This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
This article was copy edited by Stfg, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 17 September 2011.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
List of Scream (film series) characters is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
I have deleted the "Yearbook Characters" section that has been added to the article twice recently. I'm not sure what the editors' intent is, but I don't see a clear reason for the chart's inclusion, or its naming. If someone cares to justify the content, it can always be restored. --DavidK93 (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is citing the movie itself, can you provide a reference number or quote? It is a long article to examine.
MOS:WAF says "Because works of fiction are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source".
Interestingly MOS:FILMPLOT says "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words" but then we have huge plot summary articles like this one. Go figure.
But how can anyone know that the descriptions of the material are accurate? Someone could add, "Character A does a belly dance before being impaled by the Empire State Building after King Kong throws it at her," then cite it with "Craven, Wes. Scream 4." 216.168.91.107 (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As with any source used on Wikipedia, any interested party may consult the source to verify it. People can lie about the contents of any source in any article (although most people don't), and anyone else can verify or discredit it. By definition, sources for which this cannot be done are inadmissible on Wikipedia. It sounds like you're not interested in watching parts of the movie to verify if they are described accurately. And I'm sure there are people out there who aren't interested in opening up books to verify if they are cited accurately, either. DavidK93 (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See, this is why I hate Wikipedia and why I think it needs a massive overhaul. Stuff like this isn't caught and corrected, and it's undoubtedly everywhere. People treat Wikipedia like fan wikis where there's no actual verifiable sourcing other than "go watch the movie" or "go play the video game." I'm not going to keep trying to make these corrections because I'd be here all night. At least I brought the issue up here. 216.168.91.107 (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, since the article is a conglomeration of several films it does make sense to add inline citations about which part comes from which movie. I think ideally that would be done using a separate notes section. I do agree about the fan wiki comment. And yes, someone might see your comment here and action it. Commander Keane (talk) 07:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DavidK93 I will reply down here; I don't know how people are meant to follow a discussion when posts are made half way throughout (not your fault, I see many experienced users doing it, I think the "Reply" button is misleading in that use case). Back to your point, I guess the only problem with relying on the primary source for plot summaries is interpretation. Assumptions. They can differ between viewers. Using external sources reduces (I was going to say eliminates but it is a big call) that issue. The community has decided that original reaearch is fine for plot summaries (and incidentally photo use) - they get an exception. I wouldn't call the IP challenging this practice as disinterest in doing hard work, it is understandable to be confused about exceptions.
As an hypothetical example, the IP says "Character A does a belly dance before being impaled by the Empire State Building...". Maybe one editor watches the film and thinks it is a Turkish dance. Another editor is sure it is an Egyptian style dance instead. If a film reviewer writes "belly dance" that is conclusive. Commander Keane (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, the existing threshold for requiring an outside source for a plot description is exactly what you've described. Ultimately, all Wikipedia editing other than direct transcription of quotes entails some amount of "interpretation," but often we don't think of it as that because unbiased paraphrasing or descriptions can often be noncontroversial. If editors disagree about what they believe are the basic narrative elements as literally presented in a work, that's when sources are sought. If there's a scholarly consensus that it's a "belly dance," call it that and source it. If there's scholarly debate, it might be better to call it a "dance" and then discuss the debate in an appropriate section, or add a footnote about it. If this is the situation you're most concerned about, I think existing policy and practice already address it. DavidK93 (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
