Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film

Cast rewrite

The "Cast" section at MOS:FILM is our oldest section, and two recent discussions at WT:FILM indicate an interest in giving this section a rewrite. Below is my proposed draft consolidating the aspects of the discussions:

Actors and their roles can be presented and discussed in different forms in film articles depending on three key elements: 1) the prominence of the cast in the film, 2) the amount of real-world context for each cast member or the cast as a whole, and 3) the structure of the article. Editors are encouraged to lay out such content in a way that best serves readers for the given topic. If necessary, build toward a consensus. The key elements are discussed in detail:

1. A film's cast may vary in size and in importance. A film may have an ensemble cast, or it may only have a handful of actors. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links (in some cases), etc. If there are numerous cast members worth identifying, there are two recommended options: the names may be listed in two or three columns, or the names may be grouped in prose.
2. The real-world context about actors and their roles may vary by film. Real-world context may be about how the role was written, how the actor came to be cast for the role, and what preparations were necessary for filming. Development of a film article means a basic cast list may evolve into a bulleted list with several sentences devoted to each person. In other cases, a list may be maintained and be accompanied by prose that discusses only a handful of cast members.
3. The structure of the article may also influence form. A basic cast list in a "Cast" section is appropriate for the majority of Stub-class articles. When the article is in an advanced stage of development, information about the cast can be presented in other ways. A "Cast" section may be maintained but with more detailed bulleted entries, or a table or infobox grouping actors and their roles may be placed in the plot summary or in the "Casting" subsection of a "Production" section. Use tables with care due to their complexity; they are most appropriate for developed, stable articles. (Tables are also recommended to display different casts, such as a Japanese-language voice cast and a English-language voice cast in a Japanese animated film.)

If roles are described outside of the plot summary, keep such descriptions concise. Also, per Wikipedia's Manual of Style on boldface, please limit boldface to table headers and captions. Actors and roles should not be bolded.

Please let me know your thoughts. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that is mostly fine, but I think it needs to be explicit that it's a design decision that is largely left to editorial discretion, and perhaps link to a few good examples to provide editors with an idea of what we are aiming for: Fight Club and Alien (film) keep popping up as solid styles. There are probably a few other good ones around too. Betty Logan (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a design decision but what I've been doing and what I think works quite well is listing the billed actors first and foremost and presenting the rest in prose form ala Dredd, where there isn't much if any information available about those characters/cast members. I think it makes it nicely readable and more presentable rather than a long list of names. But it's purely design. EDIT It also allows you to group together certain characters to avoid repetitive descriptions, such as 4 corrupt Judges on that particular article, where in list form each would have a separate description of "a corrupt judge". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Just had a look at what you have done on Dredd, Darkwarriorblake, and very much appreciate your approach to this much needed appraisal. Thank you Erik for raising this strand. Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk) 21:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I quite like that approach DWB, it's very similar to the one used at Witchfinder_General_(film) and avoids the 'naked' look of bare cast lists. Betty Logan (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

While it's preferable to making readers scan over the whole plot section, I still prefer a list to be a list, which means each actor gets their own line, whether bulleted or not. Much easier to quickly assess the information. I have no problem with the look of bare cast lists - they break up the prose. However, we could make longer lists double-columned, as some already are. That would greatly reduce the "bare" look, for those who object to it.

If we're going to point people to good examples, we should use ones that have the actors in their proper billing order. For that reason I would not use Alien (film). While it's quite a good article overall, it's main editor prefers changing cast orders to other styles, like alphabetical or order of appearance - even when the film did not do that. We should encourage people to use the film's billing order. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I rather like Erik's proposal; I agree that tables make sense for displaying different casts, but otherwise I'd go with a bulleted list. Also, I fully agree with Gothicfilm that a cast list should be ordered according to the film's billing order, and I'd support the inclusion of this in the rewritten guideline. That goes for the lead and the infobox, which should include only actors who received star billing, as well as a more-inclusive "Cast" section of bulleted starring roles and smaller roles in prose. Check out Prometheus (film) for what I'm talking about. Cliff Smith 04:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Concur with this well-thought-out proposal. I also like the idea, with bare lists, of having the option to make them two-column; I would include this as an option in the rewritten MOS so as to head off any disputes over this down the road. I'd also stress the WP:INDISCRIMINATE point that we don't need to list every last "Thug #2." --Tenebrae (talk) 08:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

What is the meaning of this: "If roles are described outside of the plot summary, keep such descriptions concise and relevant to real-world context." The plot summary doesn't normally include character descriptions so those go in the Cast section as a rule. Maybe it should say: "Character descriptions should be concise." --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Concise statement about being concise? No way! :) I suppose my thinking is to recommend not providing additional in-universe information unless it relates to out-of-universe information. Let's say we have a concise character description. If we have some real-world context about a specific aspect of the character, then we could have a little extra in-universe detail to serve as background. To make up an example, maybe the character knows martial arts or uses some kind of weapon, and that could be mentioned as a lead-in to explaining how the actor trained for it. Or something to do with the character's background that the actor had to work to convey. I'll rewrite that sentence and include others' recommendations too, though not today. Others are welcome to edit the draft if they want! Erik (talk | contribs) 17:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Cast section should succinctly say who the character is within the context of the film, e.g., "Gertrude, Hamlet's mother". --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Well according to the MOS I think it should be "Gertrude: Hamlet's mother", but yes it should give a quick idea of their role and not, say this edit where the user gives a three film history for certain characters and a rundown of events in that film for the others up to and including their end. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly not. Too often I have to revert people who feel the need to give the plot away in the cast list/section. I look forward to seeing Erik's rewrite, which might make that point clear, and incorporate other recommendations, such as keeping cast lists in the film's billing order. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

(reply to Ring) It might be obvious—it probably should be obvious in a well-written plot summary of Hamlet—that Gertrude is Hamlet's mother; it's pretty integral to the story. I think what Erik is getting at is that we don't need to repeat this in the cast section if the essence of the character is conveyed by the plot summary, and I would concur with that. Betty Logan (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I meant to say that I am fine with a concise primary description. For some films, it may not be needed in a cast list. What I meant by real-world context is that there is a secondary description of the character that is explored by coverage. For example:

• John Doe as Dr. William Smith
• John Doe as Dr. William Smith, a brain surgeon
• John Doe as Dr. William Smith, a brain surgeon who begins suffering hallucinations. For the role, Doe visited mental hospitals and read literature about others' experiences.^[1]

I think that this is probably too nuanced for the guidelines. I'll go with Ring Cinema's concise wording, but we can also talk about when to include any description at all. Seems like descriptions tend to show up in bulleted lists and not normally tables. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

For a good encyclopedia, concise character descriptions are not an extravagance, even if they are somewhat redundant. Important facts can be mentioned more than once. The emphasis in the Cast section on offscreen machinations leans a bit too much fanboy and not enough reference perhaps. I think that for people looking for basic information, we are the primary stop. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be mixed feelings about how complete the cast should be. Many seem to frown on a list, but without a list some characters won't be mentioned, which for a reference is not so good. How does this plan address the issue of completeness? --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

My personal preferences; I can go either way on list vs. plot vs. casting with prose. In general it depends on the article. But there are certain articles where I think having the list is truly ideal and the hypothetical you're describing is basically that scenario. I think it was the Crazies where once we'd finished the plot (first round was basically my work, others tweaked it later) there were several named characters (i.e. not crazie #12 or other extras) that didn't land in the plot summary because of how simple that film is to describe concisely. So the list really needed to be included to get all of the major and supporting characters that had actual named credits mentioned in the article. I know I've seen some other film articles that had a similar situation. Someone upthread noted an example they use where it's "Actor as Character", followed by a paragraph description, followed by a prose list of other supporting actors. THat would seem to address this problem as well. Millahnna (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

New draft

I reworded parts of the draft. Per Betty's recommendation, I made clear that it is up to the editor and also mentioned building toward consensus. I mentioned multiple columns and grouping in prose as options for secondary cast members if it suits the article. I also mentioned billing as one of the rules of thumb for listing actors; I think there needs to be a wide consensus to require using the billing. Per Ring Cinema's recommendation, I made the role description concise. Let me know what you think. I would also like to know if you want to include examples. If so, which examples should we use? I recommend Good and Featured Articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

A table in the plot summary? I don't think so. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

That is based on Betty's recommendation at WT:FILM#Cast in plot. I'm fine with that as one possible approach if it is presentable. I'd prefer a small table preceding the summary over one to the side, since the latter runs the risk of "colliding" with the infobox, especially with "Plot" being the first section in nearly all film articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

But a table like that would go in the Cast section, not the plot summary. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Generally I agree, Ring, but sometimes there isn't a "cast" section, and the table in this scenario was specifically proposed as a compromise between a section comprising just a bare list of names and parenthesised actors names in the plot summary; it was basically a midpoint between the two approaches. I would be just as happy having it in the production section though. The main point of contention for me is those cast lists which are just a bare list of names plonked in the middle of an article. It looks pretty unsophisticated in an otherwise well-written article. Generally there isn't a problem on FA and GA articles which have well-writteng cast sections, but in cases where we have just a list of names it would be great if we could make them look more integrated with what is primarily a prose style. Betty Logan (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest for the first paragraph:

The Cast section covers three aspects of the film's fictional people: the characters in the story, the actors who play the roles, and material on real world casting and production. Three key elements may shape the article's presentation: 1) the prominence of the cast in the film, 2) the amount of real-world context for each cast member or the cast as a whole, and 3) the structure of the article. Editors are encouraged to lay out such content in a way that best serves readers for the given topic. As always, build toward a consensus. The key elements are discussed in detail: --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm mostly fine with that wording. What about "Casting" sections, though? And is it ever a possibility that a film article would not have either section, such as with a small cast with all casting details covered in a brief "Production" section? That's why I didn't want to specify a place for details. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

DItto Erik on the wording and the question we might want to clarify. Ring, take a look at the Example Betty used for her table visual aid and you'll understand why she put it in the plot section for that particular instance. It sort of replaces the bulleted cast list in articles that have them and was intended (I believe) as an alternative to the parenthetical cast notations in the plot (which usually work fine but can sometimes be awkward). ALthough, now that you mention it, in articles with a really fleshed out casting section (as opposed to just a bulleted list cast section) such a box might go well there instead. But I'm flexible on this stuff. As long as we get everything we can find in the article and it looks nice (and doesn't read too awkwardly) I'm good. Millahnna (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I am completely on board taking out parenthetical casting in the plot summary, but why wouldn't a cast table be in the Cast section? I mean, just on the level of labeling. But maybe you are right. And yes, Erik, a Casting section would sometimes be just the thing, just as sometimes I think it would be great for, say, American Civil War films to have a Characters section that says who is fictional and who is based on someone real, with a different section that covers the actors and their roles. Perhaps Casting should be encouraged to go in Pre-Production (or whatever), but we are pretty far down the river to go back to that, aren't we? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the idea is that if you have a small casting and a separate cast section, you can add a small table (see Fight Club, i dont think its the kind of table you think it is) to the plot as a reference card, instead of having a section with a handful of names in it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. Fight Club's cast table is excellent, but it's not in the Plot section. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I found Betty's example. She used Halloween for it here. In that case the table landed in the plot section. It looks pretty good on my widescreen monitor but I'm not sure how it will look for other browser monitor configurations. Millahnna (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It works well, but there are going to be issues about completeness, right? I have no idea how it was decided who belongs in the Halloween list. Speaking roles? Characters with names? Listed on the one sheet? Any non-extra? It's probably another discussion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest that the Cast table include no character not mentioned (or named, if we want to be restrictive) in the plot summary? That would do away with the parentheticals and keep a lid on it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that relationship would work as a requirement, but I'm fine with it as a rule of thumb for which actors and roles to list. I assume this still means that if preferred, minor actors and roles (and cameos) can be mentioned after the table? Erik (talk | contribs) 13:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ring Cinema, what rewording do you propose? I'd like to import the draft to the guidelines soon. Will give WT:FILM another notification. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is the chance for a consensus on more at the moment. It's fine as far as it goes. Perhaps the place to mention the cast table in the plot summary is in the section on the summary. Many of these matters are for editors, not guidelines. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that we just had a kerfluffle about this, I'm a bit concerned that there's no reference to the "don't include labels like 'protagonist'" consensus... unless we've decided that we can just blatantly handle it as an OR issue without providing further explicit explanation. Doniago (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Please don't encourage tables. Tables create a barrier to entry, lots of annoying wikisyntax for editors to deal with, and they discourage editors from expanding the cast list into the kind of prose sections that are the end result we are hoping for. Reintroducing tables for the cast section would be a step back to something we deliberately moved away from. For that same reason editors should not delete cast lists, at least not before an article has reached GA status. Without the list as a starting point editors are unlikely to add more information and expand the section into the kind of prose most of us would like to see. I would also be very cautious about putting too much emphasis on presentation instead of content, tables and lists of columns have a bad habit of looking terrible on different devices and screen sizes. -- 109.77.106.153 (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I come here from the aforementioned Dredd article. There, I've started a discussion on the value of the Cast section mentioning "cannon fodder" characters whose name is never mentioned or seen in the film, don't have more than a handful of lines, and do nothing really relevant for the plot. I'm not at all into mentioning filler characters, but what really gets me is that I find it totally meaningless to read "Actor X plays character Y" if you watch the film ten times and see no signs of any character being identified as "character Y". Even if the character has a relevance (be it for its role in the film, or for the actor playing it), in these cases what I'd suggest is giving a realistically useful reference to identify the character, instead of a meaningless name shown only in the credits roll. --uKER (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Characters in Plot Section - First name? Last name? Either?

Someone just revised the Plot section for The Net, replacing references to the main character by her last name with her first name. Is there a consensus as to whether first name or last name is preferred when referring to a character in the plot section of an article? Thanks for your input! Doniago (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I say go with surname. It's more formal and encyclopaedic-sounding, and is consistent with how we treat "real world" names (you wouldn't see an overview of WWII discussing "Adolf" and "Winston"). Obviously there'll be exceptions, a work might not give a character's full name or there may be several characters with the same surname (so Manhunter calls the character Molly Graham "Molly" as "Graham" is already used for the much-more-prevalent Will Graham, for example). But overall I'm wholly in favour of surnames for this kind of thing. Local consensus applies, though, if one exists. GRAPPLE X 16:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Common name used in the film so it is dependent on the film. ALiens for instance, everyone is referred to by their surname bar Newt, so Hicks, Ripley, Apone, Vasquez. Dazed and Confused, they're referred to variously by surname and forename but there is a distinct name used for each of them, so Pink, Pickford, O'Bannion, Wooderson, but also Tony, Sabrina, Melvin and Benny. The plot originally referred to Wooderson as David, a way he isn't referred to during the film and so I was confused as to who it was referring to despite having watched it a number of times. So I think it depends very much on the film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Generally use surname, but this is impossible with films that have several characters of the same family. e.g. Godfather trilogy, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 17:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Abysmally redundant descriptions of films' reception

It's common here in Wikipedia to read that a film had "mixed to negative" reception.
Now, "mixed" is a word that is equivalent with "some good reviews, some bad reviews". Then, there's "mostly negative", which could be defined as "some good, some bad, but mostly on the bad side".

However, there's people that, probably sympathizing with a film, don't like it reading "mostly negative", and change it to "mixed to negative". Now, "mixed to negative" would be somewhat equivalent of saying it had "some good, some bad, but mostly on the bad side, but not too much", which despite being probably well-intended, is awfully redundant.

Now, when I thought that was bad, today I met the next level in this progression, which is what triggered me to write this: in Transformers (film series) someone saw fit to say the films had "generally mixed to negative" reception.
I can't even wrap my head around that. "some good, some bad, but mostly on the bad side, but not always". I mean, really!?

I encourage editors to avoid and fight this, and in particular take it into account when performing article assessments, since it's become far too common. --uKER (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I despise the "x to y" wording, and I always remove it. Phrases like "mixed to positive" are essentially meaningless and almost always an attempt by "fans" to whitewash a less-than-flattering reception of a film. Either the reviews were predominantly positive, predominantly negative, or mixed. I always change it to one of those three. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly my sentiment. --uKER (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

That would be a good addition to WP:RTMC. -- 109.77.106.153 (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I too dislike the "x to y" wording, as it seems to me to be the subjective interpretation of an article's editor as to the significance of a Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic rating. Why say something like "The film received mixed to positive reviews" at all? Why not simply begin a paragraph on critical reception with unsubjective, verifiable information like "The film received a 67% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 55% rating on Metacritics."? Primogen (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Not everybody is familiar with these websites, so it is necessary to explain how they aggregate reviews (and they do it in different ways). There is no need for editors to try to come up with interpretations when they can find a source reporting the critics' consensus. There is a related discussion here. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

@Illazilla - sorry you despise "x to y" wording without, apparently, even asking editor's intentions. It's not whitewashing, except to you. I have used the word "mixed" to refer to internally conflicted review(s), and "polarized reviews" when the opinions are, well, highly polarized. In these cases, the reader should just read the damn reviews, and not bother with the bullshit, snakeoil, review aggregators. Yeah, I despise this slavish, fannish "cite the aggregator" craze (ooooh, they're cited by Fox News!). I hope it fades soon, and their money-grubbing, unaccountable, unreliable math is exposed as the fraud that it is. Don't say it isn't, it is. It's an embarrassment. Aggregators' numbers are demonstrably useless except when the great majority of reviews agree, in which case the aggregator's numbers are redundant. There's no such thing as an "average" score, when so many reviewers don't give a score. --Lexein (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of "Top Critics" scores from Rotten Tomatoes

The issue of whether or not it is appropriate to report "Top Critics" scores from Rotten Tomatoes was raised at Talk:The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. It was widely agreed that they should not. Following that discussion, editor "2nyte" and I have both changed a number of pages to remove the "Top Critics" scores. Editor "DrNegative" has noted that WP:RTMC is an essay without binding authority and so if there is to be a general policy about "Top Critics" scores that it needs to be done here and editor "TheOldJacobite" has objected to several of my edits removing "Top Critics" scores. "DrNegative" wrote that this "needs to be made policy by the films project to have any real weight", so I posted about it at WP:RTMC. There, editor "Erik" suggested bringing it here, so here I am. I am asking for input to settle the matter as to whether or not policy should allow reporting "Top Critics" scores or not. 99.192.91.3 (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Cast in foreign films

Another editor and I disagree on the cast descriptions for L'Atalante. I want them to match what is credited onscreen followed by English translations (as does La Strada), while User:Deoliveirafan insists on English only. There's nothing in WP:MOSFILM that covers this. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Go entirely with the film's actual credits, pipe the links when necessary. No need to translate. If someone uses a screen name we don't list their real name in the credits too (for example, films starring Ida Galli don't list her by that name in the credits, they use Isli Oberon or Evelyn Stewart, so we pipe the link as Evelyn Stewart, rather than something like "Evelyn Stewart (Ida Galli)" or words to that effect). GRAPPLE X 00:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about characters whose names are not given, only descriptions: e.g. "le camelot" versus "the peddler". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Aha. I should probably have checked that out. In that case, I'd avoid an indescriminate cast list—mention the character, with their portraying actor, in the plot summary where there is room to explain who they are, but just skip having an IMDB-style cast list (I'm against these anyway unless they offer something in terms of real-world info, cf. Manhunter, but this time there's an additional reason for losing it). GRAPPLE X 00:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

English translations are original research. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Term limits....just planting seeds and hoping they bear fruit.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

What the heck does that mean? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Box office success/failure

I've posted a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film about the issue of films arbitrarily being called a box office "failure" or "success". I wasn't sure where to start the discussion, so please feel free to direct the discussion here in case this is the preferred location for such a discussion. --89.0.201.94 (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

For other readers this box office question was also posted on WP:TALK and answered there. Short answer WP:NOR. -- 109.77.106.153 (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics

As per the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Use_of_.22Top_Critics.22_scores_from_Rotten_Tomatoes, the general feeling is that Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics are inappropriate for a number of reasons, so here is a draft of the guideline provisions:

Top Critics

There is a consensus against using the "Top Critic" scores at Rotten Tomatoes based on several concerns expressed:

1. "Top Critic" scores are difficult to cite. Rotten Tomatoes operates regional divisions of its website, and unlike the "All Critic" scores which are the same for all regions, the "Top Critic" scores vary between regional editions, dependent on who has been designated a "Top Critic" for that particular area. Readers are automatically directed to the edition for their region, and since the region dependent URLs are masked, readers across the world see different scores for the same citation, leading to confusion that the data is incorrect.
2. Sample sizes for "Top Critics" may not be statistically significant, due to being typically much smaller than the sample size for the "All Critic" scores.
3. "Top Critic" scores are not consistent with the aims of aggregator scores on Wikipedia. The purpose behind using aggregators is to provide readers with an overview of how the film was critically received, and focusing on an exclusive subset of the available criticism may not reflect the prevalent view.
4. "Top Critic" scores may not be notable. The general "All Critic" score is more widely reported than the "Top Critic" score, so is the stat that Rotten Tomatoes is generally notable for.

Betty Logan (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Overall, I like it. I have one small suggestion. The first item is several sentences long, so it might be best to lead with the most key point. An editor who comes to the MOS unfamiliar with the reasons for not using "top critics" scores might think saying that they are "difficult to cite" is a rather minor inconvenience. But the more crucial issue is expressed later in the paragraph with the words "readers across the world see different scores for the same citation". So I would suggest making that the first sentence. I like the other three points as is. Well done! 99.192.78.59 (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with 99.192.78.59's suggestions. Another anonymous editor raised several other issues:

(A) A lot of movies are international co-productions. Taking, for example, the film page that launched this entire discussion, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, that film is listed as a New Zealand, United Kingdom, and United States co-production. So for a film like that there would be no way to settle which version of RT's "Top Critics" to use. Since many films are international co-productions, this would be a frequent problem, and so it is best to avoid it by not using the "Top Critics" scores from anywhere.

(B) Even in cases where there is a clear country of origin for a film, it does not follow that there will be a "Top Critics" list for that country. RT does not have as many different versions as they are countries, so if, for example, there is no "Top Critics" list that is specific to Sweden, then it would not be obvious which "Top Critics" report to use for any Swedish film. So again, this is a problem best avoided by forgoing the "Top Critics" scores altogether.

(C) Even in cases where there is one clear country of origin of a film AND there is a local version of RT's "Top Critics" there, it still is not a good reason to use that score. In the example Fanthrillers gave above for Stargate, the UK version of RT reports only one "Top Critics" review, and that one came from an American critic (Ebert). So using the UK version of RT's "Top Critics" offers no assurance that British critics are being counted at all.

- Fanthrillers (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with and applaud Betty Logan's excellent work, and support her wording with 99.192.78.59's suggestions. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, the "another anonymous editor" that Fanthrillers referred to is the same person who posted above as 99.192.78.59 and is also me. Its a dynamic IP address thing :) I appreciate Fanthrillers mentioning those comments here again, but I don't think they need to be included in the MOS as they are just reasons why the suggestion "just use the version of 'Top Critics' for the country of origin of a film" won't work. Including all that in the MOS might just over-complicate it. 99.192.64.166 (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sound suggestions. As per Tenebrae, I support the Betty/99.192 wording. - SchroCat (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Top Critics (re-draft)

There is a consensus against using the "Top Critic" scores at Rotten Tomatoes based on several concerns:

1. "Top Critic" scores are dependent on the region of the reader, meaning that readers across the world see different scores for the same citation, leading to confusion that the data is incorrect. Readers are automatically redirected to a "local" version of the site based on where they are, and since the region-dependent URLs are masked it makes if difficult to cite a specific set of scores.
2. The selection of which "Top Critics" data set to use also complicates matters due to each "local" version of the site having its own data. There is no reason to select the scores from one country over another, so arbitrarily selecting a data set risks violating WP:NPOV, while listing all the scores would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
3. Sample sizes for "Top Critics" may not be statistically significant, due to being typically much smaller than the sample size for the "All Critic" scores.
4. "Top Critic" scores are inconsistent with the aims of aggregator scores on Wikipedia. The purpose behind using aggregators is to provide readers with an overview of how a film was critically received, and focusing on an exclusive subset of the available criticism may not reflect the prevalent view.
5. "Top Critic" scores may not be notable. The general "All Critic" score is more widely reported than the "Top Critic" score, and is the statistic for which Rotten Tomatoes is generally notable.

I've incorporated the suggestions, so I'll leave this up for a few days, and if nobody requests any alterations I will transfer it to the MOS. Betty Logan (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I made some grammatical tweaks and copy edits. Nothing, I think, that changes content. The diff page will show them.

And again: Beautiful work, Betty. Herding cats is easier than getting Wikipedians to a conclusion! With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I also endorse this write-up per the extensive discussions we've had; it covers all the bases. Look forward to its implementation. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I like it too. Well done, and thanks again. 99.192.73.85 (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've transferred the guideline revisions into MOS:FILM#Reception, since there have been no objections. Betty Logan (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is AllRovi listed?

I've long wondered - Why is AllRovi routinely included in WP film article external links? It doesn't give anything useful not found on IMDb and other, better links like TCM. I never use it, as its credits list is disorganized and often gets credits wrong. The very example on the MoS page gives

• {{allrovi/movie|id=49101|title=The Terminator}} gives
  • The Terminator at AllMovie

If you click its Cast & Crew link, you'll see it lists the Production Manager as the Production Designer. That's ridiculous, and quite unreliable. It also gives relatively unimportant songwriters higher listing than major crew members. People often complain about too many ELs. I propose AllRovi be dropped as redundant and unreliable. For some reason the AFI and BFI are not included. They would be much better. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about this today too. (Was reviewing MOS:FILM.) I put up the template for deletion in 2009 as seen here, but it was kept. I'm not a fan of it as an external link and, like you, do not see the value. At the very least, we can drop it from the guidelines. I'm fine with discouraging its use if there is enough of a consensus for that. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that did create a debate in 2009. I don't have time to read all that, but what I saw does not convince me AllRovi should be kept. It's not at all reliable for credits. IMDb may not be perfect, but its credits are vetted, much better organized, and much more accurate, as you can see with The Terminator example. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If you can find the time, I recommend reviewing the TfD as well as this discussion for deprecation. Both pretty much make points from different angles. We could launch a RfC for editors to weigh in and review the consensus. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Didn't know this had previously generated so much discussion, and yet AllRovi is still routinely listed. I like this title from the same page: Why does this template exist?

I think this might deserve another full discussion, since AllRovi has a hired staff doing inputting and who give their bylines on the site's biographies. As well, as venerable a source as The New York Times licenses its movie database from AllRovi. Every' source makes an occasional mistake — even the BFI, which says director Oley Sassone is the son of Vidal Sassoon, which isn't true. I'm not sure how we could make a case to include the wikia IMDb in ELs and not include a widely used, 23-year-old database inputted and written by a professional staff. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It cannot be overstated how important good organization of credits is. The NYT film database is terribly disorganized, and often has inaccuracies, just like AllRovi. The IMDb has good organization of categories if you look at its combined details or full cast and crew pages. And the AFI and BFI are much more reliable for accurate credit listings. The Sassone bio is not a credit listing (though that is a problem). - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding IMDb, I think it falls under WP:ELMAYBE #4 because it covers so many different elements of a film that would not fit in an encyclopedic format. One aspect that comes to mind is the NewsDesk, which links to relevant news articles. Not to mention that it is an immensely popular website, and I doubt there could ever be a consensus to remove it as an external link. It is basically WikiProject Film's database brother. Getting back to AllRovi, I think that we tend to pile up external links just because we can. For example, some TCM database links are likely more valuable than others in certain articles, but I think they proliferate just because a film has a page in said database. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think if a site offers nothing beyond production credits then it probably doesn't belong as an external link. You can get credit information from the film itself, so a link to credits doesn't really enhance the encyclopedic value of the article. There are many of these types of sites, besides Allrovi you have the AFI and BFI equivalents, TCM, Yahoo movies, they aren't exactly unique. IMDB offers a lot of peripheral information which is useful (although complicated by the fact it is user generated), while TCM sometimes has articles and videos about the film so sometimes qualifies on those terms. I have never come across an Allmovie page that sufficiently adds to the encyclopedic scope of an article; that's not to say there aren't exceptions, but I don't see the point of automatically adding links, so I would have no problem with the template being ditched since it just encourages misuse. Betty Logan (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been working with our silent film articles for a few months and a number of them have links to Allrovi's plot summary for the film. Since many of these films are lost or unavailable for viewing this is possibly the only way to provide such a summary. I don;t know whether that is a reason to keep the links over the arguments to delete them. I just thought I would mention it for those of you who were unaware of the situation. MarnetteD | Talk 23:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

That's useful, and they should be available as references. At the TfD for this template, one of the opposing arguments was that the link could potentially be used as a source at some point. It would be nice to migrate the link itself to the talk page in the process of deprecating the template to address this concern. Maybe a bot is capable of doing that? Erik (talk | contribs) 23:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of how to program bots is nil but I can tell you that the plot summaries always have a v in them as in this one "the-auction-block-v84121" - Whether that can be of any help will be up to those that know what they are doing. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 00:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about bots, so I can't comment on that. In practice, I don't list AllRovi under EL; I've occasionally cited it via The New York Times as a footnote reference for very specific things, so if the decision goes against listing it as an EL, I don't think that would be a big hardship. I'd be very concerned if there were any suggestion not to use it at all as a reference, due to the considerations of my earlier post. Otherwise, I'd agree that we do have plenty of other EL sources already and probably shouldn't add to the clutter. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to using a specific AllRovi page as a ref for info when needed, as MarnetteD mentions above. But usually AllRovi gives no info that can't be easily found elsewhere, so it should not be included as an EL on every film page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The IMDb isn't perfect either and I like to believe the Wikipedia doesn't depend on the IMDb. Besides that I share Tenebrae's opinion. --NordhornerII (talk) _The man from Nordhorn 22:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I set up an RfC regarding AllRovi as an external link. The RfC can be seen on the template talk page here. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

film and other work titles: "shorter than five letters" rule / general capitalization rules discussion over at WT:MoS

People frequenting this talk page, please see this. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Nationality in lead sentence

I would like to expand the lead section sub-guidelines to address the nationality element of the lead sentence better. Right now, MOS:FILM#Lead section says, "Ideally, the nationality of the film should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is ambiguous, clarify the circumstances at a later point in the first paragraph." I would argue that this best applies in a singular sense (e.g., American film, British film, not American-British film) unless such a national co-production is clearly evidenced in prose (as opposed to database entries). Otherwise, when the collaboration is multinational, I think that this normally transcends a need for mentioning nationality off the bat. To cite an example, Blindness (film) is a Canadian-Brazilian-Japanese production. While we list these countries in the film infobox, mention of this collaboration is unnecessarily prominent in the lead sentence, especially without any indication of which country did what. The international background can instead be diffused in the rest of the lead section. I think that mentioning the language, (in the case of Blindness, "English-language film"), is a reasonable alternative to have. The specific change I propose is, "If the nationality of the film is singular and straightforward, it can be characterized as such in the opening sentence. If more than one country is involved in the production, nationality can be de-emphasized by skipping mention in the lead sentence and explaining the roles later in the lead section. In such cases, the film's primary language can serve as an appropriate alternative. For example, 'American-British film' can be replaced by 'English-language film'." That's my initial proposal, and I'm open to re-wording it better. For what it's worth, this discussion was prompted by Inception and this discussion. I am hoping we can head off a few unnecessary skirmishes this way. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we should move away from nationality (which is covered in the infobox anyway) and move towards the identity of the film. First and foremost, The Dark Knight is a Batman film. Skyfall is a James Bond film. Both of these articles drop nationalities from the lede. Something like Caché that was a French-Austrian production is simply identified as a "French language film". Casablanca as an all-American classic is fairly identified as an "American" film. The purpose of the first sentence is to identify the film, and nationality is one way of doing that, but not always the best way. In some cases it just isn't relevant, especially in these multinational franchise productions, and in other cases a film is closely identified with its national film industry. Betty Logan (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting removing the nationality from the lead sentence? I think the nationality works as an identifier when the background is straightforward. Along with the year and the genre(s), it helps set up expectations for what is about to be read. I'm fine with alternate identifiers for franchise films, but they're a drop in the bucket in terms of film count. I think that year/nationality/genre suffices for the majority of films; there are just a few films where the nationality becomes an issue, and I'm hoping to address that here. We can talk about genre too, but I've seen more nationality-related disputes in recent months. Do you have anything in mind regarding the current guidelines or my write-up? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Betty, I believe that Cache is identified as it is because some editors insisted it was an Italian film, too, and I think even Swiss, if memory serves. Clearly you are correct that it is a French-Austrian film, but not by our guidelines. As far as Erik's suggestion, it seems that too much is put on the first sentence currently. Title, medium, genre, nationality, (and for other reasons of basic identification, makers and year all seem de rigueur). First paragraph, okay, these things should be there. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think nationality is essential and shouldn't be omitted. I generally support Erik's proposal, with perhaps one modification. For movies with an awful lot of international co-producers we could focus more on the active production countries (those with companies represented by "producers", as opposed to executives, co-producers etc). The lead section for a massive Europudding could then go: "X is a 2013 English-language film directed by bla bla bla .... Production was led by the German company Y, with co-producers in 16 other countries." There could of course be other circumstances worth mentioning, like main investors. What it comes down to is that the lead should be a good summary of the article body, so we need a bit of flexibility depending on what the production section says. But we also have to keep in mind that the international blockbusters are the anomaly - most movies are small and local, with very easily defined nationalities. Smetanahue (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your opening statement; I believe nationality is really really low on the list of priorities when dealing with a film, especially in cases where pinning it down correctly is a complex and volatile task. 99% of the time I'd rather it was just skipped and we saved ourselves years of collective man-hours of hassle. GRAPPLE X 01:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I find myself somewhat inclined to agree with this. If the nationality of a film is significant in some matter (enough to merit more than a mention in the lead) then it may be worth writing something up on the subject for that particular film, but in many cases it seems to me that editors are adding a nationality simply to include it and without necessarily exercising due dilligence. Does the nationality of Inception really matter with regards to understanding the film, or is it a trivia point which, once added in any capacity, has only resulted in a degree of debate disproportionate to the significance of the matter? Doniago (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this runs counter to the fact that many film institutions define a film's nationality according to other criteria. It is not workable to insist that the production companies define a film's nationality when that view is not shared by national film institutes. The nationalities of other participants are also accounted for in these cases. This matter has been much discussed on previous occasions. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Erik's proposal is generally ok in the singular case i.e. if a Chinese company makes a film in China, and it is universally acknowledged as such there isn't a problem. The idea of film nationality arose out of the concept of localised film-making—more than that, film 'nationality' is defined by the relationship of the film to localised film-producing. Outside of the traditional definition I think there are three basic scenarios: i) satellite productions, such as when an American production is made in another country i.e. Star Wars (an American film produced in Britain); ii) internationally financed 'local' films i.e. Superman & Terminator 2 (British and American productions respectively that were financed by selling advance distribution rights); iii) proper international co-productions i.e. Cache (essentially a co-production between France and Austria according to the film credits—although it received funding as well from German and Italy). This can be made very simple, by just stating that a 'nationality' should only be provided if the authorship can be attributed to a single country. We seem to have nationality discussions every few months, and I think our mistake is that we keep trying to tailor the definition of a nebulous concept to cases where it doesn't really apply, or even matter that much. Betty Logan (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is not in keeping with the industry standards or sources about nationality. For example, to be eligible for the Oscar for foreign films, the Academy rules are that "the submitting country must certify that creative control of the motion picture was largely in the hands of citizens or residents of that country." Notice no mention of the production company. Production company nationality and a film's nationality are only sometimes congruent. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect Ring, I haven't said anywhere that 'nationality' is defined by its "production company", in fact what I did say is that a film's nationality is defined by its relationship to localised film-making, which I think implies more than corporate authorship. Betty Logan (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If I got you wrong, okay, I'm sorry, but the detail you give on Cache is only about funding. With respect, that is not correct as a method to determine nationality. Apparently, AMPAS is not concerned with the source of funds, and that makes sense. A film shot in Paris with a French crew and cast from a French script can't be a German film, or Italian. I can sort of accept that it's Austrian because of the director (and I would guess the crew) but that film is very, very French. The fact that it can be disputed is not an indication that Wikipedia has a good handle on this. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the point I'm making: a national identity is defined by the relationship to localised production, and funding does impact on that relationship, and to what extent depends on the criteria. Some sources obviously (or lazily) consider it more significantly than others when considering its nationality, which is why some attribute German nationality while others don't. We don't have to pin our colors to the mast though inthe lede, but in the cases where there is no dissent between sources and there is no external international participation of any form, then we can call a spade a spade. Betty Logan (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I may agree with you but I'm not sure what you mean. AMPAS doesn't seem to take the view that funding sourcing is tied to national identity, but that it flows from the creative control of the films. I think the reason for that is straightforward: outside investors are not uncommon in the film industry, and those investors are aware of what they are funding. A German doesn't invest in a film shot in Paris with a French cast and script and director in order to make a German film. Rather, the investment is for the creative team to do their thing and produce what they produce. (The contrary, however, is not the case: a director doesn't say, "Hey, I want to make a German film, so we have to raise money from Germans.") Notwithstanding that every rule has its exception, the AMPAS criterion is sensible and promulgated by an international leader in cinema. Now, maybe that is more or less what you are saying, too. I'm not sure. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Not expecting to necessarily get a lot of support for this view, but the fact that we're going back-and-forth about this as much as we are is only increasing my feeling that, objectively speaking, we're turning a molehill into a mountain, and that it might be best to omit nationality unless it's a controversial issue for a particular film, much as we do with the film's rating. In those cases it would merit more than a simple mention in the lead, of course. Just my two cents on the matter. Doniago (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Betty's first post in this section is very sensible. The first sentence should efficiently identify the film by its chief characteristics. Maybe nationality is part of that, maybe not. The guidelines, unfortunately in my view, say "at a minimum", and I'd like that language out. There is plenty of space on the Internet to cover the key points. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we are all pretty much on the same page here. The "at minimum" sentence does not even mention nationality. We can change the "Ideally" nationality-related sentence to say, "If the nationality is singular and straightforward, it can be stated in the lead sentence. If not..." we come up with understandable wording for mentioning different aspects here, like the production companies, filming locations, etc. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Again with the production companies? Again, AMPAS does not mention them in the context of identifying nationality. Neither do they mention the locations of the filming or the setting. They are concerned that individuals who exercised creative control are citizens or residents of the country, and they certainly speak with authority. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about details in the lead section, beyond the first sentence, where we have room to talk about different elements. From what I've seen, some editors use certain elements (like production companies) to argue for a certain nationality for the film in that first sentence. If we skip mentioning nationality in the first sentence and instead cover different angles, like filming in so-and-so country, collaborating with local companies there, we can avoid any fussing. One example that comes to mind are the Lord of the Rings films, where the Weta companies based in New Zealand helped with the production. Do you know what I mean? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If editors use erroneous criteria, the place to bring the prominent sources to their attention is in the guidelines. AMPAS defines a film's nationality by the citizens and residents of the creative personnel. They don't refer to the production companies or the location of the filming as you do. There are many institutions that have considered the meaning of nationality for a film. AMPAS is one. BFI has criteria. There is a 19 point scale used in conjunction with the European Convention on Cinematographic Co-production that is helpful. None of them identify a film's nationality first or foremost on the basis of production company. From my research, I see all referring to important personnel and not all referring to production companies. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Even if the criteria is considered erroneous, it still would not be a bad thing to mention filming locations and production companies in the lead section. Are you saying you don't like the implication that it is somehow connected to nationality? What I am saying is that if people are using such criteria (however erroneous) to define the nationality, by diffusing such details throughout the lead section, we can cover these elements, which can be read however they want. How about we work with an example? For Inception, BFI says the production countries are Great Britain and USA. Skipping nationality in the lead sentence, what should we mention later in the lead section? British film director Christopher Nolan, American studio Warner Bros.? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm also curious about the AMPAS criteria. I'm trying to understand it better myself. I see that AMPAS says for Fellowship of the Ring in the database, "New Line Cinema and Wingnut Films Production; New Line. [New Zealand/U.S.A.]". How should I read this? Where should one look? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be more important to mention key personnel than locations and production, given the content of the sources. For another comparison, take a look at the French method for determining which films are French here. They mention creative personnel, production company, language, locations, equipment, and workers. For their purposes, the production company (10%) is half as important as the language of the film (20%). The British use similar standards in determining what makes a film British. We don't lack for sources so we don't have to make things up. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If I may suggest a rough and ready standard, I would say that if the director's nationality or country of residence, the film's language, and the home country of the principal production company are the same, then there's no question about the film's nationality. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, we are going down the road of setting our own criteria. The reality is that AMPAS (an entirely credible body) may not use production companies as a criteria while another may do (the American Film Institute—another credible body—obviously factor it in in some capacity). There is no right and wrong here, just a weighting of criteria. No source in reality trumps another source, at least by our own rules. However the gist of Erik's original comment as I took it, that if these different sources identify one country and only country then essentially there is no problem with identifying that country. The problems only arise when multiple sources start to identify multiple countries, sometimes different countries. In such cases I would prefer to omit the non-singular cases from the lede, and just cover the different national interests later on in the production section. Betty Logan (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)