Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film

Revising the guidance on plot sourcing

This follows on from the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Unsourced_film_plot_on_Wikipedia_article_is_being_called_"Just_utter_made-up_bullshit.".

Wikipedia has hosted a plot summary for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood with a false ending for a couple of months, and since the film's release Wikipedia has been called out on this gross inaccuracy. The general agreement at the discussion is that this scenario should never have happened, and was the result of a misapplication of WP:FILMPLOT i.e. editors considered a brief showing at Cannes as "verifiable" and therefore the plot summary did not require a citation, as the film counts as a primary source and is self-citing.The problem though is that this interpretation of the MOS is inconsistent with WP:Verifiability which states "verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source". Editors and readers were not able to do that in this case.

I propose replacing the following text:

Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary. Exceptions to the rule include upcoming films and "lost" films (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors should use secondary sources.

With the following text:

Provided the film is publicly available in some form somewhere in the world citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary, since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film. An exception to the rule is any film which is not currently available to the public to verify, such as upcoming films (including those that had sneak previews and played briefly at film festivals) and "lost" films, for which editors should use secondary sources.

The bits in bold simply represent my alterations. While we are doing this I think is also worth pointing out that if a film has been released a week early in China (for example) and has not yet had a release in the English-speaking world this should not be used as a pretext for removing the plot (my rationale behind the first alteration). I believe these changes would make the guideline consistent with WP:V and WP:SOURCEACCESS. Betty Logan (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I would reiterate that this is due to V, that there are means for a WP reader to be able to verify the plot by watching the film. Limited screen releases are not sufficient publication to meet this factor of V. --Masem (t) 20:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I like the wording overall. Do we need "briefly" that much or not? It seems like even if a film screens at multiple festivals up through a commercial release, the same general inability to check is there. Feels like it could get nitpicky that more than one festival screening could qualify for contributing a plot summary. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I have scrubbed it, Erik. It is not essential and I agree we don't want people gaming the guideline. Betty Logan (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I think an update is warranted based on this revelation, but for clarity, I would also strike "somewhere in the world" from the proposed text and modify the second statement slightly so it would look something like this:

Provided the film is publicly available in some form, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary, since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film. Exceptions to the rule include films which are not currently available to the public to verify, such as upcoming films (including those that had sneak previews and only played at film festivals) and "lost" films, for which editors should use secondary sources.

Just an idea, of course, but the previous example is fine too; I like where this is going. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yup one of the worst POV parts of Wikipedia.....and is why Wikipedia has many credibility problems when it comes to movie articles. So many pick IMDB first that Google puts IMDB as first search results ....unlike 80 percent of other topics on the net.--Moxy 🍁 21:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• I think in the case of hard-to-obtain or not-yet-available films, we should require secondary sources, and for others, we should still encourage secondary sources. So I like Betty Logan's proposal, but it may not go far enough. —Kusma (t·c) 09:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Hm, I'm not sure it's very clear at the moment. Do we need "in some form"? I also think that we need to link it to the time of editing. A film plot that was publicly verifiable in 2008 may not be now. Also, I find the exception to the rule clause confusing, what we're actually trying to do is illustrate some cases where it isn't publicly available (and therefore verifiable) so I would consider these as more examples rather than exceptions. Suggest the following (apologies if I messed up the bolding indicating changes):

Provided the film is publicly available at the time of editing so that the content can be verified by editors or readers, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary, since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film. For all other cases, secondary editors must use secondary sources, including for upcoming films (including those that had sneak previews and only played at film festivals) and "lost" films, as these would not be considered to be generally available or verifiable.

Scribolt (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

According to #6 of WP:DEADREF, we have to consider the material unverifiable when it's no longer available, which in this case pretty much means we move it from the article to the talk page (a {{cn}} tag wouldn't suffice). So I'm not sure we need the "at the time of editing" bit. I do like your emphasis placed on "must use secondary sources", however, so maybe the suggestion evolves to this:

Provided the film is publicly available, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary, since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film. Secondary sources must be used for all other cases, such as upcoming films (including those that had sneak previews and only played at film festivals) and "lost" films, as these would not be considered generally available or verifiable.

Made a few grammatical changes as well. Thoughts, additional suggestions? --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I think this is the best of the options above, and pretty succinct. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I am happy with GoneIn60's revisions. My concern with the "at the time of editing" amendment is that it potentially enshrines the problem. The counter-argument put forward for leaving the false plot in was that the plot was verifiable when it was written, which is what we are trying to address. I can't imagine there are many films around these days that are publicly available and then not (beyond festivals). If a film has been released on video/DVD or as a download or on some other permanent format then it is permanently available (like an out-of-print book). If a film has a limited theatrical release and then never becomes publicly available in any other form then to all intents and purposes it should require secondary sourcing along the lines of lost films. Betty Logan (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd have argued that it wasn't publicly verifiable at that point anyway, but I agree it doesn't add much value. One last question/suggestion, would it be helpful to specify it must have been released in the first sentence, as opposed to publicly available? Would there be any instances where we would consider that it would be verifiable without a secondary source pre release? If not we could be more specific and avoid arguements as what publicly available means. Not sure though. Scribolt (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Nothing against current language but I think we just need to clarify what a "sneak preview" means via footnote. I want to make sure there's the clear contrast between a film being shown on a limited number of screens and a limited number of showings (eg one or two theater slots) as a sneak preview, and the limited release that many artsy films do in December to qualify their films for that year's Oscars which, despite being limited by number of screens, would still be a public release. Looking this up, it might be worthwhile to make this distinction on the Oscar rules [1] which basically state a release in a commercial theater (in LA for the Oscars, but I don't think that's necessary here) for at least a week with at least 3 showing a day during that week. Again, this is stuff to bury in a footnote but we want to be clear of the distinction here. --Masem (t) 17:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I would say a limited release where the film is basically playing at a single theater for a week and then disappears for several months causes the same problems as a festival showing as far as verifiability goes. For a film to count as "publicly available" I think it needs to play in at least two theaters simultaneously at different locations to distinguish the release from previews and festivals. If it is playing at more than one location simultaneously that usually means it has a distributor that is rolling it out. Betty Logan (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I know most of these December releases that are meant for Oscar qualifications are not just run in LA but typically also NY, so maybe we can say the rough baseline for a public film release would be on at least two different (and in different geographic locations) commercial theaters with public ticket sales for that movie, slated to run multiple showing a day through at least a week. It may be a "limited run", but it is not a "limited screening". I know thta's a lot of detail, but that's again, footnote material and meant to avoid gaming the definition of "public release" as had happened. --Masem (t) 18:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• So, we seem to have arrived at Gone In 60s most recent re-write. It's a large step forward compared to what we currently have so should we get this into the MOS then? I agree with Masem that we probably need to add a footnote defining a "sneak preview" but we can work that out over the next few days. I don't see any point in delaying the main re-write if we are now in agreement. Betty Logan (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems good enough for insertion to me, unless anyone else has any other feedback/suggestions? Now's the time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems good to me too! --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Works for me as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, I am sticking it in. See how it goes. Betty Logan (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully it will help: I just had to revert this [2] on a film not due until April 2020. --Masem (t) 17:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Genres and verification

So...an editor adds neo-noir categories to film articles that have no mention of neo-noir. I remove said categorization per WP:CATV. They point me to a WP list which does have sources, so that's great, but that doesn't satisfy CATV either (the mention needs to be in the article, not a separate list article). They then proceed to add neo-noir into the leads of the film articles, sorta-kinda paving the way for them to re-add the categorization.

I know it would be a massive amount of tedious and annoying work, but this kind of situation makes me increasingly feel like unsourced genres don't belong in the leads for film articles. If they appear elsewhere in the text, that's good at least, but frankly for something like this, while I know it goes against WP:LEAD, I really would prefer the redundancy of requiring sourcing for genres in the lead, if only because they're so volatile.

I'd welcome any thoughts on how this can better be approached by myself and other editors. DonIago (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Genres are a perpetual problem in film articles, probably only second to music articles. If contentious content isn't sourced in the body, it should be sourced in the lead. So, citations for genres are OK, especially once they've been challenged. It's kind of pointless to source them, though, because some IP editor will be around in 30 minutes to revert you and re-add their own preferred genre. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Happens to me a lot as well, source or no source, it doesn't seem to have any impact. However, there's always the option of implementing range blocks and page protection when needed. Sure, they're time-consuming measures, but at least we have something to fight back with. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I should perhaps give this more time for other editors to weigh in, but I guess I'll ask the question now: would there be any interest in amending the MoS to say something like "It is recommended that genres listed for a film be cited to a reliable source to avoid debate over their appropriateness"? We could perhaps mention a couple of sites that are reasonably good for genre classification purposes. DonIago (talk) 03:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

A genre that only has one source supporting it fails UNDUE assuming the other genres are readily sourced particularly to key movie databases. --Masem (t) 04:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Considering most film articles have zero sources for their genres... DonIago (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

This lack of sourcing spills over into categories as well. Per WP:CATVER if the genre isn't sourced in the article then it should not have a corresponding category attached to the article. MarnetteD|Talk 04:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

That absolutely needs to be fixed then. Chose an authorative source (BFI?) and include that as a ref. --Masem (t) 04:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:FILMLEAD already states, "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources". This inherently implies they should be sourced. Are you suggesting we amend that or change it? We need to be mindful of instruction creep and realize MOS:LEADCITE already encourages citations in the lead for situations like this. As such, the latter can be cited when there's an issue.

In practice, disruptive drive-by editors aren't reading the MOS anyway or they're blatantly ignoring it. Need to consider the benefit of a change here in relation to the real-world impact it will have. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Until you place sources in the article to show the weight of either multiple sources or an authorative source, you're going to have repeated genre fighting. I would at least remind editors the genre should be sourced, and the most appropriate sources to source the genre is (short list). --Masem (t) 05:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The bulk of what I run into isn't a disagreement between two editors familiar with editing policies and guidelines. They're drive-by genre warriors only interested in winning. Are you saying there's a lot of fighting over the type of source cited? I haven't seen a whole lot of that, but maybe I'm just oblivious. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying they're fighting over sources, but when an editor blazes through to add a genre based on one source that is not the usual place that one derives a genre from, that's a problem. If alternate genres are to be considered, that's a body of the article discussion, ala whether Die Hard is a Christmas movie. The genre presented in the lede and infobox should be the one that is apparent if one reviews all sources or reliable databases on the film. --Masem (t) 13:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I'd be willing to pull unsourced genres out of the leads of film articles, citing MOS:LEADCITE. But if I was going to start getting aggressive about that, I'd want a sense that other editors would support that change to my editing 'protocols'. One could somewhat reasonably argue that anyone who wants to know more about a film's genres can just read the plot summary anyhow. Put another way, what is the listing of genres effectively accomplishing that isn't at least implied via the rest of the article? DonIago (talk) 06:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

If the category falls into the WP:OR side of the house, you could go down the route of WP:CFD, per the recent example for art films. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that different articles may call for different approaches at different times. Early on, a film article may avoid inline citations in the lead as long as there's a reference for it somewhere in the body. As problems are identified, a citation may end up in the lead. In other cases, the big three (AllMovie, AFI and BFI) may not list the genre, and unsourced genre claims begin appearing in the lead. You may swiftly remove citing MOS:LEADCITE and WP:V, or you may decide to delay removal and add a {{cn}} tag first allowing some time for a citation to be added. Whatever the case may be, the point is that the preference is going to depend on the editor, the history of disruption, and sometimes even the stage of development that the article is in. Makes it difficult to support a hard and fast rule that says if A then do B. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you think we could get away with a statement like, "It is considered best practice to cite any genre in the lead or infobox to site X, Y or Z"? I.e. make it a strong recommendation but not a requirement? DonIago (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

For me, personally, I think FILMLEAD is plenty long as it is, but I wouldn't be entirely opposed to maybe adding "(such as AFI, BFI, or AllMovie)" at the end of the genre classification statement. I don't think it's absolutely necessary though, and I would lean against a "strong recommendation" for the fact that MOS:LEADCITE already tells us citations in the lead are not a requirement by default. Each article should be handled on a case-by-case basis. So anything we add would need to ensure it's not interpreted as a contradiction to the main MOS LEAD guideline. My 2¢. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Per WP:FILMLEAD only the primary genre or sub-genre should be placed in the lead, and "neo-noir" is never going to fall into that category. It should be moved from the lead. I came across one of these edits yesterday, and not wanting to remove sourced content from the article I moved the sentence to the "themes and analysis" section":[3]. If you search hard enough you can probably come up with a dozen genres. We only want the primary genre or sub-genre in the lead (e.g. comedy, or romantic-comedy). I think in most cases this is obvious to most editors. However, if there is a dispute over genres sourcing doesn't always resolve the issue because both opposing positions can be sourced. In these cases I always take it to the talk page and argue my position in conjunction with WP:WEIGHT. In this particular case I felt uncomfortable removing sourced content from the article so I relegated it to a less prominent place in the body. The other option is to simply remove the claim and add a link to List of neo-noir titles in the "see also" section if the film is sourced and included on the list. As for the category I consider "neo-noir" a fringe genre (unless of course it is the only label that is used to describe the work) and as such fails WP:CATDEF. My recommendation would be to delete the category per Lugnuts if it cannot be demonstrated it is defining. Betty Logan (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• As a non-expert in film genres, where do I go to determine whether or not a film's listed genres are the primary genre or sub-genre though? Do we have an equivalent to List of film genres? ...oh, it seems we do, after a fashion. But I don't think that article makes it clear which genres would be considered lead-appropriate either. DonIago (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

  The AFI is a good place to start. If there isn't an entry then Allmovie has comprehensive genre classification. If it is more complicated than that you need to start looking at the trade press and books etc. Jaws is an example that springs to mind because it is a genre mash and we use an academic source for that. Betty Logan (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Genre cites can be in the infobox, they do not per LEADCITE need to be in the lede prose. There should be 1:1 agreement between the infobox and lede, of course, but as long as its there in the infobox, I would consider that sufficient to be WP:V. --Masem (t) 13:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• I'm fine with checking for infobox correlation and cites in one location and/or the other (I'm not going to insist upon both). It gets a little murkier but hardly impossible to check whether the genre's listed elsewhere in the article (say, a reviewer calling a film a sci-fi film). DonIago (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Genres are not included in the infobox and the only place they are mentioned is in the lead. However, not every single claim has to be cited on Wikipedia, it just has to be verifiable. Usually in a well sourced article there will be sources that refer to the genre of the film, so the genre is still often sourced even if it is not explicitly cited. I question whether we need to explicitly cite that The Exorcist is a horror movie, or Die Hard is an action film, although if editors want to start adding citations to that effect I have no problems with that, but I would be against removing genre simply on the grounds they are uncited, especially if there are existing sources in the article that mention the genre. And anyway, sourcing doesn't often resolve the issue because these disputes arise when a film is not easy to categorise. Betty Logan (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm speaking at this as a semi-outsider (I work on some film articles but I'm not intense into them) and I can absolutely see there is a long-standing problem with genre creep (3+ genre types added) and editors trying to POV-push a genre (or remove a genre) on the basis of one or two articles. I wasnt' aware (or perhaps never paid attention to) the lack of genre in the film infobox but knowing that that can draw a lot of noise, maybe that is a good thing.

I know MOS:FILM has wording to keep genre count to two, but maybe there just needs to be something that says "these genres should be patently obvious to a non-film buff, and thus should not need to be sourced. Any non-obvious genres that are discussed in secondary sources can be mentioned in the body of the article, just as under "Themes" or "Reception."" This would be a section to point to as a basis to remove, for example, the "neo-noir" that's been added to the lede recent, with a simple edit summary like "See MOS:FILMLEAD" or something. If there is debate on this on specific films, then that should be a talk page to decide what to specifically. Key points that I think should be added is that the lede should not be for an obscure genre, and I would actually agree with the idea of creating a list of what are acceptable genres to be used in the lede, with IAR exception to go off that list. You can expand the MOS to be more exacting and set out the reasons for why we don't want genre-kudzu in the lede. --Masem (t) 16:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Still at it

The same editor is now adding "supernatural horror films" (and other cats as well) to articles without sourced info to support the genre. Near as I can tell they are adding it to any film designated as a horror film. They have added the cat to 100's of films today using hotcat so there may be a WP:CIR probelm with the use of that tool. MarnetteD|Talk 18:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I just looked at their Talk page, and that's ridiculous, especially given the number of editors who've advised them that there were issues with their use of categories. I also encouraged them to participate in the discussion here and they opted not to do so. It may be time to consider stronger measures to prevent further disruption. DonIago (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, they were blocked for 31 hours, though that doesn't really address the original thread on a more general level. I think I have what I personally need to go forward, though I still think it's worth considering whether this merits a revision to the MoS. I'm not going to poke this bear any further unless other editors do, though. DonIago (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Often, these are drive-by editors who aren't reading the MOS, don't know it exists, or are ignoring it. The hard part is finding the right balance between having too little instruction in the MOS versus having too much, with the goal of avoiding WP:CREEP. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

In general you are correct but, as Doniago mentions, this specific editor has several messages on their talk page including ones they have deleted about this subject. Doniago also left them an invite to post at this thread and chose to not participate. MarnetteD|Talk 08:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

MarnetteD, I get that. My comment addresses the idea of revising the MOS and the impact that would have on this behavior. I don't believe it would have much of one in general, especially in cases like this one where the editor is ignoring pleas from others. The MOS, on the other hand, is geared more for editors who are here for the right reasons, willing to engage in discussion and follow policies, guidelines, and best practices. The impact of a revision should be a key factor in any discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Current discussion

Talk:Midsommar (film)#Genre may be of interest to those who have an investment in this discussion. We've only just started talking, but I would note that the editor I'm working with mentioned that they don't believe Allmovie is a reliable source for genres, which seems at odds with what was said above. I'd specifically be curious to hear opinions on whether "folk horror" is a legitimate/desirable genre (or possibly blend of genres). I've linked that editor to this thread as well. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

In our discussion, I said that the genres on AllMovie.com appear to be user-generated and that the site is not considered generally reliable on WP:RSP. Given the apparent user-generated synopsis [4], I do not have a reason to believe that the genres are not also user-generated. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The reliability of AllMovie depends on the time period when the content was created. It's generally reliable until 2003-2004. Then All-Media Guide (which AllMovie is part of) changed owners multiple times, and a few key editors left. Not sure who determines AllMovie's editorial policy now and how. Philburmc (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Good to know; I'll keep that in mind going forward. Apologies Wally, I somehow missed your response a few days back, though I think we have Midsommar resolved at this point. DonIago (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Doniago, I appreciate you letting me know about this discussion. I have seen this same issue a lot, including the "supernatural horror" changes, and I guess it is just a never-ending hassle. It seems like the best way to respond is to revert and ask for a source for genre additions that are not clearly appropriate or go beyond one or two main genres or subgenres, and the admins can help with blocking editors who receive multiple warnings and do not engage in discussion. If anyone has a better way to go about doing this, let me know. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Addition to FILM plot length for franchise pages

This may be more premptive than needed but I would suggest adding the same type of advice that MOS:TV has for the plot description of a film on the film series' overall page, that is, the plot per firm should be 100 words or less, thus to help a reader get the right film quickly. For example, something that Bill & Ted does. Further that these descriptions should NOT be the exact same as copyrighted premises, for obvious reasons. --Masem (t) 22:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

That sounds sensible as a top limit. Readers can go to the individual movies' pages for detailed plots. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I concur.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't undertand what this is about. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should FILMMOS use existing Rotten Tomatoes, Box Office Mojo and Metacritic templates for footnotes? --14:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Our templates, used widely in External links, do not italicize RT, BOM and MC, which agrees with their prose use.
  • Frozen at Box Office Mojo
  • Frozen at Metacritic
  • Frozen at Rotten Tomatoes

But the References template {{cite web}} italicizes the "website=" field, resulting in RT, BOM and MC being italicized, which they normally are not.

This template is not required: WP:CITESTYLE specifically states, "Wikipedia does not [emphasis added] have a single house style" and to use common sense. RT, BOM and MC are not normally italicized, and the Chicago Manual of Style, for instance, does not italicize organization names.

Since we already have RT/BOM/MC templates, I suggest FILMMOS include the guideline that we use them when footnoting. This keeps consistent how we treat RM, BOM and MC in prose & EL and how we treat them in References.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Not sure what is being said here...but I do like the fact the the slanted text gives further indication to our readers they are external links.--Moxy 🍁 15:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  RE: "Not sure what is being said here" — I'm suggesting that for consistency, we use our RT/BOM/MC templates when footnoting and not just in EL. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• If you are using cite web, use |publisher= over |website= which will not be italicized. The recent mess of the citation template change was reverted to stop making "website" required in cite web, so that these differences in house style can work. --Masem (t) 15:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  Except when anyone does that, editors invariably change it and say, "No, Fandango is the publisher, RT is just the website". And that recent citation template change — which you rightly call a mess — orders that the website field always be italicized, essentially imposing a house style.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure what the question is actually asking. Could an editor use the template in the footnotes - sure why not. But should the use be mandated/required rather than using a different template or handish variant - hell no. We don't need another front in the endless citation/source format wars and waste editor resources to change content from one version to another.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  Actually, we agree — that's exactly what I hope to avoid by urging consistency (and not "mandated/required" but just an MOS guideline). --Tenebrae (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  Actually if I'm reading you correctly, we may not agree at all. First of all in practice style guides are pretty much mandatory hence I'd oppose suggesting a particular option in our film style guide (film MOS). While I believe that a very basic unified look and consistency is needed throughout wikipedia, I don't believe or support that for more than those very basic aspects and I see format details of references outside those very basic things. Consistency within a single article is already handled by the current general MOS, but consistency of the format for those film sites in references throughout all film related articles and somewhat in contradiction to general MOS is something I would not support at all.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I think there are two potential problems with what you are proposing, Tenebrae. We cannot reasonably ask editors to not use the citation templates, because 99.9% of editors and then some will just use the template anyway. I don't see how it is enforceable in any practical sense. The external link templates follow a different format to citations so they are not seemlessly interchangeable either. Also, another problem is that while WP:CITESTYLE does not mandate a "house" style it does mandate internal consistency. So if the citation template is used for all the other citations then it arguably should be used for RT/BOM too. Masem's suggestion of using the "publisher" parameter rather than the "website" parameter seems to be a more elegant solution. There is probably a wider debate to be had over what should or should not be italicised anyway, but either way italicisation can (and should) be accommodated by the citation templates. What should and shouldn't be italicised should be made crystal clear in the MOS; its purpose is to advocate for style, not technical hacks. Betty Logan (talk) 16:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  If that's possible, then I agree wholeheartedly with you and Masem that just using "publisher=" for RT/BOM/MC would provide consistency and follow common usage for those sites without getting into larger footnote-style discussions or other lengthy MOS issues. I hadn't suggested it since I honestly thought using our existing templates wouldn't have been controversial. So what do we think? Should we reword this RfC to suggest FILMMOS put RT/BOM/MC as publisher? Because it really doesn't matter who those sites' parent companies are; the ownership doesn't change their factual / statistical information.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you mean by using them as footnotes. You mean as External links entries? Or references? RT, BOM, and MC at the present are not italicized websites so they are not works of art or artifice like a magazine. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: "the Chicago Manual of Style, for instance, does not italicize organization names." -- Except that these are not organizations. They are website-only publications and as such should be treated the same as other publications. The "publisher" is the owner of the publication, and in this case the website/s. The names of websites should be italicized; and the RT, BOM, M templates reserved for use in External links. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 03:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• No. Those templates are for use in the external links section. That's why they support Wikidata. Using them just because you don't like {{cite xxx}} italicizing the website name is ludicrous. Nardog (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  I think "ludicrous" may be overstating it. Let's say you have two studios, one of them owned by a parent company. Though citations from both amount to the same thing, one studio will be italicized in a footnote and the other not:

  • "About Us", Warner Bros. Retrieved on February 31, 2020. (using "website=")
  • About Us", New Line Cinema. Warner Bros. . Retrieved on February 31, 2020. (using "website=", "publisher=")

  That, I believe, is what may be ludicrous. In any event, it's not a matter of personal like — it's a matter of what does Wikipedia gain by using an eccentric footnoting style for databases/aggregators like RT, BOM and MC, which in the vast bulk of real-world citations are not italicized. WP:CITESTYLE says we're supposed to use common sense. That's all I'm advocating for. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  Though your concern is understandable, repurposing the external link templates is definitely not the way to go. For what it's worth, the RfC at WT:CS1 opened in May favored the italicization. If we allowed this only in FILMMOS that may be tantamount to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. WP:CITESTYLE states, in the same sentence you quoted, citations within any given article should follow a consistent style. So if we used those templates for citation yet the same articles also used {{cite xxx}} elsewhere, we would be creating more inconsistency, not less.

  As for your examples, I would simply use |publisher= instead of |website=. An alternative is to opt for |author= and put the domain name as a stand-in in |website=, which some people seem to prefer. Nardog (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

As you suggest, I would love to see us use the non-italicized |publisher= for RT, BOM and MC, since that would be in line with virtually every other footnoting format in the world. And in keeping with a concern raised here, that indeed would be consistent with ever other publisher cited in a film article. Thoughts?--Tenebrae (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, that RfC was solely about a change to CS1, specifically "cite web". It doesn't override Wikipedia allowing us to use appropriate existing footnoting such as Chicago Manual of Style, ALA or MLA. Wikipedia does not have one house style we're all required to use. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I was involved in that RfC, and one of the major points on which consensus was reached is that we are not required to use the "website=" field in "cite web." We are perfectly allowed within the guideline to use only the "publisher=" field. We can achieve the same result as the stated point of this RfC by having our guideline by that we use only the "publisher=" field for RT, BON and MC.--Tenebrae (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Alternative proposal based on discussion above

Multiple editors addressing the substance of the question rather than the specific means of execution have suggested an alternative.

As User:Masem notes, "If you are using cite web, use |publisher= over |website= which will not be italicized. The recent mess of the citation template change was reverted to stop making 'website' required in cite web...." User:Betty Logan concurs that, "Masem's suggestion of using the 'publisher' parameter rather than the 'website' parameter seems to be a more elegant solution." And User:Nardog notes that, "As for your examples" of when the MOS' allowance for common sense may be needed, "I would simply use |publisher= instead of |website=." I would additionally note we are not required to give parent companies in footnotes.

So for consistency with how RT, BOM and MC have been generally presented in WikiProject film footnotes, and in real life, should FILMMOS guidelines suggest we use |publisher= for these citing these three entities?--Tenebrae (talk) 11:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Still no. A MOS can't police what parameters editors use any more strictly than WP:CITE and H:CS1 etc. already do. As I said, if we made such a rule that only affects those websites, it would create inconsistent use of those parameters within each article, which would run counter to WP:CITESTYLE. If we applied it universally, it would also be in opposition to CITESTYLE as it would be prescribing a certain style. And even if we applied it to articles that use CS1 only, it would be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS as CS1 proscribes use of |publisher= instead of |website= just for the sake of avoiding the italicization.

  Also, you're twisting my words. [Y]our examples for which I said I would simply use |publisher= instead of |website= are the ones you gave above, i.e. |publisher=[[Warner Bros.]] and |publisher=[[New Line Cinema]] instead of |website=[[Warner Bros.]] and |website=[[New Line Cinema]]. I would (and do) use |website= or |work= for Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, Box Office Mojo, etc. Nardog (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  I didn't twist your words, certainly not intentionally. The example I gave is directly analogous to RT, BOM and MT. In neither case does it make sense, to me, to italicize the very same entity in one instance on the page and not in other instances. That is the soul of inconsistency, and I'm not sure why we're placing an arbitrary choice above common sense.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Warner Bros. and New Line Cinema are nowhere near analogous to RT, MC, and BOM, as the former are merely companies. They may have their own websites, but running them is not their primary business. It is possible to regard e.g. Rotten Tomatoes as the publisher of the website Rotten Tomatoes and use |publisher=Rotten Tomatoes instead of |website=Rotten Tomatoes, but then it wouldn't be consistent if the article didn't also use |publisher=Collider, |publisher=ComingSoon.net, and what have you. CITESTYLE talks about the consistency between each citation in a given article, which your proposal would undermine. It's not about consistency between a citation and the rest of the page—for one, external links are allowed in citations but not in the body. Nardog (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

My feeling is that RT, etc. are the publishers of the information. Putting RT, etc. in the publisher field would then not only be consistent with its mentions elsewhere on the page but also with other websites such as ComingSoon.net.

Think of it this way: Right now, we list ComingSoon.net as publisher, non-ital. Suppose Warner Bros. buys it. All of a sudden we make it ital? No ... because we're not required to list parent companies and we're allowed to use common sense. What are your thoughts re: this ComingSoon.net example?--Tenebrae (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that Warner Bros. buying ComingSoon.net scenario would affect anything. If ComingSoon.net was cited using |publisher=, it would stay the same. If it was cited using |website=, it would stay the same. Nardog (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Wait, why do we list ComingSoon.net as publisher? It is a website and it is owned by CraveOnline as far as I know. El Millo (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but Tenebrae is insisting on using |publisher= for it (and other websites) because we don't use italics for websites in the body of articles. Nardog (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

What is your reasoning behind ComingSoon specifically, Tenebrae? El Millo (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I was simply using an example Nardog gave, since I normally see ComingSoon.net not italicized in articles including List of American films of 2014, 2015, etc. But we can use any other example. (And, frankly, that site is magazine-format and not a database or aggregator so we should be using "cite news" and listing it as Coming Soon, but that's a separate issue.) The point is, RT etc. are not normally italicized in any mainstream footnoting style. And since we're not required to use the italicized "website=" field and not required to list a parent company, that means we are allowed discretion to use common sense. If we weren't supposed to use that discretion, why give it to us? Because right now, it's like we have a citation template that turns decades like "the 1950s" and "the 1990s" incorrectly into "the 1950's" and "the 1990's" and we're saying, "Well, we have to say it that way because the template says so." You can see how a professional journalist and editor would look at that and think it's eccentric.

In any case, I've just thought of a compromise solution that I think addresses both sides' issues. We don't have to put RT, BOM and MC in footnotes at all, actually, if we list them under External links — which we do often enough that we even have templates for it. Anything attributed to RT etc. in the article body remains clearly sourced. It's similar to how we don't necessarily footnote every single movie/TV credit in an actor's article since we have IMDb in External Links.

What do my fellow editors think of this as a reasonable compromise? --Tenebrae (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

It's been a couple days without comment, and I'm hoping it's not because my fellow editors are taking a hard-line, no-compromise, one-way-or-nothing stance. Wikipedia works on consensus and compromise, and in my heart I don't believe any of my colleagues are so personally wedded to an eccentric footnote style that they wouldn't even consider a middle-ground solution. C'mon, my friends, with whom I've edited and discussed things in this Project for years. Talk to me. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

We don't have to put RT, BOM and MC in footnotes at all, actually, if we list them under External links That is the worst proposal to come from you so far, I'm afraid. The text–source integrity is more important than and independent of WP:EL.

I sympathize with where you're coming from—I too have found the differing styles in body and citations somewhat bothersome. But I also found some arguments for it in the WT:CS1 RfC compelling. If you need to convince any group of editors in order to realize what you're seeking, it is not MOSFILM or WP:FILM, but one much bigger. I think you're approaching this from the wrong angle. Nardog (talk) 05:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

WT:CS1 RfC is where this started, and that page attracts programmers, not editors, journalists and academics. Let's say the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration posts a page titled "Ocean Currents 101." The NOAA is the publisher. But these programmers say "The webpage of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is like a magazine or newspaper, so it's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration." That's conflating the source of the information with the delivery system — calling the publisher a magazine/newspaper. Any professional editor would be aghast at that inane claim that goes against every mainstream, commonly used footnote style, in which organizations are not italicized in either prose or footnote. Saying organizations are not italic in prose but are italic in footnotes is additionally inconsistent since magazines and newspapers are italicized in both places.

But because programmers aren't editors, I feel like a climatologist trying to explain global warming to Trumpers. It's impossible.

As for footnote consistency, there is no reason for us to italicize any organization in footnotes. The American Film Institute should not be italicized. Sears should not be italicized. It's not like RT, BOM and MC should be the only ones not italicized.

Would someone tell me, please, what is this obsession with an eccentric footnote style that is factually inaccurate in italicizing organizations that are not italicized? What does it gain us to be eccentric and inaccurate? Why is that so important for anyone? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I still don't get the need to additionally regulare anything. As far as I'm concerned the current MOS/citation regulation is fine and i certainly don't want yet another one.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Italicizing the names of organizations is something eccentric done in no mainstream footnoting style, such as Chicago Manual of Style, ALA or MLA.

Let's say a Wikipedia coder created a bot that changes "its" (as in "the dog scratched its head") to "it's," and convinced just over half the people at at RfC that we should do it this way. You can see why a professional journalist and editor would ask, "Why would we do that? Why be deliberately eccentric and inaccurate?"

And, yes, inaccurate: We're now writing National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as if if were the magazine National Geographic — which it is not. Why would we want to deliberately mislead readers that there's a magazine called National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration? Wikipedia policy and MOS both tell us to use common sense. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Tenebrae, I wasn't avoiding you but I have just had possibly the most manic week of my life. Anyway, first off, let me say I agree with your underlying logic driving this discussion but I have to say I don't believe you have hit upon a viable solution as yet. While everything from Box Office Mojo in an article is sourced if there is a link to it in the external links section, it will not be clear which claims come from BOM and which ones do not. As such we would end up with citation tags added, content pulled for being uncited and perhaps false claims left in because editors believe it is cited. I accept your argument that a self-publishing website is a publisher: any website that represents itself rather than another company should not be italicised IMO. But I think you are tackling this problem too far down the food chain. This citation anomaly affects more than our three regular websites and it needs to be tackled at MOS level. If it's not tackled top down we are going to end up with citation style inconsistencies all over the place. I would support the MOS taking a firm position on the italicisation/non-italisation of self-publishing website, but this really means recognising the distinction between websites that are publishers and websites that are publications. Trying to hack the problem at Film project level isn't viable IMO, but trying to solve it at MOS is and I would hope members of the Film project who agree with your position would support you. Betty Logan (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. The RfC wording might have been too specific, since it's the "why" of italics/non-italics rather than the "how" which is salient. I do think WP:FILM is free to give MOS guidance on RT, BOM & MC cites, since we want consistency and editors are not required to use the "website=" field and not required to list parent companies. But maybe as proposer I should withdraw this RfC and come back to it after getting some higher MOS decision. Anyone have thoughts on this? --Tenebrae (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2019 in film

The Rfc ruling with the format change of 2019 in film that was proposed by DeluxeVegan has took away the meaning of year in film articles with the new format that only shows lists of certain country films, which totally doesn't solve WP:WORLDVIEW and the new format just makes things more complicated when you have to click on the list of certain country films rather than browse down on the films that was released in year of 2019, which year of films was meant to be for, not about the list of certain country films. There should be a better way for this while keeping the previous format intact and have it also met WP:WORLDVIEW. Size of the old format should not matter since that was the meaning of the year in film articles stands for. The new format takes that away. We should find ways to bring the old format back while trying to find ways to have it meant with WP:WORLDVIEW. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

We need to discuss the proper Rfc discussion on how to bring the old format used in 2019 in film back while trying to find a way to have to met with WP:WORLDVIEW. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with what is being requested and talked about. Could you link to the RfC so I can see the discussion?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Bignole here is the RFC Talk:2019 in film#Request for comment. The threads that come after it are also about the changes. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 15:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The new changes of format take away the meaning of year in film articles. The new format means nothing to the year in film articles with list of certain country films. The old format has that meaning, so we should find the way to bring the old format and have it met with WP:WORLDVIEW. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't really frequent "in film" pages, what was the old format? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: This is the old format of 2019 in film. This is the new format that was discussed in the Rfc. DWB, this format takes away the meaning of year in film articles since year in film articles are supposed to have list films that have released this year, not with the list of certain country films as seen in the new format. This does not help with WP:WORLDVIEW. So we need to find a a away to bring the old format back and have it met with WP:WORLDVIEW. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

So they're removed the list of release dates? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: Yes, they removed the table of films and release dates of them. You can the differences in this section of 2018 in film and the current format of 2019 in film, if you like. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Please correct me if my understanding is wrong. It appears that the change is that 2019 in film (and subsequent other, similar pages) instead of listing every film released in 2019 on that page (which I'm gathering was primarily American films), they decided to link to each country's "2019 in film for this country" page. I don't inherently see a problem with this, because I think listing every film in 2019 on the same page would be unnecessarily long and hard to navigate. Are you asking for a new discussion that will circumvent the RfC? If you think it is not the best format, then you'd have to start a new RfC on that page. I don't know if this fundamentally changes the "Year in film" setup. The difference is that now "Year in film" serves as a central hub for each countries' year of films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bignole: It is not the best format. It should not be the central hub of each countries' year in films. The whole setup for it is not what year in film article stands for. It is meant to list of films that were released this year, not by central hub of list of years in films by specific countries. It would be better to bring back the original format and find a way to have it met with WP:WORLDVIEW. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• For those interested, see discussion above. DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan:, I would say it was always a central hub for that though, just set up differently. I don't see a problem, but clearly you do. Pages changes, that happen. When you said you want to bring back the "old way" are you referring to bringing back the page exactly the way it was, which was highly American-centric? If you want to use the old format, but include every film from 2019, then you have a different problem. The table you're using is sortable, and you're talking about (according to the numbers in Category:2019 films) almost 1700 films. The moment you tried to load the page, or god forbid you tried to sort the table, you're going to cause most people's phones, tablets, laptops, etc. to come to a grinding halt. I think that's why, in the interest of "WORLDVIEW" it was decided that linking to each country's respective lists would more ideal for searching purposes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bignole: The way I see it and the things you mentioned, I think it should have a collapsible table with the films released this year with each month or each three month period as sub-sections with "Country" table with them, instead of that list of countries. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Collapsing the table only hides it visually, it doesn't hide the code. The code it still there and has to be processed. You still have to load 1700 entries, and even if you break it down across 12 tables (one for each month), you're still talking 140 entries per table. All I'm saying is that sometimes, logistically, we just cannot do what we want to do and have to make concessions because of technology, because of other mediums (remember, we do provide other versions of this encyclopedia), because of sometimes just browser restrictions (e.g., making sure that it's accessible in all browsers).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It's still preferable. We should set up a better meaning of year in film articles. That we need to list of films that were released this year because that's the meaning of year in film articles. That we have to find some better solutions that will maintain the old format and find a way to have it met with WP:WORLDVIEW. I will not accept the new format with the list of films of certain countries in year in film articles, everyone. Not I. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The phrase "people in Hell want ice water" is typically used to convey that we don't always get what we want. You can dislike the new format, that's fine. Sometimes, personal preference doesn't win out. Otherwise, some people would have Wikipedia looking very differently than it does now. I'm sorry that it bothers you so much, but at the end of the day that's the new format. You don't have to like it to comply with it, and if the statement "I will not accept the new format" implies that you are going to sabotage, undermine, or become overall disruptive to those pages then I would advice against that. You'll end up blocked (or banned) and the page will remain the same. Give it some time. If you still feel the same way in a couple of months, then start a new discussion on one of the "Year in film" pages. Consensus can change.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

New proposal idea

I'm planning to set up a new proposal for 2019 in film to bring back the old format while trying to find a way to have it met with WP:WORLDWIDE. What DeluxeVegan proposed for it was totally unnecessary and really messed up the meaning of year in film articles. What year in films articles are about which films were released in that certain year, the births and deaths of notable film stars, directors, producers and such, the ‎accolades that involved those films in these years and the highest box office results of that particular years. Readers have a right to know which films that were released in those years in that old format. How long the pages deemed irrelevant because readers have a right to scroll down to know which films came out in those years. When DeluxeVegan made that proposal, it took away the meaning of the year in film articles and replaced with the list of certain country films, which doesn't meet the criteria of what year in film articles for door. How long the pages are is deemed irrelevant and is not be considered because the old format has the meaning of year in film articles.

We need to find a way to restore the old format while trying to find a way to have it met with WP:WORLDWIDE. We need ideas to bring the old format back while maintaining to have it met with WP:WORLDWIDE. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Ideas to bring back the original format that started on 2019 in film

I may have one possible idea to bring the old format that was in 2019 in film back while trying to meet up with WORLDVIEW criteria. What about using some tabbers for American, British, Bollywood, Chinese and few essential countries to arrange them so that? Click on the tabbers of those countries so the readers can go over them with the original format of the year in film articles while having it met with WORLDVIEW. Why can we do that? BattleshipMan (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Order of accolades

How should a table of accolades be ordered? Alphabetically or by date? El Millo (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I would go A-Z by award/festival. I don't think the date is that helpful for the average reader. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree, but just to add, if the article in question is a franchise or a film series, then order by year first, then award/festival, as in these cases the year (date) does have significance. --Gonnym (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree in general with organizing "by award", esp. for smaller 'Awards' tables – "by year" (which is many cases is effectively by project (e.g. film)) makes more sense in those cases. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

On a personal level, I like the layout at The Hunt, ordered by award, but also sortable by date. Maybe that's the solution. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The thing is that the sorting never works right for dates, at least for dates written in plain letters. I would prefer to order awards by the date of the ceremony, but also sortable by award. El Millo (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Dates are indiscriminate details. I see no reason for them to be included in such tables. When a film gets a lot of awards, that is evident from the size of the table. Prose can be used to describe awards momentum where applicable. Not listing dates in every single instance to imply that the precise timeline matters. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Actors names in plot section?

Hi, does the community have an attitude about whether or not actor names belong in the plot section like:

"After hearing the prophecy of the deliverer, Pharaoh Rameses I of Egypt (Ian Keith) orders the death of all newborn Hebrew males."

If so, could we get that clarified in the MOS, please? I recently saw MarnetteD remove these in good faith only to have them immediately returned and I've seen this sort of thing bunches of times. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

This is one of our most ancient conflicts... I feel like we have had a discussion here and there but never truly resolved it, considering the lack of MOS clarification. I see arguments either way. Honestly, if you can, avoid writing plot summaries. It's near-guaranteed that whatever you try to write for a plot section, actors' names or no, it will be completely rewritten by someone else in the near future. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Erik is correct that this has gone on for years. At one point the decision seemed to be to include them and then sometime in the last few years removal was preferred. As usually happens nothing was decided about changing WP:MOSFILM. Cast lists exist in the infobox (partial) and in the cast section - thus to list them again in the plot section is a waste of space IMO. I would be all for a WP:RFC to make a final decision but that is just me. MarnetteD|Talk 17:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I insist actor names are included in the plot, but only for Kind Hearts and Coronets and Raising Cain. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

IIRC, most recent consensus was to exclude them from plot summaries. I'd support amending the MOS if we still agree on that, as, yes, it does keep coming up. Popcornduff (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

If there is a cast section I find them redundant. Some editors like to include them, I think, because knowing the actors' names provides a visual reference. My problem with this is that it depends on specialist knowledge. Most films are not big Hollywood films with recognizable actors. Also, such references date (somebody brought up on Harry Potter may not recognize Ingrid Bergman) and often they are culturally-centric (someone American may not recognize Aamir Khan). So on that basis I would prefer to omit names from the plot summaries, but that said it is low down my list of priorities. Betty Logan (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Betty that if the principal cast are listed elsewhere then there's little reason to list them in Plot, and that it's essentially a waste of space. As a practical matter, I won't typically remove them unless they've been added as a new edit or I'm doing other work on the Plot section. DonIago (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

One of the many discussions on this came to the conclusion that actor names should not be duplicated in both the plot summary and in a cast list. In other words, pick one or the other and stick with it for that article. That seems the most reasonable way to do things. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh god here we go again. Daß Wölf 13:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Actor's name in plot sections can help visualize readers at times. Also, actors in plot sections shouldn't count with the word count in plot summaries. We all have been disputing about that for years and it won't make a difference anyway. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I prefer that they are left out and are instead put in a Cast section. They also bloat the plot section, which is a pain when it comes to those adhering to a strict application of WP:Film plot. Editors shouldn't be focused on actor names in the plot when it comes to trying to keep the plot summary word count at a limit. Like others have stated, this topic has been debated time and time again. I don't see that we need yet another debate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The advice should be to generally leave them out, unless there is a good meta-level reason to include them: eg, a case where like in Ocean's 12, we have Julia Roberts' character role-playing as Julia Roberts, though it may not always be necessary in such cases. As others have said, cast names clutter the plot, and ideally, a good lede section should make clear who the starring actors are going as in the film to prep for the plot section, if that is a concern. It gets bad when cast names are being applied to all the minor characters in a film, and that's where it gets messy. --Masem (t) 18:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

If there is near universal consensus for keeping cast names out of the plot section when they are already provided elsewhere, I think that would be useful to add to the MOS. Although I think there are a few articles that would do better without a cast section (e.g., The Lighthouse), those seems like rare exceptions. MOS guidance is very useful for other editors who do not have all the experience and knowledge as many of those posting above about past discussions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the names provide a useful reference if you're familiar with the actors or simply have some desire to keep up with who played who without having to scroll back and forth and/or remember a dozen actors at once, and I don't think the clutter/redundancy argument overrules this. The practice clearly serves a purpose to some people, as it's not something we've invented on Wikipedia. Nor is it the only redundant element on the page -- even ignoring the plot, the main cast is mentioned in the lead, in the infobox and then likely also in various Casting/Filming/Production sections etc. We tolerate these redundancies because each serves a purpose to different readers, so certainly we can tolerate this one too. As for the argument that they take up a part of the 700 words, that's laughable. When trimming long plots, the 10-15 words that these parentheses take up are the difference between 1-2 verbose and concise sentences. No article is ever going to lose a plot point there. Daß Wölf 19:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

Theres a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Directors in an Actors Filmography about opposing the addition of Directors in an Actors filmography and including something in WP:FILMMOS about it if anyone would like to weigh in. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

We should not be italicizing RT, MC and BOM

(Discussion ported over from one specific movie's page to this wider forum)

I've been involved in the CS1 debate for months, and one thing that came out of it is: We are not required in "cite web" to use "website=" and we are not required to list parent companies under "publisher=". We're not even required to use a cite template at all.

No mainstream footnoting style, not AP, not Chicago Manual of Style, not MLA, italicizes Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic or Box Office Mojo in footnoting. Yet we have at least one editor here who insists they be italicized even though there is no requirement that they be italicized. Contrary to an edit-summary claim, Template:Cite web does not require it. And "Cite web" isn't even MOS but just a template — MOS certainly doesn't require it.

I'm calling for a discussion on this talk so we can actually talk about the pros and cons of italicizing vs. not doing so. There is no compelling reason to use a non-mainstream footnoting style that makes Wikipedia look eccentric — no reason to italicize company names like Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Box Office Mojo. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Either way, we should arrive at a clear consensus. Either we italicize them —Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Box Office Mojo— or we don't. The usage I've seen employed recently is to italicize them and include, particularly with RT and MC, the parent companies under "publisher", so I keep doing that. The same way we aren't required to do it, we aren't required not to do it. I would suggest we start the discussion on the Manual of Style/Film talk page. El Millo (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion has been moved here.

El Millo and I agree some consensus should be reached.

I would respond to "we aren't required to not do it" by saying that italicizing things that aren't italicized in other footnoting styles presents no benefit, and simply makes Wikipedia looks eccentric. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'd argue that we should not italicize company names, but that that we should italicize the names of websites. Websites, like journals, books, movies, etc. are major works and should be italicized. For now, on Wikipedia, I'd only advocate for doing so in references. It makes sense that when looking at a series of references that the name of the sources should be consistently italicized. SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes, Box Mojo and Metacritic are company names. And they're not italicized anywhere else. It also sounds as if you're arguing for a house style that all websites be italicized in footnotes, and WP:CITESTYLE says specifically that "Wikipedia does not have a single house style" and that "A number of citation styles exist including those described in the Wikipedia articles for Citation, APA style, ASA style, MLA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, Author-date referencing, the Vancouver system and Bluebook." The Chicago Manual of Style, for example, does not italicize website names.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• I add citations with the templates in the editing toolbar, and whether the parameter is "website" or "work", when it's added to the page it displays in italics. I see no problem with the name of a source being italicized even if the source is a website, as is the case with RT, M, and BOM. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 00:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that no one else uses non-italics for something in prose and then italicizes the same thing in footnotes.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• I try to follow how the website/work's article does it, otherwise using Harvard style if no article exists. Try. As Rotten Tomatoes is just the company name, its article has no italics, and I agree they should not be used - the same applies to the others mentioned. If it is automatically italicized by being described as the 'website' in a cite web template, I'm not that bothered. The citation templates have some room for improvement, and it can be unclear whether RT should go as website or author or publisher or all of the above. Kingsif (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• It seems like this discussion should be focused on whether these specific sources should be italicized, as the general discussions about website titles have taken place elsewhere. For those who support not italicizing these names, how would that work in practice when using the cite web template? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• I don't see any particular reason why those three websites should be treated differently than any other website. The consensus was for Cite web and similar templates to italicize websites. There are many websites whose mentions in other parts of articles wouldn't be italicized, and that aren't italicized in their respective articles, the italicization is in references only. Those who oppose italicizing these three websites in references should pose a reason to make this specific exception. El Millo (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The reason is that these three websites are never italicized anywhere else. And because, as WP:CITESTYLE says, allows "Wikipedia does not [emphasis added] have a single house style", so there's no reason to shoehorn italics onto website that are never otherwise italicized. As for Template:Cite web, WP:CITESTYLE specifically allows what it calls "common sense" exceptions.

• Oppose, just like nobody writes Facebook. Debresser (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Facebook is a company, and let's not make this just a "Support" or "Oppose" thing and discuss properly. El Millo (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

When I write on "Facebook" I don' write on a company, I write on a website. Debresser (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Companies and websites are not italicized, unlike books, films, magazines and journals. If a web publication has a print heritage or is otherwise treated like a print source then we can italicize it. No way should Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Box Office Mojo be italicized. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

But the consensus was to italicize all websites in Cite web and such. You'd have to either change that consensus or come up with a reason to make an exception with these three cases. Again, this italicization only applies to references, not the article bodies or article titles. El Millo (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the consensus that took place at a CS1 page and not an MOS page was only that "website=" be italicized in CS1. There was no consensus that "website=" is required; indeed, two points of the discussion were that a) "publisher=" alone can be used, and b) we're not even required to use a cite template at all. So there is no consensus that everyone on the Web, such as companies and databases, be italicized in a footnote, or even in CS1. The consensus was only about that single "website=" field. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oh hey, some WP:Forum shopping. --Izno (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

No one is forum-shopping,. This discussion started at Talk:Avengers: Endgame regarding edits there, and an editor other than myself suggested bringing it here.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• These sites are not generally used for editorial content like magazines or newspapers, or websites like Deadline Hollywood. They should not be italicized. They should be used as a pulisher= field in the cite templates. --Masem (t) 07:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• My view is that this isn't really a film specific question; the circumstances in which WP uses italics are spelled out in detail HERE and the MoS is clear that italics aren't to be used in other circumstances, other than for justifiable emphasis. Organisations and websites aren't italicised and therefore the answer here must be "no" MapReader (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Food for thought here... This from the MLA says about italicizing websites, "A good editorial policy should be simple and not demand hairsplitting by writers, editors, or readers. Typography offers few tools for conveying conceptual distinctions. We think that the least vexed approach is to use a single format for all three titles above (and the titles of all other Web sites). To argue that Facebook is fundamentally unlike the other two would require a definition establishing the difference—a definition that can clearly divide all other sites into one of the two categories. The definition would be endlessly debatable, given all the variations in online publication." That endless debate is what is happening now. If the MLA says this, then concerns of being "eccentric" and "non-mainstream" are hogwash. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC) I stand corrected. I do find the language unnecessarily alarmist, that it will somehow make Wikipedia look so terrible. I'm not worried here because if some consensus wider than this WikiProject takes hold, a bot can make whatever adjustments needed. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Before we go around using uncivil terms like "hogwash," let's put that MLA quote in context. MLA is saying "Wikipedia" and "Facebook" should be italicized everywhere not just in footnotes. Unless Erik is advocating for that, his example is off-topic. And I would note that despite whatever quirk MLA has for "Wikipedia" and "Facebook", MLA actually doesn't italicize websites, either the name or the URL, in its own examples here (cite to website of National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and here (cite to website of Modern Language Association of America itself).

That quirk aside, neither Associated Press (which eschews italics for quote marks) nor the Chicago Manual of Style (as explained here italicizes websites. (There are about 16 or 17 citation styles in more-or-less regular use, incidentally, if we really want to go through them all.) And here's the thing: Every one of these styles I've seen, including MLA, retains consistency between how something is styled in prose and in footnotes.

No style uses non-italics for something in prose and italics for the same thing in footnotes. That is eccentric and non-mainstream. By not italicizing Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Box Office Mojo in prose and italicizing them in footnotes, we are doing what no mainstream style does. How does that eccentricity benefit Wikipedia? It doesn't. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with @Masem: - RT and BOM are not "works" or editorial in content where as magazines like Vanity Fair and Vogue are. Even if you are using a Vogue.com source I would still italicize Vogue but not Rotten Tomatoes LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• I would prefer to use work= if the thing really is a piece of work, and publisher= if it's more like a site that houses multiple works (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube) or is more a database website. RT and BOM fit the latter, but if RT has an online news blog / regular publication as with Deadline Hollywood or Huffington Post, then that portion could be considered a work, like "work=Angus's Weekly Woof | publisher=AngusWOOF's website" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree that we shouldn't italicize in these cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Flyer22 Reborn, AngusWOOF, LADY LOTUS, MapReader, Masem, Binksternet, and Debresser that RT, MC and BOM should not be ital in footnotes, and I appreciate Erik's willingness to step back from his initial judgment and to be open to more discussion. That shows the type of give-and-take collegiality of Wikipedia at its best. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Shortlists in accolades table

In tables of accolades, should we include accolades(?) like shortlists, longlists (if there is such a thing for film awards), and runner-ups, apart from wins and nominations? WP:FILMCRITICLIST mentions award wins and nominations but is not very clear on the things I mentioned. Runner-ups, 2nd place, 3rd place, etc, are understandable, depending on how the awards are presented. But should shortlists be included when the results have already been released and said films failed to win or be nominated? LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

No, these shouldn't be included. Being nominated is the minimum criteria. To apply policy, it would be undue weight because it is the nominees that get more than one-off coverage in reliable sources. I assume shortlists are coming up because some outlets are reporting these more than in the past (at least from my movie news-reading perspective). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

And is it noteworthy before the nominations take place, like in Avengers: Endgame's case? El Millo (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I suspected much. I would understand if the films are noteworthy like Endgame, or that the nominees have yet to be announced as of the date but the shortlists have. No, it isn't really because shortlists are coming up now. It's just because I encountered a user (or "users") at Your Name and A Silent Voice who insisted on including a shortlist on the Oscars with no elaboration and through a disruptive manner. So I just needed a confirmation. Thanks! LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I would agree that if there is significant attention given to a film being on a shortlist, that can merit unique coverage that we normally don't account for. But as a matter of routine coverage - "The shortlist for this award includes X, Y, and Z", that's not something to include at all. It's the actual nominations that have the weight. --Masem (t) 20:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe being on the shortlist is noteworthy before the nominations are announced, but afterward, if not nominated, it lacks the weight to be included as an accolade. El Millo (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with my two colleagues above and with Erik. Also, shortlists are often hard to document since many times they're informal. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Flop, blockbuster, etc.

Is there any chance that this year the community might consider including in the MOS what the prevailing attitude is toward labels like "flop" and "blockbuster"? I'm constantly dealing with these, and more labels like "super hit", "failure", "disaster", and it would be nice to point to something specifically guideline-y. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have seen similar debates in articles about popular music - stuff like whether it's OK to say things are "hit albums" (as opposed to successful) or received "rave reviews". It's an interesting area to me. Popcornduff (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• The idea that one can look at a couple data points then decide for oneself whether it was a "box office success", a "flop", or a "super hit" is ridiculous. This article from The New York Times goes into it a bit and explains why you can't just compare the budget to the gross. If this is coming from a professional analyst, it's fine. If it's some random Wikipedian, they're probably wrong. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The bigger concern for me is whether these hyperbolic, subjective labels belong in articles at all. We would never say "the film was declared rotten" or "the film was fresh", yet this equivalent language about blockbusters and mega hits and all-time blockbuster, and declared as superhit, declared as disaster, declared as failure, universal acclaim, etc appear across the project. Either the film community should embrace this stuff, or be clear about shunning it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'd rather we didn't include hyperbolic, subjective labels. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is a workable compromise, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it's a tricky area because terms like "hit" are widely understood and used by reliable sources. However, I generally prefer to avoid idiomatic or metaphorical language at all on Wikipedia, even when widely used, as there is almost always a simpler, more neutral term to use instead (such as "successful"). In the case of "blockbuster", the term seems to have established its own particular industry meaning beyond simply "successful" - it has implications for genre and target markets and industry machinations - and so might be defensible. Terms like "fresh" haven't reached that point I think. Popcornduff (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Seems to be covered well already at WP:PUFFERY. I would just point to that when needed. If it's not being attributed directly to a source, then it should be stated in plain language. Exceptions will include some industry terms that have an article on Wikipedia, such as box-office bomb. However, that doesn't mean that we necessarily should use the terms, only that we can. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm skeptical towards a general regulation for films, the general case seems already be handled WP:Puffery and whether a specific term is appropriate or not in doubt depends on the individual case and the sources supporting it (or lack thereof). Certainly we can advise moderation with use of such terms, but outward banning them would conflict with other wp policies (in particular the source based approach).

Also personally I really dislike an ever increasing style guide to deal with every issue that might irk an editor (even for good reasons). An overbording style guide (and too much enforced conformity) is something that in doubt drives (new) authors away. We need balance between regulating only what is absolutely necessary and trust our editors with the rest, even if that may means more "style mistakes" on occasion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I think we should only have "box office hit", "box office disapointment" and "box office bomb", with few additional words like "surprise", "sleeper" and "massive box office bomb". That's it. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

See, exactly that is horrible editor mircomanagement from my perspective, esesntially even dictating the vocabulary. Aside from that it somewhat contradicts source based writing (where in doubt the sozrce determines the vocabulary).--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think we should avoid unnecessary editorializing about the success or failure of films. Reliable sources generally seem to avoid the more sensationalized terms, and so unless a significant number of sources describe a film in a certain way, then those types of terms should be avoided. Current policies such as verifiability and attribution address those issues without adding to the manual of style. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Like I said before, we should only have "box office hit", "box office disapointment" and "box office bomb", maybe with few additional works like "surprise, "sleeper" and "massive box office bomb" and leave out the rest to avoid that problem. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Unless a source uses those terms, they're original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree, box office bomb is hyperbole and overused for any film making a loss, so is best avoided in most cases, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Simple language without the use of hyperbole should be the way to go. After all, what would be the difference between a hit, superhit and blockbuster film? They are subjective labels all working to signify varying degrees of commercial success, and would differ depending on who you ask. Unless a film has significantly altered the industry's perception of such terms (like Jaws and Star Wars, or Hum Aapke Hain Koun..! in India), these should be avoided. Similarly, 'commerical failure' or the like would be a neutral swap for 'bomb', 'dud', 'flop' and 'disaster'. Terms like 'sleeper hit', 'underperform' and 'break even' are acceptable within context, provided that they are sourced. If the problem is rampant, a line may be added to MOS recommending to avoid subjective and non-neutal labels as these, with some exceptions, like those mentioned above. There might be some places where this does not apply as strongly, so the wording should convey that this is not carved into stone. DeluxeVegan (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I would oppose a change to MOS:FILM unless it can be adequately demonstrated why WP:PUFFERY isn't enough. Need to be wary of instruction creep. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Category discussion editors may be interested in

Editors (particularly those that work in the box office area of the project) may be interested in the discussion in regards to the newly created cat Category:Number-one films in the United States. You can find the discussion here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)