Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Restructuring Release and Reception sections

I would like to restructure the "Release" and "Reception" sections so we can remove the subsections. I suggest that we have a "Release" section that states that a film article should cover the nature of how the film was distributed (including theatrical run and home media) and how critics, audiences, and others responded to the film. Right now, the first paragraph merely focuses on distribution, and I think we can use this place to make a general suggestion. The section can state that in the article, there could be just one section, or multiple sections or subsections, depending on the how much encyclopedic content is included. For example, some film articles may only have a simple "Release" section with a few paragraphs (like Solomon Northup's Odyssey), or there could be several sections and subsections if it is a blockbuster film with a lot of coverage. We could then refer to the other sections (converted to stand-alone) for guidelines about specific elements. Any problems with this restructuring? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no problems with your proposal, obviously. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. It allows for flexibility which is always a good thing. MarnetteD | Talk 14:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Cast in plot descriptions

The MoS doesn't seem to address this, but I find it intensely annoying to read a film plot description that does not, as actual film reviews always do, give the actor's name in parentheses after their character is mentioned in the plot summary. I realize that this information is usually found elsewhere in the article, but the sidebar usually doesn't say what character each actor is playing, and the cast list will generally be in another part of the article, forcing scrolling to make sense of the plot summary. Compare this version of Horrible Bosses to this version. Isn't it a lot clearer when all the actors are given in the plot summary itself? john k (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it is more common for plot summaries to mention actors in parentheses than not. I do prefer to use only surnames and no blue links to minimize the intrusion. In addition, I think that only key actors should be mentioned, but this can depend on the film. For Horrible Bosses, I'm not keen on Bob Newhart being mentioned and linked for the CEO. One setup I wish we could do is to have a cast table next to the plot summary for immediate reference (instead of the "Cast" section right after), but the film infobox unfortunately gets in the way of that. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

In the past I think consensus has been that there's nothing wrong with including the cast in the plot (though we didn't get highly specific about how to do so), but there's also nothing wrong with removing the cast names in the interests of WP:FILMPLOT, especially if they're included immediately below the summary. I won't remove them for the sake of removing them, but if I'm de-bloating a plot in any case I'm likely to pull the cast. I suppose we could make an exemption for cast names if there's a feeling that that's a good idea. Doniago (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, either here or at WikiProject film and it is decided on an individual basis, when the cast are linked THREE times already in the article, it doesn't need to be linked a fourth time, and if I don't know who Jennifer Aniston is or what she looks like, how does having her linked immediately after benefit me? Who she is is incidental to the plot unless it's Julia Roberts in Ocean's Twelve or Thirteen, and even then knowing what they look like/their filmography/their bio does not improve my understanding of the plot. There's no need for it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Jennifer Aniston, who is the only important woman in Horrible Bosses, doesn't particularly need to be linked an extra time. But Bateman, Sudeikis, and Day play close to interchangeable characters, and it is very useful when reading the plot description to be able to immediately see which one is which character, without having to scroll down. I added the names in the first place because I was myself actually confused about which characters were being referred to, even though I have actually seen the movie. If you want to remove the links, go ahead, but the names themselves should certainly be in parentheses for clarity's sake. john k (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It really is horses for courses. I know at one stage Erik and I were pushing for a compromise solution with a small cast table in the plot summary. Here is a prototype: [1]. I think there is something to be said for making the plot and cast sections more integrated, because many people do like to see who played what as they read the plot, and don't want to be scrolling up and down. At the same time there are people who really dislike the parenthesised approach because it interrupts the flow, it is redundant, not well structured etc. However, once an article has a defined structure then there shouldn't be a unilateral switch to a different format if another editor opposes it. Betty Logan (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Surf Ninjas has a two-column cast list (really a wikitable) right above the plot summary. I had merged the cast list there since it was just creating white space otherwise. Not sure if that layout appeals to others. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

A) Thank you because I've been wondering for years what the hell the film I saw as a kid where the kid controlled things with a game gear was. B) That looks horrible. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. Why does it not look good? Can the insertion be improved aesthetically, or is it just the general setup? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Rather for the parentheses solution. It's a more logical way to communicate more information and identify the characters/actors. As a corollary, I'm very against list cast sections that add nothing--far to like a fan site. Best, Ktlynch (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

A plot summary may not necessarily name all the actors and roles, especially if it is succinctly written. This does not mean that the ones not mentioned should not be identified elsewhere. A cast list is one way to accomplish that, and it helps with cross-navigation of Wikipedia articles. I disagree that cast lists are just elements found on fan sites; there are books about films that do provide cast lists for readers. It is a viable option. All these different opinions, though, goes to show that we shouldn't pursue standardization. The "Cast" guidelines as written tries to encourage flexibility by mentioning different options. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

RE:Surf Ninjas, it just looks a bit awkward, I'm not a fan of the "..." style of separating actor from character, so it's an aesthetic thing for me, for the number of cast, the Betty-box TM style might be better just to make it look a little more stylish. As for cast lists, as Erik says, plots do not necessarily mention every character because ultimately not every character need be mentioned to understand the plot, but it doesn't mean the need not be mentioned elsewhere in the article, perhaps because they earned a critical response for a brief cameo or are played by someone notable. Blunt cast lists for small casts probably are unnecessary, in Erik's example, the cast list is so small that a section is unnecessary when there is apparently no info that can be used to expand on the characters or casting behind them. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I must admit I'm not in favour of having the cast mixed in with the plot—just a personal choice. Having said it's personal, the section is called Plot or Plot summary, not Plot and cast. In most cases the actor chosen for a part doesn't affect the story: the plot runs along its own lines without being affected by whichever actor is in the role and the identity of an actor in a role rarely helps with the understanding of the plot. This looks like a good compromise to keep the information in one place, rather than having a cast section follow the plot. The only drawback with it is if there is a long infobox and a short lead: with wider screens the box drops way down. - SchroCat (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The Halloween example, while being an interesting compromise has the drawback of small lettering. I know lots of readers and editors have young eyes and I wish they could stay that way but, speaking as someone who has reading glasses at several spots in the house, having the cast in a box like that is difficult to read. MarnetteD | Talk 22:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As a caution, while I favor the cast list in the plot, I've seen editors who want to be exact fill in every actor even the minor roles that are just briefly mentioned. Eg "The hero (name) beats up the villain (name) and his six unnamed hencement (name, name, name, etc.)" I think Die Hard suffered this at one point. Common sense needs to rule here about when one will include the actor and differential the minor roles from that. --MASEM (t) 21:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

While I prefer that the cast not be mentioned in the plot I don't feel strongly enough to object to it. I would add another caution though. The cast list - along with hidden notes and footnotes about specific items - does add to the word count for a plot section. Use of a "character count tool" or "word count tool" to judge the number of words in a plot section does not take these into account. We might want to add a paragraph to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot making editors aware of the need to allow for this before posting a "Plot length" template in an article. I know that this has gotten away from the OPs discussion so if anyone wants to move it and respond that will be fine with me. MarnetteD | Talk 22:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This subject has come up before and as far as I can tell -- setting aside the numerous "this is my personal preference" -- there is one good reason I have noticed on either side: listing the cast member in the plot summary reminds a reader who already saw the film which character is referred to. Maybe others have an actual reason to prefer one or the other apart from a sort of aesthetic judgement. If so, I think it would be great to mention those reasons now. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

My reason for preferring inclusion has nothing to do with "aesthetic judgment" or "personal preference." It is that it is more useful to the reader. Whether you have seen Horrible Bosses or not, I think most people are going to identify the characters by the actor who played them, rather than the name of the character. As such, a plot summary that does not give the actor's names is going to be completely confusing to basically everybody. There is just no reason to force readers to scroll down to the cast list. Obviously, we should use common sense about this, but I think it's absolutely essential for any clear plot summary to do this. john k (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"It is that it is more useful to the reader.". Also can do without the backtalk in edit summaries because discussion here didn't cascade the way you thought it would John. If, again using Erik's Surf Ninjas, you were to include those cast members after each character name in the plot, are you honestly telling me you would know who the hell anyone but Leslie Neilsen and Rob Schneider are? No? Then how is that helping you understand the plot? Why is this General Chi a white old guy? What about an independent film or one containing unknown actors like Paranormal Activity? If you cannot understand a plot section without knowing what only famous members of the cast look like, then the plot section has not been written well. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

John, we're all trying to be "useful to the reader", but the inclusion of names in a plot section is something of a moot point on this topic. I've not seen any quantative evidence that the inclusion of names is useful to the majority of readers. While it will be for some, others find that the inclusion of names hinders reading and is a distraction from understanding the plot (which is, in the majority of films, unconnected to the identity of a particular actor in a particular role). To say that plot summaries without actor names "completely confusing to basically everybody" is just plain wrong, I'm afraid. A plot line can be followed quite easily without actors names, and indeed is actually more easy to understand without the superfluous detail. - SchroCat (talk) 07:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on the film. In some films, where none or very few of the actors are well known, it doesn't matter much. In films with a very small cast, it may not matter much, either. In iconic films (The Godfather, Star Wars, Casablanca), it may not matter much because most readers will already know who plays what character, even if they haven't seen the film. In a film like Horrible Bosses, I think it matters very much to know immediately which of the three main characters is played by Sudeikis, which by Bateman, and which by Day, and which supporting character is played by Spacey, which by Farrell, which by Foxx. This is not something that would be at all evident otherwise and, again, requires scrolling to make sense of what's going on. And in a movie like this, the character names are going to be absolutely meaningless, even for people who've actually seen the film. I don't see why there would possibly be an objection to clarifying this in the plot summary for films of this sort. john k (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

And just as another point of consideration, as we are to write plot summaries from an out-of-universe POV, adding the cast names does aid in that, reminding the user this is a filmed narrative, and not something made up. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean, "something made up"? Anyway, the article says it's a film, and the section is labeled Plot Summary, so this is not a very strong argument. However, I think SchroCat might miss the utility of including actor names in terms of understanding the story. As mentioned, knowing the casting gives some information about the identity of the character -- sex, race, age, and frequently type. So in those terms it is a shortcut and a valuable one. The cast box that Betty or Erik dreamed up has won me over, too, since it seems to satisfy the requirements of both camps pretty nicely. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Type? Just because some people are typecast does not mean that is a universal use, the rest again do not apply if you don't know who the person is. Who is playing a character is irrelevant to what that character does in the plot. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it's well-written then the actors names are not really needed to be able to understand the storyline. Having said that—and taking into account MarnetteD's comment on the text size—I am also in favour of including the cast list as a side box in with the plot section. I'm sure some others will prefer a separate section (not least for navigation reasons) but I like it. - SchroCat (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You seem to suggest that we should not recognize that almost every film engages in typecasting habitually and ubiquitously. The exceptions prove the rule. Word counts on summaries are tight, so this deft shortcut is the essence of good writing; the point is made for the reader with almost no effort. And it's not just to reference type for the reader, but also to remind them of who was who. That's not a trivial matter, since plot summaries are more likely read by those who have already seen the film. Why? Probably to refresh their memory. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I've had another go at the integrated cast box to accommodate Marnette's concerns. Obviously we shouldn't be overriding reader's browser settings if it affects readability. Color blindness is another concern too—blue text on a blue background isn't the finest stylistic decision in there. Here is a revised mock-up (although obviously the parenthesised names would come out). Betty Logan (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for working to make it readable for all eyes. Please forgive me but aesthetically I do not like the way this changes the page, but that is just me and I won't argue against it. I will raise this concern though - between the infobox, the lede, the plot section and the cast list box we will have linked some/most actors names four times within the first several inches at the top of the article - per WP:OVERLINK I think we need to cut back on one of those and I would suggest that it be the names in the plot section. MarnetteD | Talk 20:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the point is that if we go with the side cast box, then there is no need to have the names listed at all in the plot section, linked or unlinked. Have I read that right, Betty or Eric? - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I think there are no "right" answers to this. :) I personally think unlinked surnames are both helpful and minimally intrusive. At the same time, there will be films with such a big cast or new still-important characters that show up throughout the film (as opposed to a quartet easily ID'd in the first paragraph or so), so such use can fill up a summary. I would say a cast table in the plot summary can appropriately substitute any actors' names in prose. My only beef is that most film articles' lead sections are not long enough for a side cast table to be on the same eye-level as the plot summary. A topside cast table seems a little better for me, though it seems like we could hammer out a better design. For example, Fight Club#Casting has a cast table in that subsection under "Production" (so it's even further down than "normal"), but maybe it is better as a cast table with the plot summary, either side or top. On the other hand, I think Panic Room#Cast or Apt Pupil (film)#Cast have appropriately-located cast tables. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I also noticed that the cast section in some movies are removed from those articles, which it is should be kept there. Some of them is due to the editors' belief that they removed the non-notable cast members on those movies, while others for apparently no reason at all. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a problem, is it? It's a bold edit to remove, as much as it is to add the names and the MoS is flexible to accommodate either format. - SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It is at much consensus to keep the cast section in film articles. Adding the cast names in characters in plot summaries is not the problem with word characters in plot summaries and it shouldn't be a problem anyway. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Not really. The consensus is summed up by the MoS, which says that they can be included or left out. - SchroCat (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I concur. The Featured Articles Tender Mercies and Changeling do not have explicit "Cast" sections. Tender Mercies uses linked full names in the plot summary and has little identifying information in the "Casting" subsection, and Changeling mixes both unlinked surnames and linked full names (depending on previous mentions) and has more identifying information in its own "Casting" subsection. In retrospect, I would have encouraged the presence of cast lists because I think they are more beneficial in that form than just being embedded in prose. (Embedding is fine, but not as the sole presentation, in my opinion.) Lists for me are readily identifiable and navigable, which I think helps readers, even if it adds redundancy of names to an article. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

To clarify the above, the idea of having a cast table in the plot section is to eliminate the need for the parenthised names, since if they are parenthesised we wouldn't need a cast box. Obviously if you have one you don't need the other. The problem with Erik's Fight Club example is that moving the table to another section defeats the purpose of providing a cast reference in the plot and reintroduces the argument for adding parenthesised names. If there is a premium on space it could be made collapsible too. It's not the only solution to consider: cast names could be provided via a hoverbox in the plot and then presented in a more formal fashion in a proper Cast section (although the presence of a cast table also eliminates the need for those horrible "bare" cast sections some articles have). Basically as it stands now, we have a sort of RETAIN approach where we stick to whichever style the article has established, but it's hardly ideal since ultimately that means many articles will have the parenthesised notation that many readers don't like or they lack a feature that many readers find useful. Betty Logan (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

In base and generic films where a cast list is just that, there shouldn't be an issue removing the cast list entirely and integrating it into the plot IF all the relevant cast can be covered there. When the cast section is detailed and the names are linked elsewhere, being in the plot is unnecessary for all the reasons I've already stated, first and foremost of which is that who plays the character doesn't matter. I just read the plot for Now You See Me (sounds awful) and I have not seen it. Having the cast in there did not help me know who the hell it was talking about and just made it more confusing because I'm trying to remember as it goes on who played who, and finding it did not matter. The plot need give the narrative and nothing else, and I find it somewhat perturbing that while this discussion is ongoing with no consensus, John K found the need to go back to Horrible Bosses and put the cast back in there, modified or no. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Embedding actors in the plot summary is just one accepted approach. The Featured Article Atlantis: The Lost Empire is on the Main Page now with full names albeit unlinked. Betty, you mention applying the spirit of MOS:RETAIN, but I think that is best applied when there is equal validity. With cast members, there are going to be minor inconveniences and benefits (as I've said here). In the case of Horrible Bosses, I made the point that the tradeoff of including the names is worthwhile. One editor finds them useful, another editor does not. If it can be useful for some without being detrimental to others, is it a big deal? Erik (talk | contribs) 13:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't at all understand Darkwarriorblake's argument that "who plays the character doesn't matter." Obviously there are some movies where it doesn't matter much, but I'd say that for most mainstream movies, this is a fairly significant factor and that, for many movies, people tend to remember characters by the actor who plays them, rather than by their name. In, say, Reign of Fire, I remember the character as "Christian Bale's character" and "Matthew McConaughey's character," not as "Quinn Abercromby" and "Denton Van Zan". It is perverse to exclude from the plot summary the main way many people remember who its characters are, especially when there's no significant downside. john k (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Sometimes the best way to know which characters are by knowing which actor portrays them with the parentheses brackets on there and there is no problem with that. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Again John, you throw out statements claiming that the names are necessary with no evidence to support that stance. That you remember characters as "Christian Bale's character" is a testament to it being a bad character. Do you think that's James Earl Jones in the suit, or do you just remember Darth Vader? You might know Jones voiced him, who played him in the suit is utterly irrelevant, yet it does not detrimentally affect your understanding of the plot does it? Check and mate.

@ERIK, Prometheus (2012 film) (you massively broke that promotion with your move btw) has no cast in the plot and it is also a Featured Article. There is no MOS guideline one way or the other and so we default to the long standing version without a reason otherwise, and as long as John can only say "It's important because..." without backing it up, I don't see where that reason is. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a sign of a weak argument when the counterexample is a case where the actor wasn't visible. Conceding the point in all cases where we can see the actor's face? That's fine, then. So 99.99% of the time the actor's face is more memorable than the character. Actually, we normally remember the actor more readily than the character name and the exceptions are just that: exceptions. That's why it's nice to have the reminder at hand. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

How did you get that reasoning from my argument? The point is that it doesn't matter who is under the mask, only his role in the story, the plot section of that film not containing any cast links BTW and I have nothing to do with it. The point was that it clearly doesn't matter. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Which do you think is more common, characters like Darth Vader or characters like Denton Van Zan? Movies with "bad characters," as you put it, deserve to have effective summaries just as much as movies with "good characters." I don't think anybody would deny that there are some cases where the actor "doesn't matter". But the fact that your immediate example is of a character played simultaneously by two different actors, whose face is never seen, is a pretty bad place to start a generalization from. john k (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

So now we are picking and choosing which examples we want to accept? If there are cases where actors do not matter that kind of undermines your initial point that all readers need to know the actors to know what is going on. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Your example is accepted by all. Where the actor's face is hidden, it doesn't serve as a reminder to put the name in the summary. You have a convincing example for that case. But that is a minuscule part of the whole. Most of us do not know the names of the characters in a movie but we know the names of the actors. Quiz yourself on the last movie you saw. You'll remember more actor names than character names unless the actors' faces are not on screen. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The last movie I saw was Star Trek 2, so no, I don't remember the actors names more than the characters. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Another rare case where the characters are more famous than the actors. Makes my point precisely. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Ring, but that still doesn't cover how adding the names into the plot section adds to the understanding of the storyline. All you say about characters is true, but having a cast list gives exactly the same information as adding the names in the plot section. As I've noted below, this is something of an circular and endless argument where there is no right or wrong answer to how we do this: the inherent flexibility of the MoS is a rather practical addressing of this situation which covers all possibilities. - SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

No one made that claim, though. To be precise, the actors remind the reader (again, usually someone who's already seen the film) of who is who in the story. Anyway, the floating box is better. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

And it ignores the repeated argument that not everyone, by default, knows who every celebrity is. We don't all watch Arrested Development no matter how good you think it is, and we don't all know who Nick Bateman is, if that actually is his name I can't say with 100% certainty, so seeing his name in the plot doesn't help me much. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me what we are both saying is that if the actor is more famous than the character, the reminder is useful and otherwise not. I agree that for actors or less renouwn there is not much reminder value, but for the lead roles and starring actors there is. Is that what you, too, are driving at? If so, the rest is details. Famous faces are more memorable than character names. It's still true. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Both claims are anecdotal. Like I said earlier, this is a matter of minor inconveniences and benefits. I'm sure not all readers need actors' names in the plot summary, but surely a portion of them would benefit from it. The fact that it's an accepted practice in a portion of film articles reflects that. Readers who do not need the names can read past them; are they really inconvenienced by what may benefit others? I think that the tradeoff is in favor of including names. Are there any other editors here who favor excluding actors' names from plot summaries completely? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This is one of those circular and rather endless arguments which will never come to a happy end, which I think is why the MoS has such a variety of available options for the plot section. I find that reading a plot and coming across names to actually be a hindrance: the flow of reading and understanding is interrupted with superfluous details in a section that is supposed to be about a plot, not about the cast. I'll happily concede that I am probably in the minority on that point, but you should appreciate that there are people who do find them an inconvenience in the majority of cases. On the flip side there probably are some films which could benefit from the inclusion of the names, but I'm struggling to think of one on the spur of the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I could see a case made for dropping too many names, especially throughout the whole summary. For a case like Horrible Bosses, though, would it not be worth identifying the actors behind the main roles as we introduce them in the summary? I think the Reign of Fire example is a good one; readers may come to a film article remembering an actor having this particular role in the film and not recall the name, regardless of whether or not the film was good or bad or had good or bad characters. Maybe for Horrible Bosses we could try Betty's hover-text recommendation... Erik (talk | contribs) 18:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes it easier to know which actor who are playing those characters in the plot summary for those who haven't seen the movie in the article they are looking at. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I find a cast list works well for that too, and doesn't interfere with a clean reading of the plot. I've already said that I know I am in the minority, but there are divergent opinions on this endlessly back-and-forth discussion and the MoS is flexible enough to accept both sides, taking each on a case-by-case basis: I'm happy with the inherent flexibility in the MoS, as the "one-size-fits-all" mentality doesn't always come up with the best work. @Eric: yes, I am also in favour of Betty's "hoverbox" approach, which allows those who want to access the information, and those who don't to ignore it. - SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Another example, Monsters University. Every voice actor listed as "Voiced by castmember" in the plot, which offers no insight, you're reading text and teh person may either be using an alternate voicing style or, like most people, simply not have a distinct voice. What use is there in linking the cast in the plot in animated features? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Most actors don't have a distinct voice? False. Almost anyone can be identified by the sound of their voice. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion on film plot summaries

Let's talk about film plot summaries. It's about plot summaries for feature films that should be between 400 and 700 words. Some of the film articles that have that amount can be confusing and hard to understand at times, not to mention they block out some of the more plot points in some movies. We should increase the plot summary to 700 to 1000 words. The more words we get, the better for the plot summaries in each film article. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Poorly written plot summaries tend to be poor because editors sometimes try to provide too much detail. 400-700 words is basically one side of A4, and that is plenty for providiing a brief overview. If the British Film Institute can sum up Lawrence of Arabia in 800 words editors shouldn't have a problem doing the same for Iron Man 3. We make exceptions for films that have complex narrative structures, such as Pulp Fiction (3 plot strands) and Memento (2). Betty Logan (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Surely 800 words is between 700 and 1000 words, and not between 400 and 700 words. john k (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with increasing the word count for a film article's plot summary. Wikipedia's policy here says, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." "Concise" is the key word here. The point is that a summary is supposed to provide context for the real-world coverage in the article body. In a stub article, a full plot summary would actually be inappropriate if there is almost nothing else in the article. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Concise is the indeed key word, like you said. It's just that many film articles don't really have full plot summary to explain the overview from beginning to end of each film. That's kind of a problem at times. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide examples? Doniago (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Less is more definitely applies in this case. As an encyclopedia we are not here to give detailed plot descriptions. All to often the "this plot point is vital to the film" becomes a WP:POV situation. What is important to me will not be the same for the next viewer. Specific plot points can also get bogged down in a "This is my interpretation of what went on." I will never forget or forgive the person(s) who did the English subtitles for Subway as they tried to give explanations for what Luc Besson had deliberately left vague and mysterious. In a couple cases the translation was a complete 180 from what was said in French. While we might consider allowing a bit more than 700 words for films three and a half hours or longer there is no reason to increase the count for the average film. MarnetteD | Talk 22:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The foreign box-office gross number in Olympus Has Fallen

There's a problem. BOM hasn't been updating it's foreign box-office gross numbers total, as you will see it here. The site hasn't updated it's total foreign gross numbers since April 28, despite countries, like United Kingdom, Argentina, Mexico, Belgium, South Korea and such, update their numbers. You guys better take a look at the link and see what I mean. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone say what saying the BOM not updating foreign box-office gross numbers total in that movie? BattleshipMan (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You could probably use The Numbers instead, as it appears more updated. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I would use Boxoffice.com in this case now we have cleared it as a RS. If you add up the individual foreign grosses at Box Office Mojo it comes to about 56 million; The Numbers has the foreign gross down as 51.6 million, whereas Boxoffice.com has 56.5 million. In this case the Boxoffice.com total seems to be consistent with the individual grosses at Box Office Mojo (which are dated up to June 9. Betty Logan (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I set up boxoffice.com on the infobox of Olympus Has Fallen. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources for release date and length

What sources are typically used for the release date and length? Here's a handful of films where you can see inconsistencies between what Wikipedia and IMDB report.

	Released		Length
Film	Wikipedia	IMDB	WP	IMDB	Source
The Maltese Falcon (1941 film)	Oct 3, 1941	Oct 18, 1941	101	100	[2]
The Thin Man (film)	May 23, 1934	May 25, 1934	93	91	[3]
After the Thin Man	Dec 25, 1936	Dec 25, 1936	113	112	[4]
Shadow of the Thin Man	Nov 21, 1941	Nov 1941	97	97	[5]
The Thin Man Goes Home	Jan 25, 1945	Jan 1945	100	100	[6]
Song of the Thin Man	Aug 28, 1947	Sep 1947	86	86	[7]

Is IMDB regarded as a reliable source? None of the articles listed above provide sources for the release date or length. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You also need to dig down a layer on IMDB for the release date. For example, Shadow of the Thin Man shows as November 1941 on the frontpage, but on the release date page, it lists the Nov 21st date. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Marc Kupper, WP:RS/IMDb shows that IMDb is not regarded as a reliable source. It can be used as guidance, but in the case of release dates, it is always possible that there is an earlier date than the earliest one that IMDb reports. As for length, the difference is rather inconsequential. People measure films in different ways, and there could be the smallest of adjustments. If there is a major difference, it is worth investigating, and IMDb does not have context for why it reports a certain length. Other sources would need to be consulted. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The BBFC is often a good source for film lengths. In the case of non-digital film they even measure the film itself in feet, and also record if cuts were made. Provided there are no cuts (since we should ideally record the most "complete" original theatrical version) then the BBFC is my first port of call. With release dates, I must admit I am guilty of just grabbing the earliest date off IMDB despite its non-RS status since it is usually correct and non-controversial, but obviously if the date is challenged it needs to be sourced properly. Betty Logan (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

To be fair to IMDB, in the main their info about runtimes and release dates is pretty good. And as Betty said, anything that is disputed can be challenged and sourced elsewhere. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

IMDb's unreliability seems to me overplayed. Any and all reliable sources have some mistakes, but that doesn't make them completely unreliable. Wikipedia has a lot of mistakes, I have noticed. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Reliability and accuracy are different concepts on Wikipedia: IMDB is not reliable because it has minimal professional oversight, but it is fairly accurate for the most part, so I don't usually have a problem when non-controversial content obviously comes from it, like release dates, awards, company credits etc. Obviously it would be better if this information was cited to high quality sources, but at the same time I wouldn't want to see us lose a huge volume of mostly accurate non-controversial content simply on a technicality. Betty Logan (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Responding to the comment about running time, I've found IMDb to be not a good source for that. Running time are notoriously hard to find accurately since even reliable-source newspaper reviews will have different times. I've found the BBFC and such trade magazines as Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and Film Journal International to be higher-grade sources, and there's really no reason to turn to IMDb when all these are available. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I was hoping to discover there was a source that was generally used for film articles but not linked to. In the list above none of the articles have sources other than The Maltese Falcon. The remainder have external links to IMDB and sometimes AllRovi. AllRovi only reports the year of release. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Film Festivals and Film Markets

"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 date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings."

Do film markets like the American Film Market count as film festivals or sneak previews? The article for the movie Hunter Prey calls it a 2009 film because it premiered at the American Film Market in 2009. This doesn't seem right to me. And aren't film festival premieres just sneak previews of movies that usually get a DVD release later? 110.174.166.224 (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Changes to release and reception sections

The release section is outdated and bordering on superfluous. Few articles generate much information relating to a theatrical release and it is illogical for the otherwise fairly chronological flow of the articles to have Home Media before the reception of the film the Home Media is based upon. Box Office and Critical Reception/Response should be considered directly related, and their ordering should not be exact, as the importance of each is based on the film, for some Box Office performance will be more important than a fairly bland and one sided critical response. The Release and Reception sections should be merged unless ridiculously large and in those cases it is common to split the article anyway for things like accolades. The MOSFilm is not a hard and fast rule and cannot be directly applied to any and every film, but a Release section dedicated to sometimes one sentence of release information and then Home Media is pointless, and Home Media should not be above the response of the film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support – It is surprising to see MOSFILM ordered in this fashion. It makes no sense chronologically (or even in general organization) to place Home Media above box office and critical response. Although DVD releases are sometimes happening closer to the theatrical release than in the past, any significant or "notable" reactions to a film have been generated long before any home media release has occurred. Taroaldo ✉ 23:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support – It seems illogical to have the home-media releases listed before the box-office and critical reception of the theatrical release. Chronologically, it's no different than putting a "Sequel" section there. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• This is sort of what I had in mind when I asked if I could update these sections a while ago, but I never got around to it. I think these section headings are misread as being directly applicable to a film article. For example, I doubt anyone intended for "Home media" to be above reception-related sections. It is just that there is release-related detail that is not necessarily about reception, such as business details behind a film's distribution. I'm not sure how we can structure all the release and reception guidelines together; maybe we can say "Release and reception" in the section heading here but indicate that this is not necessarily what's used in a film article. Some film articles will have a direct "Release" section, some articles won't mention "Release" at all but separate content in other ways. Maybe we can change "Release" to "Release and reception", get rid of "Reception", and move "Home media" to the end of "Release and reception"? Is that what you had in mind? Erik (talk | contribs) 01:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I never noticed that the WP:FILM Manual of Style was formatted like this. Most of the film articles I already know of or come across, such as most of the good or featured film articles, have the Release section and then everything that comes with the release (such as Critical reception, Box office, Home media) after that...usually as a subsection of the Release section. It doesn't make sense to me either to have the Media section come before those other release aspects. Flyer22 (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that there could be something to say about reception for each form of release? Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seems that usually the variations in reception for each medium are limited or marginal. Would it make sense to let one Reception section handle all of that? --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• • The section can just be titled Release, as the Box Office/Reception/Premiere details are all applicable to it and Home Media can fall under that banner too. Accolades is a bit fluffier but it works well after the critical reception section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment Is MOSFILM really recommending article structure, or is it merely indicating content that should be included? I always assumed to the latter. Personally I don't think we should be micro-managing the actual writing of articles. If someone wants to structure an article chronologically (theatrical release/critical reception/box office/awards/home video) I'm fine with that; likewise if someone wants a thematic division (theatrical release/home video/TV etc) followed by reception (critical reception/box office/awards) I'm fine with that too, provided the article is internally consistent. I've seen both approaches work well. Sometimes circumstances dictate style, especially with older or "foreign" films where the release windows aren't as clearly defined and often overlap with other events, and we should allow for that. Maybe we should make clear that the ordering of the sections is left to editorial discretion. Betty Logan (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That would help as the exact strucuture of the article is being used as an argument against customized layout. But it still implies in its current state that Home Media belongs under Release and Release is a separate entity to Reception. So it could still use some tidying up int ath regard. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Well I've made a bold edit to point out that the MOS is not advising a specific structure, so it should clear that up provided it isn't reverted (no-one here agress that the stucture should be mandated as the MOS is currently ordered). I've turned the sub-sections into main sections too, so there isn't an implicit ordering. Generally I think chronological ordering is probably best for a big Hollywood film that has clear windows, but I would be against imposing that style on a film that maybe has theatrical run in its own country and then wins at Cannes and so on. Betty Logan (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I was going to put everything under a "Release and reception" section, but I think stand-alone sections works. I updated the "Release" paragraph, but it may be redundant to what Betty added under the "Primary content" section heading. One change I did try to make was changing "Box office" to "Theatrical run and box office", though I'm not sure if this is the best name. I wanted to find a way to make that sub-topic broader than just dollar figures. Thoughts on that? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

There's not always a lot you can do with BO sections. Fast Five had tonnes of detail at the time, while Fast & Furious 6 broke the previous film's records but didn't receive anywhere near the same kind of coverage and so its a lot more bare. Dredd has some more info because there was commentary on why it failed despite its critical response and now-cult following, but still not overall a lot of coverage available beyond base figures. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking that "Theatrical run" is one level higher than just "Box office". Details would include distribution deals, changes in release dates or number of theaters. American Beauty (film)#Theatrical run and Valkyrie (film)#Theatrical run are a couple of examples with non-box office detail. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

One thing about the new layout is that, per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, I hope that editors don't start creating small sections for the audience response. With regard to audience response, there usually isn't much to state about it besides what is shown on Rotten Tomatoes or CinemaScore and we don't need a separate section for a single sentence, or a few sentences, about it. It should generally go in the Critical reception section, just like we've always been doing. I'm also still prone to have the Critical reception, Box office, and Home media sections as subsections of the Release section. After all, it's all an aspect of "release," and the order of the layout doesn't mean that the order cannot happen with one or more sections as subsections of another. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• We can't really leave anything to be assumed because that is the way content disputes and edit wars start. My observations of the MOS indicate that it is normally staunchly applied. One example I have cited is the case of Numb3rs which used that title for many years. However in June 2013, it was suddenly moved to Numbers (TV series) based on the MOS [8]. In several discussions I have encountered, MOS:TM is vigorously enforced, and it does make sense to apply the MOS consistently so that Wikipedia doesn't look any more disorganised than it already is. Therefore, we shouldn't be "assuming that MOSFILM merely indicates content that should be included" rather than "recommending article structure". Instead we should fix it, per the above discussion. -- Taroaldo ✉ 23:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree on at least providing a suggested layout. Indetermination creates unnecessarily hard to solve situations when someone performs a change and there isn't a clear argument either way. Being a suggestion, if the time came when a certain film required a different structure, given a valid reason for it it could be overruled. --uKER (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that the Audience response section of the Manual of Style existed before Betty's changes. Though its existence clearly has not caused people to create an Audience response section to any wide degree, similarly to how the existence of the Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics section has not (from what I have seen) caused people to create a section specifically devoted to that, I feel that the Audience response section should be formatted again as part of the Critical response section; it's an aspect of critical response, and having it continue as a subsection of that in the Manual of Style can only help ensure that an individual Audience response section is not unnecessarily created. Flyer22 (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree about providing a "suggested layout" because then we are abritrarily promoting one structure above another for no good reason. It's not the purpose of the MOS to say it's "our way or the highway", but to provide qualitative advice on good and poor editing practises. Let's take a random sample of FA rated articles, which all have completely natural and intuitive structures. American Beauty (film), Casino Royale (2006 film), Manhunter (film) and The Human Centipede (First Sequence) all have separate release sections that fully document the release windows i.e. theatrical run/home video followed by a separate reception section. Films like Little Miss Sunshine, Prometheus (2012 film), Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Transformers (film) document the film chronologically i.e. release, reviews, box office, awards, home video etc. Then you have articles like Jaws (film) that mix the two approaches. Sometimes articles will have the box office in the reception section rather than the release section. Other articles will have a separate section for awards rather than covering it in the reception section. These are all acceptable stylistic choices. I'm happy to leave structural decisions to the principal editors on these articles, but maybe what we can do is offer a few example layouts from featured articles to show an array of acceptable formats. Betty Logan (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Review aggregators and their publishers

Original request, along with some more discussion/reasoning, at Template_talk:Rotten_Tomatoes_score#Publisher

Template does not include that the work Rotten Tomatoes is published by Flixster/Warner Bros. (Before being taken over by Flixster it was published by IGN/News Corp.)
I think the publisher is important, we have no way of knowing if they are biased one way or the other but it certainly makes me a little bit more cautious when Warner Bros. films get good Rotten Tomatoes scores. -- 109.77.63.102 (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about this, so I'd like to ask for the opinions of those at MOSFILM—should publisher information be included in citations to review aggregators? I haven't really seen this done in the past (although RED 2 (film) was given as an example by 109.77), but if it should be included, I'll be happy to update {{Rotten Tomatoes score}} to include publisher information. Theopolisme (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I prefer to include the publisher when the work is not a feasible blue link. For example, if I reference a film festival website, I would do something like siff.net (the domain) for the work and Seattle International Film Festival for the publisher. For Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, I think the publisher is not a necessary detail. Others may want to include it, but I think it is extraneous. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Generally I agree that it is superfluous in most cases, but if there is a perceived "conflict of interest" that isn't obvious from the name of the work then it may be desirable to make it transparent. Betty Logan (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Plot section - exclude alternate endings

Can we add something like

The Plot section should stick to what's seen in the film. Alternate endings don't belong here.

to the WP:Filmplot MOS guideline? There is an editor at V/H/S who is insisting on putting such into the main plot section because it's a DVD extra feature. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Support Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that they don't belong there, though I wouldn't use that precise wording. DonIago (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That's what I said in my now reverted edit summary. I had hoped the MOS here would back me up. Feel free to give us a new draft, as long as it gets the job done. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Very off the top of my head... "The Plot section is intended to describe the events of the film as released to theaters. Discussion of alternate versions of the film is better suited to other sections of the film's article and should be appropriately sourced so that readers can determine where information regarding such versions originated." DonIago (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems a little wordy, and my problem at V/H/S was not a discussion, but simply putting in an alternate ending in the Plot section, which I'd like to directly discourage. But if others agree with this version, I'll join in. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It is wordy, but I was having some trouble figuring out how to break the second sentence. Anyway, in this case "discussion" is implicitly intended to include describing them. I'm hoping that would be sufficiently clear to avoid argument, especially in conjunction with the first sentence. Anyway, thanks for the provisional support...let's see what others have to say. DonIago (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

No action here in two days. I think this is rather uncontroversial. Since no one has objected, can we put in

The Plot section is intended to describe the events of the film's original release version. Alternate versions do not belong here, but may be described in other sections if appropriately sourced.

It's a less wordy hybrid of our two versions. IMO the last third is not necessary, since we're talking about the Plot section. If you want to tweak it, feel free, but let's get this done. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Even slightly less wordy: "The Plot section describes the events of the original release. Alternate versions on home media or elsewhere may be described in other sections if appropriately sourced." --Tenebrae (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Spot on, Tenebrae. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, support what Tenebrae has written. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound pedantic, and it probably wouldn't come up anyway, but is it possible that there could be a difference between the "original release" and the "theatrical release"? DonIago (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You're not being pedantic: You're absolutely right. I'd thought of this and wasn't sure how to address it, since in some rare cases movies have been rereleased theatrically with changes for censorship and the like. There are a couple of instances of movies being released to the public for a brief exclusive run at Radio City Music Hall, and then a shorter version going into general release. I guess there are a couple of ways we could address these rare cases. Maybe say "original general release" in the first sentence and "on home media or theatrical rerelease may be..." in the second? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that alternate endings should not be added in plot sections at the film articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, the latest version would be

The Plot section describes the events of the original general release. Alternate versions on home media or theatrical re-release may be described in other sections if appropriately sourced.

It looks like this works best given that many films now don't get a theatrical release, or it comes after a VOD release. That's why I earlier took out as released to theaters. We now have seven for the principle of this addition to the guideline, and none against it. I propose we put in this last draft. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No further comment here a day later, so I will exercise a bold edit and put the last version in the guideline. Thanks to those who helped hone the draft. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Cast sections in film articles

We need to have cast sections in film articles as a general consensus for all film articles, regardless of how trivial that it might be to some editors. Some editors keep on deleting based on good faith & such and there are so many film articles that have cast sections. There are a few films that are featured articles have cast sections. If the general consensus is reached for the cast sections, I think we should do with them is to have brief character descriptions and make sure we get a reliable source regarding their casting. This was discussed in WP:FILM at this. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It's already mentioned on the MOS, in the cast section. Some articles benefit from cast sections, others do not. Many horror films have only a small number of cast members and don't need an entire section devoted to just a cast list. As for "brief character descriptions", that just leads to plot info in other areas of the article other than the plot. It should always be a case-by-case basis, not a blanket "you must have this" for articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware on what it says about the cast sections on MOS. I just think it should be a general consensus to have cast sections on all film articles, regardless on how trivial and redundant some editors see it. I just think we should only list actors who are known and have important lead and supporting roles, as well as make sure we can find reliable sources for them and put it on cast sections. We should probably also have brief character descriptions and keep it concise at best. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You kind of restated what you already said above. I get that, but you cannot say you must have a section in an article, when not all film articles would support the need for that section. I get that having people just blanket remove sections is annoying (and probably wrong), but not all film articles need a cast section. Again, horror films don't really need them. Most horror films have about 5 characters, and there isn't a real need to have a section for that considering you'll cover who the character is in the plot section and any casting information in the production section. You're unlikely to find consensus to change the MOS to force cast sections into every film article. You're free to try, but I don't believe there will be a consensus for such a change. Especially since we've had a discussion about cast lists just a few months ago.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This is running at odds with other threads recently where the sentiment has been expressed that cast members don't belong in plot summaries. These matters are conventional, it seems, so there is little point in claiming one method is better than another. Personally, I favor cast sections for all films, even if the cast is small. Why? Well, if the cast is small, we show the reader with the small cast section. Otherwise, it might look like it's missing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The use of actor names in the plot summary has been discussed, but what did I say? I said that their character descriptions will be taken care of in the plot section. I didn't say anything about the cast. IMDb keeps cast lists, we collection more detailed information. How that is presented is different for every film. Ring, you've been around long enough to know this, you're not going to get an MOS that says a section MUST be presented in a certain way. We don't do that for any other section of a film article, why would we do that just for cast sections?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

But that's not correct. More characters are covered in the cast list than in the summary, and a character summary is not the same information as you find in a plot summary about the character. At least, it is completely permissible to do so as long as the cast list doubles as a place to discuss casting issues and process. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I really wish you wouldn't pick and choose what you read from my comments. That has always annoyed me. So, allow me to reiterate what I have said in summary. Not all films are the same. Some films have large casts, some have very small casts. Horror films typically have very small casts as an example, as do a lot of independent films (others have very large casts, both primary and secondary, and fall into what you're referring to). Not every film lends itself to the need to have an entire section devoted to the cast itself (we don't necessarily need a section for 5 actors/characters, but at the same time it might be more prudent to do so when you have 10 characters that are the primary cast...just an example). Again, we've never mandated the inclusion of any section, nor mandated how a section must look. Hence why the current iteration of the MOS provides multiple ways of identifying the cast of a film. There is no one way, nor will you ever get agreement to mandate any one way (because we don't do that for anything else). In conclusion, if the general consensus on a particular film page is not to have a cast section, but present it in a different way, then that is the way it will be. If the consensus is that that film's cast should have a section and be presented in a manner that is efficient to the information that has been attained, then that is what it will be.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

All you've added to your mistake is a personal attack for no reason. I will assume that unfortunate breach of etiquette has exactly as much validity as the mistake you're repeating. Your mistake (for your benefit): you claim that character descriptions in the plot summary are a functional substitute for those in the cast list. However, the two are different, as I said. Also, you seem to claim that I said something should be mandated. Wrong again. So since you are just plain getting it wrong and trying to defend your position with a personal attack, let's just assume that's always how it is. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Um, asking you not to pick and choose what you read of my comments is not a personal attack. You may want to brush up on WP:NPA to see what personal attacks are. Telling people that they are wrong for their opinion is far closer to a personal attack than telling someone they don't like it when their words are not clearly stated back to them. As usual, when you meet someone that disagrees with you, you tend to try and insult their intelligence. BattleshipMan is asking that the MOS say that they have to be there....that's kind of a mandation. Your support of that would indicate that you want the MOS to say that as well. Otherwise, why ask at all when the MOS says they can if it's necessary. As for character descriptions, why would the description not be in the plot as well? I cannot imagine how the plot would not identify Character Y as the boyfriend/girlfriend/mother/father/lawyer/fighter pilot/etc. of the film. If it's not in the plot then why is it somewhere else?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright, settle down. Both of you. Let's try to be a little more civilized on this issue. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll echo Bignole here—there is no reason to mandate the existence or presentation of a section, especially one which is not always useful or necessary. If an article needs one or would benefit from it, its principal editors can add it; if it's unnecessary (and it often is) they shouldn't be forced to do so. It's that simple. GRAPPLE X 03:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully agree with Bignole. While I'm not in favor of having actors' names in plot sections generally — since they can add to word-bloat that takes a plot to over 700 words, and since they're redundant with a cast section — I can see how for films with a small number of characters, such as My Dinner with Andre, including the actors' names would be a more elegant solution than a separate cast section. The thing with film is that it's so varied that hard-and-fast, one-size-fits-all rules are problematic. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Stricter Box office guidelines

I'd like to suggest some improvements to the Box Office section. I think readers and editors need a bit more advice on this. I draw your attention to an article in Forbes magazine: "For newbies, a film generally has to make twice its budget back to break even, give or take marketing costs and/or afterlife on various home video formats." [9] Similarly an article in The Economist explains that production budgets of large tentpole films are only part of the cost of a film: They often cost $200m to make and another $50m-100m to market. [10] This echoes echo's the earlier rule of thumb that a film needs to make almost double to break even.

So you may not agree with this rule of thumb or you may feel this is already obvious (I'll try and find more sources saying similar things), or find it too crude a measure but I hope you can agree that a film costs more than you might think and there is a need for great care in how the box office information is presented. The way most articles simply present the box office gross and the production budget without much commentary or insight from reliable sources, makes it very easy for readers to infer a film did okay if it made more than the production budget. In some cases editors also make this jump and draw conclusions about the success (or failure) of a film based on the numbers rather than getting sources, and I'm hoping if the wording of the Box Office section was a bit more explicit it might discourage some editors from drawing these conclusions. (Unfortunately I feel there is little we can do to stop readers drawing the wrong conclusions if an article presents only the bare numbers.)

(There are other issues such as how the box office gross gets divided up amongst, the theaters, distributors, studios, etc. and there is Hollywood accounting and even outright fraud which show the need to be very cautious and skeptical, but to keep the discussion simple lets leave those aside.) What I'd like to see a short explanation or warning in the Box Office section of the guidelines that a film has many more costs than just the production budget and that editors should be careful not to draw any conclusions and instead try to stick to commentary from reliable sources. -- 17:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.24.155 (talk)

Everything you say is true of course, but WP:Original research already really covers this, so if I found articles making those kinds of assumptions I would remove them on those grounds. We are very limited in what we can do on film articles: we can often source the box office gross and the budget, but marketing costs are much more difficult to track down except for tentpoles and home video/TV/merchandise income is virtually impossible to find. No-one should be saying "this film made its money back" or "this film was a financial success" unless there are sources explicitly drawing those conclusions, like this source for Waterworld. The guideline does currently state "Determine a consensus from objective (retrospective if possible) sources about how a film performed and why", although we could append to that something like "...and don't draw your own conclusions as to whether a film was a financial success or failure". Betty Logan (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I was very cautious because the sources I had described the big budget tentpole films. I do agree with you but I hope to find a consensus so that editors will be a bit more strict and careful about their comments. -- 109.78.24.155 (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me point out two things - in Hollywood it's generally assumed a film has to make three times its budget to become profitable. That could be because of Hollywood bookkeeping. And subjectivity is prevalent among RS. Journalists for sources considered reliable often make up their own assessments about the success or failure of a film, and often get it wrong, even disagreeing with each other. Waterworld is an example - while it did go over budget it was not a huge money loser, as most report. In fact it may have made a profit. I've seen many films that broke even called bombs and vice versa. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the 3x rule of thumb comes from adding in marketing: 100 million for the budget, 50 million for marketing, and a film has to earn two dollars for every dollar spent (due to the split with the exhibitor), so a $100 million film probably has to make 300 million at the box office to break even. Obviously though, not making back your costs from box office doesn't make a film unsuccessful because it can recoup its costs from video and TV etc, and a film can end up making more from those revenue streams than what it did at the box office. Source propriety depends exactly on what they say (a detailed financial breakdown is valid, an opinion piece with no objective facts to back up its claim probably isn't), but what we really want to avoid is the type of conclusions we get where a film is hailed a success by Wikipedia editors simply because its box office gross is higher than its production budget. Betty Logan (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The 3x rule is supposed to cover everything, but I don't think it's true for every film. It's more applicable for would-be blockbusters. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The IP editor in question has been obsessively labeling certain films "flops" based off finding one or two sources, some not really reliable, that say this much and often these sources say it in a trivial or indirect manner. As indicated above, the IP seems to be doing this out of an ORish intent to push the "truth" about a film. I do not feel that is the appropriate way to approach such articles. Editors are not supposed to be driven by a desire to pick winners and losers or stretch sources to find labels one can attach to a subject. Highly subjective terms such as "flop" should only be inserted as factual claims with caution and authoritative backing from a majority of reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I've heard "double the budget" for many years, and never three times the budget, which someone pointed out here without citation (unlike the initial editor, who posted two citations for his point). This additional cost over budget is called "P&A," for "prints and advertising." Given that expensive — and expensive to transport — prints are virtually no longer used and films are simply downloaded digitally by theaters, I'm not sure if even double the budget still works as a rule of thumb for profitability, or whether advertising costs have gone up enough to offset whatever savings there may have been from no longer striking and shipping prints. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

You can't really judge these things off box office figures and budgets, they bear very little reality to the income and costs of a film. Unless a source presents comprehensive commercial analysis that takes account of all costs and revenue streams (like the Waterworld example above where the source provides exact figures) then we should refrain from sweeping statements like "hit" and "flop" and other media hyperbole. We are an encyclopedia, we are supprosed to documents facts, not soundbites and rumor. If anyone is really interested in studio economics, then I guide you to the very illuminating LA Times article about Sahara which had its accounts court audited in a Hollywood accounting trial. Betty Logan (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Not disagreeing with you — just trying to nip some misinformation about industry rule-of-thumb for purposes of this discussion. I agree: In all but egregious, well-documented cases, we stay away from such unquantifiable terms as "flop" and "hit" and just give the plain numerical figures.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

There's the problem again, most of us here are aware of the difficulties, but for others who are not familiar with the topic and not skeptical enough, then presenting only the bare figures often gives a false impression that a film is more successful than it really is. (To counter this, if possible I try to include the reports from Box office mojo that say if a film met studio expectations.)

I was thinking it was okay to call a film a flop if there is a source that says so, just so long as it is not original research but from the discussion I get the impression the consensus leans more to not saying hit or flop in any situation? -- 109.77.231.70 (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I am glad that some (most?) of you see the difficulty of Box office sections. It is a complicated subject. I hope we can come to a consensus and the wording can be made a bit more strict. I thank you for not rejecting my opinion because I choose not to have a username.
I accept in a few recent edits I may have overstepped a bit (and I do not have a fixed address), that is why I am here trying to establish a proper broader point instead of arguing over small details or getting into arguments about personality or reputation. (I used the term "flop" with reference to specific articles only but I'm not linking to those because I'm trying to make a broader point here.)
I feel strongly enough about this point of principle that I sincerely want to avoid getting into discussions about films from 2013 and instead I hope to get better guidelines that will lead to less arguments and more consensus in future. -- 109.78.24.155 (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

This discussion (especially the twice the budget rule of thumb) seems to have been hammered out in great detail already in existing articles [[11]] that are quite happy to call films a bomb based on a mathematical algorithm. I still think it would be good to tighten up the Box Office section but an existing de facto consensus might make that less simple. Maybe we can agree on an extra line that emphasizes the need to avoid orginal research so where the article now says

Determine a consensus from objective (retrospective if possible) sources about how a film performed and why.

It might be changed to include

and why, but avoid drawing any conclusions about the success or failure of the film, except with sources.

Since that other editor brought it I feel I should explain, and I do not like personal claims that I was doing something "obsessively" although the revert war was regrettable. My edits were an escalating reaction to an odd edit by an anonIP to the The Host (film) claiming a film was a "moderate success" because it made a small amount more than the budget, which a certain editor restored several times. In hindsight I should have gotten a 3rd opinion sooner and been more neutral in language and simply said "Forbes magazine called it a flop" and otherwise handled it differently, but that is besides the point, I'm hoping the guidelines can be improved to avoid that first seemingly reasonable claim of "moderate success" in future. -- 109.77.113.86 (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable amendment so I have added it in. I tweaked it slightly because we only need to mention sources once. If it is reverted then we can have a more comprehensive discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm pleased with that addition, hopefully it will help steer editors on the right course. (I'd like to add more but it might add too much to a relatively short section so this seems about right for now, unless people continue to see a lot of the same problems.) -- 109.76.241.16 (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem with dividing columns in Cast sections

I got a problem with dividing columns on cast sections in film articles. It can cause confusion on many English readers. The first billed actor is listed on the left side while the second billed actor is listed down on the second part left side, but there they should have it in the first right side of the column, not the second left part of the column. It doesn't matter if it helps with length, it causes problems on many readers, regardless of what others may say about it. It's either we changed the order of the columns and we don't use them in cast sections. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you read columns, but when used in this situation, I read them column to column, not row to row. So in that case, going first billed on the left, followed by second billed below it, is fine and not an issue. Columns aren't meant for the top to be where read first. Columns are used to divide content to unused space next to the first set of text. So unless used with different headings, I believe it is understood that the text reads top down, shift to the right and repeat. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Favre1fan93. This seems like creating a problem where there isn't one. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Same here. It's pretty much accepted that in the English language you read down the columns. Could that be an issue for second language readers? Possibly, but I don't see the point in serving up a solution that hasn't been asked for. Betty Logan (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Are we talking about screen readers here? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

BattleshipMan, I agree with everyone else. It's simply not a problem. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The columns are to help utilize empty space, ideally it should be in prose form but for a lot of films there just isn't the information available and the columns serve better than a long list of literal "name" as "name" without even a basic description. I agree with the others in that traditionally I would expect to read columns down not side to side. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Your screen is not my screen. I'm not entirely pleased by the amount of style and formatting markup that is include in wikisource but I don't have enough concrete examples to weigh in on the side of BattleshipMan. (Lots of deletionists seem to dislike cast section and remove it. Good WP:PROSE instead of lists is the the real answer, and avoids minor layout details). One specific complaint I do have about the layout is when users with large screens specify the more than 2 columns (this does seem to be happening less often thankfully, most people specify columns and let things flow automatically) which might look okay on a large screen but looks terrible on smaller displays, and it looks more symmetric and aesthetically pleasing if the cast and the References list have the same number of columns. -- 109.76.48.95 (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

No-one should really be specifying the exact number of columns, that should be left to the browser to determine. If you take The Ten Commandments (1956 film)#Cast for instance, the cast takes up one column on resolutions up to 640, two columns at 768 & 800, with three columns kicking in at 1024. Betty Logan (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad we are in agreement on that at least. I don't see it often, most articles are quickly fixed to use the markup you mention. -- 109.76.48.95 (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggest minor change to WP:FILMPLOT

As anyone who edits film articles on a regular basis can attest, the "film plot" sections in these articles tend to become overburdened with too many details, usually through scene-by-scene decriptions of the films action. With thousands of film articles on Wikipedia, its easy for some well meaning fan to continue to add their favorite scenes time and time again, even if the scene isn't really that important to the overall plot. Additionally short films of about an hour and half in lenghth tend to have their plot sections far too bloated for the lenghth of the film. The 400-700word limit was a good start, but far too often editors interpret that to mean that every films plot summary should be 700 words exactly, and if it goes over a little, its ok. Well it shouldn't be ok. A 98 minute film such as The Croods, currently at 981 words shouldn't have a plot summery longer than the 194 minute Titanic (1997 film), currently at 863 words. It just shouln't happen that way, but according to the current wording of the MOS, its ok that the plot summery for both article's can be the same lenghth as long as they are under 700 words. Of course both are not under 700 words and even if they were both cut to under 700 words, "The Croods" would still have the same length plot summery as "Titanic", despite "Titanic" being a much longer film. I suggest that instead of having some "blanket" 400-700 word limit, which everyone pretty much ignores anyway, we create an easy algorithm based on the films lenghth. Basically stating that the plot summery should contain about 150 words per one half hour of film time. So a film such as "The Croods" would have a plot summery closer to 450-500 words, while "Titanic", which is nearly 3 and a half hours in lenghth would be able to expand its plot summery to about 1000-1050 words. This so that a short films plot section does not give undue weight over a longer films plot section.JOJ ^Hutton 20:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think simply length should be the indicator. There can be a very straightforward, easy to explain movie that runs for the same time as a really convoluted one, and I think it's natural to expect the plot summary for the first to be significantly shorter than the second. That said, I didn't see The Croods, but I can understand that Titanic, even as long as it is, doesn't take much to explain. --uKER (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sold on the idea that runtime corresponds to optimum summary length. However, it is sort of facile to say that Titanic's plot doesn't require a lot of space. In fact, it's a multilayered story with a large cast and a framing device and historical and a long film -- several things that would seem to imply the summary would benefit from more length. So it's kind of backward to think the summary does the job at the same length as the summary for say Coyote Ugly. It's not an easy one. There's not a consensus about what the summary is supposed to accomplish, though, so it can't be fixed. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

If we don't hold the line on length, we absolutely will wind up with countless 1,000- to 1,5000-word plot summaries. As a journalist for well over 30 years I can tell you with complete certainty that virtually any movie can be well described in 700 words or less. Longer writing isn't better or more comprehensive writing — it's just longer and not as tightly written. The MOS already makes a limited exception for particularly long or narratively complicated films; it uses the example of Pulp Fiction. Otherwise, it doesn't take that much discipline to write tightly and succinctly. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Give me any film with a singular narrative and I could bring it in below the lower limit! I agree with most of the above: a 90 minute David Mamet film may require more exposition than a 2.5 hour Iron Man movie so I would be against something so prescriptive, especially a specification that would require us to increase the perfectly adequate Titanic synopsis by a couple of hundred words. To be fair, we don't zealously impose the limit anyway, and it's not unusual for plot summaries to go a couple of hundred words over the limit, so if we allow for 1000 word plot summaries we will end up with 1300 word summaries. What we are basically saying is that ideally we would like the plot summarised on one side of A4 because readers don't want to read an essay. Betty Logan (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I agree with Ring Cinema that Cameron's 1997 Titanic is not a plot to insist on keeping at or below 700 words. I see that you are now working on that Plot section, but that Plot section has been extensively worked out (as the hidden note at the top of that section makes clear); we took out most of the unnecessary things. It also had recent cuts by two different editors before your latest cuts to it and they didn't cut much because there was not much to cut. It's already at the point that it's sufficient without losing important context. Your edits there are significantly fine/small thus far. But this edit concerns me because Cal is not indifferent; he is actually initially concerned and is indifferent to Jack's actions after learning that Jack was not trying to rape Rose. Flyer22 (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Small edits are exactly right: I wanted to demonstrate that by tightening up wordy phrasing, we can say the same thing in fewer words. And doing so took it from 854 to 730, a nearly 120-word difference without materially affecting the plot.

RE: "Cal is not indifferent; he is actually initially concerned and is indifferent to Jack's actions after learning that Jack was not trying to rape Rose." As the diff you helpfully provided shows, the plot when I got to it read "Cal is at first indifferent to Jack's actions." So that's what was there already. If Cal was initially concerned, that's fine and we can word it that way — but that's not what it it said when I got there. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about that (the Cal thing), Tenebrae. And the small-edits-that-significantly-reduce-the-plot approach was employed during this batch of cuts (those are the cuts by the first of the two editors I mentioned above). And this, this and this edit show the other editor I was speaking of. Regarding your first edit to the Titanic Plot section, wasn't the film set in 1996? After all, it came out in 1997. So unless it was set in 1996, it makes no sense for 1996 to have been mentioned. Remember, the film emphasizes that Rose is 100 and that she boarded the Titanic in 1912. That's why Ring Cinema added "1996" back before you reverted him. Regarding this edit, you asked: "Does a play-by-play of the exact degrees and angle of the sinking really add to our understanding of the plot?" My reply is: "Cameron felt that it does, which is why the beginning of the film goes into detail about how the ship sank. One of the major points is that it didn't sink like ships normally sink." The sinking aspect is also discussed in the Effects section. Flyer22 (talk) 06:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't find much of value in Tenebrae's grandiosity because it misses the point: any movie can be summarized in one sentence if that is the assignment. The thing to keep in mind is what we offer the readers, which is why I mentioned above the bit about the purpose of the summary. One important purpose of the plot summary is to make comprehensible the rest of the article; for that they might need to know or be reminded of the content of the film. I think there are other reasons why we include a plot summary but they are not articulated and certainly not agreed on. It might be something to consider in this context. I think in practice the main purpose of the plot summary is to remind those who have seen the film what happened in it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry you find mention of good writing "grandiose." As it happens, by making nothing more than grammatical fixes; saying the same things with fewer words; and in a couple of instances condensing in a way that didn't change a single pertinent plot detail, I've trimmed the Titanic film article from 854 words to 730 — and I've explained every single edit, one by one, in the edit summaries. I usually get well paid for teaching editing, so I hope you don't find it "grandiose" that I've offered a mini-course for free. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You didn't say anything about good writing, so I'm sorry to correct you on that. As it happens, using fewer words is not always better. Like, there are those cases where you want to be clear. It's really strange that someone who claims to be a good editor would be tone deaf to the nuances of language, but since you said it's not grandiose it must be something else. In any event, you haven't taken up the important question, which has to do with the purpose of the summary. Shortening the summary is not its purpose but it's all you've offered. I'm sure you'll be happy to cover my invoice when it arrives. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Starting with calling me "grandiose" simply for giving an educated opinion, you've really behaved like a horse's ass: Sarcastic, needlessly abrasive and also prone to saying odd things, such as that being clear means writing more words. In virtually all cases, it's clearer when a writer uses very precise language rather than something muddled and overwritten. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

What a strange comment. Are you not accustomed to getting as good as you give? If you want me to find your opinion educated, I'd invite you to comment on the connection between the purpose of the plot summary and the best guidelines to effect that. That's the meat of the matter and you've said nothing about it. (Note: I didn't say that being clear means using more words; just the obvious point that if you use too few words, you might fail to be clear.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing strange at all: You gratuitously took a personal swipe at me that didn't address the substance of my post but simply name-called. Did my original post insult you personally? No. So I fail to see the need for your getting sarcastic and nasty.

In any event, all this opened up a good dialog, and despite our differences, we've all now seen techniques for harmless, surgical ways of trimming excess wordage — removing unnecessary "that"s, changing passive voice to active voice, and, among other examples, one very nice edit by Ring Cinema, removing an "Afterward" that wasn't needed in this instance since the narrative is moving chronologically: Everything that happens next is "afterward." Very sharp observation, and I sincerely compliment him. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

If we're discussing the word count in general I see nothing wrong with the current 400-700 guideline. If we're discussing Titanic specifically then I just went through and made some trims to it and see no reason why the summary can't be under 700 words; it's now at 691. For those who feel it should be longer, I'd be curious as to what they feel must be added. DonIago (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

And may I compliment you on your astute edits: for instance, the compact "safe containing a drawing" rather than "a safe with a drawing inside." I caught a lot of things bringing it down 120 words, and you and others caught even more. Regardless of a little flareup between myself and Ring Cinema, which I assume and hope is over, this has been a truly collaborative experience, which to me is Wikipedia at its best. I'm proud to have worked with you both and with Flyer22 on the actual article edits, and with all the rest of my colleagues here. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the summary was subsequently pushed over 700 words again, and my efforts to keep it in compliance were repeatedly undone. I've given up for the time-being and tagged the article accordingly as well as started a Talk page discussion. If editors aren't comfortable with the trims I made to bring the article into compliance, perhaps they can make some of their own. DonIago (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't give up. I urge you to stay at the Titanic article during this time of active editing. Forward progress often involves much back-and-forth. I believe we're all on the right track. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I'm reserving further Titanic-specific comments for the article's Talk page and my own Talk page for the time-being as I think it may be off-topic here. DonIago (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of plot length, the one for Finding Nemo is extremely out of control. Minutes ago (and I'm not watching that article; still haven't even seen that film yet), I reverted an IP who removed a lot of that material. I reverted mainly because the typo the IP added signaled to me that he or she may have been testing whether or not Wikipedia can be edited or that he or she was committing vandalism. But the typo may have been an accident and it is likely that the IP was trying to help, which I noted on the IP's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll see if I can take a stab at that one later today. If you haven't seen any edits by me 24 hours from now, feel free to poke me at my Talk page; butchering trimming plot summaries is, I like to think, one of my strengths. DonIago (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Doniago. And for the humor as well. Flyer22 (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Ditto! --Tenebrae (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Lost films and tense

From WP:FILMLEAD, "References to the film should be in the present tense since, even though no longer in theaters, the film presumably still exists." What's the MOS guidance for cases where the film is reasonably believed to be lost? Present tense for consistency or past tense because the presumption no longer holds? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

And frankly, the question applies to more than the lead. Do we discuss films in the past tense if they are no longer believed to exist? What if they no longer functionally exist -- and where is the threshold? There's only ~40 seconds of Cleopatra (1917 film), ~17 seconds of The Queen of Sheba (film), and so forth. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This may help clarify: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 47#Was it or Is it?. Betty Logan (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly the discussion I'd failed to search for. Thanks! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome! There are so many project and guideline pages on Wikipedia it is sometimes a bit like searching for a needle in a haystack. You shouldn't have to search through archives though, this is something that should be explicit in the MOS, so I will propose a revision at the Film project. Betty Logan (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable Box Office Mojo

Some editors have taken to fixing figures from Box Office Mojo. It seems Box Office Mojo fails to add up the total for international box office gross correctly, apparently omitting updated figures from the subtotal and worldwide total.

It is very confusing to see pages list totals that do not seem to match the referenced source. Correcting a source seems like original research that would not be tolerated with other sources (with effort the figures can still be verified so I can see why this might seem like a good idea at first). What to do about an unreliable source? Having to go to great lengths to then check these figures seems like a bad general policy. I would not use the unreliable source and instead use the figures from The-Numbers.com, but maybe others think we should use the published totals from Box Office Mojo? Or even BoxOffice.com? (Confusingly they give the budget as the production budget plus "P&A costs" i.e. prints and advertising.) One editor decided to round the gross total given in the Infobox to one decimal place, but this didn't seem right to me either.

Is there any sort of consensus? Have others noticed many cases of this? [12] [13] [14] (Two cases, I vaguely recall having seen others.) -- 109.76.224.73 (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Historical and scientific accuracies

Hello, I updated the "Historical and scientific accuracies" section as seen here. The policy at WP:IINFO has a relatively new passage (that did not exist when these guidelines were written) that I thought was pertinent to have in the guidelines. In my opinion, WP:OR was always a weak argument because the counterargument is usually that just describing a film item then describing a historical item (basically, putting the descriptions side by side) does not constitute synthesis. I sort of agree, which is why I think we should make our emphasis on whether or not such information is relevant through independent sourcing. If you have any issues with this change, feel free to revert, and we'll discuss. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Basically, putting two things side by side that are not put side by side in an actual source to lead the reader to a conclusion (ie one about historical/scientific "accuracy" or lack thereof) is is entirely prohibited by WP:SYN. If third parties have not made an analysis comparing X to Y, neither can Wikipedia. See the overwhelming consensus in places like Talk:The_White_Queen_(TV_series)#Request_for_comment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: I see that WP:SYN now has the word "imply" which I find applicable in our cases. I've restored the WP:SYN mention in the guidelines. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Netflix ratings

I was wondering if they can be used for Audience response. Are they to vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.96.64 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Good question! In my opinion, we avoid user ratings because we've seen how they can be abused. The concern about demographic skew comes from moviegoers who frequent websites and their user ratings compared to most other moviegoers. We do deal with a bit of demographic skew even with CinemaScore grades, though. Films do attract certain audiences, and CinemaScore grades are best complemented with a demographic breakdown in terms of age and sex. I don't know if Netflix ratings are anything like that. I don't think that people would go out of their way to vote-stack, and the demographic skew may be more "natural", if that makes sense. Are there any reliable sources that highlight films' Netflix ratings? We can scrutinize those. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

http://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2013/03/the-100-best-movies-on-netflix-instant.html --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You can found the ratings of the films with this:http://dvd.netflix.com/Search?v1 or just google site:netflix.com with the title of the film.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.96.64 (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Box office in the Reception section

The guideline currently says:

This information can be included under the Reception section, or if sufficient coverage exists, it is recommended that this information is placed in a "Box office" or "Theatrical run" section.

My perception is that especially on articles about big budget blockbusters, especially ones that have received less than stellar reviews, there's a tendency (following a plausible POV temptation) of putting even a fully fleshed out and well-sourced Box office section nonetheless inside the Reception section rather than under its own separate level 2 header. Obviously, it makes sense to sort the subsections alphabetically, and maybe it's just my POV/tendentious editing paranoia, but I can't help the impression that this is at least sometimes done to push down and distract from the reception section. I'm not entirely sure how the guideline could/should be reworded in a bid to counteract this POV temptation, I'd welcome opinions and suggestions. --85.197.30.90 (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're suggesting about a POV temptation. Can you show an example? The section headings are not set in stone and can depend on the article. For example, I prefer "Release" as the main section heading instead of "Reception" because details can be broader than just reception. For that same reason, I also prefer "Theatrical run" over "Box office" as a sub-section heading. Walking with Dinosaurs (film)#Release is one such example. I'm also not sure if there's an actual effort to sort sub-sections alphabetically. By the way, you can post a notice at WT:FILM if you'd like more editors to be aware of this discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Reception can be broken down into different parts. Critical response is one clear part. Awards is another. Audience response is not so clear, there are very few reliable sources. In older discussion "Box office" was discussed as one of the few reliable sources we had that indicates audience response, indirectly indicating the film was popular. It is not perfect but it makes a certain amount of sense (I don't like the alternative suggestions any better) and for consistency with older articles I would continue to do things as in older article and as the guidelines recommend.

Box office sections increasingly include information about how many screens were showing the film or when it was released or when it was premiered. Some editors (such as Erik) then prefer to put Box office under the Release subsection, which also makes a certain amount of sense, so long as there is genuinely some release information included.

For me it does not make sense to put "Critical response" under any other heading besides "Reception" and so it is generally simpler for me to continue to group the "Box office" information with it too. That's the approach I take, it might make sense to you, it might not. Others have different opinions. -- 109.76.247.81 (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I wonder how much of the change in the types of detail included has to do with some transient repetition of publicity releases that make their way into the media and then the articles. There is a certain evolution as films age and critics' responses assume more importance than opening weekend statistics. While the number of opening screens (e.g.) reflect something about a film's hopes and budget, it is a marketing decision -- one that may or may not correlate with more neutral indications of excellence or its lack. We wouldn't mistake a film's budget for its quality and the same applies to wide or narrow openings. Therefore, it is fair to be skeptical of its inclusion in Reception but not in Release. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

New policy

I suggest that film premieres for other English-speaking countries be added. This is not the American or British Wikipedia. Wikipedia should have a global overview of the topic. The additions will be sourced. They will be in prose form. They can be fit into the "Release" section. Finealt (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

We should just stick to the first screening date and the first date in the nation it was made in.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

This page is not a policy page anyway, Finealt. It's a guideline page. Flyer22 (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Info should be limited to date of first screening (ie a premiere), the release in the country of production (ie a US release for a United States film), and (possibly) a general "released internationally starting on date". Pretty much how the guideline is set up now at WP:FILMRELEASE. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning other releases in an appropriate section in the article is fine. OTOH we do not need to bloat the film infobox with anything other than the initial release. MarnetteD | Talk 03:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

By the same token it's not the "English speaking countries" enyclopedia either. India for instance, probably has more English speakers than Ireland. Personally speaking I would limit it to just one date (the first public showing, effectively the publication date) but I'm ok with the guideline as it stands. We certainly don't need to add half a dozen more dates to the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Concur with all of those wanting to leave the guideline as is. Beginning to look like WP:SNOWBALL.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the guidelines are sufficient for identifying release dates in the infobox. As for the article body, it is going to depend on the coverage available. I don't think it's fair to say that all American films need to mention their British and Australian release dates too. Unfortunately, among that set, the reverse is more likely because of how prevalent movies are in the United States. We shouldn't think in terms of traditionally English-speaking territories but more in terms of where a film has gotten the most attention, regardless of language. China is especially one country that has been highlighted depending on how it receives a given film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"generally mixed"

I've seen this formulation on many different film articles, and I don't think it's good or even proper English. Writing that a film received mixed reviews is perfectly understandable. But "received generally mixed reviews"? What meaning does the word "generally" add? What is the exact difference in meaning between received mixed reviews and received generally mixed reviews? If it doesn't add anything, and seeing how widespread this formulation is, imho the MOS page should explicitly discourage it. --84.44.156.143 (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This comes up for discussion pretty frequently. Basically, we should avoid parsing a consensus, especially from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, on our own. We need to attribute the consensus to a specific source. It may be worth strengthening these guidelines to indicate that there should be explicit attribution of who said what, especially in cases where the reports differ. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I boldly revised the beginning of the "Critical response" guidelines to be clear-cut about attribution and to avoid weasel words. The edit can be seen here. If you disagree, feel free to revert and discuss. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The thing to remember is that RT and MC do not speak for the reviewers they have not surveyed. There is no concerted effort to select a representative sample to my knowledge, so we shouldn't treat their findings as the critical consensus. Aggregators have a place because we need some objective way of saying whether a film was good or bad, but the guideline needs to explicitly state that any scores or critical summaries should be attributed directly to the aggregator without any editorializing (which is how we end up with these absurd "mixed to positive" claims). My preferred approach is what is currently in place at Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows_–_Part_2#Critical_reception, which was at the center of this debate a couple of years ago. Betty Logan (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with that, and perhaps it is worth having a paragraph about review aggregators. When I reference Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, I prefer to break down their figures. For example, I think it is worth stating that RT only categorizes a review as positive or negative, and how many go into each category. With Metacritic, it's categorized by positive, mixed, and negative. There are just a lot of different ways to word it, but I would say it helps to summarize the methodology. While the methodology may be objective, the individual categorizations are subjective, just like The Los Angeles Times makes a subjective determination based on the reviews it looked at (and we don't know which ones, either). We do have the essay at WP:RTMC from which we could import some wording. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

IP, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 48#Ranges of Reception and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 48#Mixed to positive / Mixed to negative for past recent discussions about this topic. The wording "generally mixed" doesn't make sense unless the person who added it was thinking of how every film has a mix of positive and negative reviews and, in that way, some are more mixed than others. Like I stated in the second linked discussion above: I think the "Mixed to positive" and "Mixed to negative" additions come about due to the fact that all reviews are mixed, as in there are always critics who dislike even a well-received film and hardly does a film ever get 100% acclaim on a website, but some films lean more toward positive reviews and others lean more toward negative reviews. So, because the film does not have a 50%-50% rating, what is most commonly meant by "mixed," but rather, for example, a 44% rating, you will see an editor add "Mixed to negative." By contrast, when the significant majority of reviews for a film are positive, then for the Reception section we (a lot of Wikipedia film editors) generally state "Mostly positive," "Generally positive," or simply report what Rotten Tomatoes and/or Metacritic state for the initial summary; vice versa for when the significant majority of reviews for a film are negative.

Erik, with regard to your changes, seen here and here, I am mostly fine with them. My one objection is "overall"; using that word there in the way that you did (second diff-link) makes it seem like only the overall critical reception should be supported by WP:Reliable sources. Of course all of it should be supported by WP:Reliable sources. Either way, I don't think that either this new wording or the previous wording will stop editors from adding things such as "mixed to negative," or from adding "critical acclaim" for films such as The Avengers (2012 film), when the sources don't use that wording. But then again, I don't feel that there should be any dispute with regard to such wording for clearly critically acclaimed films, such as The Avengers (2012 film); I'm also sure that WP:Reliable sources calling The Avengers (2012 film) "critically acclaimed" (or something to that effect) exist. As for Betty's view that we should not treat the Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic findings as the critical consensus, I only agree that we should not treat the Metacritic findings as such. The Rotten Tomatoes findings, like I've stated before, usually reflect the critical consensus of whatever film in question...as shown by various other WP:Reliable sources; many of those sources even rely on the Rotten Tomatoes score to come to their conclusion about the critical consensus of a film. Flyer22 (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@Flyer22: Thanks for the feedback! I added "overall" because of the following sentences that had to do with the overview because I thought the default assumption would be individual reviews, where for the first half of that paragraph, we're talking about summaries of reviews. In addition, the opening sentence's real focus is on attribution. "Mixed to negative" does not come from anywhere, for example. As for Rotten Tomatoes, the score is not directly based on the strength of a review. For example, a film could have 100% based on a set of reviews that mostly state that the film is not perfect, but it is pretty good. That's why the language for Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic is important. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

With regard to Rotten Tomatoes, I'm stating that its score usually represents critical consensus (meaning how critics feel about a film in general); the only times that I've seen that it does not is when dealing with some older films that came before Rotten Tomatoes existed and when it has to do with films that were hardly reviewed or generally received few reviews; in these cases, the Rotten Tomatoes score is barely there and is useless. And our WP:FILM guideline pretty much states the same thing about Rotten Tomatoes being useless in the case of some older films. Flyer22 (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think RT can necessarily represent critical consensus. To show how different it can be from MC, let's look at The Avengers (2012 film) vs. Gravity (film). The Avengers has 92% on RT based on 277 "fresh" reviews and 24 "rotten" reviews with never anything in between. It has 69 out of 100 at MC ("generally favorable reviews") with 32 positive reviews, 10 mixed, and 1 negative. In contrast, Gravity has 97% on RT based on 286 "fresh" reviews and 8 "rotten" reviews. It has 96 out of 100 on MC ("universal acclaim") with all 49 reviews being positive. The RT difference is 5% where the MC difference is 27 points, which reflects how each aggregator's methodology yields a different kind of consensus. So I don't think RT has the final word in determining the consensus, especially in overall critical response. We can state both websites' methodologies, and include other sources as well, but I think explicit attribution is needed especially when there is potential divergence. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't state that Rotten Tomatoes always represents critical consensus; I stated that it usually does. And that it usually does is evident by the vast majority of Wikipedia film articles that are not about old/classic films such as It's a Wonderful Life; it's evident by the various WP:Reliable sources supporting such articles. I've got no problem with "explicit attribution is needed" when "there is potential divergence"; The Avengers (2012 film) is not one of those cases, as we've both agreed. Flyer22 (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• OP reporting in. Just wanted to add that while I know there's an ongoing debate with regard to the accuracy/reliability/quotability of aggregate scores, my primary concern here is with the weasel word aspect, esp. generic words like "generally" which appear to add no meaning but only some kind of generic confusion in a bid to avoid the impression of POV. It's obviously difficult to straddle the fine line between a POV value judgment and an accurate summary of the critical reception of a work without resorting to wording that could be perceived as weasel wording by anyone, but it's a challenge we should imho meet by "going for it" and trying our best to accurately summarize the critical consensus (or lack thereof, as the case may be) in our own words. Massively overused generic expressions like "generally" imho hamper this effort, regardless of the extent to which we're relying on aggregate scores. I'd rather err on the side of slight POV which can always be amended than on the side of generic descriptions which spread like wildfire because they are so easy to apply and difficult to replace with more meaningful descriptions. --89.0.230.249 (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  What do you think of the new wording at MOS:FILM#Critical response? It starts, "The overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources. Avoid weasel words. If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly." If a sentence says "generally mixed", it should be attributed to a source (though it's doubtful that a source would use that). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

IP, use of "generally" makes sense to me and is more accurate when stating "generally positive reviews" or "generally negative reviews," which is not much different than stating "mostly positive reviews" or "mostly negative reviews." After all, it's not like any film has only gotten positive or only negative reviews. But by that same token, because it's obvious (to many people anyway) that no film is without at least a few good or bad reviews, it can be argued that such qualifiers such as "generally" are not needed. Still, like I stated above, I don't think any addition to MOS:FILM will stop the vast majority of film editors from adding such wording, especially since Metacritic does the same thing. Flyer22 (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

use of "generally" makes sense to me and is more accurate when stating "generally positive reviews" or "generally negative reviews" -- That's true, didn't occur to me. I was thinking of those cases where the reviews are polarized or mixed. I also agree that attempts to stem the tide of (what I would call) lazy editing via guidelines is never a promising approach. The term "generally mixed" has simply become one of my pet peeves and I try to replace it with clearer wording when I come across it. The problem is that widespread editing habits have a tendency to reproduce themselves; in other areas of editing I've had cases where people started to see generic wording/formatting as the "gold standard" and I've had attempted improvements blanket reverted simply on the basis of established (bad) practice.

Erik's revised wording is an improvement, although I'm not sure about the word "commentary". I hope it doesn't encourage editors to use lengthy quotes (e.g. from RT) instead of their own words to summarize the critical response.

Re-reading WP:WEASEL, I'm also not quite sure that "generally mixed" is really weasel wording. I regard it more as over-cautious, generic wording. It's almost the opposite of typical weasel wording, in the sense that it appears like an attempt to water down stronger but possibly more accurate wording. I've seen editors combatting fanboy-ish/detractor-ish editing by removing any and all wording which they deem too strong regardless of the critical consensus. E.g., there are instances where wording like "overwhelmingly positive critical response" most accurately summarizes the available sources, but some frown on that regardless of the sources simply because they deem the wording in and of itself to be too strong. Needless to say, I understand the underlying idea of fighting POV editing, but it shouldn't come at the cost of generic and ultimately inaccurate boilerplate editing. Ah well, little that can be done about that though, other than humbly editing along and hoping that better practices will catch on. --89.0.230.249 (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Haha, I agree that it is kind of opposite of traditional weasel wording where it avoids making a claim on the positive or negative end of the spectrum. I do think that WP:WEASEL applies in the sense that "a statement is dressed with authority with no substantial basis". At the very least, if there are no sources summarizing what critics thought of the film, we should just state the RT and MC breakdown without drawing a vague conclusion from them. For what it's worth, we can track down articles that use the "generally mixed" wording by Googling for the string "generally mixed" "language films" site:en.wikipedia.org (tried to provide a link but it showed badly). Maybe we can choose an article and see how we could go about improving it from the original wording. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

What has not been mention yet is brevity and decisive writing. Some editors seem uncomfortable with short direct simple sentences. You mentioned "generally positive" and others mentioned "mixed to negative", for the latter Fans of unpopular films like to try soften the blow and change the wording to "mixed to negative". After an editor pointed out that this was indecisive writing and that mixed obviously includes a mix of positive and negative I have since favored stating only "negative" "mixed" or "positive" (based on Metacritic usually), and letting the numbers say the rest.
Often if I see "generally positive" I will leave it alone, as far as sloppy wording in Wikipedia it is good enough. What I will change though is the indirect passive wording, "~the film holds a score at Rotten Tomatoes~" because the film does not "hold" anything per se, Rotten Tomatoes actively interprets and quantifies reviews to turn them into numbers and gives a rating score. I will also often rephrase to avoid using site specific jargon, removing "metascore" (which simple means "score") and removing mentions of "rotten" or "fresh" (unless as some editors above had added a verbose fresh/rotten breakdown, but even then negative/positive would be preferable to the jargon). -- 109.76.240.229 (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@109.76.240.229: In regards to "mixed to negative" or "mixed to positive" phrasing, you're assertion that fans of unpopular films are just trying to soften the blow is nothing more than an unfounded opinion. I think most of us would agree that "mixed" covers a broad range of aggregate scores, generally between 35% and 65%. While any score in this range technically qualifies as "mixed", using the phrase "mixed to positive" is more descriptive for a score in the upper part of this range as is "mixed to negative" for a score in the lower part. Take for example, two scores of 37% and 63%. Both are mixed, but calling the former "mixed to negative" and the latter "mixed to positive" is certainly more descriptive and shows a disparity between the two. There needs to be a better reason not to allow the phrasing. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning multiple genres in the lead

Per WP:FILMLEAD, the opening sentence for a film should include "the major genre(s) under which it is normally classified". I believe "major genre(s)" should be changed to "major genre", or even better, "primary genre". The problem with the format now, is that it often leads to editors cramming multiple genres into the description (at times as much as 4 or 5), leading to multiple links. Here's an example taken from Inception:

Inception is a 2010 British-American science fiction heist thriller film

"science fiction heist thriller film", really? Unfortunately, this is common in a lot of film articles, and often times some of the genres listed aren't even accurate. Aside from the poor accuracy and grammar doing injustice to the reader, there are multiple links crammed right next to each other, which is highly discouraged by WP:SEAOFBLUE. I briefly searched the archives, and though it has been mentioned a few times, none of the discussions seem to have reached a conclusive decision. I think it's time the MOS:FILM guideline be updated to help editors avoid accidentally running into issues with the MOS:LINK guideline. There's plenty of opportunity further down in an article to address secondary genres. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the guidelines are fine as they are. They don't give license to cram the opening sentence with multiple genres. These cases just need actual enforcement. I agree that Inception should be cut down to just "science fiction film". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

"They don't give license to cram the opening sentence with multiple genres."

How is it that mentioning the plural form of genre doesn't give license exactly? I realize the guideline isn't encouraging editors to list more than one genre, but it is most certainly saying it's OK to do so. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes the plural form is applicable. Something like Alien is best described as a "science-fiction horror film" and that's what the guideline allows for. Betty Logan (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was involved with the writing of these guidelines, and believe me, the goal was to address this issue. That's why it states "major genre(s)", and Inception is obviously more a science fiction film than a heist film or a thriller film. However, we have to remember that there will be certain genre mashups, like having a science fiction comedy film. We could update the wording to state the primary genre and/or verifiable genre pairing. (Meaning that there shouldn't be more than two possible categorizations in the opening sentence, and to defer to the rest of the lead section to explain the film's nature further.) What do you think of that? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

A "verifiable genre pairing" sounds like a good idea. Betty Logan (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I would support an update to this, like Erik said. We've been having this issue over at Guardians of the Galaxy (film), which is a sci-fi comedy, but per following this guideline, we are limiting it to science fiction. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE / WP:V / WP:OR we classify a film as the reliable sources classify it, providing attribution and multiple classifications if necessary to reflect how the sources present it. (a la Brazil_(1985_film))-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, there might be situations where the primary genre is actually a pairing of two genres, or more commonly called a "sub-genre". Science-fiction horror is an example of one. What about changing the line to read: "At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre (or sub-genre) under which it is normally classified."? I didn't think the term "verifiable" is really needed here, since "normally classified" implies the same thing. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

How about "verifiably classified"? :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, that works! Either that or perhaps a slightly cleaner alternative, "under which it is classified in reliable sources". I'm fine either way. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Like the endless debates around country, the genre issue is only really a problem on a handful of articles. They should be raised on the relevant talkpages if it becomes an issue over edit wars. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it's only a handful of articles, but that's a moot point. Changing the guideline or at least having the discussion here gives us something to reference in debates on the relevant talk pages. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Millions

I've noticed editors are abbreviating Millions to "M" in the box office section. I strongly oppose unnecessary abbreviations. An encyclopedia (especially one with n shortage of space) should make clarity a priority and readability a priority. This new habit is also inconsistent with all the older film articles. It breaks or at least slows down my reading flow to have to mentally decompress this shorthand (in a way that other symbols like $ or % do not).

I don't want to waste time arguing with anyone over this so I'd like the guidelines updated to either say do not abbreviate millions to 'M', or if there is actually support for the idea to make it policy. Make the decision one way or the other.

Straw poll. The box office policy Millions/M should be ...

1. Avoid abbreviations
2. Always abbreviations
3. no policy (please pick anything but this)

-- 109.79.196.86 (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Avoid abbreviations. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• Avoid abs And see this - "Write out "million" and "billion" on the first use. After that, unspaced "M" can be used for millions and "bn" for billions: 70M and 25bn. See MOSNUM for similar words." Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, there is already a pretty clear guideline on this, and it works well. -Fandraltastic (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm ... avoid, but you can do it after first ... seems to be a loophole you could drive a truck through.

Editors seem to have taken that advice as encouragement to go ahead and actively abbreviate all but the first instance of millions. (CAN is very different from SHOULD or MUST). -- 109.79.196.86 (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please could you supply some examples? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Most recently I removed the abbreviations from the Box Office section of Captain America film article. -- 109.79.196.86 (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A while back I removed the abbreviation from Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. -- 109.79.196.86 (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Your edit on Capt' America (sorry for the ab') is incorrect. Per the MOS linked above - ""Write out "million" and "billion" on the first use. After that, unspaced "M" can be used for millions and "bn" for billions: 70M and 25bn." (my highlight of first use). As it is already written out in full in the opening paragraphs, there is no need to write it out again. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The guideline says you _can_ use those abbreviations but and I am saying that even though you can you _should_not_ and I think 'can' is weak emphasis but others are taking it as strong emphasis 'could' see: MoSCoW_method. That guideline is badly written and must be made clearer, because as it stands it Lugnuts is correct to say it encourages editors to do things the way he has said and that is precisely what I'm objecting to. (I could go on, although there is "no need" to write out the long version, (I don't mind editors being in a hurry) no one should revert from long form to abbreviations, after other editors have changed things to long form to improve clarity and readability.) -- 109.78.30.215 (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a bigger issue across more than just film articles. I'd recommend you raise it on this talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I might do that. I think at least I need to get the numbers section to rephrase that piece so it is clear if it is an option or if it is recommended (because the current wording reads like it is recommended). I still want to get a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS from editors interested in the Box Office section of film articles. -- 109.78.30.215 (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

In response to this quote from above: "Hmm ... avoid, but you can do it after first ... seems to be a loophole you could drive a truck through." - You aren't leaving him much choice when your straw poll only includes the choices ALWAYS or NEVER. The use of the "M", despite being abbreviated, is precise, and has one and only one meaning in this context. Abbreviating the term after first use of "million" is, as far as I'm concerned, a far better alternative to spelling out the word two or three times in every sentence in the box office section of every film article on Wikipedia. -Fandraltastic (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks a mill. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This started off with agreements that abbreviations should be avoided, I'd like people to confirm they still feel that way, now that they see the particular way in which some editors want to use them.

I do think it is better to repeat the word millions throughout the Box office section and that shorting millions to M makes it clunkier and more difficult, and I believe an encyclopedia should prioritize readability over a small bit of brevity. I don't have time at the moment to follow through the Wikibeaurocracy on this (and find out what the intent behind the numbers guidelines actually is supposed to be), but equally if Lugnuts and Fandraltastic seriously believe this is a better way to do things they should not be doing it on an article by article basis, they should be making sure this style information is clearly outlined here in the film article style guide. -- 109.78.30.215 (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Early "Reception" sections

We sometimes see anon IPs, for the most part, throwing up "Reception" sections days before a movie opens, and registered editors generally taking them down and saying it's too early, not enough reviews, not enough major-source reviews, etc.

Since the MOS doesn't address this, should we come up with a consensus on this, in order to avoid the time-consuming put-it-up-take-it-down? There are rare cases of high-profile movies where major newspapers release reviews a day or two early, but except for these once-every-year-or-two cases, is there any reason not to wait until a movie's release to put up a "Reception" section, the same as we do for the plot and the box office? I'm not sure a handful of pre-release reviews is statistically indicative of the final tally that comes on release day, and we're a not a news source that has to rush something out that's incomplete and, so, possibly inaccurate / misleading --Tenebrae (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your viewpoint, but I'm not sure anything really needs to be added in the Film MOS. Other guidelines, policies and essays already address the issue from a broader perspective. Editors who knowingly or unknowingly do this need to be directed to WP:DUST, particularly the section "Write for history, not for the news". If a firmer backing is needed, WP:UNDUE can be referenced. Early viewpoints are not yet considered mainstream until more reviews are released. For major releases, semi-protection may reduce occurrences from inexperienced editors. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it is okay to summarize the early reviews where they exist, even before any kind of aggregation takes place. We just would not say something like, "Early reviews have been poor," without proper high-level sourcing. We would instead have each passage be distinct, and we would revise that section as more reviews come in. Maybe these first reviews will not be part of the consensus and can be relegated or removed entirely. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

To cite an example, I worked on The East (film) and added reviews from Variety and The Hollywood Reporter as seen here. This section changed in the next few days to what you see now. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Documenting a rapidly changing event where details and viewpoints you're adding are likely to be updated in a short period of time does tend to go against WP:NOTNEWS and certainly the essay WP:DUST. Personally, I don't have a problem with it and wouldn't go out of my way to challenge it, but I could see why others might. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This is all good discussion. I was unaware of the essay WP:DUST and having read it, I like it. My experience, though, is that if you try to remove something based on an essay, the other editor usually says, "Well, that's just an essay so I don't have to listen to it," and then we're forced to debate the meaning of WP:UNDUE. And UPDUE doesn't necessarily carry, well, weight: There's an AfD going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film since film articles are cluttered with scores of insignificant awards like this film club's, and citing UNDUE doesn't help even though we're giving them equal weight as the Oscars, the Emmys, et al. That's why I'm thinking some nuanced consensus to address early review sections might be the most efficient thing. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It is true that essays do not have the same status as policies and guidelines. However, some essays like WP:DUST are formed by experienced editors and are often referenced in consensus-building discussions. Heck, quite a few of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines started out as essays. So, a well-written essay shouldn't be completely discounted without a good reason explaining why. An editor who references one knows they have the support of at least one other editor (and likely more) – a position that is stronger than an opposing view which lacks substance and/or support.

WP:UNDUE is all about balance. A case can be made to exclude early reviews, since their level of acceptance is not yet known, and therefore relying on them may result in an inaccurate portrayal of a film's reception.

In the end, however, it probably isn't worth the time engaging when there are so many other issues that need attention (see the benefits of disengaging). Recent events generate a lot of activity from new users, and coming up with a consensus or guideline won't stem the tide of occurrences. In fact, reverting them may even have the undesirable effect of discouraging participation. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I find it tricky to apply WP:UNDUE in these cases. I find it arbitrary to say to keep out reviews until there is sourcing for a consensus because there are going to be some films that will not have many reviews, ever, much less sourcing for a consensus. One example that comes to mind is Sea Shadow (film), for which I found just two reviews from reliable sources. Obviously we cannot report a consensus, but since these reviews are authoritative ones from reliable sources, they should be used. So are we basically treating mainstream films differently in that we "know" there will be many more reviews in addition to the initial handful? I do not think WP:DUST applies here very well since it is talking about creating articles about current topics. I do understand the notion of writing for the long term and would say something like WP:PROSELINE applies better here. Wikipedia articles can afford to be dynamic. We wouldn't apply WP:DUST to say we cannot report a film's box office performance until its theatrical run is over. If we have reputable reviews early on, we can summarize each one from the get-go without indicating a consensus, and revise the article when/if more details emerge. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Erik. I don't think anyone's suggesting we not have a Reception section once a movie opens, no matter how large or small a movie it is. If it's a small movie with only two reviews, we mention that rare circumstance.

The only question is, should we have a Reception section before a movie opens, or wait until the day of release, as we already do for the Plot and Box-office sections.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not clear on why we should not have one if authoritative reviews are available. Is it still a matter of undue weight? Are we talking about before a public release as opposed to a film festival screening? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

A Reception section of reviews after a film-festival screening is a different topic, and one that deserves its own focus.

For the majority of films, which aren't first screened at film festivals, a handful of pre-release reviews may not be statistically indicative of the final tally that comes on release day, and we're a not a news source that has to rush something out that may be incomplete and, so, possibly inaccurate / misleading. I'm not sure there's an upside to rushing, since encyclopedias are supposed to give the final word, not the tentative word. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't find it to be a big concern. If an upcoming blockbuster film looks like the "Critical reception" section at Sea Shadow (film) for a few days, I'm fine with it because there's no significant viewpoint that has coalesced to judge by. If the reviews are authoritative and we make only individual attributions, I don't think it would mislead readers. We just present two individual and reliable opinions on the film, like we would with a released film with very few reviews (and too few to source a consensus). I'm not crazy about the notion of an embargo to withhold verifiable viewpoints. To use another example, Walking with Dinosaurs (film) was reviewed a week before its release. I added a couple of early reviews, so it looked like this at first. It grew in a matter of days, obviously. This way, readers can see what has been said about the film so far, rather than think, based on the article, that nothing at all has been said yet. Wikipedia should be written for the long run, but it does not mean we cannot be dynamic. I'll let others comment on this. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

As will I. I think this is a good example of two editors who can disagree respectfully and agree to turn the reins to others. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

box office gross + infobox

Can I just clarify among other editors, in a film's infobox we do not use the inflation-adjusted gross for a film. It should only include the film's real gross from its theatrical run, preferably worldwide but domestic if that's the only gross available with sources. Correct? 88.104.20.146 (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, that is correct. See Gone with the Wind (film) as a good example of this. We can use the article body to adjust for inflation, since we can explain the context (e.g., Gone with the Wind being the highest-grossing of all time when adjusted for inflation). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Pre-release plot synopses

I'm currently involved in a dispute over at Godzilla (2014 film) over whether or not to include the synopsis released by the production companies of the film, and that got me thinking. Nowhere in the "Plot" section are pre-release summaries mentioned at all. I feel like this would be something very useful to include in the MOS, a standard guideline for summaries before a film comes out. I suggest that we don't actually create a subsection for the plot until the film is released, but perhaps we include a brief summary in the lead, the same as we do with already-released films. Thoughts? Corvoe (speak to me) 13:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

My preferred approach is to mention the synopsis in both the lead section and in a stand-alone section in the article body. After all, the lead section is largely a summary of the article body. I think it helps readers to be able to look in the same place where the plot summary normally is and to at least get an answer for what the film is about. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I generally include the preview summary in a "Premise" section, until such time that it can be changed to the "Plot" section, being careful to take into account WP:COPYVIO and WP:PARAPHRASE. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Also remember that unlike released work plot summaries - where anyone can validate the plot against the released work - unreleased works do not have that, so pre-release summaries do need to be sourced to material that has officially released; it's also one of the few places where WP:SPOILER applies - even if the film is leaked, the leak is not sufficient to write a plot summary on. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we don't need to update the plot summary guidelines specifically. Considering how temporary these elements are, maybe we could have a separate section dealing with upcoming films where we have a few bullets that talk about how to use the synopsis, verifying cast members, and writing in a neutral tone (especially before any independent assessment of said film). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm in agreement with most everything here. "Premise" text should be both in lead and article body, since lead is a summary. (And good, subtle distinction: A premise isn't the same as a plot, though they can be similar.) Premise needs to be cited, mindful of copyvio and paraphrase. And it wouldn't hurt to specify this in the guidelines, along with the fact (given the phenomenon of casting rumors) that pre-release cast-member claims need citing and that Wikipedia disallows IMDb as a citable source. (I've found that the AllMovie.com cast lists syndicated in The New York Times also can be wildly unreliable; has anyone else noticed this?) Neutral tone should go without saying, but then, so many things that should, do. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to loop back to Erik's idea of the "Upcoming films" section. That could be immensely helpful. Corvoe (speak to me) 16:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"Track listings for film scores are generally discouraged"

In light of a dispute about including the track listings almost six months ago[15] and a new dispute involving the same pro-inclusion editor[16] it seems worthwhile to ask whether the wording for this guideline should be strengthened, or whether the feeling is that the wording isn't the issue. The pro-inclusion editor specifically called out "discouraged" to argue in favor of inclusion. DonIago (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe I included that part of the guidelines back then. To my recollection, I put "generally" because there may be cases where numerous tracks in a given soundtrack would be analyzed. In such cases, a track listing would be appropriate. Aside from that, a track listing can be considered rather indiscriminate, especially if all tracks are composed by the same person and the track names are generic scene names with no additional detail. I'm open to hearing what others have to say, though. Another approach could be to relegate "Soundtrack" sections to the end of an article (below all other sections) if the information is not quite important to the film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it is ok to list pre-existing music tracks used in the film but the problem with listing original "tracks" from a score is that they often don't really exist as identifible pieces of music; usually the labelling is arbitrary and sometimes later tracks can just be a reprise of an earlier track. I'm happy with the wording and am reluctant to have a rule set in stone though because I can think of plenty of counter-examples to the general rule such as musicals. Betty Logan (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess my question then is, literal wording aside, is a legitimiate interpretation, "If the soundtrack's track listing is by and large a collection of arbitrarily-named non-lyrical tracks by a single composer, then it should not be included"? DonIago (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if there is no counter-argument to consider, such as its importance or commentary about the tracks. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Guidelines for upcoming films

Hello, I wanted to start a new section to put together guidelines for upcoming films. Considering how treatment of upcoming films is temporary and collective, I think it would be good to have a section in the MOS outlining some best practices. I am thinking that we could have several bullet points touching on different aspects. In the discussion above, there is interest in highlighting the best practice for coverage about a film's narrative before the film is released. So we can start with that:

• An article about a film not yet available to the general public can have a stand-alone section briefly describing the film. This section, a precursor to a "Plot" section, should reference a reliable source. For example, a trade paper like Variety or The Hollywood Reporter can be cited in the section, which can be called "Premise". If the studio has released an official synopsis, it can be cited in the section, to be called "Synopsis". In either case, the text should be paraphrased whenever possible to convey an impartial tone to avoid appearing promotional. If the text cannot be paraphrased, provide in-text attribution in quoting directly and identifying the source.

I think we can also talk about requiring inline citations for cast members if WP:BURDEN applies. Some articles will not have much attention before release for this to matter, but in cases where an actor's involvement is questioned, inline citations should be applied. Also at WT:FILM, Favre1fan93 and Rilech like the idea of having "Development of" articles for films only in development where there is sufficient news coverage for a stand-alone article that will not be structured as a film article. Note that these should only be occasional exceptions to the notability guidelines for future films based on the level of encyclopedic detail. I'd like to hear what others think. Other bullet points to consider are present/past tense, box office forecasts, or structuring the opening sentence (e.g., to say "upcoming 2014 film" vs. "upcoming film" vs. "2014 film"). Feedback is welcome!

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The way you wrote the new section is perfect, in my opinion. Covers all bases well.

I agree with the "Development of" conversation as well (I think my recent blunder at Ant-Man (film) is evidence of why that needs to be in play).

Finally, for the lead section. Personally, I think future films should be written in whatever tense it requires (release in future, most everything else in present), box office forecasts should be included and remain after the film releases, and "upcoming (year) film" should be the used terms. Corvoe (speak to me) 22:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's my thoughts on everything you have presented Erik:

- For the text on "Premise", it should be linked somewhere to WP:COPYVIO and WP:PARAPHRASE and I think we should chose either "Premise" or "Synopsis". Many times, the trades are putting forth the official studio synopsis. To me, those are one in the same, and am personally partial to "Premise".

- I would like to see the inline citation bit added for the cast members. It takes any questioning out of it.

- For the "Development of" articles, I think that it can pretty much follow the structure of a normal film article to the best of its ability, because each case would be different, depending on the information released. For example, if one was created for the upcoming Batman/Superman film, it would have a "Cast", "Production", "Music", "Release" (or maybe marketing) and maybe something resembling a reception/reaction section. It is the title being "Development of" that would indicate that it is still a future film, that may or may not be made.

- Lead should be in the future tense until it is released, or in a case of a "Development of" page that it is confirmed it will no longer be going forward.

- I believe that the box office forecasts can have the option of staying on the page after it has released, as a way of comparison. Sourced commentary could be used to compare the predicted and the actual (ie it met or did not meet the predicted).

- Opening sentence should just be "upcoming film". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Thanks for the feedback! My responses:

• I would be fine linking to WP:COPYVIO, but WP:PARAPHRASE is an essay. I think it's best to reference policies and general guidelines. Reviewing WP:COPYVIO, I actually think that WP:INTEXT covers quoting and paraphrasing: "In-text attribution should be used with direct speech (a source's words between quotation marks or as a block quotation); indirect speech (a source's words modified without quotation marks); and close paraphrasing."
• As for "Premise" vs. "Synopsis", I think there are films where a synopsis is not available, at least not until marketing begins, so we can use early (and reliable) reports saying what the film is about. I guess I am thinking that "Synopsis" sounds official, but it does not have to be. We could commit to just "Synopsis" if others favor it.
• I was thinking that a "Development of" article would not look like a film article. The core of a typical film article is the film itself, a tangible product (or the very likely expectation of one, if it is undergoing filming). The core of a "Development of" article is historical, meaning the consolidation of development history, without expectancy of a tangible product ever forthcoming. I would prefer such articles to be prose-based, meaning no infobox or cast list or film-related categories. This kind of article can be tricky with films in very active development, but I think it can apply well to covering the development history of something like The Dark Tower. Per WP:DUCK, if it's going to be a film article in all but name, then the prefix does not seem to make a real difference.
• Regarding using "upcoming", the release situation may vary. Would we stop calling it "upcoming" if a film screens at a festival but won't be released commercially for a few months? If we leave out the expected release year, does it inconvenience the reader?

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Response to Erik (most examples I pull from are from pages/experiences I work on):

- Sounds good. As long as COPYVIO is in there, because much of the time the synopsis is copyright material (much like preview summaries for upcoming television episodes).

- I question you on using reliable sources for the premise (maybe because I have not seen it). For Avengers: Age of Ultron, there are many reputable sources that have given what they think is the premise, based on the bits and pieces of casting/other news that has been released. But I wouldn't consider using that. Could you maybe give me an example of a situation where it could be used, just so I could see what you mean as a valid use of the reputable sources?

- I do agree that "Development of" articles should mainly be prose based, but I don't see the harm of having an infobox on the page. (Cast list, yes I think now should not be included as with film-related categories. A casting section could cover that material with prose.)

- For your first question, I believe upcoming should be present until it is released commercially, because additions/retractions could be made since its festival/premiere screening. I always go back to The Avengers on this, as it had its world premiere and immediately after, the cast went back to shoot the second post-credit screen. While not a major amount of reshooting, it still was additional material that had to be added to the cut of the film that was seen at the premiere. As for the next question, I believe it is not necessary because a proper article will have the release date in the lead for the reader. And if no release date/year is known, it still works because all we do know is that it is "upcoming". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Tiger House is an example that references a non-synopsis source since its release is not for a while. I think the film infobox can be misleading because when filming has not started, none of the names are actually locked in for production. To be without it clearly emphasizes that it is a historical article (based on the compilation of development news over the years) and not a film article. As for using "upcoming", I don't really have any strong feelings on usage, and I don't know if there's been any real edit warring over that aspect, compared to others. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the Tiger House example. I see what you mean. Though we do have to make it clear that that is a correct example, versus what I stated for the next Avengers, would not be a correct example. See this as an example of what I mean. I think the infobox would be a case by case basis, because I can see how, if a film is in constant flux, the names would change, but we also have the example of when Star Wars VII was at a "Development of", most of those names were locked. Could wording be added along the lines of "should a film be officially announced, at such a time the infobox can be added, while the page does not move to its proper title until filming has started."? I don't believe there has been any edit warring over "upcoming" that I am aware of, so if others chime in, we can craft it as we all see fit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Looping back slightly, I definitely agree that "Development of" articles should not include an infobox, for the same reasons as Erik. If a film is lost, that's fine, but a film that was never made technically doesn't have many of the parameters (basically, producer and writer would be the only two that could be correct-ish). That aside, I agree with Favre1fan93's wording for the "officially announced" bit with infobox inclusion unless the film ends up getting cancelled. For instance, if Fast & Furious 7 would have been cancelled after Paul Walker's death, I think that would've been moved to "Development of" and the infobox removed. Only semi-related, I think WP:UFILM and WP:UPCOMING could be used as shortcuts for whenever this section is finished.Corvoe (speak to me) 14:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@Erik and Corvoe: Can we move forward with trying to craft this? It seems that we have agreement on most areas discussed, and if not, I don't think it would be to hard to iron out the kinks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The science of categorizing something as a 3D film in the lead of every film article

In the past few years film companies have been filming, marketing, and releasing 3D versions of their films. These films have been released in both traditional 2D and in the less traditional 3D. The reason they do so are irrelevant for this discussion. What is relevant for this discussion is that for some reason many film articles have used the descriptor "3D" very early in the lead paragraph. Examples include Frozen (2013 film), Despicable Me 2, Monsters University, Gravity (film), Ice Age: Continental Drift, Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted, Men in Black 3, The Croods, ext. Most of these articles are about films that were made with CGI, but not all of them. Some film articles about films that were given 3D releases as well do not say 3D in the lead, such as Avatar (2009 film), Oz the Great and Powerful and Star Trek Into Darkness.

My question is, should these articles be called 3D films in the lead if they only had some 3D screenings while other screenings were in 2D? These films do not satisfy the criteria of a true 3D film such as Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over or Jaws 3-D or any of the 1950's style 3D films that were meant to be screened in 3D at all theaters and on all screens. And another question would be, if we describe them as 3D in the lead shouldn't they be described as 2D as well since they were also released in 2D? Now obviously there should be a section in the article discussing the 3D release and even a mention in the lead, but using it as a description of the film, they way it is portrayed now in some articles, probably isn't the best way to go.

I suggest that there should be a sentence in this MOS that describes the use of 3D as a descriptor at MOS:FILM#Lead section that says, "Only films that were given a wide release in theaters should be described as 3D in the lead paragraph."--JOJ ^Hutton 13:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The 3D used for the animation films listed are intended to describe the type of animation used, not the way it was released. Thus Frozen uses it correctly, where Gravity does not. I don't necessarily agree with updated wording you have chosen, but if a film just releases in 3D, then that should be kept until the end of the lead, where other release formats are covered, such as done with Oz. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Those animated films are called "Computer Generated Image" or CGI films, not 3D. At least not the traditional definition of 3D. Those animated films were produced from 3D models on the computer, but are not really 3D films as they are defined and linked in the articles. Thats were the confusion lies. Its in the 3D models used on the computer and not in the way the film is viewed.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah. I see that 3D is still linked to 3D film in those animation instances. So yes, with those as well, it should not be at the beginning of the lead, because "computer-animated" covers the type of animation used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Thats what I thought as well, but I did see where you were coming from in your previous argument.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The addition you are looking to make should be along the lines of this, to the first few sentences: "At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified, with release formats saved for a later paragraph along with any other relevant release info." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I've got no problem with that wording. The point being, from my perspective, that needlessly categorizing films by format should be strictly avoided. My only concern is that it should be worded in such a way that it will leave absolutely no doubt as to its meaning and won't be overly interpreted 2 years from now.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)