Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23

We should not be italicizing RT, MC and BOM

(Discussion ported over from one specific movie's page to this wider forum)

I've been involved in the CS1 debate for months, and one thing that came out of it is: We are not required in "cite web" to use "website=" and we are not required to list parent companies under "publisher=". We're not even required to use a cite template at all.

No mainstream footnoting style, not AP, not Chicago Manual of Style, not MLA, italicizes Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic or Box Office Mojo in footnoting. Yet we have at least one editor here who insists they be italicized even though there is no requirement that they be italicized. Contrary to an edit-summary claim, Template:Cite web does not require it. And "Cite web" isn't even MOS but just a template — MOS certainly doesn't require it.

I'm calling for a discussion on this talk so we can actually talk about the pros and cons of italicizing vs. not doing so. There is no compelling reason to use a non-mainstream footnoting style that makes Wikipedia look eccentric — no reason to italicize company names like Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Box Office Mojo. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Either way, we should arrive at a clear consensus. Either we italicize them —Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Box Office Mojo— or we don't. The usage I've seen employed recently is to italicize them and include, particularly with RT and MC, the parent companies under "publisher", so I keep doing that. The same way we aren't required to do it, we aren't required not to do it. I would suggest we start the discussion on the Manual of Style/Film talk page. El Millo (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Discussion has been moved here.
El Millo and I agree some consensus should be reached.
I would respond to "we aren't required to not do it" by saying that italicizing things that aren't italicized in other footnoting styles presents no benefit, and simply makes Wikipedia looks eccentric. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd argue that we should not italicize company names, but that that we should italicize the names of websites. Websites, like journals, books, movies, etc. are major works and should be italicized. For now, on Wikipedia, I'd only advocate for doing so in references. It makes sense that when looking at a series of references that the name of the sources should be consistently italicized. SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes, Box Mojo and Metacritic are company names. And they're not italicized anywhere else. It also sounds as if you're arguing for a house style that all websites be italicized in footnotes, and WP:CITESTYLE says specifically that "Wikipedia does not have a single house style" and that "A number of citation styles exist including those described in the Wikipedia articles for Citation, APA style, ASA style, MLA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, Author-date referencing, the Vancouver system and Bluebook." The Chicago Manual of Style, for example, does not italicize website names.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I add citations with the templates in the editing toolbar, and whether the parameter is "website" or "work", when it's added to the page it displays in italics. I see no problem with the name of a source being italicized even if the source is a website, as is the case with RT, M, and BOM. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 00:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
The issue is that no one else uses non-italics for something in prose and then italicizes the same thing in footnotes.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I try to follow how the website/work's article does it, otherwise using Harvard style if no article exists. Try. As Rotten Tomatoes is just the company name, its article has no italics, and I agree they should not be used - the same applies to the others mentioned. If it is automatically italicized by being described as the 'website' in a cite web template, I'm not that bothered. The citation templates have some room for improvement, and it can be unclear whether RT should go as website or author or publisher or all of the above. Kingsif (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It seems like this discussion should be focused on whether these specific sources should be italicized, as the general discussions about website titles have taken place elsewhere. For those who support not italicizing these names, how would that work in practice when using the cite web template? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't see any particular reason why those three websites should be treated differently than any other website. The consensus was for Cite web and similar templates to italicize websites. There are many websites whose mentions in other parts of articles wouldn't be italicized, and that aren't italicized in their respective articles, the italicization is in references only. Those who oppose italicizing these three websites in references should pose a reason to make this specific exception. El Millo (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
The reason is that these three websites are never italicized anywhere else. And because, as WP:CITESTYLE says, allows "Wikipedia does not [emphasis added] have a single house style", so there's no reason to shoehorn italics onto website that are never otherwise italicized. As for Template:Cite web, WP:CITESTYLE specifically allows what it calls "common sense" exceptions.
Facebook is a company, and let's not make this just a "Support" or "Oppose" thing and discuss properly. El Millo (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
When I write on "Facebook" I don' write on a company, I write on a website. Debresser (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Companies and websites are not italicized, unlike books, films, magazines and journals. If a web publication has a print heritage or is otherwise treated like a print source then we can italicize it. No way should Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Box Office Mojo be italicized. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
But the consensus was to italicize all websites in Cite web and such. You'd have to either change that consensus or come up with a reason to make an exception with these three cases. Again, this italicization only applies to references, not the article bodies or article titles. El Millo (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually, the consensus that took place at a CS1 page and not an MOS page was only that "website=" be italicized in CS1. There was no consensus that "website=" is required; indeed, two points of the discussion were that a) "publisher=" alone can be used, and b) we're not even required to use a cite template at all. So there is no consensus that everyone on the Web, such as companies and databases, be italicized in a footnote, or even in CS1. The consensus was only about that single "website=" field. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
No one is forum-shopping,. This discussion started at Talk:Avengers: Endgame regarding edits there, and an editor other than myself suggested bringing it here.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • These sites are not generally used for editorial content like magazines or newspapers, or websites like Deadline Hollywood. They should not be italicized. They should be used as a pulisher= field in the cite templates. --Masem (t) 07:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • My view is that this isn't really a film specific question; the circumstances in which WP uses italics are spelled out in detail HERE and the MoS is clear that italics aren't to be used in other circumstances, other than for justifiable emphasis. Organisations and websites aren't italicised and therefore the answer here must be "no" MapReader (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Food for thought here... This from the MLA says about italicizing websites, "A good editorial policy should be simple and not demand hairsplitting by writers, editors, or readers. Typography offers few tools for conveying conceptual distinctions. We think that the least vexed approach is to use a single format for all three titles above (and the titles of all other Web sites). To argue that Facebook is fundamentally unlike the other two would require a definition establishing the difference—a definition that can clearly divide all other sites into one of the two categories. The definition would be endlessly debatable, given all the variations in online publication." That endless debate is what is happening now. If the MLA says this, then concerns of being "eccentric" and "non-mainstream" are hogwash. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC) I stand corrected. I do find the language unnecessarily alarmist, that it will somehow make Wikipedia look so terrible. I'm not worried here because if some consensus wider than this WikiProject takes hold, a bot can make whatever adjustments needed. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Before we go around using uncivil terms like "hogwash," let's put that MLA quote in context. MLA is saying "Wikipedia" and "Facebook" should be italicized everywhere not just in footnotes. Unless Erik is advocating for that, his example is off-topic. And I would note that despite whatever quirk MLA has for "Wikipedia" and "Facebook", MLA actually doesn't italicize websites, either the name or the URL, in its own examples here (cite to website of National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and here (cite to website of Modern Language Association of America itself).
That quirk aside, neither Associated Press (which eschews italics for quote marks) nor the Chicago Manual of Style (as explained here italicizes websites. (There are about 16 or 17 citation styles in more-or-less regular use, incidentally, if we really want to go through them all.) And here's the thing: Every one of these styles I've seen, including MLA, retains consistency between how something is styled in prose and in footnotes.
No style uses non-italics for something in prose and italics for the same thing in footnotes. That is eccentric and non-mainstream. By not italicizing Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Box Office Mojo in prose and italicizing them in footnotes, we are doing what no mainstream style does. How does that eccentricity benefit Wikipedia? It doesn't. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with @Masem: - RT and BOM are not "works" or editorial in content where as magazines like Vanity Fair and Vogue are. Even if you are using a Vogue.com source I would still italicize Vogue but not Rotten Tomatoes LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I would prefer to use work= if the thing really is a piece of work, and publisher= if it's more like a site that houses multiple works (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube) or is more a database website. RT and BOM fit the latter, but if RT has an online news blog / regular publication as with Deadline Hollywood or Huffington Post, then that portion could be considered a work, like "work=Angus's Weekly Woof | publisher=AngusWOOF's website" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Flyer22 Reborn, AngusWOOF, LADY LOTUS, MapReader, Masem, Binksternet, and Debresser that RT, MC and BOM should not be ital in footnotes, and I appreciate Erik's willingness to step back from his initial judgment and to be open to more discussion. That shows the type of give-and-take collegiality of Wikipedia at its best. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • To be fair to all editors involved, I have always believed the "website" parameter in the template lends itself to misuse. If you have such a parameter why would you not stick "Box Office Mojo" in there? The problem is that the parameter dictates a house style, and that house style does not reflect the real world. Whether something is a website or not does not dictate whether the name should be italicised. As a rule we generally italicise publication titles (books, newspapers, magazines etc and their online equivalents), but we don't generally italicise publishers (company names, organizations etc). I think the debate over whether something is a website or a publisher is unhelpful; something like Box Office Mojo is both, but it is essentially an entity with an editorial structure that publishes content on a website, and therefore following convention would not be italicised. But formulating a local consensus is not the answer; sources adding Rotten Tomatoes and Box Office Mojo will continue to use the "website" parameter. The problem is that this parameter is imposing a house style that goes against standard referencing convention. Betty Logan (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Another thoughtful point. Because as Wikipedia:Citing sources specifically and directly points out, Wikipedia does not have a house style. The reason for that, as WP:CITE itself notes in a box at the top of guidelines, is that we're expected to use, quote, common sense, endquote, and not let the tail wag the dog. "...it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." --Tenebrae (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Looking at the arguments made at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 72#Italics of websites, as well as reading Help:Citation Style 1#Work and publisher, I'm leaning in favor of italicizing websites. While there are good arguments and special cases that dictate when we should and should not italicize the name, the reasons given can be overly complex at times and not easily understood by most editors (at least not without subjecting them to a thorough lecture). As mentioned in previous discussions, the MLA supports italicization when the website is being referenced as a work as opposed to a company. Example given, "a posting on Facebook" vs "the CEO of Facebook". When we cite RT, MC, or BOM, we are usually referencing material they created, and thus their italicization would be appropriate per the MLA's guideline.
    Other style guides deviate by requiring stricter rules. The Chicago Manual of Style, for example, only recommends italicizing websites that have a printed counterpart (or if not currently, then historically has). But interestingly, the CMOS released a clarification for their 17th edition that states:
Because a writer or copyeditor might not always know whether there is a printed analogue to a given website, and because there is often a reason to prefer consistency in the titles of websites regardless of their precise nature (such as in a list or bibliography or any time making a distinction would be confusing or distracting), editorial discretion is allowed when styling the titles of websites. Context, purpose, and audience—as always—must be kept in mind
This illustrates an excellent point that is often lost in these discussions. In order to reduce confusion and alleviate concerns about accuracy, a given work or publication may opt to adopt a consistent style throughout, which in this case could mean to never italicize or always italicize on Wikipedia, removing the guesswork on the editor's part. Given how contentious this area tends to get, that seems like the simpler approach at least for footnotes. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I think we all appreciate the work that GoneIn60 undertook to give this cogent analysis. MLA, we should note, is an outlier: AP Style and Chicago Manual of Style are by far the two most widely used styles; in 40 years as an author and journalist, I've never encountered a mainstream magazine or newspaper that uses anything but (except The New York Times, which, of course, has its own proprietary style based on those two).
The Chicago Manual of Style caveat that GoneIn60 notes I think is especially significant here: There is no confusion whatsoever about Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic or Box Office Mojo having a print counterpart. In fact, italicizing Box Office Mojo, which normally is never italicized, risks readers conflating it with Boxoffice magazine.
I also appreciate the desire for a simple approach, though "always" and "never" go against Wikipedia's own style guidelines, which states explicitly that common-sense exceptions be made. And I think in this case the simplest thing is to keep RT, MC and BOM consistent -- either italicize them in prose and footnotes, or don't italicize them in prose and footnotes. Italicizing something in one place and not another is both inconsistent and inaccurate. We would not italicize The New York Times or The New Yorker in prose and then use non-italicized "The New York Times" and "The New Yorker" in footnotes. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Just wanted to note that MLA is widely used in academic writing. Newspapers and magazines are only one portion of the publishing world. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree, good point. As noted before, MLA italicizes websites such as Google and Facebook in both prose and footnotes, so unless we're considering that as well, MLA isn't really our model here.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I can appreciate those concerns as well. Like I said, there are solid arguments from both sides. I should clarify that "always" and "never" were really only meant to portray the stance of a guideline, and not the actual verbage that would appear within ("should" and "should not" would be more commonly used in their place). A guideline by its very nature on Wikipedia is only a strong recommendation after all.
As for consistency between prose and citations, I think that's where things get a little dicey. In a citation, you are referring to the title of a work or published source. The |work parameter has always been italicized across all templates that use it (and for cite web, work is an alias for website). Now in running prose, you're referring to the title of a website. The different contexts can reasonably result in different outcomes. The perceived inconsistency doesn't bother me, but I can see how it might bother others. I'm definitely not set in stone on this one, however, and I'd like to hear what others think. More importantly as another editor commented, how would we continue to use the cite web template properly to avoid italics? If we can't use work or website, then the only other option really is publisher, but that's not exactly a good alternative. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I hear you. When that one coder decided to take away any flexibility and force everything in "website=" to italicize, it created this situation. Now people like you and me have the responsibility of dealing with it dumped in our laps.
I'm not sure why "publisher=" wouldn't be a good alternative, since in usual parlance "publisher" and "parent company" are often different things. But leaving that aside: Since templates are not required, what we do in WikiProject Comics for a standard database, the Grand Comics Database, is: "[URL here Superman #100] at the Grand Comics Database."
Maybe that's a middle-ground solution: We avoid any debate over template fields, and something not normally italicized remains non-ital. It's worked at WPC for over a dozen years and avoided any time-consuming issues like we're discussing. Thoughts? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
We have templates, let's use them. Using "publisher" instead of "website" shouldn't be a problem. El Millo (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
In the general sense, no, but the template documentation adamantly disagrees instructing that we should not treat "publisher" as an alternative for "work". A local consensus here wouldn't override the local consensus there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I could have sworn that one of the decisions that can out of the CS1 formatting mess a few months ago was that this specifically wasn't required, and that "publisher" was considered an acceptable field to complete identification of the source name, alongside website, magazine, journal, newspaper, and work. This was specifically because it otherwise forced italics on things like Rotten Tomatoes. --Masem (t) 18:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, not only is that the general consensus so far in the officially admin-reopened CS1 follow-up discussion (which remains open), but nothing in that discussion overrides the overall Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles, which states: "Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon or HuffPost). Online non-user-generated encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized (Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online). Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis." (emphasis added). That's what we're discussing here RE: RT, MC and BOM. It's perfectly appropriate per Wikipedia MOS to not italicize them. Template documentation does not override MOS. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm admittedly bad at references. I don't get the difference between publisher and work, sometimes it's right, the next review the reviewer says it's wrong, the goalposts with references are constantly moving. I'm quite happy to use the website parameter and that does italicize RT and MC, but then they are the websites. So if it is italicized, that works fine for me. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

All that you really need to know is that in the CS1 citation templates, whatever you put into "work", "website", "newspaper", "journal" or "magazine" will be italicized, and "publisher" will not be. The tiny differences between these six otherwise only really matter to information science, and not so much what the reader will see at the end of the day. --Masem (t) 18:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
To add, the technical difference is that "publisher" normally was the entity that publishes the "work", etc. Chicago Tribune, a newspaper, is published by the Tribune Group so technically you'd have both fields filed and it would format as you expect. Metacritic, arguably, has a "publisher" of CBS Interactive. But at least around film and video games, we do not want Metacritic italicized so we forgo this separation and just say the "publisher" is Metacritic. --Masem (t) 18:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I oppose any proposal which makes 3 websites or film-only articles act different than the rest of en.wiki. I also oppose any proposal which says not to use templates - that's just plain stupid (and I'm really sorry of that offends anyone). I have no specific opinion on whether these sites should use italics or not, that isn't a subject field I have knowledge in. --Gonnym (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This is not a topic that should be discussed on this page. It is a matter that concerns the entirety of Wikipedia, and it should be discussed in a larger forum than this one. Also, I don't think WP:Film should adopt a local citation style.--Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
It's absolutely appropriate to discuss here, since we are not talking about s site-wide change. We're talking three databases used virtually exclusively in WikiProject Film. We are not required it ital them in footnotes — that's already in MOS, so that part's not a matter of debate. MOS specifically says there is no house style, and MOS says we're to use common sense.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Summary

It's been a couple days without comments, so I'd like to try to summarize. The majority of editors above appear to favor non-italicizing RT, MC and BOM. A couple of the ones leaning toward italics say they could go either way. Consensus, of course, doesn't have to be unanimous, but finding a middle ground is usually best. I made a suggestion for this above, following the WikiProject Comics example, which avoids any issue over template style. Thoughts? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Please repeat that suggestion here and now, for clarity's sake. Debresser (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Certainly. Since templates are not required, what we do in WikiProject Comics for a standard database, the Grand Comics Database, is: "[URL here Superman #100] at the Grand Comics Database." --Tenebrae (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I would much rather use the "publisher" parameter of the web template if italicization is an issue. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Wallyfromdilbert, let's just use "publisher" and still benefit from the use of templates. El Millo (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I too prefer using templates. You don't throw out the baby with the water. I oppose the italics, as stated above. Debresser (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion does lean in opposition to italics, but it's hardly a solid consensus, and I wouldn't be so quick to judge it inactive after only a few days. But let's shelve that for now. In regard to the |publisher field as a possible workaround, I don't think it's that simple to accept. I've spent some time the last couple days reading up on the history of the Help:CS1 guidance page, and one of the more recent discussions worth perusing is Publisher versus work or website in citation template, which was continued at a more proper venue, Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 56#Examples of how to use the templates. This one ultimately led to the RfC linked above, and it exposes more of the thinking/rationale behind some of those !votes we see in the RfC. There are some really good perspectives from both sides buried in there, and I encourage everyone seeking a better understanding of this perennial debate to read through both links. Swapping "website" for "publisher" looks okay on the surface, and technically works, but some of the ramifications mentioned include:
  • Corruption of citation metadata
  • Corrupted citation metadata affects COinS performance and accuracy
  • Smacks CS1's documentation of these parameters in the face, potentially confusing less-experienced editors
Now it's worth mentioning none of these points are showstoppers to the proposed workaround above, but they do give reason for pause. While standard template documentation is typically low on the totem pole, it has been pointed out that "WP:CS1 has a much higher WP:CONLEVEL than any cite templates' /doc pages, since it's heavily watchlisted and holds discussion of changes to the templates' functionality and documentation in great (sometimes excruciating) detail; and by now most if not all of the cite templates' talk pages already redirect there and their doc pages sectionally transclude the same CS1 documentation". Looking at its talk page, there are over 61 pages in the archive, which seems to coincide with that CONLEVEL claim.
This will probably be my last comment here, and I'll close with this: Betty had a good point earlier that "formulating a local consensus is not the answer" to the larger issue, which is that editors will continue to frequently use the |website parameter within the cite web template. A real solution is to modify the template and/or solidify its position in the MOS. A well-articulated RfC, published at a very high-level (WT:MOS) resulting in a strong consensus, is the only chance of ever getting there. A proper RfC with binding signficance is long overdue. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
As always, GoneIn60 makes thoughtful, well-researched points. I agree with him wholeheartedly that a real solution would be to modify the template ... but I have found that the coders who create templates — which is something far beyond the technical expertise of those of us who are not software programmers — are highly resistant not only to changes but even to helping non-coders create, for example, a "cite database" or "cite organization" template.
That's one reason, in fact, that we brought this discussion here: Wikipedia does not have a house style, so we're not forced to follow CS1's dictates or even to use a template at all. Wikipedia makes a specific point that we are free and even encouraged to make "common-sense exceptions" where appropriate. And that includes the allowance of local consensus, which, contrary to what one editor stated, is appropriate in this case since virtually no article outside WikiProject Film ever cites Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic or Box Office Mojo.
As others have indicated, I, too, would prefer to use "publisher=". GoneIn60 says using it would cause issues with citation metadata, although what those issues are and how truly serious they are eludes me ... especially since the field "website=" is not required, and, indeed, omitting it creates no error message. Given that, I would have to ask whether omitting it is actually any problem at all.
But let's say it is. We can, alternately, take the middle-ground solution mentioned earlier, which has served WikiProject Comics well for over a dozen years: not use a template. Templates are not required, and situations like this demonstrate exactly why: because not everything fits into a one-size-fits-all paradigm. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Tenebrae It is not so hard to make a new cite template. I never caught up on the Lua invoking, but old style still works, and is more intuitive. Debresser (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Debresser: Honest to God, I tried to model "cite organization" after CS1 to change "website=" to non-italicized "organization" and "publisher=" to "parent=." Not only could I not do it, but a coder I tried to have help me specifically went and erased the non-live draft pages I created. I'm sure it's not universal, but the coders I have encountered of late seem a little bullying.
That said, I'm an old HTML hand and learn quickly, so if this sounds like something you'd like to work on with me, I'd love to. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
So am I. With pleasure. Another thing is I am not sure we need these templates. Debresser (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@Debresser: Let's do it. I'll continue this on your talk page. And I agree that we can existing templates since nothing requires us to include the field "website=," but we've seen pushback in this discussion based on metadata technical claims, so having an alternative seems a good idea, and I thank you for that suggestion.
Just to comment on the middle-ground solution - I'll oppose any such proposal. Also, while you technically can indeed not use a cite template, the guidelines require you to use the established consistent style, so good luck finding articles without a template. --Gonnym (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
That's your right. And it is others' right to use the established, consistent styles of AP and Chicago Manual of Style. Wikipedia does not have a house style, and I'm not sure it's a good argument to suggest we adopt one, especially one at odds with most others.
In any case, if we can create a new template more in line with AP/CMOS, people will be free to use them or not.--Tenebrae (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll repeat again, as you keep ignoring the MoS. You can use whatever citation style you want, as long as it's consistent with the established style used in the article. For your master plan to work, you'll need to find articles with no citations. You can't just replace the templates with your own, or use yours in addition to other templates. So the only thing you'll accomplish is having a few dozens of articles using your style. Good job. --Gonnym (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
No need to be snide. Editors can use whatever template they think best — because as the MOS itself says, there is no house style that we're all forced to use. There is no required template, and we're not forced to use templates at all. If editors prefer a more mainstream style than the eccentric, non-mainstream "cite web", that's their right.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I think what Gonnym is getting at is that the MOS sides with using the style already established in the article per MOS:VAR. So if you add new citations to an article that already has existing citations using the CS1 template, then the general rule is to keep the citation style consistent by continuing to use the CS1 format. You could argue that you have "substantial reason for the change" to an alternative style based on this discussion, but that could turn into an uphill battle quickly, considering the level of participation here and the fact it wasn't held directly at WT:MOS. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's an accurate analysis. Let me explain:
CS1 — which includes "cite news" "cite magazine" and "cite website" — is used in virtually all articles. WP:CITEVAR says: "[I]t is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved." So if the first major contributor or most editors use "cite news" "cite magazine" or "cite website" — which are unavoidable if we're using templates — then we have to follow the CS1 template's documentation "unless a change in consensus has been achieved."
The documentation does not require "website=" as a field. So we're free not to use it if it's not called for in a particular situation. In fact, WP:CITEVAR specifically says: "[I]f you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page." That's exactly what we're doing.
Indeed, most of the editors here favor the substantial reason that RT, MC and BOM should not be italicized because doing so is eccentric and non-mainstream. If we've reached an impasse because of a minority of editors, then I guess the next step is to ask for Arbitration. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Or if a non-italicizing new CS1 template such as "cite organization" or "cite database" is used, similar to how the CS1 template "cite map" does not italicize any company's name, then this discussion becomes moot, since it's all CS1. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Good points. I was only attempting to shed some light on Gonnym's point. A leaning consensus here for an alternative citation style might be enough to get started without taking it further up the ladder, but I still suspect it will run into additional challenges down the road (though not from me). Guess that can be dealt with when it's time to cross that bridge. And while there is some level of consensus against italicizing, there doesn't seem to be much solidified in the way of a solution, at least not yet. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
And you as always bring good energy to this discussion and help move it along. I appreciate especially your interest in working toward a solution that gives editors choices, rather than saying, "This is the only possible way we can do this and that's the law." So thank you for that.
User:Debresser has expressed interest in helping create a suitable new CS1 template — we already have such templates for seemingly everything under the sun ("cite conference", "cite newsgroup", "cite speech", "cite map") that it does seem remiss there's no "cite database" or "cite organization". I would ask: Do you know any coding editors who can help? I think someone like that could readily adapt, for example, "cite map" to "cite database." If we do that, then at least editors can have choice while still following Citation Style 1. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

While Debresser made an extremely good suggestion, in good faith, he hasn't responded to my request on his talk page for technical help in creating this template that would solve the issue. I don't have the coding expertise to create a citation template, and unless there's a coder willing to help, or some agreement on a compromise solution such as the one I offered, then I'm not sure what choice we have left than to seek Arbitration help. The current eccentric, inconsistent state of Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Box Office Mojo — non-italicized in prose, italicized in footnotes and then non-italicized again in External links — is untenable. Anyone have any suggestions? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no time for serious template editing at the moment. Sorry. Debresser (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Quite alright; I haven't had time to be back for a couple days myself. I'll go ask for arbitration help. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Request put in Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Arbitrator requested at WikiProject:Film: Manual of Style a couple days ago. I guess we should give it five to seven days for a response. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Couple of developments. First, admin Seraphimblade said here and here, that we would ask for closure via WP:AN/RFC, or "If it seems to have a relatively clear outcome, formal closure isn't actually required. You could try summarizing what you believe the result of the discussion to be and see if anyone objects or disagrees. If they do, that may be when you need an uninvolved third party's evaluation."
Second — and I wish one of us had seen this sooner — WP:Consensus#Determining consensus states that, "WikiProject advice pages, how-to and information pages, and template documentation pages have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay" (emphasis added). That means the discussion, which remains ongoing, at the how-to page Help talk:Citation Style 1 has no more status than an essay. The coder who made "website=" italicization mandatory overreached and had no policy/guideline-page consensus to change the Wikipedia Manual of Style to require it. Indeed, the actual guideline pages Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Manual of Style do not require it.
As it's not required, and as the majority of editors in this discussion believe RT, MC and BOM should not be italicized, and with some of those in the minority saying they lean toward non-ital, it appears as if consensus is that WikiProject:Film not ital these three sites. "[I]f anyone objects or disagrees" our next step, as per admin Seraphimblade, is to ask for closure at WP:AN/RFC. Thoughts?--Tenebrae (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
GoneIn60, at a related discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1, Peter coxhead made an excellent suggestion that solves the issue of metadeta corruption you brought up earlier: For Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Box Office Mojo, we simply use Template:Citation.
That has the additional benefit of italicizing the movie name without adding quote marks around it. What do you think?--Tenebrae (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
It's hard to take your suggestions seriously when it seems you have no idea what you are talking about. Here is how {{Citation}} works: last, first, "title", website. It still has the website name in italics. Anyways, as you love trying to find loopholes in the guidelines, I'll again repeat that you can't change the citation style in any given article to the one you prefer (per the guidelines). Instead of finding loopholes or copying old code, try instead to get consensus on the actual template page or at the VP. There is no valid reason why 3 websites you dislike being used with italics should be different than every other website that is cited. --Gonnym (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the hostile tone, since a fellow editor at Help talk:Citation Style 1, who is well-versed in citation templates, wrote the following there:
I'm baffled by the failure to distinguish between |work= and |publisher= in the discussion above. Since I prefer CS2 style, if I were free to choose the citation style in an article, I would set up Tenebrae's example as:
{{citation |last=Doe |first=Jane |title=Report on Apollo 11 |publisher=NASA}} → Doe, Jane, Report on Apollo 11, NASA
This implies that the report is a stand-alone document. It is clearly different from something like the following, where the report is one of a set of components of a website.
{{citation |last=Doe |first=Jane |title=Report on Apollo 11 |work=NASA News |publisher=NASA}} → Doe, Jane, "Report on Apollo 11", NASA News, NASA
Organizations are publishers, and as such are clearly not italicized. Organizations' websites are works, and so should be italicized. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Additionally, the field should never have made italics mandatory, since an RfC at a how-to/template-documentation page is not binding, and certainly cannot override Manual of Style, which does not make website-name italics mandatory. WP:Consensus#Determining consensus says "WikiProject advice pages, how-to and information pages, and template documentation pages have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay."
That means there is no community consensus that website names should be italicized, and the coder who made that field's italicization mandatory did so without consensus. And the consensus of the majority of editors in this discussion is not to inconsistently italicize RT, MC and BOM when they're not italicized in either prose or EL. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I am trying to stay as far away from this discussion as I can but, using {{citation}} does not [solve] the issue of [metadata] corruption. Writing this:
{{citation |title=Film name |publisher=Rotten Tomatoes}}
does not make for correct metadata. For the purposes of metadata, when there is no |website= or periodical parameter, Module:Citation/CS1 treats the {{citation}} template as if it were a book citation and uses the COinS book object when creating the citation's metadata. Metadata using the wrong object is just as corrupt as metadata with the extraneous bold or italic wiki mark-up characters.
If this community believes that Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and Box Office Mojo names in citations should not be italicized, then I think that the solution has already been voiced: don't use cs1|2 but instead, create your own template along the lines of whatever template has been used by WikiProject Comics to cite Grand Comics Database.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Trappist the monk. Every bit of information helps, and I'm sure I speak for all of us when I say we value your expertise.
I agree with you 100% that something like a "cite database" template would be great. (We don't use any template for Grand Comics Database citations at WikiProject Comics, but there's resistance here to that approach.) The issue is that coding templates is very difficult and not something the average Wikipedian can do, so without that, we need to use an existing template.
Alternately, it seems a bit like the tail wagging the dog if a common and standard citation style corrupts metadata simply because existing templates aren't built for that. It seems like the templates are at fault if they're trying to force us to use one non-standard style for all website citations throughout Wikipedia, even though the Manual of Style does not force that.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Please do not put words into my mouth that I have not spoken. I have said nothing about cite database.
Here is a possible template for citing some page at rt:
[{{{url|{{{1|}}}}}} ''{{{title|{{{2|}}}}}}''] at [[Rotten Tomatoes]]{{#ifeq:{{{mode}}}|cs2||.}}
Editors would write either of these forms:
{{cite rt|https://rottentomatoes.com/...|Title}}
{{cite rt|url=https://rottentomatoes.com/...|title=Title}}
When |mode=cs2, the template omits the trailing dot.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize if I expressed myself unclearly. When you said "create your own template along the lines of whatever template has been used ... to cite Grand Comics Database," that genuinely sounded to me like a suggestion for a "cite database" template.

If I'm reading the rest of your post correctly, I think we all owe you sincere thanks for that possible template which could be used for Rotten Tomatoes (and presumably for Metacritic and Box Office Mojo, the other sites of which this discussion is about). It is very generous of you to have taken the time to do that. The majority of editors in this discussion agree on non-italics, and that template possibility may go a long way toward bringing this discussion to a close.

Not being a coder, I'm not sure what do next with the possible template's code. I know you've been extremely gracious with your time, and I hope it's not asking too much or overstepping if I might ask for some guidance on how to implement it, so that editors have a choice. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

{{cite rt}}; has some rudimentary documentation which should be improved.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Trappist, I'm speechless and overwhelmed by your generosity. This is wonderful. I'm sure I speak for the majority of the editors in this discussion when I say thank you. I even think I see how to adapt Template:Cite rt/doc and Template:Cite rt for MC and BOM. I know you feel differently about footnote style than I and those other editors, and the fact you still would go out of your way to help us keep RT, MC and BOM non-ital as they are in prose and in EL ... it's just about the nicest thing a software-coding editor can do for his fellow editors and, I truly believe, for Wikipedia freedom of style. This really epitomizes the best of being a Wikipedian. Thank you! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Testing it: On Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 95% based on 360 reviews, with an average rating of 8.58/10. The website's critics consensus reads: "With a stellar cast and a smart, sensitive retelling of its classic source material, Greta Gerwig's Little Women proves some stories truly are timeless."[1]
On Metacritic, it has a weighted average score of 91 out of 100, based on 57 critics, indicating "universal acclaim".[2]
As of February 4, 2020, Little Women has grossed $99.6 million in the United States and Canada, and $64.6 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $164.2 million.[3]

References

  1. ^ "Little Women". Rotten Tomatoes. Fandango Media. Retrieved No Wikidata item connected to current page. Need qid or title argument.. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help)Missing or empty |id= Missing or empty |type=
  2. ^ "Little Women". Metacritic. Fandom, Inc.Missing or empty |id= Missing or empty |type= Missing or empty |access-date=
  3. ^ "Little Women". Box Office Mojo. IMDb. ID is missing in both template and Wikidata; please add to either place.

I'm late to the party, but I'm going to add my two cents here. Should we use access dates and publishers (RT and MC are respectively published by Fandango and CBS Interactive) in the template? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

That can probably be done, now that we've got a model to work from; now that we've created the two accompanying template pages after Trappist very generously created "cite rc," we can probably add parameters. We'll try in the next couple of days. In the meantime, there's nothing to prevent us from using these.
I'm very grateful that Trappist, even though he feels RT, MC and BOM should be italicized, nonetheless gave time, effort and his considerable expertise to go along with the consensus. I think that exhibits the greatest standard of collaboration and and collegiality that any editor can have, and I hope other editors will join me in applauding him. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@Tenebrae: I'm also late to this party, but seeing as three whole new cite templates were created, it should be much more streamlined in the vein of {{cite tweet}} so much of it is done on the back end. So for example,
  • {{cite rt}} should: add |type= to take either "tv" or "movie"/"m"; add archive parameters (though these really shouldn't be archived because they are fluid pages); and remove |publisher= handle that on the back end.
Same thing with the other two. They should get parameters similar to what I've suggested above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
As I'm sure most of us are, I'm all for fuller citing. I've gone as far as I can, with my very limited coding knowledge, by adapting the "cite rt" that Trappist graciously created and making "cite mc" and "cite BOM" from that. I even managed to add a "publisher=" field. That's as far as I was able to do; I tried to add "access-date" but could not. I don't think I have the capability to adapt "cite tweet" into "cite rt" etc., though I'm happy to support that and to help, in any way I can, anyone capable to doing so. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@Tenebrae: I should be able to mock something up in the vein of what I've suggested. Give me a couple days, and I'll put it in the cite rt sandbox to compare. Just wanted you to know my intention before this was mass implemented. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I think that would be wonderful. All these years working with you, and I never knew you could code! --Tenebrae (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
@Tenebrae: I can a bit. It takes me a while, but I can get there. Take a look at Template:Cite rt/testcases. Should be all variants/variables accounted for. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Template:Cite BOM/testcases also ready. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Holy cow! Impressive!--Tenebrae (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: The testcases pages look amazing. I'm not sure how to place their information into the main template page (e.g. Template:Cite rt). If you can do it for rt, whenever you can squeeze in the tieme, then I'm sure I could look at that and do it for cite mc and cite BOM. What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: RT and BOM should be good. I'll move those over. MC isn't ready yet, because it should ultimately handle all the review media it covers (music, video games, TV and film) and I haven't been able to look further into how to best make that work. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Favre1fan93, thank you so much for taking this on. I'll give them a try now! --Tenebrae (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion regarding runtime sourcing

Hi all. I've started a discussion at {{Infobox film}} about adding some wording regarding sourcing runtimes that I felt other might be interested in participating in (if you are not also watching that page). You can find that discussion here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Is/Was directed

My apologies if there is a better place to leave this message; if there is, I couldn't find it. What is the preferred term between "is directed" and "was directed" in the lead section? The same goes for any other position, I suppose (e.g. written, produced etc.) --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Gramatically speaking both are entirely correct, (as long as the film still exists and isn't lost). Given the MoS steers towards the current tense for extant works (Craig stars or appears in the current Bond film, but he also stars or appears in the previous one), then "is" is probably fractionally better. Having said that, the direction of the film has finished, so "was directed" is also correct. I'm not entirely sure we need to micro-manage the exact wording of nearly every film article across WP by barring one version, so it's whoever gets in first/edits last/discusses on the tp, as far as I am concerned. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
As long as the tense is consistent, it should be fine, and this is usually where it runs into the starring line. "Film-name stars John Smith and Jane Smith. It was directed by Alan Smithee." would be inappropriate. I think it is easier to rest on presence tense when the film is the subject for nearly all cases, outside of historical content "It won the Oscar for..." "It was released on ..." --Masem (t) 20:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
WP:FICTENSE covers this, and uses a good example with Friends. Looking at Eraserhead, a Featured Article, it starts with "Eraserhead is a 1977 American experimental body horror film written, directed, produced, and edited by David Lynch." (my bolding) Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Excellent. Good to know. Thank you all for your input. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Years in first mention of a film

Hi. I recall having read somewhere that at the first occurrence of a film in an article other than its own, it must be accompanied by its year in parentheses. Does anyone remember where that is or if it exists at all? Thank you in advance. El Millo (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources in the plot section

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Plot summaries. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Audience scores

I didn't think Audience scores from IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic were allowed WP:UGC but I notice someone doesn't seem to think the rules apply to article for film franchises. Examples: Flubber_(franchise)#Critical_and_public_response, Dexter_Riley_(film_series)#Critical_and_public_response

Have the rules changed to allow film franchise articles as an exception? -- 109.79.184.64 (talk) 03:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

No, the rules have not changed. These audience scores do not belong. Go ahead and take them out. Let us know if you'd prefer one of us here to do it. Thanks for bringing this up! Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 03:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I've removed such scores from film franchise articles before and mentioned it[1] to the editor who seems to be doing it User:DisneyMetalhead that I didn't think there were any exceptions to allow for it. He seems to be adding the scores to draft articles, and then irresponsible admins approve those Draft articles. I fear it is the thin edge of the wedge. So yes I'd prefer if someone else did it because I don't think the behavior will change based on the warning of an anon editor. -- 109.79.184.64 (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
It does not surprise me at all that he is the one doing this and he needs to stop right now. Toa Nidhiki05 04:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately these are also being added in a table format. Would anyone who is more adept at dealing with them like to clean things up at Dexter Riley (film series). Thanks ahead of time. MarnetteD|Talk 04:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Removing the whole column for IMDB is relatively easy[2] and helps show that that the consensus has not changed, so if you can even do that it is a good start. Found another Angels_in_the_Outfield_(franchise)#Critical_and_public_response and there are many more Draft articles with the same issue[3][4][5][6][7][8], but this clear reiteration of that the rules apply just as much to franchise articles as any other might help. Not sure if anything can be done to discourage misguided admins from approving draft articles without adequate review. -- 109.79.184.64 (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
To help make it more clear, I would cite MOS:FILM#Audience response in addition to WP:UGC. It's crystal clear in that guideline that audience ratings from IMDB should not be used. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks 109. There is also an audience score in the RT section and a user score in the Metacritic one that should be removed. If you see this and have the time to zap them that would be appreciated. I see that there are more of these tables in some of DM's drafts. Does anyone want to take the bull by the horns and let DM know that they need to stop including those scores? MarnetteD|Talk 06:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay I went ahead and posted this User talk:DisneyMetalhead#Please take note. This way DM wont be able to say that they weren't made aware of the situation. MarnetteD|Talk 06:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Just another note here: on many of these he is apparently being sneaky and sticking audience and user scores in the same column section. It’s easy to miss at first glance. A lot of these “franchise” articles seem to strain the idea of notability at that. Toa Nidhiki05 11:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Toa Nidhiki05: Just to clarify, I am not at all trying to "be sneaky" as you just stated. I have simply placed the critic and the audience scores of each reputable scoring system to show the differences of critics vs the general audience. My argument has been that that are cases where critics have a huge difference in opinion from the audience. Furthermore, some films don't have critic reviews or opinion at all. These are the only reasons that I have included them. Additionally, the "Critic's Choice" column you referred to in The LEGO Movie franchise below, I do not remember adding to the Accolades table. Regardless - they appear to be a reputable source. I would furthermore ask, why the facts that critic and audience reception differences, has not been addressed?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
The sneakiness I was referring to was having a single column with Metacritic reviews, with some entries having critic scores and others having audience scores. You're a prolific enough editor here to know that audience scores are never reliable. It doesn't matter if some shows or entries don't have critic reviews - frankly, maybe that's evidence those entries aren't notable. Audience scores are user-generated content and can never be used. Toa Nidhiki05 15:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I noticed the "Critic's Choice" scores before. I thought it was an odd choice, but it was from a group of critics not a user voted web poll and it had a proper reference, so I took it as a good faith edit and left well enough alone. (Another odd choice I've seen was the adding a column full of rating from Roger Ebert, but I dont recall which article it was that did that.)
Including or excluding scores from Critics' Choice Movie Awards seems like it would need a separate discussion. Is there is consensus against including them? Please note that List_of_Pixar_films#Critical_and_public_response also includes those scores. (I've maybe seen it in a few other articles but I'd be surprised if there were more than a handful of cases.) -- 109.76.197.66 (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
DisneyMetalhead, the audience ratings you see at sites like RT and IMDB are not reliable metrics. They were not aggregated in an accredited manner, and therefore should be omitted from Wikipedia articles. Read MOS:FILM#Audience response and reply here if this is still unclear in any way. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
To be more specific, nearly all sites that support user ratings can be gamed, and created processes that enable review bombing, which we don't want to fall for on WP. If a movie is subject to a review bomb, as documented by reliable sources, we can discuss that in prose. We can also discuss films that are critically favored but just didn't get good audience reviews as long as reliable sources discuss that. Thirdly, there are unique cases where the user score is a unique metric for the film but again, as noted by reliable sources (eg Shawshank Redeption's high IMDB placement). Any other case, we want to avoid inclusion. --Masem (t) 04:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Masem. If third party sources are talking about an audience score on a specific sites, it can be potentially be mentioned and discussed through that lens, but we shouldn't be outright reporting those. (See Captain Marvel (film)#Audience response as a good example). As I see this mainly has to do with franchise pages, CinemaScore data could be presented in the tables if audience response is so desired. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
While there can be exceptions to any guideline, this particular type of exception, concerning review bombing and audience scores from unreliable sources, is extremely rare and requires a strong consensus (usually via RfC). Just wanted to make this very clear since it was brought up. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Update: I have removed all audience scores. They were used as stated before to show the differences (and similarities) between critic and general public's response. I still think it is notable that critics don't generally agree with the audience, and there are various cases in which this is extremely evident (such as the Captain Marvel (film)#Audience response that @Favre1fan93: pointed out), while my intentions for the franchise pages was to show the differences of opinions. Meanwhile, @Toa Nidhiki05: there was absolutely no "sneakiness" in these edits. Also, just because a franchise installment doesn't have a critic review through a particular site - does not mean that it is "not notable" as you stated. Again, I did not add the "Critic's Choice" category to The LEGO Movie franchise (from what I remember)...--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

No worries. We should assume good faith. Thanks for understanding the need to rely on strong sources for this kind of information. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
"I still think it is notable that critics don't generally agree with the audience". No, no it is not. DisneyMetalhead still does not seem to be convinced by the consensus. I say this for the benefit of anyone reading this discussion later, but as has been explained many times before it is still obvious and not notable and fully expected that a self selected poll will skew more positive than the critics (who don't generally have the choice of what they get to see). It is also worth rereading the CinemaScore article, because even though it is a source that is accepted as reliable, it is clearly explained that it too is expected to skew positive. The difference between audiences and critics is expected, as other including GoneIn60 have stated it is only in very rare cases that it is notable.
Whatever it is you think you are trying to say by including audience scores, there are better ways to say it. -- 109.76.132.95 (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

DisneyMetalhead pages that have audience scores in templates

There might be more in article space. Most of these are "franchise" pages. Toa Nidhiki05 12:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I can go in and remove them. This listing seems a bit excessive...--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Examples of properly-written Critical response content

Is there any way to incorporate into the MOS clear instructions about the type of content that should be present in a critical response summary, as well as an example of a good version of that content?

I don't think people actually know what they're supposed to submit. Either you get an obsession with "so-and-so rated the film 4/5 stars" or you get an over-abundance of quotes, which may or may not provide sufficient context for the reader. If editors are supposed to be writing narrative summaries supported by quotes and with some ratings here and there, then there should be some explanation of this, and examples are always helpful. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, I know you're asking specifically about changing the MOS here, but the WP:CRS essay might be a useful starting point if you haven't seen it already. Popcornfud (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Popcornfud: That's helpful, thank you, but I still think the MOS should have some short version of this. As we know, the MOS would represent community consensus, while an essay might not. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd never seen that essay before, it was very helpful to read. Thanks for sharing! --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I would urge caution when drafting any guidelines, so that the perfect is not the enemy of the good. I know it bothers some editors but "so-and-so rated the film 4/5 stars" is definitely preferable to an empty critical response section. It is crude and only a starting point and it leaves more work for the reader, but it does avoid some of the more subjective interpretations and unfounded generalizations we get when people overenthusiastically try to summarize the consensus. (It is all too easy to take praise from one critic and make it seem like a generalization. I looks well written but it is misleading to make generalizations when a film has only a few reviews.)
Good essay though, and I do agree it would be good if the guidelines explained that it in the long term good articles should try to end up with the section organized by thematic elements (direction, cinematography, performance, etc.). -- 109.76.132.95 (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I wrote most of that essay, and I do use it a lot in content reviews (and it does get cited by others fairly often), but I’m dubious about moving that sort of thing into the MoS. I think the essay is more advice on writing well than it is a style guide. No doubt we could use a curated collection of essays on good writing, but I don’t think that’s the MoS’s job. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I would urge caution when drafting any guidelines, so that the perfect is not the enemy of the good. I get the general gist, but that's why clear guidance is necessary. Saying "in an entry-level article, it might be sufficient to do X, in a more developed article, it might be sufficient to do Y, but in a quality article, it is preferable that you do ABC" is exactly what the point of a manual of style is, especially at Wikipedia. Currently, I'm trying to coach a non-native-English speaker as to why their randomly selected critic quotations, which fail to provide any significant context, and which to any native English speaker would be entirely meaningless, is problematic. Aside from me just coming off as an asshole and saying "this is garbage", what specific guideline do I point them to? Where is the community-approved example of what the ideal is? Even as I scroll through Featured Articles, I see a mix of quality that doesn't seem to reflect any overall threshold for quality. Manhunter_(film)#Reception seems ok, The_Mummy_(1999_film)#Critical_response seems ok. But Lage_Raho_Munna_Bhai#Critical_response seems to be an excessive quotefarm that lacks any context. Why? I think many dwellers in this WikiProject forget that the largest number of contributions to film articles are probably not actually focussed on western films, and the MOS doesn't exactly speak to these people, many of whom could be lacking sufficient educational resources, and who could benefit from clear guidance. The lack of effort to clarify community standards seems to enforce an unconscious western bias that "well, most people will figure it out" when that's absolutely not the reality. Guidelines should exist to address the worst case scenarios, not the best case ones. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the timely reminder that most people are editing Wikipedia in English as a second language. (I've seen enough Bollywood articles including IMDB scores and copying bad old habits to know how very right your are.) My very lazy copying quotes from Metacritic is too crude, and the fine essay is (perhaps) too complicated. The quality of good articles does unfortunately vary widely, some of that is due to older articles being less scrutinized but a lot of it is just inconsistency. I can only agree that it would be good to have more detail in the guidelines (and perhaps also to de-emphasize old crufty details, all that section warning editors against using the Rotten Tomatoes Top critics no longer seems helpful). I would hope the guidelines could do a bit of both high level principles to help people aim for the best case, and also have specific details about with what not to do, to avoid some of the worst cases.
Maybe someone will step forward but I think Cyphoidbomb may need to draft and propose what he thinks is needed, and maybe that will encourage others to polish and finish it and add to the guidelines. -- 05:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.94.23 (talk)
  • Proposed addition:
In an ideal world, the highest aspiration of a critical reception section would look something like this:

The film's cinematography received attention from critics, several of whom praised the wide sweeping shots used throughout the dance sequences. John Doe of ABC Times noted the photography "gave [him] a sense of flying". Rory Sen of DEF Bugle wrote, "I was transported to the crisp verdant hills of Switzerland. The techniques used by Salman Croix were astounding." These sentiments were not felt by Roy Smythe of DEF Times who described the photography as dizzying. Smythe praised Mamta Bloggs's acting, describing her as "believable and adorable." Vijay Chambers of GHI Weekly thought Bloggs had good chemistry with Hrithik Jones, describing the pair as "hilarious and lovable."

The above presents a summary of the predominant critical opinions toward crucial elements of a film: direction, writing, cinematography, acting, music, etc., woven together in a narrative format, supported by relevant quotations and references, and balanced by contrary opinions, if relevant.
Other notes:
  • Please avoid excessive focus on ratings, ex: "Mel Singh" rated the film 4/5 stars. Doris Pandita gave the film 8/10 stars." In an article's early stages, it might be suitable to include something rather than nothing, but this should only be done if you will be making a good-faith effort to expand the section in the near future. To avoid injection of unconscious personal bias, be careful to avoid stacking ratings in such a way as to place undue emphasis on either positive or negative ratings. Consider that marketing companies often top-load these sections with positive reviews to hype recently-released films. Do not use the {{rating}} template in this section or in references.
  • Please avoid excessive use of quotations. The community prefers summaries over raw quotations, in part because excessive use of quotations comprising the bulk of a critical reception section, could constitute a copyright violation. Please be judicious in your quote selection, and note that quotations should be carefully selected so that they clearly make sense to a reader unfamiliar with the film. Context is important for readers to understand quotations. Here are some real-world examples of contextless quotations, which may not be suitable for inclusion:
    • "A very different Rajinikanth Experience"[9]
    • "It's a courageous film that sticks to Hirani's well-oiled formula"[10][11]
    • "The film will keep everyone (public, producers, distributors and exhibitors) happy."[12][13]
    • "It’s a hard-won transformation – bohot hard – and it rings true."[14][15]

The blocked section could be improved by including content from a real article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with using ratings as they give a correct quick assessment of the review- for example if a reviewer gave a score of 1 out of 5 that review could then not be interpreted as anything other than a bad review. Also I don't agree with dividing reviews up into different subjects such as cinematography as it can lead to manipulation - for example a bad review could be cherrypicked for the one thing they praised such as the cinematography but all the negative comments could be left out. Therefore It might be better to summarise each review in turn highlighting the aspects that were praised or criticised with a short quote from each, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
In terms of manipulation, I'm not exactly sure how your version is any less prone to manipulation. Anybody could easily avoid bad reviews or still cherrypick in myriad ways. "Stan Man gave the film a 1/5 star review but noted that the music was 'fantastic'." Anyway, the above is a starting point, and I happen to think that the narrative structure that addresses the various aspects of film production presents a more interesting and coherent summary, but I'm not the arbiter of what is correct or right, and that's why I'm again asking this WikiProject to articulate its expectations and agree on general guidelines it envisions as sufficient and as the ideal for decent, good, then GA and FA quality articles, since currently there is ZERO in the way of examples or explanations, which as far as I am concerned, is totally unacceptable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Atlantic306 some editors are going to do a bad job, and even a bad attempt is usually better than nothing (as I hope my earlier comments made clear). But also I think I understand the point Cyphoidbomb is making and that it would be help to put aside the bad cases for now, and instead try to provide a bit more guidance for those who are learning and trying to do their best, and could benefit from a bit more explanation in the Film Project style guidelines.
Cyphoidbomb, I like your suggestions, and they have reminded me of the existing guidelines about WP:QUOTEFARM but better because they are put in the context of film articles, particularly Critical response sections. I would also hope that experienced editors could help take the generic advice you have drafted and make it specific by mentioning Featured Articles that provide the best examples. -- 109.79.74.4 (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
"...ZERO in the way of examples or explanations..."
Well, some broad explanations are in there, albeit somewhat convoluted. As to Atlantic306's point about ratings, they can make cherrypicking stand out more. If I were to read that "Stan Man" statement in some article, the rating would red flag that to me immediately as a bad or misguided example. Without the rating or some mention that Stan Man's review was negative overall, it may have gone unnoticed. Ratings, or their counterpart of calling the review positive/mixed/negative, can be helpful. A good summary will alternate between both techniques throughout, IMO. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think it should be included. We already have editors arguing over existing guidance in the guideline, and some editors treating aspects of it as mandatory. For example, some editors insist on the same exact setup across film articles, which is why we have the following in the introduction: "There is no defined order of the sections." I'd prefer no WP:CREEP in the guideline. Editors disagree on how best to format a critical response section. Unless one is including audience scores (which shouldn't be there unless widely discussed in reliable sources; for example, because of vote brigading), it's generally a case-by-case matter.
Please don't ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – I too am a frequent opponent of WP:CREEP in guidelines. Too much instruction leads to wordiness and encourages Wikilawyering. Wordiness in turn leads to editors missing important points that need emphasis, or simply a loss of interest that results in not reading it at all. With that said, I would consider providing a "good practice" example (maybe 2-3 sentences). It could be based on a real example or made-up, and it would need to show a mix of ratings, quotes, and original prose. But the trade off probably needs to be reducing clutter and improving clarity in that section. The way that section reads today reminds me of a legal "terms and conditions" statement: quite formal and lacking connection with the reader.
Note: If that offends anyone that may have worked hard on that section in the past, my apologies... Just know this is meant to be constructive criticism. There's always room for improvement!
If any changes are made as a result of this discussion, we should be careful not to give the wrong impression about ratings and quotes. Limit them, but having some of both is still very helpful. Original prose, on the other hand, should easily consume a majority of the critical response summary. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't like an MoS that leads off with an example of good practice. Any example is inevitably subjective and risks having its phraseology copied parrot fashion in the way some editors already do with the likes of "widespread critical acclaim". It should be possible with a bit of effort to summarise the desired content and structure of a Reception section by description. Further, there is a weakness in the existing MOSFILM wording, which goes straight into the detail of how review quotes are selected and handled. What is there now could usefully be edited down and added after a new first paragraph setting out the objective and ground rules, IMO. MapReader (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Also an excellent point. I could go either way regarding a "good practice" example, but at the very least, some minor reorganization/cleanup of MOS:FILM#Critical response is probably warranted. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't like an MoS that leads off with an example of good practice. That's an interesting approach. Let's not provide an example so that when some ignoramus comes by to make an improvement based on guesswork, we're setting them up for failure. This WikiProject, in the last few years, has become such an enigma to me. It must have some standards for how one can build a GA or FA, but then somehow can't manage to articulate those standards? Or refuses to? Or lacks the fortitude? There are tons of sock rings that use the critical response section to promote films. Editors who battle these clowns and their edits have to assume good-faith, yet there's no clear community guidelines for this section that anyone can point them to. What an unsatisfying scenario. But thank god we have a section in the MOS that addresses flag icons. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
What would you say is wrong with or missing from the advice at WP:CRS -- that is, everything up to the "Examples" section heading? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
It's an essay. I don't know for a fact that it accurately represents community preferences. And in a situation when I have to administrate because some obvious UPE ring is trying to slap down ratings and quotes taken out of context to beef up the article, I'd like something more solid to point to than an essay. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't see that we don't have clear guidance. We do. We also don't have overly strict guidance since this is a guideline and not a policy. Like I mentioned above, articles can have different setups. Editors should look to do what is best for each individual article. At WP:MEDSECTIONS, we have standard setups, but we also state, "The following lists of suggested sections are intended to help structure a new article or when an existing article requires a substantial rewrite. Changing an established article simply to fit these guidelines might not be welcomed by other editors. The given order of sections is also encouraged but may be varied, particularly if that helps your article progressively develop concepts and avoid repetition. Do not discourage potential readers by placing a highly technical section near the start of your article." Furthermore, I've seen more disagreements over article setup with regard to film articles than to medical or anatomy articles, which is why I think that the film guideline hasn't provided a standard setup other than the standard order of sections they see when they click on the guideline. For example, despite the aforementioned bolded piece in the introduction, the Cast section is always in the same spot (and I feel that it should always be in that spot). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't see that we don't have clear guidance. We do. Great. I would appreciate you pointing it out in the MOS, please, where one would expect guidance to be, as guidance is usually delivered in the form of guidelines. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb, any chance you can provide us with 2 or 3 more examples of the issue on display (other than the ones you listed above)? I know you do a lot of work in Indian film articles, but I think it would helpful to see a few more from other categories, focusing on film examples that get a significant amount of traffic. Low-traffic articles are bound to have general problems regardless of what exists in our policies and guidelines. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
How is something like "The overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources. Avoid weasel words. If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly." in the Critical response section not clear guidance? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
How helpful is it, though? It basically says ‘stick to the sources’, twice, interspersed with a vague colloquialism. As guidance in how to select, structure and compose material for a section about the critical response to a film, it is next to useless in terms of added value. It is really just a reminder of Wikipedia-wide Lesson One: follow the sources. MapReader (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
It's helpful for newbies and other less experienced editors. These guidelines are more so for them than experienced editors. And even experienced editors don't always think of "If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly." as a solution, at least not automatically. Any redundancy in the guideline can be cut. And, of course, the material about citing audience scores is helpful. That audience scores material can be helpful for experienced editors who aren't familiar with how Wikipedia film articles are handled; some aren't even familiar with sites such as Rotten Tomatoes. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Reception details in lead

I'm becoming increasingly concerned by what I see as a growing tendency to include detailed reception information in the lead, along the lines of, "reviewers praised the film's dialogue, special effects, etc.". While there are likely cases where the Reception section will clearly substantiate a brief sentence to this effect, more often there seems to be some level of synthesis occurring, and as a WP:GNOME editor, it's even more troubling when another editor inserts another point into an existing sentence of this nature.

I'd like to suggest that the MoS be amended to advise against sentences of this nature unless a direct source can be provided or there is abundant coverage of the points being highlighted within the Reception section. Multiple award nominations for whatever point is being highlighted might be an acceptable substitute as well.

What do my esteemed comrades think? DonIago (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Doniago, I have the same concern. It's quite easy to look at a handful of reviews summarised in the Reception section and then summarise those, so it ends up being a sort of a filter of a filter. Additionally they often end up being long shopping lists of things like "Reviewers praised the performances, script, direction, special effects, editing and score", where it's like "Reviewers basically praised everything" and there's little meaningful information. Popcornfud (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
It reminds me of when editors have added statements to the Reception section such as "The film received positive reviews." only for it to be immediately followed by, predictably, the film's reception. Which is to say, I think this may be another instance where we should be letting the sources speak for themselves unless there are sources that actually have discussed what exactly a film was praised for. Does a casual reader even typically care exactly what a film was praised for, but only enough that they'd read the lead rather than the Reception section? DonIago (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
As a reader, I care! :) One can generally gauge that from reading reviews and such, but finding actual summaries of such reviews are difficult. It even seems like periodicals like The Hollywood Reporter avoid summarizing and just quote a handful of reviews without taking the time to draw conclusions. Such summaries are more available in books that write about a film in retrospect, if that coverage is in enough detail, like with Panic Room#Critical reception. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I empathize with your concern. I've seen a few of these sentences myself and looked to see if there was any overall basis for them and often find none. I don't know if it is addressable in the MOS, though? WP:SYNTH is the policy to apply for such edits. One way to improve the situation is to use inline citations for such sentences in the lead section more and to use the "quote" parameter so it can be readily checked. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, we can always throw in a sentence like, "If you intend to provide details regarding a film's reception, please avoid synthesis; such statements should be taken directly from reliable sources." Not suggesting that we literally include this sentence; this is off-the-cuff. DonIago (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – I agree it's a growing concern, but summary statements have a long history of debate that I don't think will get settled anytime soon. I actually lean in favor of them in some situations, but they should definitely be used sparingly and ONLY when the consensus among film aggregators and other reliable sources is crystal clear. When mentioned in the lead, they should be accompanied by citations IMO. Adding something about this to the MOS? Good luck! --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
It wouldn't be the first uphill battle I took on. :p DonIago (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of these too. As DonIago has said I think they fail WP:SYNTH and in the worst cases WP:OR (and plenty of overreaching generalizations). Some of those lists that claim at some little praised for everything end up being wildly WP:UNDUE when a film received reviews that were at best mixed. I usually response that the LEDE should summarize what is actually in the Critical response section of the article, and editors should not be summarizing based on things that are not (yet) in the article. For example the summary should not be making claims that the score was widely praised when no one has bothered to add any information to that effect to the article, and in the case of Marriage Story it was true and ultimately the score was Oscar nominated but no one had bothered to add anything to the article. The opening week of a film you can find articles that claim to summarize the a films critical consensus based on a handful of reviews, but only a few weeks later things can look less favorable. Hellboy was a particularly awful recent example.
So something reiterating the existing rules about WP:SYNTH and WP:LEDE in the context of film articles would be welcome. -- 109.78.221.22 (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with significant points raised by reviewers such as a singular stand out performance, but I've seen people add "praised for the music, director, cinematography, acting, etc, etc" which is ridiculous. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

What often happens is that someone adds a few key points that were praised [16] which were probably true (and even then it is risky to make early generalizations), but the Critical response section didn't say those things at the time. The early edits are usually made in good faith, and in more high profile articles the Critical response section eventually gets expanded, but that's the best case. In bad cases more and more minor things get added, and you end up with a grab bag of things that received "some praise" and then a misguided editor feels aggrieved, doesn't read the sentence in full and as a whole, and changes "some praise" to "critical acclaim" because the film overall might have been highly praised but not all those things on that list were critically acclaimed [17]. So I fully agree that highlighting a few key points is certainly good, or a singular performance is worthwhile, but people get distracted and it can easily sprawl into much more than a few, and not just the most significant points. -- 109.78.221.22 (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
There are probably films out there (the exception, not the rule) that are known for landmark examples of cinematography, acting, directing, music, special effects, etc. but these will be things that get identified in "long tail" sources, not the reviews that came immediately after the film was released but in the books and academic analysis in the years and decades that followed. The average work won't have that, but when you have these landmark films where this can be justified, those definitely should be called out into the lede. (The Matrix and its special effects, which is called out in its legacy section). --Masem (t) 22:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  • There's a requirement that the lead summarise the content. I agree that it's hard to summarise a bunch of subjective and wordy opinions into a sentence or two. Also, ironically, in the articles about less notable films, where reviews are going to be less precise and/or professional, the Reception section usually makes up a larger part of the article (as usually there isn't anything about production, casting etc.), so one could argue this onus to represent it in the lead is stronger here. Daß Wölf 19:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
That's where the slope gets slippery. When RT and MC agree, you can technically get away with carefully summarizing their findings in the lead. But to look at the handful of critics' comments listed in the Reception section and summarize them as overall critical reception presents a possible falsehood that hasn't been verified. It might be that 1 or 2 praised the visual effects or musical score, but does that mean as a whole across the spectrum of reviews those elements were praised? No, and that's when it becomes a problem. If RT and MC don't mention either in their summaries, then we really can't either in the lead without proper attribution to who said what. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

So, it's been a few days since there was any new activity here. My read of the above is that there is consensus that this is a concern. While I'll be the first to admit that a simple MoS edit probably won't address the problem, in that the editors making the problematic changes likely aren't reviewing or necessarily even aware of the MoS to begin with, I do think the MoS should at least make note of this problem. As such, I propose we make the following addition to the MoS. It can be added to WP:FILMLEAD. Off-the-cuff, I'd suggest this be added as a new paragraph at the end, but I'm not strongly invested in where exactly the text is added within that section.

When summarizing the reception of the film, any detail regarding the reception must either be directly cited to a source, or be clearly noted by multiple sources within the article. Care should be taken not to synthesize any summary of the film's reception. Unless the film has been critically acclaimed for multiple reasons, do not call undue attention to an aspect of its production. Rather, focus on the one or two aspects of the film for which it was most significantly recognized.

I realize there's a lot of somewhat vague language in that paragraph, but I'm hopeful that it gets the point across, and that in what I expect to be rare cases where there's debate over applying this text to an article, it can be worked out relatively amicably. Please let me know what you think! DonIago (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment: The first two sentences seem fine. The second two can be seen as contradictory, and also unhelpful (editors should never draw undue attention to anything!). I am not picking up clear advice from the last two sentences and suggest deletion or another go at the wording. MapReader (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The last two sentences are intended to explicate the shopping list problem where editors add everything that received any notice at all in the Reception section, but I'm amenable to removing or refactoring those if other editors concur with your concerns. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm actually more concerned by the earlier sentences rather than the latter. It's not clear whether you're suggesting it be cited in the lead itself, I'd be against that as it encourages cherry picking of views that might be undue, and also is generally frowned on for the lead unless it's controversial. Also, the lead is a summary of the article content; it's by nature combining the sourced content in the body so I think referring to synth in this context is a bit of a red herring (I completely understand the concerns, just not sure whether this addresses them as written). I'd prefer to focus more on improving the summary aspect: i.e. something more along the lines of "only aspects of a films reception that are clearly identified as recurring themes by sources cited within the article should be included in the lead." I know, that's still pretty awful, but I'm tired, maybe you get my point. Scribolt (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
My goal was to say that it must either be a) clearly drawn from sourced info in the article, or b) directly cited. For example, if a NYT article commented on how Film X has been often called the best-acted, best-produced film ever made, then a cite in the lead would be acceptable to me (though it would be a bit surprising that it wasn't in the Reception section). There's nothing prohibiting the lead from including citations, and of late I've sometimes done so to settle arguments over film genres. But maybe we should scrap (b)? What do other editors think? DonIago (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Regardless, ‘do not draw undue attention to something, unless...’, which is what you have effectively written, is sloppy wording that doesn’t merit being in an article, let alone the MoS! MapReader (talk)…

When summarizing the reception of the film, any detail regarding the reception must be clearly noted by multiple sources within the article. Care should be taken not to synthesize any summary of the film's reception. Focus on the one or two aspects of the film for which it was most significantly recognized.

Better? I'm amenable to losing the last sentence as well if editors believe that would be for the best, though I like that it specifically addresses the shopping list concern. DonIago (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Why not say: “A summary of a film’s reception within the lead section should reflect detail in the article that is already directly supported by multiple sources, and should be careful to avoid synthesis. Ideally, it should focus solely upon the one or two positive or negative aspects of the film that were most commonly highlighted by the critical reviews.” ? MapReader (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I think these two suggestions are better than the first proposal. I don't know about the end of the new proposals though that mention "one or two" aspects. Although that is my general guide, I think some people may use that as an excuse to include at least "one or two" things even when the main reception body doesn't contain them. I think keeping just the first half of the proposals may be better.
Regardless of the change to the MOS, I do not think it will have significant effect in practice. Most people who add to the lead reception summary are not experienced editors and likely have not read the policies much less style guidance (unlike many of those who watchlist this talk page, although I myself am not yet experienced). In my experience, the additions are usually not related to anything in the actual article body, and so WP:V covers those situations. For most other situations, I think WP:SYNTH and WP:DUE adequately cover the issues from a policy standpoint. I think making more explicit how those policies should be applied when summarizing the reception in the lead is useful, but I think we should keep it as concise as possible, as I think the more words we add, then the more those can potentially be used by a disruptive editor to justify their additions to the lead. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree that this may be an exercise in futility, and said as much in my initial message in this sub-section, but I still think it's worth clarifying the MoS; it will at least make it clear that this is a concern that has been discussed. How about changing the last sentence to "Only focus on aspects of the film that received significant recognition"? 'Significantly' is still a weasel word, but at least it seems commonsense that one reviewer mentioning the awesome acting isn't significant.
@MapReader: As other portions of the MoS use the definite article ("the" film) rather than the indefinite article ("a" film), I don't feel that I can support your wording in its current form. Your suggestion also, IMO, has longer and consequently less concise sentences. Maybe, factoring in Wally's concern: "Any summary of the film’s reception within the lead should reflect detail that is directly supported by multiple sources. Synthesis should be avoided. Only focus on aspects of the film that received significant recognition.”
Maybe, maybe, we could say 'consistent' rather than 'significant'? Would that resolve the weasel word concern, or does it pave the way for someone to say 'sure, 4/5 reviews mentioned the acting, but the fifth didn't...'?
Thank you both for your thoughts! DonIago (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
DonIago, your suggested change addresses my concern and I wouldn't have a problem with it, although I am much less experienced with MOS changes than others here. Thanks. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

As it's been five days without additional comment, I'll adjust the MoS accordingly. Thanks everyone! DonIago (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Been away for a while, but here are my thoughts. While it is a general improvement to specify the need for "multiple sources", that doesn't necessarily alleviate the problem, even for those who are closely reading this guideline. For example, say Rotten Tomatoes lists 80 reviews for a given film. Out of those, it wouldn't be hard to find two or three that praise a particular aspect that the vast majority either omit or disagree with. I can't then go on to say this aspect was praised by critics in the lead based on the presence of these multiple sources in the body. That would infer that a majority of critics praised that aspect. These are individual reviews that do not aggregate critical consensus. Yet a close reading of this new MOS addition would now give me the justification to do so.
A simple tweak might fix this. Here's one idea that also reduces this down to one sentence:
Any summary of the film's reception should avoid synthesis and reflect detail that is widely supported in published reviews.
Closes the loophole and seems more concise to me. The sources we should be leaning on need to draw conclusions across a spectrum of reviews, meaning we pull aspects from RT's summary statement or some other source that has done an adequate assessment. Obviously, we shouldn't be aggregating them ourselves, which "avoid synthesis" tells us. It also eliminates "Only focus on aspects of the film that received significant recognition". That point is implied by "widely supported in published reviews". --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I have no objections to this per se, but I don't think it's necessarily clear what "widely supported in published reviews" means. If a reception section has five reviews that all talk about the awesome acting in the film, I can see an editor arguing that that means it's "widely supported". Which is to say that if you feel that we should only cite detail noted by film aggregator review sites, then maybe we should just say that? DonIago (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in. Unfortunately we can't limit it to RT and MC. From time to time, other prominent publications (NY Times, LA Times, USA Today, etc.) will do an assessment of their own as well, and I believe those should be allowed. In fact, quite a few summary statements I've come across cite a source like that. We would have to spend a paragraph covering the possibilities, but I don't think that's a productive use of real estate. We have to trust that "avoid synthesis" will do that in a nutshell.
As for "widely supported in published reviews" vs "directly supported in multiple sources", I think there's always going to be some level of ambiguity no matter how it's stated. However, it seems like the loophole is smaller in this proposed tweak. If it is "widely supported", then just a handful of sources out of many can't possibly qualify. Some source doing an assessment is needed at that point. In the current wording, a handful of sources does qualify, so the loophole is bigger. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. Again, I have no objections at this time. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

wallyfromdilbert: There's a reason I went with "reviews" over "sources" in the recent change. Both are technically correct, but "reviews" is more specific. Yes, we want sources that aggregate film reviews for us to avoid SYNTH, but that's not what's being referred to here. We're talking about the things being aggregated which are film reviews. We are saying that any aspect that ends up in a lead summary statement must have widespread support from critics, so we're specifically talking about their reviews. The fact that we lean on film aggregators and other reliable sources to do this assessment doesn't change where the widespread support needs to be. Hope that helps clarify. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I still don't think "reviews" is appropriate. For example, if a film's reception was notable for some sort of public reaction, that would not necessarily involved published reviews at all. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Not sure I follow. Is there an example of this out there, or can you concoct one to demonstrate? --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
A film that had a noteworthy public reaction beyond published critical reviews, such as any film with significant public controversy, e.g., The Birth of a Nation? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
We could write "Any summary of the film's critical reception" and keep "reviews"? I think it is a separate conversation to talk about reception from people other than film critics. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I think that suggestion is great. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Done. It should be a rare occurrence to see non-critical reception mentioned in the lead, but the additional clarification can't hurt. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This should be revised to explain how to properly describe a release and a premiere

I'm noticing odd patterns in film articles all over Wikipedia. It looks like several editors actively working on film articles don't follow the popular entertainment press or the trade press very closely and don't understand how to write about films.

Certain editors are writing "the film had its premiere on [date]" or "the film had a limited release on [date]." That's just weird and wrong. People who actually write for a living (and pay attention to good grammar because it's their job) write "the film premiered on [date]" or "the film opened in limited release on [date]." I'm going to start thinking about where to put this information into this part of the MoS. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you think it's wrong just for films, or in general (including television, theatre, etc.)? El Millo (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

MPAA Ratings

I'm just asking for clarification to see if I read WP:FILMRATING correctly. Confirmations of MPAA ratings, like this, can't be added at all? I felt it was notable to add it to cover all aspects of the film's release, including when the film was given its rating classification. It's an American production, so I felt it was appropriate to restrict the rating to the film's country of origin. Armegon (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ratings are only to be added when particularly relevant. El Millo (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I wouldn't say that they can't be added at all. It's more about including ratings if there is something noteworthy about the rating beyond merely announcing that one was determined. The guideline exists because while this is the English Wikipedia, there has been a US-centric slant to reporting the ratings, which were also determined to be indiscriminate until indicated otherwise. Examples of MPAA ratings having background context would be Panic Room#Theatrical run and Hancock (film)#Marketing. Otherwise, like marketing, if it's just a standard announcement, it isn't considered noteworthy. Other examples of rating coverage would be if a film was going to be potentially R versus PG-13 (or the same kind of contention in other countries). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, in the case of confirmations, I think they should only be sourceable if complementing content. Like with my Panic Room example, Fincher's refusal to do PG-13 references a book's page, but it didn't actually state that it was an R rating, so I referenced the MPA's website for that. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Some people, such as Clive Barker, have had public disagreements with the MPAA. Barker's work pushes boundaries, and he has been outspoken in his criticism of censorship attempts. Catherine Breillat, David Cronenberg, and Ruggero Deodato are several others that one could probably write a well-sourced paragraph about. Film ratings are not forbidden; they just have to say something worthwhile beyond reporting the rating itself. An example would a controversy over the rating. Social issue films sometimes end up with a restrictive rating because they don't pull their punches, and the press will occasionally highlight this issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The section on film releases should be expanded to explain how to properly discuss a film premiere

One thing that has been irritating me for about two years is that a few editors (such as User:Cinemacriterion) who generally make decent edits to film articles in most other contexts don't know how to properly describe a film premiere.

After the film is released, they have a really bad habit of writing "It had its premiere..."

If you look at the way professionals write in Entertainment Weekly (for the general public) or The Hollywood Reporter (a trade publication for entertainment professionals), that phrasing is very rare because it sounds so amateurish. The traditional usages are to write that "the film's premiere was held..." or "the film's world premiere took place..." or "the film premiered..." or "the film's premiere on [date]" or "[director name] premiered [his/her] film on [date] in [location]."

Any objections before I expand the section on film releases to deal with this? --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it warrants updating MOS:FILM. I agree that it's simply bad writing, but it should be corrected on sight. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Coolcaesar: you've already started a discussion about this on #This should be revised to explain how to properly describe a release and a premiere, a section slightly above this one. As soon as you said what you said, I started looking for sources that used the phrasing you considered amateurish and found some decent amount of use of it, especially in The New York Times, but hardly referring to films, instead referring mostly to theater plays. That drove me to ask you: Do you think [the wording is] wrong just for films, or in general (including television, theatre, etc.)?, a question you haven't answered. El Millo (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I completely forgot I already raised the question on this talk page in a slightly different form about a month ago. I've been concentrating on rewriting the article on product liability. Thank you for the reminder.
I did not see your response until now. I do not have an opinion about that usage in the theatre context because I rarely pay attention to theatre reviews. But it is definitely inappropriate for films, as well as television (since thanks to HBO, Amazon, and Netflix, season premieres have become as elaborate as film premieres). --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Coolcaesar: Hello! I just want to make clear, I don't mean to irritate you and like to update articles to keep them updated and relevant to what is going on with such film or television show, and have always just gone by it "It premiered at.... or It also screened at..." or "It was released on..." I don't mean to do it to make articles look bad and or make them look "amateurish". I will based on your suggestion begin to use "The film premiered on" or "The film's world premiere was held at" etc. Cinemacriterion (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Dispute about production crew credits

I and User:Armegon are having a dispute re. Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film). We don't include secondary crew such as production designer, costume designer, casting director, etc., which is borne out by pretty much every film article (with the exception of a few that have snuck through), but Armegon is not convinced. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm citing WP:OTHER here. Just cuz some articles follow similar patterns, doesn't mean it has precedential value. There is no rule/guideline forbidding the inclusion of production credits in the article body. It's been there since the article's inception and there has been no dispute on the talk page since then. The production credits are notable for citing the additional parties who were essential in making the film that the infobox doesn't cover. Also, the production credits are brief and small enough that it doesn't becoming far too stretched or distracting. Armegon (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Some? Almost all is more like it. This isn't IMDb, and the casting director of Godzilla, for example, has received zero notice (at least not for this film). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Again, if you can show me a rule/guideline that forbids the inclusion of production credits in the body, I would remove it myself. Armegon (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
They shouldn't be included unless there's something notable to say about those aspects of the film in particular. El Millo (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
There is no guideline against including crew credits. If anything, it is appropriate to have a "Crew" section. Think of it this way -- the film infobox's "Starring" parameter is rarely all-defining; it is more often a shorter version of the "Cast" section. The infobox's multiple crew credits aren't all-defining either, so there can be a "Crew" section or some kind of crew list within the article body itself. However, I do lean more toward such crew lists if there is a good number of blue-linked names to allow further navigation. And it helps to have a rule of thumb to list additional crew members to have a cutoff somewhere (like we would try to have with cast lists). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 01:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so they should be people notable enough to have their own article, or there has to be something notable about their specific work in the film. El Millo (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Keep in mind, those with notable contributions won't always have an article, and those with little to no contributions may have an article. I cited and used the press release as a rule of thumb. If these people were notable enough to be named in press releases then they were notable enough to be listed in the production credit subsection. Armegon (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I know, that's why I said or. In the case someone might want to create a "Crew" section with a list format similar to a Cast section, I think they shouldn't do so unless at least most of the crew are blue-linked. Those whose work on the specific film has been covered by reliable sources to the point of notability, whether blue-linked or not, can –and probably should– be mentioned in the Production section of the article. El Millo (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Erik and Armegon, you have it backwards. There is a listing of both "primary" and "secondary content" in the MOS. Nothing about production crew credits (or even mentions) anywhere, not even in the Production section. Very, very, very rarely are they noticed by the media, and this isn't one of those exceptions. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
What I was referring to was, if there's significant coverage on say, the sound design, or the production design, of a film, then the sound designer and the production designer, respectively, should be mentioned along with the relevant information. That would most likely be included within the Production section. El Millo (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@Clarityfiend: you're misinterpreting those listings. You even said it yourself "Nothing about production crew credits (or even mentions) anywhere," so it clearly doesn't forbid anyone from adding them either. Like Erik and I illustrated, there is no rule/guideline forbidding the inclusion of production crews/credits and you have failed to prove otherwise. As for what Facu-el Millo stated, I'm all for revising the subsection to only include relevant credits. We can do without most of the executive producers, save Yoshimitso Banno. Armegon (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. The MOS isn't going to cover everything. There's nothing about "Political commentary" or "Social commentary" either, but that doesn't mean such sections are not allowed to exist. When it comes to including crew credits, there's nothing inherently detrimental in doing that in general. The caution to take is where to draw the line in listing names so it does not get indiscriminate, just like with cast lists. Remember that the infobox does not have any parameters for some crew roles that win awards, so a crew list in the article body is a way to be more comprehensive. Of course crew roles could also be discussed in running prose, but that does not mean embedded lists are disallowed. After all, we often list cast members and sometimes have running prose on each bullet, and sometimes we have both the list and the prose in separate parts of the section. Overall, the flexibility of listing additional crew members should be permissible. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
"Political" or "social commentary" presumably have sources. Crews almost always don't. The fact that not even the most famous and scrutinized films have crew credit listings should have clued you in. So why should something like Godzilla be a trendsetter? When someone like Edith Head does something out of the ordinary, as in Vertigo (film)#Costume design, then they can and should be mentioned individually, but crews as a whole shouldn't.
It's not explicitly banned is a pretty lame argument. Nobody's told me not to juggle chain saws on a unicycle either. Doesn't mean it's a good idea. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
That's a far more lamer excuse. Just because you don't think it's a good idea doesn't mean it should be disqualified. It violates WP:JDL. If you wanna juggle chainsaws, that's 100% on you. No one's forcing you. You claim crews don't always have sources. If lack of sources are the issue then there really is no problem. The crew lists on the Godzilla articles are supported by more than one reliable source. If notability is an issue, then editors can discuss in talk pages which filmmakers made the most essential contributions to merit acknowledgement. Armegon (talk) 05:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
How essential their contributions were is not to be determined by editors in talk pages, it is to be determined by the wealth of coverage of their work by reliable sources. When it comes to this article in particular, production designer Scott Chambliss, visual effects supervisor Guillaume Rocheron, and effects and creature designer Tom Woodruff Jr. are mentioned in prose, as their work in this film is of particular relevance, whereas costume designer Louise Mingenbach isn't mentioned in prose, because her work wasn't of particular relevance in comparison to other films. In most films, as in this one, these differences in relevance will be quite obvious, as production design and visual effects are core to the depiction of Godzilla and other monsters, while costume design is mostly just regular clothes for the human characters. As for the executive producers, they are usually mentioned if quoted in the Production section or something like that, but rarely or ever have I seen EPs be mentioned just for the sake of mentioning them, like a director, a producer, or a screenwriter is mentioned. In this case, only one executive producer is noteworthy, Yoshimitsu Banno, given that the film is dedicated to him due to his demise. El Millo (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Is Adjusting for Inflation Original Research?

I have some concerns regarding box office inflation for the Box office section of the Godzilla '54 article. Most of the edits and sources cited seem to walk a razor's edge of being Synthesis since none of them outright confirm that the film would've earned this or that after inflation, etc. The sources redirect to a page that requires the reader to do the math on their own. I have very little knowledge when it comes to calculating and sourcing inflation for a film article. Hence why I brought the matter here. It could be nothing but I want to make sure if there's any encyclopedic wrongdoing here. Armegon (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, adjusting for inflation is original research.24.50.181.111 (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Inflation adjustment is acceptable under WP:CALC (Wikipedia even has a variety of inflation templates at {{Inflation}}). However, I would say the calculations at the Godzilla article constitute original research. What the editor of that section appears to do is tot up the number of admissions (fair enough) and then invents an equivalent modern day gross at today's prices (original research). This is not inflation adjustment! The reason this is a bad idea is that admissions can sometimes be charged at different prices (evening/matinee performances, children discounts and 3D and roadshow surcharges) and you lose that link using this methodology. Betty Logan (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Another problem is that it's guess work. Boxoffice sites tend to adjust for inflation by using ticket prices but that only works when you're dealing with domestic grosses. It's almost impossible to figure it out internationally since prices vary from country to country. Furthermore even Boxofficemojo (or IMDB) states it isn't an exact science.

https://help.imdb.com/article/imdbpro/industry-research/box-office-mojo-by-imdbpro-faq/GCWTV4MQKGWRAUAP#inflation as it states

Adjusting for ticket price inflation is not an exact science and should be used for a general idea of what a movie might have made if released in a different year, assuming it sold the same number of tickets.

Since these figures are based on average ticket prices they cannot take into effect other factors that may affect a movie's overall popularity and success. Such factors include but are not limited to: increases or decreases in the population, the total number of movies in the marketplace at a given time, economic conditions that may help or hurt the entertainment industry as a whole (e.g. wars or depressions), the relative price of a movie ticket to other commodities in a given year, competition with other related media such as the invention and advancements of television, home entertainment, streaming media, etc. Overall, this method best compares "apples to apples" when examining the history of box office earnings.

That's why to me it's original research.24.50.181.111 (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows simple mathematical calculations under WP:CALC, which would normally include the inflation of monetary figures. If a reliable source supplies a different figure, by all means use that one. Binksternet (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I cannot see how this calculation would come under CALC, which refers to simple calculations where there is consensus that the result is obvious. The mere fact of this discussion establishes that this ain’t necessarily so. MapReader (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree. You can state an obvious assertion using the {{Inflation}} template, such as:
checkY – "Film X grossed $100 million in 1980, equivalent to $369.8 million in 2023"
But you can't apply a formula or method on that result without citing a source that supports it. So this wouldn't fly:
☒N – "Film X grossed $100 million in 1980, equivalent to $369.8 million in 2023 ($520 million when adjusted for ticket price inflation)"
That's my take anyway. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Concur with User:GoneIn60. It's easy to do a quick calculation to adjust for inflation based on the U.S. Consumer Price Index. But when you start adjusting specifically on ticket prices, it's such a mess because there are too many variables that go into those prices and the various strengths of those variables have fluctuated like crazy over the decades and they also vary depending upon geography. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Year of A Quiet Place Part II

There's a discussion at Talk:A Quiet Place Part II#2020 or 2021? that may be of interest to watchers of this page. El Millo (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

What Constitutes as a re-release?

I have another issue from the Godzilla '54 article I'd like to address. Last month, there was an issue regarding what constitutes as a "re-release" for a film, see here. In 1955, the '54 Japanese cut of the film was screened in theaters found only in Japanese neighborhoods in the U.S., not nationwide. In 1982, the Japanese cut was screened in film festivals in New York and Chicago, again not nationwide. It wasn't until 2004 when the Japanese cut received a nationwide, albeit limited, theatrical release in the U.S. This is where the confusion arises. Would the 2004 release be considered a re-release? The 2004 release is often considered to be the Japanese cut's debut in the U.S., see here, here, and see the 2004 trailer here. Armegon (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I think if you get caught up in the semantics then it invariably comes down to a point of view, and that is difficult to resolve on Wikipedia. I think there is a simple test you can apply though: if the grosses generated by the new cut/edit are aggregated into the lifetime box-office total for the film then sources would appear to regard the film as a re-release. For example, the Star Wars special editions are technically regarded as re-releases despite the new footage. There is nothing to prevent you adding context to the release if you feel it would benefit the reader. Betty Logan (talk) 05:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
It seems that Box Office Mojo regards the 2004 release as the original U.S. release for the Japanese cut and the 2014 release as a re-release, see here. Armegon (talk) 06:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

executive producers

Is it appropriate to add executive producers to film articles? A user is very keen to add Ron Howard as a producer of Vibes (film). I removed him from the infobox Producer field since the src showed he was an executive producer. The user then added him to the article's Production section [18] but has not answered my question of why we should mention Howard and not the co-producer or either of the associate producers. Meters (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

They shouldn't be added unless it's particularly notable for some reason. They can be mentioned for actions or things they said, as part of the production section for example. But mentioning it for the sake of doing it doesn't seem right. El Millo (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
User has now answered... "Because he's really really famous. If the only way to let the world know the truth about Ron Howard's association with Vibes is to also include the other people's names, then I will happily add them in. " pretty much sums it up. Meters (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run - 2020 or 2021?

I'm more familiar with TV articles rather than movie articles, so thought I'd ask here- especially with how crazy the release of this movie is.

Similarly to the discussion linked above for A Quiet Place Part II, I'm wondering what the new SpongeBob movie should be listed as- 2020 or 2021?... The film is definitely primarily a U.S. film, but the film released in theaters in Canada on August 14, and will release in the U.S. next year (premium VOD and CBS All Access). I know at WP:FILMYEAR it says, "List films by their earliest release date, whether it be at a film festival, a world premiere, a public release, or the release in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings."- but would we still be going by the earliest release (Canada) or the country that produced it (U.S.)? And which year should be listed in actors' filmography tables?... Magitroopa (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It this case the Canadian release counts as the first public release i.e. 2020. Betty Logan (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic in Reception sections

(I looked back three years in the archives; while RT/MC were discussed, as far as I could see it was only technical matters).

It's time to put an end to the way RT and MC is taking over our Reception sections. Movie after movie having nothing else but the cookie-cutter phrasings from RT and MC. We're close to the stage where we could build a bot that writes those Reception sections for us, automatically harvesting RT and MC for updated data.

Can't you see how useless that is? I understand our current situation is a compromise, avoiding tough discussions on which sources to include in order to summarize a movie's reception. I understand we are where we are because editors have concluded that relying on the characterizations of RP/MC is the only way to avoid fighting. In other words, we have given up Wikipedia's mission, at least for movie Reception sections!

Repeating RT percentages and MC phrases makes the Reception sections so damn useless. Our articles already link directly to both sites, why spend all this effort mechanically parroting the info on their sites. (And don't get me started on the number of edits to obsessively update our articles each and every time a percentage changes by 0.1...) And the information "we" provide? "The reception of this movie was "87%". Huh? Just about the only use for this is to avoid us editors having to reach a consensus! And the wordings on MC - such as "generally favorable reviews" or "mixed or average reviews"? Deliberately worded to avoid controversy, I say. Engineered to avoid angering film companies. It's so washed-out, fence-sitting and "safe". We're better than that, people!

Can we please have a discussion on how we get back to building encyclopedic value, by having human-curated selections of critics, ideally with poignant quotes, also selected by humans. Can we please get back to Wikipedia clearly telling readers which movies were loved by critics, and which ones were savaged by them! The articles are to be written by us editors. The selection of critics (and how that summarizes a film's reception) is to be made by us editors.

I suggest, at the very least, we specify in our policy that a Reception section should always be considered incomplete when relying solely on Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. (Editors should always be strongly encouraged to write Reception sections that rely on human-curated critic sections first, and only using the MC/RT summaries last.)

Thank you for reading, CapnZapp (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're ranting about, but film receptions are based on what reliable sources say. If you want to post your own personal analysis of whether a film was beloved or hated, you can start a blog. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with RT and MC per se, but I have a problem with the cookie-cutter wording that a handful of editors perpetuate. They find it the "best" wording and perpetuate it everywhere. I've had to deal with numerous overwrites and find it a violation of WP:OWN on a wide scale.
However, I disagree that we use them "to avoid fighting". We simply cannot define the overall critical reception based on individual reviews. That overall reception can be reflected at minimum through RT and MC. I do think the wording can be woven in better. I've introduced sections with detailed commentary per MOS:FILM#Critical response, and the cookie-cutter editors move RT and MC wording first because that's what they do. I find it a failure to comprehend that not all readers are going to be neck-deep in film-related knowledge, so the cookie-cutter wording assumes specialist knowledge and is not particularly enduring wording either, compared to something more direct like, "Critics panned the film due to the weak character development." RT and MC can be used as starting points -- I use MC's distribution to sample reviews accordingly, for example.
However, I don't think anyone thinks that such sections are complete when it's only RT and MC, though. It's harder work to sample critics, especially when some can make many relevant points throughout, so it's easier to just plug in RT and MC. The overarching problem is that the cookie-cutter editors have the time and energy to do this low-level work and constantly make rounds to update numbers and restore "their" language if they see it's different. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
The advantage of RT/MC is in providing some actual data on the balance of reviews of a film. It seems fruitless to try and reinvent this wheel? The key to a good reception section is then to illustrate this with a carefully chosen set of quotations from a balanced and varied set of reviews, to bring out the key aspects that critics liked and disliked. There are some well written such sections about that can serve as models. While the OP is right that beginning every reception section with an RT extract is somewhat repetitive, it is at least better than beginning every such section with “This film received widespread critical acclaim” (a few editors seem to spend much of their time mechanically pasting this in everywhere), which is both repetitive and formulaic and used so often that it conveys little useful information. MapReader (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Aggregators sure have their shortcomings, and I think they are overused. They don't serve non-English films well (a small number of American/British reviews for a Chinese film is simply not representative), and they are next to useless for classic films (especially if critical opinion has evolved over time). However, for a recent English-language release they generally serve their purpose. I think a lot of the backlash generally comes from this insistence of shoving them into every film article. Does a Rotten Tomato score really contribute anything to our coverage of how Citizen Kane was received? Aggregators have their place but they need to be used more judiciously IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Review aggregators have value for obvious reasons and excluding them would be ridiculous. Toa Nidhiki05 17:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Don't misrepresent my proposal, User:Toa Nidhiki05. I did not suggest we exclude them. I suggest we encourage editors not to settle for Reception sections with only aggregated content. CapnZapp (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
As for the "I don't think anyone thinks that such sections are complete when it's only RT and MC" comment - not sure how that helps. Lots of Film articles have only MC/RT content. There is nothing in our MOS to suggest this isn't perfectly adequate. That's what I'm disagreeing with. We should make your sentiment more clear, User:Erik - that is, we should go from not saying anything to saying something. CapnZapp (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
"objective" data on film reviews is way overrated, User:MapReader. CapnZapp (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
We know Lots of Film articles have only MC/RT content, but I doubt anyone thinks that a Critical response section with just that is good enough. It wouldn't hurt to include in the MoS, but I don't know if there's a need for it. El Millo (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
That's the question. Personally, I get agitated whenever I see such a reception section. It feels degrading as a Wikipedia contributor to have what is essentially auto-generated content as our only offering. Are we a quality encyclopedia, or are we essentially no better than the dozens of copycat sites that just "lift" info from elsewhere and then present the regurgitated content as its own? (Yes, I know we're serious about attribution, but still) CapnZapp (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Personally I want us to be able to simply delete Reception sections with only "empty calories" (assuming we link to RT/MC which we often do). Readers interested in aggregate scores can and should go to aggregate sites! Wikipedia should not be merely a convenient one-stop collection of the content created by others Having RT/MC data as a complement to manually curated quotes and summaries from individually selected film critics is absolutely fine, but in my opinion should never be accepted as a substitute. And the only way to not settle for mediocrity is to encourage (not force, but allow) users to simply delete the section, since this hopefully gets them to instead add a manually selected quote instead.
But I realize y'all might not be with me on that point, and so my actual proposal remains the above (=add words to encourage editors not to settle for Reception sections with only aggregated content) CapnZapp (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
While the info from review aggregators isn't nearly enough on its own, it's still better than not having a reception section at all. It's still better than nothing, and they are a good place to find actual reviews to develop the section properly. El Millo (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I would like to argue that this function is best served by our MC/RT links, and that... no, having our editors regurgitate what MC/RT say just to save the reader the trip to the actual sites is not what we should be doing. There's something highly dysfunctional about the continuous activity to manually mirror RT scores and MC categorization! (If anything that work should be handled by a template that updates automatically! The fact those sites might object to us mechanically skimming their data should tell us something...!) CapnZapp (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Nevertheless, let's not get bogged down in the "better than nothing" discussion. I'm making a proposal here and saying "better than nothing" is actually not an answer to that :-) Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, some of the editors can help by starting to avoid writing On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of X, with an average rating of Y. The website's critical consensus reads, "Z". There's also Template:Film and game ratings: we can show the aggregate and review scores instead of mentioning all of them in text. Just like we do with games. nyxærös 10:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
That's an excellent idea. CapnZapp (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
No that's a terrible idea, prose is always better than tables. Readers expect to read the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores on wikipedia and not be pushed off to an external link. By the way I can't access rotten tomatoes at all on my ipad2 due to outdated browser and there will be many readers with the same problem. Having a standardised review summary from RT and/or Metacritic is preferable to having personal opinions disguised as original research. This happens in a lot of Indian film articles where there are no reviews on rotten tomatoes and the film is declared as critically acclaimed on the back of one review that gave it three stars out of five. It is also simpler and easier to have a standardised reception section that begins with the meta data and then gives representative summaries of individual reviews. If you plan to empty reception sections you are in for a lot of edit warring. This is a problem that does not exist, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Atlantic306. El Millo (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
A better solution to that would be to outlaw the words ‘critically acclaimed’ from all WP film articles as being essentially meaningless padding ;) MapReader (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Finally, someone that comes to the defense of the current practice. Yes, User:Atlantic306, the notion that Having a standardised review summary from RT and/or Metacritic is preferable to having personal opinions disguised as original research is exactly what I am getting at. It is deeply problematic on several fronts. By the far the most important point is why would we ever want to wrench away editorial control away from our editors? That erodes the core of what Wikipedia is! The related notion, the view that contributions are "personal opinions disguised as original research", must be discussed, and possibly at a higher level than here. Wikipedia cannot and will not survive if this notion becomes entrenched. Or rather, contributions are always at some level personal opinion, only that the summarized personal opinions of many editors are called "quality consensus" and is why Wikipedia is a top-10 www site. But I disgress...

The other issues pale in the comparison. That is questions such as "why do we manually do the work a computer program could do better?" Something's wrong when our site ask its users to mechanically construct thousands and thousands of copies of sentences such as On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 96% based on 349 reviews, with an average rating of 8.98/10. and On Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out based on reviews, the film has a weighted average score of 96 out of 100, based on 49 critics, indicating "universal acclaim" (sauce) and then obsessively - and manually - update them, in some cases daily, and most disturbingly, present this first, as if it is more valuable than our own human-curated content. It is not. It is not objective raw data generously provided for free to everybody by the United Nations. These sites are owned by the movie industry (CBS and NBC Warner respectively), and their content is carefully calibrated to avoid deterring movie-goers (for economically important movies). Aggregated data is fine as a complement to an otherwise quality Reception section, but should never be accepted as a substitute for content created and delivered by Wikipedia itself.

Thank you for providing the counterpoint this discussion needed, Atlantic306. Opinions welcome.

PS. Please remember that at under no circumstances do I suggest we should ban RT or MC from our site. My suggestion remains have the MoS encourage editors not to settle for Reception sections with only aggregated content. DS. CapnZapp (talk) 09:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, five days later. Here are the responses so far as far as I can see.
NinjaRobotPirate: "I'm not sure exactly what you're ranting about". I will go ahead and assume you will have informed yourself by now, and take your lack of continued participation as not-an-objection.
MapReader: If I squint your response can be seen as weak support. Feel free to correct me otherwise.
Erik: you never seem to oppose my suggestion. Am I correct in this?
Betty Logan: again, thanks, but no direct yea or nay reply.
Toa Nidhiki05: "Review aggregators have value for obvious reasons and excluding them would be ridiculous." Not what's under discussion.
El Millo: "It wouldn't hurt to include in the MoS, but I don't know if there's a need for it." I'd say that's non-committal.
nyxærös: while you made a suggestion of your own, you didn't respond to mine.
Atlantic306: if you were responding to my suggestion, as opposed to things I didn't suggest, I missed it.

@NinjaRobotPirate, MapReader, Erik, Betty Logan, Toa Nidhiki05, Facu-el Millo, Nyxaros, and Atlantic306:: If there's nothing more, I'll go ahead and implement soonish. CapnZapp (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

No, there is absolutely no consensus for you to implement anything. If you do, I'll revert it. Your conspriacy theory about review sites being rigged to favor movies is frankly ludicrous and discredits your entire argument. Toa Nidhiki05 19:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Toa Nidhiki05. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Yup. El Millo (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
To [[User:Toa Nidhiki05}} (and friends): So far you have made two replies (to my knowledge): Review aggregators have value for obvious reasons and excluding them would be ridiculous, and the immediately above. Neither addresses the issue and neither says anything regarding my suggestion specifically. You're not referring to arguments made by others either. And could you please stick to the subject? I'm not suggesting we exclude the aggregators (I even explicitly write I don't think there's consensus for that). And please don't make it personal. If you have objections to my suggestion, please write them down so we can move forward in a constructive fashion. Just "No" is neither compelling nor constructive. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 09:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Mentioning something you said (I quote: "These sites are owned by the movie industry... and their content is carefully calibrated to avoid deterring movie-goers...") as being ridiculous and discrediting is not a personal attack. Toa Nidhiki05 13:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
While I relate to the frustrations of how critical-reception sections often reference only RT and MC, I am not seeing a need to insert language about not settling for RT and MC. Such sections are not seen as complete. If an article reached GA status without more than RT and MC, I'd be concerned. Also, I'd be fine with adding templates to encourage expansions of such sections, but simply put, RT and MC are low-hanging fruit to be plucked and put into Wikipedia articles. If anything is to be added, I would support language to put prose-based summaries ahead of RT and MC where such summaries exist. In other words, "Critics praised the film," properly referenced, should come before, "Rotten Tomatoes gave the film a 98% rating." Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd support a template creation indicating the article should feature reviewers thoughts/reviews beyond just listing RT and MC. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Wouldn't an {{Expand section}} do the job? El Millo (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes it would. I wasn't sure if Erik had meant a reception-specific template. {{Expand section}} works fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Late comment but I'd like specifically object to the earlier suggestion that film articles should be encouraged to use Template:Film_and_game_ratings like game articles do, as this would be a step in the wrong direction because it fails WP:PROSE. (I think Erik has already said it well, a quality article (such one that has reached GA status) should have far more other information than RT and MC.) -- 109.79.172.238 (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

And yet another discussion about sources in the plot section

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#MOS:PLOTSOURCE and WP:PRIMARY. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That section was archived, so I'll respond here: The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations is really great and really needs to stay that way. The second we require our normal sourcing for plot summaries, the quality of the encyclopedia will drop dramatically. Why? Because retelling the plot, the whole plot, and nothing but the plot is something no reliable source does (except in special circumstances; some works get the attention of retroperspectives or study guides etc). The ability for an editor to simply write down, in their own words, what they have just seen or read, and have that stay on the page (assuming other editors recognize the plot of course), is something I consider one of Wikipedia's greatest values to the public. There simply is nowhere else to find a complete summary of a work that doesn't cut off the ending and does not shy away from revealing twists just to sell more copies. Thx CapnZapp (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
What we could and should do, however, is better enforce Plot sections to be complete. Lots of times editors paraphrase (or simply copy) the sales blurb for the movie or book, but that's a "plot synopsis" at best, and commercial baseness at worst. A section entitled Plot should reveal the whole film, including every (major) spoiler. But that's a discussion for another time... CapnZapp (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
You probably already know this (so I say it for anyone else reading more than you) but if you see an incomplete plot section you can always tag it with Template:More plot {{more plot}} -- 109.77.197.79 (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Box office and peak positions

There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:List of highest-grossing films#Requesting for editors to not constantly change the all-time, worldwide rankings, for individual years' top 10 highest grossing films on incorporating the consensus achieved here to the Manual of Style, which may be of interest to participants of this WikiProject. El Millo (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

RT / MC survey in Village Pump

There's an ongoing discussion in the Village Pump about the mass adding / removing of Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and IMDb links from External Links on film pages. Seems relevant with regard to this Manual of Style. -- LudaChrisKlein 14:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The External links section currently says:

"For example, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic can provide listings of more reviews than sampled in the article body. They can be included as external links instead of links to individual reviews."

Given the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Adding IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, and Metacritic to external links (wherever possible), I propose changing this. As one person pointed out in the above RfC, most pages about films already cite Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic in the reception section. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It is pure happenstance that the same link can serve two purposes: to be an inline citation for the aggregate score, and to be an external link providing access to many more reviews than the article body can have. If we want to be more specific about the EL application, in the case of Rotten Tomatoes, the EL can be more direct in having the link end with "/reviews", like with Enola Holmes here. With Metacritic, it can be "/critic_reviews" like here. Maybe we can get the RT and MC EL templates edited to do that, and append a description to define the purpose better, like "directory of reviews"? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The consensus at that VP discussion was in regard to "mass-adding" these to the external links section, not whether they can or should be added at all. IMDB was also lumped into the mix, but I think that's a separate beast altogether to take under consideration. I agree with Erik's point above that links to RT and MC can serve two purposes, which qualifies it as an exception outlined in WP:ELDUP. Perhaps there's room to tweak the template, but the question surrounding inclusion hasn't properly gauged consensus for or against at this point, and I imagine this isn't the first time that question has been asked. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Some articles list Rotten Tomatoes in the External links section but do not also list Metacritic even though it is available. I see no logic in listing one but not the other (when both are available). If Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are already used in the Critical response section it seems redundant to also repeat them in the External links section. Some editors seem to think it is worth making an exception to WP:ELDUP to allow for this duplication, and have interpreted Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#External_links as overriding WP:ELDUP and actively encouraging them to always include Rotten Tomatoes in the External links section (I saw it that guideline as permission that it could be included, not a requirement that it should or must be included, and I don't see it as overriding WP:ELDUP).
TLDR: Either Critical response or External links but not both please. -- 109.76.198.1 (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The distributor section of the infobox

Should the entity listed there be the one that initially distributed the film or should it be the current owner? For example, should films that were initially distributed by 20th Century Fox be updated to show Disney? Quick example here. I'd reverted a similar edit on another film, thinking it was incorrect, but now I'm not so sure. Disney's purchase of the Fox library means that this same question could arise on literally hundreds of articles, and of course, this is far from the only time such a things has happened. I looked through the page, but didn't see anything. Matt Deres (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Another example here. (You can see my previous revision as well). Matt Deres (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd say definitely not. This question is about relevance, and I think it relates to this discussion of "peak positions" at the box office. By the same logic that, for example, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone being the second-highest grossing film of all-time at the time of its release is more relevant that being in whatever position of the rank it currently is, the distributor of a film at the time of its release is more relevant than whoever bought the distribution rights however many years after it was released in order to put it on their streaming service or something like that. In the case of Futurama you mentioned, both distributors should be in the infobox if the show were to be still ongoing, with the time frame in which each was distributed the show.[n 1] However, as Futurama has already finished airing, the company that distributed the show during its entire run should be the one kept in the infobox. This is not to say that the change in distributors shouldn't be mentioned in the body of the article, it's just that it shouldn't be changed in the infobox. El Millo (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
This IP editor made a similar edit at The New Mutants (film). Per that film (and I'm going out on a limb for other films post Disney acquisition), Disney still uses the 20th Century Studios as the distributor for these films. That was the case with New Mutants which you can see by THR's review and the info at the bottom. But as Facu-el Millo said, if a distributor changed hands (ie the early MCU films from Paramount, to Disney), a note can be added next to the original distributor like is done at Iron Man (2008 film). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
We've had an RfC (whose outcome was unanimous) on this very topic here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 74#RfC on distributor of post-merger Fox films. Nardog (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both for the additional details. Since there was an RFC and it passed easily, could we add something to the MOS? If these edits are going to be reverted, it would be helpful to link to an explanation in the edit summary. These people are editing in good faith and will want an explanation. Maybe something along the lines of:

Distribution For films and television series no longer airing first-run shows, the distributor in the infobox should be the distributor at the time the material first aired. In cases where more than one distributor was involved in first-run episodes or films, they should all be included. In instances where ownership has changed hands, such as during an acquisition (example: Acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney), the details can be provided in the text of the article.

With a shortcut of WP:FILMDIST or similar. Sound okay? Matt Deres (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Check the |original network= parameter in the infobox of Brooklyn Nine-Nine, which was distributed by Fox from seasons 1–5, then moved to NBC from season 6 onwards as an example.

I think we need a section of this guideline explaining how to describe crew for Disney Animation and Pixar films

We are seeing a lot of problems all over WP with inexperienced and/or immature editors who do not understand the difference between a director and a co-director as those terms have been traditionally used at Disney Animation and Pixar under John Lasseter and Edwin Catmull. If you look at their interviews and published writings carefully, it's clear that at both studios, only a director has complete artistic authority (subject only to the right of the executive producer to pull them off the project) while the co-director merely supports the director's vision. I am proposing that this guideline have a section explaining that distinction and how it should be consistently observed on all articles for Disney Animation and Pixar films. What does everyone else think? --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Future and Legacy

Because there is no section on it, where should the "Future" and "Legacy" sections of an article go? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems like the end of the article body is the best place. If both exist, I'd probably do "Legacy" first and "Future" second. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Per Erik. Legacy is about the film you're discussion, Future is going off on a tangent about other things relating to the film. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Can we avoid having sections called Future entirely? WP:CRYSTAL
If a more specific section heading such as Sequel/Sequels could help discourage any of the speculation that ends up in "Future" sections, it would be a good thing. e.g. Actors saying they would like to have a job again sometime in the future is not very insightful (especially when they say these things while they are required to promote a film). -- 109.76.130.104 (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Some times there are various possible continuations (sequels, spin-offs, prequels, etc.) discussed in media outlets for a particular film, so in those cases "Future" is an appropriately short and broad term for such a section. El Millo (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The other problem with "Future" is that it can become outdated and end up with a lot of "Past" rather than "Future" information (see also WP:RELTIME). I understand what you mean and there plenty of articles have done it the way you suggest but ultimately spin-offs and prequels are still just types of sequels. There must be a more encyclopedic way to do it though.
Either way if anyone does decide to update the guidelines please make sure to caution editors to be aware of WP:CRYSTAL (don't speculate) and WP:RELTIME (don't write text in a way that will easily become outdated) when editing such sections whatever they may be called. -- 109.78.203.221 (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Discogs as an External link?

Could I please get other editors' thoughts on whether we should be adding Discogs to the External links section of film articles, as was done here? I can see an argument for including it for film soundtrack articles, but I'm less sold on doing it for articles about the films themselves. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:ELNO #1 essentially says ELs should be unique resources. If that film article had a "Soundtrack" section with the track listing and related companies shown, would there be any need for that EL? If not, it should be removed. (For what it's worth, RT, MC, and BOM EL uses are a little trickier.) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Erik; that seems like a reasonable argument. DonIago (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

A "BOMB" rating

Via WP:Huggle, I just saw this edit/argument by this IP. I don't think that specialized wording should be used.

Thoughts? I will alert WP:Film and the IP to this section. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the edit. That level of specificity is not necessary nor relevant. Plus, writing it in all caps is unencyclopedic, regardless of if it was written that way by the critic. El Millo (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

If use of Maltin's "BOMB" review on films is considered "unencyclopedic", can I assume then that the multitude of film articles I mentioned already (many of them writing "bomb" in all-caps, as does Maltin, who always intended it to be written that way in the context of his reviews) using this review style from Maltin will also have their reviews sanitized of the "bomb" rating enclosed? (Hardbodies 2, Bog (film), Dangerous Love (1988 film), They Saved Hitler's Brain, Anything Else, The Astro-Zombies, The Island (1980 film), Casper (film), to name several.)

Understand, I'm not trying to be difficult here, I'm just asking for clarification and transparency.159.2.25.179 (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The review itself is not unencyclopedic, but the precise qualifications he uses are irrelevant. Saying that he gave it a "BOMB" rating isn't necessary, and it isn't easier to understand than simply saying "he gave a negative review". What I considered unencyclopedic was writing BOMB in all caps, not using the review. El Millo (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Since the "bomb" rating has been used on numerous articles on wikipedia (beyond the many that I have already mentioned above), I feel that a precedent has clearly (and long ago) been set that mentioning a "bomb" rating (similar to Siskel and Ebert's "thumbs" up or down) is acceptable. Otherwise, wouldn't reverting my correction, but not any (to say nothing of all) of the others show a lack of transparency? 159.2.25.179 (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I had not personally come across any articles that used it, but the term being used in X amount of articles doesn't make it less ambiguous or more useful. The thumbs-up or down don't add anything either, but at least they aren't ambiguous. While virtually everyone would understand thumbs-up or thumbs-down, or a star-rating system for that matter, the word "bomb" alone isn't unambiguously negative. Not everyone knows that a "bomb" is jargon for a financially unsuccessful film, and simply calling it a negative review is far simpler and completely unambiguous. El Millo (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. I don't know if it's worth noting that I did describe "bomb" as being the lowest rating (as have multiple examples cited above) in an earlier revision but that it was also reverted. I am not being facetious, but I've honestly never heard of anyone who heard the word "bomb" in relation to the entertainment (not just film) industry and thought it was describing a positive thing. Financially, such films that do poorly money-wise are usually referred to more specifically as "box-office bombs." Beyond what is the widespread general understanding of the term, I can't do anymore than cite precedent.159.2.25.179 (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
describe "bomb" as being the lowest rating, well there you see all the extra effort that it takes to call it "bomb" instead of a negative review, and using parentheses like that is generally seen as a little sloppy. It's both clarity and simplicity we strive for. El Millo (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
It falls into the category of WP:JARGON, a bit like Metacritic's "universal acclaim". We should try and avoid descriptive terms and phrases unique to the publication where possible. Even something like a star-rating can be confusing unless the reader is familiar with the scale. Betty Logan (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
It may be jargon, but it's not unique to Maltin; he took it from the common expression of having "bombed" at something. Movies, and some other forms of entertainment, are said to "have bombed" if they fail to sell or catch on with the public. Matt Deres (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with User:El Millo on this one. The problem with the term "bomb" is that it's ambiguous because the word "bomb" in certain usages can carry a positive connotation. If you have to explain what Maltin is doing, that's too much. It's easier to say that he gave the film a negative review. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Or say "Maltin gave the film his lowest possible score, criticizing it for..." (still avoiding the word) Note that the BOMB rating should be described on Maltin's page still, just as Siskel & Ebert's thumbs up/down should be too, since those are notable elements of how they review films, but we don't need to use them on film pages themselves. --Masem (t) 16:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Referring to failures as "bombs" has a 60-year history, though I find it cute that people on WP want to play dumb about it or pretend that the meaning is ever ambiguous in anything resembling reasonable speech/text. Hell, our reviews sections tend to be split into "goods" versus "bads" anyway, so you'd really have to work to at it to get confused. What next? Paraphrasing quotes that include the word "cool" because some 120-year-old might think we were talking about temperature? With regards to Maltin's reviews, my opinion is that we should use the word, even if we have to explain it. He didn't give it a 0/4 rating or a thumbs down or whatever. His rating is "bomb" (or "BOMB" I guess). If you don't want his rating, don't include his review. Matt Deres (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
It's simply not necessary to use the name of the rating, and having it and explaining it is giving it undue weight. It's really that simple to just say it was "a negative review" and avoid the name of the rating altogether. El Millo (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
There is a specific meaning of a "bomb" for a film, that being a film that doesn't return anywhere close to its production cost (eg box-office bomb). Using Maltin's "bomb" rating is confusing if you are not familiar with Maltin, and its just easier to say "his lowest rating" which creates no confusion. --Masem (t) 23:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Concur with Masem. Even if Maltin was trying to allude to the term "box office bomb," his use of the term "bomb" is very confusing because box-office bombs are not necessarily bad films. It's possible for a film to bomb financially for other reasons besides quality, such as opening on the same day as a blockbuster film with a much larger advertising budget. For example, Disney Animation is famous for blaming the poor financial performance of both Winnie the Pooh and The Princess and the Frog on this issue. There are plenty of films with scores of over 80% or 90% on Rotten Tomatoes that bombed at the box office. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

See RfC on changing DEADNAME on crediting individuals for previously released works

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC: updating MOS:DEADNAME for how to credit individuals on previously released works
This potentially would affect a significant number of articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Tenet plot length

Please see Talk:Tenet_(film)#Expanded_Plot_and_a_new_Concepts_sections where the question is being discussed if the plot section of Tenet (film) can be longer than 700 words or not, and whether an edit that makes the plot section longer than 700 words should be reverted automatically as being in violation of WP:FILMPLOT. Debresser (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film yet and won't join the discussion directly, but nothing warrants automatic reversion. Furthermore, the 700-word count is arbitrary, and some films could easily have a relatively smaller count or a relatively higher count. It may be more appropriate to revert if the addition makes it substantially over 700 words. If it is like 750 or 800, it is not arduously encyclopedic. All involved editors would need to discuss the wording on the talk page. Remember, though, in the long run, some other editor is bound to rewrite the plot wholesale, nullifying today's efforts. So don't stress too much about getting the plot summary "right". Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Criteria for including actor awards?

Hey there I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. It raises the question of whether MOS:BIO should include clear criteria about what sort of awards to include in actor biographies. Please comment if you are interested! Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This discussion should be of interest to many regulars here, so if you have opinions one way or the other, please comment. WP:FILMCRITICLIST from MOS:FILM tells editors that awards should not be added to articles unless notability has been established for the award, i.e. there is an existing article about that award. It is not clear as to whether or not this includes articles about actors as well, which is why the discussion was opened at WikiProject Biography. This potentially could result in changes to MOS:FILM. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics

I removed the "Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics" section as seen here, with the edit summary, "Boldly removing 'Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics' subsection since this has not been an issue for years, mainly because RT hides the Top Critics score from the main page. Don't need this much of a breakdown. An alternative is to have one sentence about not including it." Since this is a big removal, I wanted to bring it up here in case anyone wants to restore it or re-include it more concisely. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Erik: I'm okay with the section removal, but maybe not the content fully. I think there's still merit in having the info stated somewhere, if not a whole subsection. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
That works for me. I added a sentence here. Thoughts on whether or not to explain it? I feel like we don't need to explain it since I have not seen it be an issue for years. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 23:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
No I think that's fine! No objections from me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is a problem anymore in practical terms because most editors have gotten used to it and know to only quote the main Rotten Tomatoes score (although unfortunately we do still get people who try to add the Rotten Tomatoes user scores to articles). The short warning proposed looks good and it seems like enough.

As far as I can remember from past discussions people had a few different objections but a big part (but not the only part) of the problem was that Rotten Tomatoes was showing different inconsistent versions of the page to different countries, making it difficult to WP:VERIFY especially the Top Critics score which caused a lot of annoying arguments (but again that wasn't the only issue, it's just the one I particularly remember).
If you have a proxy/vpn you can see that Rotten Tomatoes does still show different versions to different regions. For example, for a big film readers in the United States who click on Top Critics will see about ~60 critics from a total sample of about ~260 critics (and the Internet archive copy capture reflects this version of the Top Critics list.[19]) In countries outside the US, readers wont necessarily see that, and and if they click on Top Critics they might instead get an empty list and a message "No Top critics Reviews for Wonder Woman 1984".
I think the issue is essentially solved, but wanted to gently warn/remind people that Rotten Tomatoes does sometimes show different versions to different readers, but hopefully it wont cause problems again. -- 109.79.66.241 (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film/Archive_20&oldid=1140288818"