Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

piped

I'm not familiar with this use of the word 'piped'. It seems to merit an explanation or definition in the form of a link. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Piped link. Erik (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• As I understand it, “piped” is a Linux programmers’ lingo (slang) for this… | …symbol. I don’t use the term since it is unobvious what it means and must often be explained. I use “aliased” myself. Never once had someone ask what that means. Technical writing 101: “don’t cause needless confusion with the intended readership”… Wooooooow… Greg L (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Link added. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Release and Reception

This is probably silly, but my OCD is bugging me about it. MOSFILM suggest that "Release" section should be a level 2 header, with the "Reception" a level 3 and "Critical reviews/response" and "Box office" a level 4. Most film articles don't do this. Most that I've encountered add a Release section and provide however it was released and when (sometimes a box office section follows) and then a level 2 "Reception" along with the critical reviews and the box office performance section. I said all of that to ask this, is it done "right" on the Alice in Wonderland article? The headers don't seem to be done correctly to me. It looks odd. Input? —Mike Allen 02:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it needs to be realized that the section headings used in the guidelines do not need to be used in a film article. There are several variations on how to arrange reviews and box office figures. It's kind of messy in the guidelines because there can be release-related information that's not reception-related. For example, you could mention the film festivals where a film screened, but you may not necessarily have information on how it was received at each one. So don't look at it as if film articles have to emulate that messy setup. :) Do what works best for an article. Erik (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are examples of what I've done. Apt Pupil (film) has just one section heading, where Doomsday (film) has four subsection headings under one section heading. Do what works for the article and the content at hand. Erik (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So really it's just an article by article basics—whatever works for one article, may not work for another. In other words, use common sense. LOL. Thanks. —Mike Allen 06:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

On the same note, shouldn't be "Awards" a subsection of "Reception" instead of a secondary topic? --uKER (talk) 05:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Bolding of cast sections

I know this has been discussed before, but what does the community think about bolding cast sections? Currently WP:FILMCAST backhandedly approves bolding while former discussions here and MOS:BOLD advocate the opposite. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 06:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMCAST (on this page) says that "Pertinent casting information might also be included in this section (or in production), and only then should bolding be used to make the credits stand out from the additional information." Bovineboy has recently brought to my attention this discussion, as well as WP:BOLD, which both are pertinent to the issue of bolding in cast sections. We've been conflicting over whether or not to bold names of actors & characters in bulleted cast sections such as Predator 2#Cast and Alien Resurrection#Cast, so we thought it best to open discussion here. In my opinion bolding the actor & cast names can be appropriate when, as this page currently states, there is other pertinent casting information in the list from which one might want the credits to stand out. To use an example of my own creation, I'm thinking when the section resembles Alien (film)#Casting. This is a practice I see employed in several (though not all) film FAs at the moment, for example Jurassic Park, But I'm a Cheerleader, Casablanca, and Casino Royale. I think we should discuss this, as current practice seems inconsistent. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"Bolding actors' names is a natural way to prevent them from being lost in large paragraphs of text, and it's commonly used outside of Wikipedia. Where does MOS:BOLD recommend against it? —Codrdan (talk) 07:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Do not use bold formatting at all in "Cast" sections. MOS:BOLD clearly says to use the formatting "only in a few special cases", none of which are the "Cast" section. Remove the formatting at sight, please. Some reviewed articles need this fixed. Erik (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot of those FA's are 4-6 years old. —Mike Allen 08:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking purely as a reader, cast list bolding wreaks havoc on my eyeballs. Don't know if that's helpful but there it is. Millahnna (mouse)talk 08:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we've gone overboard in banning bold. MOS:BOLD says only in special cases, and the example they choose is a glossary of trucking terms. In that case, the bold text is defined by the text that follows it. To me, that's not different from a case where the cast/character name is followed by its definition. We should adapt bold to our uses and this seems to be a good use for us. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Erik and AnmaFinotera have already deleted the bolding text from the guideline page, so if there's any sentiment in favor of bolding, this would be the time to express it. The consensus in Bold formatting in "Cast" section seems to be that Erik and AnmaFinotera are strongly against any bolding at all, Horkana is weakly against, and nobody in favor cared enough to post. Personally, I think it's a little pedantic, and harder for readers, not to use bold text for character descriptions longer than about fifty words or so, but someone raised a reasonable question in an earlier discussion about whether bold and regular names should be mixed in the same Cast section. —Codrdan (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not just our view, it is the consensus derived at all of the previous project discussions. The bolding is excessive, unnecessary, and goes against WP:MOSBOLD. Further, it serves absolutely no purpose at all. Its just "bold person as bold character", any intended affect of the bolding is lost. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I doesn't go against the guidelines, AnmaFinotera. That is the question here. The example at WP:MOSBOLD needs to be viewed. In a case where a sentence fragment starts a paragraph as the subject of the paragraph, the guidelines allow bolding of the fragment. That's the case we have with the example given. For our purposes, there's nothing against the guidelines to bold either character names or actor names. I suspect that anyone who looks at the example cited will see that we're over-zealous in ruling out bolding for the cast sections. At the least, this can be a matter for each editor to decide on their own. Most editors can be trusted to make a good decision. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

> it is the consensus derived at all of the previous project discussions.

It appears to be the consensus in Bold formatting in "Cast" section, but Archive_1#Cast listings, ... and Archive_1#Cast were mixed. Obviously those are much older discussions, but "all of the previous project discussions" is an exaggeration.

> The bolding is excessive

There's nothing excessive about bolding four words out of fifty or more.

> goes against WP:MOSBOLD

That's debatable. Cast sections are not mentioned in the "Contraindications" section, and they're similar in structure to definition lists, in which bolding is allowed.

> Further, it serves absolutely no purpose at all.

Nonsense. Bolded key text in large paragraphs serves as a sort of informal heading.

> any intended affect of the bolding is lost.

That doesn't make sense. Bolding prevents names from being lost in lengthy character descriptions.

—Codrdan (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Definition lists are lists of definitions of terms. A cast section does not provide a list of definitions. It provides a list of actors and roles. All lists will have elements and descriptions related to these elements. That does not mean they are definition lists. If MOS:BOLD wrote just "Lists" instead of "Definition lists", then there would be an argument there. "Definition lists" identifies a specific subset of lists where bold formatting can be used. To say that cast lists can emulate formatting of definition lists is to say all lists can emulate formatting of definition lists, thereby defeating the purpose of the specification. If we had a Glossary of filmmaking terms, we can apply such formatting, but it does not work in film articles' cast sections. Erik (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Not true, Erik, that the guidelines only allow bolding for definitions. Please take another look if you're not clear on what they say. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, although there are clear parallels between definition lists and cast lists in cases where the character descriptions are as long as typical definitions. Also, the presence of a "Contraindications" section is confusing. It shouldn't be necessary if the previous sections already rule out cases that aren't explicitly mentioned. —Codrdan (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it inappropriate for editors to have removed the wording from this page while we are in the midst of discussing it. Consensus, remember? We haven't even been discussing this half a day, so jumping the gun and removing the part of the guideline you don't like before we can properly discuss it doesn't exactly strike me as good faith. That said, I'm in favor of bolding the names in certain cases, because it makes sense that we would want the actors' names and the names of their roles to stand out from the rest of the text. Obviously this isn't a one-size-fits all recommendation, but I find it works well when the cast section is formatted as a bulleted list that includes not just simply names, but a decent amount of information on the casting and actors' background. Not to toot my own horn, but I thought Alien (film)#Casting came out looking really good when I wrote it, and I remember an FA reviewer calling it "expecially exemplary" (and that's with the bolding; nothing in the GA or FA reviews recommended removing the bolding). I feel that un-bolding the names causes them to be lost amongst the other text and internal links, where the purpose of bulleting the names in the first place is to make them stand out. I feel this is a "special case" (as termed by MOS:BOLD) similar to a definition list, where we want the item being defined (the actor & character's name) to stand out in the list. Also I feel I should point out that MOS:BOLD doesn't seem to reflect actual practice across the project: we use boldface in several cases that would seem to be counter to BOLD, for example in infoboxes for the banner headlines and names of each field, and in discography articles where we bold the album titles to make them stand out from the other details (the discography project has over 130 FLs, almost 100% of which use bolding in this manner...clearly a "special case" situation similar to what we're dealing with here). --IllaZilla (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CONLIMITED says, "Participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." MOS:BOLD clearly identifies special cases for where to use bold formatting in the article body. We are used to having this formatting and need to overcome this mentality to comply with these generally accepted guidelines. Erik (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the whole issue here is whether bolding in the cast section contradicts BOLD or whether it is a "special case" like a definition list, so CONLIMITED isn't actually the issue here. I've posted a note at the WP:BOLD talk page, hoping to get some opinions into this discussion from over there. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a need for the bolding in the cast section. The section does not seem to comply with MOS:BOLD's "special cases" argument. Very seldom should bolding be used (mainly just for the main sentence article title), and the cast section is not so different from other sections/lists that would require bolding to differentiate for readers. Usually, bullet points are used which help to break it up, or some sort of spacing assists with that. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I defined the case that is indicated in the guidelines: when a sentence fragment starts a paragraph and forms the subject of the paragraph, it's a case where bold is allowed. Those who want something else are not following the guidelines. If I am wrong about that, let's hear an argument on the substance. Nehrams is wrong that bold should be used "very seldom." That's not following the guidelines. Those who don't want the bold, explain why the case in the example doesn't point to the case I'm describing. Well done everyone with your excellent editing! --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if my explanation would qualify as wrong, unless somewhere in MOS:BOLD says to bold frequently. The guideline lists several allowable reasons to bold, but I don't see cast listings as definitions, which is the closest of the three other reasons to bold. I'm also not seeing their example of the sentence fragment you are referring to. Like Erik pointed out above, our project's guidelines fall under the main guidelines, so if there is desire to add bold requirements for cast sections, then we need to clarify on the MOS:BOLD page, not here. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the example given as a permitted use. Glossary of trucking industry terms in the United States. Of course no one is proposing that we bold frequently, so that's not really on point. Naturally a general guideline isn't going to mention cast lists, so that's another straw man you're knocking down. In fact, the guide already allows bolding where a fragment is the subject of the following paragraph, so nothing needs to be added to the main guidelines. Although Erik wants to deviate from the main guidelines, I am not in favor of that. We should follow them. And I guess we can all understand instinctively why this use of bold makes perfect sense: the bold text is for emphasis of the matter under discussion. Many editors will probably not want to use it, too. That's also good. Thanks for your response! Excellent discussion! --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If we need emphasis on the names, couldn't we rely on the blue links? If we must have a cast list, we can also use the bullets to guide our eyes down the list. —Mike Allen 22:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This is readable, where this is truly overdone. We cannot allow our personal preferences, which have been instilled after years of misapplication, to override the guidelines, particularly the Manual of Style. Erik (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It begs the question to assume that the guidelines buttress your claim. It's also wrong to argue that if some bolding is overdone then any bolding is too much. Thanks a lot. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Erik (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Character names usually aren't linked, and readers probably search the Cast section by character at least as often as by actor. Bullets don't help all that much when the character descriptions are around a hundred words or so. —Codrdan (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be in favor of using bold for cast names in such a situation as Codrdan and others have noted. While it kills my eyeballs on shorter entries where it's just "Some Dude as Some other dude" it IS helpful when the character descriptions go longer than one line. Millahnna (mouse)talk 00:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Using the formatting in any way with the cast section still does not comply with the Manual of Style, though. The guidelines were very specific about identifying the special cases of where to use the formatting. Our personal preferences cannot override these guidelines. If we are writing about actors and their roles in multiple lines, we should consider having prose about them, perhaps preceded by a simple bullet list of actors and their roles. We can identify them in such a list, then we can write in-depth paragraphs about them after. There are numerous ways to approach a cast section without bold formatting. Film articles can survive without the formatting used this way. Erik (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You're mistaken on this, Erik. The example given demonstrates clearly the type of case where bold is allowed. I'm sorry to keep mentioning the fact that the guidelines as written don't seem to support your position, but you repeat your conclusion seemingly without support. I have explained what I believe is the permissible case and why that fits (fragment heading, content). If you have a reason beyond your opinion, you have to go a little further and explain either how I'm mistaken or what is the paradigmatic case where bolding is allowed and why our cast lists are definitely, clearly, unambiguously outside that case. (I would mention that we are allowed to be silent on this issue in our guidelines and personally I think that's the best way to go.) Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If this is a debate, mark me: luke-warm opposed to bolding. I would be luke-warm in favor of bolding only the performer, not the role name:

• So & So as Such & Such

but I'm strongly luke-warm either way... Dekkappai (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Less is more. I can see how bold works in some articles but even then we could do without it, and as a general rule I think it makes more sense to be very selective and not use bold in the cast list. (Personally I'd italicize the character names.) My bigger objection would be to Wikipedia Project Film and Project Television having inconsistent guidelines, and last I checked (a few months back) they were using a lot of bold in the cast list. Two subprojects both doing different things but somehow claiming consensus is daft. -- Horkana (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually WP:MOSTV says nothing one way or the other, but similar to films, it encourages listing the cast in the plot instead of a separate list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So is the idea there that the plot summary lists the cast when a character is mentioned and there's a separate section for Characters that gives a paragraph on who that character is and their place in the piece? --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

First off, there shouldn't be sections devoted to character information. Any cast section should, ideally, talk about casting of characters and possibly notable character choices made by the actor. If there isn't that information, then the cast section becomes redundant of the plot section and they can easily be merged. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 02:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the idea that separate elements should somehow get mashed together seems misbegotten. The plot section's purpose is to tell the plot. The cast section gives the cast. The reception section covers one thing, production another. Sure, we could "merge" the reception section with the production section. Wouldn't improve the clarity of the article. The reason that plot summaries sometimes include an actor's name is not get it out of the way. The reason for that is that it gives a reference/reminder to the reader, i.e. which one was the brother? oh, yeah, now I remember. The idea that it substitutes for including the cast elsewhere is not thinking right. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It doesn't make sense to force readers to read the plot when they want to know about the cast and/or characters and vice versa. —Codrdan (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Depends on the series. If there is a need, a standalone character list is appropriate, but of course that would not apply to films. In the standalone character lists, the character names are NOT bolded, nor are the actor names. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Still counting myself in favor of bolding, I seem to share a view with Bovineboy2008 and Ring Cinema (and I imagine others share this view as well) that the primary purpose of a "cast" or "casting" section is to focus on the casting process and the choice of actors, not to rehash or expand on character details from the plot. I often revert editors who fill the cast section with character details, on the basis that the cast section is not "plot summary, part 2". It should focus on the actors themselves: why they were chosen, what they had to say about the roles, notable credits that made them suitable for the role, and other pertinent real-world information. Obviously this can take the format of paragraphs or a bulleted lists, and right now we have FAs that use either or both of these formats (and there's certainly nothing wrong with that...whatever works best for each individual article). It's my feeling that, in a bulleted list format, we should aim for having enough supporting prose that each actor's entry contains at least a couple of lines of real-world background info. Given that, it's my opinion that bolding the actor & character names in such a list allows them to stand out, thereby aiding the reader in quickly eyeballing names and roles in a list (that ought to be) filled with supporting text and internal links. This combines the functionality of a simple "so-and-so as so-and-so" list with the substantive qualities of well-written prose. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, FAs that are 3+ years old is really not a good source for current MOS guidelines. As you may know consensus can change on a month by month basics. So what worked three years ago may not 'work' anymore. If any emphasis must be added, I advocate Ring's proposal of using italics. IMO, that would work just as well. —Mike Allen 06:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Mike, I didn't suggest italics. I don't think that's been proposed yet. My proposal is that we follow the guidelines and allow bolding of sentence fragments that are the topic of the paragraph following. Or, perhaps better, allow each editor to make up their own mind about it. (By the way, it is not true (per Erik) that the guidelines say that bolding is only for definitions. We're not limited that way.) Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup you're right, it was Horkana that said he would personally italicized. I apologize it's been a crazy day in wikiland for me. —Mike Allen 07:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Interpreting MOS:BOLD

RingCinema, I'm confused. Where does it say you can bold sentence fragments? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 15:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The rule is implied in the example given, where a permissible example of bolding is offered. There, a word or phrase (a fragment) is bold and followed by its definition. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Where? I fail to see an example at MOS:BOLD advocating fragments are exceptions to the rule. It says it can be used for definitions. A cast section is clearly not a glossary of terms. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 17:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The guides don't say that only glossaries are permitted. It's an example. Well, what is it about the example that makes it a token of a general case? It's fair to interpret that for our purposes to include a fragment (as are all definienda in a dictionary) that forms the topic of the paragraph following. For this reason, cast lists are fine for bold. At the least, we should leave it up to page editors and stop trying to dictate. Let the editors edit. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The example glossary is an instance of a definition list. A cast list is not an instance of a definition list. There is no room for interpretation. Erik (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone who says there's not room for interpretation is unaware of how much interpreting they're doing. Definitions are one case under "Other Uses." Those are some other uses, not all other uses. Cast lists or even a similar list is not excluded. There's plenty of room for intelligent thinking, and what is lost by trying to dictate is that we lose the good ideas that new editors might bring to the pages. This is a relatively marginal issue, so it's preferable to trust the editors and follow the guidelines. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Those are some other uses, not all other uses." This is patently false. The passage clearly says, "Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases," and it lists what these few special cases are. It does not say "including" or "such as" to open the door to other possibilities. So yes, we should follow these Manual of Style guidelines, and the WikiProject guidelines should not contradict them. Erik (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for offering an interpretation, Erik. That is one possibility and clearly I read the guides differently. Seems like the guidelines say that there are a few special cases where bold is allowed (for example where a fragment is followed by its definition). In other words, if the page is better organized with the use of bold on lead fragments, that can work. Now, why we would want to prevent editors from making the articles as good as they can, I don't understand. I agree, we should follow the guidelines, but without foreclosing on good ideas in the future. Thanks again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that he is offering an interpretation, he is clearly stating what examples the guideline provides. Although you mentioned that fragmented sentences should start with bold font, that seems more like an interpretation since that is not mentioned anywhere in the guideline. I wouldn't say that by going one way or another on the bolding, the article is going to be any better or worse. Readers can still see the same words as they're written, we're just determining if making them pop out is really necessary when it's already broken up by spacing or bullets. As much as everyone wants to go back and forth on this, it still seems like the best option is to get specific guidelines determined at the main MOS:BOLD page, as clarification would be helpful for both our project and others (including WP:TV). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If he's not interpreting it, I'm not interpreting it. Sorry, that's just tendentious sophistry on your part. And transparent. I too can offer that I'm merely saying what the guidelines say. And please don't bother getting your "clarification." It's easy for all of us to see what an empty rubber stamp exercise that would be. You can't handle an open discussion even about something fairly trivial, you don't want to collaborate, you don't want to find common ground, you can't come up with a meaningful proposal that might be broadly acceptable. So what do you do? You try to find a way to quash the opinions you don't find convenient. Why haven't you criticized Erik for his bad faith? That's a serious matter, it's obvious that he can't handle having his judgment questioned, and this is your response. That's not leadership, and I believe you are supposed to offer something like leadership from time to time. Do you have it in you? --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The matter is closed. Since there are enough views that the WikiProject guidelines contradicted the Manual of Style, the guidelines will no longer expressly endorse bold formatting in any sense. However, since there are some views of its value in cast sections, the WikiProject will defer to MOS:BOLD, meaning that at this point the WikiProject guidelines will be silent on the matter. I will personally remove bold formatting from cast sections so film articles comply with the MOS, and I encourage other editors to ensure this compliance. The contradiction of the guidelines was really the heart of the matter, and it is now addressed. It should be expected that because WikiProject Films has practiced the tradition of using bold formatting for so long, it is understandable that moving away from these preferences and toward the Manual of Style is difficult. After all, I did endorse in the past bold formatting with multi-line bulleted items. Wikipedia is a dynamic enough place that we should be able to work with the characteristics of lists, prose, tables, etc. to figure out how to present a cast section without the bold formatting. Erik (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That's really sad, Erik. We all can see that you can't handle having your judgment questioned. Of course this matter is not closed. I'm afraid you've shown your true colors. You're comfortable as a dictator, not as a collaborator. And I emphasize, this matter is relatively trivial. Incredibly, you don't want your copy edited on Wikipedia! You don't understand how it works. Absolutely shameful behavior on your part. The matter is not closed and editors should feel free to use bold as they see fit. We're all going to have to ignore you until you show you want to collaborate with others. I will leave it to you to figure out in your heart and mind how you learn to compromise. For now, I think you should recognize that you are not fit to serve as a coordinator. Your obvious bad faith is transparent and you should show your respect for Wikipedia by resigning. Thank you for leaving gracefully. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

While I sympathize with Ring Cinema based on what I feel is heavy-handedness on Erik's part, I have to agree with Erik about the technicalities of MOS:BOLD: The first sentence says "Boldface ... is common ... only for certain usages", and MOS:BOLD#Other uses says "Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases", where one of the cases is "Definition lists". A cast list is not a definition list, although it's certainly similar if it includes character descriptions, and the guideline says "only" twice, clearly indicating that it's meant to be restrictive. RC, if you feel that cast lists should be bolded, I would encourage you to take this discussion to the MOS:BOLD talk page. —Codrdan (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing the discussion despite Erik's untoward actions. Hopefully he will resign soon for the good of the project. As for your point, I agree that guidelines limit the usage of bolding. By the same token, I'm sure the usage we're considering was not contemplated when they were written. Since we have a similar use in mind and many editors see the bolding as useful, I think it's in keeping with the guidelines to include some bolding per film article practices. But if some editors don't like it, that's fine too. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I would really like to again invite you to read WP:AGF. I'm not too sure what the leadership requirement you are referring to above is. Coordinators do not get extra speaking power or bonus points in discussions, we are here to look at this issue and continue to look for ways to improve the long-term goals of the project. This is a simple discussion about a style change. There is no reason to continually focus on the editors, we should be dedicated to the guidelines themselves. As said before, our project falls under the guidelines of the main guidelines which were developed through consensus. We do not have the ability to create new guidelines that conflict with MOS:BOLD, especially when other projects rely on it. I will say again, as others have here, to focus our efforts at the main guideline page so this discussion can continue to move forward. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want to address yourself to Erik's bad practices (probably because you happen to agree with him), you look just a little bit hypocritical. It was positively bizarre that he tried to declare the subject closed only a few hours after he first tried to justify his intepretation. So much for airing it out. (2) I'll repeat for you that I propose we follow the guidelines. There might be different ways to interpret them, but I'm not proposing that we ignore the guidelines. So you have to defend your interpretation, not just restate it. Cordrdan, for example, has done a very respectable job on that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Alien Resurrection & Predator 2

Can someone please de-bold the cast sections at Predator 2 and Alien Resurrection? Setting flagrant ignorance of MOS:BOLD aside, the bold formatting in these sections are pretty much useless with the bulleted items so close together. Erik (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Alien Resurrection is well within the guidelines. The page editors can handle it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I find Erik's request in very bad faith. He has been contiunally reverting the bolding in both those articles, and I've asked him to stop doing so as we are in mid-discussion about whether or not bolding in the cast section is appropriate. It is inappropriate to go around making stylistic changes in the midst of a discussion about them in which you yourself are a participant. Consensus does actually mean something, or is it only select rules you choose to follow? On that note, it bears reminding that MOS:BOLD is merely a guideline, not a policy, and as it says right on the page: "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." --IllaZilla (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Seven people are against adding boldface, and three people are for it. What more do you want to discuss? —Mike Allen 21:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Mike, with all due respect, I don't think you're the ideal person to ascertain the balance of opinion. Consensus doesn't mean quick polling in any event. There's no reason why the page editors can't handle it adequately. And Erik didn't offer a reason for his thinking until today. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Who's the page editors? —Mike Allen 22:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Since we're throwing out examples; Batman Returns is definitely excessive. Again, if those cast explanations went longer than one line each, I personally would have no problem with it (actor names only, not character) as I feel it could help readability. But this is definitely a case where bolding has been abused. Millahnna (mouse)talk 00:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to remove the bold formatting where you see it. You can open Microsoft Word or equivalent, paste the cast section in it, and replace all "<code>'''</code> instances with nothing to remove them. Then paste the section back into the article. Erik (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2010 (UT

Conflation: cast, characters, casting

Just to be really clear on things, I think it bears mentioning that we have three different types of information that could conceivably be sectioned separately. 1. characters: Hamlet, Polonius, Ghost, etc. 2. cast: Branagh as Hamlet, Kiera Knightley as Ophelia, etc. 3. Casting: The producers originally wanted Olivier to play Hamlet until they found out he was unavailable, so they turned to Branagh, who had to do a screen test, etc. These are three different ways of looking at it, at least. Maybe I'm forgetting one. So let's refer to them differently, too. There are characters played by the cast after the casting was completed. --Ring Cinema (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

... and while we dither around with these discussions instead of working on articles, articles are stupidly being made less useful... some project... Dekkappai (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the reason given for that edit and I just don't get it. How was having that link in there NOT helpful. Can someone explain the reasoning on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Millahnna (talk • contribs) 01:04, March 8, 2010

If you are referring to WP:NAMB, it basically means that a reader would have arrived at a disambiguated article with purpose. They would not accidentally come across it looking for something else. (If the topic in question is confused with something else, then a hatnote is appropriate.) A popular instance with films is that when they are adaptations of source material, their articles will be disambiguated from the source material's articles (which is usually the primary topic). A reader who searches for the title could be looking for either the source material or the film, and the hatnote says, "If this isn't what you're looking for, then this will take you to what you're looking for." If a reader arrives at a film article that has the disambiguation, the reader clearly was not looking to find the source material's article. Does that make sense? Erik (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It does make sense but on that basis I think that removing this particular hatnote may have been unwise. If you searched for Black Rain directly on Wikipedia you shouldn't have any issues as you'll see the distinctions for "Japanese film" and "film" and should know which you're NOT looking for. If you search by entering keywords into the Friefox awesome bar (which is how I generally end up looking for something unless I'm already here) you could end up at either depending on your choice of keywords. And the American film still has the hatnote directing misguided searchers to the Japanese movie. It seems to me like it is to the readers' benefit to leave the hatnote on the Japanese movie, as well. So I must be missing something or misinterpreting. Millahnna (mouse)talk 06:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

To be clear to all, we are talking about Black Rain (film) and Black Rain (Japanese film), which were both released in 1989. Based on WP:NCF#Betwen films of the same name, we should move both of them to Black Rain (1989 American film) and Black Rain (1989 Japanese film), respectively. We could then update the disambiguation page and no longer need the hatnotes. Erik (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If you disambiguated by country, would the years still be needed? Seems like they could be dropped unless there are other films titled Black Rain from other years. But I don't know if there are. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point about not needing the years. The guidelines might have had a very common title in mind, like if there were five films of the same name and two of them were released in the same year, then we'd use the year and the country for these two. I looked up "Black Rain" at IMDb, and the only one that comes close is The Last Wave. We do not need to create Black Rain (1977 film) for that; we can just mention on the disambiguation page that it's an alternate title. (And I just did that.) The 2009 film in the IMDb results does not appear notable with a quick search engine test. Seems like it would be okay to move Black Rain (film) → Black Rain (American film). What do others think? Erik (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks, as always, for explaining it to me. Makes way more sense now. I still think I'm safer sticking to plots. Heh. Millahnna (mouse)talk 01:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

We now have Black Rain (American film) and Black Rain (Japanese film). Erik (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Navigation templates

I often see a variety of navigation templates tucked away almost invisibly at the very bottom of a film article, but am never sure what the criteria is for adding these templates. One example is Forrest Gump which has navigation templates for the director (Robert Zemeckis) as well as templates for Academy Award for Best Picture and Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Drama. Another is Cold Mountain has two templates, one for the director (Anthony Minghella), and one for an actor in a minor role who also wrote several songs for the film (Jack White). A third is The Lion King which has so many navigation templates that there is a parent navigation template to manage them all. What is the criteria for the creation and inclusion of these templates? It seems somewhat clear that there is, at least for individuals and awards, some sort of "notability factor" that governs the process, although Jack White may be an exception to this. The WikiProject Films/Style guidelines is largely silent on the matter (except to discourage the use of succession boxes). Can the guidelines here be expanded to cover this? I'm sure there must have been some discussion previously on this, but I was unable to find it - if so, my apologies. Thanks for helping to clear up my confusion. --BehemothCat (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There is consensus to have director templates and film series templates if there are enough blue links in them. "Enough" is up for interpretation, though -- blue links (below the template header) has been as low as three, like at {{Joe Wright}}, but the most comfortable threshold is probably around five or more for the template to go unchallenged. There is also consensus not to have actor templates because their roles range from major to minor and because there would be "template porn" of multiple actor templates in the article footer. For award succession boxes, we had limited discussion last January, but WP:ACTOR says that they are deprecated for actor articles, which lends precedent. We'd need wider discussion for WP:FILM, though. Let's analyze the templates in The Lion King. My opinion is that "Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy" and "Annie Award for Best Animated Feature" do not belong because of rationale similar to the WP:ACTOR guidelines. As for "Elton John", I am not sure why the film is linked there; I checked IMDb, and he is not in the credits, just Hans Zimmer. The link should be removed from the template and the template removed from there. "William Shakespeare's Hamlet" is one I am less sure about; the "Adaptations" row is being very lenient, especially with the inclusion of Hamlet 2. Discussion should take place on Template talk:Hamlet, where it may need to be clarified what kind of adaptations qualify. The "Hamlet on screen" row is more appropriate. Lastly, for Jack White, I don't think we tend to have templates for crew members below the director, so I am disinclined to include that. Sorry for the mixed bag of reported consensus and personal takes; hope that gives you some idea of the general take on footer templates. Erik (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the feedback. I'm not overly surprised to find that there isn't a precise answer to the question - in fact, I might have been surprised if there were one. Still, despite the murkiness, it does seem like there are some items (like actors and directors) for which there exists solid inclusion criteria and that this information should be incorporated into the guidelines. As to awards and the like, would it be appropriate for the guidelines to point to relevant discussions? Thanks again.--BehemothCat (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a good idea to mention including director or film series templates. I am not sure what kind of wording to include about how many blue links there should be for each set of templates. On the small end, editors differ about how many. Three is the minimum, but not everyone agrees with that. As for the award succession boxes, I think that particular discussion was too limited to really highlight in the guidelines. There should be a more encompassing discussion at some point. What do others think about how to write guidelines for director and film series templates? Erik (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I attempted expansion to capture the consensus of how to use navigation templates. If you dispute any particular item in the expansion, please remove that item and comment here so we can discuss its merits or lack thereof. Erik (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Film infobox

There is redundant documentation between MOS:FILM and Template:Infobox film, and I believe that we should have all of the documentation at the template's documentation page. We can have here at MOS:FILM a paragraph about the infobox and its purpose but also provide a "main" link to the template. I'd like to do this in the next day or two. Any objections? Erik (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. The infobox provides more guidance anyway, so information on this page should just define why we use the infobox and where to go on how to use it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Passages related to the infobox were placed on the infobox's documentation page. Erik (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Cast links in plot

I was under the impression that linking to the cast members' articles in the plot summary was frowned upon if there was already a solid cast section with the same links. I see now, that this is not mentioned strictly in the guidelines here so I'm assuming I got that from a conversation with another editor. Is this actually a guideline related to overlinking or is it more of a personal preference. Another editor disagreed with my recent edit on the Sherlock Holmes page (the Robert Downey Jr. flick) and I thought I should seek clarification. Goodness knows I've seen it both ways so I can't go by example. Millahnna (mouse)talk 01:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's for readers that only look up a movie to look at the plot (I'm assuming, because that's what most IPs edit), and don't bother looking at the casting section or cast list. It seems this was discussed before. It doesn't matter to me. As far as Sherlock Holmes, well it's no longer on my watchlist and if you keep editing it, you'll find out why. ;-) —Mike Allen 01:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if there weren't already editors going around deleting the Cast section as redundant and calling it this weeks consensus I'd still object to this removing of links from the Plot - where it serves as valuable context - as being a unhelpful to readers and an unnecessarily reductionist view of what really counts as overlinking.

Given that there are editors using the current version of the project film style guide as justification to delete the cast list entirely, to unlink the names increases the likelyhood of aritcles having neither cast list nor plot with links. At best it will result in more horrid inconsistency. -- Horkana (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually forget it. Go nuts. Do what you like. Follow minor rules instead of thinking what would be nicest for the readers.

As Mike subtly implied I've gotten increasingly cranky and dissatisfied by Wikipedia and expressed rather too much of that dissatisfaction during discussions on the Sherlock_Holmes_(2009_film) article. I'm removing that article from my watchlist. Mike it is all yours. -- Horkana (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The encyclopedia doesn't need bullet lists, when prose is more appropriate. Also there's no reason to spit out labels to separate every editor and their editing style. Looking at the edit summary for Sherlock Holmes, your edit summaries border uncivil. If you're that bitter about this site, take a break. Btw, the article is months, maybe even years, behind current MoS consensus, and probably will remain that way. I tried helping, but it was quite clear that my edits didn't satisfy your worldview, so I removed it from my watchlist and haven't looked back.. until now, and nothing has changed. —Mike Allen 03:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It was mine to begin with, along with every other person that edits this site. I just decided to move on since it was going nowhere and apparently once you have something decided, there's no changing your mind. I don't like many decisions made by editors, but I don't take it out in edit summaries; I take it the appropriate board for discussion. —Mike Allen 04:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Eeek. I didn't mean to start a thing. Just wanted clarification since I've seen it both ways and now been told both ways are correct. Sorry. =( Millahnna (mouse)talk 11:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

There are different ways to approach it. Personally, I think that all actors that have articles should be linked in the "Cast" section. I say this because this section is the most navigable when it comes to actors and their roles. The question is, how to avoid redundancy (i.e., overlinking) with the "Plot" section? The plot summary is more about the major characters and what they do in the film; so I think that linking the actor in parentheses after the first mention of a character, especially late in the summary, is somewhat distracting. A better approach may be to include only the surname or perhaps not at all. If plot summaries are short enough, and the summary and the cast list tend to neighbor each other, then identifying the actors in their roles is easy enough. Another approach is to merge the cast list to the plot summary when there is no real-world context after the actor and the role. I am not sure if this is always a good idea; sometimes there are actors and their roles worth listing even though a summary may not be able to capture their doings. That's my take on it. If there is an issue with Sherlock Holmes (2009 film) that needs resolving, start a discussion on its talk page and post a notification at WT:FILM. Editors are supposed to write articles in a way that helps readers the most, but unfortunately we sometimes have different ideas on helping. Happy editing! Erik (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any one consensus. For myself, unless there is actually casting information, I do not do cast lists in film articles. I put the cast with the plot (and I do such merges on articles I clean up). If other editors do insiste on keeping a cast list on any specific film, then I do wikilink the cast in both the plot and the cast. The plot because it is the first section, so by wikilinking standards, it would be where the links go, and the cast more for reader convenience than anything else. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record I asked here instead of on the Sherlock Holmes page because it's something I've run into on several articles. So I was looking for more general clarification than just something specific to my most recent example. So based on what AnmaFinotera and Erik just said, it sounds like it is a bit of a subjective thing, which is contrary to the idea I got who knows where. I won't worry about it then, unless it's in an article where it may be an obvious issue (like short plot summary or a consistency issue because only some names are linked). I can see why people find it redundant and I can see why others may find it useful. I don't have one of my usual "speaking strictly as a wiki reader I find this helpful" ideas to go on since I typically use an article's TOC to skip straight to the cast section if that's the info I'm looking for. Cast links in the plot are completely irrelevant to me from a reading perspective (though the parentheticals are quite helpful). All of that said, sometimes I see people link one or two names and miss the others (again in plots specifically). Generally I've been reverting those if there is a solid cast section that's linked and adding the other links when there is no separate cast section. If anyone thinks I should be handling this differently, please let me know. Thanks for the help, all. Millahnna (mouse)talk 14:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Erik and AnmaFinotera's views are not the consensus by any stretch. Combining different elements/aspects/facets in some kind of mashup isn't really right for an encyclopedia. There is a reason to include actor links in the plot summary: they helpfully remind the reader who is who. That's why it's okay if they're not comprehensive. It's not the cast list. They shouldn't replace the cast list, and eliminating them is unhelpful to the reader. This has been covered before and, typically, there's not a reason given for the contrary view. I have here noted the reasons for my view, which are pretty sensible. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well after some digging I finally found where I had gotten the idea from to begin with. I saw another editor remove the cast links from the plot on something I'd reworked and asked him directly about it. He pointed me to the overlinking guidelines as his reason and noted that if an article didn't have a separate cast section he left the links in. He seemed fairly laid back about it (i.e. I doubt he cares much if it is something that gets reverted) so I'm not sure where my brain turned it into something more definite. But the combination mashup concept you touch on is kind of reflected in the guidelines on how to do a cast section so I'm not sure why that is a problem. It makes sense to me that a case-by-case element must exist in a project such as this one. I also don't see why the links specifically help the reader remember who is who; the parentheticals notations of actor name certainly. But if the cast is linked at all I don't see why it needs to be in the plot; can you clarify what you meant by that for me? Then again, like I said before, I'm pretty easy on this and could go either way. I just thought I understood it to be harder rule because of something I misremembered. Millahnna (mouse)talk 19:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

'Where to buy' link

How about a standard 'Where to buy' link in the external link? It seems a de facto standard is to link to imdb using the template, creating a de facto 'where to buy' flow through imdb's prominent links on each film's page to 'Shop at Amazon' or 'Rent at Blockbuster'. Why bias towards those resellers? A similar problem/solution can be found at Wikipedia:ISBN where a page such as [1] lists source to find a book. Of course there are likely less 'free' sources to find films, but the 'Booksellers' section of that page could be adapted to a 'Filmsellers' concept.Cander0000 (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't advertise merchandisers on Wikipedia, we provide information about the films. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 19:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Wikipedia is not a retailer. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised the sites who mirror Wikipedia haven't done more of what you are suggesting. I think you could easily enough push to improve the citation for DVDs to also to list the DVD barcode similarly to how books are listed, the existing practice for books should make that change easy enough to justify and it had crossed my mind before that if we include the ISBN for books we should probably include bar codes for anything else that has them if possible (like magazines and DVDs). Getting developers to implement a tool like the existing book finder might be trickier.

I get what you are saying, the prominent placement of IMDB links all over Wikipedia does probably give Amazon.com an advantage (I do try and note in citations that IMDB is the work and Amazon is the publisher to make the bias clearer), but I think it is indirect enough and a fair enough advantage since IMDB provides reasonably good information. I'm even quite happy to much more overtly and directly reference Amazon.com as a source of tracklistings for Soundtracks or albums. So while I'm pretty much okay I can see there is an existing bias and you could argue the development of a tool to help find retailers would help redress that existing bias. (Using Rotten Tomatoes probably did also favour Amazon, but they've been bought by Flixster. I've seen editors get into minor revert wars over whether to use Box Office Mojo (CBS) or The Numbers as the source of box office figures, and I'm inclined to list both to try avoid bias. It is subtle and probably harmless but it is good to realise there is bias is Wikipedia.)

Given the two above reactions I would encourage you to reframe your point and lead with the problem of bias rather than your proposed solution of adding a "where to buy link". It might be difficult to convince some people of your point and it might take a lot of effort but if you are willing to spend your time on it certainly sounds worthwhile and make Wikipedia fairer and less biased in favour of the really big retailers like Amazon.com. Best of luck. -- Horkana (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Very cogent responses in the positive and negative. Please do note, though, that WP:NOT ( a list of things wikipedia is not) does not explicitly say "Wikipedia is not a retailer" or address retailing. Piping the link with a novel assertion seems a bit disingenuous. That being said, though, I imagine a good case could be made supporting "Wikipedia is not a retailer", but do it up openly. I might've been tempted to then propose going down the road of suggesting wikipedia could get the affiliate dollars, but I've read this was proposed and piloted with the books site to tremendous objections. Cander0000 (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:BADIDEA were the salient points of NOT that I was aiming at. I should've been more specific. A "where to buy" link, in any form, would basically be an advertisement, and wouldn't add in any way to the encyclopedic coverage we're trying to provide. Yes, we do link to IMDb often, and IMDb does link to Amazon and Blockbuster, but that's not why we link it. We link IMDb because it "contains neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail, or other reasons" (such as complete cast & crew listings, screenshots and promotional imagery, full soundtrack listings, etc.). The purpose of the link is to provide more in-depth information, not to direct readers where to make a purchase. The former reason serves an encyclopedic purpose, whereas the latter does not. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think the key difference between providing an ISBN number and a "where to buy" link is that the ISBN number merely allows a reader to search for a copy of the book, which could be at a retailer but also could be at a free resource like a library or Google books. Our book sources tool includes retailers in its results, but only in the interest of giving the reader all possible avenues of locating the source. Including the record label catalog number in {{Cite album-notes}} or the ISBN in {{Cite video}} serves the same purpose: it gives readers the means to track down a copy via whatever avenue they choose to pursue; its purpose is informative rather than commercial. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Release and reception

What is the issue with the "Release and reception" section heading? My feeling is that we are overusing section headings in that area where we could compress them instead. Erik (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Accolades is a confusing substitute for Awards and Honors. Accolades sounds like part of reception and something additional to both awards and honors. "Awards and Honors" will lead the reader to believe the section will include formal results of verifiable irreversible institutional recognition. Accolades include something else: what individuals believe or say about the film or even about its awards or honors. Release should concern itself solely with the facts of distribution of the film (how did it reach the eyeballs?) and leave out the part about what people thought about it. For that reason, 'Accolades' is a misnomer and Release should be separate from Reception. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Then would having "Reception" as a section after "Release" work, rather than being a subsection under "Release"? Erik (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ring Cinema (gasp and grin) on keeping them separate. As he notes, I think release should purely be about the release and distribution of the film: initial release, any major notes about theatrical release, home video release, etc. Reception is another whole topic, how was the film as a whole received, awards, etc, and I don't think it should be reduced to a subsection nor combined with a separate element. I'm more ambivalent about Accolades versus Awards and nominations, though I'm inclined to lead to the latter as I can see Accolades being grossly misinterpreted and misapplied to include random "top 10 lists" and the like. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this agreeable? I think it is a better presentation of section headings. A related question: Do we need the "Provide information about the critical and commercial response to the film" sentence? It's a little self-explanatory and goes against the fuller-paragraph principle we try to pursue. (Let's get this addressed then discuss the awards/accolades.) Erik (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Home media should probably be moved out of reception and up to release, since its the same basic info. And no I don't that sentence is needed...I was thinking last night that it looked a little silly :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, AnmaFinotera, we are happily in massive agreement. One thought: is there something ambiguous about where box office numbers belong? Me, I think that goes with Release even though nominally it's part of Reception. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

New revision looks good and AnmaFinotera's comment about home media makes sense. Box office numbers should stay in the reception section as they are an indicator of the film's popularity with the audience, this popularity being an integral part of how well the film was received. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

We have to remember that the section headings in the guidelines do not always apply to section headings in film articles. The reason I suggested a connection between release and reception is that the material will be related. "Release" is more logistics-oriented and can deal with details of its distribution. However, not all films will have this kind of detail available. It's possible to say that the film was released at so-and-so film festival on this date, then say it was released at x theaters on this following date, where it made this much money. We don't need separate "Release" and "Reception" sections for a small set of information like this. We need to be careful not to disjoint box office information because the number of theaters (release-related) can reflect how much money (reception-related) it made. As for home media, I would agree that it is more release-based, but there can be reception-related coverage of it. It may help to establish that these are ideal sub-topical boundaries if there is enough information for each sub-topic. But sections and content within can be shuffled to suit the article. Fight Club (film) and Apt Pupil (film) do it differently because of the different amount of content available for each sub-topic. Erik (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I was also going to suggest "Home release" be moved out of the section, and the section being renamed to just "Reception". --uKER (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

For upcoming releases (both Box-Office & DVD), the film should have dates for all relevant, major markets - particularly in the case of UK release of US films. Over the last few years there have been a large number of notable titles that have had a considerable delay between US and UK release dates (for example '9', US release 9 Sep, UK release 28 Oct). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendroche (talk • contribs) 22:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Plot Bloat Warnings

Hi there. I've created a couple of user talkpage templates, template:uw-plotsum1 and template:uw-plotsum2, that can be used in cases where editors are significantly bloating plot summaries in violation of the guidelines. I'd appreciate any feedback you may have, preferably left on the talk pages for the templates themselves rather than here. You're also welcome to make any changes that you feel will improve the templates. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A discussion is in progress here. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I have created a thread at Template talk:Uw-plotsum1 copying over all comments made up to this point. Please take any further discussion to the template talk page. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC which could affect this MOS

It has been proposed this MOS be moved to Wikipedia:Subject style guide . Please comment at the RFC GnevinAWB (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Move proposal

I've opened up a proposal to move this guideline page, over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Renaming the film style guide. The discussion is best held there, as it has a wider audience. I'll also notify WT:MOS. All the best, Steve ^T • C 09:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Review aggregations websites

Review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are widely used in film article and I think this is good. Some articles use IMDB ratings and this is not so good but this is usually limited to cases where it is provides significant contrast to the critics, or some suggestion of cult popularity which is acceptable if used with caution.
Two issues I want to bring to your attention:

1. Some editors have been writing "As of May 2010 the film holds a rating of 00% on Rottten Tomatoes". This is better than currently or recently but I think this is case where it is better not to mention the date at all and instead simply use the score and number of reviews to provide enough context and avoid mentioning the date, which has the odd effect of actually making the sentence seem more dated.
2. Some editors have been writing "83% of critics were positive" but this is misleading. Given that the review aggregate websites take reviews and use various methods to interpret and convert them into figures (e.g. Ebert gives a rating from 1 to 4 stars, but the site blurb suggests the article text is taken into account). Other editors have been tediously pedantic and insisted on explaining a small part of how these figures are generated ("normalized average" etc) and although I disagree with choice of boilerplate wording (since the whole figure is interpreted) I do agree with the underlying point that the figures are interpreted and readers do need to be given some context, and the wording should at least try not to be misleading. (I try to keep it direct and say "Rotten Tomatoes gives a rating of 83% based on 166 reviews".)

If the article wording could be tweaked to address either of these two points and encourage slightly more careful and consistent wording in film articles that would be great. If not well hopefully some editors will see this note and discourage others to avoid using the slightly more misleading wording. -- 109.76.125.105 (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree. This is my prefered "version" and it was also accepted by other members of the Film Project a few months ago.

The film received mostly positive reviews from critics. Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports that 89% of 255 critics have given the film a positive review, with a rating average of 7.7 out of 10. Among Rotten Tomatoes' "Top Critics", which consists of popular and notable critics from the top newspapers, websites, television and radio programs, the film holds an overall approval rating of 76%, based on a sample of 41 reviews. The site's general consensus is that "A classic Tarantino genre-blending thrill ride, Inglourious Basterds is violent, unrestrained, and thoroughly entertaining," Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average score out of 1–100 reviews from film critics, has a rating score of 69 based on 36 reviews. Mike Allen 01:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good and although I like the wording "Rotten Tomatoes reports" I'm trying to get at the idea that they do not just report but interpret quite a bit and they give a "ranking" or a "score". Also where you write "89% of 255 critics have given the film a positive review" is similar to the wording I found a little misleading, something about the wording doesn't fit with the reality that there is a range of scores that gives the rating of 89% rather than there being (... quick calculation ~90% of 255 - 25 ~=~ ) exactly 225 critics who gave it a positive review and 30 others who gave it a negative review. Maybe I'm being too pedantic.

Should I link to the FAQ page explaining what "cream of the crop" means, not the Rotten Tomatoes page with the cream of the crop numbers for the film? -- 109.76.125.105 (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Offtopic: When did the Awards section get retitled to "Accolades"? Awards is good enough for the Academy and that seems like a much better choice of section heading. In any case whatever the section ends up being called I strongly recommend including {{Anchors|Award}} for consistent linking. -- 109.76.125.105 (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I have issues with including RT's "summary" of the reviews. First, why do they get a summary and MetaCritic or some other source does not? Secondly, those "summaries" are typically based on the initial reviews and do not get updated when substantial opinions have been added to the counter. In other words, if you got 10 early reviews then those reviews would be what drove the summary and not the 150 other reviews that came later. It assumes that the opinion of the first few is an accurate representation of all critics. Secondly, that "summary" is typically cherry-picked one-liners from random reviews, and not an actual interpretation of the critic consensus.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought that RT "general consensus" was their way of summarizing the top reviews. They summarize the first reviews, because they are usually from the "top critics". Reviews a week or a month later, are sites that... well I don't even know why some of them are listed as "critics". Mike Allen 02:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the first reviews aren't always from the top critics...especially if it's not a film the top critics are wanted to see right away. Most horror films don't get Top Critic reviews for a few days. The "Top Critic" section is typically empty for a few days on RT. This is also true for films that have reviewed less marketing than say a film like Avatar and don't catch the critic attention right away. Regardless, it's still pulled from one-liners and not actual summarizations of what the consensus truly is. It's also RT's interpretation of the critical opinion. If people want to know what RT thinks the opinion is, then they can click the link to the page. We should be limiting that type of interpretation as much as possible and just present the reviews of the film as objectively as possible. It's hard enough trying to make sure you don't create a bias when listing reviews (or paraphrasing reviews) that we don't need someone else's bias as well (given that there appears to be no discernible formula for how RT comes up with the summarized viewpoint). 03:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well editors have been including the "general consensus", which is why I have been using it, or included it in my "scripted" version. I haven't even used this in a while... it's starting to make sense not to use scripted text, and just go with the flow. Though I agree we should still retain some consistency. I agree, we should stick to what the actual critics say and just use RT for the percentages. One of the concerns the IP brought up was editors using "As of..". I don't like using "As of", that's what the accessdate is for, in my view. But then you have editors that don't ever update the accessdate. Wikipedia is supposed to be up-to-date, since it's a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, thus using "As of" is redundant. Mike Allen 03:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It hasn't been included for a long time. I've only recently started seeing it in the past few months (not even a full year). As for the "As of...", I've never used it and don't promote its usage. It isn't like box office info that actually does change from day to day. After the first week, you don't typically see a high volume of reviews come out, and after a month you don't typically see any new reviews. It's necessity is thus in question. I also agree that it creates a new problem with editors failing to update the date. They already fail to do it with the citation template, and it creates issues with dates being a week old and presenting "current" data.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I've not even been here a year. :-P Mike Allen 04:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

"As of" doesn't appear very often, but some articles use it. I'll use it too to get rid of the words "recently" or "currently" but with RT or Metacritic "based on 206 reviews" gives you just enough. -- 109.76.125.105 (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that you mention it the summaries are a bit contrived. I will try to avoid using them, or at least give them less weight by including actual reviewers. -- 109.76.125.105 (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

> "83% of critics were positive" ... is misleading.

It's not misleading on Rotten Tomatoes. The "freshness" rating is an exact percentage of positive reviews vs. total reviews. The only question is how RT defines "positive".

> I try to keep it direct and say "Rotten Tomatoes gives a rating of 83% based on 166 reviews".

That's not direct, it's meaningless. "83%" says nothing until you explain what it represents.

—Codrdan (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't need "recently" or "currently" since reviews are not like box office gross and don't regularly grow each day. It's completely unnecessary. As for "83% were positive"...I tend to stick with the statement, "Received an 83% approval rating from critics". A critic could be considered neutral in this response and still approve of the film for audience members. I've seen critics bash popcorn movies only to turn around and say things like, "but audiences will enjoy ....".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Table section of the MoS

This section is still blank. Erik's leaving seems to have halted our updating of the MoS. Per Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(film)/Archive_6#Tables, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines/Archive_2#Cast_lists, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Archive_20#Cast_section, and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Archive_26#Tables_in_casts, we established the consensus that a cast list should not be in table format, which I've added in short form to the Cast section for now[2], but what about other tables? As I recall, the intention was that the section would clarify when it was and was not appropriate to use a table. In most film articles, there shouldn't be a table, however with articles with a large award/nomination/accolade list, a table may be appropriate. Was there any other situation where a table might be appropriate or where we've had issues with tables being used inappropriately that we should clarify? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

There wasn't any other situations with those issues about tables being used inappropriately that I can recall. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I also can't think of any off the top of my head outside of accolades. Thanks for keeping up with this. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have toyed with table formatting in the "Cast" section. First, there is an example like at Fight Club (film) – Casting. In addition, I've used invisible table formatting to create the appearance of two columns, like at Apt Pupil (film). Similar formatting is used at Surf Ninjas, and I don't oppose this approach because it allows proper alignment of actors and roles (like in the credits) as opposed to simple bulleted lists that are left-aligned. However, this kind of table formatting would be more recommended if the article was well-developed, like with my aforementioned examples. I wouldn't go out of my way to do anything like invisible table formatting if the table still needed to grow and may involve attention from editors unfamiliar with table formatting. (I still lurk around, by the way!) Erik (talk | contribs) 02:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should really focus on content and not layout, a different stylesheet or reading device (for example phone or computer) could substantially change the style but not the content. I would continue to strongly discourage the use of tables.

Previously tables were being used for cast lists early on in articles, which discouraged other authors from making changes, and adding extra information about characters and casting. Then those tables were opened up as lists and expanded with prose, and in better articles becoming a casting section with extensive details. Your use of tables comes back full circle, adding a cast list (really a hidden table) back to an article with a substantial amount of casting information that is fairly stable and unlikely to change much, so the justification of tables being awkward to change is less strong. I'd still prefer a list, tables seem overly complicated for what you're presenting, you seem to be on the way to creating an infobox for Cast. Unfortunately there are editors here who oppose having a clear and simple cast list "Actor as Character" once a more developed Casting section exists so they would likely also oppose your formatting on principle (but I like to keep them around as you seem to to give a quick overview and little information about supporting characters without bloating the plot, I just see using tables as overcomplicating it). -- Horkana (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not about coming back full circle. I fully endorse simpler construction of cast lists for articles that are not developed, which would be the majority of them. Like you recognized, cast information will barely change in well-developed articles. It's just a higher-level approach that can come into play when the content is already there. I implemented varieties of the table approach on well-developed articles; I only recommend using it when you pretty much have all other bases covered. I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "Unfortunately there are editors here who oppose having a clear and simple cast list 'Actor as Character' once a more developed Casting section exists so they would likely also oppose your formatting on principle." Do you mean like what I have at Apt Pupil (film), where listing and prose are separate? I found it easy to do that since there were two main characters, but for other films, it would not work as well. Also, would wikitable display really vary across devices? My impression is that they would be designed to be viewable; the real issue with using tables in most instances is the complexity of coding to most editors. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The style guides generally recommend prose over lists. Some editors take this as reason to delete the cast list once there is prose such as a "Casting" section, judging it to be unnecessary and preferring to offer not both but only prose. Perhaps someone else will point to a previous discussion on how cast lists should be formatted, I believe this has been discussed here before but it may have been on a few article pages.

Keep it simple. There is nothing especially bad with the way you've done the tables and clearly you know how to set up a nice table (I don't particular like the alignment of the table used in Apt Pupil lines up but that's incidental) but a list is undeniably simpler and easier for everyone else to work on.

I'm very skeptical of most of the uses of tables. List articles are one thing but when award list gets long what a real encyclopedia would do is pick the best and ignore the rest, so table isn't really necessary. When it comes to films winning an Oscar and a few others are the really most notable and the longer the list (long enough to require a table) the less relevant it becomes. -- Horkana (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I used to delete cast lists when there were already paragraphs of casting information. I've reconsidered this approach since I am trying to be more navigation-friendly. I have never been a fan of the approach of "merging" actors' names into the plot summary. Just because a character cannot be mentioned in the plot summary does not mean he/she does not warrant mention. There are multiple ways to write a "Cast" section, but most of them do not accommodate secondary actors very well. There is poor flow in grouping secondary actors and their roles into a paragraph. This was the problem I experienced with Apt Pupil; see this. It's not comfortable to read a series of names like that. I thought it would work better to emulate the appearance of cast lists, alignments and all. Not to mention double columns so there is not a waste of space to the right. (Although I admit that's why I put the quote box there.) Hence the current look. I think everyone can agree that most actors whose roles are "Stranger #2" or something similar is indiscriminate. However, if an actor is blue-linked, I think it is more navigation-friendly to mention the name somewhere. For Fight Club, I created a kind of infobox because mentioning Jared Leto and Meat Loaf (secondary actors in the film) in prose felt tacked on. A "Cast" section was way too small. The table gave me a way to identify them in the article body without being too out of place. As I said, this is all high-level formatting after work had already been done on the articles.

Regarding awards, I think we tend to be all-inclusive to avoid being selective. Are you preferring a selective approach? I think it is hard to gauge the significance of awards beyond the obvious ones (Oscars, Golden Globes, BAFTAs, etc.) because readers and editors on Wikipedia just have not provided developed articles about the lesser awards. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Long lists just are not as desirable as readable prose with a bit more insight and commentary. It does not seem to align with the goal of being a good encyclopedia. While I do find it useful to have articles like List of accolades received by Little Miss Sunshine for further reference and to support broader statements about the film or particular performances being critically acclaimed, they seem messy when included directly in articles. So yes I am advocating a selective approach, or at least pushing the long lists and tables out and treating them more as reference sources or raw data rather than considering them as integral parts of the article. (As a reader I'd collapse and hide away the Reference sections too, only as an editor do I want to examine those details.)

Another minor point and inconsistency I'd like to discuss: you use ellipsis ... between Actors and Characters. I took to writing "Actor as Character" when I noticed articles that used ‐ which seemed inelegant, and I suppose I'd like to think using the words instead of ... helps encourage writers in early articles to add more prose. Have you considered formatting the box differently, even using Actor (Character) as Wikipedia Project Television articles do in their infoboxes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horkana (talk • contribs) 20:20, July 9, 2010

The two-column format is terrible. Please don't do that. With the box on the right, it's actually a three-column format, and many of the actor and character names wind up being split across two lines. —Codrdan (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've just stumbled into this thread. I know a few of you above ;) I'm largely with Horkana on the tables question. Embedding gobs of presentational goop is never a good thing. From an editor's perspective, they're an impediment to editing. The Apt Pupil structures are overly complex for what they're trying to accomplish; I cut just cut a layer out of the Surf Ninja page wo/altering the approach. From a semantic perspective, cast lists are lists and it is best to format them as one of the list types. To most this means ordered or unordered (numbered, bulleted), but there is also the option of definition lists. These can allow significant blocks of prose and automatic structure. I've no hand Example, to I'll fake one:

Mary Ann Summers

Portrayed by Dawn Wells, Mary Ann was a former Miss Nevada when she auditioned for the role. Her competition included Raquel Welch and Pat Priest. The pilot episode had a different character ("Bunny") played by actress Nancy McCarthy. After it was shot, the network decided to recast the roles of the Professor and the two young women. She wrote The Gilligans Island Cookbook and starred as Lovey Howell in the musical stage adaptation of the show.

For really basic articles, the bog-standard bulleted list format would be best; for articles that have be developed to a 'medium' extent, perhaps the above. Well developed articles would have whole sections on the main casts, and for a rather few, spin-outs to separate articles would be warranted. Few, as I've a long history of being a critic of such spun-out articles on fictional characters; more in tv shows and video games (and D&D) than films, though.

I'm down on hard-coded markup and structure because I've done so much of in the real world; it is now widely viewed as inappropriate and with CSS now properly supported by modern browsers (even IE, gets it right, sometimes;), it's absolutely the appropriate technique. We do need more facilities available in the site style sheets, but these would be for methods of structure and rendering things that have broad applicability. I'd not support a class="cast-list", but would support further mechanisms for columnar structuring of content.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

A surprisingly elegant and simple bit of markup there from Jack. I think I like it. It might be just what is needed for Woody Harrelson in the Zombieland article. -- Horkana (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Does WP:FILMPLOT#Plot apply to non-fiction?

Hi, I was wondering if WP:FILMPLOT#Plot applies to non-fictional films, such as documentaries? Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. It was written to be fairly general so it could apply to both. Basically replace the word plot with synopsis for non-fiction works :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 16:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment at Last House on the Left

Please visit Talk:The Last House on the Left (2009 film)#Genre to discuss the identified genre for the film. I'm tired of looking at edit wars back and forth with this article over the specific "genre". I'd like some more opinions so that a clear consensus can be made.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Accolades

I boldly added a write-up for the "Accolades" section in the guidelines. I don't think any part of it is disputable; it encourages flexibility in presentation of the accolades. Let me know if you think any aspect of it needs to be revised. I would like to add another paragraph about sourcing. Basically, I think we are lenient with accolades for articles that are not vying for Good Article or Featured Article status. However, articles in the running for either status should have references. The trickiest part of this proposed addition is the usage of IMDb in listing awards. It is undoubtedly easy to use, but since it is not a well-received source, it would be better to recommend it as a resource to find more direct references (as any worthwhile award would have been reported elsewhere).

Another modification that we may need to consider here is where to draw the line with listing all accolades. I consider myself pretty inclusive, but there may be some accolades such as certain film critics' circles whose recognitions aren't reported independently (instead through press releases). Most accolades will not necessarily have their own article, but I don't think this is grounds for exclusion. If the accolade is discoverable in Google News Search and similar searches, then it ought to be okay. What do others think? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Pretty bold for somebody who's not even a member... Oh wait, I guess it's allowed. Looks good, and that was a good idea to link to the separate list example, although it may be better to link to a current FL to encourage further sourcing when a separate page is created. For the awards that may be unnotable, there's likely no harm mentioning them, as they may have articles and expanded coverage in the media if they gain further attention. Google News or articles from news databases should be sufficient to cover notability. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Box office

Unless someone wants to try to convince Box Office Mojo to change the wording of their website to something with a more international outlook, the guidelines for the Box office section will need to explain WP:WORLDVIEW and warn editors to be careful about their choice of words. Editors need to replace "domestic" with "in the United States" (and Canada?) and "in foreign markets" with "internationally". -- Horkana (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I took a stab at it, though more for the abuse of the word "domestic". Feel free to add on with "international". Erik (talk | contribs) 23:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe it was article edits from Bovineboy that drew this to my attention so he may also want to make changes to the wording. -- Horkana (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say "in North America", since the release in US is typically a North American release that includes Canada.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but does Mexico get the releases at the same time and include their box office receipts in an American film release? I don't know the timing of when American films are released in Mexico, and unless BOM says that it includes Mexican receipts, then we probably have to avoid "North American" phrasing as well. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

BOM says here that "domestic" means United States and Canada, so North America would not work. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I just write "in the United States and Canada" and "in other countries". It's been working quite well. (example) Mike Allen 08:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Related: what is the authority on a film's country of origin? Here again, we seem to assume this is a fact without ambiguity and it's frequently otherwise. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That's another discussion to have. I think it is less clear-cut today than in the past. Saying that a film is American does not mean it is exclusively American, but it is primarily of that nationality. With more even international co-productions, I think it's better to indicate in midst of the lead section how the countries collaborated, as opposed to starting off a front-load with, "Foo is an American/Canadian/French/African/Australian film..." Extreme example, but how to approach it will vary on a case-by-case basis. Actually, we do cover it in the guidelines in a way; MOS:FILM#Lead section says, "If the nationality is ambiguous, clarify the circumstances at a later point in the first paragraph." Erik (talk | contribs) 18:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

But the "coverage" simply kicks it up the road. Although I sense there is a lack of comfort with the fact, a film's nationality seems normally to derive from the director (or perhaps the director's residence). Fellini's films are Italian, Bergman's are Swedish, Welles's are American. The complications of multiple designations aren't helpful for reference purposes, but a clear convention is. (2) There are also competing purposes at work here: should we adopt a convention that makes it easy to file/find a fact or are we trying to give complete credit? At times these intents can be at cross purposes. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

3-D vs. 3D

In the U2 3D article, I always used the formatting "3-D" (except when referring to the film title itself). In the FA-nom, an editor claimed that "3D" was chosen as the standard by either this project or WP:TV (this project seems more likely). But if that was the case, I don't see why 3-D film is formatted the way it is. The editor already changed the formatting of the entire article to from "3-D" to "3D" but it seemed a little unnecessary, given the formatting of the parent article, so I wanted to come here for some advice. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a good time to mention that the evolution of the hyphenation of attributive nouns normally proceeds like this: neck tie; neck-tie, necktie. That change over time is a normal part of English usage as a pair of words become one. Resistance to that evolution is misplaced. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Italics vs double quotation marks for film titles

(I mistakingly raised this point over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films), but it really belongs here. Anyway...)

Per MOS:TITLE, the titles of all short works -- including short films -- should be placed inside double quotation marks rather than italicised. We don't currently do this for short films, so I'm wondering if we should be? To acheive this in the film infobox would be fairly straightforward, though obvioulsy less so when it comes to adjusting the text of existing artlicles. PC78 (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I support using quotation marks for short films in both the article body and the film infobox. Can't imagine an objection since it's based on MOS:TITLE. We should go ahead and make an edit request for a short= parameter in the infobox. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Since it's doubtless going to come up at some point, what defines a film as a "short" film? Doniago (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I had always conceived of the critical determinant of italics vs. quotes as being whether or not the piece in question has been published/released as a stand-alone work. Viewed from this angle, it is not clear if a single standard should apply, as short films are increasingly viable for release given the wide range of new distribution models. Skomorokh 14:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Source check test case

I was asked to comment here as the primary editor of the recently-featured article on the short film Hotel Chevalier, which was often mentioned in the sources in relation to the feature film The Darjeeling Limited so I have had a quick look through those sources to check what conventions they were using when referring to both films. Click "show" to see the results:

Quotes for both

• Wall Street Journal
• New Yorker
• Los Angeles Times
• Variety
• The Hindu
• The New York Times [3]
• Salon.com

Italics for both

• Slashfilm
• USA Today [4]
• TIME

Nothing for both

• New York Press
• The Guardian

Quotes for the short, italics for the feature

• Popwatch
• Boston Phoenix'

So the most notable result is that Wikipedia is using italics for feature films where most newspaper sources (and the most reputable) do not; another interpretation is that a significant majority of these sources don't use different styles for short vs. long. Skomorokh 15:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like we need to have a discussion at MOS:TITLE's talk page about the origin of the "Short films and documentaries" entry. Since your links are newspaper-based, I looked at books through Google Book Search. I found italics used for short films, but have not found a single example of quotation marks used. We should present this case (and maybe a case for documentaries, too). Might turn out that we don't have to do anything but amend MOS:TITLE. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems very sensible, Erik. Why invite inconsequential disputes or errors? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a bad idea to have as a general rule. There is no clear distinction between a short film and a feature, especially not if we go back to the 1910s and earlier, when many films that today would be considered as short films were marketed and received as features. I think the line about being part of a larger work is essential, and that quotation marks should be used only for segments of anthology films, like in Histoires extraordinaires.Smetanahue (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Potential changes to WP:WAF

There is currently a discussion over at WP:BIO with regard to how we present fictional characters' names in the lead paragraph of their articles (i.e. whether they should be listing commonly used names, or any full variation that is reliably sourced as they do for real people). It would be good for the WAF guideline to be an accurate reflection of the community consensus on this issue so that we can identify it as such in the actual guideline.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Rating

If you've got them use them. That's how I see the Template:Rating and if a review includes a star rating then I included it in the reference.

User:IllaZilla asserts that "we" don't do ratings and has reverted an rating that had been in the article through many iterations. This seems like a missed opportunity. Lets cut to the chase and bring this matter of style to Film style guide and not just one article. The star rating gives the rating at a glance, music reviews and game reviews use them all the time, in fact it is from the soundtrack infobox that I saw Template:Rating and began to make more use of it. So my question is why not use it? -- Horkana (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not say the we don't "do" ratings, I said we don't put star ratings in citations, as was being inexplicably done here. I've never seen any other film article put the ratings in citations like this. Ratings are not part of citations. A citation is a reference, providing information about the source for purposes of verification. Ratings do not belong in citations, they belong in the article body. Album and video game articles have them in dedicated templates placed next to reception sections (many album articles still have them in the infobox, but this is a deprecated practice and they are slowly being migrated out to Reception sections...point is, they're not placed in the references). If you want to include ratings in an article, that's perfectly fine, but they don't belong hidden in the citations. They belong in the article proper. They can either be mentioned in text, or we can discuss creating a template similar to {{Album ratings}}. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've personally never been one to use the ratings a critic gives, because their so vague. A 4 out of 5 for one film doesn't equal the same for another film, because films tend to differ in what critics see wrong with them. That aside, I definitely wouldn't support the inclusion of an actual image that shows how many stars a film got. There are many reviewers that have 10 star ratings, I really don't need to see a stretch of stars across a sentence simply to show "at a glance" what a rating was. That's more distracting than anything. They serve even less purpose when they are in the citation bed, because most readers don't bother looking in that area.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation provide author title date and other relevant summary information of an article. A rating is an extension of this, indicating at a glance to other editors that the review how positive or negative a review is. This is arguably part of the review Title in many cases.

I do not see a need to create more tables and listings like {{Album ratings}} when the Rating template can be used in a simpler way that enhances the References list.

I definitely want to get some other opinions. -- Horkana (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The ratings are pretty much pointless, especially in the reflist. Even if they do accurately reflect what a reviewer thought of a film, so should what we say in the reception section. A reference should be just a way to look up where our cited information is coming from, not contain content that isn't being used. BOVINEBOY2008 21:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems out of place to put a graphic in a run of text. I'd have put them in the title only nesting a template within a citation seemed inelegant. A table of Ratings seems just like more lists and tables rather than much needed prose. The point about star ratings being not the most useful is well taken and although Ebert rails against them he does use them and they do give a basic if simplistic overview. Any constructive suggestions on better ways to do it and not just don't do it at all? -- Horkana (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, my vote is on just don't do it at all, but I believe there used to be a Film ratings template, but it was deleted pretty quickly. It might be in the archives. I agree that they shouldn't be in a table on the side nor in the prose. And they don't belong in the references (because a star rating is not part of any referencing guides I've ever seen), so I can't imagine where they would have a place in these kinds of articles. BOVINEBOY2008 21:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Horkana, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of a reference/citation's function in this case: the purpose of a reference is to provide information about the source, so that a reader may track down the source and verify that it in fact supports the statements that the citation is placed next to. A reference provides things like article title, authorship, page number, URL, ISBN number, etc. ... facts about the source itself. It is not intended to provide substantive information such as the author's opinions; those belong in the article itself. If you want to say that Roger Ebert gave a film four out of five stars, you can simply add to the text "Roger Ebert rated the film four stars out of five..." and then cite the source. As I've noted, other WikiProjects have chosen to allow the display of star ratings in article bodies using the {{Rating}} template, often in tandem with a larger template that creates a side table explicitly for this purpose. This is something that we can consider for the Films project, though it seems that popular opinion leans against it. But one point which seems to have consensus is that star ratings do not belong within citations. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This started with assertions from IllaZilla that "we" don't do this, like as if consensus already existed, or there was a guideline or it had ever been discussed before. It hardly seemed like a WP:BOLD move to include a little extra detail when I was formatting bare links as proper citations, anymore than having the extra detail of a quote to help against link rot is hardly bold. If the alternative is tables or list then, nothing at all is better than that ugly overkill. Ratings, I tried it, nobody seemed to mind until now, but at least some discussion on the matter and a rough consensus. (Shame we don't have a Wikipedia Project film BOT to go and fix articles to fit this new consensus.)

Since we've started, let's finish. How do other editors feel about the suggested alternative of ratings tables? I think review aggregation sites such as Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes render them unnecessary, and we shouldn't go that way for film articles, prose is better. -- Horkana (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to shift our paradigm a little and think of the stars graphic as a direct quotation of a primary source. If the reviewer uses stars to express themselves, well, that's what they think in so many... stars. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between a rating and a review. A rating is some quantifiable value (stars, percentage, whatever). A review is an actual expression of opinion and critical analysis (usually via text, could be a video). Reviewers typically use ratings as accompaniment to their reviews, but the rating isn't the substance of the review. The text of the review, where the person gives their opinions and analysis of the film, is of much greater value. There was some consensus at the Albums project, however, that ratings have some value and meaning to readers, but that they were misplaced in the infobox, and that the best place for them to be of informative value was alongside the prose paragraphs about the work's critical reception. That way your reviewer's comments are there, in prose, discussing their opinions of the film, and their ratings are right there beside the comments. Separating a rating from its review robs it of context. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Please indicate if this is the ratings/reception discussion to which you are referring. I skim read some of it, the thrust seems to be the importance of prose first and foremost, but reluctantly trying to accommodate the desire of other editors to use star Ratings in some form. -- Horkana (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That was one of the discussions, yes. There were several, spread out over a period of several months if I recall correctly. The general consensus was as you describe: that prose is of first and foremost importance, but that there seems to be a desire (and it has been a longstanding practice on WP) to also display ratings in some form. The process of moving ratings out of the albums infobox and into the ratings template has been slow and is still ongoing. From the opinions above I see a similar concern: the importance of prose first and foremost. I agree with that, but I also think that there is some value to ratings and that there is a desire—as evidenced by other projects (albums, video games)—to display them in some form within articles. I think that a ratings template would be a good way to go in that regard. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that IllaZilla's distinction between rating and reviewing is accurate. Not only reviews are expressions of opinion; both are. I don't think there's something meaningful by reference to an "actual" expression of opinion. What would a non-actual expression look like?... He also suggests that a review offers critical analysis and a rating doesn't. To the extent that a review gives reasons, naturally that's true, and it's good for the sake of intellectual rigor to have reasons instead of just thumbs up or down. However, in our context, we are not enjoined from summarizing, rather, we are perpetually engaged in summary. When offering a summary, we are sometimes not sure if our summary is accurate and the problem of accuracy in summary can be most acute when trying to summarize another writer's opinion. It would be preferable to use the writer's summary of his views instead of our own to avoid the problem. The writer's summary of his opinion of the worth/value/excellence of a movie is expressed in his rating of the movie. Thus, the rating has a lot going for it as an accurate way to summarize something we really need summarized when we're writing about a film's reception. Presumably, that is the reason we find Rotten Tomatoes aggregations useful. Similarly, individual reviewer ratings are fine to include when we want to summarize a movie's critical reception. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that quoting star ratings in articles is a very good idea. Ratings aren't very meaningful unless you supply the proper context, the proper context being "how the same reviewer rates other films". It's not practical to provide such context together with the rating in each article; it's far better to simply summarise or quote the reviewer's arguments. (I don't think that merely mentioning the maximum and minimum score possible in a particular ratings system gives sufficient context, as many reviewers use four or five stars but differ wildly in how readily they distribute stars within that range.) Eljayess (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking for an explanation of what context must be missing in the quotation of a star rating that is not also missing in the case of other quotations. By your logic, Eljayess, it would be incorrect to quote a review without also noting how often the same form of criticism is used by the same reviewer. In fact, ratings are part of a language, signs used by experts who are aware of their conventional uses, and that is adequate for the purpose of imparting meaning. Are there variations in the use of the word 'masterpiece' or the five star rating? Of course, but we are normally free to quote either one unless it's misleading. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Linking dates

Because of an edit war brewing on the Cat People (1982 film), I was wondering if we shouldn't readdress our "Linking Dates" section again as it is apparently not as clear as we thought it was. I was reading over the conversation from March when Tony updated the relevant text and comparing it to the page history pertaining to that section. The text we have has become completely watered down and the explicitness of alternate ways of dealing with the "year in film" links in the lead was removed for reasons I can't seem to figure out going through the history. I'm either off wiki or light wiki for a few weeks so I figured I'd throw it out here and see what others thought. Millahnna (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Blu-ray vs Blu-ray Disc vs BD vs whatnot

I've come into a disagreement with an editor here over the suggested way to call this format. I'd say go with common sense and call it Blu-ray since that's what it's universally called. The editor insists on it being called by a technically-correct name, suggesting either BD or Blu-ray Disc. What's everyone else's take on this? Thanks in advance. --uKER (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should aim to be clear. For this reason the acronym BD should definitely be avoided. It is not widely used, and for normal readers it over complicates and obscures a two simpler words. Only the very wide use of CD makes it acceptable. The acronym VHS is so dated I would be more likely to use the words video cassette. I'm fa definitely in agreement with you and against the use of the acronym BD.

If it was not a wikilink I suppose I'd write Blu Ray but since it is a wikilink and based on the fact that the article name is Blu-ray Disc (Blu-ray redirects to Blu-ray Disc) it keeps it simpler to go with Blu-ray Disc. That's just my opinion and I do tend to prefer more clarity at the risk of being pedantic or redundant since Wikipedia does aim to be an encyclopedia rarther than going for snappier prose. I do share some of your concern about redundancy, if the phrase was repeated several times in the article I would probably rephrase the sentences to avoid mentioning the distribution medium more than once and focus on the content. Hope that helps. I'm sure others will have their own opinions on the matter. -- Horkana (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No one uses the BD acronym and so that shouldnt be used. After the first usage of the full Blu-ray disc, the terminology "Blu-ray" (while not "technically" correct) is so commonly used that I see no issue with that abbreviation. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 17:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) BD should not be used because it's not common terminology, as opposed to DVD. I find "Blu-ray" and "Blu-ray Disc" to mean the same thing, especially in the context of a film article. Use one or the other and move on, I suggest. Neither term will mislead the reader, and we can better spend our time worrying about other content. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

> go with common sense and call it Blu-ray

The technology isn't common enough yet. As Banana suggested, I would call it "Blu-ray disc", or maybe "Blu-ray video disc", the first place it's mentioned, and then "Blu-ray" or "disc" or "video disc" after that. —Codrdan (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me, though I would use "Blu-ray" in secondary mentions. After all, DVD also uses "disc" and "video disc". I'd be surprised to see DVD and Blu-ray covered very separately, so we should avoid being ambiguous with these terms. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(Since I'm the person uKER is in disagreement with, I don't know whether I'm supposed to contribute here or not – if not, my apologies, I've no experience with such procedure)

Please use ~~~~ to sign your comments. Thank you for making the effort to get involved. -- Horkana (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not do what I suggested here, using Blu-ray Disc first and BD afterwards?

As for some of your objections:

"An encyclopedia should aim to be clear. [...]" – That's why the two official forms should be used, and the first usage is normally hyperlinked, after all. By the way, take a look at the logo, it's a stylized "B" and "D".

"No one uses the BD acronym and so that shouldnt be used." – I do, and many people within and outside the industry do. Why would we be "no one"? Besides quantity doesn't equal quality, and oftentimes people would refer to things in an incorrect way; doesn't mean an encyclopedia should.

"go with common sense and call it Blu-ray" – To me, calling it Blu-ray Disc and BD, respectively, is common sense, and I take umbrage at my stance being labeled otherwise. Why should your idea of what constitutes common sense be worth more than mine? But you know what? It doesn't matter what our perceptions of common sense are, as this is simply a matter of correct or incorrect, and Blu-ray is the incorrect form – and the medium is a disc, after all, not a ray. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about elsewhere, but "blu-ray" seems to be the most common term here in the UK. I don't mind using "blu-ray disc" for precision, but the "BD" acronym seems rather obscure. It's not something I've ever seen used in the real world. PC78 (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Be in no doubt, everyone may comment on anything in Wikipedia. Even if they are completely wrong they are entitled to their stupid opinion.
The acronym BD never caught on even if it is "official" and should not be used, it is not in common usage anywhere near the extent of CD (from CD-ROM) or DVD. Don't do it. Ever. An encyclopedia should definitely try to be more correct even if most people do not feel it is necessary in common usage. Acronyms are a terrible idea generally as they tend to obfuscate simple ideas and especially so in documentation or any medium such as an encyclopedia where you are trying to be clear and to educate others (unlike academic papers where people throw acronyms like seeds on a farm, and expect you to just know what they mean and realize how clever they are by making things more difficult than they need to be).
Sure the official meaning of DVD is Digital Versatile Disc but it changed from the original Digital Video Disc after the fact, so I've a very low opinion of so called "official" names, any claim we should use BD when it really is not widely used. Seriously avoid acronyms, avoid abbreviations. Your readers will not even know to thank you but they will find your work less unpleasant to read. This is not a case of one source being correct and others not making an effort to do proper research, the term is not commonly used. Even so, in the unlikely event you convince people to use the acronym Blu-ray (BD) you must be sure to explain it properly the first time you use it in an article but again I would strongly discourage you from using it at all.
I'm a little surprised uKer felt the need to argue this point, but I suppose it does come up in the Home media section of almost every film article so it is good to have clarification. I would hope uKer learned from this discussion that "common sense" is a loaded term and that to use it is to presume your opponent is wrong without actually giving a solid reason. It's something we all do on occasion, it is difficult sometimes to be clear why one way on doing things is not a good idea, but it is always better to try to explain. -- Horkana (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

By common sense I meant going for the most common usage, which serves the purpose of maximizing clarity. It may be arguable what term you prefer to use, but there's absolutely no denying that "Blu-ray" is what the format is called in everyday life (go to any forum on the subject and see for yourself), and I personally see no improvement in calling it "Blu-ray Disc". Just my two cents. And yes, I saw it necessary to bring it up because it's relevant to a great part of current film articles and not just the article in question, which you can relate to from the fact that I opened the discussion here in MOSFILM. --uKER (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

On this basis, perhaps there is a case for moving the Blu-ray Disc article to Blu-ray? In fact, looking at the talk page I see that Ὁ οἶστρος was pushing for use of "BD" there as well a few months back, though there weren't any takers. PC78 (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"Blu-ray" is the whole format specification which defines a set of codecs, bitrates, resolutions, DRM, programmability, you name it. "Blu-ray Disc" is just the media the format defines, and in fact you can put a Blu-ray film onto a DVD and it will still adhere to the Blu-ray spec. That is why, saying a film comes out on "Blu-ray Disc" is like saying films came out on "VHS casettes" or games came out on "SNES cartridge". It's a pedantic, impractical technicism. Summing it up, Blu-ray Disc is the name of the media, not the format itself. --uKER (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

uKER, what you write there is simply not true. But don't believe me: Please consult the official white papers by the BDA (yes, that's BDA, the Blu-ray Disc Association, not BRA or any such thing) and check for yourself.

And the terminology is not redundant, either (and not analogous to the examples you mentioned) – constructions like BD disc, CD disc and DVD disc would be.

I still don't get why everyone is arguing with common usage. Why should that matter? It's a quantitative argument, not a qualitative one. Could someone please explain to me substantively why quantity should override quality? And isn't that also against WP:NPOV and WP:NOR? By the standards some seem to want to apply here, yes, I agree with PC78, why not just rename the Blu-ray Disc article to Blu-ray? (or to Blu-ray, also used frequently) – it would be plain wrong, but at least consequent.

And yes, I did suggest to use the acronym in the Blu-ray Disc article after introducing and explaining it first, as that would make the article much more readable. But except someone who has been harassing me ever since (claiming, among other things, feature film BDs wouldn't [normally] be present in 24p / 23.976p), nobody seemed interested to discuss it, so I didn't pursue it further.

Horkana, you wrote: "Even so, in the unlikely event you convince people to use the acronym Blu-ray (BD) [...]" – does that mean you plead for Blu-ray Disc only or do I misinterpret you? I didn't quite understand on which side you come down here – except that you're against the use of the short form BD. On this, among other things, you wrote that it never caught on. Well, yes and no. It's true many people, even advertisers, don't use it (which, again, I fail to see the relevance of, since there are many things which a majority has a wrong or imprecise perception of) but on the other hand, you can see the acronym on every BD box – after all, the logo is the acronym!

(Now, where does that leave us? Will somebody just say something like "Well, that ὁ οἶστρος guy is clearly in the minority here, no matter whether his points are any good or not, so I hereby declare that consense is found and hitherto "Blu-ray" shall be used in all pertinent instances.", or how is consense determinded? My apologies for my ignorance of Wikipedia's inner workings.) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Horkana makes a good point that 'Blu-ray' is the adjective that says what kind of disc it is. It's a Kleenex tissue, they are prescription glasses, it's an MP3 player, etc. So there are many ways to be stylish after the initial use of the term to refer to the same thing without ambiguity and we should be free to use them. ("I clean the glasses with a Kleenex to find the remote for my iPod.") A good writer takes advantage of that. But to never use the complete form seems pretty clearly wrong. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If using "BD" is objectionable, I'd suggesting using "Blu-ray Disc" for the first instance, then using "Blu-ray" for subsequent instances. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Date references for upcoming films

Shouldn't it be mentioned that date references for upcoming films should NOT be expressed relative to the season of the year (eg "Summer 2011")? This timeframe is usually bound to the north hemisphere, and for this reason, doesn't provide a universally clear timeframe. --uKER (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

We can point to WP:SEASON. Do you think it warrants a mention here? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know that existed. Now I know and will be using it, but perhaps mentioning it proves useful for people to come. Feel free to decide whether it's worth it. --uKER (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I added mention of it at MOS:FILM#Date formatting. It could not really fit in any of the previous sections because it could apply to production or to release. If anyone else has a better idea of where to put it, go for it. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with it as it is. Good work. --uKER (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

DVD Release Sections

Hi, I'm looking for input about this discussion over at WikiProject Spam. The company is called Mill Creek Entertainment, and they take 80s and 90s media and release them on inexpensive DVDs. An editor, User_talk:ElvisSacramento, has been adding short sections announcing upcoming releases, and I'm not sure if they're considered appropriate per MOS:FILM, MOS:FILM#Home_media. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox - Should Preceded/Succeeded By fields include years?

I've started a discussion here. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

400-700 word limit in guideline

Even suggesting a limit seems silly. A movie can run from an hour to over three hours, to demand it be summarized in 700 words or less seems arbitrary. The wording should be downgraded to a suggestion, or so many words suggested per hour of plot. An arbitrary limit just seems silly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The 400–700 word range is not a hard & fast mandate. Refer to the second and third sentences of the guideline:

• 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's non-linear storyline, 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.)

Clearly a film over 3 hours in length with a very complicated plot falls within "plot is too complicated to summarize in this range" category. The suggestion of 400–700 words is fine in my opinion and suits the majority of film articles, while still allowing leeway for some summaries to exceed that length. I see no problem with the current guideline and have rarely had a problem working within it, even on articles about long films or films with complex plots. Careful writing and revision can almost always reduce a long plot summary down to the most salient details. As Strunk says, "make every word tell" (section 13). --IllaZilla (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

400–700 words is roughly half to one full side of A4, and you can pretty much summarise anything on a page of A4 whether it runs for 20 minutes, 2 hours or 4 hours. It's just a case of choosing an appropriate level of abstraction. The main point of the plot section is to tell the reader what the film is about, and they probably just want to give a couple of minutes to reading the plot summary, regardless of the length of the film. If you allow plot summaries over 1000 words going up to 2000 or 3000 words then you're getting into essay territory and I'm guessing no-one wants to read an essay. There are exceptions to that like when a film has more than one narrative thread like Pulp Fiction, where you need to adequately summarise each distinct story, or something like War and Peace which is broken into four distinct parts, but in the general case a side of A4 is easily enough. I actually don't think it is arbitrary, I think the 400–700 word guideline is well judged and well thought out in regards to what it is supposed to provide and what the reader requires from it. Betty Logan (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur with IllaZilla. The range suffices for the vast majority of feature films, especially the mainstream ones whose articles will be frequently edited and to the point of excessive detail. As a guideline, we use common sense in applying it and noting the occasional exceptions. Extraordinarily short or long films would be these exceptions. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Richard is complaining about the plot summary of Tron: Legacy being tagged. See related discussion here. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know a litle more about how the consensus of the day settled on that 400-700 word guideline. The plot summaries I've enjoyed have tended to be 800 words and upwards. I appreciate the detail and like to know nearly enough that I might be able talk a little about the film without having actually seen it. Admittedly some good editors are able to take those longer summaries and slimmed them to ~700 words without losing too much but it seems like more often and editor does a total hatchet job and cutting it down to 400 words. I do actually support longer summaries but only up to a point and I hate to see good work chucked out by over eager deletionists so I don't want to stray too far from the guidelines.

As Erik noted User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is specifically asking about Tron Legacy which on December 24, weighed in at an astonishgingly bloated 1200 words. Maybe it was the poor quality of summary that really bothered me but I tagged it as too long, I think that is being a bit too flexible with the guidelines. I do not believe Tron Legacy is a more complicated story than Inception (film) and the plot summary there is a few hundred words shorter. -- Horkana (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Horkana's perception seems right to me. Summaries of our length lose quite a bit of detail and not always to the benefit of the article. Personally, I feel that length should be relaxed or restricted not only based on complexity or running time, but also on the film's relative notability. One index of that is the number of page views. However, we may not have agreement on the purpose of the section. The audience we write for is vaguely defined (perhaps for good reason) so there's no rational basis to include or exclude any particular event. Sometimes that yields delightful results in the hands of a good editor. Sometimes something else happens that seems bad for the readers. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is that a concise plot summary is appropriate in presence of real-world coverage of a fictional work. A Wikipedia article is not supposed to be a plot-only description of the fictional work. Based on this, a plot summary for a film article should not be self-serving. Ideally, the way to go about writing a plot summary would be to maximize real-world coverage of the fictional work, then to write the summary in a way that the reader can absorb the story and any elements that will be later discussed. It's rarely that planned out, of course, unless an editor is making a dedicated effort to write a Featured Article. The problem is that in reality, details beget details. The more detailed we get, the more detailed we want to be. This is usually without any consideration for the summary's relationship with the rest of the article. We should discuss what conciseness means. Should the plot summary be relatively concise (compared to the rest of the article)? Should the summary be within a given range to be concise? For me, I don't think a plot summary is concise when it's especially over 1,000 words, even if the article is 100 KB in size. To me, concise means that a reader should have a reasonable understanding of what happens in the film. I would even be okay with a smaller range because the current range is one where details start to beget details, as opposed to 100 or 200 words, where you really do focus on the broad strokes, like in a studio's synopsis. Most film reviews, I think, are able to convey the story as part of their analyses without having to go into as much detail as some film articles do. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Erik. I think that sometimes editors forget that these are supposed to be summaries. Summaries generally give an overview of the plot, describing the major characters and events without delving into minute detail (this as opposed to a synopsis which is much shorter and really just broad strokes, or a retelling which would be much more detailed). The longer a plot summary grows, the more it tends to turn into a blow-by-blow of the entire story rather than summarizing the story for the reader, and the further our articles get from our goal of providing a high percentage of real-world information about the work in question. When you are asked to summarize a story for someone, you are not being asked to retell it word-for-word, you are being asked to give a concise overview. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

We may disagree on the details but we all to be pretty firmly in agreement that over 1000 words is just far too much. -- Horkana (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the important thing to bear in mind is that there are lots of top drawer plot summaries on Wikipedia within the guidelines so any problem with the summary most likely isn't because of them. Good short summaries can be written and the guidelines as they are encourage that. To be fair I wouldn't tag a 800–900 word summary as overlong since it is only just outside the goal posts, but once you get to around 1000 words it definitely needs tightening up. Betty Logan (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Very true, Betty. The real world dilemma that actually occurs: the choice between a short hack job and a well written longer one. I think the subtext here is that the limit might not make the articles better, given the interests of the readers. Anyone want to drag in something tangled and ugly like a piece of evidence? To some extent, it counts for something that some editors think the limit is too severe. They're not just ignorant or green or cretins; Wikipedia does its best when it gives the page to someone who is trying to write something useful. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how well a plot summary is written if it is not appropriately concise, and we need to determine what it means to be concise. Readers who are not familiar with policy or guideline will write bloated plot summaries at unattended film articles, so it is already evident that a hands-off approach will not lead to better-written plot summaries. Without a limit, then what should be the guiding criteria? To me, WikiProject Film is pretty lenient with its range, because "concise" to me would mean a tighter word count. After all, it's defined as "expressing or covering much in few words; brief in form but comprehensive in scope". Studio synopses are especially concise. It may be that the common ceiling of 700 words is a way to permit a little more detail than is actually needed. Now there's a clamoring for room for more details, without consideration for actual summarizing or being in service of the rest of the article. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I've never watched a film that had a plot summary that needed more than maybe 800 words (speaking specifically of overly complicated films). The best example of that would be Mememto, which plays backwards and forwards and is generally confusing for the average reader to follow. For that very reason though, I could still summarize the film's main events in probably 600 words if I chose to write it in chronological order, instead of following the confusing past/present dictation that the film uses. Which is only effective when watching and not when reading. I find that people want to include very minute details about films too often because those details were somehow "important". Maybe they were and maybe they weren't, but at one point is the plot summary just a substitution for watching the film?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The only reason the current limits work fairly well is because fast-paced films tend to be short and slower ones are usually long, so most feature films have about the same amount of content. But the limits don't work for short films or extended sagas, and they don't provide any guidance for whether any particular summary should be closer to 400 or to 700. —Coder Dan (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that's why it's called a guideline...because it doesn't require any sort of rigid adherence. Doniago (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that has nothing to do with my point...because I was talking about the guideline itself, not meta-rules about compliance with guidelines. —Coder Dan (talk) 00:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You claimed that the limits don't work for short films or sagas. My point is the limits don't -need- to work for those films because it's not a rule, it's a guideline. And even if it -was- a rule WP allows for exceptions to rules. Do you have actual suggestions for how the guideline's wording could be improved? If so, why not bring it up? Doniago (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The limits don't need to work for anything. We could discuss every film individually and have no guideline at all if we really wanted to. My point is that the guideline sucks, and your point that it's not explicitly prohibited by Wikipedia policy is irrelevant. As for suggestions, I suggest that we stop making excuses for the current limits and either discuss better ones or admit that Wikipedia's consensus-building system doesn't work. —Coder Dan (talk) 04:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool. What do you propose as a better one? Doniago (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I would start with a target range of five to six words per minute of runtime, with allowances of up to one word per minute for pace, complexity, and novelty. —Coder Dan (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

According to this, the top 50 films of 2008 averaged 110 minutes. That's 550 to 660 words for the plot summary. If a film is relatively complex, the extra-word allowance puts the summary at 770 words, which is outside the range but permissible as an exception per the guidelines. Why do you think the guidelines suck if your proposal falls in the same territory as them? Erik (talk | contribs) 06:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I already explained that:

> the limits don't work for short films or extended sagas, and they don't provide any guidance for whether any particular summary should be closer to 400 or to 700.

Maybe you should learn how to read.

—Coder Dan (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That proposal seems unnecessarily complex to me. —Mike Allen 06:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If that seems complex to you, then Wikipedia is doomed. The proposal is childishly simple given the complexity and variety of films covered by Wikipedia. The problem is not the complexity of the proposal, it's the simplicity of Wikipedians. ;) —Coder Dan (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Some editors prefer brief summaries, others more detailed summaries, so the current guidelines leave the level of detail to the discretion of the editors working on the article. It is not the place of a Wikiproject to tell editors how to write their aricles, but there comes a point when a plot summary becomes so long it is tedious to read, so all the guideline is designed to do is prevent plot bloat, which it does do when it is adhered to. Betty Logan (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The guideline sucks. —Coder Dan (talk) 14:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The guideline allows for exceptions, so short films or extended sagas are easily qualifiable exceptions which the guideline exempts, and can be dealt with on a case by case basis if they present a problem. Something like "War and Peace" for instance, would probably need an adequate summary for each part, and I don't think an editor would seriously by expected to provide a 400 word summary for a ten minute short—usually there is an obvious rationale for why the guideline shouldn't be applied in some cases. As for guidelines within the limit, I think that's getting too prescriptive—if the plot summary is well written and between the limits I don't think it should be taken to task because we have a 90 minute film with a 700 word summary and 3 hour film with a 400 word summary; if the summaries are serviceable then leave the editors to it. Betty Logan (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

"Anyone want to drag in something tangled and ugly like a piece of evidence?" — Sure, I'm game. Lately I've been browsing through Category:All Wikipedia articles with plot summary needing attention, looking for titles I'm familiar with, and seeing if I can tighten up the plot summary to get it within the 400–700 word range. A good example would be Dragonheart: It was at 1,330 words for a a bloody 103 minute film. By summarizing most of the play-by-play retelling & sticking to the most important details, I was able to bring the current version down to just 668 words (and it could even be trimmed further from there). Another was Beneath the Planet of the Apes: 1,180 words down to 664 words. Then Across the Universe: a bloated 1,730 words down to 683 words (and still managing to name all the major musical numbers). So yeah, in my opinion if enough critical writing is applied there's no good reason why the majority of film plots can't be summarized in between 400 and 700 words. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been doing the same thing, actually. Hit a bit of a wall with Magnolia. I've never seen the film, and I think reorganizing the summary might allow for some further truncation, but I've brought it up on the talk page for the film and haven't heard back from anyone. I'm not familiar enough with the film to do it without some support. Doniago (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You can make all the excuses you want, Betty, but the guideline is still crude and poorly designed. It has many more exceptions than it should, and it provides very little guidance within the accepted range. A summary for a typical 90-minute romantic comedy doesn't need any more than about 600 words, and one for a 120-minute murder mystery probably needs much more than 500 words. —Coder Dan (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Plot sections should be written to be concise, but concise enough to be able to make the rest of the article - particularly development and reception - make sense to a reader that never has or will see the film.

Memento is a good example that while it could be written in 600 words or less, the structure of the film is very significant to its filming and reception. On the other hand, your general shlock action or romantic comedy film isn't going to need a lot of plot construction. On the other other hand, some films in this may actually merit that need. The goal should be the 600 word average, but when the article starts to become fleshed out and is clear a simple plot summary doesn't fully fit the need, expansion should be appropriate. But I do argue that in such cases, going above 900 -1000 words is likely excessive. --MASEM (t) 01:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

400-700 words is more than enough to summarize a feature length film. There are exceptions, which should be discussed on the relevant talk page. On side note, it does seem most readers come to a film article only for the plot anyway... —Mike Allen 02:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the point is if it is possible to summarize any or all plots in X number of words. Rather, the question is more like, what length plot summary works for the readers or helps Wikipedia accomplish what it wants to do? Clearly, a plot can be summarized in one sentence or extended to 100 pages if that is the assignment. All Wikipedia articles could be cut by 50% and we would make it all shorter. We don't do that because we are trying to provide something useful. So, does the guideline work in a way that helps us produce something useful? I don't see too much on that in this discussion explicitly but I am pretty sure most everyone is trying to produce something useful. MikeAllen: what is the basis for your assertion that readers come to film articles for the plot summary? That would be valuable information if true. Thanks very much! --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The rest of an article is not like the plot summary, though. A fictional work should be covered in an "encyclopedic manner", which to Wikipedia means real-world coverage. A "concise" plot summary is naturally appropriate as part of that. Per WP:SIZE, readability issues should be considered, but this is rarely the case as most film articles are between being stubs and moderate developments. So this is the only real criteria for the size of non-plot content. I would personally take issue with 15 reviews being sampled in a film article's reception section, but that rarely happens, so we don't have guidelines on that matter. On the other hand, it's common to see plot summaries become bloated, or for trivia sections to be formed and expanded, so there exist guidelines to moderate these kinds of items that get out of control. EDIT: Also, Mike may have the impression of readers coming to the article for the plot summary only because the summary is especially edited above all else. I think it only appears this way because there are many ways a plot summary can be conveyed, and many readers are fresh out of seeing the film. It requires more effort for editors to contribute real-world coverage. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You say you take issue with "15 reviews being sampled in a film article's reception section" and I want to respond to that. The best of the Featured Articles have a reception section that is not just a list of critics but a real depth of analysis backed up by many critics to examine differente aspects of a film from direction to script, cinematography to effects, from costumes to music, whatever the critics repeatedly picked out in reviews. At the most basic level I'd encourage editors to have a balance of postive and negative reviews based on roughly on how well received the film was (so I'd expect a film with mixed reviews like Tron:Legacy to include more criticism than it does now but many anonymous editors tried to delete the one harsh review I added) and the guidelines do already recommend trying to pick notable critics. If we are then a bit less simplistic about it you can actually find a harsh review is more thoughful and insightful about the bits of the film it actually does like despite being negative, and the notability of the words might be more than the notability of particular critics. Which brings me back to a few really good editors who can take a big long list of reviews spread across postive and negative, and across American and whatever other critics seem apporpriate and resynthesize that into a really good review of the different parts of cinema being praised (and when there is a pattern of praise or criticism for the story then the list of who and how many critics who echoed that sentiment is incidental). It's not the kind of writing I find easy and I'm struggling to improve Tron:Legacy at the moment but I hope it will get there eventually and a bit of early sprawl and excessive size can provide the building blocks for a different type of writer to write a more insightful overview. -- Horkana (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess my own original research Ring Cinema. Just watching how film articles are edited for the past year I have come to the conclusion that more emphasis is put on the plot section than any other part of the article. Do you see IPs or new users actively expanding the articles outside of the plot? —Mike Allen 06:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. You may be right but you're not talking about readers, you're talking about editors and inferring from their behavior about general readers. Can we agree that might be a leap? --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If many editors think that plot summaries are not long enough, maybe we should be thinking about the reason. They are not all ignorant, green, or cretins, are they? Maybe they're on to something. What purpose is violated when summaries are "bloated"? If we can't answer that, we don't have a rational basis for deciding what to include or exclude. And I think we miss the mark if we try to explain why they're "appropriate," since then we have to answer what is appropriate about it. It is not obvious why a film article isn't complete without a plot summary. My suspicion is that we find an implicit standard of notability as the basis of our thinking on this. However, I might be wrong. As a point of comparison, what is wrong about a trivia section that is not wrong about a plot summary? Some readers really find trivia fun and amusing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's policies is that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. One of that policy's key points is that there should not be plot-only descriptions of fictional works. It goes on to clarify when plot descriptions are appropriate. They can be provided in concise summary form as part of the work's coverage, such as reception and significance. In my experience, the key point exists because there is a tendency for editors to want to provide as much in-universe information as possible. It's very easy to accomplish that, but Wikipedia does not consider it encyclopedic. Topics like reception and significance make an article about a fictional work encyclopedic. Individual films are just one set of articles where indiscriminate in-universe information is problematic. A lot of articles about fictional elements (like characters or settings) hinge on whether or not there is enough real-world coverage about them. One solution to this is to have Wikias that can host the in-universe information without the restrictions of Wikipedia's definition of an encyclopedia. There are major ones like Wookieepedia and Lostpedia. A kind of Film Wikia would permit an article about a film that can write 2,000 words about the plot, 500 words for each major character, etc. Is that an approach worth considering? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Opinions differ about what makes an article encyclopedic and there's more than one way to interpret that. In my experience, Wikipedia policy is invoked by editors when it suits them and ignored at other times for reasons they can't well explain. Apparently some editors believe there is too much information about what's in the film included in some film articles, which is a bit like saying there are too many definitions in the dictionary. A good encyclopedia exercises editorial judgment when it decides what will serve its readers and its aims; we should be encyclopedic in that way first. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Our guidelines have evolved over almost 10 years of collaborative editing and consensus-building, and with respect to film articles the clear result of that collaborative process is a trend in favor of concise plot summaries as a balanced portion of the total encyclopedic coverage of films. If we based our guidlines instead on the editing trends of IPs and inexperienced users, we'd have articles consisting of 80% plot summaries and 20% unreferenced trivia sections, not to mention no end of original research, non-free images, and other content that's clearly not what we as Wikipedians have decided is the appropriate content for this encyclopedia. I don't think there's anything constructive to be gained by thinking that we should allow bloated plot summaries just because that's what fly-by editors seem to favor. It's very difficult to judge exactly what readers want from Wikipedia, because they rarely make their desires known, unless they decide to make edits which may give some indication, in which case they become editors. By nature of being Wikipedians and working in WikiProjects like this one, we make communal decisions that shape the encyclopedia. Sometimes consensus among editors such as ourselves may be contrary to what it seems are the desires of one-off or fleeting editors, and may even serve to reverse longstanding trends (for example, very lengthy plot summaries in film articles were once the norm, as were cover images in discography articles and trivia sections in nearly every article), but ultimately it results in a better encyclopedia that seeks to give well-rounded coverage of topics rather than constantly giving way to the fleeting whims of teh internets. Wikipedia isn't IMDb, which allows plot summaries of seemingly unlimited length as well as sections of "fun facts", "trivia and goofs", etc. If that's the kind of content readers want, well then Wikipedia isn't the place to find it and they should mosey over to IMDb. Wikipedia doesn't have to be all things to all people. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"Apparently some editors believe there is too much information about what's in the film included in some film articles, which is a bit like saying there are too many definitions in the dictionary." — Actually no, it's not like that. Keep in mind that these are encyclopedia articles. The inverse implication of your statement is that the article dictionary should be a list of word definitions, rather than an article describing what a dictionary is. Our articles are about films, not just about the content of the film. The content of the film (the plot) should be part of what our encylopedia articles cover, but a reasonable part in comparison to the total coverage. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, IllaZilla, I find your views usually very sensible and don't have a major quarrel with what you've said in this discussion. However, I think you misunderstood my analogy. Dictionary:encylopedia::definitions:articles. You took it to mean something else, I think, and is not my view. Or if you mean that the (false) inverse of what I said negates the validity of my analogy, I'm pretty sure that's not a good inference, since I didn't assert the inverse. It might even count the other way. Are our articles about films? Yes, and the plot summary tells the events of the movie itself. Is there potentially a problem with greenhorns simply recounting the plot of a film and mistaking that for an article? Well, yeah, but that's not really a big deal: either no one edits it, or someone does. If no one edits it, it must be rather trivial to begin with. It's true that Wikipedia has evolved, that's why I think we should keep an open mind. And, again, it seems a little strange for an encyclopedia to claim it's being encyclopedic by excising information that could be shared, just like it would be strange for a dictionary to decide there are just too many senses of a word for their definition word count limit. That would not be a good dictionary. Thanks very much for sharing your views, which seem very reasonable and thoughtful and not really that different from mine. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

@Ring, it may a leap but I have read many forums where users say something like "Oh wait for it [the plot] to be on Wikipedia". I have never seen someone say "Oh check out this film on Wikipedia it's very informative". It's usually always about plot, cast and trivia. —Mike Allen 08:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh sure I agree with your intuition but I'm just saying it's anecdotal. (Why would someone want to see the plot here? We spoil the film. If it is because they want to double check if they remember it right or understood it the first time, then the details matter quite a bit. And we are supposed to be a reference.)--Ring Cinema (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's possible we have evolved beyond the original purpose of the plot summary; the rules governing them seem to be very relaxed compared to other elements of the article, and perhaps they shouldn't be. We are having these problems because editors are getting free reign over what they can include, and the guidelines are possibly setting word counts through the personal preference of a few editors, and perhaps neither of these are in keeping with the Wikipedia approach. Erik argues for the guideline based on an argument of making the articles "encyclopedic", and I think that's the right approach to take but I'm not sure we can easily equate it with a word count. Perhaps the right approach would be to use the plot summaries for notable elements of the plot that we can source from third party sources i.e. what published works such as reviews or Allmovie summaries deem relevant to mention in their summaries of the film, so we essentially source the plot summary from possibly two or three self-contained descriptions rather than transcribe it from a personal viewing. If editors want to transcribe the film's plot, we can provide a "see also" link to plot entries at http://www.wikisummaries.org/Star_Wars:_The_Empire_Strikes_Back, and essentially cover both bases. We can make the film articles completely encyclopedi dependent on thrid party sources, and provide a sister article for in depth plot descriptions at Wikisummaries. Any takers, or am I going off the deep end here? Betty Logan (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting thought. I think the idea currently is that the film is the "text" that we summarize, just as we summarize what's in a book and then note it. To my mind, that is completely coherent, since the article is sourced by the movie. Your suggestion, Betty, would be along the lines of only using a book as a source if there was another source that summarized it before we summarize it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The film itself is a primary source, but Wikipedia tends to favor secondary sources. My suggestion is largely based on this policy here: WP:PRIMARY. Betty Logan (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikisummaries is not a Wikimedia Foundation project and therefore we would not link to it, particularly as a "see also" link. "See also"s are for other Wikipedia articles. Other wikis, by nature of their being wikis, aren't reliable sources (for the same reason we don't do "see also" links to Wikia). Sources aren't necessary for plot summaries because the work itself is the obvious source, though if there is dispute over details you can of course provide citations to the work itself through the use of {{Cite video}}. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I support the use of secondary sources, but I think that for the most part, it will muddle who is citing what. For example, an editor uses a book chapter to cite the plot summary, but others come by and change details based on their viewing of the film. It would only work if the article has a true steward. For example, David Fuchs uses secondary sources in his Featured Articles about Star Trek films, and I can't imagine the details going outside what are in the sources. In practice, the approach will not stop editors from using the films themselves to provide plot detail in most articles. It's too easy to use the film instead. Another thought is that secondary sources like reviews could be used as guidance to summarize the film better. It's ultimately a matter of how conciseness is interpreted. I think that 400-700 words is approximate of the upper limit of what conciseness means. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Conciseness(?) is not the purpose of the summary. Rather, it's a feature that may or may not be valuable for editorial aims. If concise is good, we want to be concise. Otherwise, it's not a value. The discussion here is about if and how much it is good to be concise, so it's circular to assume that it is good to be concise. First you have to show it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Per policy, a plot summary for a fictional work should be concise. If you disagree with that, it needs to be discussed on a policy level. It's not just a feature, but nobody's complaining that if a film is particularly long or complicated, you can go a little further. But for the most part, the plot should be summarized in a concise manner. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

For clarity, I'm presuming you mean "guideline", not policy, since the two are different in terms of priority and I don't recall seeing plot being discussed in this context in terms of any Wikipedia policies. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

To quote the policy "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" (emphasis added): "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is usually appropriate as part of this coverage. For more information, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Plot summaries." So yes, it is policy that plot summaries be concise. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you prefer, we're discussing how concise is a good thing. Ceteris paribus, the argument is the same. Circular reasoning still makes me dizzy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Concise is a good thing. It allows us to balance our articles in favor of real-world information such as the creation, reception, and significance of films rather than having articles that consist mostly of a blow-by-blow retelling of the plot. The real-world background information is the kind of content one would expect to find in an encyclopedia article about a film, as opposed to a lengthy plot summary. The plot is accessible merely by viewing the film, while the real-world information (background, reception, etc.) is not. Wikipedia seeks to provide and explain the latter. If a reader cares more about an in-depth explanation of the plot as opposed to other information about a film, there are other websites they can visit—such as IMDb or Wikia, which are not encyclopedias—where that kind of content is plentiful. Lengthy plot summaries do not further our mission of providing real-world, encyclopedia-style coverage of films. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Damn, IllaZilla, you are good. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

References to, or in, other films or media

Surely there ought to be a section in each article saying what films (or TV series, or books) are referenced in the film, and what films or other media reference this one. I'm not even sure what the title of this section should be, given that "references" is used for footnotes and citations. 86.41.41.221 (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Such a section would risk becoming a trivia list which is generally discouraged, although some film articles do have them. A better idea is to integrate "inspirations" into the prose of the production section and "influences" on future films and other media into the reception section, provided you can source the information of course. Betty Logan (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Betty. What you are describing, 86.41.41.221, is basically a trivia section which once were widespread across Wikipedia but are now heavily discouraged. If a film's connections to other works are significant to its development, plot, or impact, those connections should be mentioned in the appropriate body paragraphs of the article and supported with citations to reliable sources. What you seem to be describing, though, is more of a trivia list like what is commonly seen in articles on Family Guy episodes: a bulleted list of what pop culture references are made throughout the episode. This isn't the kind of content we want, as Wikipedia is not a game of pop culture connect-the-dots. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont think Trivia sections have gone away at all, they are better disguised now, sometimes so well disguised any distinction from the rest of the cruft in Wikipedia is meaningless.

I understand people not liking arbitrary lists (I've a particular loathing for tables) but there are all kinds of editors who will not use list formatting and instead put together a poorly written paragraph of not particularly related ideas disguised as rubbish prose, that would have been more clearly expressed as a list but they don't do that because it would make it an easy target for deletion.

I've taken plenty of Trivia lists and referenced them, sometimes to just WP:VERIFY and other times to properly also show things were WP:NOTABLE but depending on how sneaky well written it was others have tagged it as Trivia. (Some editors have a particular resistance to a list of filming locations, even when properly sourced.)

Since the guidelines only recommend against "lists of miscellaneous information" sometimes a more appropriate header and a bit of regrouping is all takes to the turn Trivia into something section most editors will grudgingly accept, since it is no longer "miscellaneous". (Although the way some editors used to delete immediately anything tagged as trivia without even asking for a citation or cleanup you might get a false idea what the guidelines actually say.)

As for the example you mention, something very similar is often seen as "Cultural references". I have managed to include in artilces a Themes section, or if my references were really good put them somewhere under Production (Writing usually) and if all else fails I allow the critics to say in the Critical response section how for example they see the influence of Stanley Kubrick and get my cross references to in that way.

Film review by cross referencing other similar films is a bit trite and lazy but it works. I imagine a well written program could digest reviews and generate adequate quality film articles. But back to the point, the guidelines as they exist at the moment don't encourage what you suggest but if are willing to put in a lot of time and effort you can express the same points you feel are interesting in other ways more acceptable to other wikipedia editors. -- Horkana (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I got the impression from the IP's comment that what they were after was more this sort of thing, which to my eye falls in the realm of IINFO/TRIV. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That section is ugly as sin - listomania gone mad - but those films are barely written at all and consist almost entirely of referencing other films and passing it off as parody. It would be doing readers and editors a disservice if we were excessively strict interpretation of the rules be used as an excuse to delete all that good faith effort instead of trying to salvage something from that mess. I guess a case like that I'd push that ugly abomination to the talk page and insist that people go through the many reviews on out there and come up with proper references for at least the main films being referenced which in the case of Date Movie would seem to be My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Meet The Fockers - even properly referencing those two is something the article fails to do.

Some of those references are so obviously supported by plot, such as cases where the character name makes the intended reference blindingly obvious and insisting on citations in cases like that would be unnecessary.

It's not that difficult as I said above to cram much the same information into the critical response section. (Seems like Ebert wasn't forced to review it, so moving on to the next critic whose name I remember...) Owen Gleiberman actually managed to say nice things about it in his review: Owen Gleiberman (200602-22). "Date Movie (2006)". Entertainment Weekly. Time Inc. hodgepodge of My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Bridget Jones's Diary, Meet the Fockers, Hitch, and Sleepless in Seattle {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

That article can be improved if anyone actually cares enough to do it, didn't take me all that long to write this comment. Deleting is an easy, improving is hard but that misses the point of Wikipedia, which at its best usually does gradually improve. -- Horkana (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, just to clarify: I wasn't advocating a trivia section. Perish the thought! What I mean is, sometimes a film references another film and it's an important element of the film. What I had in mind specifically was that Re-Animator is referenced in American Beauty, when Lester and Ricky are smoking dope outside the real estate bash, and again later when Lester uses it as a code when he wants to buy dope off Ricky. American Beauty, in turn, is referenced in Madagascar when Alex dreams of steaks falling on him like the rose petals in AB, with the AB theme playing. References like these, to my mind, are notable, and hard to work into a "production" or "criticism" section. Date Movie should have a section like this, but in prose, mentioning the most important references as outlined by Horkana above. References in something like The Simpsons, on the other hand, would not be notable, since The Simpsons references everything eventually. 86.44.195.18 (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Grammar

The guidelines mention "review aggregate websites" I'm not convinced this is good grammar. Added to this I've seen editors write "Review aggregate Rotten Tomatoes" entirely dropping the noun explaining it as a website (which amusingly sounds a lot like some kind of slime or mold that gathers on overripe fruit). Depending on how the sentence was phrased Rotten Tomatoes could be described as a Review aggregator and that sounds correct just like a more commonly used phrase Trash collector. We wouldn't say "trash collect group" or "news collect agency" we would say collection group/agency. Sure you can use "aggregate" but I really do not think this is one of those cases, I'd appreciate if the adminstrators changed the wording, the simplest change being to write "review aggregation websites" instead. -- Horkana (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the lack of any comment compared to the usual mass of comments I can only take the silence as agreement. Went ahead and made the change. -- Horkana (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Further to my previous comments I think saying "Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a score of 100% based on reviews from 100 critics" already gives enough context to suggest it is a review aggregation website and the link provides more information for those who want to know more.

If others want to explain that it is either a review aggregator or a review aggregation website I'll leave well enough alone but I hope editors will use one of the two suggested wordings. -- Horkana (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That seems complete with the link. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Protagonist

I've had enough of the plague of editors adding Protagonist and Antagonist to every character description they see. Other editors have also removed incidents such as these labelling them "pedantic" and although at first that seems a little harsh I'm in full agreement now. In some cases it gets even more ridiculously pedantic and editors write about secondary and tertiary antagonsists or protagonists, even going so far as to use riduculously pretentious words like tritagonist. It would be far simpler to say "hero" or "villian", and that still fails to consider the anti-hero. (This has happened many times, but the latest incidence of it is at List of Tron characters.)

Fundamentally I think this kind of wording is pretentious, using unencessary big or overcomplicated words is a failure to communicate as writers should speak in a language appropriate to their audience. I expect Wikipedia has many readers who do not have English as a first langauge but it is still poor writing even among native English speakers and smacks of lame attempts by editors to show how clever they are or their ability to use a Thesaurus. Keep it simple.

I'd like to get some consensus among editors to keep on removing this when we see it and also amend the cast/characters part of the guidelines to specifically ask editors not to spell out protagonist/antagonist like this anymore. It only serves to highlight that the plot summary or character description has failed if that kind of pedantic explanation is actually necessary, it almost never is. -- Horkana (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes the best choice of phrasing is dependent on the film. You can use "hero" and "villain" in something like Star Wars or Indiana Jones, but it's a little bit murkier in something like Blade Runner or The Godfather, where perhaps protagonist/antagonist is more suited, and is arguably more encylopedic because it removes the moral judgment that comes with the hero/villain tag. I've never used either set of words, but protagonist/antagonist is a "one size fits all" terminology (that encompasses anti-heroes), so if I had to choose one set of terminology I'd opt for that, but personally I think the terminology is best decided article by article. Betty Logan (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Remove - Unnecessary and pedantic. Also, and here's where I'll get -really- picky, it's OR if sourcing isn't provided. If a reader can't figure this info out from the plot summary then there's a larger issue. Cast section should focus on the actors in any case, not the characters. Doniago (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If there is an OR issue surely it applies to hero/villain as well? Betty Logan (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd tend to say that's the case. I don't see any reason to "label" the characters, especially without sourcing. Doniago (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I am okay with words like protagonist and antagonist being phased out, but I don't find them damnable enough to be blacklisted in the guidelines. While the words can be abused, I agree with Betty that they can be occasionally suitable. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This is misguided. Identification of protagonist and antagonist is basic to a description of a work of fiction. It's not pretentious, it's accurate. Hero and villain frequently don't apply, neither does main character, lead, principal. Only protagonist hits the nail on the head every time. That's why it's there. I don't even agree it needs to be sourced, since it's a word that is either used correctly or incorrectly, like any other word that we want to bring into an article. Of course if there is some question (see No Country for Old Men) then bring it to discussion. One of the great quiet antagonists is the protagonist's husband in Howard's End. Let the editors decide on each article, since our collective wisdom is the strength here. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear on exactly what the problem is. If editors are going through a character or cast list adding "(protagonist)" / "(antagonist)" parentheticals or something like that next to the characters' names, I'd say that's unnecessary. But sometimes it can be pertinent in the prose to mention who the main protagonist and antagonist of a story are, if it fits the sentence structure. For example in the Harry Potter (character) article and List of Harry Potter characters I would expect it to be mentioned that Harry is the chief protagonist of the series. So in List of Tron characters I don't think it's inappropriate to mention that Flynn is the main protagonist of Tron while Saark is an antagonist, or that in Tron: Legacy Sam Flynn is the chief protagonist and CLU is the antagonist.

I don't fully agree that this is original research, either, as it's self-evident from the film and I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to find a source referring to these characters as the hero or villain of the story if such a thing were challenged. Now, in a film article, where we already have a plot summary that describes the roles and actions of the characters, I agree with Doniago that we don't need to label protagonist/antagonist / hero/villain in the cast section. But in a character list article, which doesn't include a plot summary of the film, then it seems like a pertinent thing to mention since we can't assume that readers have seen the film.

I also don't think that we need to start banning the usage of plain English words. "Protagonist" and "antagonist" are, I think, pretty common terms in English for anyone with a basic high school education. This isn't the Simple English Wikipedia; we don't need to dumb things down quite that much. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

My comments were definitely aimed at the Cast section of film articles rather than "list of characters" articles. One could argue that if it shouldn't be difficult to find a source, than there's no reason not to provide one. Conversely, if it is difficult to find a source, perhaps we shouldn't be describing the characters thusly. (smile) I definitely don't support banning the terms entirely, but sentences like "X is the protagonist of the film" in a film article with a well-written plot summary, strike me as utterly pointless, and somewhat POV'y when applied to films such as Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. Doniago (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

There's really not a connection between the quality of the summary and the correct use of 'protagonist'. And the demand to source that particular word is similarly spurious. Like any other word, you can use it right or you can use it wrong. The editors of each article can undoubtedly handle this without any extra help. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

There's English and then there's plain English, there are degrees. Protagonist is a more academic word you might expect in an essay or written English fair enough, but not something you'd expect in much in converstational English. You certainly cannot suggest Tritagonist or Deuteragonist are simple English words, that they are in most cases wikilinked only serves as further evidence of overcomplication. It is unnecessary and redundant to go through the cast list of every article spelling out that the (almost always first listed) character is the "protagonist". This is not something that really needs to be pointed out, proclaiming Ben Stiller as the protagonist of Little Fokkers for example is laughably pretentious, and saying it should be avoided is hardly dumbing down.

The slavish addition of protagonist and antagonist to articles without thinking is it actually necessary to point this out, is only a minor example. Some editors really try to show off their word power in the extreme, but the existence of simple English wikipedia certianly not a license for wiktionary:sesquipedalianism. -- Horkana (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The word "protagonist" is not like "tritagonist" or "deuteragonist" in terms of common use. They relate to each other hierarchically, but "protagonist" is much more widely used than these two. Look at protagonist "true grit", for example. I agree that it can be abused such as being used repeatedly in a cast list, but it has its uses. Could the issue be more about the directly-applied labels, as opposed to "protagonist" being used as a variation or in context, such as the way the True Grit reviews use it? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I would reiterate that, IMO, a well-written plot summary should obviate the need to explicitly state (and possibly infer depending on your perspective) whom the protagonist and antagonist are in the Cast section of a film article, but I'm willing to abide by consensus. It just seems that to me, "X is the protagonist" is a worthless statement. If you've read the plot summary you already know this, and I don't see how that particular sentence improves the quality of the article or one's ability to understand it, beyond someone showing off their vocabulary (says the editor who just used "obviate"). Doniago (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should dumb down Wikipedia by keeping out useful words. Doniago's opinions are fine for him and he can bring them to the articles he edits. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that no consensus has been established yet, I would appreciate it if you didn't marginalize my opinions as you seem to be doing here. My apologies if I have misunderstood you. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I offended you. Everyone is marginalized in exactly the same way. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a ban on particular words. I would like editors to be able to justify themselves when they take an unusual approach. I don't think I've seen any Featured Articles that felt it was necessary to explain in the cast list who the protagonist and antagonist was, but if there are case I'd be interested to evaluate them.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think anyone here is saying the cast list should always include explantions of who is the protagnist and antagonist (such as "Harry Potter is the protagonist of the film" or "Voldermort is the primary antagonist of the film"). And I'm not saying a film article should never use those words. As was pointed in the case of "True Grit" in the context of the Critical response it might be entirely appropriate to use that phrasing. It is in the cast list that it seems particularly clunky and unnecessary.
I wouldn't take how people write on the talk page as representative of how they write in articles, I certainly make more effort to check my spelling and don't write as casualy when writing for articles.
The cast list guidelines already encourage editors to focus on other things and not to say much about the character, the example focuses on the essentials "thuggish assitant" and in that context where editors are expected to be succint and econmical it hope it becomes clearer why I see explaining things like "secondary antagonist" as something that should be discouraged. If I had to write a guideline I'm not quite sure how I'd do it, a bit more consensus here might be enough to do it. -- Horkana (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that 'secondary antagonist' has a good chance of referring to nothing. As usual, there are going to be exceptions. Spiderman seemed to have a double antagonist storyline, didn't it? --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The two strands to the story might be something worth mentioning in the writing or production section, it might also be indirectly expressed in the Plot section. What I'm particularly taking issue with would be if in this example an editor was to change the cast section to say: Spider-man is the protagonist; Sandman is the primary antagonist; Venom is the secondary antagonist; etc.

It might not be my first choice of wording but if the critical response or writing sections were to compare our friendly neighbourhood Spider-man to the heroes (protagonists even) of Greek myths and legends I wouldn't object to that. The short bit of [Spider-Man_3#Cast|description of spider-man] in the cast section is good since it gives context to the comment from Maguire about playing a darker version of the character. Explaining that Spider-man is the protagonist would be especially redundant here since it is already explained that he is a superhero. -- Horkana (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Your thinking here seems sensible to me. Perhaps we're not quite understanding each other and I'm sorry if that's the case. If the objection is to some implicit requirement that the protagonist always go identified qua protagonist, I agree that's excessive, restrictive, narrow, and simple. When the discussion got into banning the word as too smart or sophisticated, well, every other approximation is just a stand-in. 'Protagonist' is irreplaceable in English at the moment. (Thanks for your patience.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it was User:Millahnna who I first noticed cleaning up this kind of thing, I expect a comment at some point. Some examples to make it even clearer what I'm talking about:

• Unstoppable (2010_film) Protagonist Antagonist. The difficult boss is an antagonist to some extent but to overtly label him as such seems to miss the point of this action movie, the potential disaster is what is important.
• Norbit short character descriptions are fine, but explaining that the title character is the protagonist is not particularly helpful.
• The Losers (film). Protagonist, secondary, and antagonist. There is a link to the description of character in the comic book where he is describes as the "second in command" which might actually be worth mentioning.
• Harold_&_Kumar_Escape_from_Guantanamo_Bay [5]
• Alpha_and_Omega_(film)
• Miss March This might be the worst example I've seen just about every "tagonist" you can think of. (Even bad films deserve better Wikipedia articles.)

I'd list more but even digging out these few from my edit list took way longer than I thought. Now that I've pointed it out you all might also notice it more. -- Horkana (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the examples. You and I have a small difference of opinion on this, so I'd say two things: 1) there is nothing wrong in my mind with identifying the protagonist and antagonist, particularly the latter. In fact, I think a pretty strong case can be made that it is our job. We are the researchers and experts, not the reader. The idea that if you want to know who's the main character you should read the whole article and ferret out that information is an abdication of editorial responsibility. Yes, we have to tell people obvious things, and our articles are full of them. That is what we do here. I'd like to hear the rationale for cutting that information. To return to a favorite analogy, it's like a dictionary that doesn't give complete etymologies because if the reader wants more they can trace it back themselves. Well, yeah, sure, readers can figure out all kinds of things if they want to research them, but they have to do a lot of work and they might get it wrong. What's the point of withholding information? We're an encyclopedia! (2) Editors should do the editing. You, Horkana, did the best editing job you could on those articles, and Miss March really needed it. If you and I edit an article, we'll have to come to some understanding about how to handle protagonist and antagonist, and hopefully we'll improve the article that way. If that doesn't work, then Wikipedia doesn't work, cuz that's how Wikipedia works. Thanks a million for your excellent thoughts on this subject. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure we have to tell readers obvious things and give adequate context but but then we have a guideline WP:OVERLINK where editors decide we've gone to far and are linking things that (at least in context) are a little too obvious. Similarly I think spelling out antagonist and protagonist for every story ever is a little too obvious.

At the risk of going a little offtopic your description sounds sounds a lot like we should be doing more semantic tagging. If I could tag a character as protagnist or antagonist without it resulting in such ugly state-the-obvious prose I might consider it. In some ways sincerely I appreciate efforts to add greater depth of meaning to Wikipedia, I make significant use of templates and the less I have to do with style formatting (bold/italic/etc) the better, since a template adds meaning then others can consistently add styles later. (I'd love it if Wikipedia actually used date templates everywhere, so that I as a reader could always see dates in my preferred format, date formatting differences are simply not something we are ever all going to agree on. If I could use a template for colour/color and then see the most appropriate one depending on my locale settings that sort of thing would be great too.) I've no problem with adding more underlying semantic information so that a clever computer system could do more with it. Ultimately I'm an inclusionist and I'm happy to format data in ways others can transform into what they want.

We see many cases editors rearranging the list of starring actors in the infobox or inexplicably rearranging the Cast list. Perhaps there is some better way to express the protagonist antagonist details you are interested in presenting? As I said before the changes I've reverted seem out of keeping with the existing guidelines, and precedent of Featured Articles. Counter examples would be interesting. -- Horkana (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Basically I agree with you. The cases where it seems most important to mention protagonist or antagonist are films where it might not otherwise be clear. Howard's End's antagonist is my personal favorite example, since he's married to the protagonist and we maybe don't want to think she'd marry the man who thwarts her and be so oblivious, etc. So by that logic we can most easily dispense with the designation when it is impossible to miss: when it's the headlining star mentioned first who is brought into every sentence of the article one way or another. But what if the star is the antagonist (e.g. Terminator)? The protagonist might not be obvious. These are cases for the editors and I'm fine with that. (Is Wikipedia better if the articles are more alike or more different?) --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)