Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23

Pulp Fiction and Memento examples

I removed the Pulp Fiction and Memento examples from this part from the plot section, but was reverted:

Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction or Memento's non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.)

The reason I removed them is that neither exceeds the recommended limit of 700 words, and haven't done for some time, so they're kind of confusing examples. If anything they seem to be examples of how unconventional or complex plots can be still summarised in under 700 words.

I don't oppose replacing them with good examples of plot summaries where there is consensus to go over the word limit, though I can't think of any examples of those myself. Popcornfud (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that having examples that can provide additional information for those looking for more guidance would be more useful than the current two examples. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I reverted their removal because in the sentence "unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction or Memento's non-linear storylines" they are not examples of plot sections with more than 700 words, but of films with intricate plots. I would have no problem if they were to be replaced by examples that have both: intricate plots and plot sections with more than 700 words. However, removing them without replacing them by examples of what is considered an unconventional plot, would make this guideline unacceptably vague; "non-linear" is clear enough, but "unconventional" would be reason to add a {{Vague}} tag, if not for the examples. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I understand, but I think it's misleading, because most people who read this in context will think "Oh, that makes sense, those movies have complicated plots so their plot summaries must be pretty long."
At a minimum I would suggest removing the wikilinks, as (in the context of an MOS page and not an article proper) that further suggests we're talking about the articles as opposed to just the movies.
If anyone can think of good examples of movie articles where there is an established consensus to have large plot summaries, I'm all ears. I have been editing movie articles for years and can't actually think of one. Popcornfud (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Alternatively, just link to Nonlinear narrative#Film; I personally don't see the issue with the examples I can understand the confusion and unless we have a good example of a plot well over 700 words that fits this, maybe just linking to an article that actually has examples of the work type but out of context of the MOS may be better. --Masem (t) 22:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that people obsessively summarize each scene in sequence instead of summarizing the film as a whole. If they would simply stop summarizing each individual scene, the plot summaries would comfortably fit in the 500–600 word range. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Based on prior discussions, my sense has been that the people who push for ignoring the word count are typically people who either don't see where there's room for shortening the summary, or aren't willing to make the tough cuts needed to bring it into compliance...or they just want to add what they feel are helpful additions without making compensatory cuts in the process. I don't think I've ever seen a discussion of a film's plot summary result in a consensus to ignore the guideline, though I might support such a decision if the film was especially long and/or convoluted. Even then though, that might be my own failure to see how a summary could be shortened. DonIago (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
This is at least why the Memento example is good to keep since that summary avoids the film order's scene-by-scene and instead covers the narrative scene by scene which drastically cuts down the plot length. Same with Pulp Fiction. Maybe here, as both examples are ones that have plot summary sections that spend time to discuss the film's structure, they should be included, noting that sourced discussion of a complex film structure on these articles are generally not counted in the plot summary as long as the plot summary is appropriately reordered to be concise. (EG; PF's "Plot" section is over 700 words, but that includes the film structure analysis. The "Summary" is under 700) --Masem (t) 15:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with this. I've been editing film articles for years and I've yet to discover a plot summary that can't be adequately summarised within the WP:FILMPLOT word limit, so I tend to use it as a yardstick - if it's over 700 words then it's definitely too long. It's just a summary, goshdarnit, it's got to stop somewhere. I know some see me as a dangerous extremist in this area though. Popcornfud (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with removing the examples because plot summaries are inherently unstable. Even if we linked to diffs of these examples having long summaries like some other parts of Wikipedia link to diffs to show articles in various stages, the fact that the current summaries aren't long anymore renders the example-sharing moot. I'd keep the "non-linear" descriptor, though, or some form of it, since "unconventional" by itself is too open-ended. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I would also be fine removing the examples, although Cloud Atlas (film) may be relevant to consider. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Cloud Atlas (film) is an interesting example, the plot section is only slightly over the recommended limits at approximately 750 words, and the first paragraph (approximately 50 words) is not actually about the plot at all, it is a preamble about plot structure and like the other edge cases it essentially explains that is a non-linear plot. So again like User:Masem said, the actual plot is under 700 with a small extra allowance to explain the narrative structure. (FWIW, I contend that any film with an edit summary in excess of 1000 words is not even trying to summarize properly, even if it is an anthology film.)
Suggestion: Would it be worth adding links to older versions of Memento and Pulp Fiction showing before and after? Compare the plot section of 2010 Wikipedia article for Pulp Fiction to the 2010 Wikipedia article for Pulp Fiction (and iirc the older versions from before 2010 were even longer). The plot summaries for Pulp Fiction and Memento used to be unusually long, and it seemed necessary to give them extra leeway but some editors who were especially good at copyediting took that as a challenge and proved that even films as seemingly complicated as those could be adequately summarized in under 700 words, I know I was surprised by how much they improved the article. I think some editors would find it helpful to be shown by example rather than told by the guidelines. -- 109.79.66.241 (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
It was me who rewrote the Pulp Fiction plot summary 2/3 years ago. I'm not sure what a before-and-after would demonstrate in this situation though - the MOS is supposed to be giving examples of where more-complicated-than-usual plots are justified. Popcornfud (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Having before-and-after links would help editors in future cases to see how to handle these situations. See some of the other MOSes that give do-vs-dont examples. --Masem (t) 02:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Popcornfud I think you're too probably too good at copyediting and maybe you don't understand quite how awful most people are at it. Guidelines tell people what to do, but I'm more likely to follow the rules when I also understand a bit about why things are done that way. Examples help me to better understand the "why" behind the guidelines. (Way back when, I though the guidelines on MOS:BOLD were excessive, unnecessary, and draconian, but the examples taught me otherwise: less is more.) But maybe the real point of this discussion is really that there are no good examples where plot word limit needs to be ignored? (Just look at MOS:TVPLOT, the tell editors to summarize to less than 100, 200, 400, or 500 words depending on specific contexts.) -- 109.79.66.241 (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
If we're thinking about adding examples of how to trim plot summaries, with before-and-after examples, that's a different a conversation. We could link to WP:STREAMLINE for that sort of thing? Popcornfud (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
WP:STREAMLINE is a good essay (and one that I wasn't previously familiar with) but guidelines carry more weight than essays so I'd be reluctant to move anything out of the guidelines as it would in effect be a downgrade. -- 109.79.78.214 (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Popcornfud said "where there is consensus to go over the word limit, though I can't think of any examples of those myself" and I can't help thinking that this discussion shows there really aren't any good reasons to go significantly over the recommended word count. Even what used to be two of the longer most complicated examples (Pulp Fiction, Memento) have been brought to heel. Sure sometimes an article can be a touch over 700 or 800 words but is there any real reason for a Plot section to be over 1000 words, or is there? So to repeat the earlier question, does anyone have any good examples of long plot sections where they truly believe it is necessary? (Have any articles with unusually long plot summaries survived GA or FA quality review?) -- 109.76.130.230 (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I genuinely can't think of any, and I think I've worked on hundreds of plot summaries at this point... I also suspect that if anyone produced some examples I'd probably argue they could still be reduced, ha ha. Popcornfud (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
What about a long film like Doctor Zhivago (film)? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
When you said "long film" I was imagining like extraordinarily long, 5 or 6 hours or something... I see this is "merely" over three hours. Lots of films are around three hours and can still be summarised in under 700 words (eg Titanic (1997 film), though I can't comment on this one specifically as I've never heard of it.
What would be really useful here would be a case where there has been some discussion and a consensus has formed that the plot summary needs to be unusually long. There will be countless examples where the summary is the product of only one person deciding to exceed the limit. Popcornfud (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I think you are wrong on two accounts: 1. it is no limit, it is a recommendation 2. people try to write a good summary, and if it comes out longer than the recommendation, then so be it. That is how it happens. Nobody says "Okay, let's write something really long here". Debresser (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
1) OK, substitute "limit" for "recommended maximum wordcount". I think you know what was meant there.
2) That's neither here nor there. I posted asking, to quote myself, for "good examples of plot summaries where there is consensus to go over the limit recommended maximum wordcount". Finding examples of summaries that are over 700 words isn't difficult. Popcornfud (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Order and structure

The structure and order of the headings in these guidelines implicitly suggest the order and structure of film articles, or at least it used to.

The guidelines list "Home media" after "Accolades", it implies that is where it should go in a film article. (Chrono)Logically the home media comes a long time after everything else (or at least it used to). Film articles used to put Home media, towards the end of the article, after the Reception section and after Awards/Accolades.

But I see more and more articles that include Home media under the Release section. The logic seems to be that the (2)"Theatrical release" and the "Home media release" should both be grouped together under "Release".

Please clarify which version the guidelines are actually trying to recommend. If it is the latter (2) then please change the guidelines so that Home media section is listed as a subheading of Release. Or if (1) Home media should be listed near the end of the article please make it clearer that Home media does not need to be grouped under "Release". For comparison the WP:MOSTV guidelines has a Release section where Broadcast (first release) and Home media are grouped and explained together in their guidelines. -- 109.76.130.230 (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The order of the chapter headings here do not mandate the structure of film articles, although there are some intuitive similarities. There is no mandated structure, although the structure of articles tend to mirror their evolution: Production -> Theatrical release -> Reception -> Home media. There are plenty of highly rated articles with a chronological structure (see Jaws (film) for example). Some editors prefer to structure their articles thematically, grouping together distribution information, and then the reception information (see Fight Club for example). Both are well written articles, and neither is preferred over the other. Chronological structures are generally more common especially for modern films because the articles develop chronologically and then the editors who worked on them are resistant to change. Articles with thematic structures usually occur with older films when maybe one or or two editors come along and overhaul the article. I mostly work on older articles and prefer thematic structures, but I accept that is entirely a personal preference. I wouldn't ever try to force it on to an article if other editors were resistant. Betty Logan (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

In "Other media"?

MOS:FILM seems to make no reference to a section dedicated to "other media" (e.g. video games, books) as MOS:TV does (see: 'Media information'), and thus gives no guidance on what could/should go in this sort of section, and where it would go in a film article.

Should it? – IOW, should MOS:FILM have some sort of section dedicated to "other media" related to film (not including 'Home media', which is generally focused on DVDs and streaming releases and such), as MOS:TV does? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm of two minds on this. Ideally, it probably should, to preemptively head off potential problems. OTOH, unless we know of problems that such a section would be intended to address, we might be borrowing trouble by endeavoring to write one. I took a look at the MOS:TV section and it appears rather cursory. Off the cuff, one concern I would have is that 'other media' should be supplemented by sources that establish that the media is somehow significant in its own right. For instance, I remember a comic book adaptation of the Michael Keaton "Batman" film...but if that was going to be mentioned at the film article, I would hope more significant information could be presented than the mere fact of its existence, similar to how we handle pop culture references. DonIago (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
How common is this kind of section? I feel like I've seen it mainly in comics articles. Feels like "other media" tends to happen if there is more than one film, which tends to mean a series, which tends to mean a franchise, which means a franchise article would be the best place for "other media" but in more directly-named section headings. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
It is very common in comics-related articles, but there are film articles that already have it. I haven't thoroughly vetted it, but the one in Goldeneye looks like a good example: sourced, substantive, and with some sense of development beyond just the listing (changes in the book adaptation showed up in the video game, etc.) And, although Bond is obviously a franchise, that's not with this section is framed around; it would have to be in this article. Matt Deres (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Filmplot

What are the current views on having the cast in the filmplot (as well as the cast list)?Halbared (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Sometime in the last year or so the consensus was to not have them in the plot section. MarnetteD|Talk 02:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I think this is the most recent thread Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 19#Actors names in plot section? though I might have missed one. MarnetteD|Talk 02:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that they're obviously redundant... and yet, I find them very helpful. As a reader, I find including the actor's names there helpful in understanding the scene and I find myself getting annoyed when it's absent. FWIW. Matt Deres (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Note that this is prompted by this discussion WP:ANI#Editor making mass changes without consensus to do so. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Per the ANI discussion, MOS:FILM is not a "project consensus", it is a legitimate part of the MOS that is generally maintained by members of the Film project. Changes to the MOS are fairly heavily vetted too: just changing a single word can often result in a revert. I agree that adding names to the plot summary is redundant next to a cast list and would prefer not to include them (although that said I don't go around pulling long-standing cast names from plot summaries). I appreciate that some readers may find them helpful, but I think this is wildly subjective: how helpful they are depends on a whole range of factors: a young reader may not recognise the cast of Casablanca, and an old reader may not recognise the cast of The Avengers. A reader in the Western hemisphere may not recognise the cast of a Chinese film, and an English-speaker may not recognise the cast of a French film. In fact, there probably aren't that many actors in that many films that the majority of a our readership would consistently recognise, which is why I have my doubts about how useful it is to add names to the plot summaries. Betty Logan (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Clarification on anachronistic and transgender names

MOS:FILMCAST and MOS:TVCAST both say "All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source." Recent RFC discussions on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography raised the possibility that the current common name may not have been the name the person was known by at the time. MOS:CHANGEDNAME prohibits using names anachronistically. It is unclear if "or by common name" here is intended to apply only if the person is uncredited, or if it may be used in free variation. Many RFC participants found it important that readers be given the name as cited in a mentioned work, so editors can verify that name in the credits, and so that readers can find mention of that person in primary and secondary sources. Additonally, some feel that since we are now requiring these notes for transgender people, it would be unfair not to require them for cisgender people. Giving the name credited at the time I think satisfies the "use the name used at the time" requirement without having to go into the other names the person may have been known by at the time which are different from both the credited and common name. MOS:DEADNAME requires the use of the most recent chosen name for transgender and non-binary gender people, even if that is different from the common name, so that should also be reflected in cast guidelines.

To resolve all of these concerns, would something like the below be a good idea for both pages?

All names should be the common name or the name required by MOS:DEADNAME, as supported by a reliable source. If the credited name is different, or if the participant is uncredited, this should be noted. For example:
Julian Bashir (Alexander Siddig, credited as Siddig el Fadil)
Stan Lee as comic book store clerk (uncredited)

-- Beland (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree, and your Siddig example is a great option. The The Umbrella Academy article uses another option: Elliot Page[a] as Vanya Hargreeves, employing a note to explain the difference in names. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 16:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Yep, these changes look good. "should be noted" allows for parenthetical or footnote (or other reasonable) clarification as I read it. — Bilorv (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Added to both. -- Beland (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ Initially credited as Ellen Page in seasons 1–2.
I would have to disagree with enforcing common name for actors in cast listings. This can apply for cases where the subject has multiple names during the series (Courteney Cox, Courteney Cox-Arquette, etc. in Friends and the Elliot/Ellen Page example listed previously) But in the cases where the subject retains a particular stage name throughout the series, even if it's not the most common name, the subject should be credited as such. In the case of The Matrix, the series as a collection has been released after The Wachowskis' renaming so that would be okay to retain. This would be a mess for Enter the Dragon where half of the main actors have different names heading up their articles, and you need the infobox names to be consistent with their film posters and cast lists. I also have situations with Grey DeLisle / Grey DeLisle-Griffin and Cristina Vee / Cristina Valenzuela extensively in tens to hundreds of shows and it would be extremely cumbersome to have to footnote every single case of those. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 10:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and reverted these additions because I have to agree with AngusWOOF's point. We shouldn't be enforcing common names in the sense like Grey DeLisle may be credited as such in some projects, but Grey DeLisle-Griffin in others. We shouldn't be putting "[role] (Grey DeLisle, credited as Grey DeLisle-Griffin)" in all those instances where the redirects and pipe linking would work. I know DEADNAME has to be considered for all those that applies too, and in those instances, yes, I think additional noting should be done. But as the text added here and as proposed above, I think it needs to be reexamined so we retain the "as credited" part. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest the following change:
All names should be referred to as credited, but in some instances, it maybe be beneficial to note and use an actor's common name or the name required by MOS:DEADNAME, as supported by a reliable source, over their credited name. If roles are described outside of the plot summary, keep such descriptions concise. Interpretations in the form of labels (e.g. protagonist, antagonist, villain, main character) should be avoided. A well-written plot summary should convey such roles.
I don't think we need the "uncredited" part, nor the examples. But if we need examples, I suggest the formatting of [actor] as [role] over what was previously given since that is generally more commonly used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
That rule has never made sense to me. When we refer to historical figures, we refer to them by the names they're known as now, not the names they were known as then. Otherwise we wouldn't be referring to Shakespeare as "Shakespeare". I don't see why film has to be different.
No reader is helped by being told a film was shot by "Peter Andrews" or edited by "Mary Ann Bernard", rather than Steven Soderbergh. We should record facts as they appear in reliable sources, not credits—which are bound by contracts, politics and union rules of the time—as we do in every other field.
It'd also save us from keeping track of whether they were credited as Robin Wright or Robin Wright Penn, as Aaron Johnson or Aaron Taylor-Johnson, as Thomas Sangster, Thomas Brodie Sangster or Thomas Brodie-Sangster, as Tarsem, Tarsem Singh or Tarsem Singh Dhandwar, or as Keith Stanfield, Lakeith Lee Stanfield, Lakeith Stanfield or LaKeith Stanfield (which I doubt we do anyway). Nardog (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, MOS:CHANGEDNAME has consensus for the general prohibition of anachronistic names. It does appear to be followed, e.g. at Pope Benedict XVI the pre-pope paragraphs use the Ratzinger name. If we want to make an exception for film and TV, we should probably have a more widely advertised discussion. I'm not sure the guideline is intended to encompass use of what are simply pre-modern non-standard spellings of the same spoken name, in which case words like "writer" and "play" in source documents are also going to be all over the map. Though the fact that we do actually note such spelling differences for Shakespeare and other cases like Plymouth, Massachusetts implies that documenting historical names is actually important to Wikipedia, and I would think moreso in an era when we expect spelling to be stable. (Though romanizations can be quite problematic.) Readers can in fact be helped by careful documentation of alternate names. Lots of participants in the deadname RFC felt it was important to document the name used at the time so Wikipedia doesn't "rewrite history". Readers looking at primary or secondary sources (including the work itself) might not be able to find mentions of the person they are looking for unless the credited name is noted. Name changes often signify life changes (like marriage) it's useful to know happened before or after participation in a given work, or interesting stories (like writing disputes or use of a pseudonym or changes in notoriety). On the other side, readers might not notice that two different names refer to the same person unless both are noted, which is why mentioning the common name is helpful. Looking at the IMDB entry for Enter the Dragon, I see the house style there is to use a canonical name as primary and meticulously mention the credited name in parentheses. It would be easy to use IMDB as a source if there is any need to update or verify cast listings in a specific article. Putting a five-word note in a parenthetical phrase or footnote does not seem cumbersome, especially if it only has to be done once per page. -- Beland (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
My point is that it's impractical, and often pointless, to adhere to the credits or expect they are adhered to. Your proposal is indeed far better than what we have now, but I'd replace "should" with "may". If editors find the difference between the common name of a person and the credited name pertinent to the discussion of the film, note it, as subject to consensus on an article-by-article basis. But not every difference needs to be. (IMDb is not a reliable source btw.) Nardog (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
As a corollary to this idea, what impact does this have on FILMCAST for roles not credited on a poster's billing block but clearly recognized in the media as important, eg Kevin Spacey in Seven (1995 film) as a primary example, but not, say, Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder? Would the reasoning above (as to apply the WP policy on names to FILMCAST in a reasonable manner) also apply to reasonable decisions on film cast lists, if that was a consensus-based decision on the talk page? (eg something you can point to in case people tried to edit war). This should be allowed in the same manner but should be an IAR situation backed by consensus, since this is more exception than the rule when a core, star or co-star (not minor part) is purposely omitted to hide their involvement. --Masem (t) 16:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I very much agree with Nardog that blindly adhering to credits is not good practice. It opens up stupid style and other debates about names "but the credits listed them as 'Goth ZomBee Girl' how dare you uncapitalize that?!" and cases where someone used a pseudonym, their married name at the time, or was uncredited but which we reliably know was Director A or Actor B. As stated above, credited names are based on a wide variety of weird factors—what serves the most readers is the most recognizable name of the individual. In 99% of cases, that won't be a debatable point; in the rest, MOS:DEADNAME and MOS:CHANGEDNAME will cover nearly all the remainder.
If the same person is playing different roles among several works, it is most useful and clear for them to be referred to by the same name throughout Wikipedia. As also stated, if how they are credited is relevant to the discussion of the work, then that could discussed in particular articles. But it's not really useful to know that, say, Rebecca Romijn was credited as "Rebecca Romijn-Stamos" in X-Men and X2. 10, 20, 30 years from now, people will be talking about Rebecca Romijn having starred in the first X-Men films. The fact her legal name at the time of filming was different from "Rebecca Romijn" is irrelevant to any discussion of the films. Similarly, the specific credits of The Matrix referring to "the Wachowski Brothers" when one expects that 10/20/30 years from now they will be known simply as "the Wachowskis" is not really worthy of mention in The Matrix article because the name change did not/does not impact the work. That is, we could remove the note about how they were credited there and just assume readers understand that the two "different" names refer to the same two people... and there would be no negative impact. Listing how people were specifically credited begins to border on WP:TRIVIA. Do we really need to know the official credited name to understand the subject of the article? Again, I'd posit that no, we do not. —Joeyconnick (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree with this proposed change, and a discussion of this importance should be more much widely advertised, esp. as it concerns multiple WPs, including FILM, TV, and FILMBIO. The current wording is in fact designed to head off arguments, it doesn't create them. The concept is simple: list the credited name, unless there is reliable sourcing that indicates a different name (or in those cases where there is no credited name, as is often the case for main characters on TV series) – in those cases, go with the COMMONNAME as indicated by sourcing. Nothing could be simpler than this. This covers all scenarios. And WP:NOTBROKEN perfectly deals with Joey's concerns in most cases. The "names as per credits" part should not be changed like this. I have no objection to modify the wording to include "notes" to indicate name changes, etc. (Favre1fan93's suggestion looks much better here.) But the "names as per credits" part should stay, and should be listed first, before the common name part. Note also that this is deliberately done this way to allow for the potential use "non-credited" names more in the 'Plot' and 'Casting sections – the 'Cast' section itself is supposed to basically be a record from the film or TV show's credits. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

documentaries

Over at plandemic someone has used filmplot to justify the inclusion of the film claims. Does film plot apply to factual films?Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

There's a separate section for documentaries at MOS:FILM#Documentaries. However, this is intended for the average documentary. Plandemic is WP:FRINGE, and that should take precedent. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Do We Give Credit to a Pseudonym?

If the composer is listed under either a pseudonym or mononym, and you don't know their real name, do they not get mentioned on the film/show/game's Wikipedia article? Linkdude20002001 (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

If that's the name the composer is known as, then yes. If not, use the common name, regardless of the credit. —El Millo (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Then I shall use the pseudonym until the real/common name is known. :) Linkdude20002001 (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Short descriptions

Do we have any guidance or consensus on how to apply short descriptions? If not should we add some? I found this guidance useful for video games at WP:VG/SHORTDESC. Popcornfud (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I seem to recall a film-related dispute about what the short description should say. Lugnuts, I think you were part of the discussion. What film was it?
In any case, we don't have guidelines, but we should get a pretty broad consensus to set them. A film can be described shortly in many ways, hence likely disputes about which characteristic matters the most and when. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I go by the basic rule of short means short. I've been adding "1931 film" for example to articles that don't have them. Anything that I feel is overly long, such as "2001 French-Canadian action drama thriller film directed by John Smith", I trim down. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Lugnuts, that's my approach too, and it matches the guidance for video games at WP:VG/SHORTDESC, where many similar elements apply. IMO it would be good to get a consensus and add something to the film MOS. Popcornfud (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
For the films I mainly spend my time editing (superhero ones), I've seen the descriptions be "YYYY superhero film produced by X". At least for these films, that type of description works, but for others produced by multiple companies it might not be the best. Though I think, given WP:FILMLEAD says to only include the primary genre, that genre can make its way into the short description. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Personally I don't think genre is necessary, or director, or production company, etc. The year of release is really useful information for context, and then all you need is the fact that this is a film (because if they only know the title then it really could be anything - a novel, a quote, a board game, a boat, anything - so "film" is extremely high-value information compared to genre etc). I don't think the MOS guidelines for the lead should inform our decisions here. Popcornfud (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but this kind of thing may warrant an RFC. I'm not sure if any existing policies or guidelines help narrow it down, so it becomes subjective among editors. Reviewing WP:VG/SHORTDESC, I am not sure if there was an actual discussion about these guidelines, so it may not have been "tested" yet. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
From past experience with RfC, it'll probably drag on for ages, with no real consensus being reached. I've been working my way through adding a short des. to every film article - I'm up to the 1930s at the moment. The majority of articles either don't have one, or have one that I think is too long. In some cases, it's just some random words pulled directly through from Wikidata, such as "film", "motion picture", etc. A handful of changes to existing short descriptions get reverted, but these are few and far between. Unless it's vandalism, I move on. Maybe the big-budget superhero box-office films attract more eyes than a 1920s silent short film, so there's more scope to argue over the exact wording for the latest Marvel film. Maybe those can be taken case by case to the film's talkpage instead. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Here's a short description that is not. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Lettler, please see the above discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

DocWatson42, see above. Also pinging Popcornfud and Lugnuts again. DocWatson42 made this edit. Seems like unless some guidelines are set, you're all going to be constantly shortening and lengthening the short descriptions after each other, perhaps not even realizing it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that the shortdesc helper tools sort of hinders things, because it doesn't let you leave edit summaries. There's no way to explain the rationale for a change, so yeah I think editors tend to go round in circles changing these things independently without realising what they're doing. (On the other hand, perhaps this is the key to unlocking a more harmonious Wikipedia - remove all edit summaries, never get revert notifications, and operate totally in the dark.) Popcornfud (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
@Erik, Lugnuts, and Popcornfud: I find the inclusion of year, nationality, genre, and director useful, especially in mobile browsing, though IMHO "by" is enough to imply "directed by". And unless I am trying to track down the origin of an obvious mistake (e.g., a truncated sentence fragment), am trying to avoid annoying certain editors, or checking to see if I've previously edited an article, I almost never check the history. —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
DocWatson42, I guess for me the issue is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that covers more than just films. You know that, of course! But if this were a wiki only for films, then including genres etc in the shortdesc would be extremely helpful.
However, in the context of an encyclopaedia that spans everything, the fact the article subject is a film (and not, say, a type of vegetable, a historical event, a building, a botanical class, you name it) is extremely useful information - and any extra information after that point is diminishing returns.
I sometimes think, for example, that editors who expand shortdecs on video game articles ("2020 online action role-playing game by Sega") do this because they edit almost entirely in the video game space and have lost sight of the bigger picture - most of that info isn't going to be very helpful to most users of the encyclopaedia. Popcornfud (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
@Popcornfud: I do the same thing as those video game editors because I, too, find the additional information helpful. And not just for films and video games, but for most entries. —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
(Bump.) Any further thoughts? —DocWatson42 (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Daniel Case, regarding your edit, you may be interested in the above discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, WP:SHORTDESC says that the short description should be around 40 characters. Food for thought. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, aim for no more than about 40 characters. So not a recommendation to lengthen shorter descriptions. Popcornfud (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The video-game quote you had above was 44 characters. DocWatson42's edit was 43 characters. Just year and film is 9 characters (including the space), making it only 22% of the ideal maximum or whatever. Why not just leave it alone if it's under 40 characters, and if it's a little over, drop a lesser characteristic? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Converting International Box Office to USD

What is the best way to convert box office figures from other currencies to USD? For example, Avengers: Endgame grossed RMB 728.13 million on its first day in China. For reporting the box office in USD, I think these are the possible options:

1. Convert to USD from the yearly average for the year.
2. Convert to USD using the exchange rate on the day of release.
3. Use the figures provided by an external source (like Deadline Hollywood or Box Office Mojo).

While 3 would be a good choice since it would avoid WP:ORIGINAL research, in some cases these reports come out before the actual numbers in the local currency get finalized. There is also the problem of changes in currency rates affecting the total like Avengers: Infinity War's Chinese Box Office. So, I'm not sure if it's the best method. What do you guys think? ~Rajan51 (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

There is never going to be a perfect answer to this. Generally I would prioritize #3, unless it results in a grossly inaccurate figure. Sometimes however, you have to undertake the conversion yourself. For a daily or weekly gross I think it is ok to use the exchange rate for the day itself or on the day the gross is reported (for a weekend or weekly report). Sometimes this is not always possible and you may just have a lifetime gross or a budget that accumulated over many months. In those cases I would generally use the average exchange rate for the year of release. What I do see many editors doing (and I strongly oppose it) is just plugging a figure into a template without any regard for the date of the conversion. Clearly using today's conversion rate for Chinese renminbi to convert the gross of a film from a couple of years ago is going to result in an inaccurate conversion. WP:CALC permits you perform calculations provided they are straightforward and there is a prevailing consensus that the calculation is reasonable. Betty Logan (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

More than one country in opening line

Regarding If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section. in WP:FILMLEAD. I suggest that in case of only two countries then it can be mentioned in the opening paragraph (like Indian-American), in case of more than two films it can be mentioned later in the paragraph.--Yas Island Abu Dhabi (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the reason we don't do something like "Indian-American" is because it implies a 50-50 collaboration where it could easily be a 90-10 or 10-90 collaboration. In the opening sentence of the prose, this can be undue weight without context, giving more or less credit to one country or the other. Explaining the countries' specific collaborations a little later in the lead section ensures context that cannot be unpacked in the very first sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Film series

I boldly added a "Film series" section under "Guidelines for related topics" due to consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coming to America (film series) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Quiet Place (film series). Editors are invited to review. See the section here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Erik: Looks good! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
It is a good start. Maybe it could emphasize improving individual articles more before trying to start a series article? (I've seen film series articles listing Metacritic scores even before anyone has added them to the individual articles, CinemaScore grades too.)
What about a franchise, with two films and a spin-off tv series? For example, The Emperor's New Groove (franchise), which if I understand the guidelines that seems like it would be an allowed exception.
What if a third film is in development? National Treasure (franchise), The Kissing Booth (film series)? -- 109.78.199.4 (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I would (strongly) argue that not until the third film is released should we be thinking of doing a film series article. I'm also thinking it's of dubious worth (e.g. with The Kissing Booth films) to do a film series article solely because the bare minimum of 3 films exists... preferably there would be solid sourcing about the series as an entity itself rather than merely the existence of 3 (or more films). —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
We have similar advice at the VG project, that a series/franchise article should only be created when there are 3 games and/or significant other media (TV spinoffs, films, etc.) that have standalone articles. This seems 100% consistent. In terms of the question of if there's a 3rd film in development, the series article should be based on the existence of three articles, and that means the third film needs to be in known production (or otherwise an exceptional case) per standard film article creation guidelines. --Masem (t) 17:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
This The Shining (franchise) now exists. I don't know if this needs a wider discussion among the various wikiprojects or not but we seem to be blurring the distinction of what is and what is not a franchise/series. MarnetteD|Talk 20:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
While a page like that for The Shining (which should include a section on the books too?) probably should exist, I agree that calling it a "franchise" or "series" is weird. Star Wars is a franchise, a fully connected universe under relatively tight IP control, whereas all the entries on this list are related to the original book to some degree but without the similar strong creative oversight. This might be a special case, where it should be "The Shining in other media", but that doesn't answer it for other potential problems. --Masem (t) 20:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a film series page should exist unless it's crossed over into other media. Otherwise it's just a list of (potentially) three films, probably with some plot regurgitation, an ugly cast listing table, some RT and MC scores and BOM figures. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

At the moment it's a couple of books and three adaptations. There is no real effort to build the IP into a cohesive media entity. For example, there is no real reason to discuss the two films, the old TV series, and the new TV series all on the same page. If Overlook ties into the film universe then that would be the tipping point for me. Betty Logan (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I think a film series page can be more useful if there is specific commentary added about how the individual works all compare to each other. For example, in a trilogy, reviews of the third film may compare it to the first and second films. While the third film's article could technically do that, the series could focus on that encompassing aspect even more. Even more so if the series has been critiqued as a whole (or even in part) by academia, then a series article is the ideal place for such content. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 23:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Contradicting Box Office Grosses?

How should we handle contradicting box office results? Example for Godzilla (2014): BOM reports $524M (1) but Numbers reports $529M (2). Apparently picking one source over the other is cherry picking (1) yet I see many film articles choosing one source over the other when both sources report contradicting numbers. I had always assumed we choose the source with the higher gross but what's the legit protocol to follow in these situations? Just include both grosses? Armegon (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Both as a range. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
If there is a good reason to choose one figure over the other (i.e. one is wrong or more up to the date than the other, and we have a reasonable argument as to why that is the case) then it is fine to choose one source over the other. However, we can't just choose a source arbitrarily on the grounds we like the higher figure. Every source has the capacity to be wrong. The difference could come down to something as simple as conversion rates, and in that case both are correct depending on how you look at it. If an independent corroborating source can be found for one of the figures that would go some way to resolving the matter. If the disparity cannot be resolved then it is simpler to just round the figures or use a range. Betty Logan (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Uncredited roles

It's been my understanding that when uncredited roles are listed in the Cast section they should be accompanied by a citation, but the MoS doesn't specify that. Should the MoS be updated with something like, "If listing an uncredited role, a citation must be provided"? We could add "in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability policy" but personally I'd prefer to keep it succinct. DonIago (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I actually thought the MOS covers that already, but I guess it does not. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes please. Just to double check Doniago do you mean WP:MOSFILM or WP:MOS? Please feel free to add it to MOSFILM and you might add a note about IMDb not being a WP:RS for this. I know there is WP:RS/IMDB but, at a guess 95% to 105% of the cast lists in our articles have used that website for the actors listed. MarnetteD|Talk 18:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
MOSFILM, yes. I'm not touching the general MOS with a 100-foot pole. :p Thanks for the suggestion about IMDb! I'll give it another day or two before making any edits, to allow for other comments. Thank you both! DonIago (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done.[1] Please feel free to make minor improvements to what I've put in or continue the dialog if you feel more substantive changes are needed. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Four star Fifth Avenue Girl?

As I recall, consensus was reached that any actor listed on a movie poster belongs in the infobox starring field. Only Ginger Rogers was listed in Fifth Avenue Girl, so I added the three I noticed in the article's poster. I didn't see the three in smaller print. (Beyond My Ken reverted me regardless.) Should there be four or seven stars? And can we add this somewhere in the MOS? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

PLOT word minimum

I am starting a discussion on whether to reduce the plot word minimum a little bit, possibly from 400 to 350. I have been condensing and making concise plot sections of several film articles recently. For comedy films such as Monkeybone, Jack and Jill, and That's My Boy, there is so much freaking filler scenes in those films having nothing to do with the main plot, than all of my edits to remove unneeded details and unnecessarily-lengthy descriptions of single scenes always lead to the word count being just under 400 words, somewhere between 360–three-hundred-ninety-something words. Trying to make those plot sections even a few words above 400 would mean making the sections WP:INDISCRIMINATE and not the concise plot summaries we would want. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really a fan of film plot summaries that dip below 500 words. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I am, for the right film. Certain films, even narrative feature-length, are so plot-light you can comfortably summarise them in two or three paragraphs.
I've been involved in endless debates about plot lengths exceeded the maximum limit but I can't think of a single example of an argument of them not meeting the minimum. On that basis, I wonder if we could just remove the minimum; I'm not sure it solves a lot of arguments. Popcornfud (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
It becomes increasingly difficult to understand film criticism in context as the plot summary shrinks. Ozploitation, American slasher films, French softcore vampire films, and Italian giallo films may seem to be full of worthless filler to someone who does not understand these films' significance, both culturally and now even in academic film criticism. If you strip out all the frivolity from a beach party musical, you're left with 50 words that leaves readers with no understanding of what critics or academics are talking about when they discuss it in the context of the 1960s. Same with slasher films and something like Men, Women, and Chainsaws. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Those plot summaries can contain the relevant information. Removing the minimum wordcount doesn't make that harder to do.
Are the talk pages for articles about French softcore vampire films regularly fraught with arguments about whether to boost their plot summaries to meet the minimum wordcount? If not then I can't imagine what help this guideline is. What I'm basically saying is that in my experience plot summaries on Wikipedia don't need any help being made longer, if you see what I mean. Popcornfud (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I'll tell you that when it comes to a lot of mainstream comedies like the works of Happy Madison (which are the opposite the slasher and auteur exploitation films you've brought up as examples), most of them are not are not academically-covered films (or even well-remembered films, most coverage is upon release) and do still follow a story that progresses. It's just that there's just enough filler around the actual story that describing it is done in around 380 words. 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd be fine with someone trying to aim for a 350-word plot summary. As mentioned above, discussions on plot length have entirely focused on the maximum threshold. Remember that on a policy level, we want a "concise summary" of a given work. The range of 400 to 700 words is arbitrary, and if anything, 700 is probably pushing it in terms of "concise", considering how we probably detail the plot much more than most reliable sources. And if the plot summary is the most detailed section in the article body, it's probably too detailed, proportionally speaking. Furthermore, if a specific scene from the film needs to be highlighted to contextualize coverage but does not actually appear in the plot summary, I think we can briefly recap that scene in another section as part of summarizing that coverage. But at the end of the day, plot summaries are the most susceptible to be rewritten because someone someday will come by and think they can do a better job of summarizing the plot. I personally rarely touch plot summaries for that reason and generally encourage others not to do that too. Contributions elsewhere in the article body are more long-lasting, in my experience. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
There's a lot of plot summaries I've seen that, while under 700 words, last 600 to 700 words... and probably should be 350–550. I condensed the plot section of Paranormal Activity 4 recently, which is an example of this. Also, can someone tell me if the plot section of Man of Steel (film) is actually 594 words as the hidden note says?... Because wordcounter.net tells me there is 728 words in that section, and it sure looks like it. 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Here's what I would argue if there are particularly scenes in a film that have been discussed in reliable sources... Cover them in other sections, like a production, reception, themes and/or analysis section, while will talk about the making and opinions on those scenes. WP:FILMPLOT recommends doing this "describe the events on screen as simply as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article."
In NinjaRobotPirate's defense, it does say this as well: "Mid- and post-credit scenes should generally not be included in the plot summary. Exceptions are made for these scenes if they [...] are part of sourced discussion in the rest of the article (the reuse of the post-credit scene of Ferris Bueller's Day Off) or if the film is part of a franchise and the scene helps establish details for a known future film in production (such as many Marvel Cinematic Universe films)." But that's the only type of scene where it allows it. 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Just a side note that the hidden text in Man of Steel was clearly outdated and from an earlier time. I went ahead and trimmed this down from 728 to 671, closer to a version that existed in 2019 but retaining some of the useful changes. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
If a films narrative can be adequately summarised in less than 400 words, then it should. I see no benefit in a blanket minimum requirement. Scribolt (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I suggest a 10 word maximum limit, i.e. "John McClane meets estranged wife, fights terrorists, wins at end," so we can truly boil plots down to their key elements. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I know, right? XD. Even if a plot detail is essential and moves the story, it's usually never discussed again for the rest of the article. 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Needs a "Christmas" mention somewhere, considering that it's a Christmas movie... Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
"John McClane meets estranged wife, fights terrorists, saves Christmas" Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm trying to imagine the worst-case scenario if we removed the lower limit for film word counts (there's a discussion I've never had here), and all I can imagine, given that I think the problem tends to be heavily-slanted toward summaries being too long rather than too short, is that an editor would remove details that another editor considered essential, in which case I suppose the reasonable thing to do would be to ask for a source that's discussed the details in question as a means of establishing their significance. Do we have test-cases that could be linked here? DonIago (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I was going to say that I think reducing the plot word limit would be fine (I had a GAN failed based on a 300-something word plot section not meeting it) but not the remove the lower limit because it would encourage very short plot descriptions inappropriate to article length, until I realized that many film articles already have terribly short plot sections almost as a default and as soon as the articles are given a proper treatment, the plot summary becomes appropriate. Kingsif (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • There are probably films that are sufficiently on the shorter side or lack sufficient plot that could likely be summarized at an appropriate depth in under 400 words but they are exceptional. What we don't want to encourage is editors writing plot summaries so thin to be useless to subsequent production information or reviews. (eg describing "Speed" as "Jack saves a bunch of people in an elevator from a bomber. Then Jack saves a bunch of people on a bus set to explode if it goes under 50 mph by the same bomber. Then Jack stops the bomber." is accurate but useless). For most films that run 90 to 180 minutes, aiming for a 400-700 word plot summary will assure a reasonable amount of detail to be included but not a scene-by-scene recap. But if editors can capture that detail in 350 or 300 words, and local consensus is happy with it, great. But I'd not recommend changing FILMPLOT to account for that; the 400-700 words is a guideline. (Similarly, there are cases where it may need to go over 700 words, but that should be via consensus and only for the more complicated films after trying all suggestions in WAF to cut down.) --Masem (t) 17:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I find these word count discussions slightly vacuous. There is an argument that no plot summary needs to be under 400 words or warrants a count over 700 words. Pretty much any story can be abstracted to 400–700 words. On the other hand a well-written 350-word summary could be just as serviceable as a 400-word summary, if not more so, so I wouldn't compel an editor to inflate a plot summary just to pass a GA review. That said I think the 400-word minimum is a useful guide to the level of detail we usually want. Maybe we could just add a caveat like we do for long plots. There is a difference between a plot summary that is 350 words because it hasn't had sufficient word done on it, and a plot summary of 350 words that is the result of a solid re-write and polishing job. A reviewer should be able to tell the difference, and if they can't then maybe they shouldn't be reviewing the article. Betty Logan (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Off-topic sidebar
    • "There is an argument that no plot summary needs to be under 400 words or warrants a count over 700 words. Pretty much any story can be abstracted to 400–700 words." With all due respect, I don't think you've read or worked on enough film articles to make that conclusion. Take it from a guy who's worked on plot summaries for several forgettable studio films. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
      With all due respect I have. I was putting film articles through GA review years before you even registered here. If that doesn't earn me an opinion then I don't know what does. Betty Logan (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
      "I don't think you've read or worked on enough film articles to make that conclusion." I wasn't going to say anything, but I think it needs to be done because a bitch-slap cannot be left unnoticed. You created your account on 3 January 2020. User:Betty Logan has been a Wikipedia editor since 7 November 2008. In terms of being a Wikipedia editor: you're still crawling on the rug ... and you owe her an apology. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
      Yes he does, clearly having not worked on enough film articles to have spotted who the regular editors of such articles are! MapReader (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
HumanxAnthro: You really missed the mark when you said "With all due respect". Betty has been a long-time contributor to film as a whole, frequently participating not only here but on countless RfC's and talk pages, as well as hundreds if not thousands of film articles. Your statement does not give any of the respect that is due. And beside that, taking her comments out of context misses the general point she was making. She was actually siding with your viewpoint that exceptions to the guideline exist, and that reviewers shouldn't be treating it as a hard and fast rule. And you smack her with this? Jaw drop. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Users. Please Keep this about the plot word limit guideline and not other users. Saying that I "smack[ed]" or "bitch-slap[ed]" the user teeters well into WP:ASPERSIONS territory, and no one has time for it. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
It's an extreme interpretation to suggest any of this borders on WP:ASPERSIONS. Perhaps next time, you should heed your own advice. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Hypothesis: removing the minimum wordcount will have a zero or negligible impact on the number of too-short plot summaries. Summaries are basically never too short, ever, and it's not because editors are dutifully following the guidelines. Popcornfud (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Incidentally IME long plots are only the high visibility problem, since articles on well known films are continually read by eager beavers who like to add their two cents (or two dozen words). In many cases this is how plot summaries have naturally developed, and why they mostly didn't in articles about little known films. I reckon if you looked at the selection of our articles on all films with a WP article, and especially non-American films (ex. Category:French heist films), the average plot summary would fall well short of 400 words. Daß Wölf 15:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Basically I'm just lurking for the input - but I'm a bit in the ^ Popcornfud ^ camp. Maybe not for the GA/FA stuff, but especially in the 1940s-1950s formula style flics. — Ched (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    • There's some questionable implications when you say "Maybe not for the GA/FA stuff". Does that mean articles about films with plot sections where going past 350 words would make them overly-detailed disqualify for GA or FA just because they have a square that can't fit in a round hole? 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I don't believe in shapes: :) I can't see trying to enforce any guideline into every article. I'm just saying that trying to enforce a 200, or 300, or 700 limit, at either the upper or lower thresholds, is not a good practice. If an article gets submitted to FA/GA, then deal with the feedback, and do the best you can. — Ched (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
        • The upper limit particularly exists because historically, plot summaries have not been actual summaries, but quite long write-ups of the plots. Most articles won't get submitted to GA/FA, so I think the specified upper limit is appropriate as WikiProject Film's threshold applying the "concise summaries" language of WP:PLOT. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Im with Ninja on this, lets keep the present guidance. A lower than 400 word plot smacks of dumming down and if you compare to reliable sources plot summaries the difference is that in the main they omit spoilers which of course limits the detail. This is a proposal without encyclopaedic merit in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Ditto on Ninja's comment. If a feature film can be reduced to less than 400 words and it does the film justice, fine, let it be less. But changing the MOS guidelines to less than 400 words may ultimately become self-defeating. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
    But the guidelines don't actually support what you say. If a plot summary happens to be less than 400 words and could be considered sufficient, it still won't be let alone. Editors doing GA or FA assessments will require more plot details just because the guidelines say there must be a minimum of 400 words. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
    I'd be genuinely curious to see what, if anything, would happen if we removed the minimum count guideline. DonIago (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Could this be as simple as modifying "The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional..." to something like "Exceptions are rare and may apply when a film lacks relevant content or has an unconventional structure...". A simple tweak like that would open the door to not only exceeding the 700 limit, but also falling short of 400, while maintaining that exceptions are rare. I would think that would satisfy both sides. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
    • If you removed the recommended minimum you'd end up with some aggressively concise plot sections. Check out Columbus (2017 film) which comes in at very concise 222 words. (It is almost justifiable because of the quiet observational style of the film, but I think a plot summary closer to 400 words would serve readers better.) There are plenty of editors have learned to summarize Plot down to (MOS:TVPLOT) 500, 400, or 200 as required, and as others have already said plot sections can be summarized down to a single sentence if that is what you really want.
      There's always WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for the exceptional cases. -- 109.79.67.53 (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Gotti

Please see the discussion at Talk:Gotti (1996 film)#Franzese reverts as to whether to include non-film critics in reception section where YouTube is primary source. Thanks, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Country of origin

Could this MOS provide a more explicit guide on determining a film's country of origin? I think the WP convention is to allocate a film's "nationality" by the nationality of the production company that makes them, but I can't find that explicitly stated anywhere. We should state here:

  • country of origin is established by reliable sources
  • in case of doubt, refer to the nationality of the production company at time of production (not the nationality of the director, filming location or actors)

I mention this because there are occasional but repeated attempts to claim Star Wars as a British film, and it's not the only example. Much as I'd love this to be true, it isn't. A more explicit rule in MOS:FILM would help to clarify this in editing disputes. Cnbrb (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

No, like anything else on Wikipedia, this is determined by what reliable sources say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
As above, the MoS (specifically WP:FILMLEAD) is already clear and explicit that the film’s nationality is defined by reliable sources - i.e. as an enyclopedia we describe the film in the same way as the majority of reliable sources. We don’t do WP:OR based on editors’ analysis of production companies, financing, or any other detail of its production. If Hollywood Reporter - and similar reputable sources from around the world - describe the film as an American film, or a British film, then so do we. MapReader (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Some explicit guidelines for the infobox are available at {{Infobox film}}. Betty Logan (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Multiple release dates in infobox

Was about to update an infobox on an article... until I saw some conflicting information:

What is the 'correct' way this should be done?.. If there is a 'correct' way, I'd assume some wording in one of the above may need to be changed a bit. Magitroopa (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The Infobox documentation probably could be updated. The Film date template can handle multiple entries. BOVINEBOY2008 17:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Yup, documentation needs to be updated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Documentation updated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
But list templates should be used per MOS:ACCESS. Please fix it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I simply restored it. Feel free to correct any errors, bit lists should be retained. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Huh? {{Film date}} does use {{Plain list}}. Nardog (talk) 06:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
We can't both use list templates and {{Film date}} at the same time on the |released= parameter. As the OP said, telling editors to use them both at the same time is contradictory. List templates such as {{Plainlist}} are already listed at every other parameter where it can be used —El Millo (talk) 07:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

RT and MC wording at WP:AGG

I am open to changes to the essay WP:AGG, but recent disruption there and at Hancock I find unacceptable. I've invited the involved editor to discuss at WT:Review aggregators#RT and MC wording restored, but dropping a note here in case other editors would like to weigh in. Changes are fine, but we should probably get a consensus on something so that the disruption has reason to stop. Thanks in advance. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Update

Discussion is finally moving forward at WT:Review aggregators#Arbitrary break. Please weigh in if you have a preference for the wording in the essay. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggested addition to MOS/Film

In part 1 of WP:CASTLIST, where it says the names may be listed in two or three columns, it may be helpful to mention the {{cast listing}} template as a way of doing this - It looks to have been created as a way of giving consistent formatting/appearance to articles, but this only works if editors are aware of it. I only spotted it by chance when editing and it appears to be used in around 7500 articles. EdwardUK (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. Use a hatnote perhaps? --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I was thinking maybe something could be added into the existing text such as: "the names may be listed in two or three columns (for which there is the {{Cast listing}} template), or the names may be grouped in prose." or it could be changed to "the names may be grouped in prose or listed. If appropriate a list can be displayed as multiple columns using the {{Cast listing}} template." but if there are other ways of letting editors know about the template then these would be helpful too as I've seen an mix of Div col, Col-begin and wikitables used for cast lists on film articles. EdwardUK (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@EdwardUK and GoneIn60: I have added a mention in with this edit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm pleasantly gobsmacked that a template I created somewhat off-the-cuff has become so well-used. DonIago (talk) 06:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be that that shouldn't be done anymore. Yet this MOS actually says "a table or infobox grouping actors and their roles may be placed in the plot summary". Can I go ahead and remove that (table or infobox???) and state something explicitly to that effect? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

If it's actually a table or infobox in lieu of a full Cast section, I don't see an issue with it, and I'm not aware of any discussion frowning upon that. What I believe is frowned upon is, as mentioned literally in the title of this section, including actors' names in parentheticals following their role within the Plot section...with the possible exception of cases where the Cast isn't presented in any other manner. DonIago (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Those aren't in the summary; they're in cast or casting sections. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Box office section placement is outdated

The guide for Box Office says if there is sufficient coverage it can stand alone but otherwise it should be under a release or theatrical section. It should be under, IMO, the Release section. We have release sections that are like two sentences long because there is insufficient release info, and Box Office ties directly into release because it can include release dates and scope. It is unrelated to reception which is more closely tied to Critical and Accolades. This is the format I've been using in all my FA articles and it works well, again, IMO. If you look at something like Avengers: Endgame, it makes no sense to dedicate a section solely to release dates, especially when a lot of that section seems to relate more to Marketing. Similarly, home media being discussed before the theatrical critical reception and accolades does not make sense and should be in a Post-release section that can discuss home media, merchandise, analysis where applicable, and post-release changes. To that end, while I could be WP:BOLD and just change the MOS, I would like to discuss adding that the BO can go under the Release section. I know the MOS is a general guide but it's also often used as a cudgel. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any objections to altering the MOS to say box-office can go in the release section, but I think we should avoid saying that is where it must go. There may be good reasons why some editors choose to place it in the "Reception" section. On the placement of home video releases after the release/reception sections I think you have a point where there is a strongly chronological roll-out as is often the case for modern films (it sometimes irritates me when editors re-locate the home video section to the release section in a highly chronological article), but this is perhaps less important for older films, especially classic films, where articles are structured more thematically than chronologically. Betty Logan (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I have generally always defaulted to it being under "Release". I typically would do Header: "Release" with subheader "Critical reception" and "box office". Just be aware that you don't do single subsections, so you wouldn't have Header: "Release" and only 1 subheader: "Box office".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Box office can be viewed as how the film has been received aka "Reception". I don't see any reason to change the MOS. If a film doesn't have much release info, and it fits within that article to put box office there, sure. But it can also rightly be placed under a "Reception" section or outside the "Release" section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
To be clear I'm not saying it can ONLY go under Release, but it's not even an option on the MOS, and most release sections do not contain enough content to justify their existence while reception sections also including a BO subsection makes them overly large when taking into account crit and accolade sections. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
The current wording I think you are looking at states: This information can be included under the reception section, or if sufficient coverage exists, it is recommended that this information is placed in a "Box office" or "Theatrical run" section. I think the only change here is maybe maying "Theatrical run" to "Theatrical release" and then that covers it being able to be placed within a release or reception section, depending on how the article is structured. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes basically this, the lack of a "Release" section being mentioned meant I was reverted twice by a user who just said "this is how the MOS says how to do it", despite me linking to like 12 FAs that are not that way. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Box office is an indicator of how the film has been received. If critical reception is a subheader under release, then it sh. Kire1975 (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Where is the rule "you don't do single subsections"? Kire1975 (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
It's a rule of writing. If you have an "A", then you must have a "B", otherwise, why did you create an "A" instead of just separating it out to it's own section (which would be a "1" in this case for outlining). To be clear, You create "Release" and the only thing under it is "Box office" subheader and information....then it should just be "Box office" by itself as the main header, with no "Release" header above it. Here you go, not to derail this conversation. It's also why all sections should have prose before a subheader.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I mean I don't have a problem with that, if you look at the articles I work on there is always a Marketing or a Context section to accompany the BO. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Box office is not simply an indicator of how it is received, this is why they refer to critical reception and financial success or lack thereof separately and don't just count finances as an indicator of success. BO sections generally cover release dates, events, impacts, influences, and reception and release also do not always correlate. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The "Release" section in MOS:FILM#Release indicates that there is flexibility about the general layout, and note that it encompasses release and reception. There does not need to be a requirement that all box office content should go under a section specifically called "Release". For MOS:FILM#Box office, box office content "can be included under the reception section". Should we just make it "reception or release section"? Films vary too much to specify what exactly to do. Some films may have a one-paragraph "Release" section for everything, and some films will have sufficient subtopics to warrant standalone sections. Let it depend on the article and the local consensus for determining making changes or not. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

As long as we have it written that BO can go under release that is fine by me. Again I'm not mandating it goes there, though I think it makes more sense there overall at least for any moderately successful films that have accolades, reception, BO and Marketing to deal with. Seeing a little stub marketing section always breaks my heart. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I think the change I suggested above is the best course of actions. Change "Theatrical run" in the Box office section to "Theatrical release". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Actually scratch the above suggestion. Rereading the current prose, this is what I think should happen: This information can be included under the reception section, or if sufficient coverage exists, it is recommended that this information is placed in a "Box office" or "Theatrical run" section. should become (adds in bold) This information can be included under the release section (see above), the reception section, or if sufficient coverage exists, it is recommended that this information is placed in a "Box office" or "Theatrical run" section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm fine with that Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 Done Added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Critical Response

Wikipedia's obsession with objective numbers is spinning out of all control. Take the current Critical Response section of Nightmare Alley as an example:

On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 80% of 191 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 7.4/10. The website's consensus reads: "While it may not hit quite as hard as the original, Guillermo del Toro's Nightmare Alley is a modern noir thriller with a pleasantly pulpy spin." Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned a score of 71 out of 100 based on 39 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".[1] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B" on an A+ to F scale, while those at PostTrak gave it an 80% positive score, with 57% saying they would definitely recommend it.[2]

This is shit. Not a single handpicked review. Not a single editorial decision. This just reduces Wikipedia to a movie aggregator aggregator. That's just unworthy of an encyclopedia. I cannot fathom the drift towards towards entirely soulless Critical Response sections. Why replicate what Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic already does better?

In almost every other instance Wikipedia strives towards original written content and handpicked references and examples.

We're fast approaching rock bottom, where we could just replace "Critical Response" with a template that automatically scrapes the aggregator sites; no manual intervention at all. It is mindboggling to me how we all have let Wikipedia sink so low, when everywhere else we frown upon (and revert) the inclusion of other sites' content. But for some incomprehensible reason we've decided it is of value to just regurgitate numbers as if they are objective.

Why we don't outright ban this (semi)-automated lazy content, so film articles can (and must) be filled with handpicked reviews, summarized on theme and content, for true value-add compared to the rest of the internet, is beyond me. At most our MOS should direct this aggregator data to the END of the critical response section, and this should only be allowed for articles that already have a healthy amount of curated review quotes and summaries. Aggregator data should never be allowed to overshadow our manual work, only complement it. (But really, WHY replicate their content at all?! Multiple internet sites exist for a reason!)

Instead, loads of little wiki gnomes toil endlessly to update their chosen articles almost daily whenever the percentage or number of reviews changes. Completely insignificantly and superfluously.

Easily one of Wikipedia's current biggest failings. CapnZapp (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Nightmare Alley (2021) Reviews". Metacritic. Fandom, Inc. Retrieved December 18, 2021.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference opening was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
If I recall, this eventually became the way of things because people would endlessly fight over how to summarize a group of reviews because summarizing the tenor of the reviews became a minefield of subjective assessment and editorializing and personal judgment, and it was with the general understanding that this would and should not be the only thing in the reception section. There was a point back then, before all this, where a lot of energy was spent on film articles arguing over whether the reviews presented were "generally favorable" or "mixed" or "average" or "slightly positive" or "mostly positive". If this is the only thing on the article, that's definitely a failure of having written the article poorly rather than a gap in MOS guidelines, because any article written well that I've personally seen does indeed include handpicked reviews and summarizes them. I'm not sure I want to go back to the days of endlessly edit warring over what the general of the reviews are, though. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how editors viewing or working on that article means there's a failure in the MOS. There's a failure in anyone watching and/or caring about that filming and editing it to simply just have that and not add other reviews. The issue appears to be with the article, not the MOS. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the suggested changes to the MOS would not be helpful. Not only do many people find review aggregator sites to be useful, but there are also many editorial decisions by both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic when scoring individual reviews, as well as the editorial summary written by staff at Rotten Tomatoes. If the complaining editor thinks there is a problem with a particular article (especially one about a film that was released within the past day), then they should add content themselves. WP:DIY & WP:VOLUNTEER. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
All of the comments above add value. The OP is right that a good review section should be predominantly descriptive rather than statistical, which the cited article appears to have overloooked. However others are also right that it is tremendously useful to have an external source to validate whether reviews have been generally good or generally bad and all points in between, without which there would be endless arguments about the balance of reviews and about which sources were the most reliable. What appears a failing in the cited article is that multiple sources for the statistic are cited, when just one or at most two (IME RT and/or Meta are usually cited and it might be worth deleting the references to others) is sufficient. Giving the statistics for every aggregator an editor can find is akin to quoting from every media review they can find; both are obviously the wrong approach. We are supposed to select and cite appropriately; WP is not a dump for data! MapReader (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for comments so far, but:

  • there is a prevalence of critical response sections with chiefly regurgitated aggregator statistics. This is extremely poor, as if statistics are more important than our editorial curation of reviews. Then we have the articles where the critical response consists of ONLY this tripe - and that is worse than nothing. This alone is cause for change.
  • the argument "but people find it useful" fails to address the counterargument: Wikipedia is not a collection of useful facts. Where else on Wikipedia do we routinely just mirror content scraped from elsewhere?
  • The proper fix to "people would endlessly fight" is to harshly punish edit wars, not to give in. And not only do we give in - we effectively encourage people to settle differences by replacing curated content with aggregator data! Nowhere else on Wikipedia do we give up and just replace effort with data scraping.
  • The aggregator data IS NOT OBJECTIVE fact. And reporting on overly detailed statistics ("23 out of 42 reviews were positive" type of inane stuff) give off the impression these numbers mean anything. There is no meaningful difference between 72% and 76%, say. It is shameful how uncritical Wikipedia treats these aggregators.
  • it was with the general understanding that this would and should not be the only thing in the reception section I am saying it has come to exactly this. Even for semi-major movies you often end up with aggregator data first and foremost, and then an anemic selection of handpicked reviews if we're lucky.
  • I'm not sure I want to go back to the days of endlessly edit warring Even banning Critical Reception altogether is better than what we have now. The current absence of rules and enforcement have led to the quality of our Critical Reception sections to be atrocious (with exceptions of course).

Again it is a major problem that we allow MC and RT summaries in the main body of the article, giving off the impression we have a Critical Reception even when we add zero original thought worthy of an encyclopedia. Ideally we would have templates dealing with MC and RT, unobtrusively adding some sort of minimal summary perhaps out in the marginal, while leaving the Critical Response clearly empty until filled with actual Wikipedia content. Another benefit of such wiki wizardry would be to prevent Wikipedians from obsessively monitor every minute change in RT and MC scores, and update choice articles almost daily. We often already just link to RT and MC in See Also using templates. Those templates could be embellished to contain the keyword summaries from those sites (the "slightly positive" or "rotten" words), getting rid of it in the article text proper.

CapnZapp (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You have a sympathizer in me (I do wonder what possible contribution the aggregator stats make to the Citizen Kane article for example, where superior sources frame and articulate the film's critical legacy in a far superior way) but for something like the new James Bond or Spider-Man film aggregators are a convenient way to litmus test the reception. Without them the critical reception sections would just devolve into perpetual edit wars between Marvel and DC fans. I agree that there is no tangible difference between 72% and 76%, but there is a tangible difference between 32% and 76% so I don't agree that the articles would be better without a critical reception section if they only contain stats. If you want to take an article to GA status then aggregator stats alone won't cut it, and the critical reception section will have to be properly developed. In a critical reception section that is fully developed, you can probably make the case for removing some of these stats in that scenario—especially in the case of of older films where the aggregator score doesn't reflect contemporary reception. Betty Logan (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This Manual of Style already addresses aggregators when it comes to older films, being cautious about those who mix reviews from the film's time with current reviews, and says to either include them lower in the section or even remove them entirely. But CapnZapp isn't making such a distinction, they're saying that the statistics basically have no value whatsoever, or that it shouldn't even be included anywhere in the body. —El Millo (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
We could simply add to the Critical reception in this MoS that a section consisting only of these statistics is incomplete and should have an {{Expand section}} template until more information is included. —El Millo (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Stub and Start-class articles are incomplete as well, yet they are a necessary stage for some topics that are developing. An incomplete section like the example you provided really isn't any different. The information linked to only aggregators is a good starting point, but no experienced editor will sit here and tell you it's the only content needed in critical reception. Any editor can simply expand that section with examples, and even further summarize overall critical reception with other non-aggregator sources if they are available. Being incomplete is not grounds for removal on Wikipedia, nor should behavior that implies that line of thinking be coded in the MOS. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Not a single handpicked review. So fix it, Wikipedia is you! (This rant seems very familiar CapnZapp, I don't think this is the first time you've brought it up.) If not fixing that one article directly then instead of complaining propose specific wording changes to the WP:MOSFILM guidelines. Weeks later and the article Nightmare Alley does not contain any reviews. It contains only a comment from talk show host Steven Colbert (who is not a film critic, and not an objective source, I cannot recall him ever saying anything negative about a film). What would I do? I'd either add {{Expand section}} or if I had more time I would add some reviews. These are choices that are already explicitly allowed but no one has done it yet for Nightmare_Alley_(2021_film). Since some people get a bit sniffy about critics (or wont allow a review because they want to deplatform their publication entirely) I try to add reviews from the most reliable sources possible. I used to add the reviews of the very well respected critic Roger Ebert to film articles (it helped that his reviews were almost always available online in a time when few were). Nowadays I usually start by adding reviews from the trade publications Variety magazine and The Hollywood Reporter because they have the least possible chance of anyone reasonable objecting to their being used as sources. Richard Roeper seems to be a well respected critic that no one objects to (conversely Rex Reed seems to be an old crank that frequently writes hatchet job reviews and he should only be used with caution). I give preference to critics from newspapers (when not prevented by editors on a crusade) but I don't specifically exclude critics, if a small horror film only has a few reviews from online publications I do the best I can with the critics that are available (I will use reviews from reviews from Common Sense Media or eFilmCritic.com if necessary but not if better more reliable sources are available). If it is a UK film I try to include a critics from at least the Guardian and the Telegraph (as they frequently differ). The first pass might only be a quick quote from a review that almost anyone could do, it isn't great but it is start.
The guidelines Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Critical_reception already more or less say as much, but they could perhaps do with an update to rephrase and expand the existing recommendations. They already say "Professional film critics are regarded as reliable sources, though reputable commentators and experts—connected to the film or to topics covered by the film—may also be cited. The use of print reviews is encouraged; these will be more reliable in retrospect." This could be adjusted and the text could be changed to emphasize that Rotten Tomatoes is only a starting point and make it even clearer that reviews from specific critics actually analyzing the film is better.
worse than nothing it objectively is better than nothing, it just is not a particularly good encyclopedia article yet and that attitude fundamentally misunderstands how Wikipedia actually works. It might seem patronizing to tell you to go back and read Wikipedia:Editing policy but we all need to be reminded of first principles sometimes and the lesson "Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required" applies here again. MOS should direct this aggregator data to the END of the critical response section, and this should only be allowed for articles that already have a healthy amount of curated review quotes and summaries. That is a rather broad proposal (not a specific wording change, and "a healthy amount" is rather subjective if such a prohibition was even possible) and I agree with the other editors above that I don't think it is helpful. It is a lot easier to destroy than create, the rules are could be clearer and more consistently enforced, and people nudged to do better, but this is not a disaster, this is not "a major problem" this is Wikipedia working as intended, warts and all. I actually agree that CapnZapp is correct in identifying that there are problems, Wikipedia has many flaws, but his suggested cure is worse. I just don't think it is reasonable or realistic to expect systemic change anytime soon.
TLDR Fix the article, or at least propose very specific wording changes to the guidelines. -- 109.76.201.241 (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Gross "over"

Some editors are in the habit of writing that the box office gross is "over" a certain amount. This qualifier unnecessary, and plain bad writing. This also appears to go against the guidance of MOS:LARGENUM and MOS:UNCERTAINTY which warns against using unnecessary qualifiers in the following text: Avoid using "approximately", "about", and similar terms with figures that have merely been approximated or rounded in a normal and expected way, unless the reader might otherwise be misled. (Template:Infobox film also says Use condensed, rounded values ($22.4 million vs $22,392,684). Precise values should be used where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason. (See also: MOS:LARGENUM and this consensus discussion.)

In the case of Ghostbusters: Afterlife an editor User:AbsolutelyFiring believes the exception "unless the reader might otherwise be misled" applies and insists on including the word "over" but again these numbers have been rounded in the normal way, this is basic numeracy. On the talk page Talk:Ghostbusters:_Afterlife#Gross_in_the_lead I have also tried to explain that tiny amount of money represented by rounding is irrelevant in the larger context of saying whether or not a film is successful but the editor insists that an exception is necessary but I do not believe the have done anything more than assert this, they haven't shown there is any need (WP:ONUS).

I thought there were past discussions on this and one user did suggest writing over/under there wasn't any indication that this suggestion was adopted and the existing guidelines (Template:Infobox film) point to MOS:LARGENUM. -- 109.79.73.152 (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

First of all you admit multiple users do it. And you are deciding on your own what is bad writing. Also the policy MOS:LARGENUM doesn't prohibit "over" or "more than" explicitly.
Secondly I have already told you that not everyone is good at numbers. You admitted yourself that basically when you started claiming WP:LARGENUM requires comprehension of numbers. WP:ONUS doesn't apply to you making unreasonable demands due to your preference and making claims that don't exist in policy.
And the discussion you show, while it was not adopted an editor certainly agreed with it.
The problem here is you not wanting to accept it and wanting your own way. That's not going to happen. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Many editors fail to follow the guidelines, that doesn't mean the guidelines do not apply. Many editors think they are exceptional, that doesn't mean they do not need to show reasons to make exceptions to the guidelines. The MOS:LARGENUM guidelines warn against using unnecessary qualifiers and similar terms. -- 109.79.73.152 (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't use many editors failing to follow policies as a reason after having edit-warred with multiple editors over it instead of getting a consensus. And also as for WP:BURDEN, it is important to be factually accurate. See WP:AD. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I think "over" and a number that doesn't take a minute to read is fine. It could be perceived as promotional or fluffy, but we don't use "OVER!" or anything, so it is easy to see that that isn't the purpose. Instead, it helps the FLOW and reader understanding, so could even be encouraged. Kingsif (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not asking what is merely acceptable or "fine" I am asking for better writing, or the consistent best case that the guidelines are supposed to indicate. I would not have escalated this if I did not think it was the thin end of the wedge. If "over" then why not "under"? Why this one case, why not every film article? In most normal film articles I see is no need for qualifiers but if there is consensus to actively ignore MOS:LARGENUM and write the box office gross was "over" many millions then when if ever is a rare exception justifiable? Do editors really want to pedantically write "over" (or under) in front of the box office gross almost every time? Do editors want to encourage this practice as Kingsif suggests? At least decide to do it consistently and make it clearer in that guidelines that there is consensus to do it that way.
I think the chance of readers being mislead by normally rounded numbers is vanishingly small (and compared to how misleading Hollywood accounting is in general it is irrelevant). I don't think it is a good idea to include the unnecessary qualifier "over" in the general case of numbers rounded in the normal way, and I don't see anything special about this case either. -- 109.79.73.152 (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Agree, and there's also pertinence and precision. Writing e.g. "grossed $1 billion" gives the impression that it's grossed around $1 billion to date. It might have grossed $990 million, or $1.1 billion, but likely not $500 million or $1.5 billion. But what's remarkable about the fact isn't that it grossed around $1 billion but that it crossed the $1-billion line. You wouldn't have put that if it'd only grossed $990 million. And it might have then gone on to gross $1.5 billion or $1.8 billion, but "grossed $1 billion" wouldn't give that impression.
In the present case in particular, $174 million is a bit more specific than that, but given it's a film that's still in theaters, putting "over" clarifies for the reader that the figure might be out of date. Such a blockbuster could easily earn half a million dollars in a day or two, which would render the figure no longer an accurate approximation, while it couldn't earn negative dollars. I don't see a problem (if the inclusion of the figure is warranted at all, that is). Nardog (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
109.79.73.152 Any of your concerns do not justify avoiding seeking consensus and just reverting. When multiple people, including ones more experienced than you, are telling you that there's nothing wrong in using it in certain cases maybe you should step back instead of edit-warring? "Multiple editors fail to follow policies" is not an excuse to be involved in edit-warring.
Regardless of whether the chance is small or not, you admit that people do have a chance of misunderstanding it. And btw even me who is good with numbers didn't understand it initially. As for being consistent, Wikis aren't always consistent but the only one who has been fighting over this is you. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 06:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I think it's perfectly acceptable to state "over" when a film is in the midst of its box office release, because that number is always changing. Trying to be precise causes an immediate concern of WP:DATED. It would be best to wait for the box office run to end before attempting to change the phrasing here as you've proposed. In other words, wait for the number to stabilize. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I think this project chose to accept a certain amount of imprecision when it decided to prefer rounded numbers, and that by writing over editors are allowing casual convenient writing to take precedence over encyclopedic writing and vague words that MOS:LARGENUM actively discourages. wait for the number to stabilize and what about when the numbers have stabilized and editors continue to insist on using the unnecessary qualifier "over"? [2]
Some editors like to write over, but they really shouldn't, we don't write "under" when we have rounded up. This is just how rounding numbers works, 5th graders understand this. The box office gross is listed in the infobox, the lead and the box office gross section, it is actually easier to just use the same number consistently in all three places, and not have one version rounded to a different level of precision. Part of why I object to this phrasing is that editors who think people are bad at numbers frequently turn out to be bad at numbers themselves, and other editors by accident or by a failure to understand how to round numbers continue to write "over" even when it does not apply [3] when the numbers have changed are being rounded down. -- 109.76.201.241 (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I concur that "over" is unnecessary (though I admit, I may have added that in the past sometimes, not thinking it through). For something like Ghostbusters: Afterlife, it's fine to say "grossing $195.2 million" instead of "grossing over $195.2 million". As it was mentioned, our rounded numbers mean we are less precise. When we say "grossing $195.2 million", it could mean $195,199,999 or $195,200,001. While we can know the specific number to the dollar (based on the reported data), "over" seems to be simply extraneous language to use in general, based on information that the reader does not see right away. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Jackass films

How do the Jackass films fair? I’m asking because a user, by the name Erik, had deleted everything that WAS the plot to the first three Jackass films. Albeit a bunch of stunts, but the reality is, like a movie plot, they’re everything that the film is about. 98.216.67.148 (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

There's already a discussion regarding these films here that you're welcome to contribute to. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Soundtrack track lists in film articles

WP:FILMSCORE says that track lists are "generally discouraged", but I'm curious as to how vigorously this is applied and whether there's been any recent discussion about it. Track lists seem to be rather commonplace in soundtrack or music sections of film articles, particularly in cases where there is no stand-alone article for the soundtrack. Some films like X-Men: Days of Future Past, Ben-Hur (2016 film), The Prestige (film), Luca (2021 film), Big Hero 6 (film) and The King's Speech (these are just six examples, but there seem to be many more) have dedicated subsections for "Track lists" or "Track listings", but often the track list is just an embedded with a more general section about the soundtrack like in Argo (2012 film)#Soundtrack, which is essentially nothing but an album infobox and a track list. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I think track listings should be removed especially if there is no context surrounding it and if the titles are generic and if there is not a variety of musicians. I think the examples you identified are candidates for the listings to be removed. Editors may not pay much attention to these sections because they're very static and possibly not worth the attention. I'd suggest putting a note at WT:FILM of this discussion if you want more eyes on it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Would definitely agree that if the soundtrack does not get attention for any type of notability, the track list should not be included. Only if you have a standalone article, or if there's a definite approach to notability ( should the track list be maintained within the film article. --Masem (t) 17:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Track listings are essentially useless pieces of information for the common reader. They add nothing of value unless you want to find some clever puns by Michael Giacchino. The only time they should be included is if they directly follow information about how the film's music was important to the production or if the soundtrack was well-received. Bad Times at the El Royale is a Featured Article that matches the criteria (See #Soundtrack). The music in that film was an important aspect of that film, and a track listing is necessary as a result. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with everything that's been posted above. In some cases, perhaps, the track list is the result of a merger or redirect like what took place at 1917 (2019 film)#Music, which originally started as 1917: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack. So, in those cases, the redirect/merge might've been a bit too BOLD and might need to be discussed. Similar things often happen with non-free soundtrack albums cover art; the file starts out being used in a stand-alone article about the soundtrack album (which is generally OK), but then is moved along with rest of the content to the film's article, which typically creates problems per WP:NFCCP. Most likely, as with files, it's just being assumed that the track list are automatically OK to use in the new target articles. What's not clear about the current wording (at least to me) of "Generally discouraged" in FILMSCORE is whether this means track lists need to be assessed and discussed on a case-by-case basis determined by local consensus or whether as a whole at the MOS or WikiProject level. The wording with respect to soundtrack album cover art implies that at least a consenus ragarding it has been established at the WikiProject level, but it's also something generally not permitted by WP:NFCC when it comes to non-free album cover art in general. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Writer parameter - Written by

Please see a relevant discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_film#Writer_parameter_-_Written_by. Debresser (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes Wikidata

Hey, please see discussion that proposes a change to this MoS at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 79#Rotten Tomatoes Wikidata and current releases. Indagate (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the deletion of {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} and {{MC film}}

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 March 31. GoneIn60 (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic summary

Going off of the discussion CapnZapp opened above, is it time to determine how to summarize Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores in writing? I find it common for film articles' lead sections (and BLPs) to neutrally state critics' consensus (i.e., positive, mixed, negative) based on these two sources alone. I believe this is inappropriate unless due weight can be demonstrated. Tenet (film), for example, contains four citations that report mixed reviews (USA Today, the LA Times, The Independent, and Screen Rant), yet the lead section notes "generally positive reviews". Granted, the phrase was included in the lede when only RT and MC were present, which is exactly why the two alone should not be sufficient to write such a generalization. KyleJoantalk 20:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

This is something that can be very controversial at film articles and I think it mostly needs to be left to local consensus. Due weight can be difficult to determine, although I would note that RT has based their summary for that film on 364 reviews and I doubt the other sources that are reporting "mixed reviews" have gotten anywhere close to that number. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Does that mean Rotten Tomatoes warrants more weight than Metacritic (or any other source) because it always looks at more reviews, then? Eternals (film), 47% or "Rotten" on RT and 52 or "mixed or average" on MC, is described as receiving "mixed reviews". Ambulance (2022 film), 68% or "Fresh" and 55 or "mixed or average", is described the same way. What makes summarizing both "Rotten" and "Fresh" statuses as "mixed" without citing other sources appropriate? With only RT and MC present, how could "mixed" be neutral in both articles? KyleJoantalk 03:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Not necessarily, I was just pointing out something that should be considered when trying to determine due weight. Another thing to consider is that the percentage on RT is not the only (or always most useful) data point that they provide. My recommendation is usually to use RT and MC to find all of the high quality reviews that are out there and then try to make sure that all of those are represented in the article with due weight. Then, the summary in the lead should be based on the article body rather than a summary written by someone else who may not have looked at all the reviews. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
There's no clear-cut guideline on what to do when both aggregators disagree, but typically in those situations, I would avoid summarizing. You also have to keep in mind that the reviews chosen for inclusion in the Critical reception section are chosen by us, so we also cannot summarize based on our own personal selections. In your Ambulance example, that's a good candidate for when we shouldn't be summarizing based solely on aggregator scores. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I think the opening paragraph of the critical reception section of Tenet does a good job of summarising the reception, but I agree that the brief summary in the lead does not accurately reflect the content of the critical reception section. However, the source summaries in the section possibly provide a solution: The Independent's observation that it was found to be "both entertaining and 'cerebral' by some, but lacking and confusing by others" probably captures the general sentiment well. If you want something to reflect the positive weight of the aggregators then you could combine that with the Variety summary as something like this: "Some critics found it lacking and confusing, but overall reviews were largely positive". I think something like that would touch all bases. There is always the nuclear option of not mentioning the reception in the lead, but I generally find that unhelpful because it's such a large part of a film's coverage. There is usually a sensible compromise available unless you have someone determined to push their own opinion about the film. Betty Logan (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The Kashmir Files lede

There is a RFC concerning the lede for a recently released film on Kashmir wherein there is a dispute about conformance to MOS. Comments are welcome. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Year in lead

@Wallyfromdilbert: Sorry, I didn't realize the relevant discussion took place not here but at WT:FILM#Year of release in the lead. Pinging participants @Lugnuts, Erik, Betty Logan, Daß Wölf, Darkwarriorblake, Bignole, and Kingsif.

I do not see any consensus to disregard festival screenings in lead. The Hurt Locker says it's a 2008 film. In fact Erik, who wrote much of the current version of the "Lead section" section, said: From what I recall, it means "public" in the sense of not being being private screenings or sneak previews. So film festival screenings are public releases, as reflected by secondary sources actually covering and reviewing them.

Excluding festival screenings in lead would lead to discrepancy not only with WP:FILMYEAR but with WP:NCF, which says For the other films (or all the films, if none of them are the primary topic), add the year of its first verifiable release (including film festival screenings). So Butter (2011 film) would have to say it's a 2012 film despite the disambiguation, and so on. Nardog (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this is an issue that should be resolved by the reliable sources for the lead sentence, rather than choosing ourselves. The sentence could probably be improved, but replacing the term "public release" with "public screening" seems confusing since most sources discuss when a film has been "released" or its "release date". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
How about just adding "(including film festival screenings)" just like WP:NCF then? Otherwise what on earth is the point of having lead sections that disagree with parenthetical dab, list articles, filmographies, etc.? Nardog (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure how disambiguation and list articles work, but I think that main article text should follow the sources. "Public release" seems fine although I think just "release" could work, too. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
We don't impose different thresholds on individual and list articles; they're all subject to the same level of verifiability. Finding reliable sources for the year of each film would prove infeasible or, even if not, invite a great deal of inconsistency because most publications are tied to specific nationalities so they would use whatever criteria that serve their purpose. When a film gets invited to a festival so the article is moved from "(upcoming film)" to "(20XX film)", do you seriously expect us to refrain from editing the lead until a source actually calls it "a 20XX film"? I find what you're suggesting impracticable and preposterous. Let's just pick a metric that works for every film. Nardog (talk) 10:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Why not use the same wording as from WP:FILMRELEASE -- "earliest release"? I definitely think we should move away from "public". It's not going to resolve every single film's release schedule, but it will cover the vast majority of them. We cannot discount film festival screenings because there are actually many films at these that do not necessarily get released commercially in theaters. Yet they can often be notable in being reviewed (or just written about) by numerous periodicals covering the festivals or by independent-filmmaking periodicals afterward. It's also rare for a commercially-released film that first appeared in film festivals a year ago to not get coverage at the time of the festivals. So reliable sources mentioning the film's commercial-release year is not proof of that year being "truer". It simply depends on the kind of scope one applies. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Whatever the exact wording, it seems we need the same definition shown across WP:PRIMARYFILM, WP:FILMLEAD, WP:FILMYEAR, and WP:FILMRELEASE. Perhaps WP:FILMYEAR should be a section about how to determine the year of a film in general rather than just about lists. I still find "release" misleading (as does Daß Wölf) as you don't normally call a festival screening or premiere such, but at any rate we could use a single section to point to. Nardog (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I think it is far more preposterous to claim that we should impose a MOS guideline that would ignore reliable sources. If a film has some type of premiere or screening in one year, but then is given an actual public release in the following year, and every source uses the latter year when listing or describing the film's year, then I do not think we should be ignoring those sources. We can easily update the year in the lead when subsequent sources come out, as we do frequently with information that changes. A Quiet Place Part II is one example. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Question: Should Nine Days be listed as a 2020 film or a 2021 film? It was shown at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2020 but was not released until July 2021. Per this discussion, would it be considered a 2020 film? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I would say 2020. There was a similar issues with Jason X, which was shown in Spain in 2001, and then sat on a shelf until 2002 before they released it widely in the US. It's a 2001 film, technically, the same as Nine Days is a 2020 film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
2020. I will repeat in this reply my views on the whole subject: film festivals 1. are public screenings anyone can attend, 2. can qualify a film for major awards like the Oscars, 3. can give awards themselves. If a film wins awards and qualifies for the Oscars in X year, it makes no sense to claim it was released in Y year just because Y is when someone stuck a poster to a movie theatre. Kingsif (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Are all film festivals screenings considered public screenings that anyone can attend? I thought there were some instances where a film may only be shown to a select group of invited individuals in a special screening at a festival. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
In those cases, they are not advertised as part of the festival's official selection, which is the kind of sourcing we go off anyway. Kingsif (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I haven't seen any other mention about "official selections" in this discussion, while mandating any "screening" in the MOS would seem to ignore that, which is why I think we should be going on what reliable sources say. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
A similar instance is A Quiet Place Part II, which had a "world premiere" in 2020, but was not released publicly until 2021, and all sources list it as a 2021 film. I don't think Wikipedia should be creating MOS guidelines that would ignore all reliable sources to impose a particular year in the lead of film articles. Whether a particular screening is considered the film's release should be determined by the reliable sources. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
The approach does not ignore reliable sources. First, films do get coverage from reliable sources when they get released at film festivals, and that coverage can make up the preliminary content of the films' Wikipedia articles. In my experience, these kinds of films are mainly the ones that mean different years are in play. A Quiet Place Part II is a very rare example of a world premiere happening a year before a commercial release. I can't imagine many more instances out there. I still find "2020" to be appropriate because in this case, the film was finalized, and people beyond those who worked on it got to see it. This from March 6, 2020 cites different reactions to it, even though we don't directly cite the reactions due to their capsule-review-esque nature. Maybe there's a case to argue against that if the film was enormously changed after its world premiere, but it wasn't. It doesn't mean "2021" is a wrong answer, but if we have "2020" and "2021" as valid answers, we go with the earliest. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 01:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Some of the film databases that we regularly reference such as the British Film Institute and Allmovie opt for the 2020 date in describing the year of the film. Even though it is not RS—but still an interesting litmus test given its prevalence—IMDB also goes with the 2020 date. So 2020 in this scenario is not unprecedented. Obviously given the circumstances surroundings the delay you are not going to get complete consistency but there are some very credible sources backing up the 2020 date. It's not as though Wikipedia would be at odds with every other source out there. The lead reads slightly weirdly at the moment because we declare it to be a 2021 film and then state it premiered early in 2020. Betty Logan (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
A Quiet Place Part II is a terrible example for trying to set a precedent; it wasn't misstated or withdrawn or a small film that couldn't get distribution or anything that resembles common reasons for year confusion, it was moved because of a pandemic. Is that what you want to base precedent on for all historic and future films - delays because of COVID? And AQP P2 actually had a set theatrical release date in 2020 - March 20, with this cancelled only days before. That's a 2020 film to anyone who cares about film as an art (rather than just when they get to watch), as shown in all the sources Betty Logan provided. Come on. Kingsif (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
There are plenty of reliable sources that list "2021" as the date, as opposed to the two reliable sources listed by Betty Logan, e.g., American Film Institute, Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, Box Office Mojo, The Numbers, RogerEbert.com, as well as the distributer Paramount Pictures. You can care about your bizarre conceptions of "art" all you want, but I think Wikipedia should rely on the weight of reliable sources. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
That proves my point: Reliable sources aren't a monolith. You can always find RSes to support whichever argument you make. Trying to weigh contradicting sources for each film is infeasible, much less when we already have a rule for list articles, parenthetical disambiguation, and infoboxes. The Hurt Locker already calls it a 2008 film. Nine Days (film) already calls it a 2020 film. Jason X already calls it a 2001 film. We've already done this and you're the one making a disturbance here. Nardog (talk) 04:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Weighing reliable sources for individual articles is exactly how Wikipedia is supposed to work. There is even a whole policy about it: WP:WEIGHT. I'm also not sure you understand what the word "disturbance" means. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Another consideration is that we are all living in 2021, so this apparent discrepancy feels so immediate. Yet 30 years later, looking back on A Quiet Place Part II, how important will it be to emphasize the 2021 commercial release over the 2020 world premiere? I feel like with older films, we've done some investigating to nail down a release year (of course, tougher due to limited sourcing), and it's based on finding the earliest year on record, and we go with that. I don't see any reason not to take that long view here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
If reliable sources use a particular year, then I definitely agree we should go with that. But I don't think we should create MOS guidelines that would ignore reliable sources if they don't agree with our particular personal definitions of "earliest year on record". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Given the section at WP:WEIGHT about balancing sources that contradict: when you have two sources of equal merit, one describes the film as being of a later year due to a theatrical release and another describes the film as being of an earlier year because of a festival screening, what then? We discern and balance reliable sources, but at some point here, it'll become inconsistent that some film articles will acknowledge a festival screening as a premiere year and others outright ignore the existence of festivals. Generally, we as editors are not in the habit of deciding something doesn't factor in at all because some sources for a given topic don't acknowledge it. At some point, some reliable source is going to be ignored, and it's not clear to me why we should choose to ignore sources that factor in festival premieres rather than sources that discount them. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
@Wallyfromdilbert: As far as this thread is concerned, it's quite clear you stand alone here. Do you still object to bringing the definition of the year in WP:FILMLEAD in line with WP:PRIMARYFILM, WP:FILMYEAR, and WP:FILMRELEASE? Nardog (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding A Quiet Place Part II, there has been an edit regarding the film's year in the opening sentence. Pinging those who participated here: Nardog, TenTonParasol, Kingsif, Bignole. The discussion can be found here: Talk:A Quiet Place Part II#Revisiting. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

As for IMDB, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says:"The content on IMDb is user-generated, and the site is considered unreliable by a majority of editors. WP:Citing IMDb describes two exceptions, both of which do not require citations because the film itself is implied to be the primary source. Although certain content on the site is reviewed by staff, editors criticize the quality of IMDb's fact-checking. A number of editors have pointed out that IMDb content has been copied from other sites, including Wikipedia, and that there have been a number of notable hoaxes in the past. The use of IMDb as an external link is generally considered appropriate (see WP:IMDB-EL)."
For Rotten Tomatoes, "Rotten Tomatoes is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film and TV. There is no consensus on whether its blog articles and critic opinion pages are generally reliable for facts. There is consensus that user reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are generally unreliable, as they are self-published sources. Reviewers tracked by Rotten Tomatoes are not automatically reliable for their reviews, while there is no consensus on whether their "Top Critics" are generally reliable."
Doug Weller talk 10:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Audience reception

On this policy page, it says that Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database, Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes (including its "Audience Says" feature), as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew. I can understand that audience scores aren't perfectly accurate, but I don't think they should be dismissed entirely. There have been multiple cases of critics and audiences significantly diverging from each other. Surely, a bare mention wouldn't do any harm? Leaving it out entirely seems like a form of censorship, and a way of protecting media from negative audience reactions; notable examples of this are The Last Jedi and the Leather Special. In both cases, no amount of bots, misrepresentation or vote-stacking could explain away the audience results. Xcalibur (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Those polls do not represent general audiences, just online trolls. If there is genuine discussion to be had about audience responses to a film beyond box office/viewership/etc. then there will be reliable sources covering that which do not rely on untrustworthy polls. The only appropriate time to include these that I have seen is when reliable sources discuss them, such as in Captain Marvel (film) which received a lot of coverage for the Rotten Tomatoes troll poll that led to changes to RT's system. Otherwise, using this data is WP:UNDUE because it presents the views of a small group of internet trolls as being more important than all other audience members and on the same level as the legitimate critic responses that we already have in film articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
The idea that audience scores are a "small group of trolls" is essentially a conspiracy theory. I see no reason to believe that a small group of people acting in bad faith could swing a public poll to more than a minor extent, especially when there are numerous responses. Why would they do that, anyway? Occam's Razor tells us that no, there's not some grand conspiracy to give negative input to certain pieces of media; instead, critics and audiences diverge sometimes. Further evidence for this is found on the ratings for Dave Chappelle's recent releases, Sticks & Stones and The Closer -- both were panned by critics, but received glowing positive reviews from the audience. Is that the work of trolls, as well? This seems like mental acrobatics to try to explain away reality, at least to me. All the more reason to include audience scores. Xcalibur (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Do you seriously think that most everyday people who watch a movie or TV show then go online and give a complete, thoughtful, and accurate review on various websites, creating an consensus on such sites that reflects all the viewers? No, these people are not representative of audiences. Not every film has trolls targeting audience scores, but the contentious ones such as The Last Jedi, which you mentioned above, do. Either way, the scores do not reflect general audiences and should not be relied upon for a Wikipedia article. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I have no reason to believe that the scores do not reflect audience consensus in a very rough, general manner. Unless of course, you assume that critics and audiences must agree at all times, and they don't have to. If the divergences were always negative audience scores to positive critic reviews, you might have a point. However, we also see the inverse, negative critic reviews to positive audience scores. In some cases they swing to opposite extremes, Ricky Gervais: Supernature is yet another example of this. That's not to say articles should rely on audience scores per se, but mentioning this info, alongside greater emphasis on critics, seems like a good idea. Disagreement between critics & audiences seems significant to me, and something worth covering. Xcalibur (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
The Tomatometer is reliable and due because almost every other source refers (or has referred) to it in reports about films' critical consensus. When there is a clear difference between critics' and audiences' responses, why not just cite secondary sources that discuss that contrast or the general audience reception rather than rely on audience scores? KyleJoantalk 04:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I have no reason to believe that the scores do not reflect audience consensus in a very rough, general manner. How can this be? Have you checked each audience member who has added a review to one of these websites to make sure that they are representative of the overall population? We use these sites for critical consensus because we know that they cover all of the significant, verified critic reviews for each film (and when that is not the case, such as with older films, we avoid relying on this). But literally anyone can add an audience review and there is no way to ensure that they have actually seen the film (despite efforts from the sites to enforce this). That is why we do use audience data from other sources, such as CinemaScore and PostTrak, which are reliable and carry out their polling based on getting an accurate representation of audiences who have actually seen the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree that secondary RS discussing critic/audience divergence are preferable. However, primary sources/data aren't strictly prohibited. I think articles should mention both scores. Even if they don't elaborate on the audience input, you could at least drop a mention.
Of course I haven't investigated every review, and there is room for doubt. But when there's thousands or even tens of thousands of responses, the probability of it reflecting audience consensus goes up, while the probability of it being a vast conspiracy by trolls goes down. eta: I'm not saying we should use these scores for SYNTH or OR. Rather, just mention the info and let the readers decide for themselves. Xcalibur (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Uncontrolled online polls are essentially user-generated data, which not permitted. While I agree that vote-stacking is less likely to impact the outcome in large polls, permitting them would open a can of worms. Betty Logan (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with user-generated data, especially since it's being published by RT, who presumably are screening it and weeding out faulty responses. As I said, it can be kept within strict limits, which should prevent any can of worms scenario. Briefly mentioning audience scores wouldn't do any harm, and would provide more relevant information, which is the idea here. Xcalibur (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:USERG. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Granted, anything user-generated does not qualify as RS. But that doesn't mean it should be ruled out entirely. Briefly mentioning the approval rating summarized from thousands of responses is not the same as linking blog posts. Xcalibur (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
The guideline specifically addresses the audience response data that we are talking about. Yes, you are correct that anything user-generated does not qualify as RS. But that doesn't mean it should be ruled out entirely, I have already given an example of such a situation at Captain Marvel (film) where it is included but that is because there are significant reliable sources discussing the score. If that is not the situation for other films then it should not be included. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I think we should be more informative, not less. I still think a bare mention is fine, while further elaboration should depend on RS. Xcalibur (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, oppose adding discussion of general audience ratings, already discussed as being unreliable, unless those audience ratings have themselves been discussed by an RS. DonIago (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

A bare mention of what is an unreliable source is precisely the opposite of being informative. These unreliable measures are only relevant if heavily commented on by reliable sources. —El Millo (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I just don't see any harm in it. Divergence of critics & audience seems significant, and we should be able to mention this with or without RS. Of course, RS lets you expand on it, but simply quoting a number without elaboration seems like a safe thing to do. Sure, the audience score can be biased, but the critics can be biased their own way, that's why having multiple measures is so helpful. I realize public opinion is against me on this, but it's worth considering. Xcalibur (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
You may not see any harm in it, but it is pretty well established on Wikipedia that there is harm in including unreliable data such as this. Sure, the audience score can be biased, but the critics can be biased their own way is not helpful, because as I have pointed out earlier we know that we are getting full coverage of critical reviews but we do not know that for the audience score. If every professional film critic gives a movie negative reviews but a small group of fans spam the sites with positive reviews then those fans may claim that their bias was justified to counteract the critics' bias, but clearly that is not the case. Wikipedia is objective and should not be used to try and promote positions that are not supported by the majority of sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
That goes back to my point about sample size. If there's only hundreds of votes, then it can be stacked one way or the other. But tens of thousands of votes? That's much more reliable, maybe not RS, but not useless either. I think if there's a minimum (eg 10k), then mentioning that number shouldn't undermine our integrity. Again, it's just a possibility. Xcalibur (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
It's either a reliable source or it isn't. If it isn't, it's only worth mentioning when covered by reliable sources. Including the number would be harmful precisely because it is an unreliable source. The consensus is that is isn't reliable. For it to be generally included, you should convince enough editors to overturn that consensus that's already established. —El Millo (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't see it as a strict binary. I think exceptions can be made, especially when there are 10,000+ responses -- statistically, high samples are much less likely to be compromised. However, I also acknowledge the consensus is against me. All I can do is put this out there for consideration. Xcalibur (talk) 06:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with WP:USERG and why it exists. Audience scores should not be cited or mentioned in an article unless they are the focus of a controversy that has received significant coverage. Even then, you really need a community consensus formed through an RfC in order for it to stick. Last Jedi is a great example of such an exception approved through an RfC.
    Also keep in mind that if your goal is to change the guideline WP:USERG, then the discussion to do so should really be taking place over there on its talk page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I definitely don't think we should report raw audience data from IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes, because we do not know what tampering and vote stacking could have taken place behind the scenes, and data without this important context is misleading. But when a third party like Rotten Tomatoes presents an "audience says" consensus, I think there's an argument to be made for its inclusion. This summary is not plain user-generated data, but written by Rotten Tomatoes staff who have analysed the reviews of their verified audiences (those who have been confirmed to have bought a ticket to the movie). The RT website additionally says this:

Plus, if we become aware of any external factors impacting the Audience Score and user reviews, such as a controversy affecting sentiment around a title, we may address that in the Audience Says blurb – all in an effort to equip you with the best and most relevant info to help make your viewing choices.

That's pretty darn important context that would enrich an article imo. I don't see this as any different except for being a digital equivalent of what CinemaScore and PostTrak intend to do with their audience grades and surveys, and we do display these ratings prominently in the critical receptions sections wherever they exist, notwithstanding possible demographic skew. 2001:8F8:172B:4994:5C26:9FD8:C591:9693 (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
For films that have an "Audience says" summary, I think a case can be made to include that alongside the survey data from CinemaScore and PostTrak. However, it's important to keep in mind that unlike the surveys, verified audience scores at Rotten Tomatoes are voluntarily given. That is less effective than survey methods that sample a population and gather feedback from everyone in their sample. Voluntary data can be skewed in favor of things like disgruntled fans or politically-motivated bias, just to name a couple examples. I wouldn't be entirely opposed to its inclusion, but this is something to keep in mind. Also WP:USERG, a core content guideline, would still need to be updated as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
That's a fair point, but I think we can trust the judgement of Rotten Tomatoes staff as a reliable source to keep politically or otherwise-motivated reviews from influencing their summary incorrectly. They do state that they will address any external factors that could impact the audience score in this space. Wikipedia won't present any data ourselves, but report on what this review aggregator thinks is the general audience sentiment. That seems fair enough. 2001:8F8:172B:4994:5C26:9FD8:C591:9693 (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The problem isn't just vote rigging (which I actually agree is likely to be minimal for well maintained, large polls) it's also vote skewing. For example, it is well known that Wikipedia's editorship skews toward young(ish), college educated, professional males, which results is WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. This is also true of the internet in general. Let's just take a look at the demographic voter breakdown for Titanic on IMDB, a film that was noted for skewing female upon its original release. The number of male voters is more than double that of female voters; women over the age of 45 are definitely under-represented (you can't tell me that more males under 30 have seen Titanic than women over 45). So it's not just the sample size that makes a poll statistically significant, but also the way it is sampled. Betty Logan (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Betty and others. In addition to WP:USERG being part of a major general guideline on Wikipedia that would need to be changed to have any impact here, reliably sourced coverage investigating user ratings have found them problematic for the reasons other editors have stated above. CinemaScore and PostTrak work much better because they conduct random sampling. Box office performance is another more appropriate metric that can show a film's popularity. In contrast, user ratings are self-selecting and fueled by concentrated motivations and have much less to do with the film itself. See review bomb and vote brigading for more about these issues. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, there can be systemic bias, even in verified audience scores with large amounts of feedback (which would tend to offset those problems). However, there can also be systemic bias in professional reviews, which is being ignored. You have to admit, it's at least possible for movie critics to be biased in favor of an agenda, which is why including both scores side-by-side would help the reader get a better grasp of what's going on. I certainly wouldn't want to rely entirely on user-generated input (even if it's vetted with high #s), I just think it would complement existing info. After all, if Rotten Tomatoes sees fit to publish user generated data (after presumably vetting it), then it arguably has a layer of RS support. Also, scientific polling is not necessarily a replacement for this, since it tends to be done only on opening weekends in select cities, and that methodology has its own biases.
tl;dr: more info, not less, especially when it's RS-adjacent. Xcalibur (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
You've been told about WP:USERG more than once now, which says RT's user ratings are not reliable. If you want to change WP:USERG, go right ahead. The talk page is waiting for you. In the meantime, we will continue to follow it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Trouble is, that page is too broad and general. There are many cases in which user-generated data should not be referenced. However, I think RT audience scores of 10k+ responses, vetted by the site, should be an exception, for the reasons stated by myself and by 2001:8F8:172B:4994:5C26:9FD8:C591:9693, who had helpful input. This seems like the most appropriate venue for discussing that matter. Xcalibur (talk) 10:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
This seems like the most appropriate venue for discussing that matter. This much I agree with, only by having the discussion here did it manage to get a good level of engagement. The consensus does seem to be firmly against allowing any loosening the rules to allow users scores beyond the existing limited exceptions when reliable secondary sources report on the audience scores (examples of the rare exceptions being: Captain Marvel, The Last Jedi). I would take this opportunity to point out that many film articles have been far too lenient about including user generated scores from the Chinese site Douban, but I'm willing to assume on good faith that editors are less familiar with that site and not as many people have realised that those scores are just as user generated as the IMDB scores or Rotten Tomatoes audience scores. -- 109.77.202.160 (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
"This seems like the most appropriate venue for discussing that matter." Completely disagree. WP:RS is a content guideline that has a lot more visibility that MOS:FILM, plain and simple. Even if we agreed here to remove the Rotten Tomatoes example from WP:USERG, that still wouldn't exempt RT audience scores from being considered user-generated content. You would have to fundamentally change what WP:USERG says, and that discussion is more appropriate over there. You would need a lot more participation that just a handful of editors. In fact, once you made a convincing argument, it would likely go to an RfC. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I accept your point, and while I think this was an appropriate place to start a discussion about it (I was thinking that it was far better than some of the many other places this has been raised), but with hindsight I it is clearly not the most appropriate place. My intention was to express some apprecation for Xcalibur for starting the discussion and also to try and bring it closer to conclusion by pointing out that the consensus seems firmly against user generated audience scores (and even though audience scores sometimes slip into articles anyway). -- 109.79.161.244 (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
To the IP: I appreciate your input. I could pursue this further, but the majority opinion seems to be set against it. This discussion was at least useful for gauging community response. Xcalibur (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Reception in lede sections

This also applies to TV shows too, but as film has generally the better MOS around this, I'd though I'd see if there's anything that can be done here first.

Often, after a film is released but before editors can work on post-release expansion, which includes fleshing out the reception section, I see editors try to rush to include "The film was praised for X, Y, and Z, but criticized for This and That.", but well before a good reception section has been built out. These sentences also tend to try to cover the gamut of all possible film elements - acting, writing, directing, costumes, music, SFX, etc. - even though not each of these necessarily get called out. Such sentences after a proper reception, in which one can compare that sentence to what's actually in the body, are fine; its just this early inclusion of them that I see is along the lines of OR and possibly POV if there's no full expansion in the body.

It would be helpful if this MOS could warn against that type of inclusion specifically. The MOS does say lede sections must summarize what's in the body, but I think it would help to be more explicit on this type of reception summary. --Masem (t) 14:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe many films have enough substantial criticism or praise for more than one or two aspects, so the MOS should advise against this. What definitely used to happen in the past is that a review would mention, say, the special effects, even if they weren't anything unique, and so the summary now says that the special effects were a big deal for all reviews. We should be advising against that absolutely. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Would it help to repeat that subsequent lead paragraphs should be summaries of body material? For example, change
"Succeeding paragraphs in the lead section should cover additional aspects of the film not mentioned already in the first paragraph. These include"
to
"Succeeding paragraphs in the lead section should summarise additional aspects of the film covered in the body of the article. These can include"
NebY (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, along with the list of common items that sometimes overly flood film ledes. --Masem (t) 15:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
You think we should drop the "These (can) include" list? NebY (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, I wouldn't mind if we flat out prohibited language such as "the film was recognized for X, Y and Z". In my experience they just tend to become bloated with editors adding every little thing that anyone complimented or cursed the film for, and more often than not verge into OR if not outright inaccuracy. If a film has been recognized for X, then provide the specific instance of it having been recognized (e.g. it having won an Oscar). DonIago (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I would rather see the statement be more about using common sense on this. This lede sentence should not be trying to group the laundry list of possible features of a film into "praised"/"criticized" buckets. If a film clearly was praised for its casting by numerous reviews, great, that should be included, but if only a couple reviews talk about its writing, that likely doesn't need to be discussed in the lede. If one of these aspects are going to be included in the lede, I should be able to do a random sampling of review and quickly verify that yes, this is an aspect frequently discussed. Masem (t) 06:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
If the lead is supposed to be summarizing material that's present in the body of the article, though, then it shouldn't include text on the basis of "clearly was praised...by numerous reviews" unless the Reception section states something to that effect as well...and I don't mean by listing several reviews that praise the thing in question (i.e. several isn't numerous).
I'd invite you to offer proposed wording or an alternate suggestion below though, as the conversation appears to be moving toward practical wording. DonIago (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
To DonIago's and Darkwarriorblake's points, I fight this battle all the time, especially on new releases (most recently at Jurassic World Dominion). I always remind editors that the reviews in the body of the article were randomly selected by us and they may or may not reflect overall reception. So we can't take their points and throw them into the lead. This MOS guideline seems to say we should without further clarification. So yes, perhaps we should take a closer look here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I would support any changes here to help curb this. Agree with everyone above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that we have a consensus and come up with a proposed change to the MoS, but we already have the following text, "Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis and reflect detail that is widely supported in published reviews." I'm not sure what we can do here other than perhaps strike everything after "sythesis", or perhaps the entire sentence. Maybe, "In order to avoid synthesis, the film's critical reception should not be summarized. Rather, a film's esteem can be more clearly demonstrated with clear statements of any accolades the film received." Something along those lines. DonIago (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should be saying "the film's critical reception should not be summarized". The reception is one of the most important parts of a film article and the lead should definitely be including a summary of it. We just need to make sure that editors know not to synthesize that summary based on their own personal selection of reviews. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
"Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis and be directly attributable to sourced commentary on how the film was received"? DonIago (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
"the lead should definitely be including a summary" More often than not, this is true, but when aggregators disagree with one another, we probably shouldn't be attempting it. Unless you can tie the summary to some of the best sources, then it's going to be hard to overlook RT and MC being at odds. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
  • "widely supported in published reviews" could be an issue. Makes sense to us, but at first glance a novice user might assume we mean "widely supported in the reviews that are in the reception section". Doniago may be on the right track. What about this: "Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis, meaning it should reflect an overall consensus that has already been summarized by one or more reliable sources."
    Lots of wiggle room there of course. I also think it should be moved to the start of the next paragraph to give it a more prominent position. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
    I'd be fine with this wording. Though, not to sound cynical, I suspect the root of this problem largely stems from well-meaning editors who simply aren't familiar with the MoS. In other words, hopefully we're giving editors something more clear to point to if/when they back out the unsupported lists, but for articles that retain them I can see this continuing to be a problem, not to mention them being added to articles. Still, if this makes a dent in the problem then it's worth it. DonIago (talk) 04:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, we could put that disclaimer above every discussion involving a change to the MOS. No one really reads the directions anyway. I'm still of the mindset, however, that we should continue to tweak and simplify whenever needed. We don't want CREEP, but we do seek clarity for those that do read them. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
    I support making the MOS clearer in stating that we should only be recapping reliable sources' own summaries of film reviews. Perhaps also state that it will not always be possible to do that recapping, in case some editors think we have to include something in some form? Some films just do not get enough coverage for any reliable source to identify trends in the individual reviews, and there's nothing to be done about that. We can share the aggregate scores if they exist, but when the scores do not exist, I'm not even sure if we could have any kind of summary sentence for individual reviews since the reviews are essentially distinct from each other. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry it took me this long to respond...I've had some real-world impositions on my Wikipedia bandwidth of late.
    How about: "A summary of the film's critical reception may be useful to readers, but should only be included if reliable sources have discussed such trends."? DonIago (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Final text?

As there's been no additional comments on this for the past several days, if at least another 48 hours go by without further comment I'll be bold and replace Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis and reflect detail that is widely supported in published reviews. with A summary of the film's critical reception may be useful to readers, but should only be included if reliable sources have discussed such trends. Thanks everyone. DonIago (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm actually not a fan of "trends", which is a term that implies being in a state of development or change. Summaries should not rely on sources that discuss trending reception. Early reactions, for example, would not be appropriate for the lead, so we want to avoid this kind of language in the MoS. Also, we are already told earlier in that paragraph that "reception of the film by critics" should be covered, so there's no need to explain again that a summary could be useful.
If we go back to the last chunk of the discussion involving several editors, it was everything after "synthesis" we were looking to improve, correct? Here's a tweaked version of what I suggested earlier:
Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis, meaning it should reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more reliable sources.
Thoughts? Further improvement suggestions? --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd be okay with that wording, but I'd like to hear what Erik (talk · contribs) thinks, as he has a knack for coming up with points I hadn't considered. DonIago (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Appreciate that! It works for me. At first I wasn't sure if "one or more" works, but without it, I can see its absence leading to thinking that more than one reliable source needs to say the same thing, which is not true. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Appreciate the feedback. My thinking around "one or more" was also to alleviate confusion some might have if we just said "reliable sources". In that scenario, one might assume on first sight we were talking about "individual reviews" – what we are trying to steer away from. The hope is that "one or more" gives some pause and has them carefully read that sentence again. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
The “summarized” in the proposed wording doesn’t seem right, implying a summary of a summary. Surely “supported” or “referenced” or “stated” is what it means? MapReader (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
An overall consensus that was put together, or summarized, by a reliable source is the explanation. That said, "stated" would also work, although my first preference would still be "summarized". --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Technical details in the opening sentence

How much is too much? Let's say we've got a really complicated film. In keeping with MOS:FIRST, how many of the details in the below sentence are necessary:

Wikipedia Saves the World is a 2022 American adult computer-animated/live-action puppet 3D found footage fantasy film produced by Wikipedia.

I doubt it would confuse people if they had to wait until the second sentence to find out that a film is computer animated. Toy Story is an egregious example of Wikipedia's redundancy in this area. Being computer-animated is such an important detail to Wikipedia editors that it's mentioned in the first sentence, second sentence, and the second paragraph (this is a Good Article). Another example: Team America: World Police. It's a puppet film that uses puppets. And, of course, we have to tag it as "adult", even though this is commonly used as a euphemism for "pornographic" in the entertainment industry (see adult film and adult entertainment).

I think we've already got an implicit consensus to move "found footage" outside of the opening sentence. For example, both Paranormal Activity and The Blair Witch Project do this. Hidden comments ask editors not to insert the phrase. Some of our articles already try to do this for other elements but end up deeply redundant. Maybe we could encourage these technical details to be moved to the second sentence to cut down on this? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Toy Story or Team America: World Police have any issues, they both just have one media description and one genre which aligns with what MOS:FILMLEAD says (and the computer-animated thing is pretty noteworthy for Toy Story so I don't have an issue with that). The problem is when an article has multiple genres, or if the media is mixed such as both animation and live-action. In that case we should be picking one of each if possible, or leaving them out and explaining them better later. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the above example can be too much. It is unnecessary to front-load all the descriptors in the opening sentence. The MOS deals with this only with genres and sub-genres, but not so much with film format and target demographic. There are certain implicit descriptors that we have, like we don't repeatedly describe "feature films" as such, "narrative films" as such, "live-action films" as such, or "adult-oriented films" as such. Some thoughts on the above instances:
  • If it's not just live-action, mentioning that it's computer-animated or at least a hybrid is pretty standard and found in all reliable sources about a given film.
  • When it comes to genres, per MOS, we don't have to list everything in the first sentence, but we can use the second and third sentences to provide additional detail about the kind of film it is.
  • Even if a film is in 3D, it's not always in 3D, and rarely ever is seen in 3D at home, so I feel like "3D" should almost never be in the opening sentence.
  • Regarding Toy Story, I actually think "family film" is more suitable than "comedy film". The film fits both, but I feel like "family film" is a more appropriate umbrella. Toy Story has action and drama too, but we're not going to call it an action film or a drama film. Maybe I am bringing my POV too much, but it seems like "family film" is a key descriptor to apply.
Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree with many of the points above. Title, year, primary genre, and nationality (if singular): that's the minimum. Everything else can be spread out into sentences 2 and 3. That example above is a grammatical disaster that, at the bare minimum, would need to have its multiple adjectives broken up and separated by commas, resulting in an uncomprehensive mess. Without even looking at the article, I'd venture to guess very few of those descriptors are discussed at all in the body of the article, which is grounds for removal (if you're looking for a reason ;-D). --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, WP:LEAD says, "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Could see the above details being "basic facts". We don't necessarily indicate the genre in most film article bodies, maybe by happenstance when reviews talk about the film in the context of its genre. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, good point, aside from basic facts. If that was ever challenged, however, we'd look to WP:V and WP:NPOV for guidance. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I recently reverted an edit for Walking with Dinosaurs (film) here because the technical details are already covered in the second sentence and are framed better there. Think that's a good KISS approach? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Fully on board with that! --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that's how I'd have done it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

"Lead section" changes

Recently made some changes here and wanted to drop a note about them. Please take a moment to review.

On the surface, those changes may seem somewhat radical. However, I'm confident that a closer look will reveal that this is really just some minor tidying up, dealing with grammar and positioning. One of the main issues with the original text is that we often repeat "reliable sources" and "lead section" in almost every sentence. We also had a really long opening paragraph that was just begging to be split apart (opening sentence vs rest of 1st para).

The word count dropped from 389 to 357. Personally, I think it's more succinct and looks less cluttered now, but if anyone disagrees, we can dig into it more here. Thanks! -- GoneIn60 (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Removal of "reliable sources" isn't a minor change, and I have restored it. Some editors still think they can "argue" the nationality of a film based on SYNTHESIS of data such as financing or ownership of production companies, rather than relying on citation from RS as is the general WP standard. I don't understand your concern about the repetitions of "reliable sources" given that it is only three days since you added an extra repetition yourself![4] MapReader (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I'm fine with that! That's why I dropped a note here. I do think it's important to keep in mind that there are policies and guidelines outside of the MoS to deal with the kind of issues you've described, but sure, add that back in. I still think it reads fine after your last edit. The main concern here is that these sentences have been evaluated/added piecemeal over the years, and sometimes we forget to make adjustments as we go to surrounding text to improve readability. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
"...given that it is only three days since you added an extra repetition yourself" Several editors made that decision. I also disagree that the change increased repetition; fact is there was plenty to begin with. The recent edit and this thread aim to look beyond a single sentence. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Fine, but you can’t really use the number of times a phrase appears as a reason for removing one, if you’ve just added one days before. Anyhow, the more fundamental point is that those words were put there specifically and deliberately to address the issue to which I refer above, and shouldn’t be casually copy-edited out. MapReader (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
MapReader, respectfully, it is time to move the discussion forward. Are there any other concerns with the latest revision you'd like to discuss? --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

It was reported, it was confirmed, it was announced ...

There seems to be a practice in a number of Wikipedia articles, but especially in articles about movies, of reporting the chronology of when each piece of information about a then-upcoming film became known. Some examples from Dumb and Dumber To#Filming:

On April 18, 2013, the Farrellys tweeted that Australian band Empire of the Sun would compose the score for the film. ... On June 18, 2013, Peter Farrelly confirmed that the sequel would move forward in an interview with The Nerdist Podcast. ... On July 9, 2013, while on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, Daniels confirmed Carrey's involvement, and stated that shooting would start in September 2013 for a 2014 release. ... On August 30, 2013, Kathleen Turner was confirmed to play the role of Fraida Felcher. ... On August 31, 2013, it was announced that Brady Bluhm would reprise his role as Billy in 4C for the sequel and that Farrelly brothers frequent collaborators Bennett Yellin and Mike Cerrone co-wrote the script. ... On November 18, 2013, it was announced that the film would be released on November 14, 2014.

(Footnotes omitted.) My question is -- once a film has actually been released, and it is known who was in the film, who wrote it, who composed the score, and when it was released, how important is all this information about these announcements? Do we really need all this chronology of when the cast members were announced to have joined and similar information? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

That whole mess of language is WP:PROSELINE and needs to be avoided. Rarely is the mode of how something being announced or first revealed important, and we rarely need the exact date of the announcement. It does help to know that a film was announced in a given month/year, but it doesn't ahve to be said "It was announced on <date> that the film was greenlit.", instead using "The film was first announced in <date>", which allows other information to be added to that, for example. --Masem (t) 03:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are a really odd mix of journalese, headlinese, and 5th grade book report. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
It's definitely a bad practice in writing articles. There are certain editors who want to be "first" in creating film articles to the point that they maintain drafts of even the most non-franchise films and basically write the way shown above and move these drafts into the mainspace when filming starts. The vestiges of that can be seen in multiple places. Agree with others that it is WP:PROSELINE, but I would also add that it is excessive use of a "passive voice". Like "it was announced"... who announced it? Is "announced" even necessary? Just say that the studio hired this director or cast that actor. Also, I don't mind some time markers, but when below-the-line crew members or supporting cast members joined the film aren't as important. Hopefully you shouldn't be reverted in cleaning up this kind of practice, especially with a confident consensus here so far. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
One needs to ask themselves regarding the information: does this need a date/time context to be best understood? For example, the first info above on Empire of the Sun does not need that. It can simply be said that Empire of the Sun was set to compose the score. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Often times the reliance on this sort of wording just comes from it being early, when only the announcements about the film are known. Once the film is out and much more is known about how it was made it becomes a lot easier to clean up this prose. There are also ways to discuss development history, such as the order in which people are cast, that avoids sounding like a list of dates and names. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes. The phrasing's become normalised to comply with WP:CRYSTAL but in the end, it's just an accumulation of "The film will ...". "the film won't ..." statements which could be cleaned up when the film's released. Instead we're left with unencyclopedic content such as (from that same Dumb and Dumber To example)
"On September 8, 2013, an article reported that Cam Neely agreed to reprise his role as Sea Bass for the sequel, while Boston Bruins left winger Milan Lucic would possibly make an appearance as the son of Sea Bass. Later that month, Lucic and Neely both said they have not signed on to the film, although both said they were open to do so."
Once the film's released, they're either in the cast list or not. NebY (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

@Bruno Rene Vargas: Please see above. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC on sequel sections

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)#RfC on Sequel section regarding when it is appropriate to omit an entry in a film series from a sequel section. Additional input is appreciated. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film/Archive_21&oldid=1133063500"