Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Consensus to no longer link "animated" in lead sentences of animated films?

I've noticed lately that a number of articles for animated films, which previously included links to "Animated film" in their lead sentences, no longer do so. Examples include Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Toy Story, Shrek, and Despicable Me. This change seems to have been initiated (do correct me if I'm wrong!) by User:Chompy Ace back in October, with MOS:OL and MOS:SOB cited as justification. Later that same month, the word "animation" was added to the MOS:OL guideline as an example of words to avoid linking. Alongside this change, it seems that the specification of "computer animated" or "stop motion animated" has been excised from such articles as Shrek and Chicken Run.

Have any discussions taken place before or since these changes, regarding whether to link "animated film" in the lead sentences of animated film articles, or whether to specify the method of animation used? If linking to "animated film" is a violation of MOS:OL, I presume this would be on the basis of "animated film" falling under "Everyday words understood by most readers in context". However, the guideline also makes an exception for terms that are "particularly relevant to the context in the article" (hence why we link to genre terms like "comedy film" or "horror film", which most readers would also understand in context). —Matthew  / (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I would continue linking these terms in the leads of the film articles, per "particularly relevant to the context in the article" and standard practice of linking other genre terms in other film articles. The point of the link is not providing a dictionary definition, as if no one understands what "animated film" means; the point is providing the context of animated film history and culture as an easy link from an exemplar of that subject. It's the same reason we link to veterinarian in the lead of a notable verterinarian even though everyone already knows what a veterinarian is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to link as it is a very common term and concept that everyone knows in context. It is also not relevant to the context in the article it generally just is a way of indicating the project isn't live-action. It would be like linking actor in the intro to an actor's article. WP:SOB also generally applies to the series of linked words munged together that look like a single link that don't need to be linked at all so getting rid of links that are not needed breaks that chain in many cases. This is not a word that will generally ever be clicked on by a reader as the meaning is well-understood. Also note that animated and animated film have valid redirects so when they are linked they don't need to be piped per MOS:NOPIPE. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

As stated above, most people would presumably also know what most film genres are in the same context, but we link those as well. I don't see your point regarding MOS:NOPIPE. "Animated" and "animated film" are two distinct topics and articles; in fact, the former is sometimes utilized in an otherwise live-action film. Could you elaborate on what you mean? —Matthew  / (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

We shouldn't be linking the common film genres either. It reduces the effectiveness of having links when too many common things are linked. Links should be added with deliberate consideration of if they will add value by having them. A list of linked common adjectives in an intro is actually detrimental by masking the few that might actually need to be linked due to being uncommon and not well-understood. We generally excise the links for common occupation names in bio intros, no reason no not purge the unnecessary common genres links too. I do think that it improves an article to remove unneeded links and I generally do so with consideration of what adds value and what doesn't when I make the edits to remove or add them.

As for MOS:NOPIPE both Animated and Animated film have valid redirects so shouldn't need to be piped and generally shouldn't be. If the issue is that the redirect goes to the wrong articles, then the fix is to retarget the redirects, not pipe a links that is WP:NOTBROKEN. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand your points on linking medium/genres, but I disagree with your position that they lack value or effectiveness. If I understand your point regarding MOS:NOPIPE, then I disagree with that as well. The term "animated" in the lead sentence of an article about an animated film should link to the more specific "Animated film", not to "Animation". Just as "science fiction" should link to "Science fiction film", "drama" to "Drama (film and television)", etc. —Matthew  / (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

If a piped link goes to the same location as the redirect it shouldn't be piped. Drama film doesn't need to be piped for that reason but I see your point if piping is used when the word film is removed from the displayed term but it is the desired target although I'd use [[Drama film|drama]] in that case so the reason for piping is obvious. As to whether or not a particular link of any sort adds value that is an editorial judgment call particularly with some of the common genres. I just think that a lot of the links are added without any serious consideration with the assumption that linking is better than not and it likely is in edge cases. In a lot of films the list of genres seems excessive and if people stuck to "the primary genre or sub-genre" per MOS:FILMGENRE this would be less of an issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Drama film doesn't need to be piped for that reason but I see your point if piping is used when the word film is removed from the displayed term but it is the desired target [...] This is what I was referring to, yes. So on that we do agree. [...] although I'd use [[Drama film|drama]] in that case so the reason for piping is obvious. This is fine with me as well. I also agree that excessive genres in the lead sentence can be an issue, and it's something that can be particularly prevalent when it comes to animated films that feature elements of many genres.

I personally think that linking to film genres is acceptable. As opposed to, say, linking to the article on "film" itself, or to most occupations. —Matthew  / (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The bulk of films are live-action works of fiction given by actors speaking their lines. Animated films are not this. Musical films are not this. Documentaries are not this. These terms need to be called out as part of the lede to set expectations to the reader. --Masem (t) 04:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It needs to be mentioned as the default is live-action, but linking adds no value other than the emphasis of seeing another blue word in a connected list of linked genre terms. I saw no existing consensus to link the word, it was just a pro-forma practice with no actual need or consideration given to it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a comment regarding consensus: per WP:EDITCON, "Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement. In this way, the encyclopedia gradually improves over time." So this conversation is a good thing! —Matthew  / (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Masem on this one. The default format for film is a live-action work of fiction with relatively little diegetic music (as distinguished from jukebox and musical films). The types of films that do not fall into that format are notable and should be linked. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

They should be noted in the intro. But linking a well-understood word that will never be clicked on by any reader just adds to the clutter of adjacent blue links in the intro. Has as much value as linking the nationality. Linking is not meant to be a form of emphasis. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This is anecdotal, but I'd like to note that I've definitely clicked on "animated" from articles of animated films before. Same with probably every genre as well. Maybe I'm weird though. —Matthew  / (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with others about linking to "animated film". Per MOS:OVERLINK, it is a term that is "particularly relevant to the context in the article" and is thus appropriate, like with film genres. A key component of an article about an animated film would be to discuss how the film's animation was done, and how it looked to critics and audiences. In contrast, if it were something like an article about a politician's campaign in which a commercial that involved some animation was discussed, we wouldn't stress about linking to that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Every descriptive word in the intro section should be relevant to the context of the article, they define the topic. From OL "A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from. Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, ... The well-understood word "animation" isn't particularly relevant. Pick the words to link that add value to the reader and try to avoid MOS:SEAOFBLUE where everything is linked and nothing stands out. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez is continuing to mass-remove links to computer-animated despite a clear absence of consensus to do so. I was about to mass-revert them until I realized they have been doing this for many months now. What's most troubling is that they did not stop despite there being almost no support for their position during this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

There was no follow-on comments to my last comment. I saw no compelling reason in the discussion to ignore the plain reading of MOS:OL and MOS:SOB. I remove links that in my deliberate judgment add no value to understanding. I do not remove all links to computer-animated and deliberately leave them when it makes sense for the link to be there in context, particularly in articles where the animation process is actually discussed. I specifically look for and do remove unnecessary piping when I see it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not an OVERLINK, in any context. And just because people stopped replying to you does not mean they now agree with you and there is consensus for your position. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

This current discussion has not resulted in any changes to any MOS guidelines including this one. MOS:FILMLEAD suggests that process information be covered later in the lead if important. Contents of the lead section should reflect what is in the article. If how a film is animated is important it will be covered in the article and reflected in the lead - a second sentence mention would be the place to put it. That a film is animated is defining, the default for almost all current animated films is using computers to do it. Some animated film articles have a lot of detail about the creation process, most don't. Also this discussion is about film articles, not other articles where a film is referenced. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

"Animated film" or "computer-animated" are not mentioned in any MoS guideline, including OVERLINK and MOS:FILM, so it is left to editors' discretion in interpreting whether these are considered OVERLINKs. Multiple editors have expressed above that they do not believe they are, and your arguments to the contrary were largely met with skepticism. That means there is no consensus to remove these links, let alone on a large scale, and operating against consensus is disruptive. Computer animation is not a ubiquitous concept widely understood by most parts of the world, so it cannot be regarded as an OVERLINK. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Like I said I leave in the link when it makes sense to for the article in question using my editorial discretion for a particular article use case when it adds value. I do remove the unnecessary piping when I see it which is actually what my edits are mostly targeting. I am strictly following the manual of style as written. This discussion is an interesting take on how other editors may make their choices. It is interesting that few of the participants see any problems with the MOS:SEAOFBLUE issues of excessive linking of adjacent descriptive adjectives in an article intro sentence. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Just a comment here that if WP:SEAOFBLUE is the primary concern, then a good workaround is to move "computer-animated" out of the opening sentence into a later portion of the lead. For example, the next sentence that starts with "The film" can instead be changed to "The computer-animated film", or something similar. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Computer animated should be mentioned and linked in the next sentence only if it is covered in the article body itself and shown to be noteworthy for the film. Otherwise the method of production is not worth mentioning in the lead. Most modern animated films use computers as the main animation tool and it is seldom worth mentioning unless it is a pioneer film or they do something innovative for this particular film. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEADREL, not every factual claim in the lead section must appear in the body of the article. "Basic facts" of an article's subject may sometimes only appear in the lead and not receive any coverage in the rest of the article. Genres are a perfect example. They rarely receive coverage outside of the lead. The detail about a film being computer animated may or may not be covered by this guideline, but it's worth mentioning in case you were not aware. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Methods of production are not basic facts, that it is animated is a basic fact but not the tools used to do it or how it was done. Those are the types of details that should be covered in the article and likely a good animated film article will describe the actual software used, maybe hardware used for rendering, and how the film was created if that information is available. \ Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I have emphasized "may or may not" above in case that was missed. The difference between "animated" and "computer animated" is subtle; one could argue subtle enough that the latter is still a basic fact. I do not intend to argue this point. I offered some middle ground, and this is where I plan to exit! -- GoneIn60 (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The difference is non-existent for most modern animated films as computer production is the normal and standard way of creating animated films. Animators using computers can generate any look they wish and produce output that matches any animation style. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, even though genres may be something that is only mentioned in the lead and infobox, it should still be sourced and match how the film is described in the majority of sources. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This goes without saying and is getting off-track. I don't think anyone is arguing that challengeable claims don't require proper backing in sources. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that in the lede sentence, that linking "film", "animated film", "documentary", and similar film types when there is generally two or three genres preceding that is SEAOFBLUE problems, though that should still be a linked term in the infobox. We should presume some basic reader competency of knowing broadly the terms for films. (Hwoever, I still stand that things like "animated film" and the like should remain in the prose even if not linked) Masem (t) 03:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Geraldo, you can keep repeating your arguments that they shouldn't be linked, but so far no one has been convinced. If you continue to remove links anyway, you are willfully ignoring consensus, or the lack thereof. That is disruptive and asking to be reverted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven't made any recent edits related to the topic of this discussion. What I get as a conclusion related to the topic is that linking animated film should be done in the intro to animated film articles if there are no SEAOFBLUE issues where the link could be omitted. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It's important that SEAOFBLUE is a recommendation, not a requirement. Yes, that's the case for all guidelines, but it explicitly says "if possible", not "should". It's a nice-to-have, not should-have. "Computer-animated" and "animated" are modifiers, so it is impossible to separate them from the linked noun that it modifies without sounding awkward. This extends beyond the leads of film articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The only justification given in this discussion for linking "animated" per WP:OL is when it is "particularly relevant to the context in the article". That is arguably why is may be linked in the intro of an animated film article and other articles where the topic of animation is actually under discussion. There is no justification for linking "animated" in other articles particularly when they just reference a film. Readers know what an animated film is, that is common knowledge. Telling readers a film is an animated film when the film is referred to is part of basic identification. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

They may know what an animated film is, but do they know what computer animation is? I don't think they necessarily do. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It is self-defining. Animation done using a computer. People are familiar with both concepts. For the last 20 or so years that is the standard normal expected way that animation is done since we got computers powerful enough to do it. It is appropriate to link in an article where specific hardware and software production techniques are being covered to give background for that level of coverage, a good example is Toy Story, but outside that it adds no value. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Computer animation is not a ubiquitous concept. As you said, it's only been around for 30 years. Animation has been around for 116 years and can therefore can be more comfortably argued as an OVERLINK outside of articles about animated films. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It somewhat depends on the age of the reader. People familiar with animation know recent animated projects use computers as a tool and older ones didn't. Most people won't care how it is done. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. You said it. WP:OVERLINK states: [T]ry to be conscious of your own demographic biases – what is well known in your age group, line of work, or country may be less known in others. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course, but we still need to have some reasonable expectations of readers basic understanding. We don't have to link things less likely to be generally known if it isn't brought up in the first place. There are very few cases where the tools used matter, what matters is the result. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)