Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Films based on preexisting material
I propose adding the below write-up to the "Historical and scientific accuracies" section in the guidelines. This part of the guidelines is fairly important because editors too often take it upon themselves to be armchair historians or scientists to analyze how a film uses history or science. They tend to indiscriminately list differences in its own sub-topic at a film article. I ask other editors to review the write-up for its language—is it strong enough, is it on target? Additionally, as part of my proposal, I would like to revise the "Adaptation from source material" section to be more explanatory. Both sections are related to the practice of listing differences indiscriminately. Please provide feedback for improve one or the other or both! —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Historical and scientific accuracies (new to guidelines)
Films are mainly works of fiction, and filmmakers sometimes use history or science as the basis of their films. They incorporate these topics in their films in a way that suits their storytelling and filmmaking abilities. Their approaches to incorporating these topics or others' reactions to their approaches can be interwoven in the film article's article body in sections such as the "Production" section and the "Reception" section, respectively. If ample coverage from secondary sources exist about a film's historical or scientific accuracy, editors can pursue a sub-topic sharing such coverage in a section titled "Historical accuracy" or "Scientific accuracy" ("accuracy" being applied as neutral terminology).
Wikipedia's "No original research" policy says about synthesizing, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Readers and editors should take for granted that there are many ways films conform to, and deviate from, history or science. Analysis should be introduced by reliable published secondary sources that compare the film with history or with science. Avoid listing miscellaneous information about accuracies or inaccuracies whose relevance are not backed by secondary sources; they are typically trivial to the topic. If analysis is limited, links should be provided to historical or scientific articles so readers can read about topics based in reality after reading about the work of fiction that uses these topics with dramatic license.
- Adaptation from source material (rewrite of existing section of guidelines)
A significant number of films are adapted from other works of fiction, including literature, plays, musicals, and even other films. When filmmakers adapt the source material for their films, they make changes for creative and conventional reasons. Details from secondary sources about such changes, such as why they took place, how they affected production, and how outside parties reacted to them, can be included in the respective sections of the article body. Writing about changes between a film and its source material without real-world context is discouraged. Creating a section that merely lists the differences is especially discouraged. While articles in the early stage of development (or about newly released films) may contain information which does not easily fit elsewhere, the material should either be moved to the relevant section or removed entirely when the article matures.
Both are clear and concise. Congratulations on a job well done! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- I implemented both parts in the guidelines since nobody seems to have an issue with it. I feel, though, that there may be discussion down the road about the "Historical and scientific accuracies" section, so please start a new discussion for any changes to the language of these particular sub-guidelines. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Combining sources for box office performance
Is it okay or conveniant to combine sources from different sources (e.g. the Hollywood Reporter and Box Office Mojo), so that a more reliable worldwide gross can be taken into account. BOM usually doesn't update their international grosses in one, or even up to two, weeks, therefore making it out-of-date. The Hollywood Reporter updates on international grosses at the end of every weekend. For example, the latter recently reported that Up had made $54.7 million internationally, while BOM currently has it at $48,073,300. In the end of its theatrical run, I'm pretty sure BOM will have the final numbers. But until then, it becomes out-of-date. So is it okay to combine the domestic takings of Up from BOM and the international takings from the Hollywood Reporter for a worldwide gross that's closer to the actual gross than what BOM lists it as? - Enter Movie (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Of course. If you have a source that is up to date, then use that one. There is no guideline that says it all most come from one source. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it is appropriate to combine the numbers together. It is hard to verify. BOVINEBOY2008 17:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree about the verification: when I see a figure quoted, I want to be able to click on a link and find the source. I was just over at BOM looking at the HP6 figures: today (the 23rd) their "Domestic" figure is as of 21st and their "Foreign" is for 17-19th. They then add them together to give the worldwide gross (here) which we can cite as the "gross" in Template:Infobox film. This calculation isn't perfect, but at least it is transparent. If the gross combined data from two independent sources, how would you show the calculation? - Pointillist (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Bovine, it isn't hard to verify. You click one link for one number and another link for another number. There is not rule that says you must have a single source for such things. What happens when you have an old film where there isn't consistency in such things? Mathematical calculations are not required to have sources, so long as they are not complex calculations. A + B = C is not a complex problem. You don't need a source to verify that equation, thus if you have an up to date source that has one number, and you have a source 2 weeks old using a different number, then you should use the up to date numbe.r BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry to open this back up, but I just found this policy regarding synthesis of properly sourced information constitutes as original research. BOVINEBOY2008 00:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Box Office Mojo does not update the "foreign" amount very quickly, but it now reports $71,562,844 outside of the United States and Canada. The figure from The Hollywood Reporter is more antiquated now in this case. Box office figures in general are often in flux, though... it's best not to make a big deal out of them until a film finishes its theatrical run. Then we can have our heated discussions. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Bovine, synthesis and original research does not extend to simple math problems (i.e. A + B = C). If you have a reliable source for A (domestic box office) and a reliable source for B (foreign box office) then putting them together isn't original research or synthesis. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Did you read the policy? "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C". I realize that it is simple math, there is no doubt about that. But the goal here is to be as transparent as possible. It wouldn't be clear that we did the simple addition. BOVINEBOY2008 01:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- WP:OR#Routine calculations says, "This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived." I think for adding up box office figures, it's fine. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- (EC)Again, it doesn't extend to simple math (see WP:NOR#Routine calculations). It's like claiming you need a source to say the Sun is yellow. Of course it doesn't appear "yellow" all of the time, but that's irrelevant to the primary fact that it's a yellow Sun. The same that grass is green or the sky is blue. There are exceptions to these rules, but you don't need a source to prove grass is green or the sky is blue. If you have a source that says location A reports grossing this amount, and location B reports this amount, then you can say verifiable that locations A and B have grossed this amount combined. There is a difference between obeying the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, fair enough. I didn't read far enough down. I think it would be alright to combine them then, as long as the article the numbers are coming from are provided! But what do we do about fluctuating numbers? We saw a big flux in Harry Potter 6 and didn't know what to include, BOM or technically out-of-date articles. Do we use the highest number we can find, or the most recent? BOVINEBOY2008 01:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes
Why is rotten tomatoes so easily accepted? The way it is right now rotten tomatoe staff spams a link on every movie page without concering guidelines (adding it to foreign films thus violating npov). Personally the guidelines should strictly limit rt, since it is a commercial website which tries to make profit, which increases profit of films, which is us-based and biased. Right now it is universally accepted without any information to the reader that is a profit organization/ad, which is quite annoying. 60.28.43.134 (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Can you link to some examples of where Rotten Tomatoes has been added to articles about foreign-language films? Is it being added as a reference or as an external link? Many sources have reliable publishers that work for profit, such as major newspapers. Rotten Tomatoes isn't a useless website, but it should be used carefully. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I reviewed your contributions and understand better what you are trying to say. First of all, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are widely accepted as external links because they link to many more reviews than what would be sampled in the article body. Both websites are identified as credible by independent publications, and there are websites out there that are like them but do not possess any credentials. For using the websites as references in the article body, it is a good thought about how they should apply to foreign-language films. It may be useful to rewrite such reports of consensus with mentions of a North American focus and to find other secondary sources that can comment on how a foreign-language film was received in its home territory. As for concern about the websites making profit, we have to make judgment calls about how it affects the validity of information. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic seem to align their consensus accurately with public opinion, judging from high ratings for films that are recognized with awards and honors. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's not good logic to say that RT aligns with public opinion because awards are won by films they rate highly. Awards are not given for popularity, they're given at least putatively for other reasons (i.e. artistic excellence). RT score aligns with critical reception and critical reception may align with popularity or awardability. The question here is this: is there an encyclopedic purpose served by pointing to a shorthand summary of critical reception? There is a view that any kind of popularity (critical, demotic, statuesque) is nothing to do with wikipedia values, and that those who are interested in those things should go to those sites for it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- The RT link is helpful because it gives a link to more reviews. Wikipedia is not the place for every kind of review and if a reader came here for that, they would get a quick summary here, then they can follow the link for more in depth reviews. BOVINEBOY2008 00:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, yes, it links to more reviews. Which Wikipedia value is thereby fulfilled? --Ring Cinema (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Release dates in infobox
A recent discussion has come up about the policy of what release date(s) to include in the film infobox—WP:FILMRELEASE. The original discussion is here. The question came up on the interpretation of the guideline "Its first release dates in majority English-speaking countries only (because this is the English Wikipedia); e.g., United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. In some cases, it may be necessary to distinguish between limited releases and later wide release", whether this entailed listing the release date of each majority English-speaking countries, or the first of these. Now, the question is if these releases are notable enough for the infobox. So, either this guideline needs to be clarified, or the whole thing needs to be rewritten. It has been suggested to include the first public, wide release of an English-speaking as well as the source-countries' release, and more recently, only the release date of the film's "country", i.e. French release for a French film, American release for a Hollywood film, Indian release for Bollywood film... Any opionions and intepretations, both on the previous discussion and this, would be helpful. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 01:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- First, it should be established that there should be a limited number of release dates in the field since the infobox is a summary. Additional release dates that have encyclopedic context can be detailed in the article body. I disagree that the release date in the infobox should be a wide release, though. Films are publicly available in their limited releases, and critics really start covering them then (as opposed to festival screenings). In addition, we need to consider examples like Taken (film) or Blindness (film) to see if any new guidelines we apply to them will hold up. That way, anything new can address as many infoboxes as possible (though I doubt all of them). —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, reviewing those two films, I don't see why an American release or such would be notable in the infobox. In my mind, I would like to see the first release (limited, wide, film festival or otherwise) and then the release dates of the country. Those seem to be the most notable as it shows the first time the film was available to the public and then when it was available to the producing country. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- IMO the solution is simple. The date that should be used in the infobox is the first theatrical release date in an English-speaking country and the theatrical release date in the country of origin only if it is different from the country where it was released first. If a UK film opens in the US first, list that date first, then follow it with the UK release date because that's the country where it was made. Additional dates aren't necessary. And I don't think limited release and wide release should be separate listings. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Erik, since you referred to it, can you please explain why the French film Taken (film) has four release dates in the infobox? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Proposal
This has kind of gone stale so I am proposing a rewrite of the guideline. Any objections or suggestions would be ideal. Changes are marked in italics or strikes.
The film infobox is too small to reproduce the long lists of release dates provided by the Internet Movie Database. Release dates should therefore be restricted to the
following: * Thefilm's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release dates in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings. {{Start date}} should be used for the film's initial release.
Its first release dates in majority English-speaking countries only (because this is the English Wikipedia); e.g., United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. In some cases, it may be necessary to distinguish between limited releases and later wide releases.Release dates in the country or countries that produced the film.In some cases, release dates in countries that are the subject of the film (e.g. Munich is not an Israeli film, but it is not trivial to know when it was released there).
Do not include the following in infoboxes. If desirable, they can instead be included in a separate section in the main body of the articleIf other release dates are found to be notable, it may be appropriate to include them in the main body of the article (example).:
Release dates for every country in the worldScreenings at film festivals (except for the film's very first screening; see above), as these are only seen by a small number of peopleSome users like to use flag icons instead of country names. However, this should be avoided, as flags are less recognizable than country names. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags) for a more detailed rationale.
BOVINEBOY2008 :) 16:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- What is the intent in the case of an initial release that is not theatrical? Or should we specify "theatrical release" (excluding sneak previews)? --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's good. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think this will work, though maybe more explicitly state that for DVD or television films, the "release date" should be the first DVD release or film airing (respectively). Also, should we also clarify that distributor should also follow the same guidelines, and include only the original country distributors rather than all English ones? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent points. I think the issue of distributor can and should be addressed elsewhere, but I definitely think the distributor(s) of the producing company/ies should be the one(s) noted in the infobox. Here is an updated proposal:
- I think this will work, though maybe more explicitly state that for DVD or television films, the "release date" should be the first DVD release or film airing (respectively). Also, should we also clarify that distributor should also follow the same guidelines, and include only the original country distributors rather than all English ones? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The film infobox is too small to reproduce the long lists of release dates provided by the Internet Movie Database. Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release dates in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings. {{Start date}} should be used for the film's initial release. If other release dates are found to be notable, it may be appropriate to include them in the main body of the article (example).
Release dates for straight-to-video and television films should follow the preceding guideline with respect to home releases and airings, respectively.
Some users like to use flag icons instead of country names. However, this should be avoided, as flags are less recognizable than country names. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags) for a more detailed rationale.
BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Revision of "References"
I boldly updated the "References" section, and I appreciate most of AnmaFinotera's changes to the write-up, especially respecting the existing approach. However, I am not so sure about the "or if one does not want to use a separate References and Notes section" passage. I assume this is where a book can be cited multiple times in a "References" section, and the first instance of citing the book has the full description? WP:CITESHORT says, "Many articles use a shortened version of the citation in the footnote, giving just the author, year (or title) and the page numbers. As before, the list of footnotes is automatically generated in a 'Notes' or 'Footnotes' section. A full citation is then added in a 'References' section." I think this is the better practice to pursue since readers can immediately locate the reference for which there are footnotes. I recall having difficulty not immediately seeing the full description of the reference in such a section, especially when {{reflist}} shrinks the font size. —Erik (talk • contrib) 07:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- They may use, but it is not required nor something that should be forced on editors. I, myself, never use that method and I always cite the book multiple times in a reference section if I use it multiple times. I find it much more difficult to go hunt down what "lastname, page" refers to than seeing the full citation right there when I click to view it. As Wikipedia allows both methods and accepts both as perfectly valid, I don't think we should force or try to make it sound as if one is preferred to the other. Editors should be free to choose either one, so long as one or the other is not already employed on the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Do you mean to say that an option is to have the book description fully announced each time a page number is cited? That way a reader can know immediately where the information comes from? We could overcome that with the {{Harvnb}} template, like how I use it at Apt Pupil (film). Unless you mean if a brief part of a book is cited for the article, as opposed to the whole book being referenced? Like this? Just trying to understand where you're coming from. —Erik (talk • contrib) 07:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I mean. I don't use the Harvnb (and will not) and its not required. For an example see List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters (books cited 4-5 times each for different sections of it), The Vision of Escaflowne (same magazine issue, different articles), and Bambi, A Life in the Woods (same book, different sections at cites 19/20). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Jeez, did we get back on Wikipedia at the same time? :) I revise the wording and see you respond at the same time! Let me know if my new wording is any better. To understand your examples, though, do you mean that there are books cited but not in-depth, so it's unnecessary for a separate section? WP:CITE defines a reference as a source that provides significant material to the article, and WP:CITESHORT is very common; a lot of FAs use paginated footnotes. I'm not clear, though, why you're opposed to them? It's a best practice for such articles, and I'm not seeing the drawbacks. If anything, it cuts down on redundancy. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- In the TMM character list, each book is cited indepth, almost every chapter is cited, but still without a separate section. CITESHORT is "common" but its still optional and left to editor preference. I find it ugly and confusing and I never use it in any article I work on (and will often avoid working on articles that do use it). It isn't a best practice, its just one choice available among many. I think we need to emphasize that editors should use one of the accepted referencing methods spelled out in WP:CITE, remembering to be consistent and not to switch an article from one method to another if one of the acceptable methods is already being used.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think for simplicity (and easy compatibility with whatever the general MOS reflects), it would be easiest simply to a) say that references/citations are required, b) link to the relevant MOS, and c) encourage editors to be consistent across the article in whatever citation style they choose. Any further elaboration is contentious, unnecessarily precise, and at risk of obsolescence should the general citation style guidelines ever change. My two cents, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. I don't think the rest needs mentioning here as its already covered in CITE. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
"I find it much more difficult to go hunt down what "lastname, page" refers to"
I strongly agree with User:AnmaFinotera on this point that WP:CITESHORT is user unfriendly and find that style of reference highly unsatisfactory in the age of hyperlinks. It seems like this is something that needs to fundamentally be fixed in Wikipedia. The link between "author name, page" and a book further down the page should be a link, a relative hyperlink that directs users at a click rather than forcing readers to try and find the connection manually. Would be great if we could get this structural flaw fixed but I don't even know where to start. It does seem beyond the scope of the Film project though. -- Horkana (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
"Upcoming" section
The templates such as {{future film}} have been deprecated as result of discussion. This section needs to be replaced with a notice to not use these templates instead making it appear further as a guideline. • S • C • A • R • C • E • 03:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- I removed the "Upcoming" section. Will {{Future film}} not be deleted? That should be clear enough grounds not to use it. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- The section should mention the discussion and give some sort guideline. There is still Category:Upcoming films • S • C • A • R • C • E • 10:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Awards
Awards seem to fit nicely in with Critical Reception, and Box Office. I'd encourage other edtiros to keep it simple and add a subsection for "Awards" (just the one word) right there (if you feel more words are necessary please keep it simple and provide Anchors for just the one word {{Anchors|Awards}}. Oscars of course should be mentioned. Minor awards are less notable but are sometimes useful to show that a film has done well with a particular niche audience even if it was not well liked by critics or even at the box office. I'd discourage the use of tables, restraint at least, they are awkward and time consuming to put together and difficult to adapt and include more information if it becomes available, and prose is preferable in most cases. -- Horkana (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Films get honors in addition to awards. I think that such a section can be a main section or a subsection. In addition, tables are much better for films who have received many awards. There's no way to write compelling prose for these scenarios. For instances where there are not a lot of awards, prose is more appropriate. For what it's worth, we should provide a template table that editors can use to flesh out with awards and honors. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 16:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Proposed wording for "Awards and honors"
I propose the following wording to deal with MOS issues when introducing an "Awards and honors" section (or merely "Awards" in some cases) separate from the "Reception" section or as a subsection of it.
Any thoughts and opinions would be greatly appreciated. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's a good start! A few thoughts to shape the draft:
- We should discourage use of bold formatting per MOS:BOLD, and I think we are susceptible to this when we make lists. This is why I favor tables over lists; bold formatting is accepted for table headers, like at Changeling (film)#Awards and honors. Tables can be complicated, but I think they provide a cleaner layout, where lists leave so much white space to the right. Perhaps have a draft table that editors could copy and paste to expand? We can take a page from Changeling.
- It may be worth explaining the section heading. Currently, most film articles that cover awards cover them in sections headed "Awards and nominations". Previous discussion determined that this practice was somewhat redundant because nominations are for awards, and "awards" does not necessarily mean wins. In addition, some films' "wins" are not necessarily for awards, but for recognition. So with an "Awards and honors" heading, "Awards" covers the wins and nominations for awards, and "honors" covers various non-award recognitions. That is my assessment of the presentation, anyway. If others feel differently, we can discuss. (For what it's worth, Apt Pupil's section is headed "Awards" because there were no honors.)
- For the sake of brevity, let's link to the examples rather than repeating them in the guidelines.
- It may also be worth discussing the placement of references, especially in tables, since this may be somewhat tricky business. Also, I encourage you to notify WT:FILM of this discussion. :) Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
A couple comments. I'm not entirely convinced of the need to mention which film won an award, but for some reason that it is, I truly don't like the wording "lost to". No one actually "loses" an award. Being nominated is considered an honor unto itself, but that ultimately there is only one winner doesn't detract from the distinction of being honored with a nomination. The other thought is that almost unilaterally, there are pages for each individual major film award, so the link should be included, such as:
- Nominations
This gives the reader the link to the relevant page and allows him to see what other persons/films were nominated for the award besides the winner. However, I am with Erik on preferring tables for awards. They should incorporate all of the necessary linking as well. In regard to citations for tables, see the FA/FL approved way that they are done at List of awards and nominations received by No Country for Old Men. (Not touting my FL page, but I know the referencing in that list passed FL scrutiny.) Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Revisions to this guideline should also take into account lists such as List of awards and nominations received by No Country for Old Men or List of awards and nominations received by Little Miss Sunshine. There aren't really any guidelines for splitting off lists, so it should be important to state when it is a good idea to do so. We don't want everybody splitting off the lists for every film that has multiple awards/nominations, but we also don't want to see excessively long award lists within an article either. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
1. Instead of "Lost to..." perhaps it would work to go with "Awarded to..." or even "Went to..." 2. The heading could say simply "Honors." That covers everything Erik was mentioning. Too simple perhaps, and might invite inclusion of e.g. the honor of being mentioned by the King. This is a good case where overlapping works well. 3. For my money, headings and lists are better for this kind of material. And I think the headings should be bold. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I updated the proposal to include links to the example articles and suggestion to split into a separate article the awards lists that are exceptionally long. If someone can suggest better example articles, I would appreciate the input. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to reiterate my suggestion to use just the one word Awards, it would sure be nice to know I could type in any film article and then add #Awards to the end of the address to jump straight to that section. Even so if editors feel it is absolutely necessary to use two words to cover more than just major Awards I would suggest "Awards and Recognition". Specifically I want to avoid the words "Honors" or "Honours", as there are more than enough revert wars and arguments already over American versus British English without deliberately standardizing on something that will cause problems.
- Mentioning which film does win an award sounds good, the guideline wording could be a bit more terse but the principal is sound. It is also much better when the text clearly states "Winner: Ben Hur" rather than using colour or text formatting that is difficult for users with poor vision, other other disabilities (such as wanting to use Wikipedia on their phone). -- Horkana (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Tables
If there is a Manual of Style section on Tables my very quick search didn't turn one up. In particular I want to get consensus that tables are a bad idea for Cast lists. A straw poll of Film Featured Article (FA) and Good Articles (GA) as the draft guidelines for Cast sections seem to show there is already some consensus.
- Avoid use of Tables. Tables are difficult for beginners and even experienced editors to work without using external editors or additional tools. Tables limit the addition of new material and make it difficult to expand articles, particularly Cast sections. As with HTML you should avoid using tables for layout.
- There are exceptions. The best times to use a table is to present multiple* rows and columns of structured data, especially when there are strong assumption readers will wish to see the data sorted by more than just one or two methods.
- i.e. wanting to sort a list by chronology and reverse chronology is a poor reason alone to use a table.
I'm struggling for an ideal example, preferably a film related example. Television episode lists are usually formatted as tables, but they are only really interesting when for example the production order is substantially different from the order in which the episodes were aired, such as this small table from Firefly_(TV_series)#Broadcast_history.
I realise some editors like using Tables to list Awards and Recognition but when I say multiple I am talking about 3x3 as an absolute minimum and preferably tables that are more like 5x5 (or 5x4/4x5) and at least two of those columns have something interesting to sort against. With a reasonable lower limit I'd be okay with tables being used for Awards lists.
It is probably clear that I think sorting is the best reason (and rule of thumb) for when to use Tables but unfortunately the use of Rowspan and Colspan completely buggers up sorting. I would urge editors not to use them but given how much people seem to like using it already it seems like it would be a struggle to get that considered as the general rule (until such time as improvements in wikipedia allow the feature without breaking sorting).
I'd really like to cite Edward Tufte and his book The Visual Display of Quantitative Information right about here but I'm far from finished reading it. I'm sure I'll remember more later. I'll try to come up with better more guideline like wording too if we can establish a small basic consensus. -- Horkana (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, there is a pretty strong consensus against the use of tables for cast lists in film articles except for some foreign works with dub casts listed. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines/Archive_2#Cast_lists, WP:FILMCAST, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Archive_20#Cast_section, and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Archive_26#Tables_in_casts. For award lists, however, there is a table format listed over at the awards task force and can be useful when there are too many to list in prose. Beyond that, I can't think of any other instance when a table is appropriate in a film article. It seems we started to add a section to the MoS specifically to address it more formally, but it hasn't been done yet... -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Found the right documention and it is much better than I had expected or hoped. A project admin could include this much without needing consensus, and maybe also that using tables for Cast lists is discouraged since we seem to already have consensus for that too. -- Horkana (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Critical response
The current guidelines don't specify how Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic results should be presented.
Some editors feel it is necessary that every time they mention a rating from Metacritic that they scoring system used by Metacritic must be explained and the score needs to be given as "out of 100" when it can be shortened to percent % and to do otherwise is somehow misrepresenting the information. Editors thankfully do not feel a need to include so much boiler plate blurb each time Rotten Tomatoes is used.
Clarification would be appreciated. If we really must follow every mention Metacritic "which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics" then the guidelines should say so but I'd strongly encourage a simpler approach that allows editors to keep it simple and consistent and say something rougly along the lines of "Rotten Tomatoes 78% based on 122 reviews and Metacritic 67% based on 10 reviews" leaving it up to the reader to go to the pages if they want to learn more about how the scoring system works.
Given that critics star ratings can be wildly inconsistent (and Ebert is notoriously careless about his) and whatever interpretation the website makes of a how positive an unscored review is further distorts the end percentage, putting a boiler plate blurb up everytime Metacritic "which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics" is mentioned misses the wood for the trees and just focuses in on too much detail of a largely meaningless and subjective number. Please end the boilerplate blurb or at at worst specify it as required in the guidelines add save us all time wasted arguing it. -- Horkana (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- And yet the sentence explains how MC arrives at its score, which is given as /100 and not a %. We don't take scores given out of 4 and say 75% for 3 out of 4, we say "so and so gave the film 3 out of 4", because that is what the source says. There is no wood for trees, and we cannot assume that every reader know what MetaCritic is. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Horkana, yes, you do need to explain how MetaCritic arrives at its score because how they calculate that score is different than how Rotten Tomatoes calculates their scores. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- When presenting TR and MetaCritic aggregations, yes you must explain how both calculate their scores as they are different. Giving the star ratings on individual critical reviews, however, is generally unnecessary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ·
- When you mention star rating I'm not sure you get my real point about the subjectiveness of reviews to begin with, and then the interpretation both RT and MC do on those reviews to calculate the values to pass into their formulas, so a clever academic sounding boiler plate about the formula encourages reader to place more trust in the rating when they should be skeptical. More than that I think it is incredibly lame to have to have to say "out of 100" when by definition that is what percent means but if the consensus really is to have the boiler plate then please let us have a very specific wording in the guidelines for both Rotten Tomatoes and for Metacritic so it can at least be used consistently. (Darrenhusted insists on this boilerplate but I notice he uses some variations in the wording.) -- Horkana (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
contribs) 14:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC) On a similar note, when stating what a Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic score is, is it better to have an "as of" date or not? I thought it was policy to not have an "as of" date but after looking through the guidelines I don't see any mention of it. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say "As of" is the most strict and pedantically correct way to present the score since it is subject to change but in general unless an editor use some silly news writing and talks about the current/recent/now rating I leave it alone, the number of reviews gives a more important bit of context I think. Again though since some editors seem to have such strong opinions that things must be done a certain way it should be easy to have that clearly spelled out in the guidelines. It is hard enough keeping track of all the rules even when someone has made the effort to specify them and make it clear what is best practice. It is not at all nice when you try and improve an article and have changes reverted to be told you need to find consensus for a change when editors who want to block or delete aren't required to properly document the consensus they claim already exists. Clarity and and consistency would make this all a lot easier for all. -- Horkana (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Bold formatting in "Cast" section
In a bold move, I removed the bold formatting from the name of the actor and the role in the "Cast" section. I do this because MOS:BOLD clearly defines the instances where bold formatting should be used, and articles under WikiProject Films should be able to survive without using this formatting. I believe we need to start moving away from this traditional mindset and am considering launching an RfC for outside opinions about "Cast" sections warranting bold formatting or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed on it being unnecessary. I'd really like to see us encouraging a move for cast only lists to be incorporated into the plot section rather than continuing to just have a list of who played what. I think cast really only should be separate when a fuller casting section can be part of the production info. Thoughts on this? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- We definitely need to rework the sub-guidelines for the "Cast" section. They are a bit old! I thought that the bold formatting might be a good initial issue to address, and I wanted to be bold here to remove it, citing MOS:BOLD. I think we need to be careful with encouraging merging cast members into the plot summaries. First, a lot of articles under WikiProject Films will never be expanded, so a basic cast list should be acceptable when these articles are not being actively developed toward B-Class, GA, or FA status. Merging that way may not be the best solution sometimes, depending on the article. It should be whatever works for the article. Sometimes there's a "Cast" section and a "Casting" subsection, and the names of actors and roles can be moved from the section to the subsection. Maybe one of us can do a fresh write-up? For this particular issue of bold formatting, though, do you agree about the RfC or another consensus-building approach? We should have the mentality of film articles surviving without bold formatting as if we never had that option before. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think, for now, lets try discussion here. If there are not enough views or views are mixed, then an RfC might be good. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have to disagree on the arbitrary banning of "Cast" sections. I do agree that in most movies (that is movies "about people"), you may be fine incorporating the cast into the plot, as normally introducing people in a movie only requires mentioning their name and maybe their job or relation to some other character, with their character getting developed by the plot itself. The issue arises with movies in which there's many characters that aren't simply people you can describe in proper depth within the plot without disrupting the narrative of the plot itself. This could be due to the characters coming from pre-established universes —thus bringing relevant background information that doesn't stem from the movie's plot—, or having qualities relevant to the character (eg special abilities) that, while deserving mention, wouldn't be relevant enough plot-wise to be mentioned in the plot summary. Examples of such movies would be X-Men or Transformers to name a few. Also, these movies tend to be very "character oriented", in the sense that characters are very relevant to their audience, sometimes even more so than the (often simplistic) plot itself. In these cases, I'd suggest a layout more akin to that used in cartoons and comics (examples here and here). This layout also makes way for the addition of character-specific pre-production information, frequent in this type of films. This said, common sense should then be excercised in the determination of whether a movie actually does require this layout. --uKER (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well said. I tend to think of the Cast list as "Cast and Characters" and it with so many editors pushing to keep the Plot Synopsis as short as possible the Cast section provides a suitable place to inlcude a little character background without bloating the Plot. The cast list can also be good place to take note of cameos which are simply inappropriate in the plot section (but could be awkwardly included under a casting subsection of Production details).
- I think very few editors do it anyway but I strongly discourage the use of tables for the cast list as they put up a barrier against changing to a prose description and including casting or character details. -- Horkana (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's not a good idea to eliminate cast lists. It would make just as much sense to eliminate the plot summary and try to include that information in the section on the cast. The summary has one function, the cast list another. Leave well enough alone. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would just like to state that I believe that cast section should stay. It just seems kinda silly to have to scan the plot section in order to find out who was in the movie. ONEder Boy (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it is my interpretation but wording in Cast guidelines seems like there is a preference for no separate Cast list at all but that editors might grudgingly include one. That doesn't seem to fit with the consensus of the brief discussion here, perhaps archived discussion were different?
More important to me though is "Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" that really belongs in the plot summary" which I read as perhaps more hostile than intended. Quite a few editors insist on cutting down the Plot summary to the absolute minimum, which very much excludes character description. I suppose the sentence "for credits where the character has not been mentioned in the plot section, a short summary of the importance and role of the character in the film would be necessary" does give me enough wiggle room to work with and get at least a basic short description of who characters are but I would very much like to see the wording clarified to make it seem a little more definitive. Oh and one short sentence saying "use of tables in Cast lists is discouraged" or words to that effect would be great too. -- Horkana (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Also some guideline would be good to explain at what point the cast list in the infobox can be shortened to just a relative link to the main section, as See Cast is something I've seen in some of the older bigger articles (specifically the Star Trek films). -- Horkana (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
After having an edit reverted I've noticed the Television guidelines conflict with the film guidelines as they specifically recommend the use of Bold for "ACTOR as Character". I think the approach here of not using bold is better but I think it is more important that both guidelines at least remain consistent. -- Horkana (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Let me try this again, since I was auto-blocked for being a sockpuppet (ugh shared IPs). Should bold be used in incidents such as this, when a brief summary is given on the character. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 18:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes.... --Mike Allen talk · contribs 19:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I do not believe the WP:TV guidelines are correct, but I do not work enough with TV articles to follow up on a discussion about using bold formatting in them. MOS:BOLD specifies when to use the formatting, and a cast list is not one instance. In the example of 2012 (film), there's even less reason to use bold formatting. Traditionally, we used it to make something stand out in multi-lined bulleted items, but for that particular article, nothing would stand out. It would be a bold wall. Erik (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- So this shouldn't be bolded either: A Christmas Carol (2009 film). The reason I bolded them is because I seen a GA article (can't remember which one) with the cast + a summary section bolded, tis why I bolded articles of the same nature. Now I know GA's are not graded by MOS. :-\ --Mike Allen talk · contribs 20:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, film articles can be without bold formatting in cast lists. The formatting can still be seen because the formatting was used traditionally, and there has not really been a movement to purge all formatting. I've tried, but I don't think it's an interesting enough issue for editors to go after the formatting in a real way. Erik (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- So this shouldn't be bolded either: A Christmas Carol (2009 film). The reason I bolded them is because I seen a GA article (can't remember which one) with the cast + a summary section bolded, tis why I bolded articles of the same nature. Now I know GA's are not graded by MOS. :-\ --Mike Allen talk · contribs 20:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I do not believe the WP:TV guidelines are correct, but I do not work enough with TV articles to follow up on a discussion about using bold formatting in them. MOS:BOLD specifies when to use the formatting, and a cast list is not one instance. In the example of 2012 (film), there's even less reason to use bold formatting. Traditionally, we used it to make something stand out in multi-lined bulleted items, but for that particular article, nothing would stand out. It would be a bold wall. Erik (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Sequels, Video games, Spin-offs and Tie-ins
The article for Monsters vs. Aliens has a particular messy section labelled "semi-sequels" and I checked here to see if there were any guidelines but there do not seem to be any or even stubs indication intention to have guidelines for the above mentioned sections. Sequels do tend to be presented consistenly enough although some editors insist on using the section title "Prequels" as well. Video games too are usually consistently presented as a top level heading but the reason I mention it is because perhaps it can be be grouped in a section with other spinoffs or merchandising? Suggestions? -- Horkana (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Plot
Currently existing film plot summaries vary widely in style and structure. It would help to have more complete and/or authoritative guidelines for creating new summaries. This page and How to write a plot summary are currently the only sources on Wikipedia that provide suggestions on how to do this. —Codrdan (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Actor names
Names of leading actors are usually listed after the first mention of their characters' names. This may be convenient for the reader, but is redundant with the main info box and the Cast section. Should the names of leading actors be listed in the plot summary? If so, what criteria should be used to determine which actors are listed? Should the actor's first name be included, or only the last name? Should the name contain a link? Ways of organizing a plot summary recommends including the name with a link, and mentioning the last name only would be a compromise between convenience and minimizing redundancy. —Codrdan (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, they should. The infobox is a summary of the article. If the cast section has nothing but the list of actors or a list with nothing but a repeat of plot summary without actual discussion of casting, it should be removed in favor of having the full name of the actor, appropriately linked, in the plot summary instead. I also tend to still favor the cast names in the plot even if there is a fuller cast section, however, as it is the section before cast, so per the general MoS, that should be where they are first linked and spelled out in full. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see a need for the names to be included in the plot section if we already have a cast list. I agree that if it is just a list of actors/roles, then the names could only be mentioned in the plot. However, for the majority of our articles, they are start/stub class articles with only a plot and cast list. For our higher class articles, if the cast section can be expanded to include additional plot details/casting/significant events, then we should just have the names within the list, to help direct readers to view that portion of the article. However, if it's only actors/roles, then it should be removed and the plot's characters have the actors' names. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Including the cast list inline - I should say "in context" - can be very helpful and is in keeping with what people expect from print articles. I find it really helps me to visualise and connect the character name to an actor in a film I have not seen. While I would be tempted to i theory to support your suggestion to have the cast names inline and not have a Cast section "unless ..." In practice I don't think you can craft guideline that wouldn't result in editors deleting all the Cast sections and it being very difficult to add a Cast section at all let alone have time to expand it. On top of that there are editors determined to keep the Plot sections absolutely as short as the guidelines allow them leaving no room whatsoever to mention Cameos in the plot section. (The concensus in the above earlier cast list discussion was very much against Cast sections being removed.)
- Some articles such as the Star Trek film avoid some of the redundancy by having the infobox link straight to the cast section, rather than repeating them. I asked above about when to apply this style but got no answer but I suppose any article that can really justify 7 featured actors (maybe The Chumscrubber and other ensemble films) could also use that approach. Given the nature hypertext and the tendency of readers to jump into an article at different points, and Wikipedia having no shortage of space (in theory) I wouldn't worry too much about the redundancy. It is often great to get a brief bit of information about the Cast from the cast section without having the Plot section which carries a much higher risk of plot spoilers. -- Horkana (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- There was no consensus against removing cast sections. Indeed, the general consensus is that they should be removed if they are nothing but a list of actor played X or plot summary, which can go into the plot, per the MoS. The suggestion is what is and should be done in practice. Cameos should only be noted where actually notable and then they can easily be put in the production section. The infobox should generally have the top actors in the film (a good rule of thumb is the headliners from the poster or DVD cover, or the list at the bottom of the same if is not too long). Having just "see below" should be avoided as much as possible as Wikipedia articles in general should not be self-referencing. Plot spoilers are, of course, irrelevant, as Wikipedia is not spoiler free. The cast section is just as likely to have spoilers (case in point, Nimoy being in Star Trek as Spock could be considered a big spoiler by some, as it was clearly intended to be a "twist"). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Initial summary
How to begin a plot summary recommends beginning a 200–300-word summary of a fairy tale with a single sentence summarizing the entire story. A two-sentence paragraph would occupy the same fraction of a 400–700-word summary. Is there any reason to place the initial summary in the lead section? Should the initial summary include a spoiler of the film's conclusion? —Codrdan (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- We don't do initial summaries in the plot sections for film, and How to begin should really be updated as that is not done in almost any media article anymore (redundant and was done initially to address the now non-issue of spoilers). Instead, the lead itself should have a two-sentence summary, and generally it should not include the film's end, but just a general overall summary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Deconstruction
Many existing plot summaries on Wikipedia describe events more or less in the order in which they occur in the film story. However, most feature films contain multiple threads or plotlines, which can be emphasized by discussing events in each subplot separately. Ways of organizing a plot summary passively suggests this, but doesn't actively recommend it. [see below] How much should the story's structure be emphasized as opposed to the chronological order of events? —Codrdan (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- If it can be told in the order shown and make sense, it should be told that way. Only in extreme cases, like with Pulp Fiction, should story structure be emphasized over the way it actually plays out on the screen. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep it simple. Memento (film) and 500 Days of Summer are both examples where a film with a non-linear narrative has been made as linear as possible. Clarity is key, think about what makes it easiest for readers to understand. Memento (an exceptional story) does go the extra mile and provide the summary again as it was shown but that would be the exception and you'd generally make things linear unless it ends up over complicating things even more. -- Horkana (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't express myself properly. Organizing a plot summary suggests REconstructing the story's chronology to explain event reorderings such as flashbacks, but doesn't mention DEconstructing the chronology to explain threads or subplots. Here are some examples of at least partially independent threads:
- Generally speaking, almost every Hollywood film contains a love story, no matter what the main topic is.
- More specifically, People Will Talk is divided 50/50, pretty much exactly, into two threads that have essentially no effect on each other. They have common themes, i.e. the main character and a threat to a character's reputation, but I think a "reasonable, educated person" can verify that the film contains two distinct stories, and I think listing the film's events linearly obscures that fact.
- Once Upon a Time in the West is divided fairly evenly into a land battle and a mission of vengeance.
[edited] —Codrdan (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Plot Length
Does anybody think that 400-700 words is a bit restrictive for a good plot description? For throwaway straight-to-video or star vehicles with low notability, maybe. But there are many notable films and even less notable films with very nuanced plot structures that are impossible to encapsulate accurately or meaningfully within this limit. Now, even though the guideline makes some cases for a longer description under narrower circumstances, the unintended effect of putting an actual count out there is that it brings out the Wikilawyering. I am not against putting out a count. But I think if we are going to put out a count, we recalibrate the numerics, or we change the language to make it sound clearly more aspirational and less like canon.
As it stands, it seems somebody recently chopped out a reference to 900 words in this guideline without any consensus or debate about it. We need to somehow give numbers less emphasis and sound judgment more emphasis.
Thoughts?
Diegoboten (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. 400-700 is a very well set level with a long consensus behind it. If anything, it is often too permissive as we still struggle with some folks wanting to claim that since it has an upper limit of 700 words, that they can use all 700 words to summarize their favorite film, when 400-500 will do it. It is fully possible to summarize the vast majority of films, including "notable" ones accurately and appropriately within that limit. The reference to 900 words was removed with consensus, per lengthy discussion on the recent updates to this guideline. The numbers need the emphasis. "Sound judgement" on when longer is needed tends to be in the eye of the beholder, and thus far every attempt I've personally seen of someone claiming more than 700 words was needed was refuted and rejected in community discussion showing clearly how and where the plot could be cut. Remember, the summary is not a scene by scene blow, nor even to give every "nuance" of a plot, but a good over view of the major plot points to give the article appropriate context. See also WP:WAF. As a courtesy, I think it would have been appropriate for you to note that you are asking this as a newer editor who wishes to remove the plot tag on A Serious Man, which does not necessitate the changing of the style guide, but discussion, as you've already started. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- If this is true, then why are so many notable (and non-notable) movies just not following this guideline and why are there so many edit wars specifically around this guideline? One can say "Oh we haven't gotten to them yet" but would a movie such as The Godfather, or Schindlers List be well served by this guideline? One can argue that these are the exceptions that the guideline alludes to, but I actually think that's false comfort. The truth is, these movies survive longer treatment due to countless edit wars and the fact that they are highly regarded and fandom wins the day. But less notable (or highly topical or foreign) films might get the short shrift by some amateur Wikilawyer who pays attention to a hard value and discards the spirit of the guideline. So if we are to include a value such as "400-700" (and heck! Why we're at it, Why not 200-300? Or a tweet?) can we ensure that the language is more of an aspirational guideline and be less of a fodder for wikilawyering?
- Edit -- Also on your last point, I had considered it, but figured I didn't want to make this about me. Diegoboten (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Quality film articles ARE following this guideline. There are well over 100,000 film articles and maybe 2 dozen editors working on them,. There are over 2,200 articles from various media tagged for plot issues. Yes, there are many film articles that violate this guideline, as well as many other Wikipedia guidelines and policies. That is NOT a valid excuse to try to claim the guideline is somehow invalid or that it should be made useless. People vandalize daily, but we will not remove that as a policy just because of it. And yes, The Godfather and Schindler's List ARE well served by this guideline. Both's plot sections are too long. The Godfather's, and Schindler's List failed its GAN earlier this year because of the same issue. Fandom does not "win the day" in the long run nor is there any call to claim that feature films are somehow getting preferential treatment. Any article of any real quality (GA/FA) will follow the guideline. And 200-300 is the guideline for a television episode and clearly not long enough. Being obtuse is not helping. The language is fully appropriate and does serve the film articles well, when it is properly applied. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- How can something "violate" a guideline if it's a guideline and not a policy? This is what I mean about people confusing the difference between aspirational guidelines and "law". These are supposed to help people write better by providing guidelines, not thwart people from trying. Write a guideline like a guideline and write a policy like a policy. Diegoboten (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- If a good many notable film articles are skirting this guideline despite thousands of edits, then what exactly is a valid form of challenge? Suggesting that a guideline somehow creates its own automatic legitimacy is a bit of a tautology, remember all of this is to help guide (emphasis on the word) principled editing, not define what is a principled edit itself. Also, never confuse good faith edits with "vandalism", which is what your argument is conflating, and never consider dissent to something that is NOT a policy to be invalid form of participation. Did it ever occur to you that articles that "violate" (your words) guidelines do so because the guideline may actually be poorly calibrated for the subject matter? We always have the right to revise things to help improve and enlighten towards the underlying principle it serves. A bad policy around a good principle serves no one. Diegoboten (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- The biggest problem is that many people haven't learned to write concisely and summarize properly. Most long summaries read like blow-by-blow scene dumps or short-story versions of the film. —Codrdan (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- So why exactly is this word limit "fine" if every major film anybody cares about (or say listed in the AFC list of top 100 movies) pretty much ignore this guideline outright? Diegoboten (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- And you're not going to create genius writers by throwing in a hard limit and marking it with a highlighter. Instead, you're going to bring out the knuckleheads who will jump at any chance to kill what might have been a useful description out of a misguided fealty towards some dim sense that they are there to enforce things. Diegoboten (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) 400 to 700 words is not a hard limit. There is 300 words of flexibility. If you believe that the 700-word cap is a "hard limit", it is Wikipedia's policy to treat fictional works (most films) in an encyclopedic manner. This manner means real-world context, such as reception and themes. For the overwhelming majority of films, the plot summary should be "concise" as the policy says, and the range determined by WikiProject Films covers most films. The WikiProject's guidelines clearly address that there may be exceptions. Films are easy to see, especially the popular ones. It is much more useful to provide real-world context to readers because such context has to be accumulated and presented in a consolidated article. See American Beauty (film) as a growing example that does not worry so much about the plot and more about everything else. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 22:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- I also wouldn't say that editors are ignoring the guidelines, but probably aren't aware of them. Many plots come along from IPs or new editors after they just saw the film in theaters. Watch any article released in theaters for the first week or two, and the plot length will blossom out of control. Unfortunately, trying to ensure that we have a concise plot for articles is difficult during this period when many new editors edit the article for the first time. As editors become more familiar with editing, they help to improve articles by complying with established guidelines. The best way to help combat long plot lengths is to guide new editors to articles that provide good examples and to seek out our project's guidelines. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) 400 to 700 words is not a hard limit. There is 300 words of flexibility. If you believe that the 700-word cap is a "hard limit", it is Wikipedia's policy to treat fictional works (most films) in an encyclopedic manner. This manner means real-world context, such as reception and themes. For the overwhelming majority of films, the plot summary should be "concise" as the policy says, and the range determined by WikiProject Films covers most films. The WikiProject's guidelines clearly address that there may be exceptions. Films are easy to see, especially the popular ones. It is much more useful to provide real-world context to readers because such context has to be accumulated and presented in a consolidated article. See American Beauty (film) as a growing example that does not worry so much about the plot and more about everything else. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 22:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Writing plot summaries is easy, as in I can watch any film and write a 2,000 words blow by blow account, and I will be correct. And 'cause summaries don't need to back up what happens this means anyone who has seen a film can write one, it's a lazy contribution. You don't need to meet RS, you don't need to meet V, and you don't need sources; you just watch the film. Problem is that it leads to film articles being about nothing but the plot. Also if you let one subplot in then the next IP user unfamiliar with plot length adds another and another until the article is nothing but plot. Every film I have seen that I have then read about on WP I have shortened the plot of, and on one occasion some other editors actually congratulated me on being able to do it well. For an example of good plot summaries see the articles on the novels of Twilight, the final book summarizes 756 pages into 426 words. Talk of "Wikilawyering" is overblown, referring those unfamiliar with the MOS to stick within 400-700 words is not lawyering anyone, it is simply referring to a consensus amongst editors about how fiction should be summarized. Writing what you've watched on screen is easy, editing it down it the hard part, and most IP editors don't care about that part. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Running-time guideline
Although I think the concerns about Wikilawyering are overblown, it might be reassuring to have guidelines that are both more specific and more flexible, so they apply to as many films as possible. So, how about this: a target length of five to six words per minute of running time, with a maximum of seven for fast-moving films such as cartoons and complex films such as sci-fi and murder mysteries. Slow-moving stories such as Once Upon a Time in the West could be as little as four words per minute. This is basically consistent with the current 400–700 word range, and it's almost as simple, but it accounts for most of the exceptions people have been complaining about, and it provides more information about which end of the range should be favored for individual films. —Codrdan (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- I really don't see how that makes it any clearer. To me, its more confusing, and seems backwards. Why would a fast moving film get more words per minuted than a more complex one? The 400-700 word range has worked extremely well for quite awhile now, and are much more specific and flexible. They are fully applicable to all films, and work well. In the article mentioned above, by simply cutting out the excessive wordiness and redundancy, the plot dropped from over 700 to just under 500, with only one bit (a non-relevant prologue) removed all together. For the rest, pretty much nothing was lost, just cleaned up and tightened up. Novels do not go by word count, the episode list does not go by time, and I don't think doing films by time would be a good change either. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- > I really don't see how that makes it any clearer.
5–6 is a narrower range than 400–700. It clears up uncertainty about whether a long film's summary should be closer to 700 words or one for a shorter film should be closer to 400 words.
> To me, its more confusing
Don't you have a calculator? All you have to do is multiply the running time in minutes by 5 to get the minimum number of words in the summary, and then multiply the running time by 6 to get the maximum.
> Why would a fast moving film get more words per minuted than a more complex one?
I said they both get more space. I suggested seven words per minute.
> The 400-700 word range has worked extremely well
I would have to disagree. Diegoboten has already complained about it, and I don't think 400 words is appropriate for a typical 120-minute film, or 700 words for a typical 70-minute film.
> much more specific and flexible
A range of 400–700 isn't very specific, and its flexibility is based on the editor's whim instead of what's really best for each film.
> They are fully applicable to all films
They're obviously not applicable to long films like Gone With the Wind.
> I don't think doing films by time would be a good change
Well, that seems to be what many of the complaints and exceptions are based on. Thanks for replying. —Codrdan (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- > I really don't see how that makes it any clearer.
- Too much time is wasted worrying about guidelines for writing the plot summary of a film. The range of 400 to 700 words is the least convoluted of guidelines we can write about the topic. The point of this range is to limit in general the reiteration of the film's plot. The range has been around for quite some time, and we have plenty of Good and Featured Articles complying in this range. Let me blunt: Stop worrying about the plot summary guidelines and focus on contributing real-world context or contributing guidelines to real-world context. That context is what Wikipedia articles about films need the most. I encourage you to worry about that and not the plot. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 17:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Release dates, distributors, and production company
There's a discussion that has started on the talk page of 2012 about what constitutes "country or countries that produced the film" in deciding which countries should be included in the "release dates" field of the infobox. A thread on this page covers this issue well, but doesn't really get in-depth about some "distributor vs. country of production" issues. There's more details available in the 2012 discussion if anyone is curious. If it doesn't reach a consensus, you'll see what I mean when I say that it should be further discussed here. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
How many actors in Cast section?
How many actors should be listed in the Cast section? There's usually a distinction between actors who are listed in the opening credits vs. those who are not. —Codrdan (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I usually use the rule of thumb of headliners in the infobox, those who actually get mentioned in the plot summary in the cast section (if there is one). Minor roles shouldn't be listed in either. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I can't help thinking your question is asking for reasons to keep the Cast list short. Headliners makes sense of course, but it leaves little room for notable actors in minor roles. I will often create a subsection for Cameos, to make it clearer for editors who like to delete first and don't get why people they don't know might be worth including. Perhaps it would be good to have a separate subsections or even just a full line break between the list of main and additional cast. I'd hate to see inflexible rule that would be used as an excuse to cut down the cast list the bare minimum and leave no room to include even a few of the regular character actors who fill in all the gaps. The rules seem simple when applied to big blockbusters but it all becomes murky on smaller films when the cast is largely unknown. -- Horkana (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- For the most part, cameos are not notable and certainly should not be highlighted with a subsection, if at all. Wikipedia is not IMDB. If people want a full cast list, there are plenty of places for it. The relevant cast are what needs to be noted in the article. If the roles is not important enough to be mentioned in a well crafted plot summary, it rarely can be justified as belonging in the cast list either. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's not much fun really. Other guidelines push for a very short summary, which hardly leaves room to mention any more actors than the even the poster in their plot synopsis. It seems a shame to take such a minimalist approach in a medium with so much space ... I suppose that's the way Wikipedia is going. sigh -- Horkana (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Guidelines push for an appropriate summary. I'd guess that if all the major players in a film cannot be noted in the 400-700 word summary, then either they aren't that major after all, or the summary needs reexamining. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- A good rule of thumb -- one that hasn't been meaningfully criticized -- is to include everyone above the title in the film credits, plus the first three below the title. It's a very practical standard. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would avoid numerical rules if possible. The production studio has already decided who they think is important, and some films have no stars above the title or plots with many important characters. Secondary actors are usually listed in a section that starts with the word "with". I've been including all actors in the opening credits in the Cast section and all actors before the "with" section in the infobox. —Codrdan (talk) 10:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know of a reason to avoid a numerical guide. We're looking for a starting point for a guide of our own creation, so why not draw on a verifiable outside source for the sake of simplicity? The article can fill in the rest of the picture if required, no? --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- I just gave you two reasons. Some stories have up to half a dozen or more important characters, and if there are no big movie stars in the film, there may be no names before the title at all. So your three-names-after-the-title rule could easily cut out as much as half of the cast. A good guideline should use as much information from the film as possible. —Codrdan (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Right, I think we're coming at this from opposite ends. The problem I was aware of was too many names in the infobox. You are concerned about too few. My understanding of the consensus was that we should restrict the names in the box to major players. It's not supposed to "use as much information from the film as possible." Most actors are going to be left out. For a comprehensive list, imdb.com is there. Perhaps you don't agree that's a good policy. I'm comfortable with it, even if only three actors are in the box, as long as it's a guide not a rule. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- > You are concerned about too few.
Please read more carefully. I'm concerned about article quality, and I'm concerned about edit wars and ambiguous guidelines. It would be good to have an accepted way of deciding which minor players should be excluded. Also, using more information doesn't mean including more content. It means basing decisions on the distinctions between actors listed before the title, those just after the title, those in the "with" section, and those only in the end credits. It means tailoring the article to the film instead of trying to force the film into a simple-minded one-size-fits-all formula. Three actors is almost never enough for the Cast section, which is at least half of what this talk section is about, and even in the info box the number of stars in the film can vary widely. —Codrdan (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- > You are concerned about too few.
- Thank you. I appreciate the nuance you're bringing to the question. I would suggest that we have common ground in your remark that you want to avoid some edit wars and ambiguity. I hope you will understand that I am trying to reduce the ambiguity by drawing a bright line. It's imperfect, but no guideline will work in all cases anyway. AT+3 usually works pretty well and has the virtue of being sourced. I don't see any harm done if only three actors are in the box sometimes. For Paranormal Activity, three is too many. In the rare case that some actors have large roles despite being far down in the credits (I don't know of one) and someone like you includes them and thirdly someone else objects, well, would it really be so bad? Anyway, there are bigger fish to fry. Thanks again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- I should mention as well that AT+3 might be the better standard for the infobox instead of the Cast section. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
> some actors have large roles despite being far down in the credits
Just for future reference, I've seen this done for two reasons: In The Parent Trap, Three Smart Girls, and Girls' Dormitory (not porn ;), the lead role is played by a young or newly discovered actress who is listed last, with "introducing" or some other special comment before her name. In The Thornbirds and Wait Until Dark, a prominent, experienced actor (Barbara Stanwyck and Efrem Zimbalist Jr.) playing a secondary role is listed last, along with the name of his or her character. —Codrdan (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- The practice of listing a prominent player last with the name of their character used to be widespread. I put that in the category "Common Exceptions." Just for clarity's sake, are you proposing a rule of your own? I'm not sure I see your bright line. This discussion began with the notion that the infobox was the standard for the Cast section. My feeling is the infobox is going to be more restricted than the Cast section by a factor of two. AT+3 for the infobox, noteworthy characters/actors in Cast. And while we're on the subject, I'd be happy to see a section for Characters with a separate listing for Cast. The two get conflated at the drop of a hat. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- > This discussion began with the notion that the infobox was the standard for the Cast section.
No it didn't. Please learn how to read. - > are you proposing a rule of your own? I'm not sure I see your bright line.
My previous post doesn't propose anything. You mentioned major roles being listed later in the credits, so I provided some examples for future use. My earlier posts suggested several places where lines might be drawn. —Codrdan (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- > This discussion began with the notion that the infobox was the standard for the Cast section.
- Another example of unusual credit formatting is If You Could Only Cook. The third character is listed after the word "with", but it's an important role and the actor's credit is on the title screen along with the leads. I guess being on or before the title screen is more important than wording.
Edits:
17:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC): also Red Dust (Raymond & Astor)
02:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC): Pay It Forward has no opening credits at all except the stars.
18:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC): Real Genius: After the first four actors, it says "also starring" instead of "with" before the rest of the cast. Personally, I think they're just trying to make the other actors feel good. I would delete them from the infobox. Then there would be a consistent rule that position in the credits is more important than wording.
—Codrdan (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- There's an issue that evolving practices are not conducive to regulation. It might be useful to find the quintessential borderline case as a benchmark for comparison. In other words, what's the best case that definitely could go either way? It's probably going to be a role in a large cast movie played by a headliner but that doesn't have much to do. Perhaps Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder if he had been credited. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ensemble casts are definitely worth considering. For examples: National Board of Review Award for Best Cast, Screen Actors Guild cast award, It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, Murder by Death, Clue (film), Playing by Heart, Sin City (film), 200 Cigarettes, Mars Attacks! —Codrdan (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Another hard type of case, but what is to be done? --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- So how do we determine what character is a main character or a minor, without hitting original research? Also, after reevaluating how articles have the cast sections; I think the cast should be in the plot and also under a "Casting" H3 section (granted there's sources to warrant the actors to be under a "Casting" section). --Mike Allen talk · contribs 00:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Alternate endings
What is the proposed way of exposing a film's alternate endings? --uKER (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Unless its actually note-worthy and given coverage in third-party sources, generally you don't. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- It should depend on the prominence of the alternate endings. If a film ends very differently on its theatrical run in two territories, then they should be covered in the "Plot" section. (Perhaps in subsections? There's flexibility here.) If the alternate endings for a film only exists as part of special features on the DVD or what-have-you, then it's not as prominent. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 22:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- The theatrical run is not the final word. We don't have separate articles for other media, so alternate endings or beginnings need to be covered in the main article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- If it's note-worthy, it will be covered in either a writing section, and editing section, or the release section if a special DVD is being released with that ending. It is not covered in the plot section, because that is reserved for the theatrical run of the film (exception being if an alternative version of the film is released theatrically). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- This seems inadequate for some special cases. Consider Bergman's Fanny and Alexander: 312 mins on television, 188 minutes in the theaters. That's not just something for the editing section, in my view. If memory serves, something similar happened with Scenes from a Marriage. But maybe you're comfortable with special treatment for those situations. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I was talking about movies with several versions featuring different endings. Examples that come to mind are The Descent and Paranormal Activity. The thing is that the Paranormal Activity describes the alternate endings in the "Writing" section, which should be about the film's writing process, and is certainly not the place where one would expect to find info on an alternate ending should one go looking for it. --uKER (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Actually it would be. The "alternate ending" isn't part of the original plot. It was either filmed just to have something different, or it was deemed inadequate for the story and replaced by something else. If it was replaced then you're likely to find it in a writing section, because it originated in a script. If it was just something extra, you'd probably find it in a filming section as something that was just tacked on at the end and not part of the original script. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Bignole, I think you're a little off here, it seems, in saying that a report on something filmed belongs in a section about writing. That doesn't seem like the right solution exactly. Care to refine your response a little? --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, what I said was if it was something that was in the original script but scrapped then it's probably better suited for the Writing section. Because you'll have, or should have, the writer's opinion on that ending and possibly why it was scrapped. If it was something filmed additionally, then it should be in the Filming section of the article because it was probably something thrown together by the director or a producer "just to have". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 10:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- That makes sense but I was under the impression the Paranormal Activity sourced above had been filmed and edited but then not used for the wide release. Carry on. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Where is the consensus/discussion that was reached concerning the navboxes for films to not include the directors/writers/cast? I know it exist, somewhere, but can't find it again... Thank you. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 23:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- What is an example of a navbox in question? Erik (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think he's referring to the footer navigational boxes for films with multiple articles? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Saw (franchise). With the directors/writers/cast, and the current, without. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 00:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am not sure if guidelines are set anywhere about these navboxes, but the prevailing argument against names in the navbox is that a person is more than their contributions. If someone wrote for one film in a film franchise and has had a prolific career outside it, then it is excessive to put the navbox in that person's article. While navboxes could be restricted to franchise-specific articles, it may still be too detailed because peoples' articles are not really pertinent to a franchise, having only a paragraph's worth of information or even just a bulleted entry of being credited. Erik (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- So the actors/directors/writers, should not be included in the template? --Mike Allen talk · contribs 00:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- What I read must have been clearly something different.. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 02:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ah! I found what I was looking for: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 3#Actors paddin TV and film navboxes --Mike Allen talk · contribs 05:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- What I read must have been clearly something different.. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 02:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Copy-editing guide
Inspired by the fine example set by the MilHist folks, I've thrown together a brief guide on copy-editing and good prose in film articles. The guide can be found here; any comments and suggestions are of course welcome on its talk page. Steve T • C 14:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
{{FilmUS}} is a no-no
I want to know whose great idea was it to include this in the Infobox Film template: "Link each country to its appropriate film/cinema article if possible."? Apparently that is NOT the way things are supposed to be and someone thought it would be nice to edit in their opinion within a guideline without discussing it and gaining consensus on it. A guideline that I have been following since I've been here. I am just now finding it out when I saw Erik's edit here and questioned him about it here, that it violated WP:EGG and should not be used. The thing about it, that I have used it on numous articles (even today), now I will have to remove it all. What do others think about this, should it be used or not? Also why does a {{tl:FilmUS}}, UK, Canada, Italy, France, etc, etc even exist if it can't be used?? --Mike Allen 00:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- First, AJCham (talk · contribs) added documentation unilaterally for linking to such articles. Secondly, templates like {{FilmUS}} and {{FilmUK}} were created by an editor who in my opinion was generally against the grain when it came to guidelines established by WikiProject Films. Such templates, whether they should have been created or not, tend to proliferate under the impression that they are okay to proliferate. (This is pretty common with external link templates, too.) I explained to Mike why they are not appropriate, but I think the proliferation is a result of people not really caring to tackle this relatively minor issue. Erik (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'll admit, I kept seeing them added I figured I'd just missed consensus approving such links. If they are against guidelines, I think it would be good if an effort was made to remove and send them to TfD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Bovinboy, I am not warring. I came here to get an consensus/answer from the Film project to figure out what to do about it. If it's not allowed, then it would be nice to know, so I won't add them in the future AND remove the ones I did add to save another editor from having to do it. I'm not trying to start a war about it. :-\ --Mike Allen 00:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I think you may have misunderstood me. I wasn't trying to accuse anyone of warring. Sorry! BOVINEBOY2008 :) 00:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for misunderstanding; I just don't want to be misunderstood. :-) So if the templates are removed, will it restore "United States" etc where the template were used? Or will it leave a red link? --Mike Allen 01:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- If you really want to pursue deletion of the template itself, if it is deleted, I think someone with an AWB usually goes through where the template is used and replaces it with the proper name. You don't have to take it to TFD, though... you can just do the What links here feature and track down the template where it exists, deprecating its usage. Erik (talk) 01:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for misunderstanding; I just don't want to be misunderstood. :-) So if the templates are removed, will it restore "United States" etc where the template were used? Or will it leave a red link? --Mike Allen 01:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I think you may have misunderstood me. I wasn't trying to accuse anyone of warring. Sorry! BOVINEBOY2008 :) 00:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Bovinboy, I am not warring. I came here to get an consensus/answer from the Film project to figure out what to do about it. If it's not allowed, then it would be nice to know, so I won't add them in the future AND remove the ones I did add to save another editor from having to do it. I'm not trying to start a war about it. :-\ --Mike Allen 00:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Personally I like the template (and the other country ones), otherwise in an infobox you get a pointless link to United States now at least it links to something useful. You could remove a link all together but editors in general like links and/or flags, so they probably will be added again when this template is removed. Garion96 (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- It still violates the WP:EGG principle. It looks like the link would take you to United States, but it takes you to Cinema of the United States instead. While it's a more relevant article coming from the film article, it's still unexpected. I haven't really come up with terminology that could allow us to link to cinema articles -- "Nationality" is too vague -- can you think of anything? Linking to just United States is pretty unhelpful anyway. Erik (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- So what? I still think it's an improvement. Also, so far perhaps there is consensus to remove the template but couldn't you wait a bit more then 3 hours since this discussion started before mass removing the template? Garion96 (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh I'm sorry I thought it was pretty clear (non-existent in the guidelines) that it shouldn't be used. --Mike Allen 02:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but it is being used on thousands of articles. That to me warrants a bit more then a mere three hour discussion. Also, it is much more practical to have the template (and it's siblings) deleted by WP:TFD after which a bot will remove all the templates fast instead of slow AWB editing. Garion96 (talk) 11:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh I'm sorry I thought it was pretty clear (non-existent in the guidelines) that it shouldn't be used. --Mike Allen 02:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- So what? I still think it's an improvement. Also, so far perhaps there is consensus to remove the template but couldn't you wait a bit more then 3 hours since this discussion started before mass removing the template? Garion96 (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
When I started editing, I was using {{United States}} to indicate the country of origin and I was advised to use United States instead so it would lead to the film industry rather than the country. Then I noticed someone had created {{FilmUS}}, so I started using that. Not only do I not recall any discussion about this being unacceptable, but the new format appears to have been included in hundreds of articles without opposition. I definitely recall a discussion where the consensus was the year of release should be linked in the lead; now it's being delinked, although there hasn't been any new discussion about it. I'm confused - why are the guidelines being changed in a seemingly arbitrary fashion? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is something that has gotten out of hand based on Ed Fitzgerald (talk · contribs)'s creation of these templates, and it appears that multiple editors have picked up and run with it, despite it violating the WP:EGG principle. This is reflected by AJCham (talk · contribs) adding documentation unilaterally about such matters. No one has stepped in till now because it is such a minor part that people do not care enough to tackle the issue; like Bovineboy2008 said, "I tend to remove them when I see infoboxes that need a good cleaning, but otherwise, it doesn't really bother me." Erik (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not understanding how these are violations the WP:EGG principle. Could you please explain? Thank you! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Most editors worry about the 'major' things on here. Well someone's got to make sure these 'minor' things are done. That's where I like to step in. This may seem trivial to some; but I'm not up to writing a FA article out of scratch, or doing research to find sources—I like doing these 'minor' things. What I don't like, is to be fooled into thinking something is a guideline when it's not, so I'm glad Erik brought this to our attention. Also a shoutout to BOVINEBOY2008; thank you for "cleaning up" my mistakes. While you're 'cleaning it', I'm learning from it. :) --Mike Allen 04:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:EGG has a point, the old principle of least astonishment readers should have a reasonable idea that a link text should be close to the article it is pointing at but I sincerely doubt the guideline means you cannot have a bit of a difference. I do not think it is at all unreasonable for a film article and film infobox it is far more relevant to link to the film production of that country than just a generic article explaining about that country in general.
I can see some justification for not linking the country name (although I think it is preferable to keep using the templates) there is another change I think is taking this too far. Again I do not think it is unreasonable to have just a little bit of context and for the words like for a 2009 film to link to the 2009 in film even if the sentence was 2009 comedy film, or 2009 horror film. Is {{fy|2010}} also on the list for templates we should deprecate?
One thing I think violates WP:EGG as much as any of these other suggestions is the official website template. The discussion about the official template is ongoing.
It seems like a WP:BOLD move to try and cleanup all those WP:EGG links but I'd appreciate if we could get a clearer policy on this. -- Horkana (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Splitting Reception?
I'm working on a massive overhaul and expansion of Night of the Lepus, which was released in the 70s. There are quite reviews from the 90s and 2000s for the film, as well as reviews from when it was released, and I'm wondering if might be a good idea to split the reception section into one for reception at the time, and one for modern reception? If so, ideas on appropriate headers? Right now, I'm sort of working on "Contemporary reception" for the modern stuff, but that seems off to me? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- When I first started reading, "contemporary" was the word that came to mind. You could do some kind of "Contemporary" vs. "Retrospective" subsectioning. I do not think this would be an issue. Erik (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Splitting sounds like a good idea, assuming the section is not too small. Critics like Roger Ebert have certainly gone back and reevaluated their opinion of a film in retrospect, showing that contrast could be quite notable.
- Great suggestion from Erik, the proposed section headings sounds good and encyclopedic and (unlike terms like "recent") wont seem dated to a reader if an article hasn't been changed in a long time. Don't get distracted by your point of view, work from a fixed point of reference, take contemporary as being contemporary to the time of the film, not contemporary to us now, since our now will not necessarily be the same now as when a reader next reads the article.
- The extra structure of subsections does I think encourage editors to expand the section, and as a selective reader it makes it so much easier for me to skip to the bits of an article of most interest. -- Horkana (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Cool, I'll do that then. There are tons of sources for that article...taking me awhile to get it ready for relaunch just from sheer quantity to go through, not even counting many of the book sources! :-D Finally went ahead and put out the first massive expansion, with the two sections, at Night of the Lepus. One other question, if y'all don't mind...what are your thoughts on how much reception I should add? I mean, pretty much every critic said the same thing about the film, so should I just keep "piling on" or is there some point where its enough to get the idea. For example, I have at least seven more retrospective reviews from reliable sources that could go into the article, but I'm wondering if I should? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is surely a point of exhaustion. If you can make clear what the general consensus was, then the reviews are just for illustrating various reasons why a film was liked or disliked. Try to say something a little different with each review and go beyond "best film of the decade" and explain why. That has been my approach, anyway. Erik (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Cool, I'll do that then. There are tons of sources for that article...taking me awhile to get it ready for relaunch just from sheer quantity to go through, not even counting many of the book sources! :-D Finally went ahead and put out the first massive expansion, with the two sections, at Night of the Lepus. One other question, if y'all don't mind...what are your thoughts on how much reception I should add? I mean, pretty much every critic said the same thing about the film, so should I just keep "piling on" or is there some point where its enough to get the idea. For example, I have at least seven more retrospective reviews from reliable sources that could go into the article, but I'm wondering if I should? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Improving the organization of Plot
This is the proposal. It's better organized and introduces no new content. Any disinterested objections?
- Plot summaries are self-contained sections in film articles. They are appropriate to complement wider coverage about the films' production, reception, themes, and other real-world aspects (see WP:PLOT). Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable. WP:PSTS says, "...a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge... Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary. Exceptions to the rule include upcoming films and "lost" films (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors should use secondary sources.
--Ring Cinema (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason for it and the original properly puts it in context first, IMHO. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Should we make an excuse for the existence of the Plot section as if there's some question whether it belongs? I think not, and don't think it's normal or good practice. Should we group together sentences that cover the same topic? Yes, that's good organization. Should we start with the general statement and proceed to the specifics? I think so. It's an extremely simple improvement and Wikipedia gets better by making incremental improvements like that. There are other problems with the section but this is an extremely simple improvement. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- The consensus is against you on these guidelines warranting change. You have contributed very little when it comes to film articles. I strongly encourage you to go build up experience in Wikipedia's core activity—editing—before you profess to know how to write guidelines for a WikiProject. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 22:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Erik, I knew when I made this suggestion that you would have a hard time accepting any changes, even though it's just about the most obvious improvement in the paragraph's organization. Some might say that says a lot about you, but not me. This is just how it is on Wikipedia. You wrote a paragraph, it wasn't perfect and others come along and offer improvements. That's how it goes here. You have not offered a substantive response to my reasoning, and I assume that means you are unable to think of a good reason not to improve the article's organization. (Neither can I!) In the meantime, the article on Wikiquette is available for rereading if you find the time. Do you need a link to that? Thanks again for all your hard work! --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see a need to change it as it is currently written, nor consider the recommended change the "most obvious improvement" to the section. At this point, I'm more concerned about editors actually following the guideline to help improve the thousands of articles that conflict with the guideline. The section doesn't need to be perfect, and it never will be. However, as it currently stands it accurately represents the guidelines accepted through consensus in this project and other areas of Wikipedia. I'd say we should now stick to proposed changes to the plot, such as some of the above discussions in previous sections. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Erik, I knew when I made this suggestion that you would have a hard time accepting any changes, even though it's just about the most obvious improvement in the paragraph's organization. Some might say that says a lot about you, but not me. This is just how it is on Wikipedia. You wrote a paragraph, it wasn't perfect and others come along and offer improvements. That's how it goes here. You have not offered a substantive response to my reasoning, and I assume that means you are unable to think of a good reason not to improve the article's organization. (Neither can I!) In the meantime, the article on Wikiquette is available for rereading if you find the time. Do you need a link to that? Thanks again for all your hard work! --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- When you say "the section doesn't need to be perfect" I take that as an acknowledgement that it can be improved. I agree. What would you say is the most obvious improvement? At the time Erik's somewhat disorganized draft was accepted, it was mentioned that it would be subject to editing like every other article on Wikipedia in the future. Fortunately, my proposal doesn't alter the content in any way so no issue of accuracy is involved. In fact, improving the organization of the lead paragraph on the Plot section might improve people following the guideline...? There's a chance. Apparently the main argument against editing an article on Wikipedia is that editing should not be done on Wikipedia articles. Is that how Wikipedia works? I'm still looking for someone to say that the current draft is better organized than my revision. I haven't heard that yet, so I'm pretty sure that my rather obvious improvement is in fact better organized. Hearing no objections, I assume at this point there is no doubt about that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Nehrams meant to say that we can keep shifting the words around and still achieve the same effect. There is no Featured Guidelines status for which to nominate it, but its meaning suffices for editors of film articles. Speaking of which, there is much work to be done in the mainspace, particularly outside film articles' complementary plot summaries. Please, I encourage you to do some actual editing and quit wasting our time. Erik (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Your version is not "better organized" nor does the current version introduce any new content. As Erik said, surely there are better things to do with your time than starting an argument over something so ridiculously minor. If, as you say, your version doesn't change the meaning, then why change it at all? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- This section could use more reorganization than just the first paragraph. RC, you're starting your text with formatting instructions. I don't think that's better than starting with a justification for having the summary in the first place. The "right" way to start the section would be to say what a plot summary is before trying to discuss it. Right now, that's the first sentence of the third paragraph: "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events." The second sentence should state the summary's purpose. Also, discussion of the summary's content is buried in paragraphs 2 (complications) and 3 (details and spoilers). That should be consolidated, and the link to HTWAPS should be moved to the end of the section instead of being buried in the middle. —Codrdan (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, and since my small edit was criticized as too trivial, I'll take up a more serious reorganization as soon as time permits. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Metacritic's so-called "normalized" scores
Editors are copying each other's mistaken interpretation of Metacritic's use of the term "normalize", resulting in an increasing number of film articles that are, to put it simply, very misleading about how exactly Metacritic scores are calculated.
Editors have linked several articles, supposedly "explaining" the concept of "normalize", include Normal, Standard score, and Normal distribution. None of these articles actually describe what Metacritic does in its statistical calculation. In fact, Metacritic itself provides very little explanation. Metacritic gives an analogy of "curving grades". When a teacher "curves" grades, that does not mean that the grades a standardized by placing them on a normal distribution curve, such that 68% of the class scores between the mean and one standard deviation on either side of the mean. If that was true, the normalized grades would always result in 2% of the class making an A grade and 2% always making an F grade. That's not the case. If you've ever had a grade curved, you simply had an increased score because the teacher added a constant number of points to all scores to offset a very low average score. That has nothing to do with "normalizing" the scores.
Absolutedly no evidence that I know of has been provided on Wikipedia about how specifically Metacritic converts its scores. In the absence of that, adding the word "normalized" (and especially a link to a statistical concept) is adding false information. Another term needs to be used. A "composite" score might work because it's vague in terms of how the scores are combined. But definitely not "normalize". Anyone who has taken an elementary statistics course knows that. Thank you. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- For all, Metacritic explains its process here and seems to explain it in detail. I am aware that a specific presentation of the metascore has proliferated. It is something like this: "At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film [Hancock] has received an average score of 49 based on 37 reviews." Maybe the key phrase we should use instead of "normalize" is "weighted average". What do others think? Erik (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments, although I would disagree somewhat that Metacritic explains its procedure in detail. "Weighted average", in my opinion, is acceptable because the specifics of weighting (or any other aspect of the calculations) are not stated or implied as in the case of "normalize". 71.77.20.26 (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- No problem! Thank you for bringing up the matter here. Let's have other editors weigh (no pun intended) in about this. If there is consensus to revise the language accordingly, we should be able to locate the wording since it's been consistent. Erik (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Thank you for finally bringing this up in a discussion, instead of edit waring. As I stated in my edit summary, that is what Metacritic calls it "normalized".[1], and they also call the scoring a weighed-average. I think the mini-consensus to change it was brought on the Avatar talk page. Btw, I did assume good faith with your first reversion, the second I did not, as my patience are quite low with IPs. Which I agree is something I need to work on, but as it stands, my patience is just flat out low for nameless users for obvious reasons. I'm sorry you felt I was biting you, but it is considered "disruptive" to keep reverting someone's edit without discussing it. Thank you. —Mike Allen 21:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Mike, I think that we may put too much emphasis on "normalized". Judging from Metacritic's page, the key term we should use is "weighted average". Let's make sure we can agree on the wording. It may just be a matter of replacing a string of words with another. 100 film articles use this wording; see this. Erik (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Thank you for finally bringing this up in a discussion, instead of edit waring. As I stated in my edit summary, that is what Metacritic calls it "normalized".[1], and they also call the scoring a weighed-average. I think the mini-consensus to change it was brought on the Avatar talk page. Btw, I did assume good faith with your first reversion, the second I did not, as my patience are quite low with IPs. Which I agree is something I need to work on, but as it stands, my patience is just flat out low for nameless users for obvious reasons. I'm sorry you felt I was biting you, but it is considered "disruptive" to keep reverting someone's edit without discussing it. Thank you. —Mike Allen 21:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- No problem! Thank you for bringing up the matter here. Let's have other editors weigh (no pun intended) in about this. If there is consensus to revise the language accordingly, we should be able to locate the wording since it's been consistent. Erik (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments, although I would disagree somewhat that Metacritic explains its procedure in detail. "Weighted average", in my opinion, is acceptable because the specifics of weighting (or any other aspect of the calculations) are not stated or implied as in the case of "normalize". 71.77.20.26 (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree Erik. And apology accepted MikeAllen, although you made another attack by accusing me of edit warring, which I did not. In any event, this is not the venue for personal issues, so let's move on. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- BTW, there probably are many more than 100 articles that use some variation of the wording. For example if you search using "normalized rating out of 100 to reviews", you get 356 articles. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I agree, we need more discussion. In my notes, I have for RT is "with a [[weighted mean|rating average]]". However, MC and RT score differently. So do we put for MC "which assigns a [[weighted average|normalized]] rating"? Isn't that too eggy? —Mike Allen 22:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- No. "Normalized" needs to be left out altogether, regardless of whether Metacritic uses the term. If I call a bologna sandwich a steak, that doesn't make it a steak. We may need to discuss in more detail about the specific wording, but "normalized" is simply wrong. As I said, anyone who has had a stat course knows that. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Mike, you should link to average, not weighted mean. For Metacritic, we can link to weighted mean (interchangeable with "weighed average") and exclude normalization-related wording. As for the 356 articles, you could edit these articles that do not fall under WikiProject Films, but you may want to check with these other WikiProjects first. In the meantime, when it comes to films, I am okay with the update and notified other editors about this ongoing discussion. Erik (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- No. "Normalized" needs to be left out altogether, regardless of whether Metacritic uses the term. If I call a bologna sandwich a steak, that doesn't make it a steak. We may need to discuss in more detail about the specific wording, but "normalized" is simply wrong. As I said, anyone who has had a stat course knows that. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I agree, we need more discussion. In my notes, I have for RT is "with a [[weighted mean|rating average]]". However, MC and RT score differently. So do we put for MC "which assigns a [[weighted average|normalized]] rating"? Isn't that too eggy? —Mike Allen 22:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Let me use the example Hancock (film) here because I think it was one of the first to use this language. I would also like to verify the wording for Rotten Tomatoes, since it is usually paired with Metacritic. Currently, the article says, "Rotten Tomatoes reported that 40% of critics gave the film positive reviews based upon a sample of 209, with an average score of 5.4 out of 10.[1] At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film has received an average score of 49 based on 37 reviews.[2]" My suggested revision:
Rotten Tomatoes reported that 40% of 209 sampled critics gave the film positive reviews and that it got a rating average of 5.4 out of 10.[1] At Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average score out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film received an average score of 49 based on 37 reviews.[2]
The websites are not italicized per MOS, and I tried to streamline the writing in general. Thoughts? Erik (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- It looks fine to me; I'll take your word for it that it's using the right term now. :-) Maybe we should take this as a slight warning not to copy quite so freely when a useful-seeming bit of wording comes up (rest assured I'm just as guilty, if not the most guilty, for its dissemination). Steve T • C 23:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- The example above by Erik looks good to me, and statistically speaking, I don't see any problems. Thanks Erik. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Full cast listings
What should we do with cast lists containing every actor in the film, including bit parts such as "Passerby #2"? Are these roles really notable enough to be included in the film's article? I moved the cast list for My Sassy Girl (2008 film) into a separate page, but someone moved it back to the main page for the film. —Codrdan (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- A full cast listing is too indiscriminate to include in an encyclopedic article. A listing should contain mostly the major roles, usually figures that are key in the film's progression. Erik (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Maybe someone could add that to the film guideline? —Codrdan (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- While WP:FILMCAST is old, I think this applies: "...a cast list inserted into the body of the article may be appropriate, though some editors frown on lists inside articles. It should be longer than the list in the infobox, and, depending on the number of minor characters in the film, can be furnished with a dozen or more credits." Erik (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Maybe someone could add that to the film guideline? —Codrdan (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
National Designation
The White Ribbon has been identified as a German, Austrian, French, and Italian film. The latter two seem kind of incorrect to me but the justification is that some or all producers are French/Italian. I don't see a guideline on this issue. If a French citizen works on a German movie, that to me doesn't make it a French film. I could come up with exceptions, but what's a reliable source for something like this? --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like it was taken from IMDb [2], and I don't how they determine (or whoever submitted it, lol) what country the film is. —Mike Allen 05:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, going by here, the top four production companies are: German, (Wega Film has "[at]", I assume that stands for Austria?), France and Italy. That's how they came to that conclusion. What I understand is that this is the correct way to identify the "country" for the film and those counties should be listed in the infobox. A user name Betty brought this up in the past, but I don't remember where. —Mike Allen 05:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting. This is not the method used by the AMPAS. It flies in the face of common sense. A Fellini film is Italian, a Spielberg film American, no matter who financed it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. So many films are international co-productions now that it often becomes almost meaningless to identify their "nationality" by looking at the production companies. The main considerations should include the lead production company, nationality of key non-acting personnel (director, writer, producer), principal country of filming, and to an extent language. It can't be made on any one alone - if Fellini had for some bizarre reason been hired to direct The Ladykillers it would still be very much a British film. Barnabypage (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting. This is not the method used by the AMPAS. It flies in the face of common sense. A Fellini film is Italian, a Spielberg film American, no matter who financed it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, going by here, the top four production companies are: German, (Wega Film has "[at]", I assume that stands for Austria?), France and Italy. That's how they came to that conclusion. What I understand is that this is the correct way to identify the "country" for the film and those counties should be listed in the infobox. A user name Betty brought this up in the past, but I don't remember where. —Mike Allen 05:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Putting Production before Plot
In the guidelines, Plot is the first section after Lead, and this is how most articles are then written. However, it feels more logical for articles to be written with the Production before the Plot, as the production comes first, and gives the essential background information. The Production details put the Plot into context. It can feel a little disorienting going straight into a story synopsis without the grounding of who, what, where and why. The Plot is the fictional universe, while the Production is the encyclopedic details which structure the fictional universe. When writing the Lead, the basic production details are foregrounded over plot - we get the year of the film, the director, the stars, the book (if any) the film was based on, the production company, etc. We might get the theme or basic idea of the plot, but the actual plot details tend to only come in the second paragraph. It seems logical that the body of the article should also follow the sequence of the lead.
With articles about TV series, production sometimes comes before plot, with albums, the production always comes before any discussion of the music, and with literature the publishing background comes before the plot. It tends only to be in film articles that the plot nearly always comes first.
What objections are there to having the guidelines reorganised so that Production is placed before Plot? SilkTork *YES! 00:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would strongly oppose such a change. The Plot puts the production and everything else in context, and all media articles that are properly following their MoS put it as the first section, including television, novels, and anime/manga - those that do not should be corrected, rather than trying to change the guideline to reflect outliers. The Plot is the summary of the What it is. Production is How it it was done. You can't talk about how without first talking about what. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, the plot can be needed for context on the production (Filming the eruption of the volcano was fraught with danger) but it's less obvious how production details could be needed to understand the plot. This is assuming, of course, that people read from beginning to end. Having said that, anything truly remarkable about the production should be in the lead (see Russian Ark for a salient example) and I'd certainly support any tendency toward drastically reducing the length of plot sections. Barnabypage (talk)
- (edit conflict) I disagree with this logic. People who go see movies do not learn about the production before they do. Knowing the story comes first. Once readers know the story, whether they have seen the film or not, they can delve into how that story was created and how it was received. Erik (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would third that. The lede gives the quick summary, then the plot lets readers know what the film is about and the production would likely reference plot points or characters. With the plot moved down it would mean references to plot points would be in the wrong order. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- The proposal should be received with a little more generosity. It's not the least bit obvious which way is better and those who claim it's clear one way or the other demonstrate mental ossification more than insight. It shouldn't be overlooked that the Plot section belongs in a reference article perhaps not at all. If there was one section to dispense with, Plot would be the first to go. It might improve the film articles quite a bit to leave it out and let people do the watching for the story. For reference purposes, staffing sections count the most, so there's definitely something of merit in SilkTork's thought. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm hesitant to advocate doing away with the Plot section, but I do have some sympathy with your comment. No regular section in a film article causes me to roll my eyes and skip as much as a Plot section. I've always felt this should be an extremely brief one-paragraph summary just to give the idea what the film is about, and that, like everything else on Wikipedia, it should be cited to a reliable source. Dekkappai (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not advocating that Plot should go. I love working on them, that's why I can talk. When editors act like their own drafts are too good to change I roll my eyes (no, Erik, I'm not talking about you!). But since I love doing Plot sections I can take the contrary case with a bit more credibility. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, we're getting off the main point here (which I don't care about-- above or below, I can see either way, depending on the article)... But to me the plot sections are usually too long, with too much detail, and, worst of all, not sourced, and therefore very prone to sneaky, difficult-to-find vandalism. Dekkappai (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure there's some truth to what you say. To some extent it's the nature of the beast. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, we're getting off the main point here (which I don't care about-- above or below, I can see either way, depending on the article)... But to me the plot sections are usually too long, with too much detail, and, worst of all, not sourced, and therefore very prone to sneaky, difficult-to-find vandalism. Dekkappai (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not advocating that Plot should go. I love working on them, that's why I can talk. When editors act like their own drafts are too good to change I roll my eyes (no, Erik, I'm not talking about you!). But since I love doing Plot sections I can take the contrary case with a bit more credibility. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm hesitant to advocate doing away with the Plot section, but I do have some sympathy with your comment. No regular section in a film article causes me to roll my eyes and skip as much as a Plot section. I've always felt this should be an extremely brief one-paragraph summary just to give the idea what the film is about, and that, like everything else on Wikipedia, it should be cited to a reliable source. Dekkappai (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Sneaky, difficult-to-find vandalism can happen in passages with inline citations, especially if it is an offline source. Plot summaries are already sourced; the basic description comes from the primary source, the film itself, and information to locate it is in the lead section and the infobox. WP:FILMPLOT says to use secondary sources for disputable aspects of the plot or if the film is not accessible by the public. I do consider the section of little importance, though... many editors spend too much time worrying about that section than any other section. I'd bet good money the "Plot" section is the most edited section of most film articles. My impression is that if one writes a solid non-plot section, it can stand the test of time pretty well. In contrast, editors are forever fine-tuning the "Plot" section. In any case, I oppose any rule to have "Production" before "Plot". I believe most people agree with the flow that starts with "Plot". The order of sections in the guidelines is what is usually seen, but nowhere does it say that it has to be in that order. Sometimes "Themes" goes above "Production", sometimes it doesn't. But as I explained earlier, I don't think there is a compelling reason to move "Plot" down. Erik (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, I don't think this type of vandalism is as easy to sneak into a section is sourced. That's the whole point behind sourcing. I've seen ISPs change things like "blue" to "red", or such, in a Plot section and had no idea whether that was accurate or not. Offline sources? A bit more difficult to locate, but still much more feasible than watching even a readily-available film to check one specific edit. "Film as primary source" works (sort of) when you're dealing with mainstream, widely-available films, but not with more obscure films, which may not be readily available for viewing by any editor. Dekkappai (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Erik you make a good point that custom and practice are fairly well established on these matters. Any institution is based as much on practice as on rules. But when there is too much tension between the two problems can arise. Dekkappai's thoughts are serious. As a matter of principle, there is not really a good reason why Plot is the exception in matters of sourcing. Everything you say about sourcing of Plot could be said about any number of matters that we'd naturally insist on a source to accept (if challenged). Essentially your argument is "you don't have to take my word for it, just watch the film." Well, that is a little less sourced than is commonly expected. Not that I'm saying there should be a change. But the tension is there and where possible the tension should be ameliorated. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, I don't think this type of vandalism is as easy to sneak into a section is sourced. That's the whole point behind sourcing. I've seen ISPs change things like "blue" to "red", or such, in a Plot section and had no idea whether that was accurate or not. Offline sources? A bit more difficult to locate, but still much more feasible than watching even a readily-available film to check one specific edit. "Film as primary source" works (sort of) when you're dealing with mainstream, widely-available films, but not with more obscure films, which may not be readily available for viewing by any editor. Dekkappai (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Sneaky, difficult-to-find vandalism can happen in passages with inline citations, especially if it is an offline source. Plot summaries are already sourced; the basic description comes from the primary source, the film itself, and information to locate it is in the lead section and the infobox. WP:FILMPLOT says to use secondary sources for disputable aspects of the plot or if the film is not accessible by the public. I do consider the section of little importance, though... many editors spend too much time worrying about that section than any other section. I'd bet good money the "Plot" section is the most edited section of most film articles. My impression is that if one writes a solid non-plot section, it can stand the test of time pretty well. In contrast, editors are forever fine-tuning the "Plot" section. In any case, I oppose any rule to have "Production" before "Plot". I believe most people agree with the flow that starts with "Plot". The order of sections in the guidelines is what is usually seen, but nowhere does it say that it has to be in that order. Sometimes "Themes" goes above "Production", sometimes it doesn't. But as I explained earlier, I don't think there is a compelling reason to move "Plot" down. Erik (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I get the impression there is no consensus for this. Is there enough interest to maintain a discussion? I would rather not get into a discussion on should there be a Plot section at all, or the sourcing of that section. I am interested in seeing if there's enough support to continue a discussion on should Production come before Plot in the guideline. SilkTork *YES! 15:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm new to the project but generally opposed to this idea due to how people use the movie pages on Wiki (while acknowledging MikeAllen's statement about the TOC). I could be way off base, of course, but it seems that most are looking for a somewhat detailed plot summary before they want to know much else about a movie, particularly if they are coming here as opposed to looking up reviews or checking the cast list on IMDB. But like I said, that might just be me, so I could have it all backwards. It wouldn't ruin my day if it WAS changed, or anything. Millahnna (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think Millahna is right about Wikipedia's purpose to film article seekers and I do believe that, while disagreements will inevitably arise, there is a general consensus to leave the plot before the production section. This would be both for the benefit of the reader and for clarity of context, as AnmaFinotera put it, to explain the "what" before the "how". Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Because we include spoilers I don't think this is the place people look for a plot summary. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah that's part of what I was thinking when I said that it might just be me who uses this site for that. For movies I haven't seen that I actually care about not being spoiled on, I typically read the first paragraph or two to get a better sense of what the movie is about (to decide if I'm going to watch it) since the IMDB plot summaries are mostly useless for that sort of thing. Honestly, a lot of times I just read the whole thing, spoilers and all. But often I'm looking at summaries for movies I've already seen and then I'm still typically here for the plot as opposed to anything else. And like I said, maybe my usage is not the norm. Too bad we can't poll users. I'd be happy to go with whichever layout made the most sense for the most people. Millahnna (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- > I typically read the first paragraph or two
- If you're interested in commenting about Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary, this is a good reason to put a line in saying that spoilers should be mentioned as late in the summary as possible, and definitely not in the introductory paragraph. —Codrdan (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would challenge the statement that inclusion of "spoilers" means that we're not the place where readers seek out film plot summaries. I would say that exactly because we don't consider ourselves bound by hiding "spoilers" do readers use Wikipedia for plot summary information. "Teasers" can be found on websites of studios, distributors and production companies. It really is the responsibility of the reader to understand the difference and know where to look for different types of information. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I find Millahnna's point quite compelling. We should gear Wikipedia to be the most useful to the most readers without compromising our standards, and Plot is quite possibly what most readers are mainly interested in from the evidence of what most gets edited the most ! I will take this off my watchlist. SilkTork *YES! 18:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect plot sections are only so heavily edited because no research or knowledge is required other than having seen the movie. I wouldn't confuse that with reader interest! Barnabypage (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Right-- heavy editing only indicates that the section is popular with editors. And, as you point out, since it's the only area of WP (that I'm aware of) which requires no sourcing, just the personal knowledge of the editor, it's a magnet for easy editing. As a reader I almost always skip over a plot section more than a paragraph or so long. If I've seen the movie, it's redundant, and if I haven't seen it... I don't want to spoil the surprise. But of course I don't recommend doing away with the section, because, obviously, some people do use it, and I'm against unnecessarily removing useful information, even if I don't personally care for it. Dekkappai (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm with Dekkappai by and large. I don't see the argument that the inclusion of spoilers is a plus. It's just something that's consistent with completeness, for good or ill. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Right-- heavy editing only indicates that the section is popular with editors. And, as you point out, since it's the only area of WP (that I'm aware of) which requires no sourcing, just the personal knowledge of the editor, it's a magnet for easy editing. As a reader I almost always skip over a plot section more than a paragraph or so long. If I've seen the movie, it's redundant, and if I haven't seen it... I don't want to spoil the surprise. But of course I don't recommend doing away with the section, because, obviously, some people do use it, and I'm against unnecessarily removing useful information, even if I don't personally care for it. Dekkappai (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
If I see a film then look it up on Wikipedia the first thing I do it check the plot, if it is too long I try to trim it, if it is the pre-release plot and or is missing the ending then I put them in. The plot deserves to be comprehensively covered, and even for films I haven't seen I will still take a look at the plot. As for "it needs a source", it doesn't, other than the film itself. Sure people will vandalise and change details but that's what rollback was invented for, adding sources won't stop that, even fully sourced sections get vandalised. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Cast in Infobox
Is there a guideline I'm missing somewhere I could read about the cast list in the infobox specifically (have read all cast discussion on this page)? I stumbled onto an editor who was adding the "with," "and," introducing," & "featuring" types of denotations to cast sections in infoboxes. I'm assuming good faith because the edits generally matched the listings from each film's credits but did fix as many as I could find. I double checked his history for similar problems, which is how I discovered many freakishly long infobox cast lists. I was hoping to find a guideline covering length and style. I read our cast list and infobox sections but didn't feel either offered the clarity I was looking for. Is this something that has been left vague(ish) intentionally so as to allow for a case-by-case evaluation? It seems like we could provide more guidelines and still allow for that discretion, unless I have in fact missed something in my searching. Millahnna (mouse)talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC).
- No such clarifications should be added. The template instructions itself notes the cast list should be name<br>name<br>etc. Such notes as "with", "and", and "featuring" are inappropriate and only clutter the box. I've clarified this in the template documentation. There have also been at least two recent discussions regarding cast lists which emphasized the consensus is that they should contain only the major players in a work, not the entire cast. The latter is already noted in the template instructions, but I've gone ahead and added a note here as well (may need grammar tweaking). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for adding the clarifications to the instructions. That is exactly what I was looking for. If I find myself on another reverting spree I'll point it out to people. I thought I had read the "major players only" discussion somewhere but I'll be darned if I can track it down now, other than the brief references in above conversations (movie poster, good description). Time to reorganize my Wikihelp bookmarks, methinks. Millahnna (mouse)talk 14:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- AnmaFinotera mentions the infobox in How many actors in Cast section?. I would avoid using the word "cast" for the infobox. Since the section is called "Starring", it should only include the film's top stars. —Codrdan (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've mentioned this before but it deserves repeating: the honorific "starring" is frequently bestowed on actors who are not major actors in a movie. So if we say we're limiting it to "starring" roles, the movie credits usually can be a source for more expansive listings. Non-stars often get starring credit. That's why I have proposed "above the title plus three" for the infobox. I'm pretty sure it's the best standard except in cases where the listing is alphabetical (e.g. Woody Allen's movies). "Above the title + 3" means include actors listed above the title in the credits or poster plus the first three below the title. This gives a good sense of how much the infobox should have. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree as the credits are frequently in "order of appearance" and there is little consistency in how the credits are done in films. Using the poster or DVD/Home Media cover is more consistent and will generally have the major players in any film. Alternatively, we can go by what's listed in various reviews, but I think the poster/home media works better. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've mentioned this before but it deserves repeating: the honorific "starring" is frequently bestowed on actors who are not major actors in a movie. So if we say we're limiting it to "starring" roles, the movie credits usually can be a source for more expansive listings. Non-stars often get starring credit. That's why I have proposed "above the title plus three" for the infobox. I'm pretty sure it's the best standard except in cases where the listing is alphabetical (e.g. Woody Allen's movies). "Above the title + 3" means include actors listed above the title in the credits or poster plus the first three below the title. This gives a good sense of how much the infobox should have. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the thoughts. You're right, "in order of appearance" is another important exception to consider. All these things need to be taken into account. Posters present problems with consistency and verifiability; they are not permanent or as widely, universally disseminated as the film's credits are. That's a substantial advantage in the context of sourcing consistently. Similarly with packaging: inconsistent and subject to change when a particular actor's career takes off or tanks (Shelley Long, OJ Simpson). We will have a better foundation if we work off the film instead of some marketing guy's latest fantasy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- > I'm pretty sure ["above the title plus three"] is the best standard
- I can guarantee you that no simple numerical rule will ever be "best" in terms of accuracy. Separate Tables (film) is a good example of why. It has five stars, all listed before the title, and all of the remaining actors are in a "with" page after the title, clearly labeling them as supporting cast. —Codrdan (talk) 12:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- You misunderstand me, though. No single standard works for all cases. But for a standard, a guide, a starting place, "above the title plus three" is the best on offer. It's child's play to find exceptions, but that's not the point. The minute we abandon a numerical standard the door is opened for a large number of special pleadings that will over time bloat the infobox. And if there's one thing I don't want to see, it's a bloated infobox. Thanks a lot for your thoughts, which are as ever extremely valuable. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think you're confusing "standard" with "maximum". If all you're worried about is listing non-stars as stars, then it would be simpler and fairer to just limit the number to half a dozen or fewer, regardless of whether the actors are billed before the title or after. That way non-starring actors wouldn't be listed as stars simply because the real stars of the film were billed before the title, and real stars wouldn't be left out in films where all the actors are listed after the title. I'm glad you call the numerical rule a "starting place", because I thought from your earlier posts on this subject that you were recommending a "one size fits all" approach. Most films provide clues about who the "real" stars are, so I would avoid relying on numerical rules except in situations like the ones you mentioned, where the number of "stars" is more than some reasonable maximum. —Codrdan (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- As a practical matter, "AT+3" works well. Unless there's a good reason, it would be wrong to leave out an actor listed above the title. With smaller films, it's usually good to include some below the title. A mixed solution is in order. Your approach is an invitation to continual tugs of war that are a waste of time. Special pleadings abound for reasons that are obvious. If I had to choose between an annoying tug of war with a rookie editor who might even be on someone's payroll or going by a number, I'll take the number. No harm is done by that. If Separate Tables has more than the usual number, c'est la vie. I still haven't heard a better standard and you haven't proposed one. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Stop signs are for intersections that would be unnavigable without them. Summaries are essential when dealing with a complex situation. Conventions and practices are alternatives to rules. When you get over your petulance, come back with a workable answer. Then there'll be something to discuss. Many thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
OK considering this conversation, and in the interest of figuring this out, what on earth should I do with Heat? My instinct is to cut it to Al, Val an DeNiro, plus maybe three like someone else suggested. But when you get to everyone else it all comes down to a subjective case of who is more notable. For me that would be Fitchner, Portman, Haysbert, and Sizmore (maybe with a side of Voight) because I know those actors better. Someone else may know others better or go by relative importance to the main plot of the movie. Either way that thing needs some slicing. Sin City has the same problem, particularly because of the nature of the movie itself. My instinct on that one would be the lead for each storyline plus one or two of the bad guys (I'd probably go with Wood, Hauer, and Stahl). Or maybe in that case it's really appropriate to leave it as is. I don't feel like it is but I'm new; what do I know. Millahnna (mouse)talk 21:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Assuming that the credits are neither alphabetical nor in order of appearance, which three are mentioned first after the title in the credit sequence of the film? --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for working with me on this. Erik hit up Heat literally seconds after I posted and dropped it down to the main three; I haven't seen that movie in years so I can't recall how the credits went. His rationale was that they are introduced in the article lead as being the stars and everyone is in the article's cast section. Sin City does an alpha sort in both beginning and end credits. Which is part of my reasoning above. Personally, I would go with Bruce Willis (possibly also Jessica Alba), Clive Owen, Mickey Rourke definitely (main protagonists). Nick Stahl would be a definite on the antagonists end of things; I'd probably go with Elijah Woods and Benicio Del Toro if adding one for each vignette. But again, it's a case of the subjective for movies with ensemble casts and even more so because of the nature of the film itself (5 vignettes, three large plot lines, one teeny one). Millahnna (mouse)talk 22:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm glad you got what you need. Erik's take is probably sensible -- he seems to know the film well, although his reasoning might be somewhat OR. Sin City is a little bit sticky, isn't it. Personally, I think there's not one right way. I would say Alba, Owen, Rourke, Del Toro, Willis and Rosario Dawson deserve mention given the nature of the film, which is more ensemble than most. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for working with me on this. Erik hit up Heat literally seconds after I posted and dropped it down to the main three; I haven't seen that movie in years so I can't recall how the credits went. His rationale was that they are introduced in the article lead as being the stars and everyone is in the article's cast section. Sin City does an alpha sort in both beginning and end credits. Which is part of my reasoning above. Personally, I would go with Bruce Willis (possibly also Jessica Alba), Clive Owen, Mickey Rourke definitely (main protagonists). Nick Stahl would be a definite on the antagonists end of things; I'd probably go with Elijah Woods and Benicio Del Toro if adding one for each vignette. But again, it's a case of the subjective for movies with ensemble casts and even more so because of the nature of the film itself (5 vignettes, three large plot lines, one teeny one). Millahnna (mouse)talk 22:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
How many stars in infobox?
Since this subject has been discussed in both How many actors in Cast section? and Cast in Infobox, maybe it would help to consolidate the discussion in its own section. Here are some possible guidelines that might be used to decide how many actors should be called the "stars" of any particular film:
- Stars are supposed to be the key characters in a story, so there shouldn't be any more than about six. (The numerical maximum could even be as low as four.)
- Actors listed on or before the title screen are stars (up to the numerical max).
- Actors who are listed both after the title screen and after or below the word "with" are not stars. (The same may apply to the word "featuring" and even phrases like "also starring".)
- Listing actors before the title has more to do with the actors' fame or the director's whim than their roles in the film, so the numerical maximum should apply to the total number of stars, independent of whether they're billed before or after the title. Separate Tables (film) is an unusual example: Five actors are billed before the title, and all of the actors after the title are under the word "with".
- A young or newly discovered actor who is listed last, with "introducing" or some other special comment before his or her name, is probably a star, and at a minimum shouldn't be ruled out. The Parent Trap, Three Smart Girls, Fail-Safe (1964 film), and Girls' Dormitory are examples.
- If the number of key characters is agreed to be more than the max, the infobox should say "ensemble" instead of listing them.
—Codrdan (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- The criteria is excessive, and we need to avoid instruction creep. This is one of multiple fields in an infobox, and the basic criteria is people who star in the film. Number of names will depend on the film and the primary editor(s), and as long as the listed names in "Starring" makes some kind of sense, it's No Big Deal. Erik (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Director's whim has nothing to do with it. The key question is just this: which actors listed below the title should or could go in the infobox? Let's figure that out and the thing is solved. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- e.g., A role larger than one listed above the title. That's definitely a criterion if not definitive.--Ring Cinema (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm thinking about the "and," "with," and "featuring" type of listings specifically; sometimes those are fairly big-name actors in a notable cameo. In what few infox listings I've tried to cleanup, I've sometimes left those in just because of who the actor is, as opposed to the role they played. An example might be Bill Murray in Zombieland (although in that specific case I don't think I would leave him in, so perhaps not a great example). I really like the idea of just saying "ensemble" for the films where that truly is an issue and deferring to the regular cast section. I don't know if there's any precedent for that, though, and it might get too confusing for more casual editors though. Kind of like the issue of internal links for plot sections; there seems to be a great deal of discrepancy for how to approach that and it seems to cause confusion (it's certainly confusing me, heh). Millahnna (mouse)talk 19:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- (ec)I disagree that a guideline absolutely must be created to deal with this. Additionally, the "above the title" and "below the title" criteria seem quite arbitrary to me. I might be more sympathetic towards some sort of official standardization if it was the case that articles within the scope of our project are experiencing difficulty in continued improvement as a result of a lack of guideline on this issue but that doesn't seem to be the case. I see no need to complicate things by trying too hard to simplify them. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Above the title is an infobox ticket. Pretty rare to find an exception. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- What about Valentine's Day? There's 19 actors listed on the poster! I haven't seen it, so I don't know who is "Staring". I've heard that some only had screen time for very few minutes. IMO, this is excessive. —Mike Allen 20:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- That movie is not on my radar at all but my understanding is that it's very much ensemble. I may have been misinformed, but perhaps this could warrant that "ensemble" listing idea from above. Millahnna (mouse)talk 21:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Can't go by posters or boxes. Look at the bottom where the credits are layed out according to the contracts. It's listed Studio / Producer / Director / Title / Actors alphabetically. No actor is above the title there. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- But all the actors are above the title in this poster. —Mike Allen 23:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Mike, you can't go by teaser poster graphics. Look at the bottom of the poster where the credits are done according to their obligations. That's the part that is consistent from poster to poster to film, because it's negotiated. All the actors are after the title. The film credits will reflect this listing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- So you're saying the everyone that is listed there should be in the infobox under starring? Some people go by that, some people go by the names written right above or below the title (like my first comment), and some go by pictures on the front. So what should we do, watch the film ourselves and determine who is staring? I haven't seen it.. but surely all of them don't have "starring" roles. I think something like this should be made clear in a "guideline", so we don't have to keep discussing it. :) —Mike Allen 00:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Mike, you can't go by teaser poster graphics. Look at the bottom of the poster where the credits are done according to their obligations. That's the part that is consistent from poster to poster to film, because it's negotiated. All the actors are after the title. The film credits will reflect this listing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- But all the actors are above the title in this poster. —Mike Allen 23:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Can't go by posters or boxes. Look at the bottom where the credits are layed out according to the contracts. It's listed Studio / Producer / Director / Title / Actors alphabetically. No actor is above the title there. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- That movie is not on my radar at all but my understanding is that it's very much ensemble. I may have been misinformed, but perhaps this could warrant that "ensemble" listing idea from above. Millahnna (mouse)talk 21:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Quite the contrary, Mike. Everyone is below the title so they're not guaranteed a spot (as I already stated). That's twice in a row where you mischaracterized my view because you didn't pay attention to what I already said. So, one more time: above the title actors belong in the infobox. Below the title some kind of judgment or standard needs to be applied. Thanks for getting that straight the next time. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Seriously? There's no reason to be rude about this. God forbid I misunderstand what someone is saying. Do not worry, there will not be a next time. —Mike Allen 03:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm really sorry if I was rude, Mike. I hope I was being factual that you got me wrong. If not, I'm doubly sorry. Thanks for your input. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Mike, I think you will find that when I make a mistake I admit it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm really sorry if I was rude, Mike. I hope I was being factual that you got me wrong. If not, I'm doubly sorry. Thanks for your input. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Seriously? There's no reason to be rude about this. God forbid I misunderstand what someone is saying. Do not worry, there will not be a next time. —Mike Allen 03:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Linking guidelines
Tony1 added linking guidelines, but AnmaFinotera reverted the addition. Tony1 has done a lot for Wikipedia to improve linking, and I believe his contributions to the film guidelines are worthwhile. I would like to see the linking information restored. What do others think? Erik (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- I just felt it should be discussed before being added. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Fine with what both you and Tony1 did; being bold and all that. On the issue itself, I don't see the change as controversial, and endorse the addition. Perhaps the first part could be tweaked a little to include another way in which the link can be included, in prose; e.g., "X was widely considered the best film of 1999 by the American press ..." Steve T • C 15:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Tony's addition on linking guidelines should be a benefit to article improvement. I do agree with Steve that some of the material needs to be tweaked although the example of "the best film of 1999" can probably be safely left out since it is exceedingly rare and, thus, likely doesn't require specific instructions. I would suggest a sample lead sentence be somehow incorporated both with and without the proposed link to the "See also" section as well as, perhaps, a short explanation of what a reader should expect to find in the "See also" section. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the "best film of" was just an example; other uses might be "the seventh most successful film of 1999"; "like other films in 1999" and a bunch more. But I've no real opinion one way or the other, so I'm happy with whatever's decided. :-) Steve T • C 16:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Piping "1998 in film" to the plain year "1998" means that no one will ever click on it. The style guides are quite clear about the need to avoid deceptive, or "Easter egg" link pipes. The two methods mentioned are standard ways of improving the linking system. Articles on film do not, I'm afraid, have a good track record on making their "Year in film" links clear and accessible. Tony (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the "best film of" was just an example; other uses might be "the seventh most successful film of 1999"; "like other films in 1999" and a bunch more. But I've no real opinion one way or the other, so I'm happy with whatever's decided. :-) Steve T • C 16:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Tony's addition on linking guidelines should be a benefit to article improvement. I do agree with Steve that some of the material needs to be tweaked although the example of "the best film of 1999" can probably be safely left out since it is exceedingly rare and, thus, likely doesn't require specific instructions. I would suggest a sample lead sentence be somehow incorporated both with and without the proposed link to the "See also" section as well as, perhaps, a short explanation of what a reader should expect to find in the "See also" section. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Tony’s additions are common-sense stuff that should have been here long ago. It’s clear that Wikipedia’s across-the-board direction with regard to links is to try to use them only if they will truly add to a reader's understanding of the article. If a reader is boning up on thermodynamics, they will be interested to know that internal energy is an article they can read up on. We just clutter up our articles with excessive blue if we link every silly little word, like “invented” just because technology enables us to do so. That’s the first part: link only the valuable stuff.
The second part in the art of linking is “fair disclosure;” that is, alias them so readers have a clear idea what they will be taken to. Bear in mind that experienced readers of Wikipedia learned years ago to never click on links like 1999 because they will be taken to long lists of historical trivia that has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter. Readers should be able to tell at a glance what will happen if they click a link in “There were a number of notable films in 1999.” Clicking links isn’t supposed to be an Easter Egg hunt. If we want “year in architecture” or “year in music” articles to actually be clicked on and read, the last thing we’d ever want to do is make them look like those articles of random historical trivia that have nothing to do with the subject matter at hand. Greg L (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have a question about this approach. In the lead sentence of most film articles, we will see the release year and the major genre(s) mentioned. For example, "Foo is a 2010 American science fiction comedy film." At its most linked, it would be written as, "Foo is a [[2010 in film|2010]] [[Cinema of the United States|American]] [[science fiction film|science fiction]] [[comedy film]]." The argument is that these links exist in proper context because all descriptions are related to the film. I ask you and Tony1, what parts of this sentence should be linked or not linked? A current example is the lead sentence at Avatar (2009 film). I've de-linked these, but the links find their way back. Erik (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for (trying to) de-link them, Erik. Two of those aliases: [[2010 in film|2010]] [[Cinema of the United States|American]], are especially nasty and unfortunate and do our readers a disservice. They are, IMO, particularly poor examples of technical writing. Nothing a technical writer does should result in needless confusion. These two links would lead many readers to conclude that they will be taken A) in the case of 2010, to a mindless, random, list of historical free-for-all that has nothing to do with film, and B) in the case of American, to an article on the USA; already heard of the place.
I’m not going to offer any proposed examples of work-arounds since many have already been discussed here and there are clearly sufficient Wikipedians haunting these grounds with enough creativity to figure out how to craft encyclopedic prose with links that sufficiently explain themselves. Tony’s on the right track here, but there seems to be too many editors who resent being told what should be galactically obvious. Greg L (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for (trying to) de-link them, Erik. Two of those aliases: [[2010 in film|2010]] [[Cinema of the United States|American]], are especially nasty and unfortunate and do our readers a disservice. They are, IMO, particularly poor examples of technical writing. Nothing a technical writer does should result in needless confusion. These two links would lead many readers to conclude that they will be taken A) in the case of 2010, to a mindless, random, list of historical free-for-all that has nothing to do with film, and B) in the case of American, to an article on the USA; already heard of the place.
> years should be linked only when there is good reason - i.e., when the link provides the reader with a connection to additional information and context specifically related to the date that is linked.
What is this supposed to mean? All it really says is that the link text (years) should be related to the link destination (information and context specifically related to the date). That's just common linking practice; it says nothing about films. —Codrdan (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I see your point, Codrdan. That text should end with …i.e., the linked article has content that is germane (i.e. “relevant” and “appropriate”) and is topical to the subject. The current text, by definition, pretty much says the date link should take the reader to something related to that date. Can’t go wrong there. “I link, therefore I am.” The principle (notwithstanding it getting mangled here), is that in this example sentence:
| “ | Architect Philip C. Johnson designed the Seagram Building in 1956. | ” |
- …the year should not be linked to the “1956” article (as the above example does) because that article contains nothing whatsoever pertaining to either architecture or Philip Johnson; that is, the target article is not germane to the subject matter at hand. Moreover, if one wants to link to an article like, 1956 in architecture, then editors should alias the link so it’s clear to the reader that they will land on an architectural-related article if they click on the devil. Greg L (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Ckatz removed the linking guidelines, wanting consensus. I'm fine with these linking guidelines, and I'm not seeing any resistance about including them. Are there any particular complaints to be had? Erik (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- While there may be merit to the date-links text (given the recent Arbcom resolution to the matter), there is little need to duplicate text from WP:LINK on this page. If it is even necessary at all, a simple link to the guideline would be more appropriate. That would cut down on unnecessary wordiness here, as well as avoiding the possibility of the wording here getting out of sync with potential changes to the actual guideline. --Ckatzchatspy 04:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Like Tony1 said, "<year> in film" linking is a problem with film articles, and it helps to be more direct about what should be done. The Easter egg example is not a clear enough one, in my opinion. The reason I asked Greg L the question above is that editors believe that links like to the "<year> in film" article or the "Cinema of <country>" article are okay in the lead sentence because they're characteristics of the film. Erik (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like the text to be written clearly before agreeing to it. It's not even coherent yet. —Codrdan (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Here is the text that Ckatz has completely removed, despite the fact that she is the only person who seems to take offence at it. Additions are in green:
Linking dates
Months and days should generally not be linked, and years should be linked only when there is good reason - i.e., when the link provides the reader with a connection to additional information and context specifically related to the date that is linked. The template {{filmyear}}, or {{fy}}, is available to conveniently link to "Year in Film" articles but its use should not be indiscriminate. Generally, it should be used to link release dates of films and other significant film-related events. Consider adding an unpiped link (see Wikipedia:Piped link) to the "See also" section instead of piping a plain year in the main text, which may be regarded by many readers as not relevant to the topic. Another alternative is to link only the first relevant year, explicitly and in parentheses, as in "(see 1989 in film)".
Internal links
Generally link only items that most English-speakers will be unfamiliar with. Avoid linking common terms (such as film, screenplay, director, actor), and try to make links specific by section-linking or finding a daughter article that is more relevant to the topic. See WP:LINKING for more information.
Now, does anyone have any suggestions for improving this text? To re-iterate the need for it: film-related articles provide greater-than-normal opportunities to improve wikilinking, particularly WRT dilution with common-term low-value links that have somehow crept in through editors' copying existing practices. Although the advice proposed is nothing new—it's all an extension of style-guide advice—we have much to gain by getting the message through to film editors. Tony (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Tony, could you answer my earlier question about the first sentence please? Also, what does "the first relevant year" mean? —Codrdan (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- The date material, as I mentioned earlier, may be useful. The "internal links" section, however, is not necessary. Instead of cloning sections of an existing guideline into this guideline (and the two others where you're attempting the same thing), just put a direct link (if anything at all). The "common terms" text is largely a matter of personal opinion, after all, which is very different from the dates issue. The two should not be treated as one. --Ckatzchatspy 09:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have some sort of veto power I don’t know about Ckatz? There seems to be a number of people here (dare I use the word “consensus”) who would like to just make the wording here perfectly clear so editors don’t have to click on links to get the essential point. Why not let the above people roll up their sleeves and collaborate on some prose without you deleting it at every turn? Greg L (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Common terms may, as Ckatz suggests, sometimes come down to a matter of fine judgement. So does prose style (do I use an optional comma here or not?), balance, citation density—frankly, a whole lot of things. Just because personal judgement may occasionally be involved—when the decision to link, or not, is on the boundary of the criteria in the style guides—is the very reason is should be given a few lines in this guide, particularly when articles in this field present opportunities for improved linking practice. I have to reveal that it is Ckatz's clear agenda to retain as many links as possible in WP text; yet this goes against the style guides and, I have to say, against the established practice of smart wikilinking. There are no good reasons that we should not add mention of internal linking practice, when external linking and other important matters are treated here. Tony (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- We all have an agenda from the "right" side. Let's focus on matters of content here, and consensus will triumph. I agree that guidelines for external links means that there should be guidelines for internal links. These guidelines should be more targeted, though. For example, extensive linking, especially of "<year> in film", in the lead sentence is the biggest culprit and should have a direct explanation on what not to do. In my experience, though, I do not see that much abuse of linking common words like what was sampled in your writeup, at least not anymore than anywhere else. What is your experience with this? Erik (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Although I whole-heartedly agree that the lead sentence in film articles is generally overlinked, I'm just still not convinced that Tony's text would be 100% clear in direction to a newbie. One of the things that I would like to see is exactly what Tony had in mind when he said "Consider adding an unpiped link to the "See also" section". For example, in the lead sentence from Fight Club:
- Fight Club is a 1999 American film adapted from the 1996 novel of the same name by Chuck Palahniuk.
- where would the link to the "See also" section go? Additionally, many even FA class articles do not have a "See also" section. For those articles, do we offer an explanation of what purpose such a section would/should serve in a film article so that one can be created and facilitate the removal of excess links in the lead sentence? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- When it comes to the lead sentence, we're trying to overcome the so-called tradition of linking items because they have always been linked. Older Featured Articles are traditional with linking in the lead sentence. I'm not sure what you're asking about the "See also" section, though. We have Fight Club (film)#See also, and this will be listed in TOC. Such links are not as valuable in the article body and particularly not in the lead section because they are so broad. A "See also" section at the footer ensures that we can practice smart linking in the lead sentence and still ensure access to the tangentially related topics later on. Is this what you mean? Erik (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've been using the "See also" section quite regularly to place such links there and I find it quite useful. Tony's wording advising to add "an unpiped link to the "See also" section" has left me wondering what he means by this. Place a link to "See also" how? If the section exists, it will be in TOC and no further link needs to be placed to the section. Did he maybe mean to say "Consider adding an unpiped link (to [[<year> in film]], [[Cinema of <country>]]) in the "See also" section"? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. :) Erik (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, do I ever feel stupid now! I completely misinterpreted what was being suggested by the text.
- Adding a link in the "See also" section makes perfect sense. If I may, I'd like to propose "in" being substituted for "to" in that sentence to avoid other people being confused on the same level as myself.
- Anyways, Tony, your text makes sense now and I support the inclusion into the guidelines. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. :) Erik (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've been using the "See also" section quite regularly to place such links there and I find it quite useful. Tony's wording advising to add "an unpiped link to the "See also" section" has left me wondering what he means by this. Place a link to "See also" how? If the section exists, it will be in TOC and no further link needs to be placed to the section. Did he maybe mean to say "Consider adding an unpiped link (to [[<year> in film]], [[Cinema of <country>]]) in the "See also" section"? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- When it comes to the lead sentence, we're trying to overcome the so-called tradition of linking items because they have always been linked. Older Featured Articles are traditional with linking in the lead sentence. I'm not sure what you're asking about the "See also" section, though. We have Fight Club (film)#See also, and this will be listed in TOC. Such links are not as valuable in the article body and particularly not in the lead section because they are so broad. A "See also" section at the footer ensures that we can practice smart linking in the lead sentence and still ensure access to the tangentially related topics later on. Is this what you mean? Erik (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if this is a coincidence or not, but TenPoundHammer nominated the {{filmyear}} template, which pipes "<year> in film" links. The TfD can be found here. If editors believe in applying these new linking guidelines for WikiProject Films, the TfD would accomplish part of that goal. Erik (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Consensus for that came through pretty clearly... I would like to ask, while there are still eyes on this discussion, what are editors' thoughts about linking to genres, particularly in the lead sentence? I ask because this may be something to cover in internal links. Most film articles' lead sentences identify the films' genre(s) and quite often link to them. While this is not an issue of piping and intuitiveness, it may also be an issue of smart linking. Major genres are pretty well understood by most readers, and I think that the terminology is better off not linked to. Examples include comedy film, drama film, science fiction film, war film, etc. Readers would not learn anything new in context of an individual film article -- they already know that a film is funny, is dramatic, is beyond current sciences, or is about war. Sub-genres are less definitive and seem more worthwhile to link, such as screwball comedy film or heist film. Others' thoughts on that? Erik (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- That makes a lot of sense to me; when I was still just a reader I would accidentally click on those excessive links in the lead and wind up in all sorts of unintended places. However, I suspect that much like excessive linking of cast names (e.g. in plots when a thorough cast section is already provided) this is something that more casual editors will end up editing back in a lot. So we may find ourselves doing a lot of upkeep to keeps things that way until people figure out what's going on. If that makes any sense. Millahnna (mouse)talk 00:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- All: Here’s a stress-breaker to lighten the moment: Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house. It’s rather topical right now. Greg L (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)