and influences mentioned.--Robert Kerber (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The Cabin in the Woods

Hello. I have started to do some major work on The Cabin in the Woods and I intend to get the article up to GA status. I've started a discussion on the talk page at Talk:The Cabin in the Woods#GA push. Comments and input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

TCM database

For the last couple of days I have been getting error messages when I try to access the TCM database. This could be a regional block or something, so can someone see if they can access http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/80025/Jurassic-Park/ for example? If TCM have changed all the addresses it will have made a real mess, because over 2000 articles reference the TCM database. Betty Logan (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The page isn't found, though it takes me to the actual TCM site. If in doubt always try Down for everyone or just me Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the message I'm getting...on every single TCM film article we use as a source! I hope it's a temporary glitch or we'll end up with tons of unsourced content. Wayback doesn't seem to have the TCM database archived either. Betty Logan (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It just worked for me now. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Works fine for me, too. So I'm OK. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 11:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• The database seems to be back online. Phew! Betty Logan (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Plot summaries

Can someone answer this question about plot summaries? I don't really know what the answer is. Ryan Vesey 11:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Plots are supposed to be 400–700 words. There are some relevant tags if they fall outside this range: {{Long plot}}, {{No plot}}, {{More plot}} and {{All plot}}. Betty Logan (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Ryan Vesey 14:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Coordinator elections?

I am considering holding coordinator elections for this year, since it is almost that time of the year again. We've lost quite a bit of coordinators, so I think a new election is necessary. Shall we do it? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What's the point? What can the co-ordinators do above and beyond this talkpage? The correct answer is nothing. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 12:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Not needed. jonkerz ♠talk 12:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, right. My apologies, and it has been almost a year since our last coordinator elections. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Eraserhead at Peer Review

Eraserhead is currently at peer review; if any fans of David Lynch, surrealism or mutant-infanticide-and-ladies-in-radiators want to swing by and offer their opinion I'd be hugely grateful. Thanks! GRAPPLE X 06:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Once again, excellent work on this and all the Lynch-related articles you've expanded! Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 09:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! There'll be more coming; it's the last round of this year's wikicup and his films are featured on enough wikis to garner additional bonus points. Long and short of it, expect The Elephant Man at GAN in a week or so. GRAPPLE X 17:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Expendables 2 issue

DasallmächtigeJ (talk · contribs) is using OR and POV to add cast to the infobox starring field and a list of cast in the cast section of The Expendables 2. I explained multiple times (and there is a breakdown on his talk page) of how it was limited to starring roles only and for a reason to prevent such POV/OR disputes. The user at first refused to explain what they were doing and even when warned about 3RR continued. I am not innocent I will admit, I lsot my cool with him in the discussion but the user has ignored multiple explanations and justifications and continues to further edit war and violate 3RR to push their POV/OR agenda about this. The guideline is to use those billed on the poster, we can also of course use the film when it is out, but the film credits support the article as it was before, giving the earliest billing like on the poster to the main stars. The user accuses me of picking and choosing but he ignores that there are other cast also billed that are not included but that he chooses not to include them, just the ones he has decided that are starring. User seems to think that cast being in prose form is somehow a punishment and makes their information "unreliable", unreliable in this case I assume meaning they aren't given enough prominence and thus the article is incorrect.

As stated the user is ignoring any attempt at reason and in his latest edit has ignored yet again my edit summary telling him to take it to the talk page of the article before undoing it again. Response was that he's spent enough time "trying to talk sense into" me and did it again. Believes that he isn't violating 3RR because he is right. Based on the posters, the trailers, and the film credits themselves which are in the production document used on the page, the top 11 billed remain consistent across all 3 while Nan and Adkins do not. I do not see any evidence of support for them being starring roles, but supporting ones but the user will not be stopped in this regard. I tried dispute resolution but I apparently mistook what they are for because asking them to resolve a dispute causes them to not resolve it, so I could use intervention on either side in this because the user has vastly violated 3RR and I can't undo it anymore. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean in the Cast section or in the infobox under Starring? The latter is more restricted. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Both, obviously the same guideline doesn't apply to the cast list thats just where it started because somehow it made the information unreliable for htem not to be in a list relative only to this article which is purely a layout choice. The last two cast were in the prose but that wasn't acceptable because he deemed them stars. I attempt to limit the list to who is in the infobox unless there is substantial info available that requires more space for a particular character. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Well ideally the cast list should be about the casting process, not just a credit list that you can pull off IMDB. For that reason I would limit cast lists to characters named in the plot summary (for obvious reasons) and to actors where there is RS coverage of their casting. If it's just a roll call of names you can pull off the credits why not list all the technical staff too like the lighting guy, the second unit director etc? It just becomes an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of credits. As for the infobox, we use the theatrical poster as a general rule of thumb don't we? Betty Logan (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is usually best, and I believe it should apply in this case. But this is unrelated to the technical staff you mention for whom there is no category. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It's related by virtue of the fact that we create dedicated sections for cast lists, but what I'm saying is that it's completely arbitrary to focus on the cast and omit the rest of the crew. Look at this for instance, it looks like a fan wiki for fucks sake; it's not really encyclopedic at all. My point is that the focus should be on secondary coverage of the production process, and if that covers casting of various actors fair enough, but it should be secondary coverage that determines what goes into an article rather than having these cast list sections. Ben-Hur_(1959_film)#Casting does this well, it approaches the cast from the perspective of covering the process of casting, and looks tons better. Another good example is Alien_(film)#Casting. Betty Logan (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree for the most part, and I have thinned out more than one cast section. But if you want to raise that as an issue, I would suggest not going into WP's lack of listing the whole crew - technical staff for whom there is no category. This is apples and oranges to the issue of how many supporting actors should be listed in a section that does have a category. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Flattered you brought up Alien, Betty; that one was mine :) Anyway, my opinion: The Expendables are ensemble movies that intentionally star every Hollywood tough guy the creators can round up. Listing them all in the infobox would result in a really long infobox, when many of them (even though they may be famous) play essentially minor or cameo roles and don't star, per se. This is a typical scenario for big films with a lot of notable cast members. The consensus has generally been to list only the top-billed stars (those typically listed on the film posters) in the infobox, and save the more thorough description of notable cast members for the article body sections (Cast/Casting, Plot, etc.). Keep the infobox to a reasonable length, and find a way to structure the Cast/Casting section that works best for the film in question. Alien is pretty simple because it only has 7 human characters; The Expendables films have much larger casts, a good deal of whom are notable actors worth mentioning. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well can someone come tell the user that at the Expendables page because it's like yelling into a goddamn tornado. I've justified the billing by the eleven big names at the top of every poster, the trailer and the first eleven names in the actual film credits which are in the production document. He's picking the brief cast list at the start of the document and even then he is cherry picking because he's omitting Charisma Carpenter and Amanda Ooms, which IMO just proves that he is using OR to choose who he thinks is up there. But considering he reverted 5 times to get his way, me removing it is not going to get anywhere. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I've taken it out twice now in the last few hours, as you probably noticed. So I'm done for today. The only way to deal with IP hoppers is to get page protection. I just went through this with two Planet of the Apes pages. It can be quite aggravating. - Gothicfilm (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed, thanks GF. It's a joke, I went to dispute resolution expecting them to deal with his revert war and I get told to come here. Useless. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I went to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. It took a little while, but the two POTA pages got 2 weeks semi-protection. - Gothicfilm (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well this user, DasallmächtigeJ, is an established user so a protection wouldn't be very useful anyway. Only hope is for him to again violate 3RR and then get him blocked temporarily. Also I think this is the first time I've ever seen Betty Logan swear.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Aggravation can do that... The last revert I did at The Expendables 2 looked like an IP hopper, so semi-protection would stop that. If the user returns to doing it while signed in, yes, you can get him on WP:3RR. The problem is as you know both of these are usually temporary .- Gothicfilm (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

James Bond

There is a suggestion to convert the James Bond film series article into James Bond (film character) instead of a film series article, see Talk:James Bond (character) -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood the page move request. The proposal does not involve doing anything to James Bond in film; an editor just feels that the current disambiguation term of James Bond (character) is not precise enough for the content of that article. The XXXX in film format is generally reserved for film adaptations in a franchise i.e. Batman in film, Middle Earth in film etc, so an editor cannot hijack the title for a fictional character biography. Betty Logan (talk) 04:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Cast list in the article

I just noticed Betty Logan took out the whole cast list from Halloween (1978 film), with the edit summary Redundant; just replicates names already included in the plot summary. It had been there since February. Rather than just revert it right away, I decided to raise the issue here. I've noticed a couple of editors here seem to have something against cast lists if the characters are mentioned in the plot section. I believe these lists are useful. I don't want to have to scan the plot section to try to put together the names. I'm sure most readers who come to WP would agree, and apparently most editors do too, as most film pages with any detail have cast lists. I don't want to see them removed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I very much agree with you. One should not have to leave WP to get a list of the cast. The writers of FAs seems to disagree though; I opened 10 film articles in Category:FA-Class film articles at random and only 4 had a cast list. jonkerz ♠talk 11:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This may stem from BL's comment in the Expendables 2 thread above where BL states a need for info about the casting process in the cast section. I am not sure where that comes from as that has never been a requirement. It is suggested in the MoS for films but it is not required and indeed it is stated that

"Of course, some film articles will lend themselves to one style better than others" and

"a cast list inserted into the body of the article may be appropriate" and " It should be longer than the list in the infobox, and, depending on the number of minor characters in the film, can be furnished with a dozen or more credits"

Yes it also says that some editors frown on these but that is no reason to remove them when other editors approve of them. I concur that I do not want to have to read through the entire plot section to find the name certain names and since, per WP:PLOT, we are to keep plot sections brief there will be cast members characters who do not even get mentioned. To revert an edit from last February is a bit extraordinary and I have to wonder if it has anything to do with Halloween being the first one mentioned in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film)#Cast section. Another thought is, since IMDb is unreliable, why would we be directing are readers towards it when we can provide the proper info here? In any event the film MoS already allows for their inclusion if we need to make the wording stronger about there in inclusion I would support that. MarnetteD | Talk 13:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Adding a cast list was unnecessary. The cast was already adequately named in the plot summary and there was already a casting section. It just repeated what was already in the article, and we don't need two cast sections. In fact WP:FILMCAST recommends Halloween as one of the acceptable styles, so there was no need to add this extra section. In fact the MOS recommends not doing it:

  Background information about the cast and crew should be provided, ideally as well-written prose. There are several ways to provide such information: Halloween contains "Writing", "Casting", "Direction" and "Music" subsections within the "Production" section, which uses well-written prose to describe the casting and staffing decisions made, as well as discussing the reasons behind some of the cast decisions, the thoughts of the actors themselves about their roles, and some brief explorations of their careers before and after the film...The key is to provide significant behind-the-scenes production information. Of course, some film articles will lend themselves to one style better than others. Failing that, a cast list inserted into the body of the article may be appropriate, though some editors frown on lists inside articles.

  We don't need a cast list naming the cast any more than we need a crew list naming the art director. The casting process was already covered by a style consistent with the MOS. Betty Logan (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This is unrelated to the fact WP has no category for art directors or most other crew. Most people who come here are not looking for that. I wish it weren't the case, but more people care about the actors in a film than everything else put together. - Gothicfilm (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Betty, and I am one of the editors that does not like a "cast list" if it can be avoided. Meaning, if there is information on the casting of an actor, then that should be in prose and probably under "Production". The cast is typically mentioned in the lead, the infobox, (sometimes) the plot, and a "casting" section. How many more places do we need to list them? I get "not wanting to leave Wikipedia to look at a cast list", but if that was all you came to the page for then it's not a real lose to click the IMDB link and get an entire list of every credited person in the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The infobox should only list the actors in starring roles, usually as seen on the poster. It does not include what role they played, obviously. The cast list usually gives a few more names, at a given page's editors' discretion. That is the way most WP film pages are now, and it works well. I know I don't want to have to scan an article again to get info that can and should be in a list. I'm confident most readers don't want to either. If an editor has gone to the trouble to put in a cast list, it shouldn't be deleted. - Gothicfilm (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, editors go through the trouble of adding a lot of things that should not (or at least need not) be in an article. If an editor decided to go through and take the time to add needless details about cast and crew should we just leave it there because they made an effort to add something to the page? I don't think so. Again, if people are only coming here for a cast list, then why bother adding any production info at all? The point of that section is to house an area where we talk about the cast from an encyclopedic point of view, not by simply taking an IMDB approach and just giving them a list to view. We're pushing for substance over quantity. If they do not want to read the lot, then there should be a casting section where they can see who is in the film and read about relevant production information that pertains to the actor/character they are playing. If there is none of that, THEN a cast list is appropriate. What Betty did was remove a list that was redundant to 2 other sections that covered actor/character information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not for keeping everything - but cast lists are well established. I don't get this some editors frown on lists inside articles thing. Lists are good. Lists work well in an encyclopedia. Lists are easy to scroll past if you don't like them. Often I return to articles I've read before to check on one aspect or another - I should be able to find it quickly. I should not be forced to scan paragraphs when someone earlier had made it more easily accessible before someone else who frowns on easily accessible info, i.e. lists, deleted it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The list thing has been around for quite some time. Unless it's a page that is a list, the issue is that the list breaks up the flow of the page. Everything else on the page tends to be pure prose information, and then right in the middle is this arbitrary list that just repeats information already on the page. Like I said, if there is a legitimate casting section then there is not a reason for a list. The lists are used in times where there isn't that information. In Halloween's cast, we're talking about a page that was established without a list, and has a pretty developed casting section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The cast list is not arbitrary. People expect it. And I'm sure many people find it more important than me, but when I do want it I want it to be easily accessible. And WP articles should be broken up. They shouldn't be continuous blocks of prose. That would make it even harder to scan and quickly find the info you're looking for. People should not have to re-read the whole article when they come back to it to check on one aspect. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

None of you have answered the question of why we are sending people to a website that is unreliable and that we do not trust for use as a reference here at Wikipedia. As a reader I want one stop shopping not "We will give you a bit of info but you will need to go to other (untrusted) websites if you want more." MarnetteD | Talk 15:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I use a number of websites, but I usually start with WP for researching any given film or other subject. So I'm not looking for one stop shopping, but info I know could be here should be here - particularly if indeed it was here before someone who objects to lists deleted it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, look, the purpose of these articles is not to reel off production credits; a production credit is not inherently notable. Who played the drunk homeless guy in Back to the Future is not any more notable than who did the lighting, and the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to explain why something is notable, which a bare cast list does not do. I'm not against casting sections being structured as lists, like the one at Alien (which is basically bulleted prose describing the casting process), I'm against just reeling off production credits. As per WP:ELYES, the whole point of external links is precisely so we don't have to have a list of credits in the article; if you don't believe IMDB fulfils this function there are other options such as the AFI and BFI sites. The existing style at the Halloween article is recommened by WP:FILMCAST, which only advocates a bare cast list as a 'better than nothing' option. Betty Logan (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You and I may feel the identity of the cinematographer is more important than a supporting actor - I'm certainly more likely to notice the former first - but most readers do not. And again, they're not directly comparable. Apples and oranges. The WP:FILMCAST recommendation should be changed, as MarnetteD seemed to also be moving toward. I believe we should put this up for a vote, as it has bugged me for some time. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Again we are directed to keep our plot sections brief. There will inevitably be cast members who are a part of the film who don't get mentioned in it. They would still deserve a mention in a cast list and no I am not asking that background artist in the film be listed, indeed I have seen and agreed with other conversations where we said that we did not want to do that. As to IMDb it has nothing to do with what I believe. Wikipedia's own consensus is that it is unreliable so why would we send readers there? As to AFI and BFI they are hardly comprehensive when it comes to the films included on their websites and our EL sections do not contain links to them on anything near a consistent basis (though as a wikignome I would be happy to set about adding them.) MarnetteD | Talk 16:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well this cast listing at the AFI catalog is more comprehensive than the one that was added to the article, and it includes other pertinent production credits too, so I don't see the problem with it. But again, notability is the sole reason for inclusion on Wikipedia, and notability needs to be established. Our MOS reflects the aims of Wikipedia, which is documenting notable content in an encylopedic manner, and bare cast lists are not consistent with that approach. We have many articles such as Fight Club that have been rated at FA standard that do not contain bare cast lists, and we shouldn't be altering the MOS to reflect personal preferences. If articles are developed without them then that is an editorial decision that should be respected. Betty Logan (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, we also have {{WP:IAR]] and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and you keep avoiding answering my concerns regarding plot length and the fact that there will be notable cast members who will be left out. BTW "notability" and "encyclopedic manner" are terms that are every bit as subjective as anything else. Hiding behind the FA banner is also highly subjective as I have seen the standards for what is and is not FA change over the years and, just as consensus can change, those will change again in the future. MarnetteD | Talk 16:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I doubt Betty wants plot sections expanded to justify listing every major supporting actor. I think she is taking the idea that the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to explain why something is notable too far. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

As I also have, unfortunately, used the terminology in the past this essay should also be considered WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC MarnetteD | Talk 17:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

What notable cast members are "left out" on the Alien article by not having a bare cast list? What notable cast members are left out on the Blade Runner article by not having a bare cast list? By the same token, what notable cast members were left out on the Halloween article by my reversion of a bare cast list? Adding cast lists to these articles does not increase the coverage of notable cast members. If you think some notable cast members have been omitted you can add them to the sections that deal with the casting, explaining why they are notable. The accusation that I am preventing the inclusion of 'notable' cast members is a red herring, because their notability has not been established in bare cast lists, which is what I'm arguing for. I also dispute the claim that I am hiding behind FA class articles; the purpose of the MOS is to get articles to conform to the highest standard on Wikipedia, and this demonstrates there are plenty that are without adding wholly unnecessary bare cast lists. Betty Logan (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This always comes down to a case-by-case basis. With films like Halloween or other horror films, the cast is usually small enough that they are easily fit into either the plot section, or they're in a casting section. Larger films are probably a different story, obviously. Betty's point, and mine as well, is that a list that is just that...a list...should be avoided because it really does not add anything to the page. The only purpose is to what, allow a reader to quickly identify an actor in a film? I'm sorry, I don't find that a very persuasive reason to have something. I imagine that trivia sections were once "useful" for readers to quickly find some interesting tidbit of information. Now, they have to read an entire production section to find that same information has been transitioned into an appropriate section of the production. How is that different? We've erased the "ease" of finding some little nugget there as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

False. Lists can indeed be a part of a page. See WP:LIST. And a cast list does not have to be done in a prose style (such as in the plot section). Lists are just fine. And by the way, this is a great example of where a primary source is absolutely allowable. Because it doesn't require synthesis or interpretation. - jc37 18:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

As you say Bignole we can pick and chose films on case-by-case basis. Since when is not bing able to find the info you want quickly not "useful" to readers. To use the trivia example is, again apples and oranges as those often contained much more than just production info. As neither of you has answered several of my question I don't find you explanations very persuasive either. But that it just the way things go and, as ever, I commend the work you both do here at WikiP in film articles and elsewhere. MarnetteD | Talk 17:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, apples and oranges, but last time I checked they were both fruit. It's the same principle. As you pointed out, we're not talking about the random teacher in scene 196, just like I'm not talking about the irrelevant easter egg trivia. I'm talking about legitimate trivia that can easily be seen as valuable information to a reader. We got rid of trivia lists and opted to instead say that any valuable information should be worked into the article. Thus, it no longer "easily accessible" for readers, which is the same argument being spun by Gothic. So, apples and oranges seem to be comparable. As for your "question(s)", I don't know what specific questions you were asking. If you asked something other than "why are we sending people away from Wikipedia?" then I didn't see it. To answer that, it's because we do not (and should not) house every time piece of information out there. There is a reason we have external links, so that people can get other information outside of Wikipedia. Otherwise, you're saying that we should have everything here and simply do away with external links period. I mean, that's the only way to keep people on this website and not "send them away".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. Neither MarnetteD or I are advocating any such thing. That is a strawman argument. I often use the external links, and certainly don't want to see them omitted. We are only talking about the Cast list at the moment. Your desire to force the reader to have to scan the article for what he wants is inexplicable to me. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

What question? I have asked a couple at least twice. Perhaps if they were put in a list you would be able to find them. Heehee. As Gothicfilm states nowhere in my posts to this thread will you find me advocating that we should have "everything here" and I am not sure we you keep intimating that we are saying that. I never saw a trivia section that was confined solely to production details so we are not comparing the "same fruit." Lets simplify things. You and Betty don't like them others of us do> I don't see that we are going to change each others minds. I will close by saying that I concur with Jc37's recent post. MarnetteD | Talk 18:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The fact that we have a ton of FA and GA class articles that do not utilise cast lists indicate that there are many editors that prefer not to use them, besides Bignole and myself. Also, we have a MOS that advises against using them, and I had nothing to do with writing that part of the MOS. Betty Logan (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

FA and GA have nothing to do with nothing. Their focus is style over substance. This discussion is a.) whether certain content can be in an article (content-related); and b.) how it should best be presented (style-related).

So as for point A, yes obviously the cast information should be included. And for B, the current practice is mixed. At this point it's a question of whether a guideline concerning whether cast lists should not exist, has consensus. I might venture to say it does not. So what I'm hearing above is a case of IDONTWANTIT/IDONTLIKEIT. If you feel I'm misunderstanding, I welcome clarification. - jc37 01:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Recap I think you may be misinterpreting my position in the debate, but since the discussion is becoming unwieldy, I will try to recap the pertinent points of my stance. This debate was triggered by my edit at the Halloween (1978 film) article. The reason for this edit was not because I don't like cast lists, but because I felt adding a cast list was redundant when the casting was already covered elsewhere in the article; the main members of the cast are named in the plot summary, and there is also a casting section that deals with the casting of the principal actors in more depth. My edit did not remove any information from the article that was not already present; I simply removed the redundancy! If you look at the article before and after my edit, this will clarify my point. But to summarize, I am not against cast lists, I am against redundant "credit rolls"; for example, the Alien (film) article lists the cast members with details of their casting, which is an approach I support (so you see, I am not against cast lists per se). I am against adding bare "credit rolls" to articles that already have sections discussing the casting. Likewise with Back to the Future, I would be against a "credit roll" being added when we already have a section that covers the casting, mainly because I consider it poor editing to have two sections basically covering the same thing. WP:CASTLIST, similarly, is not against "cast lists", it merely emphasises that the focus should be on the real world background to the casting of the actors rather than just a basic list of names. The point I was making about our many FA and GA rated articles was that they tend to have casting sections where they discuss the real world background to the casting of the film: those sections may be structured as a bulleted list like the one at Alien or it may be structured as prose like the one at Halloween, but either way both of these casting sections deal with the casting of the actors, and my objection—my sole objection—is adding a bare "credit roll" (like the one that was added to Halloween) to articles that already have casting sections. In the case of articles that do not have casting sections I do not oppose these bare bones credit rolls; the issue for me is adding a section that duplicates to an extent another section. Betty Logan (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This does not persuade me that readers should be forced to scan the article prose looking for info that could be easily accessible. And we expect spoilers in the plot section, but what if they haven't seen the film yet? If they want to know who's in it beyond the stars in the infobox, they have to read about the plot? You have not answered MarnetteD's concerns regarding plot length and the fact that there will be notable cast members who will be left out. The Halloween (1978 film) article is now missing two actors who were there until you removed the cast list. In this case they're not terribly famous, but they deserve to be mentioned. I doubt you want plot sections expanded to justify listing every major supporting actor. The Halloween cast list at the AFI catalog is good. The problem with it is there is no link for it or the BFI on the article, or most other WP film pages. By the way, I agree the Alien (film) page doesn't need a separate bare list because it's easy to find and go over the casting section, but that is because it's bulleted. I would prefer it were in the billing order, though. Usually casting sections are blocks of prose and difficult to quickly scan. Tell you what - you agree to make casting sections bulleted and I'll drop this, even though that would be less clean (than having a separate cast list) on film pages with larger casts than Alien. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

(de-dent) - In general, our focus should always be for the readers. And if presenting something clearly in a list helps the reader's navigation and/or understanding, then that outweighs concerns of redundancy. This is actually fairly common practice. (Math and science articles immediately come to mind. Same with filmographies for actors/directors/producers/etc.) So in this specific case, having a cast list does just that. - jc37 16:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget the film infoboxes which are mostly repetition from the prose of the articles but are kept anyways because it is a great service to our readers. The same should be true for cast lists. jonkerz ♠talk 17:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of assumptions regarding why readers are coming to the articles, and what is "a service to them" or "helps them".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's safe to assume that our readers are interested in reading about major and some minor roles. How do we present this information? Plot and casting sections are both great but hard to scan. This is how a simple cast list is helpful to the reader. jonkerz ♠talk 19:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not safe to say that that is the only, or even the primary reason they are coming to our pages. I'm a regular reader and it isn't my reason. I do come, from time to time, to look up a role for an actor, but if there isn't a cast list it actually does not bother me to click IMDb or any of the other external links to look up the role. I usually come back to wikipedia when it's apparent that they are not offering me anything but that. It's not actually a hassle in any way. As for the "reliability" of IMDb, we've long established that cast lists for released films are reliable because they are using the finalized credits. It's future films that we have reliability issues with, and future films on Wiki generally do have cast lists because there typically is not enough information for anything but a list. Sorry if I don't think we need to hold the hands of our readers when it comes to supplying information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It's still not addressing the central contention with my revert though. If someone had re-worked the Halloween casting section in the style of the Alien article that personally would not have been a problem for me either, but does anyone in this debate actually support having two cast sections in an article? It seems to me whichever side of the fence you're on, the solution is in further development of the section that already exists rather than merely duplicating it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

A casting section is different from a cast section. A cast list is a quick reference, and the Halloween article does not have such a section. jonkerz ♠talk 19:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Our MOS advises us to cover the casting process, not cast credits, which Halloween currently does do. Even if we did add a list of cast credits, it couldn't be complete anyway so you would need to have some arbitrary cut-off point. WP:ELYES states that external links are for the purpose of linking to movie and TV credits. If you feel that the casting section on the Halloween article is not structured in the best way to serve readers then you are free to make adjustments to it, but I disagree that having a separate section dedicated to just cast credits is necessary. Betty Logan (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It's as if you haven't heard us - Why do you and Bignole insist people should have to read whole blocks of prose? It's like you think the encyclopedia isn't worth anything unless everyone is forced to go over an entire article every time they come to look at it. As I said, I myself often revisit pages. And even if someone is looking at a page for the first time, and all they want is the cast list, that is not a sin. It doesn't lessen the value of the rest of the page, which will still be there for all others - myself included - who want all that production and reception information available, but don't necessarily want to have to scan through it all the time.

MarnetteD and I have said the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film)#Cast section could use adjusting on this point: In any event the film MoS already allows for their inclusion if we need to make the wording stronger about there inclusion I would support that.

And as to your statement Even if we did add a list of cast credits, it couldn't be complete anyway so you would need to have some arbitrary cut-off point. Hardly a problem. This has already been done by multiple editors on many pages, including Halloween, until you deleted it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anything of the sort, but I also don't think that a blanket section just to list cast is necessary. Forgive me for not thinking that readers would somehow be bothered by having to read. I mean, it's not hard and it doesn't actually take long to read most casting sections, especially since most of the actors are bolded in that section and stand out. That said, awhile ago I think that Erik either proposed, or started using, these mini cast list tables that would be inserted into the casting section. They were not full sized, I think the text was a little smaller to allow for them to fit within a reasonable amount of space. Personally, I have not and probably would not use them, but if a group of editors that regularly edit a page feel that it would be appropriate we could probably start using them again. (Here is an example of some of Erik's work.)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, and better than nothing, but I suspect most editors would only be willing to use that kind of cast box for films with quite small casts. From what I've seen most actors are not bolded, they're regular blue links - which don't really stand out in a block of prose with other non-actor blue links. And you should be aware your claim in your first sentence is somewhat contradicted by the second... - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither first nor second statement had anything to do with the "entire article". I was referring to a specific section, so there was no contradiction. I also misspoke regarding the "bolding", I meant "linked" (thus the blue highlight). I jut scanned the Fight Club section and in 3 seconds was able to identify 6 different actors mentioned, and that was nothing more than a glance. That's because they were linked. There isn't an over abundance of links in sections that that would create some type of camouflage for the names. As for the table, unless we're talking ensemble cast here, it's probably do-able if there is a lot of casting information. Again, it comes down to identifying which cast members are worth mentioning. If you look at that example, you'll also see that the text size appear to be just slightly smaller than normal. Either way, it isn't like the list couldn't dip down a bit into another section, as it's not like we don't have images doing that already. That said, please try not to speak for "most editors", as it comes across like you're unwilling to compromise. If anything, it solves you beef with the Halloween page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really, as based on what I've seen over the last year, I seriously doubt most editors would want that cast box extending down into the next section. In films with small casts, I'll go with it if others would. I'll go with it on films with large casts, too, in the unlikely event others would, though I don't think it would look very good breaking sections. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Although I not a fan of bare cast lists, I would actually go the other route and remove the names from the plot as they only add to plots length if redundancy is the biggest concern. It should be noted that cast and casting section are two entirely separate entities. A casting section simply details how a actor came aboard the project while a "good" cast section dives deeper into the actor's roles, exploring their preparations, motivations, etc.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, everyone. I wanted to comment about having cast lists in film articles. First, the "Cast" section at MOS:FILM is the oldest section of the entire page. We have overhauled the other sections or added new ones. It has wound up that way because like others have indicated, there are a variety of approaches one can take. The approach will depend on the film and on the main contributors' preference. When it comes to preference, it should be respectful of the readers, and it can be difficult to know what works best for them. In the case of Fight Club, I originally left out a cast list since there were not many major roles in the film, but the actors Jared Leto and Meat Loaf and their roles were added repeatedly. I attempted a stand-alone "Cast" list section, but it looked bare-bones and created extraneous space. The miniature table was ultimately created, and it works well to finally include the two secondary roles in some capacity.

For cast lists, we should consider two kinds of navigation on Wikipedia: 1) navigating within an article, and 2) navigating across articles. For many films, to list actors and their roles is superior to embedding them in the plot summary. That opposition to a simple cast list embedded in a film article is probably that it stands in stark contrast with prose sections. For this sub-topic, we frequently deal with just two pieces of information (actor and role), as opposed to a sub-topic like awards, which regularly makes good use of their section space. In response to these stark lists, we have encouraged real-world context to flesh out a "Cast" section and bring them closer to the other sections. In this process, the purpose of the list changes from being presentable for navigation to being presentable for grouping information (i.e., a bullet focuses on one actor and role). In some cases, the ease of navigating actors and their roles can be somewhat lost when a lot of information is grouped under each bullet. I think we should adapt ways to present for navigation whenever possible, such as having a cast list in multiple columns, having a cast list precede prose about some cast members, or having a side table for a smaller cast. Collapsible tables could also be used. We should do this in addition to adding real-world context, which will vary in amount and scope. This brings me to the second kind of navigation. We should be able to clearly give readers access to actors' articles and avoid having to send them offsite. It is unreasonable to have a reader consult IMDb because we editors erred on the side of exclusion or embedding. We should be able to route them within Wikipedia, for them to identify an actor in one film and to see the actors' other films and to visit these articles too. We cannot fully know what they want to see, but it would help to ensure that they can see what they want to see. It goes without saying that this should be within reason, ensuring such lists are not indiscriminate and applying other criteria (such as named characters, speaking roles, blue links).

In terms of taking action, I suggest finally overhauling the "Cast" section in MOS:FILM, which we treat as our bible. We can define all these options to find the best balance between providing information of encyclopedic value and also providing navigational capability so other sources of information (actors' articles, other film articles) can also be reached. Considering how there can be such a variety of films and also a variety of articles (in terms of substance), I recommend listing several different cases, such as for an ensemble film, for a film with a very small cast, a Stub-class article on a film, etc. (Note: To preempt questions of my whereabouts, I have been awfully busy personally and professionally IRL and am not sure if I am really back except for pursuing specific initiatives. I hope you're all well.) Erik (talk | contribs) 20:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Donnie Darko and time travel

Over at the Donnie Darko article, InedibleHulk added a long (nearly 3,000 characters) subsection to the plot with a description of the "philosophy of time travel". He and I had discussed this issue on the article's talk page and I had objected to its inclusion, arguing that this information is external to the plot, is never really explained in the context of the film, and would likely be OR. He went ahead and added it, and I reverted. The information he added was sourced to http://www.donniedarko.org.uk/explanation/, which does not look like a reliable source to me. I would like some other editors to take a look at this and offer their opinions. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a fansite so isn't RS. It needs to come out on RS grounds alone, but it also violates WP:INUNIVERSE as well. Betty Logan (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The fansite just vouches for the last paragraph, putting names to roles. The rest is in the Director's Cut of the film. The pages of this book are shown onscreen throughout it. It is the core of the story. I made no interpretations aside from the obvious (and sourced) one. Just paraphrased what is explained in the film. Here is the verbatim text from the film. I'm not offering this as a source, just to show my version is not original research. Removing this section would greatly hurt the educational value of the article. This book is what makes this movie make sense (and how the main character comes to understand his mission). I understand the problems of giving undue weight to minor fictional things, but in this case, the content of the book is significant to virtually every scene in the movie. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you specify how this fails INUNIVERSE? I've read the section a few times and I can't see a problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:INUNIVERSE says we should prefer a "real world" perspective to that of a perspective offered by a fictional piece of work. That means we shouldn't be discussing the film's alternate universe theory unless secondary sources also discuss it. The plot summary should be a basic overview of the story, and does not require an in-depth treatment of the film's version of time-travel; it's just gobbledegook to the casual reader and belongs on a fan wiki. Betty Logan (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

By that logic, we should prefer to not have plot sections at all. Everything's inherently fictional in them. Just below this section is WP:PASI. It says Even with strict adherence to the real-world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source. It says information from primary sources can include history of fictional locations (the Tangent Universe) and the plot itself (Manipulated Dead and Living assist Receiver in returning Artifact and saving Primary Universe). This is not an indepth treatment of a theory. The article does not "discuss" anything. This is literally spelled out onscreen and the article reflects it. I see no need for secondary sources in this case, but if you insist, they are abundant. But then I must insist they are used for the main plot section (speaking of gobbledygook). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Plots are technically WP:INUNIVERSE, but we make an exception for a brief synopsis in the case of fictional works because it is generally useful to tell the reader what the film is about (see WP:PLOTSUM), but even plot summaries should be kept brief; WP:FILMPLOT recommends a limit of 700 words. What you are doing is perpetuating an INUNIVERSE perspective to no end purpose, that is not especially relevant to the casual reader. Betty Logan (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

FILMPLOT also says exceptions can be made for unconventional or complicated stories, and this film definitely has both. Have you seen it? My purpose in summarizing the "rules" of the Tangent Universe it is to educate readers who saw it, didn't get it and hit up Google for help. I'd bet more first time viewers do this than don't. As Wikipedia is usually a top search result and many people seem to rely on it solely, it should have the info people are reasonablly likely to be seeking. That is, "What the hell's going on here?" As it is, the POTT info is separate from the plot section, so those readers who find it irrelevant can skip over it as easy as any section. But those who wish to learn why the world was ending or why Frank exists can find out here. Who loses? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This is why we have external links, where we place links to sites which post the kind of information we do not allow. This kind of highly-detailed in-universe information is not appropriate here. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I've provided links to policies and guidelines that say this information can be allowed, and provided reasons it should be allowed. I've rebutted arguments that it should not be allowed. Therefore, I'm allowing it. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT actually states The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, and technical detail. I think this would come under 'minutiae' and 'technical detail'. Both http://www.allmovie.com/movie/donnie-darko-v237115 and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0246578/synopsis provide good descriptions of the plot and neither go into detail about the film's theoretical time-travel. Furthermore, you have yet to obtain a consensus to add the content, so I suggest you don't restore it until you do. Betty Logan (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I very strongly agree with Betty. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 20:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This is in no way minutiae. The entire story is Donnie Darko's quest to return the Artifact, and the various ways he is guided by the Manipulated. Virtually the whole film is set in a Tangent Universe. The book explaining this is also a fundamental plot device, directly responsible for causing major plot developments (if Donnie hadn't gone to Sparrow for answers, Gretchen and Frank wouldn't die; if Frank didn't die, he couldn't wake Donnie; if Donnie hadn't woken, there'd have been no story).

You may consider those reviews' descriptions "good", but that's a matter of opinion. The IMDB one would violate the "scene-by-scene breakdown" rule here and the other would be considered original research. I find this one much more informative. As it says, "To understand what actually occurs in “Donnie Darko,” it helps to have read “The Philosophy of Time Travel,” by Roberta Sparrow.". If Wikipedia is about educating readers, we should probably mention what actually occurs.

As far as consensus, Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. I've shown in my argument that WP:PASI and WP:FILMPLOT support the addition, and refuted claims that anything in FILMPLOT prohibits it. So I have indeed obtained it. Even if you two had instead, Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale (such as the consensus behind FILMPLOT and PASI). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The involved parties do not get to determine the quality of the arguments, or indeed whether they are being interpreted accurately. If the involved parties do not reach a consensus then they must appeal to the wider community. TheOldJacobite did that by requesting a third opinion here, and I have not been convinced by your argument. If you want to persist with this that is your prerogative, but you should either wait for more editors to contribute opinions here or you should appeal beyond the Film Project by filing an RfC, rather than repeatedly reverting editors who have removed the content. Betty Logan (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I ask that while we seek consensus, the addition temporarily stays rather than temporarily doesn't. It is verifiable, informative and violates no clearcut rules. Just has disputed significance. It does more good than harm. Those who don't wish to read it needn't, and those who do can. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not the way Wikipedia works. This content clearly violates a number of rules, as Betty has pointed out repeatedly above. In your most recent reversion, by which you violated 3RR, you falsely claimed that consensus had been reached here. It quite clearly has not. You have now been reverted by three different editors, all of whom have stated their opposition. By what basis do you continue to revert, other than simply claiming that you want it in? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't falsely claim anything. I mistakenly believed something. I stand corrected. Thanks, Betty! I was reverted by two editors, by the way. The section doesn't clearly violate anything. There's just a disagreement over interpretation of a guideline and general significance. I'll lay off the reverting till we hear from more editors. If you think my argument is simply "I want it in", re-read it. Carefully. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The plot section says what happens in the film. Other material is interpretation and belongs in a different section. In this case, the Philosophy of Time might be a candidate for its own section. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Ring, Betty, and Jacobite. I looked at the prior version (with the added content) and it just doesn't read well. That said, the plot summary in the article doesn't seem well-written to me; I've seen the film, and after reading this summary I'm even more confused about the plot. "For once, Donnie, now smiling, seems at peace as he watches the jet carrying his mother and sister fly over a wormhole. Donnie uses telekinesis to tear the engine from the plane and into the wormhole" — This comes seemingly out of nowhere, there having been no prior mention of wormholes or telekinesis or that these concepts have ever been introduced into the character's thinking. Much of these concepts are indeed introduced to Donnie through his reading of The Philosophy of Time Travel, so the book does seem worth mentioning in the plot summary. But it needs to be done differently, in a way that integrates it into the flow of events and explains why Donnie is reading it and what he gleans from it, rather than appended after the summary as its own section. It just doesn't flow to explain it that way, especially since a plot summary is meant to be a description of events. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I was the one who added the "this section may be confusing" tag to the plot. I tried thinking of ways to integrate the book into the plot section, but it just makes it more confusing and then really becomes an interpretation exercise, full of original research and secondary sourcing. But on it's own, it isn't an interpretation. The words are on the screen. We just relay the words the same way we translate the pictures into words. All primary source. Readers could see the telekinesis bit in the plot, the bit about Fourth Dimensional Powers in the POTT section and understand it on their own. No synthesis needed from us. Also, the section did explain why Donnie was reading it and precisely what he gleans from it.

I wouldn't be opposed to having it in a separate section from the plot. Would anyone else? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It really really isn't that hard a movie to understand, if a brief discussion of the book's contents are included. There's a LOT of subplots - however - and I recommend that appropriate use of the cast list can help expand some of those out without getting into the main plot. But in any case, I have rewritten the plot to remove a lot of the confusion and include two sentences that summarize the concepts of the book (which set the stage for the entire film). Plus I found that Salon.com ref that affirms telekinesis is involved at the end (since its not obvious in the film). --MASEM (t) 13:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. I'm willing to accept this as a compromise. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I see others have been banging away at the article's plot summary. I hadn't watched the film in years, so I threw it in and cranked out this 620-word version for consideration. It's based on the director's cut, so there may be differences from the theatrical version (which I've never seen). Feel free to use it, not use it, or modify it as you like. I'll post it on the article's talk page as well:

Extended content

On the night of October 2, 1988, troubled teenager Donnie Darko (Jake Gyllenhaal) is awakened and led outside by a vision of a figure in a monstrous rabbit costume, who tells him the world will end in 28 days. He awakens on a golf course and returns home to find that a jet engine of mysterious origin crashed through his bedroom during the night. Donnie tells his psychotherapist Dr. Thurman (Katharine Ross) about his continuing visions of "Frank", the figure in the rabbit costume. Acting under Frank's influence, he floods his school by damaging a water main. He also begins dating new student Gretchen Ross (Jena Malone), who has moved to town with her mother under a new identity to escape her violent stepfather. Conservative gym teacher Kitty Farmer (Beth Grant) blames the flooding on the influence of the short story "The Destructors", assigned by English teacher Karen Pomeroy (Drew Barrymore), and begins teaching attitude lessons taken from motivational speaker Jim Cunningham (Patrick Swayze). Donnie rebels against these lessons, leading to friction between Kitty and Donnie's mother Rose (Mary McDonnell). Donnie asks his science teacher Dr. Monnitoff (Noah Wyle) about time travel after Frank brings up the topic, and is given the book The Philosophy of Time Travel written by Roberta Sparrow (Patience Cleveland), a former science teacher at the school who is now a seemingly senile old woman. The book tells of a disruption in time creating an unstable "tangent universe" which will destroy all existence within a few weeks unless a "living receiver" possessing superhuman powers can guide a metal "artifact" back through a portal to the "primary universe". Donnie begins seeing channels of water projecting out from himself and others, which lead him to find his father's handgun. He interprets these as indicators of fate or the will of God. Dr. Thurman tells Donnie's parents that he is detached from reality, and that his visions of Frank are hallucinations symptomatic of paranoid schizophrenia. Donnie disrupts a speech being given by Jim Cunningham by insulting him in front of the student body, then burns down Cunningham's house on instructions from Frank. When police find evidence of a child pornography operation in the house's remains, Cunningham is arrested. During a hypnotherapy session Donnie confesses his crimes to Dr. Thurman and says that Frank will soon kill someone. With their parents and younger sister Samantha (Daveigh Chase) out of town, Donnie and his older sister Elizabeth (Maggie Gyllenhaal) throw a Halloween party to celebrate Elizabeth's acceptance to Harvard University. Gretchen arrives, distraught that her mother has disappeared. Realizing that only hours remain until Frank's prophesied end of the world, Donnie takes Gretchen and two friends to find Roberta Sparrow. They are attacked by two school bullies (Alex Greenwald and Seth Rogen) who are attempting to rob Roberta's house, and the fight spills into the street. An oncoming car swerves to avoid Roberta but runs over Gretchen, killing her. The driver is Elizabeth's boyfriend Frank (James Duval), wearing the same rabbit costume as the Frank of Donnie's visions. Donnie shoots him using his father's gun. Seeing a portal forming above his house, Donnie drives into the hills and watches as an airplane carrying Rose and Samantha descends over the area. The plane is wrenched violently as one of its engines detaches and falls through the portal. The events of the previous 28 days are shown quickly in reverse, and Donnie finds himself in bed on the night of October 2. The jet engine crashes through his room, killing him. Others with whom Donnie interacted during the month of October are awakened by haunting dreams. Gretchen rides by Donnie's house and learns of his death, but says she did not know him.

--IllaZilla (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

To follow up on this, there are editors objecting to the inclusion of material in the Plot section that is not in the theatrical release of the movie that is further explanation (not interpretation) of the movie's plot present in the director's cut and in the commentary from the director on the home media DVD. While the movie can be told as shown only in the theatrical release, it makes very little sense for why things happen. Because we write plot summaries in out-of-universe manners, inclusion of additional explanatory sources like the director's cut or commentary can be used to expand plots to help them make sense to the reader. I would completely agree that for an allegorical movie, including third-party interpretations within the plot is not appropriate, but we're talking direct, quotable material from the persons that made the film that explain what is going on. No, we don't need a 3000 word section about the fictional book here, but without explaining what the book states, the events of the movie make little sense. --MASEM (t) 19:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the events of the movie are supposed to make little sense. Was it time travel? An alternate universe? A dream? Is Donnie just insane? Are the events predetermined by fate? The will of God? The way events are presented, they seem intentionally left largely up to interpretation (as they often are in films like this). The plot section should stick to a description of events and not try to delve into the explanatory. Explanation, analysis, and interpretation (from both primary and secondary sources) are of course perfectly valid content, and I would expect to see a section on such in an article about a film of this nature (unfortunately this articles lacks such a section), but not within the plot summary. I suggest starting an "interpretation and analysis" section and putting the primary- and secondary-sourced explanations there. Examples of such sections can be seen at Blade Runner#Interpretation and Fight Club#Themes. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll give that section a shot in the near future (if nobody beats me to it). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is here that if we used your plot summary you've just provided (which I am fine with), based on the director's cut (and nothing else), there are editors saying that can't be used because its not the theatrical release. I can appreciate if there are major significant changes between theatrical and directors that changes the actual plot or intent of the film (Richard Donner's Superman II) but that's not the case here. Yet, there are editors arguing the director's cut is not a valid source for the film's plot, that's the problem now. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would appease those editors if we explicitly cited the Director's Cut inline for the parts that aren't in the theatrical version. I notice the Star Wars article has its DVD in the reference section. I would think the scope of the article covers both versions, but apparently there's disagreement. How about it, objectors? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, on Director's Cut vs. Theatrical Release: the Plot summary should be based on the theatrical release, not later director's cuts or other revisions. The summary I submitted above was based on the director's cut simply because that's the version I own; I've never seen the theatrical version. If you decide to use it, I'm hoping someone with better knowledge of the 2 versions can rework it to accurately reflect the plot events of the original release. The Director's Cut and any changes it makes to the story/themes should be discussed in a separate section, a la Alien (film)#2003 Director's Cut or Blade Runner#Versions. Plot sections should generally describe the plot as presented in the original theatrical release, and should not reference material added or changed in later versions. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

We have a problem, then. The only major difference between the two versions that is mentioned in the summary is the revelation of the POTT's contents. If we stick that in a separate section alone, we're back at square one of this argument. October 2, you could say. I think it might be better, in this case, to just add one citation or footnote. Like Masem says above, this is no Superman II (or Blade Runner). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If the PoTT contents aren't mentioned in the theatrical version of the film, then they don't belong in the plot summary. They're not necessary to understand that time travel is a thematic element of the film; take the 1 sentence about the book's contents out of the summary I posted above and the summary makes the same amount of sense as far as conveying the series of events in the plot. If the book's contents are only included in the Director's Cut, then they can go in a section about the Director's Cut, hopefully with some description of why they were added in that version of the film and what elements of the plot the director hoped to clarify/expand on by including them. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

To add, the reason I say the plot summary should reflect the theatrical release, with descriptions of later "cuts"/"editions"/"versions" relegated to another section, is because the theatrical version is, for all intents and purposes, the "finished" version of the film. It's the version that was approved and marketed by the studio, generally the one that reaches the widest audience, and the version by which that critics and analysts assessed the film at the time of its release (and, in almost all cases, the version that sequels are based on). In other words, it's the "canonical" version. Later cuts/edits of the film may also receive critical attention and wide release, but the theatrical version has primacy because without it there would be no context in which to discuss the later versions. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If it is the case that FILM wants to take the case that the plot summary should reflect the film as shown in theaters originally and not any director's cut, unrated version, extended version, etc. that's released to home media, that's fine, but then we have to go back to the original issue that started from this, in that the director's version of DD has itself has significant analysis on its own around the subject of the fictional book "The Philosophy of Time Travel". No, I'm not saying a standalone section on the book should be added, but we are going to need to add a section on the director's cut that describes the additional explanations of the plot within it, including a brief summary of the time travel elements.

There is one small caution in the "theatrical release" approach in that there may be the case that a released film when it is put on home media distribution is changed in a significant manner to alter the plot to a degree, as we would not be able to talk about the verifyability of the theatrical version. It's not an example, but the trend of George Lucas trying to modify the original three Star Wars to suit his vision, changes elements like "Greedo shot first", would be what I'm worried about here. (It's not an example since at some point the original theatrical versions were put out to home media). Now I'd have to pull out my DVD of Darko here but I'm pretty sure both versions are included, so that's not an issue here, but just consider this a caution about having plots "staying true" to the theatrical version if that can't be verified. --MASEM (t) 12:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Concern about accusations of plagiarism in a film article

Recently, I and a couple of other editors have been disagreeing about whether or not the film Zinda can be called a "remake" of Oldboy. It was not an authorized remake and the producers of Oldboy (as the Zinda article reports) "initially expressed legal concerns but took no legal action as the studio had shut down". My position has been that for the Wikipedia article to call the film a "remake" is to say that the Oldboy producers are right and that the Zinda producers broke copyright law. But since the question is not a legally settled issue, to say so is potentially libelous, and thus should be excluded. The article can report what the Oldboy producers said (I did not remove that part), but it cannot endorse them. I would appreciate any input from others as to whether or not there is a legitimate legal concern here. Thanks.

See the discussion here: Talk:Zinda (film) 99.192.52.250 (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I checked this out and the source did not even mention Zinda; in the absence of a court ruling Wikipedia is on dicey ground repeating the accusation, but it's a thousand times worse when a fake source is used, so I've removed the sentence. I've left further comments at the talk page. If the editor keeps re-adding the information it is potentially defamatory and you should probably post your concerns at WP:BLPNB. Betty Logan (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, but the same editor has returned and reverted the page once again. He/She has readded the potentially libelous claims. He/She does not seem to really understand the difference between reporting that someone said something and endorsing the accusation. Intervention from other editors would be appreciated, here. Thanks. 99.192.52.250 (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Tron (franchise) cast table

Could someone lend me a hand? I recently added a cast table for the article that represented the cast of both films and it's currently untidy. I have it hidden as it's too much of a monstrosity right now. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 21:53 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Open peer review request for Kaneto Shindo

If anybody here is interested, there is an open peer review request for Kaneto Shindo. I have been expanding this article about since I started this account on Wikipedia using mostly Shindo's own bios for reference. There was one response to the peer review asking to add a photo, but so far no feedback on the article content. Please respond at the peer review if you are interested in commenting. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Olympic films

Hi all, there is a proposal to rename this category, it might be good if some film guys contributed to the discussion. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comments at the MOS

Please direct your attention to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Critical reception for older films. There is a debate about how and when to use data from Rotten Tomatoes when it comes to older films. The original argument stemmed from a request to include a table collecting all RT data for a set of films in a horror franchise that spans 30+ years to compare them, and whether or not those figures are comparable. The current debate is still partially focused on that, as well as whether "sample size" is actually important when it comes to presenting RT data. At the moment, the debate is largely between 3 people (myself included) and we definitely need more editors to come and provide input, as this debate is influenced by the interpretation of the Manual of Style, the essay on Rotten Tomatoes, and how all of that relates (or does not relate) to interpreting statistical data.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Why? I don't see what is at issue. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Cinéma pur vs. Pure cinema

Hello, One of the items on my suggestion (SuggestionBot) list was to merge Cinéma pur with Pure cinema.

There are aspects of the write-ups that sound similar - but I could be missing finer nuances. For instance, within the "Pure cinema" article, there's a link to the other article which says: "For the French avant-garde film movement of the 1920s and 30s, see Cinema pur."

Do you have an opinion about whether these should remain as two separate articles - or if they should be merged, with perhaps a bit of conversation about some of the nuances between the two - if they are fairly similar?

Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me make this a bit easier, I hope:

• Should the 2 articles: Cinéma pur with Pure cinema remain as separate articles?

In that case, I'll remove the merge notices on both and post a message why

• Should I merge Cinéma pur with Pure cinema?

Otherwise, I mean if nobody responses, I'm going to guess that the articles probably should be moved since someone had tagged it that way.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Do I have the wrong Wikiproject?--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Seven Psychopaths infobox

Can anyone figure out why this infobox is so wide? I have looked and cannot find anything out of the ordinary. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's the Toronto Film festival thing, it doesn't wrap it it just stretches the BOX to accommodate. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I wondered if that wasn't it, but I do not mess with those things. Thanks! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Directory of World Cinema = user generated content?

As far as I can see, the directory of world cinema is user generated content. What is the opinion of others on the validity of this website? JoshuSasori (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the publisher's site says: "A series of printed volumes for each world region, of about 300 pages per volume. For each region, a new volume with original content will be published every two years." and "The Directory of World Cinema aims to play a part in moving intelligent, scholarly criticism beyond the academy by building a forum for the study of film that relies on a disciplined theoretical base. Each volume of the Directory takes the form of a collection of reviews, longer essays and research resources, accompanied by film stills highlighting significant films and players." and "Whilst Intellect’s vision is focused on the author rather than the commercial market, we maintain a rigorous vetting procedure at the beginning of production to ensure that the publication is of high academic value." – It's not exactly a collection of blog contributions. I consider it to be serious and reliable eough.--Robert Kerber (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify this discussion, the site clearly solicits content from users. This seems to be vetted to some extent, but the IMDB is also vetted and the IMDB is not useable as a reference because it is considered user-generated content. The "Directory of World Cinema" seems like a borderline case of user-generated content. What do the users of Wikiproject film think? JoshuSasori (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this passes as an RS. First, this is different from IMDb because it is published first on paper by an established academic publisher, Intellect ([1]). Each volume has an editor. The Japan volumes (which I have), for instance, are edited by John Berra, a film academic ([2]), and held by many university libraries ([3]). The contributors vary, but they include major academics and film critics. I doubt just anyone can write for it (the section you cited demands that people who want to write for it send in samples: they must be vetted first). Also, I assume the net version does not allow you, like IMDb or Wikipedia, to change an entry as a user: this are all single-authored pieces, so the reliability of the author can be verified. While one can argue with specific entries, or with general editorial policy (I find some of the British academic publishers, like Continuum, to be somewhat lax about editing), if we start removing these as reliable sources, we'd have to remove a lot of the sources we use. Michitaro (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Just a small point, but regarding it is published first on paper, it seems to be published on the website and then on paper: This pre-print web-based database [4]. JoshuSasori (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Box office bombs navbox

I see that this was just created and is being added to articles. Is this really necessary? I cannot formulate a good argument against it at the moment, I am just curious what other editors think. Are people really going to be searching for this kind of information? If so, is this the best way to present it to them? If I am reading about one film, say The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, that happened to be a box office failure, am I necessarily interested in all the other films that are also considered failures? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Beat me to it. Just seen it slapped on Burnt by the Sun 2. The category states "This Category is for films that grossed less than 20% of total cost." Why 20%? Why not 17.5% or 32%? And I thought templates had the main use of a common theme (film series or director), not something with an arbritary cut-off and borderline trivia. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 18:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I find these films interesting, as there's often a good story behind their failure. As to whether a navbox is the best way to go I'm not so sure. The big failing is that by confining it to an arbitrary percentage it misses some arguably more notable films. Zyzzyx Road didn't make any of it's $1.3 million dollar budget back, but if I was a backer of The 13th Warrior which lost $98 million I'd think that was a much bigger bomb. Suggest that each of the films in the list have List of notable box office bombs added to a 'See Also' section. yorkshiresky (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Strip the film titles out of it and it might serve some use to navigate between relevant overview articles like box office bomb, list of notable box office bombs and maybe Hollywood accounting; otherwise you're always going to have to rely on some arbitrary definition of what is and isn't listed. GRAPPLE X 18:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This particular navbox needs to go, but I do like Grapple X's suggestion of having another box that has some of the main links. Something like "Film box office" or "Film finances" (nothing good is coming to me right now) that could group together main links and lists about funding films, film gross lists, lists of most/least successful films. BOVINEBOY2008 19:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There's this template; Template:Lists of box office number-one films which could be used as basis for a future film finaces navbox. As always depends how much detail you want to put in it.yorkshiresky (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not make a single template Template:Financially notable films (or something more interestingly titled :P) that contains links th all the lists of financial notability. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Princess Mononoke

There is an important discussion on how we should get the Princess Mononoke article up to GA status at Talk:Princess Mononoke#GA push?, as I am doing a major revamp of the article. Comments, thoughts, ideas and input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

ITNR

Contributors to this project may be in a position to give insight on the notability or otherwise of film festivals at Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items#Remove Venice Film Festival. Please note that the closer of that discussion will disregard support or oppose votes: any consensus will be determined based on the validity of the points made. Regards, —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 08:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Cast in lead

I have a concern about the lead section of Princess Mononoke. 188.242.61.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) removed my addition of the cast members in the lead section in my improvement to Princess Mononoke. The IP in question insists that the cast is not needed because "it's really redundant how you say". However, per WP:MOSFILM#Lead, the first paragraph should also mention the stars in the lead. As such, I reverted his edit. Other than that, I have been trying to cleanup Princess Mononoke, as the article as a whole is already a mess and needs to be cleaned up as noted in Talk:Princess Mononoke#GA Push?. Any thoughts on this matter? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not insisting on that, don't make muddle please. You yourself said such things about redundant text. So don't play with rules, please. Well, if you insist on WP:MOSFILM#Lead, then I will not delete it. But really I think common sense is more important than that guidance. And I think it is really redundant, coz there are separate "cast" section and what is more we have "starring" in infobox. "stars in the lead" - means "chief stars", not all voice actors... and I don't even see sence in mentioning some chief voice works in that case (like Ashitaka and San). P.S. Sorry for not very good english. "Anon with IP"

I'd say keep the stars in the lead. Any and every lead "should be able to stand alone as a concise overview" of an article per WP:LEAD, so it is inexact to say that the presence of the starring cast members in the lead of a film article is redundant. Cliff Smith 19:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's stipulate that the lead paragraph, at least, shouldn't get into the supporting roles. The infobox list is slightly more permissive. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then On another note, can anyone please look at the plot summary of the relevant article? I think we need to rewrite it extensively to explain unfamiliar readers and I am especially concerned about the last part of the plot section, "Though Ashitaka means much to San, she still despises humans for their actions and decides to continue living in the forest. Ashitaka decides to stay and help to rebuild the town. However, Ashitaka tells San that he will visit her in the forest. Eboshi, amazed by the efforts of Ashitaka, San and the wolves to save her and the people of Iron Town, vows to rebuild a better town." I feel that the facts added by the IP are correct and accurate, but is obviously trivial information and excessive detail per WP:FILMPLOT and WP:NOT#PLOT, and also gives a "minute-by-minute" account of the matter. Also, I am concerned that the IPs edits contain original research and synthesis, which is not allowed on Wikipedia, and are unintelligible. I have tried to copyedit this matter to make it more intelligible, but I the IP rewrote it (unintelligibly of course) and stated what I believe to be some baseless arguments in his edit summaries (i.e. "stop changing right words and facts, that's destructive") as indicated in the article's history page, so I want to ask more opinions about this matter. Also, despite the relevant section header recommending that we should only use the "Accolades" header, the IP also insists that "Awards and accolades" should be included in the header. However. I think we should just list the "accolades" part on this matter. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It's been a while since I last saw the film, so I'm reluctant to comment on how to word the plot summary. However, I agree that the section header you're talking about should be "Accolades", not "Awards and accolades". All awards are accolades, but not all accolades are awards. Cliff Smith 21:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sjones23, your accusation in original research of my edits is full absurdity, coz I was one who deleted your or.res., not inside out. Accusation in synthesis are baseless and slanderous too. Don't push your edit's by rough strength, this will not work. Let's find agreement then with other participants of Wikipedia. About "Awards", well I think then "Awards" is better as it was without word "accolades", becouse all of them are just awards, this word is more correct in that case, when "accolades" sounds like it is something unofficial. "All awards are accolades" - I don't think so, coz awards =/= accolades. This is different terms.

And I don't even know why this man start to rewrite all, just after I started improvement of the article. Before that it was not even needed to Sjones23. And now I don't know why he is doing so. Coz in spite of quite big wiki experience of user he making something like edits wars and some destructive edits with only his opinion (that have no common with authenticity of that work of art, I mean subject of article; at that time when I really improved authenticity and plot section in article)... But I still trying to assume good faith in his edits in this article. Overall I turn your attention that Sjones23 (and personally Sjones23) really has Wikipedia:Wikilawyering in every small case. Don't behaviour like that, please. Lean on common sence and facts, not on imperfect rules. "Anon with IP"