Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 23

Is RottenTomatoes a good indicator of reliable review sites?

I removed reviews by two dubious-looking film blogs from the Leaving Neverland article, but was reverted on the basis that "these are in rotten tomatoes, which makes it valid". Diff here. Thoughts? Popcornduff (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Well first of all with reviews it is primarily about notability rather than reliability. Secondly deciding whether some review is notable in the context of particular article can to a degree be in the eye of the beholder. However in unclear cases/cases of dispute it might be helpful to look at how the particular review/review site fares in the external world. What range does it have? Is it used or refered to by other external works? Does it get reviewed itself somewhere? And so on! Now I would not argue that Rotten Tomatoes is the sole or decisive external publication to assess the notability of a review site, but being listed or used there certainly provides some hint/evidence that a review might be notable enough.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I would say that you have to apply to be featured on Rotten Tomatoes. Some reviewers are so well known that they are a shoe-in and others require more scrutiny by the RT editorial staff. They go into it a bit on their page and I think in some article. I believe you will start to see more "blogs" on their list moving forward as RT has explicitly stated that they are trying to widen their coverage because not all critics exist on mainstream news outlets in today's world. Hell, there are several that have left their mainstream news outlets and started blogs/websites of their own for more freedom. A general rule of thumb is that if RT has them, it's "probably" good to use. I would also look to see if they seem a little dubious, are their better ones to sample. The reality is that these sections are supposed to paraphrase the critics anyway, not just be copy paste jobs.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I would definitely not reference a review simply because it is listed on Rotten Tomatoes. I usually reference the "Top Critics" section or what Metacritic lists. I think we should lean a lot more on periodicals because they are preexisting and have often been around a long time. In other words, they are more authoritative. I feel like because of that, readers can trust these samples more, and such sources are rarely as self-serving. (I feel like I've had to remove linkspam in this sense multiple times.) In the case of Leaving Neverland, I would absolutely get rid of these reviews and use more authoritative ones. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
"Top critics" should definitely be the threshold for quoting, at least if you are using Rotten Tomatoes as your criteria. Betty Logan (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Notability does not apply to article content (see WP:N: "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles"). Reliability is the standard we use for article content, and this has nothing to do with whether someone is listed on Rotten Tomatoes. Rotten Tomatoes has their standards, and we have ours. Rotten Tomatoes includes IMDb reviews, Netflix reviews, and other self-published content, so – no – being listed on Rotten Tomatoes means nothing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Self-published content is not a "no-go". It never has been. We just have to look at it with some scrutiny to make sure that it is appropriate. As I pointed out, there are quite a few well-known critics that have decided to branch out on their own to "self-publish" websites. That doesn't make their reviews any less notable or useable on Wikipedia. While I agree that Top Critics is the best way to go, I don't agree that any other reviewer listed on RT that isn't classified as a Top Critic should be automatically avoided. Ninja, the notion the being listed on RT means nothing because they used IMBd reviews (not sure what that means really), Netflix reviews (again, I'm not sure what this means...do you mean fan reviews?) in their numbers, then by using their aggregator you are in essence still using those reviews. So, you really cannot escape their use then.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I think we have to make a distinction between sources that purport to be career-style film critics and sources that are simply variations of user reviews and ratings. I mention "Top Critics" as a decent rule of thumb, especially when the film is popular enough to get reviewed by those in that category. To be published in a periodical or similar source is probably the top criterion. To have been published in a periodical would be next. After that, maybe more "amateur" critics whose reviews have been reported in other sources. Then perhaps online-only critics that are just about bloggish, if the blogs have been referenced elsewhere, especially for small-budget movies. For most mainstream films, though, we would rarely get to (or have to get to) that third or fourth criterion. When it's less mainstream, we would have to do that by necessity. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
From WP:V: "... self-published media, or user generated sources ... are largely not acceptable as sources." A recognized expert, such as Kim Newman, would be OK to cite, of course. But not some random person. Policy is fairly clear on this. There's no exception for being listed on a review aggregator. As I mentioned above, notability has nothing to do with article content. WP:RS, WP:DUE, and WP:SPS determine whether content belongs in an article, subject to consensus. I personally interpret WP:DUE to mean that obscure films will tend to have reviews from reliable but less well-known sources, and mainstream films should generally rely on mainstream sources. This is why I don't cite DVD Talk in a Hollywood blockbuster, even though it's a reliable source – its opinions are kind of drowned out by the sea of high quality sources available. Unfortunately, finding reviews for Surf Nazis Must Die or Rabid Grannies by world-famous critics like Newman is not so easy. So, yes, I cite DVD Talk in those articles. It's a perfectly legit source, and their views are quite due. If there's nobody but Joe's Horror Blog, then the article is not notable and should be deleted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Imho you are misreading the guidelines in this context. The notability (rather than reliability) in this context is not the notability in the notability guideline. The latter is concerned with determining when some topic or subject is notable enough to get its own article in WP. However when you write an article you need to decide which information to integrate and which information to leave out and there notability plays a role as well (in the common language sense and not in the sense of WP:N). You basically have to decide which information on the subject is notable or relevant enough to be included in an encylopedic article and which is not. This type of notability does not have its own guideline but if follows from guidelines for writing a good articles and for guidelines on specific topics (say biographies or film).

Now if we include reviews in films we prefer notable, well known critics over less notable ones. Reliability however is not really an issue here as reviews are essentially rather subjective opinions/interpretation/personal analysis to begin with. Meaning reliability as proxy for "truth" providing objective reliable information is not really the issue here.

The notability of a film however (in the sense of WP:N) isn't necessarily just determined by the existence of reviews alone as the are other reliables sources on film which are not reviews and there is other information than reviews (see Wikipedia:Notability (films)). In practice we have many film articles, which currently lack reviews, but are not deleted, because they are considered notable nevertheless (and it is assumed that reviews are principally exist but just not that easy to come by online).--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

A quick note. I avoid using "notability" or "notable" on Wikipedia for any reason other than being relevant to WP:N. It's too confusing otherwise. One can say "discriminate" or "relevant" or "valuable" or "authoritative". Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah that might help to avoid confusion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Plot summary word count

Did I miss something? Did we get rid of the code that allowed us to check word counts for Plot summaries with the click of a button on the left side banner? Mine seems to be gone.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I thought so. I put it in way back when it was first created, but it's gone from pages for me now. I cannot find the original instructions to be able to see if it's still there (I have no idea how I put it in before. lol).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems to be working fine. I believe you need to go to Special:MyPage/common.js and add importScript('User:Alex 21/script-plotlength.js') (with a semicolon at the end if it's not the last line)...though if you already have this, than @Alex 21: may need to weigh in... DonIago (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
It is indeed my script. Bignole has it in their common.js file. It's still appearing for me, and I've made no changes to it recently... -- /Alex/21 02:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Cast of documentaries

I recently trimmed a cast listing that had everyone "as Him/herself" in a documentary ([1]), as I found it exceedingly silly, and I couldn't find guidance in the MOS. Has this been discussed in the past, and does it make sense to codify this in the MOS one way or another? 217.100.152.228 (talk) 10:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Documentaries don't technically have "casts" so personally I would have deleted the whole section. However, I think what you did is a perfectly acceptable alternative; some readers may find it useful to see who appears in a documentary. Betty Logan (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I had the same issue on an article about a documentary film I started. I think what I did was call it "interviewees" rather than "cast". They obviously aren't cast members, and they were all interviewed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing requirements for cast lists

I posted a question about sourcing for cast lists at the Wikiproject:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Sourcing_requirements_for_casts

--David Tornheim (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Keeping genres simple in lead

Previous discussion here.

I feel I am constantly battling editors who insist on adding strings of genres to film leads. Case in point. Assuming, based on previous discussions, that the consensus holds that this is a bad idea, can we please update the MoS to explicitly recommend against shopping lists of genres?

The current WP:FILMLEAD MoS says: At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified.

Inevitably certain editors fall back on the "at minimum" part and use this as license to add a shopping list of genres. I would like to add: Avoid adding strings of genres – the main genre described by sources is enough. Popcornduff (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The "at minimum" part absolutely does not mean that there can be more to primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. It is these three elements that are the minimum. Like saying, "Foo is a <YEAR> <GENRE> film," full stop. Additional elements can be who directed it, who stars in it, etc. WP:FILMLEAD also says, "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." If we are to follow the database presentation conversion into prose, Alien Resurrection should be called a drama/science fiction/horror/action film. (Why is drama omitted, if the source is supposed to be taken seriously?) That's ridiculous to put in prose. Sources that write about films almost never do that, and Wikipedia's novice editors goes over the top in trying to capture all the genres in one breath. That's why we have WP:FILMLEAD. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Appearently, both of you will refuse to get a consensus and keep edit warring. That's fine for me. Dwelling on such an unnecessary subject and making them "simple" will lead to misapprehension/deficiency. Come to think of it, let's go with Alien Resurrection, cause you know the main genre described by sources is enough.: [2] [3] [4] + AFI source you are so interested in deleting use "sci-fi horror" as the main genre (TVGuide one also uses action), which is actually a genre Popcornduff, not "strings of genres" (click the wikilink, or you know what: sci-fi/horror). If you don't want "constantly battling editors", take a WP:BREAK and let "certain editors" make it better. Sebastian James (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a misconception that the more genres we list the more "helpful" the lead is so I think Popcornduff and Erik are right to try and scale it back. The "AFI and AllMovie list both "sci-fi" and "horror" as primary genres and "action" as a sub-genre while Rotten Tomatoes goes with "sci-fi", "horror" and "fantasy". Both "science-fiction" and "horror" are common to all three sources and there seems to be no source based reason to choose one over the other. However, on the basis of these sources I agree with removing "action" from the lead because none of the sources used list it as a primary genre. Betty Logan (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Erik If this is the case, I think we need to make that more explicit, as I've encountered several editors who refuse to interpret it this way. Popcornduff (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, please, keep it simple and readable. Sebastian James was wrong to make the edit linked above, as the cited source does not say anything about genre. It only mentions that the film has "strong horror and violence", which does not automatically make it a horror film or an action film. Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Binksternet, there are four different sources above for the example Alien Resurrection, including the cited source on the article which states "Genres: Drama, Science fiction, Horror / Sub-genre: Action". I don't even know which of the sources only mentions that the film has "strong horror and violence", so your comment doesn't make sense as you can see. Sebastian James (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The diff I'm talking about is this one where you added the AFI cite and the genres action and horror. That's what I'm saying is a mistake, because the cited source doesn't support your change. More than that, I'm in favor of keeping the first sentence as readable as possible, especially in keeping to the main genre(s) and not mentioning subgenres until later. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, beyond sourcing issues, keeping things simple and readable is my concern here. Popcornduff (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not all that hard to come up with a way to list additional genres in the lead beyond the primary genre. I don't remember any examples offhand, but I know that I've seen articles that say "science fiction film" in the opening sentence, then discuss other genres later on. For example, one might write, "Cherry 2000 is a 1987 science fiction film directed by Steve De Jarnatt. David Andrews plays a lonely businessman who hires a hires a tracker, played by Melanie Griffith, to retrieve parts to fix his broken robot girlfriend. As the two traverse the dangerous post-apocalyptic wasteland, they fall in love." There you go. I just covered the science fiction, romance, and adventure aspects of this film without explicitly stating more than one genre. Now I want to go watch Cherry 2000 again, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Binksternet, the AFI (American Film Institue) source states "Genres: Drama, Science fiction, Horror / Sub-genre: Action". You can also see at the top of the source: "ALIEN RESURRECTION (1997) R | 108 mins | Drama, Science Fiction, Horror | 1997". I've found the "strong horror and violence" nonsense you are talking about, it is this BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) source used for the film's runtime. Now at least click both links and try to see which one is AFI and which one is BBFC, then you can write a reasonable comment. Sebastian James (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Sebastian. I think that's an understandable mistake for someone to make. The top of the AFI page states clearly 'Drama, Science Fiction, Horror' but omits 'Action'; it's only at the bottom of the page where the genre information is repeated with 'Action' added with the sub-genre label. You didn't need to be immediately combative in your responses here; remember to focus on the content not the contributor and you'll have far fewer fractious interactions with others. We're all here for the same reason and no-one wants to prevent your making the article better. In addition, there is some context to these reverts that you may not be aware of. For WP film editors, genre-creep is constant annoyance that, while minor in the scheme of things, often makes for terrible and borderline-unreadable prose. Some films straddle so many genres that it'd be ridiculous to include even the primary ones—this is a comic exaggeration, but I've seen film articles with five or so listed and it does nothing to help make the article more readable or informative. When Popcornduff says "I am constantly battling" that isn't an exaggeration, so it's understandable that the first response to seeing another addition like this is often to revert it back to basics. For most films a primary genre will suffice; if the lead is good enough the reader will glean any nuance from the rest. If you feel differently, there's never any harm in bringing the matter up in calm and constructive manner on the article's talk page, but you'll find it more helpful in the long run if you're not signalling your frustration from the off, and please respect consensus even when it doesn't go your way. For the record, in the case of Alien Resurrection I would be happy with "science fiction" or "science fiction horror", with a slight preference for the latter, as it's not too cumbersome and probably is more of a specific genre of its own. While "Drama" and "Action" are also listed at the AFI page, they're redundant as they're implicit from that primary category. Steve T • C 13:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Audience reception scores in lede?

This is in the manual of style here, but almost never used - I’ve noticed some articles like Aladdin (2019 film) and Pokemon Detective Pikachu starting to include scores from CinemaScore and PostTrak in the ledes and I don’t think this is something we should do. Audience reception is generally noted by box office performance, but more importantly all audience polling basically skews positive. It’s rare for a big-budget film, for example, to get a C-area CinemaScore. For example, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice received a B CinemaScore, which is outright abysmal for a big-budget film, but a B is still a positive score. In contrast, a lot of horror films - even ones that are critical and financial successful - tend to have mediocre CinemaScores. Audience scores are also often used in a synthy manner to create a false contrast (“critics hated a movie while audiences loved it”). While these scores are generally and should generally be mentioned in the critical reception section of articles, I think this recommendation should be generally struck to not include audience scores in the lede, per what has been the general practice on film articles. Toa Nidhiki05 15:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, the line between mediocre and positive is extremely gray and left open to a lot of interpretation when it comes to those scores. Since the lead is a summary and not simply a repeat of material that exists in the body, repeating the scores verbatim in the lead shouldn't be occurring. And because of the interpretive nature of those scores, we shouldn't be attempting to summarize what they're telling us either. Only a properly attributed quote or paraphrased statement should be doing that, and that might be the only exception to mentioning audience reception in the lead. I agree that those should generally be removed/avoided. There might be some situations where it makes sense to include them, but that should be discussed/considered on case-by-case basis. Its inclusion shouldn't be automatic. The burden of obtaining consensus falls on the editor who wants to include it, not the other way around. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Cast

I would like to suggest to add two things to the Cast section of this MoS page:

  1. "A list item should not end with a full stop unless it consists of a complete sentence", per MOS:LISTFORMAT;
  2. "Avoid capitals in roles, e.g. Saul Williams as Security at Ball should be Saul Williams as security at ball".

Debresser (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Could #2 simply say "roles should be capitalized as they appear in the film credits"? Or rather, if the credits say 'Security at Ball', you feel we should disregard that? DonIago (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, capitalization should follow the MoS unless it were a direct quote (which exception is actually already part of the MoS). Debresser (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@Doniago: If we say "roles should be capitalized as they appear in the film credits", they will be a mix of all caps, all lower case and other styles. If instead we say that this aspect of Wikipedia style should follow the MoS, at least we will be internally consistent. Its long bothered me that we say things like "Saul Williams as Security at Ball". I've assumed that we must be making an exception based on the idea that "Security at Ball" is the name of a role, which is sort of a proper noun. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I completely agree with your argument, that if we follow the credits we end up with an incoherent mess. Things like "Ann's Mother" are not okay, as far as the capitalization goes. Debresser (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2019

I'm learning to make wikipedia pages for our own official short films and films, I only need to learn the formatting of this article as it is perfect for my future works, I hope i will be able to access the source of this article. My request is only for learning purpose. Thank You! Prannyll (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Prannyll: You can view the source of a protected article by hitting the "View Source" button at the top of the article page. You will not have access to edit such an article until your account is autoconfirmed. Please also be aware that Wikipedia has a conflict of interest policy that you should be aware of if you plan to write and/or edit articles about projects that you have been involved with. Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep updating Rotten Tomatoes rating ad infinitum?

Is there a cut-off point for when updating RT becomes inconsequential for the purpose of the article? Is it two years after theatrical release? Four years? Eight? Or are RT numbers to be periodically updated on a forever basis? The MOS doesn't address this in the critical response section. Should a guideline about this be included in MOS? How are editors supposed to know when enough is enough? Thanks! Pyxis Solitary yak 08:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the timespan matters as much as the trend. For example, if a film is standing at around 90% by the end of its theatrical release it really doesn't matter if it goes up to 91% or drops to 88% over the course of the next decade. It's still basically the same score. However, if it dropped 20 points over a few years that would be significant because it would indicate the film had fallen out of critical favor. The rating itself doesn't really matter, it's what it tells us about the critical reception that really counts. Betty Logan (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I could understand a 20 point drop being an important detail that merits an update, but when it's 1% or 2% over the course of, say, four years it just seems OCD to keep updating the rating two, three, or four years after the film has left theaters. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
A real solution would be to have this be fully automated by a bot which updates a specific template with the score and which runs periodically (as in once per month or something). There is no reason to not have the up-to-date score if we say "the score on x is y". If we'd have said "the score on x was y in first 2 years" that would be something else. --Gonnym (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Can the article say "the score on x was y in first 2 years"? Or three, perhaps. If we could do this, should it also be suggested in the MOS? Pyxis Solitary yak 10:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
It probably is OCD, but nevertheless these sorts of things are going to be inevitable in an encyclopaedia. As just one of thousands of potential examples, every city/town/village article has a population figure, which constantly changes and needs updating every so often. What is poor encyclopaedically is not to have a date so that people can anchor the information they are reading and easily see when it is out of date. Maybe better if film articles said “..as of May 2019 the RT ratings are...”? This would help both editors and readers. MapReader (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with MapReader. MOS already suggests "as of May 2019" usage. Sebastian James what's the T? 14:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Are RT numbers historically archived? If not, we could run into difficulty claiming anything other than current numbers. Apologies if that's a deeply-stupid question. DonIago (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Waybackmachine has certain dates archived (i.e. if you look back into December 2017, you'll see when Lady Bird (film) had a RT score of 100%), certain figures might be reported (like Lady Bird staying at 100% on RT for almost 200 reviews), however I don't believe RT has an archive themselves. QueerFilmNerdtalk 17:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The current MOS phrasing was suggested in this discussion: WT:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 15#Proposed text. An editor did bring up the possible issue with the source no longer matching the article's claim when using "As of", but the proposer countered by saying the editor who verifies the source would simply update the Wikipedia article so that it matches again. It's a circular set of checks and balances that seems to work just fine, but it's a valid concern that it may violate WP:V or flirt with crossing a line. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps this is when an IA archive, if available, can be used as the source for "As of". Pyxis Solitary yak 23:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
While a handful of editors have used "As of" and would understand adding an archive to the reference for support, most drive-bys don't, and actually many remove the "As of" phrasing anyway, since they're not used to seeing it in other film articles. We can tweak the MOS all we want, but I don't believe that type of behavior is going to change. There are quite a few drive-by accounts that completely dedicate themselves to updating those numbers. Veterans who would be aware of the MOS tend to focus on other areas. Not trying to discourage the idea here...just thinking about having reasonable expectations regarding the outcome. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
My perception is that a few editors devote quite a lot of time to this work, which ought to mean educating a few people directly to start including dates might be enough to change expectations? It’s in their interests, after all, since if they see a recent date in an article they won’t have to bother checking against the source.MapReader (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes scores go through a few changes, and there's a lot of selection bias. The early reviews skew positive, less interested critics follow and things settle down after a week or two usually but staggered worldwide releases can drag this out but the end of the theatrical run is one significant cut off point. The next big change that can happen is when a film is released on home media, many more films get reviews at this stage (and sometimes reviewed again by the same publications with different emphasis because at this stage critics who might have thought a film wasn't worth seeing in theaters might give a more positive review). Those are usually the most significant timeframes if you are looking for a cutoff point.
There are other outliers, smaller films might get positive festival reviews but very different reviews when they go on general release. If a film gets a re-release such as an 10th Anniversary etc that will likely skew reviews positive. (Films such as Shawshank redemption came to be viewed much more favorably over time.) In rare cases you get lucky and the web archive has a snapshot and you can prove that reviews have improved over time but it is usually not possible. Oh and RT seems to sometimes delist critics, not sure why that happens. There was a surge about a year or two back where Rotten Tomatoes changed their rules and suddenly there were many more critics that were accepted.
As you guessed the answer is that usually Rotten Tomatoes scores need to be updated forever. -- 16:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

MOS discussion: italics for names of film industry websites

FYI: a discussion at MOS:ITALICTITLE and websites is in effect to determine if the name of a film industry news and reviews website such as IndieWire (and other similar websites) should be italicized in the text of a film article when it is mentioned. Pyxis Solitary yak 08:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes: % vs. percent

The other editor replaced "%" with "percent" at an film article's "Critical response" section, writing "Per MOS" in the edit summary (Special:Diff/895120307). Per MOS:PERCENT, "In the body of non-scientific/non-technical articles, percent (American English) or per cent (British English) are commonly used. ... In the body of scientific/​technical articles, and in tables and infoboxes of any article, the symbol % (unspaced) is more common." However, per WP:MOSFILM and WP:RTMC, it seems to be recommended to use "%" than "percent". In addition, Rotten Tomatoes-related articles such as List of films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes use "%". The website uses "%". My question is: Which one should we use when we refer to Rotten Tomatoes' score in the Wikipedia? "%" or "percent"? 153.165.136.210 (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think MOS:FILM really takes a position on this. It just uses the symbol for shorthand. Personally I would use "percent" in prose and "%" in tables as the MOS suggests but I honestly don't think it matters. Betty Logan (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I understand they idea but I never got behind it. My thoughts on this were based on WP:NUMERAL, it was always consistent to write film 83% rating 10 reviews, than to try and use the word "percent" or to write any of the numerals as prose, in this context. -- 109.77.229.35 (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Using the word percent in this case looks clunky, and since the % sign is used by Rotten Tomatoes and the two cited Wikipedia articles, I support using the sign. Songwaters (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Cast lists and song lists

I would appreciate some input in this discussion in relation to cast lists and song lists on Hindu / Tamil movie articles. The issues in question are importance of listing cast, crew members, and songs in the movie. I feel like I've laid out my argument as well as I can, but would really appreciate the input of uninvolved editors. Eik Corell (talk) 08:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Years in film

Hi, this is a continuation of the discussion at 2019 in film, which isn't attracting any new participants, so I figured the MOS talk page can cover a discussion for all articles on years in film. Per WP:YEARSINFILM, all films released in a particular year are supposed to be covered in such articles as 2019 in film#2019 films, 2020 in film, 2018 in film etc. by their earliest release date. This is not being strictly followed, however, as all the films listed are American, with no regard for films from other countries (see Template:2019 films for an idea of those other country releases this year). I feel this would amount to WP:SYSTEMICBIAS and go against WP:WORLDWIDE. But listing the films from all countries at a single page would also be a bad idea, because the article size will be way over the 100kb suggested at WP:SIZERULE (If my estimates are right, and let's hope they are not, the size would be 500 kb of readable prose!) The somewhat-full list of films released in 2019 is given here at The Numbers. I did a rough count and the films released from January 1 to January 10 alone cross 50! For comparison, 2019 in film's January-March lists only 46 films, so you can imagine what a huge addition this would be. My proposal is something akin to this revision, which resolves both the size issue and the worldwide POV. The solution is similar to the one proposed at WT:MOSFILM back in 2014 (WT:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 11#When should a film be included?), where every editor seemed to agree to something along the lines of above, but this was never implemented. Thoughts? Thanks, DeluxeVegan (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

We should not be favoring American films, and we should not be prioritizing American release dates. This is a MOS guideline and should be adhered to unless there are good consensus based reasons for not doing so. As for whether spin-off articles should be created, then I believe MOS:SIZERULE covers this. If the host article becomes too large by cataloging all the films released in a particular year, then the size rule recommends a sensible split. This could be undertaken in a variety of ways, however. Your proposal does seem to be the most sensible suggestion. If I were you I would formally propose your solution in a WP:Request for Comment. If you have a handful of editors holding the article "hostage" you need to override them and obtain a community consensus. If you go down that route you will get a better response by posting a notification here and also at WT:FILM. Betty Logan (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I have never created an Rfc before; should it be started at Talk:2019 in film, or a broader talkpage like that of WikiProject Film for enforcing on similar years in film pages? DeluxeVegan (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes it should be done on the article talk page since that is where the dispute is. Keep your question simple and neutral. If you want to argue your case you should do that as a "reply" to the RFC. Betty Logan (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Rfc at 2019 in film

You are invited to participate in the Rfc at Talk:2019 in film#Request for comment. Thanks, DeluxeVegan (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie#Title half italic

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie#Title half italic. More opinions are needed here to reach a consensus. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

RT average rating: / or "out of"?

I've gotten into arguments about this before: the MOS uses the words "out of" in its examples when discussing the average rating of a film on Rotten Tomatoes. However, the website uses a slash to show those ratings and a huge majority of film articles on Wikipedia already use a slash. I see no difference in clearness between the two; the slash is just more concise and far more widely used already, and so I support changing that part of the MOS. Any other opinions? Songwaters (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, and it shouldn't be codified in some guideline. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
This is entirely a matter of personal preference and I agree it doesn't really matter. The purpose of the MOS is not to impose this level of prescription. I think what does matter, however, is when an article has an established style and somebody comes along and tries to change it, initiating a conflict. Established style does matter in articles and I would always support the principle of WP:RETAIN in such cases. Betty Logan (talk) 03:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually MOS:SLASH would argue that the use of slash here is not a matter of personal preference. --Gonnym (talk) 08:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
That's true. According to the MOS Gonnym cites, we don't use the slash in prose under these circumstances.--Tenebrae (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The opening sentences refer to words being joined, not numbers. Later in that section, it says an unspaced slash may be used in a fraction, and the RT average rating is a fraction. So it does not matter either way, and I suggest leaving it whichever way it's been the longest. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Addition voices needed

There is a disagreement at Halloween (franchise) regarding the inclusion of a potential sequel to the film overview table. The arguments boil down to "they have announced it, so it should be added" and "it does not exist and has not entered production, so it should not be added". More opinions are needed for this, as the Halloween franchise page does not get a lot of traffic. Here is a link to the discussion Talk:Halloween (franchise)#Halloween Ends.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Genres and verification

So...an editor adds neo-noir categories to film articles that have no mention of neo-noir. I remove said categorization per WP:CATV. They point me to a WP list which does have sources, so that's great, but that doesn't satisfy CATV either (the mention needs to be in the article, not a separate list article). They then proceed to add neo-noir into the leads of the film articles, sorta-kinda paving the way for them to re-add the categorization.

I know it would be a massive amount of tedious and annoying work, but this kind of situation makes me increasingly feel like unsourced genres don't belong in the leads for film articles. If they appear elsewhere in the text, that's good at least, but frankly for something like this, while I know it goes against WP:LEAD, I really would prefer the redundancy of requiring sourcing for genres in the lead, if only because they're so volatile.

I'd welcome any thoughts on how this can better be approached by myself and other editors. DonIago (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Genres are a perpetual problem in film articles, probably only second to music articles. If contentious content isn't sourced in the body, it should be sourced in the lead. So, citations for genres are OK, especially once they've been challenged. It's kind of pointless to source them, though, because some IP editor will be around in 30 minutes to revert you and re-add their own preferred genre. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Happens to me a lot as well, source or no source, it doesn't seem to have any impact. However, there's always the option of implementing range blocks and page protection when needed. Sure, they're time-consuming measures, but at least we have something to fight back with. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I should perhaps give this more time for other editors to weigh in, but I guess I'll ask the question now: would there be any interest in amending the MoS to say something like "It is recommended that genres listed for a film be cited to a reliable source to avoid debate over their appropriateness"? We could perhaps mention a couple of sites that are reasonably good for genre classification purposes. DonIago (talk) 03:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

A genre that only has one source supporting it fails UNDUE assuming the other genres are readily sourced particularly to key movie databases. --Masem (t) 04:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Considering most film articles have zero sources for their genres... DonIago (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
This lack of sourcing spills over into categories as well. Per WP:CATVER if the genre isn't sourced in the article then it should not have a corresponding category attached to the article. MarnetteD|Talk 04:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
That absolutely needs to be fixed then. Chose an authorative source (BFI?) and include that as a ref. --Masem (t) 04:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:FILMLEAD already states, "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources". This inherently implies they should be sourced. Are you suggesting we amend that or change it? We need to be mindful of instruction creep and realize MOS:LEADCITE already encourages citations in the lead for situations like this. As such, the latter can be cited when there's an issue.
In practice, disruptive drive-by editors aren't reading the MOS anyway or they're blatantly ignoring it. Need to consider the benefit of a change here in relation to the real-world impact it will have. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Until you place sources in the article to show the weight of either multiple sources or an authorative source, you're going to have repeated genre fighting. I would at least remind editors the genre should be sourced, and the most appropriate sources to source the genre is (short list). --Masem (t) 05:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
The bulk of what I run into isn't a disagreement between two editors familiar with editing policies and guidelines. They're drive-by genre warriors only interested in winning. Are you saying there's a lot of fighting over the type of source cited? I haven't seen a whole lot of that, but maybe I'm just oblivious. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not saying they're fighting over sources, but when an editor blazes through to add a genre based on one source that is not the usual place that one derives a genre from, that's a problem. If alternate genres are to be considered, that's a body of the article discussion, ala whether Die Hard is a Christmas movie. The genre presented in the lede and infobox should be the one that is apparent if one reviews all sources or reliable databases on the film. --Masem (t) 13:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I'd be willing to pull unsourced genres out of the leads of film articles, citing MOS:LEADCITE. But if I was going to start getting aggressive about that, I'd want a sense that other editors would support that change to my editing 'protocols'. One could somewhat reasonably argue that anyone who wants to know more about a film's genres can just read the plot summary anyhow. Put another way, what is the listing of genres effectively accomplishing that isn't at least implied via the rest of the article? DonIago (talk) 06:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

If the category falls into the WP:OR side of the house, you could go down the route of WP:CFD, per the recent example for art films. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
The problem, as I see it, is that different articles may call for different approaches at different times. Early on, a film article may avoid inline citations in the lead as long as there's a reference for it somewhere in the body. As problems are identified, a citation may end up in the lead. In other cases, the big three (AllMovie, AFI and BFI) may not list the genre, and unsourced genre claims begin appearing in the lead. You may swiftly remove citing MOS:LEADCITE and WP:V, or you may decide to delay removal and add a {{cn}} tag first allowing some time for a citation to be added. Whatever the case may be, the point is that the preference is going to depend on the editor, the history of disruption, and sometimes even the stage of development that the article is in. Makes it difficult to support a hard and fast rule that says if A then do B. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Do you think we could get away with a statement like, "It is considered best practice to cite any genre in the lead or infobox to site X, Y or Z"? I.e. make it a strong recommendation but not a requirement? DonIago (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
For me, personally, I think FILMLEAD is plenty long as it is, but I wouldn't be entirely opposed to maybe adding "(such as AFI, BFI, or AllMovie)" at the end of the genre classification statement. I don't think it's absolutely necessary though, and I would lean against a "strong recommendation" for the fact that MOS:LEADCITE already tells us citations in the lead are not a requirement by default. Each article should be handled on a case-by-case basis. So anything we add would need to ensure it's not interpreted as a contradiction to the main MOS LEAD guideline. My 2¢. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Per WP:FILMLEAD only the primary genre or sub-genre should be placed in the lead, and "neo-noir" is never going to fall into that category. It should be moved from the lead. I came across one of these edits yesterday, and not wanting to remove sourced content from the article I moved the sentence to the "themes and analysis" section":[5]. If you search hard enough you can probably come up with a dozen genres. We only want the primary genre or sub-genre in the lead (e.g. comedy, or romantic-comedy). I think in most cases this is obvious to most editors. However, if there is a dispute over genres sourcing doesn't always resolve the issue because both opposing positions can be sourced. In these cases I always take it to the talk page and argue my position in conjunction with WP:WEIGHT. In this particular case I felt uncomfortable removing sourced content from the article so I relegated it to a less prominent place in the body. The other option is to simply remove the claim and add a link to List of neo-noir titles in the "see also" section if the film is sourced and included on the list. As for the category I consider "neo-noir" a fringe genre (unless of course it is the only label that is used to describe the work) and as such fails WP:CATDEF. My recommendation would be to delete the category per Lugnuts if it cannot be demonstrated it is defining. Betty Logan (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • As a non-expert in film genres, where do I go to determine whether or not a film's listed genres are the primary genre or sub-genre though? Do we have an equivalent to List of film genres? ...oh, it seems we do, after a fashion. But I don't think that article makes it clear which genres would be considered lead-appropriate either. DonIago (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    The AFI is a good place to start. If there isn't an entry then Allmovie has comprehensive genre classification. If it is more complicated than that you need to start looking at the trade press and books etc. Jaws is an example that springs to mind because it is a genre mash and we use an academic source for that. Betty Logan (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Genre cites can be in the infobox, they do not per LEADCITE need to be in the lede prose. There should be 1:1 agreement between the infobox and lede, of course, but as long as its there in the infobox, I would consider that sufficient to be WP:V. --Masem (t) 13:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with checking for infobox correlation and cites in one location and/or the other (I'm not going to insist upon both). It gets a little murkier but hardly impossible to check whether the genre's listed elsewhere in the article (say, a reviewer calling a film a sci-fi film). DonIago (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Genres are not included in the infobox and the only place they are mentioned is in the lead. However, not every single claim has to be cited on Wikipedia, it just has to be verifiable. Usually in a well sourced article there will be sources that refer to the genre of the film, so the genre is still often sourced even if it is not explicitly cited. I question whether we need to explicitly cite that The Exorcist is a horror movie, or Die Hard is an action film, although if editors want to start adding citations to that effect I have no problems with that, but I would be against removing genre simply on the grounds they are uncited, especially if there are existing sources in the article that mention the genre. And anyway, sourcing doesn't often resolve the issue because these disputes arise when a film is not easy to categorise. Betty Logan (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm speaking at this as a semi-outsider (I work on some film articles but I'm not intense into them) and I can absolutely see there is a long-standing problem with genre creep (3+ genre types added) and editors trying to POV-push a genre (or remove a genre) on the basis of one or two articles. I wasnt' aware (or perhaps never paid attention to) the lack of genre in the film infobox but knowing that that can draw a lot of noise, maybe that is a good thing.
I know MOS:FILM has wording to keep genre count to two, but maybe there just needs to be something that says "these genres should be patently obvious to a non-film buff, and thus should not need to be sourced. Any non-obvious genres that are discussed in secondary sources can be mentioned in the body of the article, just as under "Themes" or "Reception."" This would be a section to point to as a basis to remove, for example, the "neo-noir" that's been added to the lede recent, with a simple edit summary like "See MOS:FILMLEAD" or something. If there is debate on this on specific films, then that should be a talk page to decide what to specifically. Key points that I think should be added is that the lede should not be for an obscure genre, and I would actually agree with the idea of creating a list of what are acceptable genres to be used in the lede, with IAR exception to go off that list. You can expand the MOS to be more exacting and set out the reasons for why we don't want genre-kudzu in the lede. --Masem (t) 16:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Still at it

The same editor is now adding "supernatural horror films" (and other cats as well) to articles without sourced info to support the genre. Near as I can tell they are adding it to any film designated as a horror film. They have added the cat to 100's of films today using hotcat so there may be a WP:CIR probelm with the use of that tool. MarnetteD|Talk 18:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I just looked at their Talk page, and that's ridiculous, especially given the number of editors who've advised them that there were issues with their use of categories. I also encouraged them to participate in the discussion here and they opted not to do so. It may be time to consider stronger measures to prevent further disruption. DonIago (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, they were blocked for 31 hours, though that doesn't really address the original thread on a more general level. I think I have what I personally need to go forward, though I still think it's worth considering whether this merits a revision to the MoS. I'm not going to poke this bear any further unless other editors do, though. DonIago (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Often, these are drive-by editors who aren't reading the MOS, don't know it exists, or are ignoring it. The hard part is finding the right balance between having too little instruction in the MOS versus having too much, with the goal of avoiding WP:CREEP. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
In general you are correct but, as Doniago mentions, this specific editor has several messages on their talk page including ones they have deleted about this subject. Doniago also left them an invite to post at this thread and chose to not participate. MarnetteD|Talk 08:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
MarnetteD, I get that. My comment addresses the idea of revising the MOS and the impact that would have on this behavior. I don't believe it would have much of one in general, especially in cases like this one where the editor is ignoring pleas from others. The MOS, on the other hand, is geared more for editors who are here for the right reasons, willing to engage in discussion and follow policies, guidelines, and best practices. The impact of a revision should be a key factor in any discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Current discussion

Talk:Midsommar (film)#Genre may be of interest to those who have an investment in this discussion. We've only just started talking, but I would note that the editor I'm working with mentioned that they don't believe Allmovie is a reliable source for genres, which seems at odds with what was said above. I'd specifically be curious to hear opinions on whether "folk horror" is a legitimate/desirable genre (or possibly blend of genres). I've linked that editor to this thread as well. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

In our discussion, I said that the genres on AllMovie.com appear to be user-generated and that the site is not considered generally reliable on WP:RSP. Given the apparent user-generated synopsis [6], I do not have a reason to believe that the genres are not also user-generated. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The reliability of AllMovie depends on the time period when the content was created. It's generally reliable until 2003-2004. Then All-Media Guide (which AllMovie is part of) changed owners multiple times, and a few key editors left. Not sure who determines AllMovie's editorial policy now and how. Philburmc (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Good to know; I'll keep that in mind going forward. Apologies Wally, I somehow missed your response a few days back, though I think we have Midsommar resolved at this point. DonIago (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Doniago, I appreciate you letting me know about this discussion. I have seen this same issue a lot, including the "supernatural horror" changes, and I guess it is just a never-ending hassle. It seems like the best way to respond is to revert and ask for a source for genre additions that are not clearly appropriate or go beyond one or two main genres or subgenres, and the admins can help with blocking editors who receive multiple warnings and do not engage in discussion. If anyone has a better way to go about doing this, let me know. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment

NO ACTION
Withdrawn by originator after six days of no comments, while wider italicization discussion continues at Help talk:Citation Style 1

The following discussion 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.

Should FILMMOS use existing Rotten Tomatoes, Box Office Mojo and Metacritic templates for footnotes? --14:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

But the References template {{cite web}} italicizes the "website=" field, resulting in RT, BOM and MC being italicized, which they normally are not.
This template is not required: WP:CITESTYLE specifically states, "Wikipedia does not [emphasis added] have a single house style" and to use common sense. RT, BOM and MC are not normally italicized, and the Chicago Manual of Style, for instance, does not italicize organization names.
Since we already have RT/BOM/MC templates, I suggest FILMMOS include the guideline that we use them when footnoting. This keeps consistent how we treat RM, BOM and MC in prose & EL and how we treat them in References.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Not sure what is being said here...but I do like the fact the the slanted text gives further indication to our readers they are external links.--Moxy 🍁 15:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    RE: "Not sure what is being said here" — I'm suggesting that for consistency, we use our RT/BOM/MC templates when footnoting and not just in EL. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • If you are using cite web, use |publisher= over |website= which will not be italicized. The recent mess of the citation template change was reverted to stop making "website" required in cite web, so that these differences in house style can work. --Masem (t) 15:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    Except when anyone does that, editors invariably change it and say, "No, Fandango is the publisher, RT is just the website". And that recent citation template change — which you rightly call a mess — orders that the website field always be italicized, essentially imposing a house style.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure what the question is actually asking. Could an editor use the template in the footnotes - sure why not. But should the use be mandated/required rather than using a different template or handish variant - hell no. We don't need another front in the endless citation/source format wars and waste editor resources to change content from one version to another.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    Actually, we agree — that's exactly what I hope to avoid by urging consistency (and not "mandated/required" but just an MOS guideline). --Tenebrae (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    Actually if I'm reading you correctly, we may not agree at all. First of all in practice style guides are pretty much mandatory hence I'd oppose suggesting a particular option in our film style guide (film MOS). While I believe that a very basic unified look and consistency is needed throughout wikipedia, I don't believe or support that for more than those very basic aspects and I see format details of references outside those very basic things. Consistency within a single article is already handled by the current general MOS, but consistency of the format for those film sites in references throughout all film related articles and somewhat in contradiction to general MOS is something I would not support at all.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I think there are two potential problems with what you are proposing, Tenebrae. We cannot reasonably ask editors to not use the citation templates, because 99.9% of editors and then some will just use the template anyway. I don't see how it is enforceable in any practical sense. The external link templates follow a different format to citations so they are not seemlessly interchangeable either. Also, another problem is that while WP:CITESTYLE does not mandate a "house" style it does mandate internal consistency. So if the citation template is used for all the other citations then it arguably should be used for RT/BOM too. Masem's suggestion of using the "publisher" parameter rather than the "website" parameter seems to be a more elegant solution. There is probably a wider debate to be had over what should or should not be italicised anyway, but either way italicisation can (and should) be accommodated by the citation templates. What should and shouldn't be italicised should be made crystal clear in the MOS; its purpose is to advocate for style, not technical hacks. Betty Logan (talk) 16:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    If that's possible, then I agree wholeheartedly with you and Masem that just using "publisher=" for RT/BOM/MC would provide consistency and follow common usage for those sites without getting into larger footnote-style discussions or other lengthy MOS issues. I hadn't suggested it since I honestly thought using our existing templates wouldn't have been controversial. So what do we think? Should we reword this RfC to suggest FILMMOS put RT/BOM/MC as publisher? Because it really doesn't matter who those sites' parent companies are; the ownership doesn't change their factual / statistical information.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean by using them as footnotes. You mean as External links entries? Or references? RT, BOM, and MC at the present are not italicized websites so they are not works of art or artifice like a magazine. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: "the Chicago Manual of Style, for instance, does not italicize organization names." -- Except that these are not organizations. They are website-only publications and as such should be treated the same as other publications. The "publisher" is the owner of the publication, and in this case the website/s. The names of websites should be italicized; and the RT, BOM, M templates reserved for use in External links. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 03:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Those templates are for use in the external links section. That's why they support Wikidata. Using them just because you don't like {{cite xxx}} italicizing the website name is ludicrous. Nardog (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    I think "ludicrous" may be overstating it. Let's say you have two studios, one of them owned by a parent company. Though citations from both amount to the same thing, one studio will be italicized in a footnote and the other not:
    That, I believe, is what may be ludicrous. In any event, it's not a matter of personal like — it's a matter of what does Wikipedia gain by using an eccentric footnoting style for databases/aggregators like RT, BOM and MC, which in the vast bulk of real-world citations are not italicized. WP:CITESTYLE says we're supposed to use common sense. That's all I'm advocating for. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    Though your concern is understandable, repurposing the external link templates is definitely not the way to go. For what it's worth, the RfC at WT:CS1 opened in May favored the italicization. If we allowed this only in FILMMOS that may be tantamount to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. WP:CITESTYLE states, in the same sentence you quoted, citations within any given article should follow a consistent style. So if we used those templates for citation yet the same articles also used {{cite xxx}} elsewhere, we would be creating more inconsistency, not less.
    As for your examples, I would simply use |publisher= instead of |website=. An alternative is to opt for |author= and put the domain name as a stand-in in |website=, which some people seem to prefer. Nardog (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
As you suggest, I would love to see us use the non-italicized |publisher= for RT, BOM and MC, since that would be in line with virtually every other footnoting format in the world. And in keeping with a concern raised here, that indeed would be consistent with ever other publisher cited in a film article. Thoughts?--Tenebrae (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Incidentally, that RfC was solely about a change to CS1, specifically "cite web". It doesn't override Wikipedia allowing us to use appropriate existing footnoting such as Chicago Manual of Style, ALA or MLA. Wikipedia does not have one house style we're all required to use. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I was involved in that RfC, and one of the major points on which consensus was reached is that we are not required to use the "website=" field in "cite web." We are perfectly allowed within the guideline to use only the "publisher=" field. We can achieve the same result as the stated point of this RfC by having our guideline by that we use only the "publisher=" field for RT, BON and MC.--Tenebrae (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Alternative proposal based on discussion above

Multiple editors addressing the substance of the question rather than the specific means of execution have suggested an alternative.

As User:Masem notes, "If you are using cite web, use |publisher= over |website= which will not be italicized. The recent mess of the citation template change was reverted to stop making 'website' required in cite web...." User:Betty Logan concurs that, "Masem's suggestion of using the 'publisher' parameter rather than the 'website' parameter seems to be a more elegant solution." And User:Nardog notes that, "As for your examples" of when the MOS' allowance for common sense may be needed, "I would simply use |publisher= instead of |website=." I would additionally note we are not required to give parent companies in footnotes.

So for consistency with how RT, BOM and MC have been generally presented in WikiProject film footnotes, and in real life, should FILMMOS guidelines suggest we use |publisher= for these citing these three entities?--Tenebrae (talk) 11:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Still no. A MOS can't police what parameters editors use any more strictly than WP:CITE and H:CS1 etc. already do. As I said, if we made such a rule that only affects those websites, it would create inconsistent use of those parameters within each article, which would run counter to WP:CITESTYLE. If we applied it universally, it would also be in opposition to CITESTYLE as it would be prescribing a certain style. And even if we applied it to articles that use CS1 only, it would be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS as CS1 proscribes use of |publisher= instead of |website= just for the sake of avoiding the italicization.

    Also, you're twisting my words. [Y]our examples for which I said I would simply use |publisher= instead of |website= are the ones you gave above, i.e. |publisher=[[Warner Bros.]] and |publisher=[[New Line Cinema]] instead of |website=[[Warner Bros.]] and |website=[[New Line Cinema]]. I would (and do) use |website= or |work= for Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, Box Office Mojo, etc. Nardog (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

    I didn't twist your words, certainly not intentionally. The example I gave is directly analogous to RT, BOM and MT. In neither case does it make sense, to me, to italicize the very same entity in one instance on the page and not in other instances. That is the soul of inconsistency, and I'm not sure why we're placing an arbitrary choice above common sense.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    Warner Bros. and New Line Cinema are nowhere near analogous to RT, MC, and BOM, as the former are merely companies. They may have their own websites, but running them is not their primary business. It is possible to regard e.g. Rotten Tomatoes as the publisher of the website Rotten Tomatoes and use |publisher=Rotten Tomatoes instead of |website=Rotten Tomatoes, but then it wouldn't be consistent if the article didn't also use |publisher=Collider, |publisher=ComingSoon.net, and what have you. CITESTYLE talks about the consistency between each citation in a given article, which your proposal would undermine. It's not about consistency between a citation and the rest of the page—for one, external links are allowed in citations but not in the body. Nardog (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
My feeling is that RT, etc. are the publishers of the information. Putting RT, etc. in the publisher field would then not only be consistent with its mentions elsewhere on the page but also with other websites such as ComingSoon.net.
Think of it this way: Right now, we list ComingSoon.net as publisher, non-ital. Suppose Warner Bros. buys it. All of a sudden we make it ital? No ... because we're not required to list parent companies and we're allowed to use common sense. What are your thoughts re: this ComingSoon.net example?--Tenebrae (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure how that Warner Bros. buying ComingSoon.net scenario would affect anything. If ComingSoon.net was cited using |publisher=, it would stay the same. If it was cited using |website=, it would stay the same. Nardog (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Wait, why do we list ComingSoon.net as publisher? It is a website and it is owned by CraveOnline as far as I know. El Millo (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but Tenebrae is insisting on using |publisher= for it (and other websites) because we don't use italics for websites in the body of articles. Nardog (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
What is your reasoning behind ComingSoon specifically, Tenebrae? El Millo (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I was simply using an example Nardog gave, since I normally see ComingSoon.net not italicized in articles including List of American films of 2014, 2015, etc. But we can use any other example. (And, frankly, that site is magazine-format and not a database or aggregator so we should be using "cite news" and listing it as Coming Soon, but that's a separate issue.) The point is, RT etc. are not normally italicized in any mainstream footnoting style. And since we're not required to use the italicized "website=" field and not required to list a parent company, that means we are allowed discretion to use common sense. If we weren't supposed to use that discretion, why give it to us? Because right now, it's like we have a citation template that turns decades like "the 1950s" and "the 1990s" incorrectly into "the 1950's" and "the 1990's" and we're saying, "Well, we have to say it that way because the template says so." You can see how a professional journalist and editor would look at that and think it's eccentric.
In any case, I've just thought of a compromise solution that I think addresses both sides' issues. We don't have to put RT, BOM and MC in footnotes at all, actually, if we list them under External links — which we do often enough that we even have templates for it. Anything attributed to RT etc. in the article body remains clearly sourced. It's similar to how we don't necessarily footnote every single movie/TV credit in an actor's article since we have IMDb in External Links.
What do my fellow editors think of this as a reasonable compromise? --Tenebrae (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

It's been a couple days without comment, and I'm hoping it's not because my fellow editors are taking a hard-line, no-compromise, one-way-or-nothing stance. Wikipedia works on consensus and compromise, and in my heart I don't believe any of my colleagues are so personally wedded to an eccentric footnote style that they wouldn't even consider a middle-ground solution. C'mon, my friends, with whom I've edited and discussed things in this Project for years. Talk to me. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

We don't have to put RT, BOM and MC in footnotes at all, actually, if we list them under External links That is the worst proposal to come from you so far, I'm afraid. The text–source integrity is more important than and independent of WP:EL.
I sympathize with where you're coming from—I too have found the differing styles in body and citations somewhat bothersome. But I also found some arguments for it in the WT:CS1 RfC compelling. If you need to convince any group of editors in order to realize what you're seeking, it is not MOSFILM or WP:FILM, but one much bigger. I think you're approaching this from the wrong angle. Nardog (talk) 05:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
WT:CS1 RfC is where this started, and that page attracts programmers, not editors, journalists and academics. Let's say the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration posts a page titled "Ocean Currents 101." The NOAA is the publisher. But these programmers say "The webpage of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is like a magazine or newspaper, so it's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration." That's conflating the source of the information with the delivery system — calling the publisher a magazine/newspaper. Any professional editor would be aghast at that inane claim that goes against every mainstream, commonly used footnote style, in which organizations are not italicized in either prose or footnote. Saying organizations are not italic in prose but are italic in footnotes is additionally inconsistent since magazines and newspapers are italicized in both places.
But because programmers aren't editors, I feel like a climatologist trying to explain global warming to Trumpers. It's impossible.
As for footnote consistency, there is no reason for us to italicize any organization in footnotes. The American Film Institute should not be italicized. Sears should not be italicized. It's not like RT, BOM and MC should be the only ones not italicized.
Would someone tell me, please, what is this obsession with an eccentric footnote style that is factually inaccurate in italicizing organizations that are not italicized? What does it gain us to be eccentric and inaccurate? Why is that so important for anyone? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I still don't get the need to additionally regulare anything. As far as I'm concerned the current MOS/citation regulation is fine and i certainly don't want yet another one.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Italicizing the names of organizations is something eccentric done in no mainstream footnoting style, such as Chicago Manual of Style, ALA or MLA.
Let's say a Wikipedia coder created a bot that changes "its" (as in "the dog scratched its head") to "it's," and convinced just over half the people at at RfC that we should do it this way. You can see why a professional journalist and editor would ask, "Why would we do that? Why be deliberately eccentric and inaccurate?"
And, yes, inaccurate: We're now writing National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as if if were the magazine National Geographic — which it is not. Why would we want to deliberately mislead readers that there's a magazine called National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration? Wikipedia policy and MOS both tell us to use common sense. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry Tenebrae, I wasn't avoiding you but I have just had possibly the most manic week of my life. Anyway, first off, let me say I agree with your underlying logic driving this discussion but I have to say I don't believe you have hit upon a viable solution as yet. While everything from Box Office Mojo in an article is sourced if there is a link to it in the external links section, it will not be clear which claims come from BOM and which ones do not. As such we would end up with citation tags added, content pulled for being uncited and perhaps false claims left in because editors believe it is cited. I accept your argument that a self-publishing website is a publisher: any website that represents itself rather than another company should not be italicised IMO. But I think you are tackling this problem too far down the food chain. This citation anomaly affects more than our three regular websites and it needs to be tackled at MOS level. If it's not tackled top down we are going to end up with citation style inconsistencies all over the place. I would support the MOS taking a firm position on the italicisation/non-italisation of self-publishing website, but this really means recognising the distinction between websites that are publishers and websites that are publications. Trying to hack the problem at Film project level isn't viable IMO, but trying to solve it at MOS is and I would hope members of the Film project who agree with your position would support you. Betty Logan (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. The RfC wording might have been too specific, since it's the "why" of italics/non-italics rather than the "how" which is salient. I do think WP:FILM is free to give MOS guidance on RT, BOM & MC cites, since we want consistency and editors are not required to use the "website=" field and not required to list parent companies. But maybe as proposer I should withdraw this RfC and come back to it after getting some higher MOS decision. Anyone have thoughts on this? --Tenebrae (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2019 (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.

Revising the guidance on plot sourcing

This follows on from the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Unsourced_film_plot_on_Wikipedia_article_is_being_called_"Just_utter_made-up_bullshit.".

Wikipedia has hosted a plot summary for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood with a false ending for a couple of months, and since the film's release Wikipedia has been called out on this gross inaccuracy. The general agreement at the discussion is that this scenario should never have happened, and was the result of a misapplication of WP:FILMPLOT i.e. editors considered a brief showing at Cannes as "verifiable" and therefore the plot summary did not require a citation, as the film counts as a primary source and is self-citing.The problem though is that this interpretation of the MOS is inconsistent with WP:Verifiability which states "verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source". Editors and readers were not able to do that in this case.

I propose replacing the following text:

Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary. Exceptions to the rule include upcoming films and "lost" films (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors should use secondary sources.

With the following text:

Provided the film is publicly available in some form somewhere in the world citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary, since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film. An exception to the rule is any film which is not currently available to the public to verify, such as upcoming films (including those that had sneak previews and played briefly at film festivals) and "lost" films, for which editors should use secondary sources.

The bits in bold simply represent my alterations. While we are doing this I think is also worth pointing out that if a film has been released a week early in China (for example) and has not yet had a release in the English-speaking world this should not be used as a pretext for removing the plot (my rationale behind the first alteration). I believe these changes would make the guideline consistent with WP:V and WP:SOURCEACCESS. Betty Logan (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I would reiterate that this is due to V, that there are means for a WP reader to be able to verify the plot by watching the film. Limited screen releases are not sufficient publication to meet this factor of V. --Masem (t) 20:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I like the wording overall. Do we need "briefly" that much or not? It seems like even if a film screens at multiple festivals up through a commercial release, the same general inability to check is there. Feels like it could get nitpicky that more than one festival screening could qualify for contributing a plot summary. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I have scrubbed it, Erik. It is not essential and I agree we don't want people gaming the guideline. Betty Logan (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I think an update is warranted based on this revelation, but for clarity, I would also strike "somewhere in the world" from the proposed text and modify the second statement slightly so it would look something like this:
Provided the film is publicly available in some form, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary, since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film. Exceptions to the rule include films which are not currently available to the public to verify, such as upcoming films (including those that had sneak previews and only played at film festivals) and "lost" films, for which editors should use secondary sources.
Just an idea, of course, but the previous example is fine too; I like where this is going. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yup one of the worst POV parts of Wikipedia.....and is why Wikipedia has many credibility problems when it comes to movie articles. So many pick IMDB first that Google puts IMDB as first search results ....unlike 80 percent of other topics on the net.--Moxy 🍁 21:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I think in the case of hard-to-obtain or not-yet-available films, we should require secondary sources, and for others, we should still encourage secondary sources. So I like Betty Logan's proposal, but it may not go far enough. —Kusma (t·c) 09:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Hm, I'm not sure it's very clear at the moment. Do we need "in some form"? I also think that we need to link it to the time of editing. A film plot that was publicly verifiable in 2008 may not be now. Also, I find the exception to the rule clause confusing, what we're actually trying to do is illustrate some cases where it isn't publicly available (and therefore verifiable) so I would consider these as more examples rather than exceptions. Suggest the following (apologies if I messed up the bolding indicating changes):
Provided the film is publicly available at the time of editing so that the content can be verified by editors or readers, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary, since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film. For all other cases, secondary editors must use secondary sources, including for upcoming films (including those that had sneak previews and only played at film festivals) and "lost" films, as these would not be considered to be generally available or verifiable.
Scribolt (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
According to #6 of WP:DEADREF, we have to consider the material unverifiable when it's no longer available, which in this case pretty much means we move it from the article to the talk page (a {{cn}} tag wouldn't suffice). So I'm not sure we need the "at the time of editing" bit. I do like your emphasis placed on "must use secondary sources", however, so maybe the suggestion evolves to this:
Provided the film is publicly available, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary, since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film. Secondary sources must be used for all other cases, such as upcoming films (including those that had sneak previews and only played at film festivals) and "lost" films, as these would not be considered generally available or verifiable.
Made a few grammatical changes as well. Thoughts, additional suggestions? --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I think this is the best of the options above, and pretty succinct. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I am happy with GoneIn60's revisions. My concern with the "at the time of editing" amendment is that it potentially enshrines the problem. The counter-argument put forward for leaving the false plot in was that the plot was verifiable when it was written, which is what we are trying to address. I can't imagine there are many films around these days that are publicly available and then not (beyond festivals). If a film has been released on video/DVD or as a download or on some other permanent format then it is permanently available (like an out-of-print book). If a film has a limited theatrical release and then never becomes publicly available in any other form then to all intents and purposes it should require secondary sourcing along the lines of lost films. Betty Logan (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'd have argued that it wasn't publicly verifiable at that point anyway, but I agree it doesn't add much value. One last question/suggestion, would it be helpful to specify it must have been released in the first sentence, as opposed to publicly available? Would there be any instances where we would consider that it would be verifiable without a secondary source pre release? If not we could be more specific and avoid arguements as what publicly available means. Not sure though. Scribolt (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Nothing against current language but I think we just need to clarify what a "sneak preview" means via footnote. I want to make sure there's the clear contrast between a film being shown on a limited number of screens and a limited number of showings (eg one or two theater slots) as a sneak preview, and the limited release that many artsy films do in December to qualify their films for that year's Oscars which, despite being limited by number of screens, would still be a public release. Looking this up, it might be worthwhile to make this distinction on the Oscar rules [7] which basically state a release in a commercial theater (in LA for the Oscars, but I don't think that's necessary here) for at least a week with at least 3 showing a day during that week. Again, this is stuff to bury in a footnote but we want to be clear of the distinction here. --Masem (t) 17:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I would say a limited release where the film is basically playing at a single theater for a week and then disappears for several months causes the same problems as a festival showing as far as verifiability goes. For a film to count as "publicly available" I think it needs to play in at least two theaters simultaneously at different locations to distinguish the release from previews and festivals. If it is playing at more than one location simultaneously that usually means it has a distributor that is rolling it out. Betty Logan (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I know most of these December releases that are meant for Oscar qualifications are not just run in LA but typically also NY, so maybe we can say the rough baseline for a public film release would be on at least two different (and in different geographic locations) commercial theaters with public ticket sales for that movie, slated to run multiple showing a day through at least a week. It may be a "limited run", but it is not a "limited screening". I know thta's a lot of detail, but that's again, footnote material and meant to avoid gaming the definition of "public release" as had happened. --Masem (t) 18:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • So, we seem to have arrived at Gone In 60s most recent re-write. It's a large step forward compared to what we currently have so should we get this into the MOS then? I agree with Masem that we probably need to add a footnote defining a "sneak preview" but we can work that out over the next few days. I don't see any point in delaying the main re-write if we are now in agreement. Betty Logan (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Seems good enough for insertion to me, unless anyone else has any other feedback/suggestions? Now's the time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Seems good to me too! --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Works for me as well. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, I am sticking it in. See how it goes. Betty Logan (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Hopefully it will help: I just had to revert this [8] on a film not due until April 2020. --Masem (t) 17:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Addition to FILM plot length for franchise pages

This may be more premptive than needed but I would suggest adding the same type of advice that MOS:TV has for the plot description of a film on the film series' overall page, that is, the plot per firm should be 100 words or less, thus to help a reader get the right film quickly. For example, something that Bill & Ted does. Further that these descriptions should NOT be the exact same as copyrighted premises, for obvious reasons. --Masem (t) 22:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

That sounds sensible as a top limit. Readers can go to the individual movies' pages for detailed plots. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I concur.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't undertand what this is about. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Order of accolades

How should a table of accolades be ordered? Alphabetically or by date? El Millo (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I would go A-Z by award/festival. I don't think the date is that helpful for the average reader. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Agree, but just to add, if the article in question is a franchise or a film series, then order by year first, then award/festival, as in these cases the year (date) does have significance. --Gonnym (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I disagree in general with organizing "by award", esp. for smaller 'Awards' tables – "by year" (which is many cases is effectively by project (e.g. film)) makes more sense in those cases. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
On a personal level, I like the layout at The Hunt, ordered by award, but also sortable by date. Maybe that's the solution. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
The thing is that the sorting never works right for dates, at least for dates written in plain letters. I would prefer to order awards by the date of the ceremony, but also sortable by award. El Millo (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Dates are indiscriminate details. I see no reason for them to be included in such tables. When a film gets a lot of awards, that is evident from the size of the table. Prose can be used to describe awards momentum where applicable. Not listing dates in every single instance to imply that the precise timeline matters. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 23:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Actors names in plot section?

Hi, does the community have an attitude about whether or not actor names belong in the plot section like:

"After hearing the prophecy of the deliverer, Pharaoh Rameses I of Egypt (Ian Keith) orders the death of all newborn Hebrew males."

If so, could we get that clarified in the MOS, please? I recently saw MarnetteD remove these in good faith only to have them immediately returned and I've seen this sort of thing bunches of times. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

This is one of our most ancient conflicts... I feel like we have had a discussion here and there but never truly resolved it, considering the lack of MOS clarification. I see arguments either way. Honestly, if you can, avoid writing plot summaries. It's near-guaranteed that whatever you try to write for a plot section, actors' names or no, it will be completely rewritten by someone else in the near future. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Erik is correct that this has gone on for years. At one point the decision seemed to be to include them and then sometime in the last few years removal was preferred. As usually happens nothing was decided about changing WP:MOSFILM. Cast lists exist in the infobox (partial) and in the cast section - thus to list them again in the plot section is a waste of space IMO. I would be all for a WP:RFC to make a final decision but that is just me. MarnetteD|Talk 17:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I insist actor names are included in the plot, but only for Kind Hearts and Coronets and Raising Cain. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
IIRC, most recent consensus was to exclude them from plot summaries. I'd support amending the MOS if we still agree on that, as, yes, it does keep coming up. Popcornduff (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
If there is a cast section I find them redundant. Some editors like to include them, I think, because knowing the actors' names provides a visual reference. My problem with this is that it depends on specialist knowledge. Most films are not big Hollywood films with recognizable actors. Also, such references date (somebody brought up on Harry Potter may not recognize Ingrid Bergman) and often they are culturally-centric (someone American may not recognize Aamir Khan). So on that basis I would prefer to omit names from the plot summaries, but that said it is low down my list of priorities. Betty Logan (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Betty that if the principal cast are listed elsewhere then there's little reason to list them in Plot, and that it's essentially a waste of space. As a practical matter, I won't typically remove them unless they've been added as a new edit or I'm doing other work on the Plot section. DonIago (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
One of the many discussions on this came to the conclusion that actor names should not be duplicated in both the plot summary and in a cast list. In other words, pick one or the other and stick with it for that article. That seems the most reasonable way to do things. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh god here we go again. Daß Wölf 13:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Actor's name in plot sections can help visualize readers at times. Also, actors in plot sections shouldn't count with the word count in plot summaries. We all have been disputing about that for years and it won't make a difference anyway. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I prefer that they are left out and are instead put in a Cast section. They also bloat the plot section, which is a pain when it comes to those adhering to a strict application of WP:Film plot. Editors shouldn't be focused on actor names in the plot when it comes to trying to keep the plot summary word count at a limit. Like others have stated, this topic has been debated time and time again. I don't see that we need yet another debate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
The advice should be to generally leave them out, unless there is a good meta-level reason to include them: eg, a case where like in Ocean's 12, we have Julia Roberts' character role-playing as Julia Roberts, though it may not always be necessary in such cases. As others have said, cast names clutter the plot, and ideally, a good lede section should make clear who the starring actors are going as in the film to prep for the plot section, if that is a concern. It gets bad when cast names are being applied to all the minor characters in a film, and that's where it gets messy. --Masem (t) 18:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
If there is near universal consensus for keeping cast names out of the plot section when they are already provided elsewhere, I think that would be useful to add to the MOS. Although I think there are a few articles that would do better without a cast section (e.g., The Lighthouse), those seems like rare exceptions. MOS guidance is very useful for other editors who do not have all the experience and knowledge as many of those posting above about past discussions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I think the names provide a useful reference if you're familiar with the actors or simply have some desire to keep up with who played who without having to scroll back and forth and/or remember a dozen actors at once, and I don't think the clutter/redundancy argument overrules this. The practice clearly serves a purpose to some people, as it's not something we've invented on Wikipedia. Nor is it the only redundant element on the page -- even ignoring the plot, the main cast is mentioned in the lead, in the infobox and then likely also in various Casting/Filming/Production sections etc. We tolerate these redundancies because each serves a purpose to different readers, so certainly we can tolerate this one too. As for the argument that they take up a part of the 700 words, that's laughable. When trimming long plots, the 10-15 words that these parentheses take up are the difference between 1-2 verbose and concise sentences. No article is ever going to lose a plot point there. Daß Wölf 19:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

Theres a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Directors in an Actors Filmography about opposing the addition of Directors in an Actors filmography and including something in WP:FILMMOS about it if anyone would like to weigh in. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Shortlists in accolades table

In tables of accolades, should we include accolades(?) like shortlists, longlists (if there is such a thing for film awards), and runner-ups, apart from wins and nominations? WP:FILMCRITICLIST mentions award wins and nominations but is not very clear on the things I mentioned. Runner-ups, 2nd place, 3rd place, etc, are understandable, depending on how the awards are presented. But should shortlists be included when the results have already been released and said films failed to win or be nominated? LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

No, these shouldn't be included. Being nominated is the minimum criteria. To apply policy, it would be undue weight because it is the nominees that get more than one-off coverage in reliable sources. I assume shortlists are coming up because some outlets are reporting these more than in the past (at least from my movie news-reading perspective). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
And is it noteworthy before the nominations take place, like in Avengers: Endgame's case? El Millo (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I suspected much. I would understand if the films are noteworthy like Endgame, or that the nominees have yet to be announced as of the date but the shortlists have. No, it isn't really because shortlists are coming up now. It's just because I encountered a user (or "users") at Your Name and A Silent Voice who insisted on including a shortlist on the Oscars with no elaboration and through a disruptive manner. So I just needed a confirmation. Thanks! LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I would agree that if there is significant attention given to a film being on a shortlist, that can merit unique coverage that we normally don't account for. But as a matter of routine coverage - "The shortlist for this award includes X, Y, and Z", that's not something to include at all. It's the actual nominations that have the weight. --Masem (t) 20:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Maybe being on the shortlist is noteworthy before the nominations are announced, but afterward, if not nominated, it lacks the weight to be included as an accolade. El Millo (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with my two colleagues above and with Erik. Also, shortlists are often hard to document since many times they're informal. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Flop, blockbuster, etc.

Is there any chance that this year the community might consider including in the MOS what the prevailing attitude is toward labels like "flop" and "blockbuster"? I'm constantly dealing with these, and more labels like "super hit", "failure", "disaster", and it would be nice to point to something specifically guideline-y. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I have seen similar debates in articles about popular music - stuff like whether it's OK to say things are "hit albums" (as opposed to successful) or received "rave reviews". It's an interesting area to me. Popcornduff (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The idea that one can look at a couple data points then decide for oneself whether it was a "box office success", a "flop", or a "super hit" is ridiculous. This article from The New York Times goes into it a bit and explains why you can't just compare the budget to the gross. If this is coming from a professional analyst, it's fine. If it's some random Wikipedian, they're probably wrong. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • The bigger concern for me is whether these hyperbolic, subjective labels belong in articles at all. We would never say "the film was declared rotten" or "the film was fresh", yet this equivalent language about blockbusters and mega hits and all-time blockbuster, and declared as superhit, declared as disaster, declared as failure, universal acclaim, etc appear across the project. Either the film community should embrace this stuff, or be clear about shunning it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I think it's a tricky area because terms like "hit" are widely understood and used by reliable sources. However, I generally prefer to avoid idiomatic or metaphorical language at all on Wikipedia, even when widely used, as there is almost always a simpler, more neutral term to use instead (such as "successful"). In the case of "blockbuster", the term seems to have established its own particular industry meaning beyond simply "successful" - it has implications for genre and target markets and industry machinations - and so might be defensible. Terms like "fresh" haven't reached that point I think. Popcornduff (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Seems to be covered well already at WP:PUFFERY. I would just point to that when needed. If it's not being attributed directly to a source, then it should be stated in plain language. Exceptions will include some industry terms that have an article on Wikipedia, such as box-office bomb. However, that doesn't mean that we necessarily should use the terms, only that we can. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm skeptical towards a general regulation for films, the general case seems already be handled WP:Puffery and whether a specific term is appropriate or not in doubt depends on the individual case and the sources supporting it (or lack thereof). Certainly we can advise moderation with use of such terms, but outward banning them would conflict with other wp policies (in particular the source based approach).

Also personally I really dislike an ever increasing style guide to deal with every issue that might irk an editor (even for good reasons). An overbording style guide (and too much enforced conformity) is something that in doubt drives (new) authors away. We need balance between regulating only what is absolutely necessary and trust our editors with the rest, even if that may means more "style mistakes" on occasion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I think we should only have "box office hit", "box office disapointment" and "box office bomb", with few additional words like "surprise", "sleeper" and "massive box office bomb". That's it. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
See, exactly that is horrible editor mircomanagement from my perspective, esesntially even dictating the vocabulary. Aside from that it somewhat contradicts source based writing (where in doubt the sozrce determines the vocabulary).--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I think we should avoid unnecessary editorializing about the success or failure of films. Reliable sources generally seem to avoid the more sensationalized terms, and so unless a significant number of sources describe a film in a certain way, then those types of terms should be avoided. Current policies such as verifiability and attribution address those issues without adding to the manual of style. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Like I said before, we should only have "box office hit", "box office disapointment" and "box office bomb", maybe with few additional works like "surprise, "sleeper" and "massive box office bomb" and leave out the rest to avoid that problem. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Unless a source uses those terms, they're original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree, box office bomb is hyperbole and overused for any film making a loss, so is best avoided in most cases, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Simple language without the use of hyperbole should be the way to go. After all, what would be the difference between a hit, superhit and blockbuster film? They are subjective labels all working to signify varying degrees of commercial success, and would differ depending on who you ask. Unless a film has significantly altered the industry's perception of such terms (like Jaws and Star Wars, or Hum Aapke Hain Koun..! in India), these should be avoided. Similarly, 'commerical failure' or the like would be a neutral swap for 'bomb', 'dud', 'flop' and 'disaster'. Terms like 'sleeper hit', 'underperform' and 'break even' are acceptable within context, provided that they are sourced. If the problem is rampant, a line may be added to MOS recommending to avoid subjective and non-neutal labels as these, with some exceptions, like those mentioned above. There might be some places where this does not apply as strongly, so the wording should convey that this is not carved into stone. DeluxeVegan (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I would oppose a change to MOS:FILM unless it can be adequately demonstrated why WP:PUFFERY isn't enough. Need to be wary of instruction creep. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Respectfully, all of the film community's expectations should be laid out in a singular document, and should provide examples that are relevant to film, which WP:PUFFERY does not do. Even more importantly, there is clearly a difference of opinion above about what sort of language should or should not be used, which is why it should be discussed and codified. I personally think that "blockbuster" would contravene WP:PUFFERY, but some above seem to think it's okay. I also think "disappointment", "bomb", "flop", "failure" are inappropriate, as are expressions like "overwhelmingly positive", "universally negative", and so on. These are all expressions and labels that are often used in film articles. It is important for people who maintain articles to be able to point to clear examples in the MOS of why their edit is inconsistent with community standards. If I were to see BattleshipMan add "massive box office bomb" to an article, I'd revert it on the basis that it is hyperbolic POV, but clearly he would disagree and we'd be in a tiff. Why not have the argument once and get a baseline for consensus? So this isn't a trivial request, as critical and commercial response are important parts of film articles and editors need to know how to properly convey this information and how to maintain it. Erring on the side of less clarity is rarely the best approach. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, I favor erring on the side of adequate clarity. We can't expect a MOS to cover every possible scenario with detailed examples. That kind of approach is what leads to WP:CREEP. Instead, its coverage should remain generalized with wiggle room, so that it can apply to a multitude of scenarios without getting too specific. WP:PUFFERY covers that base well, in most situations anyway. For instance, the phrase "massive" in your example is covered. Terms that are somewhat common in the industry, like "box office bomb", lies more in the gray (sometimes they're fine, other times not so much). The use of such terms heavily depends on sources cited, and if challenged, the burden to obtain local consensus would be placed on the editor(s) who want the term(s) in the article. The default in that scenario would be exclude, and WP:PUFFERY can be cited as a reason. However, I don't really see how we could construct a guideline against specific terms without introducing CREEP. There are too many examples of when they would be appropriate, especially when they are presented with WP:INTEXT attribution. We'd need to be careful not to go against the grain of what existing policy and guidelines tell us. Also don't overlook the fact that WP:PUFFERY covers negatively-loaded language as well. Phrases like "bomb", "flop", and "disappointment" would be held to the same standards. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC) -- updated 05:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
One more thing... the MOS should reflect overwhelming consensus, IMO. When a debate is more along the 50/50 or 60/40 line, then the content probably has no business being in the MOS. If you (or others) want to pursue it further, maybe post a few examples of the language you'd like to see inserted. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC) -- updated 05:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Again whether those descriptions are appropriate or not depends on the individual sourcing situations and we should not dictate wording other than general advice to avoid hyperbole language.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. However, it wouldn't hurt to explore a very short, concise film version of WP:PUFFERY in MOS:FILM. Not sure I'd be in favor of it or that it's necessary, but I'd be willing to look at and discuss some examples. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Here are some individual sourcing situations: "All Time Blockbuster", "Blockbuster", "Super Hit", "Hit", "Semi Hit", "Flop", "Disaster". All from what is considered a reliable source. Would it be fair game to say "Dangal was declared an all time blockbuster"? Or "The superhit film Rustom grossed 2.14 billion rupees"? Or "Aiyaary was a financial disaster." What exactly is the measurable difference between a flop and a disaster? Or a blockbuster and an all time blockbuster? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
We should not be aggregating sources and determining their consensus, and we certainly shouldn't be looking at a single source for justification. The exception to that is when you have articles from highly-reputable sources (i.e. NY Times, LA Times, or other entities well-respected by the industry) that thoroughly analyze the data and apply such labels. This needs to be clearly supported as a conclusion drawn in the highly-reputable source. Only then should we consider the inclusion of such terms and labels. I'm less familiar with non-US sources, but from first glance, I'd say the examples you provided wouldn't qualify. They wouldn't seem to provide the justification needed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I am extraordinarily confused by your response. You first say we shouldn't be aggregating sources (and I provided only once source, so I wasn't aggregating) and then you say we shouldn't be looking at a single source for justification, suggesting instead we should look at NY Times, LA Times for guidance as to what the critical consensus might be. But isn't combining the opinions of two reliable sources aggregation? If all I have to do is find two reliable sources that described a film as a "disaster" then I could include that label?
Anyway, look, The world is a massive place. The vague standards for how to treat western films should not set the tone for how we approach the world's film articles. I'm looking for comments from editors who are willing to think beyond western films, and who are not only willing to contemplate the various labels that other film industries apply to films, but who might also be willing to take a stand on how those labels may or may not be appropriate for inclusion in articles. I get increasingly frustrated when I revert hyperbolic statement like "the film was declared as super hit" and I don't really have a clear community guideline to base my reversion upon. Yeah, I could argue that WP:PUFFERY might cover this, but as a gnome and an administrator, I don't want to apply my personal opinions; I want a clear guideline to point to that says "stay away from ___ shit". This is where my frustration evolves from. In a world where everybody's trying to promote X, clear guidelines that establish community objections is so immeasurably helpful. I wish more people understood that, and I wish you'd think about that, even if you have a specific feeling about MOSes and their potentially limiting nature. Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Look, I understand where you're coming from. Those are good intentions. I'm not entirely opposed to a 1- or 2-line addition to the film MOS that addresses this, but it would be helpful to see what's being proposed and where it's going to be inserted. Seems like the next step.
As for the confusion earlier... I was only throwing in a couple examples of highly-reputable sources. Of course there are many more, especially when it comes to film. Also, those examples were obviously US-centric, which is why I added "or other entities well-respected by the industry". The point apparently getting lost, was that an average source saying "X film was a bomb" isn't good enough. A highly-qualified source saying "Analysts have deemed X film a box office disappointment" would be more acceptable in order for us to use similar language in the article. In the second example, they are aggregating the feedback from multiple sources to reach their conclusion. We cannot do that, but a highly-reputable source can. I'm also saying that despite having adequate sourcing, we should still steer clear of loaded language like "hit", "superhit", "massive", and "flop" when it's not necessary. We can easily use "success" and "failure" in their place. Some industry terms like box office bomb could be acceptable on rare occasions. Apologies if any of that wasn't clear before! --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I differ slightly here. Imho the main takeaway here is, that the wording we use use should be based on (reputable) sources rather than list of acceptable words compiled by (a few) Wikipedians.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
So is your position that any hyperbolic phrasing, whether it is "blockbuster" or any nuanced middle-ground like "super hit", "failure", "disaster" suitable when it comes from a reliable source? "Rotten"? "Fresh"? If so, I'm not exactly sure how you intend to maintain a dispassionate tone, which is goal that has been tossed about the project for many years. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Of those specific examples, yes, I would agree there are much better alternatives that are more suitable for an encyclopedia. The problem I have is finding a way to convey that message without alienating terms that may be acceptable on a limited basis. We don't want to imply that all terms like these should be removed on sight without careful consideration. So its a combination of unintended consequences and a perceived duplication of WP:PUFFERY that has me stuck on the fence leaning against. I'd have to see a proposal before weighing in any further. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

2019 in film

The Rfc ruling with the format change of 2019 in film that was proposed by DeluxeVegan has took away the meaning of year in film articles with the new format that only shows lists of certain country films, which totally doesn't solve WP:WORLDVIEW and the new format just makes things more complicated when you have to click on the list of certain country films rather than browse down on the films that was released in year of 2019, which year of films was meant to be for, not about the list of certain country films. There should be a better way for this while keeping the previous format intact and have it also met WP:WORLDVIEW. Size of the old format should not matter since that was the meaning of the year in film articles stands for. The new format takes that away. We should find ways to bring the old format back while trying to find ways to have it meant with WP:WORLDVIEW. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

well, that's very simple: add the country of origin as a column in the table. i mean: in the original table. then right at the top of the restored page, put 'if you want to see lists of lists of films by country, go to the Lists_Of_Lists_Of_Films_By_Country_In_20xx' page. so... um... why is this difficult? Lkcl (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
We need to discuss the proper Rfc discussion on how to bring the old format used in 2019 in film back while trying to find a way to have to met with WP:WORLDVIEW. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with what is being requested and talked about. Could you link to the RfC so I can see the discussion?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Bignole here is the RFC Talk:2019 in film#Request for comment. The threads that come after it are also about the changes. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 15:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The new changes of format take away the meaning of year in film articles. The new format means nothing to the year in film articles with list of certain country films. The old format has that meaning, so we should find the way to bring the old format and have it met with WP:WORLDVIEW. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't really frequent "in film" pages, what was the old format? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
@Darkwarriorblake: This is the old format of 2019 in film. This is the new format that was discussed in the Rfc. DWB, this format takes away the meaning of year in film articles since year in film articles are supposed to have list films that have released this year, not with the list of certain country films as seen in the new format. This does not help with WP:WORLDVIEW. So we need to find a a away to bring the old format back and have it met with WP:WORLDVIEW. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
So they're removed the list of release dates? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
@Darkwarriorblake: Yes, they removed the table of films and release dates of them. You can the differences in this section of 2018 in film and the current format of 2019 in film, if you like. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Please correct me if my understanding is wrong. It appears that the change is that 2019 in film (and subsequent other, similar pages) instead of listing every film released in 2019 on that page (which I'm gathering was primarily American films), they decided to link to each country's "2019 in film for this country" page. I don't inherently see a problem with this, because I think listing every film in 2019 on the same page would be unnecessarily long and hard to navigate. Are you asking for a new discussion that will circumvent the RfC? If you think it is not the best format, then you'd have to start a new RfC on that page. I don't know if this fundamentally changes the "Year in film" setup. The difference is that now "Year in film" serves as a central hub for each countries' year of films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
@Bignole: It is not the best format. It should not be the central hub of each countries' year in films. The whole setup for it is not what year in film article stands for. It is meant to list of films that were released this year, not by central hub of list of years in films by specific countries. It would be better to bring back the original format and find a way to have it met with WP:WORLDVIEW. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
@BattleshipMan:, I would say it was always a central hub for that though, just set up differently. I don't see a problem, but clearly you do. Pages changes, that happen. When you said you want to bring back the "old way" are you referring to bringing back the page exactly the way it was, which was highly American-centric? If you want to use the old format, but include every film from 2019, then you have a different problem. The table you're using is sortable, and you're talking about (according to the numbers in Category:2019 films) almost 1700 films. The moment you tried to load the page, or god forbid you tried to sort the table, you're going to cause most people's phones, tablets, laptops, etc. to come to a grinding halt. I think that's why, in the interest of "WORLDVIEW" it was decided that linking to each country's respective lists would more ideal for searching purposes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
@Bignole: The way I see it and the things you mentioned, I think it should have a collapsible table with the films released this year with each month or each three month period as sub-sections with "Country" table with them, instead of that list of countries. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Collapsing the table only hides it visually, it doesn't hide the code. The code it still there and has to be processed. You still have to load 1700 entries, and even if you break it down across 12 tables (one for each month), you're still talking 140 entries per table. All I'm saying is that sometimes, logistically, we just cannot do what we want to do and have to make concessions because of technology, because of other mediums (remember, we do provide other versions of this encyclopedia), because of sometimes just browser restrictions (e.g., making sure that it's accessible in all browsers).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
It's still preferable. We should set up a better meaning of year in film articles. That we need to list of films that were released this year because that's the meaning of year in film articles. That we have to find some better solutions that will maintain the old format and find a way to have it met with WP:WORLDVIEW. I will not accept the new format with the list of films of certain countries in year in film articles, everyone. Not I. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely it's still preferable. The purpose of the page is, "find a film in that year". People such as myself who visit it regularly (two to three times a week - yes, really) know that it's slow to load... and we don't care. We do not want to be forced to search through thirty different pages trying desperately to aggregate the information of "Latest films that month" in our heads. Lkcl (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The phrase "people in Hell want ice water" is typically used to convey that we don't always get what we want. You can dislike the new format, that's fine. Sometimes, personal preference doesn't win out. Otherwise, some people would have Wikipedia looking very differently than it does now. I'm sorry that it bothers you so much, but at the end of the day that's the new format. You don't have to like it to comply with it, and if the statement "I will not accept the new format" implies that you are going to sabotage, undermine, or become overall disruptive to those pages then I would advice against that. You'll end up blocked (or banned) and the page will remain the same. Give it some time. If you still feel the same way in a couple of months, then start a new discussion on one of the "Year in film" pages. Consensus can change.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Bignole: this is not about "personal preference", the page as it stands completely terminates its usefulness. People do not go to the page to find the list of lists of films divided by country: if they wanted to do that, they would have searched "list of UK films 2019" on google or wikipedia and that sub-category of films would have come up. There is never going to be a time, not in one week, not in one month, not in two months, not in three months, not in one year, not ever, where this new non-consensus, non-consulted page format is going to be acceptable to people who regularly use it (used to use it) for the social purposes of finding a good film to watch that day. It's forcing people to manually open then aggregate the information from thirty separate pages in their heads just to find new films added since their last visit to the page. Which, up until this non-consultationary, non-consensus and forcibly-deployed change, used to be two to three times a week. Lkcl (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
"It's forcing people to manually open then aggregate the information from thirty separate pages in their heads just to find new films added since their last visit to the page." — In this sense nothing has changed! If you wanted a complete record of all the film released in 2019 you still had to aggregate around 30 different lists: [9]. Literally all the new format does is align the list of American films with all the other sub-lists. It is not as though the new format has taken a single list and broken it into 30 lists. It was 30 different lists, and is still 30 different lists, the only difference being that the American list was included in the article and now it is on its own page. As far as aggregation goes, this alteration introduces one extra mouse click into the equation. Betty Logan (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

New proposal idea

I'm planning to set up a new proposal for 2019 in film to bring back the old format while trying to find a way to have it met with WP:WORLDWIDE. What DeluxeVegan proposed for it was totally unnecessary and really messed up the meaning of year in film articles. What year in films articles are about which films were released in that certain year, the births and deaths of notable film stars, directors, producers and such, the ‎accolades that involved those films in these years and the highest box office results of that particular years. Readers have a right to know which films that were released in those years in that old format. How long the pages deemed irrelevant because readers have a right to scroll down to know which films came out in those years. When DeluxeVegan made that proposal, it took away the meaning of the year in film articles and replaced with the list of certain country films, which doesn't meet the criteria of what year in film articles for door. How long the pages are is deemed irrelevant and is not be considered because the old format has the meaning of year in film articles.

We need to find a way to restore the old format while trying to find a way to have it met with WP:WORLDWIDE. We need ideas to bring the old format back while maintaining to have it met with WP:WORLDWIDE. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Ideas to bring back the original format that started on 2019 in film

I may have one possible idea to bring the old format that was in 2019 in film back while trying to meet up with WORLDVIEW criteria. What about using some tabbers for American, British, Bollywood, Chinese and few essential countries to arrange them so that? Click on the tabbers of those countries so the readers can go over them with the original format of the year in film articles while having it met with WORLDVIEW. Why can we do that? BattleshipMan (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_character, in-universe parameters, and consistency between different media

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Template talk:Infobox character#Removing parameters regarding WP:WAF. This involves both the question of whether in-universe parameters should be used in such infoboxes, and if so which ones (with perhaps some conflicting expectations between TV, movies, video games, comics, anime/manga, novels, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Yet another discussion about where to place audience response material

Erik, regarding this, I know how you feel about this topic. But as seen at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 11#Audience response and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 17#Audience response covered under the "Critical response" heading?, this has been discussed extensively before and the current wording in the guideline is a compromise because editors disagree on this matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not a compromise when a certain handful of editors violate WP:OWN by repeatedly going around articles for films in theaters and reorganizing content in a cookie-cutter fashion. Because of this, there is almost never an instance where audience grades are part of the box office content. If there are, it's because these WP:OWN editors overlooked the articles in their rounds. It needs to be made crystal clear that audience grades are not required to belong in "Critical response" sections. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
How I feel on this topic can be seen in the archives. I'd rather not debate this every couple or few years. Editors obviously disagree on this matter. I tweaked your addition. We (meaning other editors as well) can discuss here how to tweak the section further. But I obviously disagree with the notion that audience material absolutely should not go in the "Critical reception" section. I see no reason to move the CinemaScore material, for example, out of the Critical response section without good reason. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
As for editors going around and formatting film articles a certain way, it's usually because they are copying other articles. This happens regardless of the fact that the top of this guideline states "There is no defined order of the sections." They copy other articles with regard to section order and format. I have disagreed times before with editors trying to make all types of articles (whether film or medical articles, or another type) the same, but editors love uniformity. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The current guidelines leaves a distinct lack of means to record audience response or even a variance of audience response from the critical consensus for TV series. By disavowing RT audience scores, and a lack of the fallback box office revenues or CinemaScore, the Reception section can often feel somewhat biased against public perception. Furthermore, ratings and viewership numbers don't provide the same context that a critics score does. --Chetanaik (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Category discussion editors may be interested in

Editors (particularly those that work in the box office area of the project) may be interested in the discussion in regards to the newly created cat Category:Number-one films in the United States. You can find the discussion here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we don’t want a multiplicity of genres in the lead of a film article. But it is clearly possible, for example, to be both epic and science fiction. So attempting to restrict to a single genre is unreasonable. MapReader (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Genres in lead (again, again) and MOS change proposal

OK, this has been discussed numerous times now, and as far as I understand it the consensus is that we shouldn't add multiple genres to the lead sentence.

But it's something I am repeatedly fighting (see Uncut Gems for the most recent escapades). It doesn't matter how many times I explain that this is the consensus or link to WP:FILMLEAD. Until we explicitly say in the MOS that we should only have one genre, it's not going to go away.

The current wording of the MOS is:

At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements: 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 other applicable elements to add (e.g., reputable director or source material), see WP:LEADSENTENCE. Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources.

This is ambiguous. The "at a minimum" just invites people to add more.

I would like to change this to:

The opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or subgenre. To prevent clutter and comply with WP:WEIGHT, the opening sentence should only specify the main genre or subgenre specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources. For other applicable elements to add (e.g., reputable director or source material), see WP:LEADSENTENCE.

Any thoughts? Popcornduff (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I hate to sound the cynic, but will this make any difference? In my experience most editors making genre edits simply don't know about the guideline (I would guess a significantly smaller number don't care). I'm also concerned as to how this would work in practice. If AllMovie, for instance, lists two genres and two sub-genres, should all four be listed? Is it incumbent on an editor to choose which genres are listed, and how do they make that determination?
The only way I see practical(?) change being effected with regards to this issue is if we exercise one of two nuclear options: either eliminate genres from the lead entirely (if the lead includes a brief plot summary then arguably the genre should be unnecessary) or require sourcing for the genres and explicitly prohibit genres not accompanied by a citation. I suspect either one of these will still be an uphill battle, but would have the virtue of providing clear guidance. DonIago (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
You might be right, maybe my alteration wouldn't make a major difference. But I do know of several occassions where I've reverted genre clutter and cited WP:FILMLEAD and they've responded pointing out, I think not unreasonably, that the policy only says "at a minimum". I think if we do actually want a max - which I assume we do based on previous discussions - we might as well specify it. Popcornduff (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, I don't think we ever settled on requiring only ONE genre in the lead sentence. As DonIago points out, our reliable sources (i.e. AllMovie, AFI, BFI, etc.) often list multiple primary and sub-genres. Star Wars films, for example, have two genres: "epic space opera". Terminator Genisys classifies the film as "science-fiction action" citing AllMovie. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right and I'm misremembering or misunderstood. Will have a trawl through previous conversations and report back. Popcornduff (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
GoneIn60, it looks like you're right and I got the wrong end of the stick, so thank you for challenging it. The consensus seems to have been only to be that an excess of genres is a bad thing, with some editors (including myself) arguing that one is sufficient. Personally I would still argue for that but I guess that's a different conversation. Popcornduff (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I think it is worth pointing out a sub-genre is often a composition of two genres, such as "romantic comedy" or "sci-fi action". This is the case for Allmovie and Terminator Genisys which provides one main genre (action) and two sub-genres (action thriller, sci-fi action). The AFI Catalog on the other hand gives the genres as "Science-fiction, adventure". What we don't want is "sci-fi action adventure thriller" because you won't find a source anywhere that actually states that, so WP:WEIGHT should be applied to determine which of those is the most prevalent. There is no clear winner in the case of Genisys, but both "science-fiction" and "action" are listed as primary genres by both Allmovie and AFI, and "sci-fi action" is also included as a sub-genre so that appears to be a sensible choice. With something like Pretty Woman Allmovie gives the primary genres as "comedy" and "romance" and the sub-genre as "romantic comedy", while the AFI keeps it simple with "romantic comedy", so the choice is straightforward there. Something like Jaws is a genre mash with elements of action/adventure/monster movie/horror/slasher/drama with no clear consensus, so it is kept simple with "thriller" which is a common description. Betty Logan (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I support the proposed wording in general. It would help to point to it in response to excessive genre mashing-up. I'm not sure if "to prevent clutter" is the best descriptor, though. Here's an idea... maybe revise the first sentence to require only the title and release year since there can be cases like Fight Club where a genre does not belong. How about something like, "The opening sentence should identify the title of the film and the year of its public release. If there is a single primary genre or subgenre specified by the majority of mainstream reliable sources, that should be included. Avoid mashing up genres into a combination not explicitly specified by any source." Thoughts on that or some form of that worked into the draft? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Forgive my Philistine lack of empathy for this argument among filmophiles, but I think this whole discussion reflects the basic problem with WP:FILMLEAD entries throughout Wikipedia: They're written by cinema buffs & "critics" -- for cinema buffs and the literary elite. That's not the approach Wikipedia was intended to address. It's not a catalog of literary/cinematic trivia and commentary for the gratification of the art community's cognoscenti. Wikipedia is a simple encyclopedia serving as a basic quick-reference for the general public.
Consequently, the most obvious opening line of the lede, other than saying it's a movie ("film", "video", "television production", "teleplay", etc.) is to actually say what the film is about.
~ Penlite (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Common-sense Film Lead (Lede)

Wikipedia is not an elite work for the afficionadoes of a particular subject area, but a general reference work for the general public. See the official statement:

"What type of thing is Wikipedia?," -- which says:
Reference work – compendium of information, usually of a specific type, compiled in a book for ease of reference. That is, the information is intended to be quickly found when needed. Reference works are usually referred to for particular pieces of information, rather than read beginning to end. [boldface added]

Thus, for the vast majority of the general public, looking up a particular film on Wikipedia, the most common and important question is probably, simply, "What is this film about?" Indeed, for many, that's the only answer sought -- certainly it is a far more universal topic of public interest than the film's "genre" or "producer" or "awards."

And so, the obvious opening line of the lede, other than saying it's a movie ("film", "video", "television production", "teleplay", etc.) is, logically, to actually say what the film is about.

If that's not obvious, on its face, then consider reading this lede, written carefully in the style of the ledes that typify articles about film on Wikipedia:

"Charles Augustus Lindbergh, a production of Mr. and Mrs. Lindbergh, which debuted in 1902, and underwent numerous adaptations and revisions under the guidance of instructors in Bird, Kansas, Ft. Sam Houston, and San Diego, California, achieved broad acceptance and notoriety globally for a New York and Paris performance -- produced by the St. Louis cadre with technical direction by Mahoney at Ryan -- for which Lindbergh was awarded the French Legion d'Honneur, and the Congressional Medal of Honor."

Might it make more common sense to start the lede, instead, with the essential substance of the person? (or film?) To wit:

"Charles Lindbergh was a U.S. aviator who rose to global prominence, in 1927, by becoming the first person to fly an airplane, solo, across the Atlantic Ocean, becoming, as a result, the world's most famous and celebrated person at the time."

What the film is about is no less important than what the person, and his/her prominence, is about.

If the lede is to contain anything, it should contain (and open with) a concise, non-interpretive, single-sentence summary of the subject of the film that is generally incontrovertable -- while "categorizing" the production, or adding an interpretation of the subject, or implying a theme, is a comparatively subjective and debatable evaluation.

For a better clarification of the essence of a proper lede to a work of art, sample the Wikipedia ledes to some of the major works of literature. Few go more than two or three sentences without laying out, concisely, the plot/theme of the work. For instance: War and Peace, For Whom the Bell Tolls, Little Women, The Color Purple, On the Origin of Species, etc.

Yet, time & again, I see Wikipedia film ledes that blather on about every categorization, adaptation, participant, and award a film has ever had -- in the lede -- without even once mentioning what the film is about ! (That essential bit of "trivia" is, instead, routinely buried below the lede, under the Table of Contents, clear down in the "Plot" subsection.)

For the film buff, perhaps, the litany of categorizations, personnel, production, administrative, and post-release details are more important that the subject or plot. But for the general public, all of whom are intended Wikipedia consumers, it almost certainly is not.

In my humble opinion:...

Film Ledes should lead with the what the film is objectively about (who/what/where/when) -- accompanied, perhaps, by mention of its underlying theme.

Don't take my word for it: Ask your non-filmofile friends and neighbors, or a stranger on the street. They use Wikipedia too -- and may well be a more-typical representative of the vast majority of normal public consumers of Wikipedia film articles than most Wikipedia film-article editors.

Let's keep Wikipedia a realistic reference for the masses.

~ Penlite (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree that film articles' lead sections should do a better job of encapsulating the plot in brief. WP:FILMLEAD covers this, "In terms of plot, it is sufficient to merely include the general premise of the film in the lead section and identify actors' roles in the premise." However, I could see a case for moving this earlier and inverting the advice (because we certainly don't have film articles with too much plot in the lead section). As for themes, I think that is tougher to encapsulate since such content can be diffuse in the article body. In other words, "Themes" sections are uncommon, so it's difficult to have summary sentences derived from sourced longform text when it doesn't exist. What action are you seeking to be taken here? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 03:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
This frankly reads like a rant from someone who hasn't actually read Wikipedia articles about films. Film articles have the basics of the plot in the lead, after the information about who made it and who stars in it. Little Women, which you cite, does the exact same thing. It's just a shorter lead overall because the article frankly isn't very good and because multiple people didn't write it. Toa Nidhiki05 03:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not seeing a big problem here either. The lead should, as per WP:FILMLEAD, contain a sentence or two describing the premise of the film. That's not controversial and I don't often find it missing when I work on film articles. Popcornduff (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment – It would have been useful for the OP to have given a few of what s/he considers to be bad examples. To think about this I searched out the most recent Oscar Best Picture winner that has an article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and came up with Moonlight, chosen without otherwise reading the article before writing this. You can read WP’s lead by clicking through the link. Compare the opening para of the EB:

“Moonlight, American dramatic film, released in 2016, that unexpectedly won the Academy Award for best picture. The director and cowriter, Barry Jenkins, won praise for his empathetic depiction of complex characters. Based on the unpublished play In Moonlight Black Boys Look Blue by Tarell Alvin McCraney, it tells the story of a young black man coming to grips with his homosexual feelings. It was the first film with an entirely African American cast and the first with a homosexual main character to win the top Oscar“.

Both articles summarise the premise in the opening sentences (it appears peculiar that WP barely mentions homosexuality, and not at all in the lead - but that appears to be an editing matter that I will leave to editors who have seen this film). The information contained in the EB opening para and WP’s first two lead paras is broadly the same. The big difference is that WP lists out the principal actors early on, whereas EB leaves this as a detail for the article body. This might be something worth considering - WP film articles tend to be edited by film buffs who perhaps give the actors’ names too much weight (some wanting to name them in the plot section, lead section, and cast section, and often yet again in sections dealing with production and casting). This also reflects a WP-wide tendency to clutter articles with data at the expense of good writing.

I’d argue that if a film has one big name star associated with it, that should be a matter for the lead, but a roll call of lesser known actors is not. Clearing out a cast list from the lead might give the premise more space and prominence, and would be my suggestion. Otherwise - pending some actual examples where the premise is missing - I don’t see a huge problem here? MapReader (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment – If I'm reading the OP correctly, the intent here is to encourage editors to describe "what the film is about" more prominently in the opening paragraph of the lead. Most high-traffic film articles I've participated in do this already. The book articles provided are good examples, but I'd like the OP to provide us with some bad film examples. It would be helpful to see what exactly the OP has encountered that inspired this thread. I suspect the OP has simply stumbled across a few less-maintained, low-traffic examples, which is an entirely different can of worms. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the OP's sentiments, but describing the premise of the film in the lead is something we already do. If C class and Start class omit this information I am not interested because the articles be definition are not complete, so I would like to see examples of FA and GA articles that leave out this information. Betty Logan (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal - following on from my comment above, my suggestion would be to replace the sentence in MOSfilm that says "The first paragraph of the lead section should also identify the director and the star or stars of the film" with "The first paragraph of the lead section should also identify the director, and the principal star(s) if they are particularly renowned. Otherwise listing the actors should be left to the cast section". I suggest that this reflects what was probably the original intention behind the use of the word star rather than actor, but usage has over time sadly turned this into a habit of listing out main cast members in the lead.MapReader (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable in making fame a criterion. It would seem remiss to omit Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward from the lead of Moonrise Kingdom when they are essentially the leads of the film. Many actors have come to big roles with little renown: Sean Connery in Dr No, Christopher Reeve in Superman and Vivien Leigh in Gone with the Wind. I think maybe the MOS ask editors to identify the leads of the film; it seems to me requesting them to name the "stars" is actually part of the problem. Betty Logan (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film/Archive_19&oldid=1083652674"