Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Film years and film made & produced from certain countries

I may one other solution for year film articles that were made and produced by certain countries. I'm proposing year of film articles that were release in certain countries that made the films like [[2013 in films in United States of America]], [[2013 in films in England]], [[2013 in films in France]] and such. I'm not happy with the film year format on 2013 in film and I'm proposing the alternative idea for films made and produced by a certain & release dates in the country that made and produced the film. I don't care how redundant as it may sound, I'm wont stop until a consensus on that issue is met. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

... I don't understand. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I'm not happy about the year of release format on 2013 in film, replacing it with earliest released date which the majority of them are countries that didn't make and produced them and nobody cared about the release dates of films that were made and produced in certain countries. They should either include the release dates of films that made & produce them or created a year by film from certain countries, including [[2013 in films in United States of America]], [[2013 in films in England]], [[2013 in films in France]] and such. That's why I proposing this experimental idea. BattleshipMan (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I totally understand what you mean. There are already these type of articles, e.g. List of American films of 2015, List of British films of 2015, List of French films of 2015, ...etc. These lists are arranged according to different countries' produced films. 2015 in film is the list for every country and every language films. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 15:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!: I know that. Problem is the other film by year articles in those countries are not sorted by release date and that's what it needs to be done. Also, we need to have the release dates on 2013 in film to have the release dates from countries that produced and made them and right now, 2013 in film doesn't really have those release dates. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorting out the films by release date in List of American films of 2015, List of British films of 2015, and List of French films of 2015 like articles will be the best idea. But adding release dates for every country who produced and made those film will create more complexity and mess. Sometimes, there are films which are co-production of Germany, France, England and the United States, what would we do with those? Will we add all release dates? That'll surely create a mess, and sometimes release dates are not announced for all countries who made that film. Sometimes we are not sure of the country which produced the film, like I've been in those issues. I create/start new articles and when I'm not sure about which country's that film is, I just leave the country's mentioning thing alone. And usually even mostly, American release date announces first before others. That's why we just keep the list simple. Yeah sure, we should sort the films in the above mentioned lists according to their release date. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 17:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!: @Doniago: Alright, We'll do sort out films by release in date in film by year in specific countries, like List of American films of 2015, List of British films of 2015, and List of French films of 2015 articles. Also added a list of release date of films by country, sorted out by year and place them in a specific year of film articles, kind of like in 2014 in film has a Lists of box office number-one films in 2014, as you can see it there. What do you think of that idea?

What do you think we should do with the release dates on 2013 in film? BattleshipMan (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why you tagged me here, as I haven't participated in the conversation to this point and this isn't an issue I've previously been involved with AFAICR. I might chime in later, but I don't have anything to contribute at this time. DonIago (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure about this. No offence but I don't think it would be appropriate. I'll ping Favre1fan93 and Sock to participate here. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!: See to that. @Doniago:, I apologized for the unexpected ping, but there's some multiple issues & flaws I want to reveal and discuss. I need some idea on how to work on a plan to make 2013 in film have the release dates of the films that made and produced them, rather than have the earliest release dates. The problem with the earliest release date in that some countries that have the earliest release date on never made and produced those specifics films, which shatters the meaning of knowing the release dates of films that were produced by a specific country in the year in film articles. Also, I just thought we should sort the year in film from specific countries by release date, since most of them are in alphabetical order. I also think there should list of either [[List of films released by country]] or something along those lines, like the Lists of box office number-one films and sorted them by year, which we piped specific years in year by film articles. For example, we have piped the link with Lists of box office number-one films#2014 in the 2014 in film. That's we probably should do to connect the year by film from specific country articles. We need to make corrections of those issues & flaws in the year by film articles and set up a consensus on having the release dates of films made and produced by specific countries. I know that they are some films that were produced by two countries, so that issue will be discussed also. Anyone wants to talk about how to solve those issues in the year by film articles, I am willing to hear it. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at #Films from countries that made them and TV show airdates 2. We use the global release date on the XXXX in film articles because they adopt a worldwide view of the film industry. Betty Logan (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not good for the release dates films that have been made and produced by specific countries. What we need to do is how to setup a consensus to allow the release dates of films made and produced by specific countries, not by the earliest release date from a country that was never involved in making that certain film. It's profoundly flawed and I will not be satisfied until this issue is solved in the way it should be. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

To say that you "will not be satisfied" until something is addressed in a way you feel "it should be", sounds dangerously close to suggesting that you won't respect a WP:CONSENSUS. I assume that's not what you meant to say and would invite you to more clearly express your intended meaning. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Doniago: @Captain Assassin!: @Betty Logan: I don't like how WP:WORLDVIEW and WP:FILMYEAR consensus ignores release dates for films and TV shows that were made and produced by specific countries, which ruins the meaning of revealing the release dates in XXXX by film articles and that rule needs to be up-to-date. 2013 in film ignores the release dates of films made and produced specific countries, which ruins the meaning of knowing the release dates of films produced by that country and the earliest release dates are in countries that were never involved or produced that certain film, which is profoundly flawed at best. Some of the rule WP:FILMYEAR needs to be amended so we can have the either the release dates of films made and produced by specific countries in XXXX in film or set up a list of article of the year by film articles in certain countries, sort them by year and put them in certain year by film articles. I'll also ping Darkwarriorblake, Y2kcrazyjoker4, Drmargi and Obi-WanKenobi-2005 to participate. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I can give an idea of mentioning produced country, which I thought about a year ago but never tell anyone or proposed it. We could add a column in XXXX in film type articles, which could be named as "Country," "Produced country," or "Production." Whatever decided, in which we'll be able to mention film's production country(s). I don't know if it's good but it just popped into my head a year ago, and I thought to do it without asking or proposing it to anyone but I stopped. This way we could use the existed articles in better ways. The purpose of XXXX in film would also be fulfilled, when every country's films will be added into the these articles, where country will also be mentioned in a column. How about this BattleshipMan? --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm...Maybe. We'll discuss that proposed idea you thought of, Captain Assassin!. We'll discuss how to make it work and such. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Doniago: Actually BattleshipMan is not disrespecting WP:CONSENSUS. I know, he is just passionate to resolve this issue, I thinks it's burden on his head which he is trying to take down. I think he is doing fine, what he is trying to propose, we've to manage that either way. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for backing me up, Captain Assassin!. That issue has to be resolved so we can have release dates for films that were produced by specific countries BattleshipMan (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You cite WP:WORLDVIEW, but by putting an American film that was released in 2014 at Cannes, but not released until 2015 in the US, would then go against WP:WORLDVIEW by being US-centric in its approach. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

There are flaws in some Wikipedia policies, flaws that can cause problems and would need to be amended. The problem with films with earliest release dates like in 2013 in film is that the majority of the countries that released them never made or produced that specific film. Sometimes you have to reveal release dates on countries that produced that certain film in XXXX by film articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

We need to start discussing this issue about the release dates of films made and produced by specific countries on XXXX in film. @Darkwarriorblake: @Y2kcrazyjoker4: @Obi-WanKenobi-2005: and @Drmargi: gather around and joined in on the discussion. The release dates in Year in film articles should been in countries that made and produced, not the earliest release dates, like in 2013 in film, because the majority of those dates are in countries that never produced and made them, which ruins the meaning of the release dates of countries that made and produced them. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Everyone, Captain Assassin! and I have a proposal to resolve the issue about release dates of films that were produced by a specific country. We could add a column in XXXX in film type articles, which could be named as "Country," "Produced country," or "Production." Whatever decided, in which we'll be able to mention film's production country(s). That way, we could use the existed articles in better ways. The purpose of XXXX in film would also be fulfilled, when every country's films will be added into the these articles, where country will also be mentioned in a column. Either way, we need an idea to resolve an issue about release dates of films made and produced by specific countries in the XXXX in film articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!: @Betty Logan:. What do you all think of this proposal for having Year in films articles to have release dated of specific countries that made and produced a certain film? BattleshipMan (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You know what my stance is: I oppose it. The "XXXX in film" articles adopt a world view and as such the only relevant release date is the global release date. Do you care when a Russian film was released in Russia? A French film in France? How will that information improve these articles? Country specific dates should be left to the individual film articles. Betty Logan (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: @Captain Assassin!: I don't tolerate ignoring release dates on films that made and produced from specific countries in year by film articles, like 2013 in film. The earliest global release dates ignores the release date from specific countries that made and produced, which destroys the meaning knowing those dates in year by film articles. Films made from certain countries should also have their release dates in those articles and it is considered relevant. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

We track that in the individual film articles. Or, at least, I do in the articles that I create. If it means that much to you, you could hold an RFC. I don't really see what good will come of arguing back and forth. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with making individual articles of Year in Film in Country as it seems like it's decentralising a lot of information that makes it much harder to maintain and verify. However, if a film was initially released in a previous year either in the source country or as part of a festival, you could include it on that Year's article, say 2013, and on hte 2014 article also include that film for it's wide release, with just a link to the relative 2013 section. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: I agreeing with @Darkwarriorblake: since we should make individual articles of Year in Film in Country. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Why is it important to list local release dates? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the last sentence of the "Critical Reception" section at MOS:FILM be revised?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is clear consensus that the existing wording encourages synthesis, and in favour of clarification. Of the two alternatives, the first has broad support, the second would probably be equally acceptable to those involved. Proceed with caution, as the number of editors expressing a view is small, I would certainly leave the door open to making the most conservative change consistent with clarity - the outcome is not sufficiently robust to endorse any specific form of words at this point. Guy (Help!) 17:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Currently the last sentence at MOS:FILM#Critical response reads:

"For older films, seek reviews from the period of the film's release and the present to determine if a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today."

Proposal 1

I propose revising it to:

"For older films, use secondary sources to determine if a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today."

Betty Logan (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Alternative wording: "For older films, it is important to distinguish between contemporary critical reception, from reviews published around the time of initial release, and subsequent reception, from reviews made at later dates."

—proposed by Tsavage (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC), added here by 174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Survey of opinion for proposal 1

Support as nominator. The reason for the change is that the current wording encourages WP:SYNTHESIS i.e. an editor performing their own analysis of the available reviews, rather than deferring to analysis in secondary sources. This is already discouraged for a film's contemporary reception where review aggregators are commonly used to determine if a film's reception is positive or not, rather than leaving it to editors to decide for themselves.

The revision would also pull the guideline into line with the MOS:FILM#Box office which encourages editors to defer to secondary sources for analysis of financial performance: "Determine a consensus from objective (retrospective if possible) sources about how a film performed and why, but editors should avoid drawing their own conclusions about the success or failure of the film." Betty Logan (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Support per nomination. Lapadite (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose This wording is (1) overly specific, addresses only comparative retrospective analysis, ignores other uses of reviews of "older films" (e.g., to illustrate reception at time of release), which are not addressed in "Critical response"; 2) as worded, can be misread as an encouragement to perform retrospective analysis: "For older films, use..."

I proposed more inclusive wording that covers all cases of using reviews of "older films," and not just in retrospective comparisons:

Alternative wording: For older films, it is important to distinguish between contemporary critical reception, from reviews published around the time of initial release, and subsequent reception, from reviews made at later dates.

This covers referring to and quoting contemporary and later reviews, also, aggregator scores that mix initial and later reviews. The core policies and guidelines regarding verifiability (WP:V) and reliable sources (WP:RS) should be sufficient additional guidance for specific cases and disputes. --Tsavage (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Your alternative wording completely misses the point. My revision only addresses retrospective analysis because that is all that part of the MOS addresses. Obviously we should distinguish between older reviews and later reviews—that goes without saying—but the issue here is where we draw the analysis of revised opinion from. The reviews themselves are only reliable for the opinions they express, not for qualifying how those opinions have changed over time. My proposed revision takes account of WP:V and WP:OR, while the current wording in place does not. Betty Logan (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, your RfC and discussion here is somewhat disingenuous: this issue was just discussed with you at length, where your initial proposal included keeping this wording and adding on to it language suppressing use of aggregators (Your proposal from 16-Mar-2015: "For older films, seek reviews from the period of the film's release and the present to determine if a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today. If a film has been the subject of comprehensive retrospective analysis there may be more appropriate alternatives to including aggregator statistics when summarising its current critical standing."). In fact, the wording now in such need of change has been present verbatim and unopposed since 2008. In the above discussion, I proposed fixing this WP:SYNTHESIS issue in a way that would improve the whole "Critical response" section, by addressing all uses of reviews of older films. You essentially ignored my proposal there, all other editors backed off, and now you are proposing to simply bandage poor wording that hasn't been seen as a problem for six years, I fear only to make a point. My proposal addresses the problem AND improves the guideline. --Tsavage (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see how it is "respectful" to call starting an RFC disingenuous. If a disagreement between two editors cannot be resolved through reason or compromise then the proper thing to do is engage the wide community. It is irrelevant what my initial proposal was: it was discussed and I compromised on various aspects of it, incorporating other suggestions along the way. Of the two revisions I put forward I accommodated your complete rewrite of the first point. I am rejecting your second revision because it is completely tangential to what that particular part of the MOS is addressing. The current wording explicitly instructs how we should cover revised critical opinion, and your rewrite moves off this point. I would like to retain the essence of the existing guideline but simply eliminate the suggestion of synthesis from it. Betty Logan (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I say that because the full discussion was whether the guidance regarding retrospective analysis was overly specific and warranted, the WP:SYNTHESIS problem only came up later and secondarily to that. I mentioned I surveyed a dozen well-known 1940-1950s films, and found no recurring problems with what retrospective analysis there was. I suggested that we change that specfic wording to wording that covered all cases, not JUST retrospective cases, citing concerns with over specificity and instruction creep. Now, this RfC reduces that whole discussion to the correcting of a single sentence that encourages original research, and in doing so, ignores what I have been saying: that "Critical reception" needs overall guidance on the use of reviews of older films, which it doesn't have, before it needs specific guidance on retrospective analysis only (something that from what I've seen, seldom even appears in film articles). --Tsavage (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)--Tsavage (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor’s opinion: It’s okay to deal with one problem at a time. It’s okay to fix the synthesis problem now, and then have another RFC (or not, whatever’s appropriate) to address the question of whether additional guidance is needed, or whether the whole (now less problematic) section needs to be rewritten. There is no deadline. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree, if what you mean by no deadline is that there's no rush to try and remedy all problems right this instant. If there is a way to resolve a dispute by moving forward in smaller increments than originally discussed, great. And I think it is important to fix the SYNTHESIS issue. My comment in this RfC is that the proposed new wording is poor. Since we are not voting, but seeking consensus, I'm continuing to discuss the point, offering background and alternative wording, within this RfC. (I honestly don't know if that's "bad form" as I see such discussion in other RfCs.)--Tsavage (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Support. Editors frequently post their own analysis of critical reception, and we should explicitly discourage this. I did that in a few of the early articles that I created, and this probably would have helped me to see that it was a bad idea. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Not clear on your definition of "analysis of critical reception": is that comparing reception at the time of release with later reception, and how that has changed, or deciding how to summarize and which positive and negative quotes to use to fairly weight contemporary reception? I think both of those cases should be covered with one simple instruction that says, take care with the dates of reviews of older films. This RfC proposal is aimed specifically at comparison of contemporary and subsequent reception. Retrospective critical analysis (like use of blackface in The Jazz Singer), seems to be another thing entirely, generally beyond the scope of the usual journalistic film reviews, more in the area of film theory and academic papers, which is not what's being addressed here. --Tsavage (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Should we not say something like "high-level secondary source"? Technically, a film review is still a secondary source. We want secondary sources that assess film reviews collectively, whether contemporary, retrospective, or both. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

A review is a primary source for the film criticism itself; a secondary source in this context is essentially a source that discusses the reviews. Betty Logan (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that is the goal, but WP:PSTS defines secondary sources a specific way, which is why I think there could be clarifying wording. Actually, looking at tertiary sources, that might be the better term to use, since we want to summarize the film reviews. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, analysis isn't a tertiary source by definition. A review would be a secondary source for facts about the film, while it would be a primary source for the opinion of the reviewer i.e. secondary for "Titanic stars Kate Winslet", and primary for "Titanic is a 4-star movie". Maybe something along the lines of this: "For older films, use secondary source analysis of the critical reception to determine if the initial response varies from the reputation it has today." Betty Logan (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This suggests that we also have to distinguish between journalistic reviews and scholarly analysis. Do we need to even go there with specific guidance, especially for a type of content that is not common? To what standards do we hold academic analysis, we can't be citing a random thesis on "Review of critical analyses of Battleship Potemkin", or whatever. My concern here was to keep things general, get rid of specific guidance regarding "retrospective analysis" and simply cover the general relevance of when a review was written. --Tsavage (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Support The proposed wording will help editors avoid synthesis and rely on secondary sources for analysis of historical shifts in a film's critical evaluation. Bede735 (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Support per nom. The current wording definitely suggests synthesis and arguably condones it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Problem is, the proposed wording equally suggests synthesis. Movie reviews are secondary sources, they analyze and evaluate films, and they are likely the first type of secondary source an editor would be pointed to concerning a film's critical reception. So what is being proposed can easily be read as, "For older films, use film reviews to determine if a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today." This is only incrementally different from the current wording, and suggests the same thing, that the editor compare various reviews to arrive at a conclusion. At best, this wording seems vague and provides no additional guidance, as we are already encouraged to use reliable secondary sources in general, in the No original research policy. --Tsavage (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with “equally,” but I see your point. How about: For older films, seek reviews from the period of the film's release. Period. After all, the same paragraph doesn’t (and shouldn’t) recommend we determine whether critical reception in countries of origin varies from that in English-speaking countries. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, if specific "older film critical reception" guidance is needed at all, a simple reminder to watch review dates should be sufficient for all situations. Your wording, however, could suggest excluding later reviews, like "A 2015 review of this 1947 film noted..." That's why I suggested something like, For older films, remember to distinguish between reviews published around the time of initial release, and reviews from later dates. (And, yes, that paragraph should at least be split, as it addresses two separate areas: country of origin/language, and "older" film.)--Tsavage (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Support original proposal, per nom - SchroCat (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Survey of opinion for proposal 2

Support Tsavage’s alternative per both users’ concerns about WP:Synthesis. Failing that, Betty’s proposal is still preferable to the status quo. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- ~~@Betty Logan: I don’t think it “confuses the survey responses” to explicitly propose a properly timestamped alternative to the main proposal.~~ Outdated and struck. Regardless, this is what I’ve changed my vote to. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Support as author of alternative wording. Proposal 2 covers the general case of critical reception of older film, including comparisons of reception over time, by simply reminding editors to check review dates. The Proposal 1 wording is unhelpful, as the reference to "secondary sources" is likely as not to be interpreted as "movie reviews" (the usual secondary sources cited regarding critical reception),and "use movie reviews to determine if a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today" suggests synthesis/original research in a similar way to the existing wording.

Additionally, there has been no demonstrated need to provide instruction specifically for cases where editors want to compare differences in critical reception for "older film." We shouldn't be writing rules, or suggesting/highlighting particular types of content, indiscriminately. In this case, simply deleting the offending sentence would fix the SYNTHESIS problem. --Tsavage (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Prefer Proposal 2 to Proposal 1, Prefer Either to Original Wording, though I think the wording of Proposal 2 could use some cleaning up as well. The intent is clear but the language may be a bit confusing. DonIago (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The RFC has been closed and the conclusion is that the first proposal has broad support, so I will install it in the MOS. However, it was also found that the alternative proposal is equally acceptable, so I intend to add that too, unless there are objections. At least then the deficiencies of either one are compensated by the alternative. Betty Logan (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
You mean like, one after the other? Sounds good to me. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, both versions, to get rid of the synthesis wording. It would be...nice to have one simple, clear sentence, but in service of compromise and consensus, fine by me! --Tsavage (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

AfD of Leatherface film

Leatherface (film) has been nominated for deletion on the grounds that it fails the notability criteria, contains unreliable sources, and it is not clear if the name of the article will actually be the name of the film. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leatherface (film). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what that has to do with an MOS subpage, but, okay. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It's an announcement. Not every frequents the main Project page. Additionally, the future film guideline is a sister guideline to this page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The use of aggregators on articles about older films

Our guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Critical response currently advise "Caution: reliable review statistics may not be available for older films. Appraise the sample size in conjunction with other reliable sources, using best judgment to determine consensus". I would like to collate some opinions on whether we should advise against using aggregators completely for older films. I appreciate that aggregators split editors down the middle; I am on the fence in that I see them as a necessary evil: we need to assess critical consensus and while they are crude in their application they probably solve more problems that they create so I accept their usage in lieu of anything better. If we do not use them, we then face the problem of how we assess the critical consensus of newly released films.

However, they seem to be proliferating on articles about older films and I am struggling to see their purpose on such articles. The survey size is often small, and they often mix contemporary reviews with retrospective reviews. In short, they do not really tell us how the film reviewed at the time, and they do not really tell us about how they are perceived today i.e. they are a mishmash and do not tell us all that much. Is there a "they are better than nothing" case to be made here? Possibly, but certainly in the case of classic films that have had much retrospective analysis I don't think they add that much. For instance, does an RT score really add anything at Citizen Kane#Reception?

I think the guidelines should be revised to advise against using aggregators on articles about 20th century films, and to encourage editors to seek out proper restrospective analysis. I am not proposing we ban them outright, but to simply stem their usage and recommend a better approach. Betty Logan (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I would agree. I've found people citing RT for films 40 years old, when the reviews are clearly from the last 5 years. It sends a deceiving message to readers who may believe that a film was well received (or poorly received) when it was released. Horror films are really bad about this, as many were almost completely hated by critics when they were released, but appreciation for them 30 years later makes it appear that they weren't. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

When I first saw this, I struggled with how I felt about it. Eventually, I decided it wasn't as big a deal as I initially thought, and I began to add aggregators to older films. Sometimes people stick aggregators in a separate subsection/paragraph for modern reviews, which makes sense to me. I don't usually do that, though, because I figure people want to know right up front what the aggregators say. If there's been a reevaluation, I attempt to source it as best as possible, but sometimes you just can't find a source online that says the obvious. Review aggregators can be helpful in that case, as they can show that a critically despised film, such as Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me, has actually experienced that reevaluation. On many older horror films, this is the only chance they have to show any critical reevaluation. Some "important" films transcend their initial reception. Nosferatu is one of the best-reviewed films on all of RT, and that is relevant to its reception regardless of any other concerns. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Is Nosferatu's modern critical standing best served by a Rotten Tomato percentage though? I would have thought there would be a wealth of a critical analysis to draw from for such an iconic film. Betty Logan (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point, and I guess films like Nosferatu and Citizen Kane can make a RT score kind of pointless, as it tends to get lost in the sea of high quality scholarship. Still, if Nosferatu can maintain a rare near-perfect rating for years, make several "best of RT" lists, and get press related to its RT score, I think maybe it is worth at least mentioning. I guess I wouldn't put up a big fight about it, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with BL's initial statement (although in an ideal world I would ban Rancid Tomatoes from all films for being the deeply flawed tool of the lazy, but that's just my take on it). I think there is a slight difference in the use RNP is talking about, and one that I've followed sometimes for older films, which is to split the contemporary reviews of the time away from the "reflective reviews" of more modern reviewers and dump the RT score in there: it needs careful handling though, and I wouldn't like to rely on RT to support any sort of notability or quality check on the film, especially (as per the examples of Nosferatu and Citizen Kane), there are numerous solid sources which are far better to use to judge a film's importance. - SchroCat (talk) 09:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

For older films, I find Rotten Tomatoes to be useful mainly as a collection of links to some of the reviews. I don't think the "Tomatometer" is of much value. As noted above, critical perception of a film often changes over the years, and Rotten Tomatoes doesn't capture this. Further, the sampling of critics for older films isn't very systematic. So I concur with discouraging the routine use of its statistics for 20th century film articles. I have no objection to including an external link in articles, as is commonly done. Easchiff (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that to avoid further confusion: I also support the inclusion of an external link when reviews are listed which we do not directly source in the article. RT is a great resource for locating reviews. Betty Logan (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that we should "advise against using aggregators completely for older films." I see nothing but a lot of WP:Wikilawyering about what "an older film" is resulting from such advice, and I certainly cannot get on board with the suggestion that we should not use Rotten Tomatoes for 20th century film articles. So use of Rotten Tomatoes for late 1990s films is out? I don't agree. Even if we put an exact date on what an older film is, I don't like the idea of the guideline advising (which will be interpreted as telling) people that they can't cite Rotten Tomatoes at all in such a case. What the guideline needs on this matter is better advice on citing Rotten Tomatoes; if you look at the Conan the Barbarian (1982 film)#Critical response and The Terminator#Reception and legacy, for examples, you will see that they currently do not give priority to Rotten Tomatoes, which is the opposite of what Wikipedia film articles generally do. Instead, they cite Rotten Tomatoes more as an afterthought. Flyer22 (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the point is more about masquerading current data as historical data for films. It's not accurate to say that The Terminator has 100% approval rating from critics, because they weren't the reviews from 1984. This is especially bad (IMO) when the page is listing the aggregate counter alongside the Top 100-esque placements of the film, as if getting 100% approval rating is an achievement. It would be accurate to state that "based on reviews in the last 5 years (<--fill in whatever is accurate), RT has calculated an approval rating of 100%." That at least lets a reader understand that we aren't saying that all critics liked this film in 1984 (which in fact, they clearly did not). Hindsight is 20/20, but that doesn't mean that we should forget that foresight wasn't. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The Terminator#Reception and legacy example is an appropriate way to use Rotten Tomatoes for an older film, in my opinion; that's why I cited it. Yes, it currently states (WP:Permalink seen here), "The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported a 100% approval rating with an average rating of 8.7/10 based on 50 reviews." But the section begins by noting how the film was reviewed at the time, and it does not get into the Rotten Tomatoes aspect until the final paragraph of the section, among all the modern reviews for the film, and it adds, "With its impressive action sequences, taut economic direction, and relentlessly fast pace, it's clear why The Terminator continues to be an influence on sci-fi and action flicks." That bit is clearly speaking from a modern perspective of the film. I see no deception there. Flyer22 (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That's similar to the format we used in On Her Majesty's Secret Service (film)#Reflective reviews: at the bottom of the section dedicated to more modern reviews, and alongside the "eighth best ..." type of listings". (Even then it's slightly awkward, and I'll probably tweak it in a day or so, after this thread dies). - SchroCat (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good format for the On Her Majesty's Secret Service (film) article, SchroCat.

Also, Bignole, what did you mean by "as if getting 100% approval rating is an achievement." It's rare, or at least not very common, that a film gets a 100% score on Rotten Tomatoes. Flyer22 (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Being prestigious to Wikipedia does not make it prestigious anywhere else. Considering that almost half of the "100%" club have less than 25 reviews, which is barely statistically significant itself, I think there's more weight being applied to this "rarity" than is appropriate. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't basing the matter on Wikipedia; I don't judge a topic's notability, popularity and/or rarity on Wikipedia. I was basing the matter on what is shown at the Rotten Tomatoes website, which is that it is not at all usual that a film reaches a 100% score on that site. It is rare, or at least significantly uncommon, from what I've seen. I pointed to the Wikipedia article as a quick go-to reference with regard to the matter; it lets readers easily see how often a film has reached the 100% score. If it was very common that a film reached that score on that site, I doubt that Wikipedia would have a list on it, since that list would be gigantic. That article should probably be deleted anyway, or rather not be a list and instead be more of an article; I see that it survived one WP:AfD (the second WP:AfD nomination was poorer than the first one). Flyer22 (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Briefly looking at The Terminator entry at RT I see it has reviews listed from 1984 right up to the recent years, and I find it hard to believe there were no negative reviews at the time of release, so I don't consider that an achievement, I consider it selective. But to get back to the point I was making, I am not saying we should prohibit anything, I am simply recommending better practices. In the case of older films the relevance of an RT score is inversely proportional to the amount of retrospective critical analysis that is available to us. How old, and how much athoritative writing is available very much depends on the prestige of the film. Case in point: given that Citizen Kane has repeatedly topped the most prestigious critics poll in the world for the last 50-60 years is there really any value in mentioning its critics score? I don't see the issue as "we should exclude it" or "include it in the second paragraph" etc; I am saying that sometimes there are preferable alternatives to including the tomato score, and when there are we should exercise them. Betty Logan (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

What wording for the guideline do you propose? Flyer22 (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

No rules, just guidance. I propose simply adding a couple of sentences to what is already there (bold is my additions):

Caution: reliable review statistics may not be available for older films. Appraise the sample size in conjunction with other reliable sources, using best judgment to determine consensus. If a significant number of the aggregated reviews were published many years after the film's release be careful to not present aggregator findings as the contemporary critical consensus.
For older films, seek reviews from the period of the film's release and the present to determine if a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today. If a film has been the subject of comprehensive retrospective analysis there may be more appropriate alternatives to including aggregator statistics when summarising its current critical standing.

Betty Logan (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, that seems quite reasonable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

These additions don't seem necessary: they add to the length of the guideline, making it incrementally more complicated and difficult to use, and at the sime time, with somewhat equivocal instructions like "be careful not to" (as opposed to "don't" or "never" or "avoid"), and "may be more appropriate," are as like as not to contribute to confusion, debate over interpretation, and ultimately, more wikilawyering, when applied in editing discussions.

In suggestion 1., the existing statement, "Caution: reliable review statistics may not be available for older films. Appraise the sample size in conjunction with other reliable sources, using best judgment to determine consensus," should be clarified. It is hard to understand, and refers to aggregators specifically, when it should cover all reviews of older films. Replacing it with easily understood, comprehensive guidance like, "With older films, it is important to distinguish between contemporary critical reception, summarized from reviews published around the time of initial release, and subsequent reception, from reviews made at later dates." Something like that would not add additional words, and would seem to sufficiently make clear the consideration, as a guideline, for any reasonably literate editor.

In suggestion 2., the existing statement is clear (and complements, perhaps somewhat redundantly, the proposed rewording of 1, just above) and does not suggest anything beyond making sure not to misrepresent the time frame the reception coverage represents. The proposed addition is somewhat vague, and as far as adding specific direction, seems to tentatively establish grounds for removal - "there may be more appropriate alternatives to including" - of one type of reliable source in favor of a "superior" source, which is a tricky editorial position (mandating what source trumps what), and the sort of thing that tends to lead to contentious discussion.

I took a look at WP articles for a dozen or so well-known movies from the 1940s-50s, and didn't find any evidence of misrepresentation where contemporary and current reception might easily be confused, so I'm not sure how much of a pressing problem this is, although my sample is small. If the underlying issue here is Rotten Tomatoes, which no doubt many editors dislike in all its incarnations, then that should be addressed head-on.--Tsavage (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Your rewrite of my first point is reasonable; the second consideration follows from the first: where an aggregator hosts a substantial number of modern and contemporary reviews we should be careful to not draw conclusions about a film's current standing from just an aggregated score. An aggregator does not provide any chronological conclusions so we should steer clear of using them in that capacity. If you feel that my rewrite is a "prescription for removal" then I suggest tweaking it as follows:

2. For older films look to retrospective analysis in determining if a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today.

Betty Logan (talk) 04:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Apologies if my reply wasn't clear. Two additions are proposed, and neither appear to be necessary or desirable, in that they add to the length and complexity of the guideline rather than clarify it. A simple modification of the existing wording should convey the intended recommendation, and add to the overall usability of the "Critcal reception" section.

The problem is that the two paragraphs of "Critical reception" in question are at present poorly structured. The four issues covered, film review sources, aggregators, older films, and foreign films, are not well-delineated. To improve clarity and maintain brevity, these points can be better organized. Something like this is what I meant:

CURRENT WORDING:

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. Detailed commentary from reliable sources of the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) for a film is encouraged. Individual critics can also be referenced to detail various aspects of the film. Sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited. The use of print reviews is encouraged. These will be more reliable in retrospect; review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for statistics pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews. (Caution: reliable review statistics may not be available for older films. Appraise the sample size in conjunction with other reliable sources, using best judgment to determine consensus.) To maintain a neutral point of view, it is recommended to quote a reasonable balance of these reviews. This may not always be possible or desirable (e.g. films that have been almost universally acclaimed or panned), and best judgment should again be used.

Reviews from the film's country of origin are recommended (i.e., Chinese reviews for a Chinese film, French reviews for a French film), though evaluations from several English-speaking territories are desirable.^[1] In the case of films not in the English language, the section should contain quotes translated into English from non-English reviews. For older films, seek reviews from the period of the film's release and the present to determine if a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today.

SUGGESTED IMPROVED WORDING (~~deletions~~ and additions indicated):

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. Detailed commentary from reliable sources of the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) for a film is encouraged. Individual critics can also be referenced to detail various aspects of the film. Sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited. The use of print reviews is encouraged. These will be more reliable in retrospect;.

Review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for statistics pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews. ~~(Caution: reliable review statistics may not be available for older films. Appraise the sample size in conjunction with other reliable sources, using best judgment to determine consensus.)~~ To maintain a neutral point of view, it is recommended to quote a reasonable balance of these reviews, although this may not always be possible or desirable (e.g. films that have been almost universally acclaimed or panned), and best judgment should ~~again~~ be used.

For older films, ~~seek reviews from the period of the film's release and the present to determine if a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today.~~ it is important to distinguish between contemporary critical reception, summarized from reviews published around the time of initial release, and subsequent reception, from reviews made at later dates. Aggregator scores that combine original reviews with reviews from later dates, should be used with caution.

Reviews from the film's country of origin are recommended (i.e., Chinese reviews for a Chinese film, French reviews for a French film), though evaluations from several English-speaking territories are desirable.^[1] In the case of films not in the English language, the section should contain quotes translated into English from non-English reviews.

^ ^a ^b For an experimental list of sites that can be used to obtain aggregate ratings and link to reviews from non-English-speaking countries see Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Resources#Non-English resources.

That would make clear the aggregator consideration with regard to older films, while improving the whole section.

"Retrospective analysis" may be a useful additional term, however, is it widely and clearly understood: does it mean analysis by the editor based on original reviews, or a published media article or academic paper formally looking back at a film, I'm not sure what? --Tsavage (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I think " Aggregator scores that combine original reviews with reviews from later dates, should be used with caution" should be rephrased as "Caution should be exercised when using aggregator scores that combine original reviews with reviews from later dates" so it does not sound like the MOS is mandating their usage. Secondly, I think most editors will know what "retrospective analysis" means: "retrospective" is used quite frequently in this MOS and everyone knows what "analysis" means. The intention is to encourage inclusion of third-party sources that explicitly adopt a historical perspective when qualifying how a film's reputation has evolved over time (see the last sentence at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Box_office for a working example). Betty Logan (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Either wording seems fine to me, for all practical purposes, they convey exactly the same thing. Neither suggests mandatory use of aggregator scores, this cautionary note for "older films" builds on the general aggregator guideline in the previous paragraph, which says they "are citable," an option. Seems quite clear in context either way.

Regarding "retrospective analysis," I really don't understand exactly what that means (as I explained just above), especially if a guideline is encouraging me to use it. Thank you for explaining your intention: "to encourage inclusion of third-party sources that explicitly adopt a historical perspective when qualifying how a film's reputation has evolved over time." Fortunately, that's already covered under simple verifiability: it's clear that one needs reliable, more recently written reviews of older films, in order to discuss how a film has held up over time (unless I don't fully understand "explicitly adopted historical perspective").

IF we need it, a simply written, comprehensive, and less prescriptive caution specifically addressing use of aggregator statistics compiled from reviews spanning many years could be simply worded: "Aggregator scores that combine original reviews with reviews from later dates, should be used with caution." Or equally: "Caution should be exercised when using aggregator scores that combine original reviews with reviews from later dates." However, I'm very conscious of instruction creep, and don't see why we have to add more and more words if they aren't warranted. Is this a pressing problem? Are substantial numbers of "older film" reviews being reduced in quality because of misrepresentation of aggregator scores? --Tsavage (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I really don't see how it is instruction creep to inform editors how to edit in a manner consistent with other policies. We are not telling them what to do or not to do—we have policies that do that—but explaining how those policies should be interpreted in a particular context. Our MOS currently states "For older films, seek reviews from the period of the film's release and the present to determine if a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today." It is not appropriate for an editor to draw their own conclusions about how the reputation of a film has changed over time by comparing contemporary reviews to modern reviews, as the MOS currently instructs them; we are instructing them to engage in WP:SYNTHESIS. I really don't know how else to explain "retrospective analysis". "Retrospective" is a simple enough word—and one that is commonly used in the MOS—that means to "look back", so in this context "retrospective analysis" is analysis that looks back i.e. if editors wish to include commentary on how a film's reputation has changed over time they should seek out analysis that actually considers this particular aspect of the film's reception. Betty Logan (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Your proposed wording seems like something I can support, Betty. We can always tweak it further if need be. Flyer22 (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: I agree with you on, "For older films, seek reviews from the period of the film's release and the present..." and WP:SYNTHESIS. You've tentatively agreed with the following wording (above: "Your rewrite of my first point is reasonable") as it applied to "Caution..."; it also replaces the similar "...seek reviews..." instruction:

"For older films, it is important to distinguish between contemporary critical reception, summarized from reviews published around the time of initial release, and subsequent reception, from reviews made at later dates."

Re aggregators: Aggregator stats are a form of film review and are already covered, by verifiability and reliable sources, and by this MOS with "For older films..." WP:SYNTHESIS exists if sources are improperly used retrospectively. Getting even more specific is instruction creep.

Again, does the scope of the problem justify more rules? As I mentioned, I surveyed a dozen or so popular films from the 1940s and 1950s and found no problem like this. My main concern: we should take care not to confuse or subvert the core policies and guidelines with additional layers of overly pointed interpretation in a local MOS. --Tsavage (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not making myself clear. The MOS currently instructs editors to perform comparative analysis. This is forbidden by WP:SYNTHESIS. My proposed wording makes the following revision:

From For older films, seek reviews from the period of the film's release and the present to determine if a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today.
To For older films look to secondary sources for retrospective analysis of how a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today.

It is not the place of editors to make judgment calls about a film's reputation and if articles are going to sepcifically discuss how a film's reputation has changed over time then we should defer to sources that specifically discuss how a film's reputaion has changed over time. This is essentially no different to how the critical reception is handled i.e. we defer to aggregators and secondary sources to analyse a film's reception; we don't simply pluck out a bbunch of reviews and draw conclusions ourselves. I can getting tired of debating what is a straightforward revision of a problematic area of the MOS so if you are going to continue roadblocking the alterations I am just going to elevate this to an RFC and seek a consensus from the community. Betty Logan (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

If that is the entirety of the amendment you're proposing, I don't have a problem with critically improving the wording of what is already there. It is not what you proposed earlier, which was to insert additonal guidance about aggregators. I've already suggested a more inclusive version of this rewrite, which both eliminates WP:SYNTHESIS and addresses all cases of older film reception, not just retrospective analysis:

From For older films, seek reviews from the period of the film's release and the present to determine if a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today.
To For older films, it is important to distinguish between contemporary critical reception, summarized from reviews published around the time of initial release, and subsequent reception, from reviews made at later dates.

It seems you are not hearing me, as I've already said all this more than once. If you feel this is no longer a discussion, please elevate it to RfC, I'm interested in how that process works! --Tsavage (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, your rewrite does not address the issue of synthesis. Yes, it is important to distinuguish between contemporary critical reception and modern day reception, but that does not address the issue of determining if the film's reputation has changed! Even if an editor makes that distinction it is not acceptable for them to make evaluative claims about how the film's repuation has changed. And yes it is what I proposed a week ago in my second draft. You objected to the referencing of aggregators in my original draft so I dropped that part of my proposal. I will initiate the first alteration that is agreed on and I will formulate an RFC for the second. Betty Logan (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, it appears you are not hearing me. You haven't made clear why my more inclusive alternative (my To directly above), that covers all cases, including retrospective comparisons, isn't sufficient. Supplementary MOS instructions shouldn't be so specific that they eclipse common sense application of core policies and guidelines. In this case, everything "older" - film, books, prize-winning pie, scientific breakthroughs - requires the same consideration, observing source dates when writing about original, and changes in, perception over time, this isn't unique to film. The RfC should be interesting as we explore community consensus! (BTW, I wasn't clear on exactly what was your second draft, thanks for eventually pointing that out, it was a radical departure from the original proposal to stem aggregator usage; it takes two to miscommunicate, if that is what happened.) --Tsavage (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: The changes being discussed in this thread - including to guidance that encourages original research via WP:SYNTHESIS - concerns wording that has been in place verbatim since 2008. When significant guideline problems have gone unchallenged for many years, it seems like a good and prudent idea that we give the whole of MOS FILM an item by item review. (In addition to general clarity, I'm personally particularly concerned with redundancies that eclipse core policies and guidelines, instruction creep, unnecessarily specific instructions, and unduly prescriptive instructions.) --Tsavage (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Section break

Betty and others, per what has been stated above in this section, I think we should add better clarity with regard to using Rotten Tomatoes for older films; the content currently states "caution should be exercised when using aggregator scores that combine original reviews with reviews from later dates." But as noted above, that isn't the only concern. Giving Rotten Tomatoes priority for a 1980s film, for example, can be a problem. See this recent case that I edited. Flyer22 (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The revised guideline isn't massively helpful in suggesting a course of action, but at least it now acknowledges that aggregator stats are not always particularly useful and even misleading in some cases and encourages editors to take appropriate action in that regard. It seems reasonable to me to make the stats less prominent in the section if they aren't particularly conclusive, as you have done with the Billie Jean article. Betty Logan (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Jurassic World

So, I corrected the cast order at Jurassic World to match the billing block per this MOS page, and have had numerous editors revert it based on other criteria (specifically their subjective opinion of the importance of the character, and not the actual billing block used in promotional materials). Is there a place to get help with dealing with this (I assume this isn't the place, but was looking for some guidance). Thanks! —Locke Cole • t • c 03:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding a note to the section explaining why it's organized as it is might deter further disruption. DonIago (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Expanding WP:NOTPLOT

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Expanding NOTPLOT. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

universal acclaim

Many editors seem to feel that when close to 100% of critics agree on a film, it can be called "universal" (which usually results in lots of back-and-forth edits). Metacritic is fairly liberal with the word - why must we be so strict about it meaning "every single critic, no exceptions" when typical English usage seems to be at least slightly more lenient? And before someone quotes WP:OR, this is a wording issue, not a synthesis issue (and there is always the aforementioned Metacritic rating...). --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the question here, but we don't typically say "universal acclaim" or "generally positive", etc. because it's unnecessary interpretation of data. Data can speak for itself. We don't need to tell readers that 94% is generally positive, universal acclaim, or anything. It speaks for itself. On the flip side, not using those terms help us when we have films with 45%, 55%, etc. and it's more middle of the road. You end up with questions of "well that's negative" or "no, that's mixed", or "it's mixed to negative". We just cut the synthesis out of the interpretation. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I saw one example where something like "universal acclaim" was used, but it was cited to a source that used that explicit terminology. I don't really have a problem with that sort of direct quoting of sources. If it isn't being directly sourced then I agree that it's probably best to omit a summary statement entirely, at least if there's any disagreement. Whether we should not use such terminology when it is explicitly sourced is perhaps a valid question. DonIago (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"Universal acclaim" has no place in an encyclopedia other than as a direct quote attributed to whoever is saying it. It is certainly not appropriate for describing the critical consensus in factual terms. In the case of something like Metacritic which does use the phrase, it is worth pointing out that per WP:AGG aggregators are not arbiters of critical consensus, they are simply surveys: surveys can produce different results depending on who you ask. The fact that Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes often arrive at different conclusions speaks for itself. Betty Logan (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Concur completely with Betty Logan. Critics all agreeing that Shaun the Sheep Movie is a good children's film or Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation is a good action film does not in any sense mean critics are equating Shaun the Sheep Movie or Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation with the likes of Citizen Kane, The Seventh Seal or Modern Times. "Acclaim" in the cinematic sense requires time and historical perspective. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that "universal acclaim" should always be directly attributed. I prefer quoting such labels after explaining what an aggregator gathered and surveyed for a film. For a film like The Illusionist, you have two mixed reviews, but it is still called "universal acclaim". A good recap of Metacritic's approach would have mentioned the two mixed reviews after 29 positive reviews to help clarify that "universal" in this case really just means widespread or whatever. Generally speaking, though, we have to constantly be on the lookout for summary-level commentary about a film. For example, if a film really gets "universal acclaim", it will probably be an award contender. Therefore it is very likely for periodicals during awards season to comment something slightly retrospective like, "Critics called it one of the best films of the year," that can be leveraged for Wikipedia articles. If we can paraphrase such commentary, great. If it is too tricky to do that, we can quote directly. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Anything beyond "critical acclaim" is really just fanboyish attempts to big up a film. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what my own question is here... I understand and would generally agree with all of the above, but I'm also frustrated by the constant addition and removal of summary critical consensus intro lines. It seems to me that many editors look for a summary at the start of the section, or they wouldn't keep adding it back when they don't find one (I don't think coloring it as fanboyish puffery is necessarily fair). Dunno. Just wish there were a different solution/compromise, I guess. --Fru1tbat (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I think I was also responding to some edits I saw recently where an editor removed a summary line on the grounds that "universal" = "100%", which seemed like a poor reason for removal (as far as I'm concerned, "universal" in this context does not need to mean "strictly unanimous"). If unattributed summaries of critical consensus are going to be removed, it should be simply because we do not summarize critical consensus. The guideline essentially says this ("The overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources", etc.), but maybe the wording could be made slightly more explicit in regard to all the above. --Fru1tbat (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Fru1tbat, I don't think "universal acclaim" has to mean every single critic; this is because it rarely means that. So I agree with you that using it to mean "every single critic" is too strict. But I do think we should stay away from that wording, unless it's given WP:In-text attribution. We actually do commonly use "generally positive" or "generally negative." But we stay away from "generally mixed," because it's silly, and we avoid "mixed to negative." For example, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 10#"generally mixed". Flyer22 (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

And for how Wikipedia film editors generally feel about a summary statement for critical reception sections, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 52#Summary statement for "Reception" section. Flyer22 (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Critical response proposals

1. The critical response section states that "Sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited." I propose that university film professors also be included as "sources that are regarded as reliable." If a film professor has published books and articles on film criticism in a respected university press or peer-reviewed journals (e.g., books and articles on the films of Hitchcock), then her published reviews of films would appear to qualify as reliable sources under WP:RS. 2. Regarding the statement that "notable persons...may also be cited," I would like to point out that there is no requirement under WP:RS that the authors themselves meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. WP:RS sets out three elements of reliability, which are the author, the work (e.g., book, article, etc.) and the publisher. If an author is a reliable source, and she writes a book which is viewed as a reliable source that is published by a reliable publishing house, then the author's work can be cited even if she/he is not notable under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. To avoid this confusion, I propose replacing "notable" with "noteworthy." 3. Regarding the statement that "...experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited," I believe that this wording should be nuanced with additional wording, as follows: "experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited in regards to elements of the film that pertain to their expertise." Take, for example, the film Matchstick Men, which has a main character who has Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. A psychiatrist's commentary about how well the depiction of OCD in the film matches the clinical symptoms of the disorder is pertinent. However, I do not see how a psychiatrist has the training to give critical commentary on the screenplay, acting and editing.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 02:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd certainly go along with #3's suggestion of more nuanced wording, since I think that the point it raises is generally understood but hasn't been explicitly stated. I have to think some more on #1 and am particularly interested in other editors' views on this: An academic's opinion on an older movie could indeed lend necessary insight, and I'm certainly all for that ... but I'm not sure all academics are equipped to serve as reviewers of new movies — film criticism and film history can dovetail, but I think an academic's framework is different from that of a film critic, and we already have more than enough notable critics to choose from.

As for #2, I'm not sure if that's just a technical change or not — notability, in terms of an author having his or her own Wikipedia page, isn't required for citing elsewhere in Wikipedia, so I can't imagine that that's the standard here. On the other hand, there are hundreds of people calling themselves critics with the most questionable of credentials, and self-published non-professional authors, so perhaps this wording was a conscious attempt at keeping criticism sections from being overrun with that sort of thing. Can anyone shed light on this?--Tenebrae (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding #1 and #2, how about we say, "Sources commonly regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though academic persons, noteworthy persons, or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited." I say "academic persons" since "university film professors" may be unnecessarily narrow. For #3, I find this proposed wording a little redundant. I was involved with writing these guidelines, so the intent was absolutely to include scholarly commentary from those who are qualified to comment on a certain aspect of the film. I don't find that the current or slightly-revised wording prevents that. It should be noted that this section is more about the film's aesthetic quality, so a historian may comment briefly on this, where most of their scholarly commentary would also belong in a "Historical accuracy" section. Same goes for the academic/noteworthy persons, as we have had "Critical analysis" sections for commentary that is more than film reviewing. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with going with Erik II's wording, and I appreciate that OnBeyondZebrax addressed this topic. I think that "noteworthy" might be interpreted as "WP:Notable," though, which is what OnBeyondZebrax is trying to avoid. Like OnBeyondZebrax and Tenebrae stated above, we don't simply cite people who are WP:Notable. We cite media commentators in addition to professional film critics, and we cite academics. Not all of these people are WP:Notable. Flyer22 (talk) 04:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the guideline was ever intended to keep out academic writing (that would fly in the face of WP:RS), but rather bloggers and low-rent tabloid reviews. I agree with Flyer about the use of notable/noteworthy: I think it encourages too much focus on the critic (the famous critic said this, the famous critic said that etc) rather than finding excerpts/quotes that best sum up the general thinking. Sometimes, someone less famous can be more succinct and more illuminating, so we should focus more on the substance of the review rather than the reputation of the reviewer. This is especially true in the case of scholars, who are rarely famous but perhaps possess more insight than a tabloid reviewer. Betty Logan (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we could use the word "authoritative" instead? WP:RS mentions "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject". Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that would be a better choice of wording. Betty Logan (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"Authoritative," as in "authoritative people"? That doesn't sound right. So, instead, it seems you are proposing that we add "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject," but that's redundant to "experts connected to the topics covered by the film." It could also cover "professional film critics." So, in place of "noteworthy persons," I'd go with "reputable commentators" (which also covers "a record for fact checking"). Flyer22 (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

While "reputable commentators" can also cover "professional film critics," I'm sure it will be clear to people that we mean other commentators. You know, since we already start off the wording with "Sources commonly regarded as reliable are professional film critics." Flyer22 (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I prefer "authoritative" since it is a preexisting term from the guidelines. I think "authoritative" can cover notable/noteworthy persons as well as experts. We do need to address non-critics reviewing the film, not just topics covered by it. We can simplify it and write, "Sources commonly regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though other authoritative persons (e.g., scholars) writing about the film or topics covered by the film may also be cited." Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't like that wording, per what I stated above. We cite media commentators as well, and they are not necessarily "authoritative"; same goes for other WP:Reliable sources (including scholars). And I definitely don't want to see debates about what is and is not authoritative in this regard. So I prefer "reputable commentators" in place of "noteworthy persons" or "authoritative persons." And the WP:Reliable sources guideline quite clearly has "reputable" as part of its recommendation. And by that, I mean that reputable means "having a good reputation. Well-thought-of, highly regarded, respected, well respected, respectable, of (good) repute." And the Overview section of the WP:Reliable sources guideline states, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." And its WP:Scholarship section specifically mentions the word reputable. Flyer22 (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course, "authoritative" can also mean "able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable." But on the flipside, it additionally means, "having or showing impressive knowledge about a subject. Having the confident quality of someone who is respected or obeyed by other people. Having due authority; having the sanction or weight of authority : an authoritative opinion. Substantiated or supported by documentary evidence and accepted by most authorities in a field." It's significantly different from simply being reputable. And I've seen enough editors argue over what is or isn't authoritative. At least with "reputable," all one needs to do is cite the WP:Reliable sources guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I like what Erik II said about non-film critics reviewing the film, not just the topics covered by the film. With the current wording, editors are told that "Sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited." If there is a WP article on a Hitchcock film, an editor very well might want to quote an individual who is neither a film critic nor an expert connected with the topic of the film, such as film scholar Murray Pomerance, who has authored several books on Hitchcock films (his views on a Hitchcock film would appear to be a WP:RS). I also like what Flyer22 said about citing media commentators.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 03:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

How do people feel about this modification of the sentence: "Sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though reputable commentators or experts connected to the topics covered by the film or the film itself may also be cited." This proposal takes out "notable persons" and replaces it with "reputable commentators." As well, it adds in "or the film itself," which acknowledges that in addition to experts in the topics covered by the film (e.g., psychiatrists for Matchstick Men), film articles can include critical commentary from experts on a particular film or a genre of films (e.g., film scholars).OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 05:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of grammar, I would make the following adjustment to that proposal: "Professional film critics are regarded as reliable sources, though reputable commentators and experts—connected to the film or to topics covered by the film—may also be cited."

Also addressing an earlier comment about notability, keep in mind that WP:N has nothing to do with content within an article; it concerns article topics only. Therefore, in phrases like "notable authors" and "notable commentators", the term "notable" is a synonym for "reputable" and nothing more. In this context, we are only referring to the sources themselves and not to the guideline in any way. I understand if people feel the need to change it to "reputable", but in my opinion, it's an unnecessary change. In cases where there is confusion, a quick discussion can aptly point out the limits of WP:N and why it doesn't apply. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The recent proposal looks good: "Professional film critics are regarded as reliable sources, though reputable commentators and experts—connected to the film or to topics covered by the film—may also be cited." ....I have two concerns with using "notable". First, it may confuse readers into thinking that we mean WP:N (yes, WP:N only applies to articles, but some editors may misunderstand the use of the term. As well, if the term "notable" is used, an editor may wikilnk it to WP:N, causing confusion). Second, even if we set aside the WP:N meaning of "notability", its everyday definition outside of WP poses some drawbacks. Merriam-Webster gives a range of meanings, including "very successful or respected", remarkable, distinguished and prominent. A certain film expert may not be "very successful" or prominent; she may be little known and not successful in her career. But if she is an expert on a certain film, with her critical views set out in books published by reliable publishing houses and articles published in peer-reviewed journals, then she is a WP:RS.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 17:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your first concern, all areas of Wikipedia encounter editors who inappropriately cite WP:N. The learning curve is an unfortunate by-product of having article content and topics covered under different guidelines. It's possible that avoiding the term here may help to some degree, but I would seriously question how much. Onto your second concern, I see where you're coming from, but the term is simply being used as it's defined by WP:N, meaning "worthy of notice". If you look at Merriam-Webster's list of possible definitions, you'll notice "worthy of note" listed first, which is in accordance with the meaning used in that guideline. I also believe that most editors will be familiar with how the term "notable" is used on Wikipedia, and the number of editors who may have issues would pale in comparison to those that don't. Having said all that, I don't really have a preference. If it's changed to reputable, so be it. Either term is acceptable to me. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess I'm also fine with the adjusted wording, though I am still partial to "authoritative" because of its presence in existing guidelines. Slightly concerned that there will be future debates about what "reputable" means without a Wikipedia-based definition. In my experience with contributing to MOS:FILM, we need to be mindful of unintended interpretations. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

GoneIn60, "notable authors" and "notable commentators" is a problem because it can imply to editors that we mean "notable enough to have a Wikipedia article." After all, editors commonly apply WP:Notable to article content; for example, when deciding whether or not to WP:Red link a word or name, or whether or not to include the material if it has no Wikipedia article (as seen with Wikipedia lists). So, per what has been stated above by OnBeyondZebrax, and me as well, I prefer "reputable" to "notable" or "authoritative" in this case.

And, Erik, as I've already stated above, "reputable" is supported by the WP:Reliable sources guideline; what we mean by "reputable" on Wikipedia is at that guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: Thanks for your comments. Yes, I think we thoroughly covered why it can be a problem and tend to be in agreement with one another on that. The difference with my view, is that I don't think it's as big of a problem as it's being made out to be. Only the editors that misunderstand WP:N will make that mistake, which are few and far between in my opinion. As I said, I'm really indifferent on the issue. I don't have a problem if the consensus is to change it to "reputable" as long as it's the result of some careful consideration. I can live with that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

In regards to the use of "authoritative", I tend to prefer the broader terms "reputable" and "notable". WP:RS uses "authoritative" in the context of being "a widely accepted viewpoint" and mentions that being authoritative isn't a requirement of a reliable source. It states, "If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article...", so there's a stipulation involved when the author's statement isn't an authoritative one. Note that it can still be included with attribution. So if WP:RS isn't requiring that level of acceptance of an author, then neither should MOS:FILM. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we have more WP:Newbies and other less experienced Wikipedians than we have very experienced Wikipedians. I've often seen Wikipedians misunderstand WP:Policies and guidelines, including when I was WP:Patrolling. And besides a misuse of WP:Notable, OnBeyondZebrax is correct about how the word notable is usually used. As you know, he stated, "Merriam-Webster gives a range of meanings, including 'very successful or respected', remarkable, distinguished and prominent. A certain film expert may not be 'very successful' or prominent; she may be little known and not successful in her career. But if she is an expert on a certain film, with her critical views set out in books published by reliable publishing houses and articles published in peer-reviewed journals, then she is a WP:RS." I agree with that. We should simply stay away from the word notable in this case. I obviously agree with you about not using the word authoritative for the guideline. Also, since this page is on my WP:Watchlist, there is no need to WP:Ping me to it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"...since this page is on my WP:Watchlist, there is no need to WP:Ping me to it"

Good to know. For me, a ping is helpful even when I'm watching the page, since there are so many items on my watchlist. I probably need to trim that down! We'll have to agree to disagree about the likelihood of inexperienced editors misunderstanding the term. While I agree they outnumber experienced editors, I doubt a significant number of them even look at guidelines or the Manual of Style, so the real-world impact of our decision will not necessarily be reflected in the numbers. Those that do look at them are the ones likely to engage in a discussion anyway, where the term we decide on can be easily explained in more detail. I've already addressed the word "notable", its primary meaning, and the way Wikipedia defines it, so I'll rest my case there. However, I do think the other viewpoints including yours are worth noting (or notable, pun intended). Cheers! --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks like we have consensus. I am going to be WP:BOLD and make the change in MOS:FILM for the sentence as follows: "Professional film critics are regarded as reliable sources, though reputable commentators and experts—connected to the film or to topics covered by the film—may also be cited." Thank you everyone for your input and suggestions!OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 15:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to say something about casting in production section guidelines

I've been seeing more and more lately production sections that either consist only of casting news, or where casting news takes up a large portion of it. I think casting sections can be alright if the film calls for it and they are done properly but simply listing when the cast comes aboard brings almost nothing to the table and brings the whole quality of the peice down. An example of a good casting production section would be something like "Coherence" where it talks about the motives for casting and how the cast were treated: a bad one, I would say would be "We Are Your Friends" which is nothing but dates. I've discussed some of my concerns over at the main page for this Wikiproject and I've gotten a couple positive responses. Now I want to bring the issue to wider attention and possibly get something in writing. --Deathawk (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree but maybe we could be broader. We could talk about the production section in general and avoiding indiscriminate detail and the proseline approach? Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I feel we definitely need to do both, but I think it should specifically say something about casting too. --Deathawk (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to expand MOS:FILM to movie actor and director articles

Hi, MOS:FILM seems to focus on articles about specific films. Is there any appetite to provide guidance on articles about film actors and film directors? Of course, this proposal is complicated from the outset by the issue that many film actors are also theatre actors and TV actors, and some are also notable musicians and models. So it may be challenging to assert that the MOS:FILM has the right to give guidance on articles about people with multiple professional roles. That said, it may be desirable to offer some general guidance on film actor and film director articles. One issue I would like to see the MOS:FILM guidelines clarify is whether film actor leads and film director leads can mention the genre of some of the actor or director's key films. I am not suggesting that the genre of EVERY film should be appended, which makes the lead overly heavy–just some of the key films. This practice is evidenced in several FA-class articles about actors (e.g., Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie) and a GA-class director article (Stanley Kubrick). However, there has been opposition to the practice on individual articles on actors and directors, with editors stating that no genres should be stated in the lead.

From the outset, I should clarify that I am not proposing mentioning genres in the lead in cases where the genre of a film is the subject of a polarized, significant debate. It's better in those cases to explain the different genres associated with the film in the body of the article. But in cases where the films in question are widely agreed to fall within a single genre, in my view, a lead that does not state any genres of the major films an actor/director did leaves out a lot of crucial information that the reader needs. This means that the lead is not fulfilling some of the goals of leads set out in MOS:LEAD, one of which is that leads should serve as a standalone introduction to the subject. (Note: I am also not proposing giving the genres in the lead for movies in cases where the genre is obvious from the title, as with Slumber Party Massacre). Here are two fictional examples, given first in the genre-free approach preferred by some editors, and then with genres appended:

Pat Smith (1940-2000) was an American film director. She is best known for her films Ghost (1960), Shadows (1965) and In Pieces (1970), the latter winning the 1971 Best Director Oscar.
Pat Smith (1940-2000) was an American film director. She is best known for the horror films Ghost (1960) and Shadows (1965) and the zombie film In Pieces (1970), the latter winning the 1971 Best Director Oscar.

Alex Jones (1940-2010) was a British film and theatre actor. She is best known for her roles in the films Me and You (1961), Time Alone (1965), Two Plus Two (1970) and Anyway I Can (1975). Her best known theatre roles are Alice in Her Majesty (1980) and Jane in The Midlands (1982).
Alex Jones (1940-2010) was a British film and theatre actor. She is best known for her roles in the romantic comedy films Me and You (1961), Time Alone (1965) and Two Plus Two (1970) and the comedy film Anyway I Can (1975). Her best known theatre roles are Alice in Her Majesty (1980) and Jane in The Midlands (1982).

OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 18:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

OnBeyondZebrax, considering the size of this MOS and how it is mainly tied to WikiProject Film, I think a separate MOS should be created to be under Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. This MOS focuses on individual film articles, which make up the brunt of the project's scope. The new MOS would focus on individual biographical articles and should cover the relevant details. I see that WP:FILMOGRAPHY exists, but we can use it as a foundation for the new MOS. I can weigh in for consensus for some aspects, and I'm sure other WP:FILM editors can do so as well, plus perhaps other WikiProjects that relate to entertainment figures (like musicians). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:BIO would probably cover biographies and such, but it's pretty generic and avoids specifics. If it linked to amendments for various task forces (such as musicians, filmmakers, etc.) that would let it act as a more specific guide, as seems desired here. I agree with Erik that MOS:FILM should probably stay focused on films themselves. I think there are a few people at WP:FILMBIO who would be supportive of writing a style guideline, as the subject of style does seem to come up every once in a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

What should be included in an updated production section?

Want some feedback on proposing more clear wording in the manual of style relating to production sections--Deathawk (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to update the production section guidelines I've seen a lot of production sections for films which are just a mess. I just want to use this location right now to brainstorm some ideas for how it should be updated. --Deathawk (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess I'll start. I think we need to futureproof our articles more. I see a lot of movies talking about when every cast memeber joined when it seems to me that readers twenty years from now probably won't care if the second supporting female role was cast in either March or April. Right now it's hard to whittle these sections down because as a Wikiprojct we don't have consensus on what should be included under the casting section. I also think we should address how much news regarding the teasing of projects we should have. Curently the Tomorrowland page talks more about how Brad Bird teased the film than it does the actual production.--Deathawk (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd definitely agree that we need to future-proof our articles better. Right now, it seems like we could take a hatchet to many production sections. There's way too much writing that borders on recentism written in proseline. I'm not opposed to a bit of casting information, but I think we should at least discourage the worst excesses of it. This could even take the form of a minimalist note like "avoid proseline and recentism when writing production sections". Should we list when each actor joined every production, just because Variety reports it? I'm not so sure. Like Deathawk says, it's probably not terribly interesting to future readers. If there's something more substantial to say than just a date, then, sure. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with a simple note, such as the one NinjaRobotPirate offered, along with an example of the casting proseline that is discouraged in film articles. Lapadite (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Deathawk, NinjaRobotPirate, Lapadite77 – it sounds like we want to expand the guidelines with negative instructions. I agree with this and think we can list what approaches to avoid. I think we should add positive instructions to offset these, such as saying, instead, this is what you can do. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

"Don't do this, but instead do this"? I could come up with something like that. Avoid quickly outdated recentism written in proseline, such as "On X date, Y joined the production." Instead, focus on information that consists of more than just a date, such as "After X was cast, production had to be paused for three weeks while X was unavailable." Or, if you prefer a more verbose version: Especially for bigger budget productions, regular news reports and speculation from trade magazines may provide a wealth of trivial, quickly outdated information. Instead of adding each news report to the article as it is published, collate the information, summarize it, and filter out the recentism. Focus on encyclopedic information that will remain useful years from now. For example, don't write sections that consist of proseline like "On X date, Y joined the production." If there's something more interesting than a date, then report that, such as "After X was cast, production had to be paused for three weeks while X was unavailable." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Condensing and altering a bit that suggestion, how about: Avoid ultimately outdated and insignificant recentism written in proseline, such as "On X date, Y joined the production." Instead of adding each news report to the article as it is published, collate the information, summarize it, and filter out the recentism. Focus on encyclopedic information that will remain useful years from now. If there is something more noteworthy than a date − such as, "After X was cast, production had to be paused for three weeks while X was unavailable" − then report that. I think the main idea is there, what is discouraged, what is encouraged and example of an alternative. Lapadite (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I think one thing we might want to think about, is removing the "Casting" section from the initial list of example subsections from the production section and state something to the effect of Some films may also warrent a specific casting section with regards to how particular actors came aboard or their inspirations for the role, special note should be taken however to avoid ultimately outdated and insignificant recentism written in proseline, such as "On X date, Y joined the production." Instead of adding each news report to the article as it is published, collate the information, summarize it, and filter out the recentism. Ultimately all parts of the article should focus on encyclopedic information that will remain useful years from now. --Deathawk (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not liking the language proposed here. Editors mean well to add detail, and we need to guide them better. To say something like "ultimately outdated and insignificant recentism" is a bit harsh. Can we instead say something like, "Editors should write about the film's production from a historical perspective. To this end, editors should strive to include key details and summarize them to form a coherent narrative. This means not all "recent" events matter for a historical perspective (see WP:RECENT). As part of writing for this perspective, avoid proseline, which is essentially writing a timeline in prose—simply writing one date-stamped detail after another. Instead, transition where applicable between key events. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Erik, fair point. I like your alternative, though I think we can condense that just a bit. I'd link WP:RECENTISM in the first mention of "historical perspective", and keep "Ultimately all parts of the article should focus on encyclopedic information that will remain useful years from now" at the end. I'll wait for more input from other editors. Lapadite (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I do want at some point to say "hey you should avoid doing this, and instead do this" because I feel like we all agree that it's a problem and by not addressing the issue directly we are not helping to solve the problem. I do think we could get rid of some of the more negative words we have floating around like "ultimately outdated" and "insignificant" but I do want to direct users what to stay away from in a rather clear manner. --68.226.125.234 --Deathawk (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Deathawk, NinjaRobotPirate, Lapadite77 and Erik II, however we do need to bear in mind cases wherein casting is in and of itself notable, for certain reasons. This is usually observed after months of preproduction or sometimes even revealed years after the film's been featured, so a tiny comment about that might be pertinent. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I would second the opinions of Erik II and Lapadite on 17 September. As tempting as it is to solve a problem by saying what not to do, it's much more inviting, for existing editors as well as newbies, to keep it positive, and including a link to WP:RECENTISM seems a necessity given the issue we're attempting to alleviate.--John, AF4JM (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@ NinjaRobotPirate,@Lapadite77 @Erik II, @FoCuSandLeArN I think one thing we might want to try is to approach it by stating "A good article should" instead of "Don't do this or that" that would give us an end goal and that way if one user is unsure about something they don't really feel discouraged to add it, but they understand that it may be taken out in the future. (Sorry if I couldn't ping everyone there's a lot of people) --Deathawk (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't care that much about the specific wording. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Release Date

I couldn't find anything regarding the release date to quash potential edit wars on the same level as the information on release years. I began looking into this based on the recent edit here at Saturday Night Fever. It seems that the article had long said December 14th and the user changed it December 16th. Google search yields mixed results. IMDb (an imperfect source, I know) says that the 14th was its premiere and the 16th was the actual release. Where should we err? I'm leaning towards the earliest date it was shown, but I do see the logic that it was "controlled" still at that time, as opposed to literally "released". JesseRafe (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The date of the premiere should be used per WP:FILMRELEASE, though we should find a source to verify this premiere's date. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

History.com should be a reliable enough source for this. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Years in film articles

The MOS Film/Years in film article should be amended to films that have been made and produced by the countries that made them, not by the country that first released that certain film when they were never involved making and producing that film. I don't agree with the release dates shown in 2013 in film because specific films that have been first released in a country that was never, never involved in making & producing that certain film and that it doesn't show the release dates of films that have been made & produced by that certain country. Many of you argue about how we can click of the links of the film to find out where the country that made them had the release dates of those films, which is considerably disrespectful to the citizens of countries that made and produced specific films, when you could put them in year in film articles as well. Think about that. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Navboxes for film score composers?

Paid editor working on updating Anthony Marinelli

I'm being told in a template deletion discussion that film score composer Navboxes are unwanted in film articles, [1] and should only be used in Soundtrack articles. (I'm not following that logic, because the commissioned work is the film, not an aftermarket soundtrack album.) This MOS says that film scores, songs and tracklists belong within Soundtrack sections of the film article and the deletionists love to AfD or merge those kind of supplemental articles into the parent. I see a lot of articles with Director Navboxes, some also contain Producer Navboxes. I did not find anything specifically excluding film score composers Navboxes listed in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Navigation

I can see the resistance to Actor Navbox clutter because the relationship is many actors to each film, but the film score composers are generally one (or two) per film. IMHO, Navboxes are great tools for readers who are not wiki-sophisticated enough to know what the Categories are about and the reader can traverse through the collection of film articles without loading and reloading the artist's biography/filmography.

So my question is, has there been a consensus on this, or is it new territory? Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 05:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

We had an RFC on the matter, where there was no consensus for restricting it for producers and screenwriters (although this restriction was not without its support), but film composers is a stretch too far. If we allow this, then there's nothing to stop navboxes for film editors, cinematographers, production designers, executive producers, etc, etc, which really would cause WP:NAVBOXCREEP. See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 1#Template:Bill Conti, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 28#Template:Ilaiyaraaja Notable Film, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 9#Template:Rahul Dev Burman. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The result of the (your proposed) RFC is that it had consensus (RFC) and failed. I quote: "The result was no restriction; people such as producers are crucial to films and shows, therefore warranting inclusion of productions in navboxes (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)"Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 17:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

"People such as producers". This does not include composers. Read the discussion, which focused on producers and screenwriters. I don't think you'll find support for allowing composers in any of the arguments. In fact, I don't think they are mentioned once in the discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Please also note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates only makes an exception for film directors. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

What you've cited actually reads: "Per this discussion the restriction only applies to actors. Navboxes templates for other creative such as writers, producers, etc. are welcome."Emphasis mine. Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 17:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's a poorly worded addition, as this leaves it wide open for any creative role on a film to have a navbox created, which is clearly not a good idea. As I mention above, film editors, cinematographers, production designers, special effects designers, etc, etc, are all creative roles, and we don't want navboxes for these too. There is no precedent for film composer navboxes that link to the film articles. In fact, as you can see from the examples listed, any film composer navboxes of this nature have been deleted. Also note that there is no {{Danny Elfman}}, no {{Jerry Goldsmith}}, no {{Bernard Hermann}}, no {{Howard Shore}} or no {{Alan Silvestri}}, all far more important than Marinelli. And note that {{Ennio Morricone}} only links to the actual soundtracks. Why should we make an exception here? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Still think its very odd that we dont have navboxes for actors with relevant links over adding 20 awards templates listing hundreds of unrelated actors. Clint Eastwood... bottom of page filled with tmaplates with links to unrelated actors....but no links to his movies? Very odd that some think this is helpfull for our readers. Project is not maintain and expand templates in a manner that helps users browse the articles that fall under the project's scope. -- Moxy (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the Actors navbox exclusion is probably overzealous, the order of appearance of actors names in a marguee and all advertising is negotiated under contract. This order is almost always maintained in film reviews and there is a distinction between "starring" and cast members. Navboxes are very useful for going directly directly to the artist next work, without have to reload the artist's filmography over and over again to arrive at the next film article in the collection. Because of cases like Clint Eastwood, in a perfect world the actors exclusion would not include "starring" roles -- and again, these navboxes can be nested in a parent navbox. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 16:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Can't say I'm a fan of the awards navboxes either. Or the reality TV ones, where everyone who's been in a Big Brother house or similar gets linked together. Take a look at {{Big Brother UK housemates}}! This is a problem with the proliferation of navboxes. As a concept they are a good idea, but they are becoming used indiscriminately now. The composer navbox is a good example of this trend. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are two ends of the spectrum when it comes to navigation templates for cast and crew members. The long-standing consensus is in favor of director navigation templates since the director is considered the key crew member for a film (even in cases of work-for-hire situations). On the other end, the consensus opposes actor navigation templates because actors will be involved with films to different degrees. Perhaps they're the star, perhaps they're in a supporting role, perhaps they have a cameo. This means that the navigation template would link to films that are only "tangentially related", which is a disadvantage to using a navigation template. For secondary crew members, while there is apparently no formalized guideline, I think navigation templates should be discouraged to avoid overwhelming the article footer with tangentially related information. Instead, I favor access to such crew members' filmography being a "hop" away if the reader is truly curious about the person's contributions. To this end, I favor crew lists in the "Production" section as a more organic way to ensure cross-navigation without having to put each secondary crew member's entire filmography on each individual film article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I can see the resistance to having every actor on the film include a navbox, like line-musicians, they are told what to play, they are not necessarily creators. However, navboxes can be nested, so simply nesting within a "Cast" parent navbox would have also solved the perceived template creep dilemma. In the case of a score composer, they are creators and are required to certify that their work does not violate existing copyright. I believe that the RfC, and the guideline, correctly concluded that "creator" navboxes, for subjects that can establish WP:N is the correct decision for inclusion. IMHO the importance of the film score far outweighs the importance the producer(s). -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 16:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think this approach is better than having the filmography one step removed in just ensuring a link to that crew member's Wikipedia article? My concern is bloating the footer with too many templates, even if they're collapsible. While you argue that a composer is more important than a producer, producers do get significant crediting and are recognized in awards. The importance of the cinematographer or the editor could also be argued for. I don't like the idea of future Wikipedia articles having all major crew members' entire filmographies, dozens or hundreds of tangentially related links to other film articles, tucked away in the footer. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

For starters, a film score and a soundtrack are two completely different productions. The film score is the creative work that sets the mood for the scene, a soundtrack (in most cases) is the pop music that gets DJ'd into the film as filler. For the past 35 years or so, film scores have not been finished pieces of music imported into the film, they are short pieces of music (sometimes only seconds long) written explicitly for the scene, and then expertly segued into another piece of music. Limiting the composer to the article for an aftermarket product, the soundtrack is arbitrary -- and the only justification appears to be a couple of editor buffalo-ing other editors into their dictate.

I'm not opposed to Producer navboxes, the producer might loosely be considered a creator; however I have seen films that have 5 or more producers in the credits, with a film-score more than two would be fairly extraordinary. IMHO, the navbox is a very useful tool for regular readers, displaying collections in consecutive order, with direct links, saving the foundation processor-time and bandwith. They are tucked away discreetly at the very bottom of the article and serve a different purpose (reader convenience) than categories. For collections, such as awards, these can be nested in a parent navbox. (One caveat is that the navbox template is ill-written, a collapsed navbox should not call for data until the user expands it.-- It is pretty simple to dynamically replace the content of a DIV in HTML5)-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 17:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

When I mention linking elsewhere, I don't mean linking to soundtrack articles. I am saying more something like, have a crew list of all the major crew members in the "Production" section where readers can click a person's name and go to their article to see their full filmography. I support such a crew list because there are some crew members that are not covered in the infobox (which is supposed to summarize the article body anyway). So a crew list can always show the film composer at each article, and all the articles point to the centralized filmography on the composer's article, rather than decentralizing the filmography and making it redundant in each film article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I see, I wasn't clear if you were addressing the fact that the TfD nominator insists that film composers should only have navboxes in soundtrack articles. That's a lot like saying primary artists should only have navboxes in Greatest hits album articles.

Perhaps your concern could be addressed with an IMDb external link to the Full cast and crew page? -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 18:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there anything limiting the crew personnel from having a navbox on their personal article? (Provided they can meet WP:N)-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 18:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Come to think of it A few years back, I thought that I read that a navbox could display a category through some sort of transclusion. If true, a category could be created, "Cast and crew of The Sound of Music", that navbox would only display the cast and crew that have Wikipedia articles. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 18:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about a crew member having a navbox on their personal article. Ideally, all crew members should have a "Filmography" section. For example, I worked on John Collee recently. It lists his writing credits and his credits as executive producer. If a crew member's article lacks such a section, it certainly can be added. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Rereading your comments, that brings to mind should the wikilinks in the Cast and crew sections link to the artist's article or the artist's filmography section? Depending upon where the name appears in the film article? Wouldn't that just ad another unwanted layer of complexity for new editors? Seems like the navbox already performs that function, without loading a unneeded intermediate article. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 19:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we can do away with articles altogether if we put everything into navboxes...^[sarcasm] --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

In case you had not noticed, the entire Wikipedia is a navbox. I guess soon you'll be wanting to remove the __TOC__ so readers cannot jump to the section they are interested in. Some people get/read their information a little differently, that's why they put glossaries in books. When was the last time you wrote an article? It appears you only move and rename them now. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 11:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Umm, no it isn't. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you one of those people that think that the Wikipedia should be an electronic effigy of a paper encyclopedia? Don't you realize that the goal here is to get useful information categorized and indexed for rapid retrieval in data-sets? If you don't have a structure, telling the computer (and the end data-analyst) what is related to which, the Wikidata project goes nowhere. The templates may or may not have been designed for data retrieval, but they can be used for it. The key here is to err on the side of too much curated data, nobody can predict the future and decide today, what will be important tomorrow. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 11:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to stop responding to your WP:WIKILAWYERING as the situation seems to be spiraling out of control. Your COI is clearly affecting your editing and you obviously have more to lose in this fight than I do, so you can afford more effort. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe create one, wait for someone to take it to TfD and see what happens. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

That is why I brought here for clarification, are we going to change the established rule?

The TfD
The failed RfC by the nominating editor.
The Film project statement specifically allowing all creative navboxes except Actors.
The Film MOS explaining the logic for the ban on Actor navboxes -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 19:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Guess the score:

______/\________\0/_______

Dur-dur... dur-dur... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is still open: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 December 3#Template:Anthony Marinelli. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Result of TfD Despite a 6 Keep to 4 Delete vote (including nominator and creator votes), the TfD resulted in Delete. Even though they are usually completely different productions, the closing editor deemed that navboxes for film score composers are only welcome on soundtrack album articles. This further reinforces the nominator's preference that only Director's navboxes are welcome in film articles, which is WP:UNDUE IMHO. The question now is, how to inform casual editors that most navboxes are unwanted in film articles? 009o9 (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Review score aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and OpenCritic

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Review score aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and OpenCritic. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The Rotten Tomatoes "Certified Fresh" designation at the Star Wars: The Force Awakens article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens#"Certified Fresh" designation. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion over at Wikiproject:Film regarding production section.

I got a chat going over about what I see as "production clutter" and wording that we can better use in the MOS to help curb it. I will be presenting my draft here in a few days for approval, but I thought some of you might want to look at it and chime in, just to see if we're on the right track or not. The discussion is located here ----Deathawk (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Deathawk (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Add info about films and creators etc..

After my embarrassing RfC that failed outright....I think its best that this page mentions the fact that films, creators and writers should not be linked in nav templates. Need to update the wording so editors have something real to point to instead of old talks or a project page . I am assuming I am not the best one to do this since I have a POV on this. -- Moxy (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Navigation only mentions directors or film series, and had a sentence on actors which I've just undone your amendment to. Maybe it should be made more clear. There has certainly been consensus not to have navboxes for/including film cast and crew, although producer and and writer subject navboxes have snuck in as "creators" of films of late. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes would be best to make it clear that all these types of articles should be omitted from nav boxes....best to have it in the MOS over linking to just a project page. -- Moxy (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

We should have it in the Template page also. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Filmography of Actor/Actress

I can't seem to find this information anywhere else so I thought I'd ask here. What's the general acceptance on listing a film that is not currently yet in production in an actor or actress' filmography section on their page? Can it be added if it is sourced that they are to appear in the film or left out until pre-production or filming has begun? If this information is listed somewhere could someone please direct me for future use. Thanks in advance. Brocicle (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It might have been better to post that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. But, the link for that would be: WP:NFF. Bottom line is: a film should not be listed in a filmography until it is confirmed that production has begun. —Musdan77 (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to change the wording for Production section Guidelines

I would like a consensus on my proposal to change wikifilm's Production section guideline to make it more clear what is expected. --Deathawk (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Currently there's been a lot of problems in film articles with recentisms as well as proselines. The issue is complicated by, what I feel is currently an innoficiant guidelines in regard to production sections. This makes it hard to clean up these articles as everyone has a different idea about what they should be. I and a couple others have been working over the past month or so on more clear guidelines and now I want to put it forward for a consensus.

When creating a production section it is important to keep in mind both what Wikipedia is and what it is not. Particularly, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. To provide encyclopedic value, information should be put in context to provide a clear narrative that is interesting to the reader while avoiding indiscriminate details. Remember, an encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Context should be provided for information about how it contributes to said narrative. At the same time, be sure to avoid proseline. While general time frames can be useful for context, exact dates are rarely important and similar pieces of information can be bundled together.

I want to give TriiipleThreat credit here as he's the one who actually ended up writing the final draft. --Deathawk (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Support. It succinctly addresses current problems and offers guidance on how to avoid them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Clarify: What specific problems are supposedly solved by this change? Please expand upon "a lot of problems" and examplify problematic recentisms and proselines. What is "an innoficiant guidelines"? CapnZapp (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: The issue that is solved is that it sets a standard for what to do. There are many articles for films that simply read proseline after proseline A good example is the production section for The current revision of Mike and Dave need Wedding Dates. The problem is when cleaning up these pages you sometimes run in to editors who insists that the info should stay like that and the current manual of style film guidelines hardly give a leg to stand on, As a result I and other editors feel like we are having to walk on eggshells to avoid getting in any type of edit war.

Another immediate effect of this change is that it would be easier to call attention to them for a clean up committee to work on a project level of getting these up to snuff. You are right in observing that what to do is rather open ended. That is because the needs of the production section change based on the film. For instance, with a film like Iron Man, the casting of Robert Downey Jr is an important detail and even when he signed on is somewhat significant, however on a low budget indie comedy adding when an actor joined is more trivial. Therefore it's easier to give a generalized guide rather than going into specifics and then listing twenty exceptions. --Deathawk (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Hmmm. I feel the proposed guide feels generalized to the point well beyond where it applies only to the section in question. To me, we should apply the lessons given by the linked policies and offer practical support, rather than expecting each editor to do the same. Instead of "follow WP:AAA and don't do WP:BBB" we should say something like "Summarize the salient points of the film's production in a few short sentences (see WP:AAA for more)", or "work in previous facts into your narrative and think about the importance of any given individual production-related event as per WP:BBB." The difference is (hopefully!) that the advice given is immediately pertinent to the editor's task at hand. Any other voices on this? CapnZapp (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Then, as to WP:PROSELINE in particular. To me it feels natural that a Production section will be built up much like a timeline while the project is still in production. Do note that WP:PROSELINE is good at understanding why this takes place, and why editors might not make a better effort. What we should avoid is using WP:PROSELINE to justify quick'n'easy reversion of proseline additions; not only because it is an unofficial essay that can't be used for such purpose, but simply because that is not what the essay is saying. I suggest we accept a bit of proseline, and instead focus on making edits that turn the proseline into better prose. If the problem is editors in good faith reverting these attempts saying "the section is good as it is" then I agree we could increase the visibility of WP:PROSELINE (worded specifically for this purpose). But, and now I speculate, if the problem is editors in good faith objecting to the removal of additions because they happen to exhibit proseline then the problem is something else: that they are right and we are not. We should not revert additions, we should copyedit them into better prose. Then, after the film has had its premiere and the discussion of it (its "reception") has died down, we can prune away by-then trivial factoids, regardless of their stylistic status. Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: While I can see your concern regarding the section on Proselines, I don't think it's advocating what you think it is. We're not saying "Kill all information in Proseline" so much as we're saying evaluate it and see if it fits in to the section. I hesitate to include wording such as "turn all proselines into Prose" because we're dealing with a WP:Noteverything issue too and that turning that from proseline to prose would often result in a production section that ends up saying nothing with a lot of words, if you catch my drift. I do feel we could be more clear on what Proseline means but it's really hard to come enough editors to talk enough to come up with a draft that we all agree on and I feel like we could almost change the wording a little down the line if we needed too, the important is that we all agree on the principal of the piece.

With regards to us pruning articles after the fact, I worry that that's not super effective. For one it creates a massive backlog with several hundred pages we'd have to clean up a year, for another it's not setting a good precedent for the encyclopedia. People often come here searching for information on newly released movies and it's not puting our best foot forward if all we have to give them is an unpruned pile of trivia. In addition I feel weary about having the guidebook to writing film article essentially say "don't worry about. we'll figure it out". --Deathawk (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Let's await more commentators for now. CapnZapp (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Need more work: As for the proposed change, I feel generic statements like "what wiki is and is not" isn't actually particularly helpful to an editor at this stage. Meaning, the time is not right for lecturing the editor on sweeping policys; here we're supposed to provide hands-on practical directions specific to how to write the section. In fact, I don't see anything in the proposed addition that is more relevant to the specific section discussed than for all of wikipedia. Am I missing something here? Furthermore, I recommend we avoid "don't make mistakes"-like advice (such as "be sure to avoid proseline") - tell the editor what to do right instead of what not to do wrong. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I agree with CapnZapp. I believe this doesn't make much progress in clearing up the mess seen in film articles as stated above. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 10:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment I agree with others the phrasing needs further work, and probably needs to be more explicit. I'm not sure that "an encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" helps or is clear. I think I understand the intention, from the example (why do we need the exact dates of every actor joining, and why as a list?). I have come across finished articles where that kind of detail was included and wondered why anyone thought it important.

As I said, I'm not sure of the intention of that sentence, but how about 'an encyclopedia article need not include every known fact, but should be a brief, readable summary of relevant information on the subject'. I was summoned by bot, feel free to ping. Pincrete (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Needs more work. I can't support anything that advances the made-up, confusing non-word "proseline". That essay needed to be renamed years ago. We already have a WP:CREEP problem, and inserting jargon that isn't even really jargon, just one person's nonce word from their personal idiolect is a step in the wrong direction. The entire thing can be compressed by about 50%, as much of it redundant. Drop the lecturing "Remember, ..." tone. Comma is needed in first sentence between "section" and "it", etc. Just copy-edit this mercilessly. This is also not the place to introduce a new relevance rule; if there is not a pre-existing one to link to in a general policy or guideline, some topical MoS page (that is too over-dominated by a single wikiproject, in a way that even WP:MEDRS isn't dominated by WP:WikiProject Medicine) is not the place for it. If you can't cite site-wide consensus authority for a rule restricting what is editorially permissible in such a broad sense, it shouldn't be in there. All that said, yes, there is the germ of an idea here, and yes we do have actual problems with "production cruft", especially in articles on media franchise productions and other pages that attract the fandom crowd. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandish:]I'm not trying to push my own personal agenda here. I've spent the last six or so months trying to make sure that there is a general sitewide consensus from Wikipedia users, almost all of them who agree that there is a problem in how we currently deal with these things, even if they aren't sure about a solution. The proposed guidelines, aren't even my own words they were created by TriiipleThreat and these words are mostly harken back to other Wikipedia policies. --Deathawk (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Deathawk: Perhaps the best way forward would be to present a new draft of your and Triiipletreat's proposed change? Best Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Cast names in plot summaries

Do other editors agree with me that including cast names in plot summaries is unnecessary if the article also has a cast section? It muddies up the prose and it's unnecessary duplication. (I'm angling, of course, for an addition to the manual of style if I can get a consensus...) Popcornduff (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I personally do not include cast names in plot summaries for the reasons you stated, but I can somewhat see a case for doing that. Sometimes it can be overkill, but a limited use may be warranted in some cases. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's useful to include the cast names in the plot summary in some cases. For example, we decided to exclude a cast section in the Under the Skin (2013 film) article because most or all of the characters are nameless, and sometimes we don't even know who played who, so we put the ones we do know in the plot summary instead. Popcornduff (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Personally I prefer them to be used in the plot summary instead of having a cast section, unless the cast section is used for more than just a list of who plays who. GRAPPLE ^X 16:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't object to putting them in the plot summary if the article doesn't have a cast section. It's the duplication that annoys me. Popcornduff (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. But to me, it should be summary first, with a cast list only if it serves a greater purpose than just listing actors and roles (see Eraserhead for one which just uses a plot summary with names included, Manhunter for a cast section which actually includes some information beyond names. Without that kind of prose, a cast list is the redundant element, rather than listing names in the plot section. GRAPPLE ^X 18:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I used to add actors' names in the plot summary, but then someone complained about the redundancy. It made sense to me, so now I don't. When I edit a plot, I usually strip out the actors' names if there's already a cast list. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with NinjaRobotPirate and others who believe cast names in the plot are redundant with the cast section. They also add needlessly to word count, and with a surprising number of movies, that makes a difference in keeping to WP:FILMPLOT length. In some rare cases, as others also pointed out, having a cast section is less useful than incorporating actors' names in the plot when, say, characters themselves are nameless. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the OP that inline cast names in the plot section are often clunky and redundant; I'm not so sure a prohibition should be added to the manual of style. They're not that intrusive, and if an editor has chosen to locate his or her cast section somewhere other than after the plot section, they can realistically make the argument that readers who want to cross-reference may be put out. If anything, I might be in favour of rewording the MoS to suggest the various options while lightly favouring the alternate ways it can be usefully included or located, e.g. by suggesting relocation, or even elimination in favour of a table within the plot section (though it puts me in a minority, this is my preference; see Tenebrae (film)#Plot or American Beauty (1999 film)#Plot for examples). I guess what I'm saying is I don't think it matters enough to effectively prohibit the inline method, which is only going to annoy everyone when a well-meaning editor a couple of months from now swings the MoS like a club in a whole bunch of articles and we end up revisiting this, only with a bigger cast and a thousand elephants. Steve ^T • C 19:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I don't think that cast names should be in the plot section if there is already a cast section; this is per what Tenebrae stated above. I remove them when I see the duplication, since it's completely unnecessary, adds to the word count of the plot section, and causes WP:Overlinking issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Personally, especially in long plot summaries, I would like to see the character's name blue linked to the actor in the first instance. With my current settings (I don't recall if default), I can mouse-over the blue-link and a tool-tip window popup identifies the name and lede of that page without visiting it. In this manner, I don't have to scroll off page to identify who is playing the character and then relocate where I left off reading. As per WP:Overlinking, it think this would fall under significantly helping the reader, since summaries generally consume a large percentage of the screen -- multiple screens on handhelds. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 19:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC) I do like the examples presented above by Steve, but it would probably be a big mess getting an infobox created for combining cast sections with plot summaries. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 19:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Disagree:

Ease of use and accessibility trumps duplication avoidance. This isn't a paper encyclopedia, a few more lines won't hurt, if it means the user can click on a relevant link then and there. Of course, I dislike the general WP policy of "only one blue link to each article", and I have many times had to CTRL+F my way to find the one time a subject is linked, wasting a lot of time. I acknowledge not EVERY mention of a subject should be linked, but "significant" mentions should be. An article could be very long, and we should never have to leave the current context just to find something the computer is able to do on the spot.

To answer the question specifically: I favor a plot summary which adds cast names for top billed actors, even when there's a full cast section below. I favor not regulating this and allowing each article to choose what works best for that film. I do favor articles which contain both: both a plot section that is a full synopsis (and not a glorified sales blurb) with convenient actor mentions (to instantly see what parts top billed actors play) as well as cast sections (so we don't have to refer the reader to IMDB "full cast and crew" for a simple cast list).

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Generally agree with not including cast info in plot summaries. A TV exception would be for actually notable, non-redlink, guest stars in an episode, not mentioned earlier in the article (but that's a MOS:TV matter). For films, it might make sense for the main characters to get cast name-dropping in the plot summary, but I don't do it this way, and I see lots and lots of film plot summaries that do not do this, so it's hardly "standard" WP practice to name-drop the cast in the summary. I don't be the "accessibility" argument (that's generally not what that term means around here) above; it's not like the summary is in some other page from the cast; it's all right there in the same article. By the reasoning that, basically, we can't ever make people scroll, and that everything should always be linked where ever it appears, we'd have to just delete MOS:OVERLINK. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

"Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus."

Thank you for discussing this (over at Film project) but we need to further improve this language: "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus." is saying nothing more than "use the consensus-based approach Wikipedia is already using". How do you not add something except on individual articles (case by case) and subject to the input/reverts of other editors (consensus). I do not understand this language - to me it is essentially meaningless.

Could it be that you mean to say that award-winning films do not need top-10 lists, so add them only to films that would otherwise be bereft of accolades? CapnZapp (talk) 08:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with adding a summary sentence about top-ten lists if the film appears in a summary list, like Metacritic lists the top 30 films. I think it would be unnecessary to do a summary sentence for the 31st film, based on an editor's manual counting-up of top ten lists. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The MOS ammendment is intended to prevent the indiscriminate namechecking of individual critic top tens, such as the one at The Martian. In that case Metacritic provide a concise statistical summary, so in the case of The Martian we can simply say that 53 critics named it among their top 10 films if 2015 i.e we don't actually need to reel off the names of all 53 critics. If you are not satisfied with how the instruction is worded then we can certainly discuss further improvements to the wording. Betty Logan (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I would say that we don't need to get into the nuances of what it takes to include a summary. It amounts to two sentences and seems like a reasonable retrospective "cap" to a "Critical reception" section. I guess we can keep it based on a select list. E.g., for films of 2015, we would not do a summary for the 31st film (after the main list of 30 at Metacritic). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Betty Logan and Erik: Thank you. Betty, I understand why we are making the addition. That's not what I'm critizing. I'm critizing the language used, per the above. Any thoughts on my points? And Erik - I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean. Are you responding to me or to somebody else? Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

My impression is that we wouldn't include the actual top-ten list critics at all. The "subject to consensus" phrasing, I thought, was about having a summary of top-ten lists. So what I said above is that I'm fine with having a summary as long as it is part of a key list (e.g., Metacritic's 30 films). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so I gather the "agree by silence" means you feel the language used is functional and doesn't need to be changed. Mkay, dropping the issue. CapnZapp (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

It should probably distinguish between prestigious organizational and major-publication top-X lists, and individual critics'. No one cares if The Hustler is on the top ten list of American films as ranked by Sam Doe at the Clovis News Journal. If the AFI ranks it that high, that's a different matter. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Word count

It says, "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words." Is there a reason why it gives a (fairly wide) range like that, rather than just saying that the maximum should be 700 words? Is it certain kinds of films that should be 400 words and others longer? --Musdan77 (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It is an arbitrary range that is backed by consensus. That said, most plot summaries constantly push the maximum limit rather than the minimum. There are some summaries out there that are more around 400-500 words than 600-700 words. Plot summaries should be concise enough to give readers a sense of the film so the rest of the article body can be comprehended. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure the range is entirely arbitrary: a single side of A4 will take approximately 700 words in 12 point Times New Roman, so basically the guideline is saying that plot summaries should be between half and one full side of A4, except in cases where exceptions are justified. There is a lower limit to try and encourage summaries more than a couple of sentences long. Betty Logan (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Is one A4 page of prose the limit before people are unable to read any further? Sorry, playing devil's advocate here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

If Harry Potter fans had their way it would take half an hour to read the plot summary, so I think what motivates a sensible limit is the numbers of words that are generally sufficient to summarise most plots, rather than how much people can read. Betty Logan (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention that WP:PLOT endorses a "concise summary" of a given work. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

In addition to the above, one thing I've found as a frequent trimmer of plots is that there's a concise version of a movie plot, and then there's "elevator pitch" of a movie plot which overly simplifies the plot in 50-200 words, and there's usually no "in between" level of summary. Keeping in mind that the reason we include the plot is to help provide context for the rest of the article (particularly one well-developed on casting, production, and other details), overly-simple plots are not helpful as you are usually excluding characters and scenes to get that word savings. Thus, 400 words at a minimum (and I don't consider that a hard minimum, unlike 700 words on the other end) encourages enough concise plot to introduce all major characters and themes that may be overlooked in the elevator pitch-style version. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Concur that the present wording is fine. While we do frequently have a problem with people wanting to dump 2,000-word fancruft summaries in there, we actually have a much larger number of film stub articles that have one-liner summaries that are not encyclopedically informative. That said, this plot summary length stuff should be centralized at MOS:FICT, given general "rules" for major and minor works, and MOS:FILM using the major one, and referencing the general guideline as the "authority" for the size. Novels, plays, operas, TV series, etc., all need about the same length of summary. A short story, operetta, TV episode, or short film, all need a shorter summary of about the same length as each other. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Average Rotten Tomatoes scores

Opencooper and I recently had a disagreement on the article for Her. I argued for describing the film's average rating on Rotten Tomatoes as "8.5/10" with a slash, since that's how it's put on RT and on most other film articles on Wikipedia. Opencooper preferred to describe it as "8.5 out of 10," saying using words would be "more encyclopedic" than a slash.

Please visit the talk page to see our full discussion, but long story short, I think there needs to be a consensus on whether words or a slash should be used on Wikipedia. 73.109.106.183 (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I've weighed in at that talk page discussion agreeing that the slash is informal and unnecessary, and here are my thoughts about specifying this concern in the MOS. If there's evidence that removing the slash is being met with widespread pushback, then perhaps it would be justified to make a change to the MOS and recommend that the informal slash be avoided. It's a very minor formatting concern, so a proactive change to the MOS could be seen as unnecessary and unwarranted, and possibly even a form of instruction creep. I would support a change, however, as I suspect this will cause quite a few knee-jerk reversions by other editors who, like you, initially claim this has been a long-term standard in other articles (along the lines of WP:OSE). --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually I'd see it as instruction creep. One reason so few people actually look at our guidelines is become they've become way too big.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, definitely something to consider, no doubt. It would be a very minor addition in this situation, but I can empathize with that viewpoint for sure. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Why would resistance to removing the slash indicate the need to change the MOS? Wouldn't that indicate that the slash is the more popular option by consensus? 73.109.106.183 (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The point of the discussion here is to see if there's consensus to add it to the MOS. What may or may not happen within individual articles is just speculation at this point. Consensus here or at WT:FILM should be sought before widespread removal, and if no consensus is determined at either location, then whether or not to remove the slash would be left up to localized consensus at each individual article. It would be nice to figure it out one way or another at the higher level to keep things consistent. Otherwise, one-offs like what happened at Her (film) will keep happening. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that MOS:SLASH permits the use of an unspaced slash to express a ratio. In light of that, I seriously doubt there's going to be a lot of interest to ban it from film articles. I'll mention this at that talk page discussion as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Generally speaking I'd say both option are fine and widespread enough outside of wikipedia to be easily understood. We do however (like in real life) have the unfortunate tendency to "legislate" all our style and format dispute, which one hand provides some clarity but one the other creates a bit of bureacratic/sclerotic mess and unhandy reading material. As a rule of thumb I'd recommend the "smart gives in"-approach, that is if there are two valid versions and you have to deal with somebody insisting on changing it to a particular one, then in doubt let him. Your time is spend much more productive elsewhere than in a format dispute that does about nothing as far as improving the article is concerned, no matter who wins that dispute. Another thing is that out of respect for the work of others it might be a good idea to leave the decisions to those editors who are the primary content providers of the article in question. Overwriting them against their explicit opinion is - absent of any gross policy and guideline violation - usually a bad idea and recipe for driving contributors away.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I appreciate that this is expressed as a potential concern, but I think either version is fine and that this would distract from time that could be spent on more significant matters. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I also agree. I've left my final thoughts at the article's talk page and will be moving on at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:FILMLEAD tweak

I'd like to propose a minor tweak to WP:FILMLEAD to include a brief note on how to treat language information in the lead. In Indian cinema, films are produced in Hindi, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Marathi, Punjabi, Gujarati, and numerous other languages and dozens of articles on these films are being created every day. Language is a crucial piece of information and the change I'm proposing is maybe best illustrated in a before/after, with new text in green.

Before: The lead section should introduce the film and provide a summary of the most important aspects of the film from the article body. 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. For presentation of foreign-language titles, see the naming conventions for foreign-language films.
After: The lead section should introduce the film and provide a summary of the most important aspects of the film from the article body. 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. If the film was produced in a language other than English, that should be noted. Ex: "Drishyam (English: Visual) is a 2013 Indian Malayalam-language thriller film." For presentation of foreign-language titles, see the naming conventions for foreign-language films.

The addition would be useful to unify articles about non-English films and to reduce ethnic warring. As odd as that sounds, a film like Baahubali: The Beginning was produced by a company from the Telugu film industry, but was filmed simultaneously in Telugu and Tamil (perhaps to avoid entertainment taxes in Tamil-speaking regions). There were numerous contentious arguments about which ethnic film industry owns the film, rather than the relatively uncontroversial focus of what language it was filmed in. Huge difference. Similarly, it's very common for people to forget to include a country at all, focusing instead on the ethnic industry. This doesn't result in strong articles and codifying this would make it easier to manage the confusion. I'm curious if anyone would have any thoughts about whether to link to the language Malayalam or to Malayalam cinema, since that seems to be an area of confusion as well. To me, the former seems most logical, as we are describing a language. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Your proposal seems mostly reasonable, but we only need to do this for countries that have different languages. For example, we don't need to say that "Blue Is the Warmest Colour is a French-language French film", for instance. Betty Logan (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Betty, thanks for your feedback. You make a valid point. I'm cool with some clarification. Any thoughts on wording? If the film was produced in a language other than English, or in a nation like India, where multiple languages are prolific...? (That's really clunky, I know, but I'm hungry and not thinking straight.) We can assume that a French film is made in French, we can even assume that an American film is made in English (even though the US doesn't have an official language). India's lingua franca is Hindi, but it wouldn't be smart to leave out the language... I need food. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I suppose we could state something along the lines of "The language should also be included if it cannot be reasonably inferred from the nationality of the film". That would cover India, but also a place like Wales which has two official languages (English & Welsh) and should probably be clarified. Betty Logan (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

What about an English-language film made in Spain? I've seen people label that. It doesn't bother me, but I don't recall ever doing that myself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I would have no problem with noting an "English-language" Spanish film, since it is a counter-intuitive scenario. Whether it is worth mentioning is a matter of editorial discretion I guess, but I am not opposed to it. Perhaps we can relax the proposal slightly: "The language may also be included if it cannot be reasonably inferred from the nationality of the film". Betty Logan (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, Betty Logan: All good points. Maybe something like:

It is beneficial to note the language or languages a film was produced in (ex: "Drishyam (English: Visual) is a 2013 Indian Malayalam-language thriller film.") If a nation's common language is reasonably inferred, (ex: France, England, Mexico, United States, etc.) this detail may be omitted to avoid awkward phrasing such as "Open Your Eyes is a 1997 Spanish Spanish-language film." or to keep the lead concise.

Thoughts? I'm not 100% confident about the last part. I was thinking of additional text to address Betty's note, like, "For instance, "American English-language film" is probably unnecessary, but for a nation like Wales, where Welsh and English are both common, clarification might be necessary." But it occurred to me that this might contradict the text about awkward phrasing, since "...is a 1997 Welsh Welsh-language film" might look odd. Sorry I fell away from this discussion, by the way. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

One possibility is to give a brief overview and then use the standardized "example text" templates ({{xt}} and {{!xt}}). So, maybe something like:

If a film's language is not obvious from context or the country of origin has multiple official languages, it may be useful to state the language in the opening sentence.

Drishyam (English: Visual) is a 2013 Indian Malayalam-language thriller film. India has several official languages, and it is helpful to distinguish between them.
Buried is a 2010 Spanish English-language thriller-horror film. An English-language film made in Spain is counter-intuitive, so editors may wish to highlight the language.
The Terminator is a 1984 American English-language action film." It can be reasonably inferred that this is an English-language film. The same is true of a French-language film from France, for example.

Just an idea. I think anything suggested so far is fine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you've nailed it. Betty Logan (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I like it, NRP. I suppose I'll invite some opinions over at the main talk page to see if anyone wants to poke holes in it. Thanks to you both!

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The main issue that is have with this that it becomes part of a guideline, which in practice means its mandatory, which I really really dislike. There are many different ways to phrase that information and we have no business in micromanaging our authors in how to phrase such information. Even more there are complex cases where you can't simply assess an single language that easily. In some international productions people talk in different languages on set and gets synchronzed afterwords (possibly in several languages), some movies use a variety of languages in the final product by design. Also in many cases a default language is usually implied unless otherwise noted, in such cases speaking of "x language film" is redundant from an information perspective and imho awkward from a language and style perspective. By the way already the lead suggestion is imho problematic. Instead of demanding that information in the lead, it requires it to cramp it all in the opening sentence, which imho questionable micromanaging as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The MOS is a guideline, not a policy, so it implicitly accepts there are always exceptions to the rule i.e. guidelines are built around the general case. Basically the purpose of a guideline is to say "It's good practice to do this, unless there is a good reason not to". A reader should be able to glean all the essential information about the film from just the lead i.e. the year, the nationality, the genre, the director, the stars, the basic premise of the film, its commercial and critical reception, any major awards etc, and I would also include the native language among that essential information. If there are several synchronized versions then that is a mitigating reason for not including the language in the opening sentence and putting it elsewhere in the lead. Betty Logan (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say it is policy (read again) and a guideline is much more than a mere recommendation (unless the guidelines explicitly states it as a mere recommendation).

My issue is not with the information in the lead, but with it being in the opening sentence and with "standard phrases".--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You said it was mandatory which guidelines are not, because only policies are mandatory. A good example of this is the plot length: most film plots are capped at 700 words, but that is not a mandatory limit: if the complexity of the film's plot necessitates a longer length then that is permitted as an editorial prerogative. What is being is being suggested here is that if the language of the film is not clear then it is recommended to include it along with the country. I don't particularly care if it goes in the first sentence (although along with the country in the first sentence is the most sensible place to stick it), the second, or at some other sensible place in the lead, but it's perfectly reasonable to include the language in the lead since it is information that most readers would probably consider important. Also, nobody is insisting on any particular phrasing: NinjaRobotPirate has just given some sensible examples of how to approach the issue. Betty Logan (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I said it is mandatory "in practice", which it is more or less.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, ok, we're going off at a tangent here so let's take another tack: do you agree or disagree with the premise of this discussion that it would be beneficial to readers to include the film's language in the lead, if not obvious by its stated origin? If you do agree how would you like to see this incorporated into the guideline? Betty Logan (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with simply stating that the language of the film if not obvious from the context should be stated in the lead (but not necessarily the opening sentnce).--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Side comment: "Drishyam (English: Visual) ..." is improper style. If the film was released under an English titles (or RS regular refer to it with one), treat it as a title, e.g. a lead start of "Dryshyam (English: Visual) ...". If it's just an English gloss of the title, treat it as one per MOS:STRAIGHT: "Dryshyam (English: 'Visual') ..." — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic/Review Aggregators Review Summaries

I have seen many film articles with Critical Review Summaries listing the general critic consensus as "Mostly positive, Mixed to positive, Mixed to negative, Mostly negative, etc.". Now, I know through WP policies that this is to provide "descriptive prose" to the section. But these are generalizations that are prone to bias based on wording. Also they provoke a debate on NPOV and Bias towards the film. Especially for films with a significant fan base. For example, If a film is highly respectable but I didn't quite enjoy it. I could word it as "Reviews were mostly positive and some mixed". Since there are always critics that disagree with a film due to their subjective nature, that example could never be wrong. Or if Rotten Tomatoes has a not so favorable general consensus, but Metacritic has a more positive one, the editor has the option to choose which fit their stance on the film. Maybe Film aggregator scores in these sections should just be the scores and not have a general summary of reviews to avoid this altogether? DrkBlueXG (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with stating the consensus as long as it's made clear that the consensus is coming from the aggregator, though it could probably be argued that how they choose to describe the score is trivial relative to the score itself. DonIago (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Stating the aggregator summary (where it is clearly attributed to the aggregator) is one thing, but it is not acceptable for editors to extrapolate RT and Metacritic scores for a specific set of reviews to an overall critical consensus per WP:AGG, as we often see with the section lead-ins. At the end of the day the aggregators only speak for the data they are surveying; as we so often see with RT and MC, they employ different methodologies and different data sets and can arrive at different conclusions. If RT and Metacritic both arrive at similar conclusions i.e. positive/negative (which is usually the case with a very well received film or a very poor one) then I suppose we can take that as a consensus of sorts, but if they arrive at different conclusions then editors should not WP:CHERRYPICK (choose the conclusion they favor) and they should not WP:EDITORIALIZE (i.e. the abominable "mixed to positive" or "overwhelmingly positive" or "acclaimed" etc). If critical summaries are to be included then they should be clearly attribiuted to a source (see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey#Critical response for an example). Betty Logan (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

^^What she said. When there is an issue like the example Betty eloquently laid out, then it's usually best to steer clear of any kind of generalization and just let the numbers speak for themselves. If there is a disagreement on when to do so, then a discussion on the article's talk page can usually lay the debate to rest. Keep in mind as well that RT doesn't quantify the amount of mixed or negative reviews; its label of "fresh" translates to positive, but the opposite doesn't necessarily translate to negative. Often, editors see a low score being the equivalent of "negative", but attempting to summarize it as such will often lead to bickering on the talk page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

What Wikipedia needs is to codify a way to present a movie's reception,

without using aggregator adjectives (they tend to be fairly meaningless and bland, since they a) average everything out, and b) are weak on weeding out sources with a tendency to sell movies rather than to review them). We should especially ban "the flick was met with mixed reception" as that tells the reader NOTHING. (In a few cases, the film was genuinely met with both good and bad criticism, and in those cases contributor consensus should and will find individual reviews to allow the reader to form this impression him- or herself; but this aggregator adjective more often signifies that the movie stinks; but of course there's always a fanboy (or film producer) to "mix" the reception.)
but still in a way that eliminiates user bias (since this is definitely one of the Wikipedia areas with significant championing)

Our best film articles use a selection of individual review quotes to send across distinct and clear messages such as "most reviews love this film" or "they all hated it", rather than relying on wishywashing aggregator summaries. Since "all" in "they all" always has exceptions, it's best to let consensus agree when exceptions are just that; when these exceptions are to be left without mention.

And that was me talking CapnZapp (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Betty, GoneIn60, and CapnZapp. It may seem "easy" to say that a film got positive reviews if both RT and MC have scores in the 90th percentile. It is messier when the scores are more middling or in conflict with each other. In addition, there is a certain obsession among some editors that it must be stated if reviews were negative, mixed, positive, or a mix of these. Sometimes I add a reliably sourced statement about how critics perceived a film without any of these keywords, and such statements are often watered down to just the keywords. It's worth noting that MOS:FILM#Critical response does advocate for sourced statements and to use RT and MC for their statistics. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate everybody's comments and I agree with all the points presented. Just to avoid any confusion though, I don't bring this topic up to dispute any particular article. I just think there could be a less disruptive and more unified way to present the material that eliminates any potential bias from editors. And unfortunately, currently, the only way around that it to present only the actual scores and not the summaries along with it. DrkBlueXG (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, no, that's not my opinion (if you meant me). My opinion is that aggregator data is nearly worthless for summarizing a film's reception, whether that data is reported as a number or an adjective. If anything, numbers are worse, since they convey accuracy and objectivity (which is why I guess the adjectives were invented). I suggest we recommend against using aggregators unless consensus agrees they add valuable info to a movie's reception section; which I suggest generally only happen in the rare cases the aggregators agree a film is really bad or really good. For perhaps 80% of movies, aggregators can only obscure personal reviews - they're used by editors to "say" that a film isn't really that bad, or isn't really that good. Or worse, to provide a source to essentially the claim "There was a movie. People had opinions", which is what "mixed reception" nearly always comes down to, and not "few people though it to be really bad or really good" or "the reception was really mixed; many people hated it while others loved it". Or even worse, when critics and audiences hated a movie, but a vocal fan base or a concerted ad campaign still pushes aggregator up into the "mixed response" category; which allows editors to "hide" the real opinions which would have shone through if we instead picked a few individual reviewers (and did not allow editors to point to the aggregator data to argue any such selection is biased: "look, the reception is mixed because MetaTomato says so, we need to balanced all the bad reviews with some good ones, or at the very least remove the bad ones and just report the aggregator scores".)

TL;DR: Our policy should encourage people to write reception sections that rely on individual reviews, and it should preferably discuss how aggregator data is statistics rather than objective data, and however briefly point out how easy it is to misuse statistics to distort data. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 10:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll chime in with general agreement with the direction of this thread, though I don't have anything concrete to add at present. I, too, have long thought that there was both a lot of PoV pushing in this kind of assessment, and too often a useless statement of that reviews were mixed; they always are. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Betty described it well, we agree that "mixed to positive" and "mixed to negative" are unacceptable equivocating nonsense. I don't have a problem with most films being described as having a mixed response because that is an accurate assessment of most films. I'm okay with mixed, positive and negative, with mixed being the big central half of a bell curve, with very rare cases of "critical acclaim" or "panned" for maybe a a few percent at the very top and very bottom and even then only when that is paraphrasing multiple sources. -- 109.76.150.6 (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Moving info out of the Box office section to other sections

I recently made some changes to the MOS to move info listed as appropriate in the Box office section to more appropriate sections. This was "the number of theaters the film was released into" and "audience demographics". The former is not box office information; it is release info. It should be placed in the release section of the page, and that is where I moved it to in the MOS. The latter, I moved to the "Audience reception" part of the MOS, because that should be listed with the CinemaScore information if that exists. That is more critical reception than box office, but regardless, that wording should be in this section of the MOS. Flyer22 Reborn undid my edit saying they were open to discussing, as well as saying how users such as Erik prefer including this info in the box office section. I'd like to see what others think, because this data to me (especially the number of theaters a film released into) is not box office info (or should be considered box office info first). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

It really depends on how you are using the information. If it has been released into a record number of theaters—and that is the main purpose of introducing the information—I would put that in the "release" section, but if we are using it to contextualise box office i.e. highest-grossing per theater film, then it might make more sense to have that information in the box office section. As for audience demographics you can make the case for either: for instance, it probably makes sense to put something like the number of admissions alongside box office totals, whereas some editors may want to put the Cinemascore metrics in with the critical reception, and it may be even more appropriate to discuss gender/age breakdowns in the "release" section. Guidelines should prescribe content and structure but we should stop short of telling editors how to actually write articles. If the audience demographics would be better placed in one section over another then the guidelines should grant editors the autonomy to make those calls. Betty Logan (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Favre1fan93, I would state more, but Betty summed up my thoughts on this. Like I noted when reverting you, though, I prefer that the CinemaScore material go in the Critical response section. If there is an Audience response section, I would prefer it go there instead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

It isn't as simple as all that. The problem is most articles aren't long enough for a release section and that information is usually non-notable except in the context of the Box office figures. I'd prefer to see that information blended into the Box Office section than left out entirely, and more often than not that demographic information comes from Box Office Mojo articles or other articles discussing the box office totals (and there is no way of knowing where Box Office Mojo got their demographic information from). When the demographic information is coming from Cinemascore anyway keep it with Cinemascore information, but because those polls are only opening weekend polls and Cinemascore if doesn't track the demographics for other weeks. -- 109.76.150.6 (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

[agglist-1] For an experimental list of sites that can be used to obtain aggregate ratings and link to reviews from non-English-speaking countries see Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Resources#Non-English resources.

[1]