Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Verified Audience Rating from Rotten Tomatoes

Now that the audience score is verified on Rotten Tomatoes maybe they can be added to Reception section of movies that have come out since its inception, just like CinemaScore ratings? PCRON^talk 03:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll need to give it some thought, and I'm curious to see what other editors will think, but I'm not entirely convinced that this method of verifying that users saw films is especially reliable or unbiased, nor am I convinced that even verified audience ratings will be worthy of inclusion simply because they exist. DonIago (talk) 05:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The fact that we could not confirm whether they had seen the film is not the only reason that the scores were excluded. They may be able to prove that they have seen it (though I am also unsure how well this side of things works) but this is still random people writing whatever they want for whatever reason, and it is still unlikely to be representative of the entire audience. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

To me, it is a miniscule improvement and still not worthwhile compared to an approach like CinemaScore and PostTrak. I agree that it would still not represent the audience since it would be based on RT's predominant demographic, which is probably like IMDb's as well. With all the user review-bombing in recent years, it seems best to focus on methodologies that cannot be skewed or manipulated, like CinemaScore's random sampling of opening-weekend audiences. Furthermore, box-office numbers can often speak volumes of audience appreciation. Just look at Top Gun: Maverick and Spider-Man: No Way Home, especially with last weekend's performance. We shouldn't assume that there needs to be audience ratings to compare to critic ratings; they're different, especially the fact that audiences choose the movies they want to see. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

All good points. Perhaps it's time we stop citing RT's aggregate critics' ratings as well since those too are not immune from this problem. PCRON^talk 15:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

It is a systematic bias that professional critics may tend towards white males, but that's something we really can't fix - the critic "industry" needs to fix that. Until that point, we should not be dismissing the existing RT aggregate scores.

On the other other, user audience scores can be gamed, eg review bombing. Unless there is secondary discussion that describes the split between critics and audience, we should absolutely avoid that. Simply having a ticket to the show does not equate to an honest critical review. Masem (t) 15:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Only people who bought tickets through Fandango using the same email address they've registered at Rotten Tomatos and who have given Rotten Tomatos permission to match their email address against the email address used for the purchase. (RT add that AMC Theaters, Regal Cinemas, and Cinemark have signed up to participate, but at present RT are still only saying users can verify purchases through Fandango.) This excludes people who signed up to Rotten Tomatos through Facebook, or bought their ticket at the box office, or weren't the one who paid for the tickets, or are outside the US, or are unwilling to allow matching of accounts, or use different email addresses for RT and for purchases.[1] This combines another layer of self-selection with a new layer of systematic exclusion. RT's readers may find these reviews and figures interesting in some way or other but they're not representative and still open to skewing. NebY (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely not. User-review scores are always unreliable. Even this "verified" system is still subject to a slew of issues, not the least of which is self-election bias. Toa Nidhiki05 13:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I can just imagine the result. "Professional critics gave the film a score of 90% and called it a revolutionary turn for Superman films. Verified audiences gave the film a score of 40% and were outraged that Superman's cape was the wrong color." That said, I really don't care that much. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Now? Linked article is from 2019. This idea was discussed then and rejected too. WP:UGC user voted web polls are still not reliable sources WP:RS. -- 109.79.167.221 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• The verified audience score is more trustworthy than the non-verified score for sure, but has any deep analysis been done by secondary sources? What has been the trend in coverage of this score over time? Unlike the critics' score, I have yet to see any in-depth analysis of the verified audience score. Such analysis would help us better understand the pros and cons surrounding the score's accuracy and ability to represent viewership as a whole. I cannot recommend its inclusion without adequate research; its mere existence is not enough IMO. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Themes section order

Should the themes section really be placed in an article right after the Cast section and before the Production section? The placement in these guidelines seems to imply it should, but Themes would seem to me to fit better alongside (or as part of) the Reception section. (I noticed this placement of the section in the article for the film Nope (film) and it seemed strange to me, but the guidelines seem to suggest that's where this section should go.) -- 109.77.198.206 (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The lead section of MOS:FILM says, "There is no defined order of the sections..." I think "Themes" sections are uncommon but can be very defining sections for films that are open to interpretation. Essentially, they can be sections about what the film is "about" on a deeper level, whereas most post-release sections are more like responses to the film. So for placement, for me, I'm okay with "Themes" being placed early on. If anything, I think it's best right after "Plot" because while "Cast" can feel more immediately relevant since we "know" the actors, this fades over time. "Themes" is more enduring. Like would you care that much about the cast for a 1920s film? Or what the film has meant over the years? Just food for thought. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no defined order of the sections even if you have not defined it, you have implicitly suggested it and editors have followed. It would be helpful if the guideline provided more solid guidance. Can we even agree that a change would be helpful, are there editors who think the current implied placement is best? -- 109.77.198.206 (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I find that the point of the sentence is to ensure some flexibility with arranging content. There is likely general precedent for a chronological order for the making of the film and the response to it, but some other subtopics can "float" more than others. Like here, I only argue for "Themes" to be early on because Nope is what I'd consider a film open to interpretation, like Jordan Peele's previous films. I wouldn't think "Themes" to be placed as early for one of the Minions films. It could be that for historical films, an editor working on an article could think that "Historical accuracy" should be right after "Plot" as more pertinent than who was in the film or how it was made. To me, the idea is to avoid an enforced cookie-cutter approach and to allow for variations on a case-by-case basis. In the case of Nope, you could start a discussion on its talk page to determine a local consensus for placing that "Themes" section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Erik calls it "cookie-cutter" (and has done so many times) whereas I see it as a lack of consistency and unclear guidelines with too many exceptions that undermine the guidelines. I would go so far as to say that it might be a good thing for an encyclopedia to take a more clear and consistent approach, even if some might call that "cookie cutter". But I digress. Do editors think the current place of the Themes is the best place for it? Recommending sensible and consistent defaults is not contrary to allowing flexibility if it is actually needed. -- 109.77.198.206 (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I think we need a distinct MOS section about structuring article sections. We should not be trying to apply the order of MOS sections to article sections, especially since we have the sentence in MOS saying that there is no defined order. That said, I've reorganized the MOS sections to be alphabetical so there is no more confusion on this part. While there is not an order of article sections to explicitly define, we can establish some pointers, like having the "Plot" section first, or having reviews and box office content after "Production". But other subtopics can "float" depending on the subject matter. Should we start a separate discussion about this? I disagree that we have to be exactly the same across all articles. The table of contents is easy to read for those who want to find the subtopic of interest. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Looking at MOS:LAYOUT, the "Specialized layout" section says, "Certain topics have Manual of Style pages that include layout advice..." and names WP:FILM. So perhaps we can retire the "no defined order" sentence as too hardline, literally create a "Layout advice" section, and come up with advisory points so it is not such an either/or approach (to have no order dictated versus a complete order dictated). Some advisory points like "Plot" first may be universally accepted, while some others may depend on context. Thoughts on doing that? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I support a discussion about putting a recommended order of sections in the MOS. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Propaganda coverage of Top Gun:Maverick

Please weigh in at Talk:Top Gun: Maverick#American military propaganda... regarding how much coverage, where to place, and if it warrants mention in the lead. Thank you. GoneIn60 (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

In medias res plot summaries

Hello. I have a quick question: how should we handle plot summaries that have in medias res sequences? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it really depends on the film. For example, the plot of The Emperor's New Groove doesn't at all bring up the in medias res part of the plot, but that's mostly used for comedic effect. Fight Club also doesn't mention it, but this would be a case that I think should be added but like ", as shown in medias res" when the scene appropriately fits. I can't think of any immediate examples where the scene should be included before the rest of the film's plot, but I'm sure there's a few cases. But I would think the general advice is that unless the scene is critical to the work, it should be worked into the in-universe chronology of the film. Masem (t) 21:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Also to add, that if you can write the plot summary w/o breaking for in medias res, but that trope is a known point about the film, the use of in medias res can be placed elsewhere in the article. For example, while not a true in medias res, we discuss the structure of Memento wholly separate from how the plot is presented for the most part. Masem (t) 21:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

From WP:PLOTSUMNOT: Not only should a plot summary avoid a scene-by-scene recap, but there's also no reason that a plot summary has to cover the events of the story in the order in which they appear (though it is often useful). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Alphabetical order of sections in this style guide

Does not make any sense to me. There was once an order that made some sense, even if it was not intended to be rigidly adhered to. I agree with Erik and Favre1fan93 above, and the current order is just misleading and confusing, IMO. Common sense dictates that accolades and audience reception come after production, and by grouping these kinds of section together, the style guide is easier for the reader to decide what section headings to use, or whether to collapse some of the release/reception/box office type sections. I would like to suggest reverting to the order that we had around June. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

p.s. I have just realised that it was Erik who alphabetised the sections, quite recently, with this edit on 4 October. IMO, not helpful! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that the MOS itself says, "There is no defined order of the sections," yet editors took the way the MOS ordered the guideline sections about the article sections to mean that the article sections themselves should be ordered the same way. Like some editor thought that the "Themes" article section should be lower and thus tried to get the "Themes" guideline section lower. I find that putting the sections in a non-alphabetical order is misleading if the MOS itself says there is no defined order of sections. Alphabetical is simply a default.

I agree that production comes before how a film is received, and that is universal as far as I can tell. But when it comes to release and reception and box office, editors tried to use the MOS guideline-section ordering for that when it was not even the intention. Release-based information can be grouped in different ways, and it should depend on the topic. For example, some editors think there must always be a "Home media" section or subsection, but no, a fairly small "Release" section could just have a home-media sentence at the end.

Do you want to have a discussion about layout advice to formalize? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, happy to do that, Erik. I'm a bit busy this week though. What about having sub-headings in an outline order - for example: Lead; Description (Cast/plot/production/themes); Release and post-release (Release, accolades, box office, reception, home media); External links - explaining that within these groups, headings and order are optional? I really think that we need to specify some kind of logical/chronological order. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I think we should try to find agreement on the most universal ordering first. For example, it is hard to imagine a film for which the plot summary (or documentary synopsis) does not come first, so perhaps we can establish that. Following that, general release and reception content should follow production content. However, when it comes to themes, interpretations, and analysis, I think its placement can depend on the film and should not be dictated. Depending on the film, its production can be less critical to place higher than its themes. There can be other kinds of contextual sections where placement varies, like a section establishing a film's historical context or its structuring if it is unconventional. In essence, I endorse general layout advice but want to ensure some flexibility depending on the topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring "themes" type of sections for the moment, to me it always made since for the order to generally follow the order of the film's life (minus the fact that the plot is coming first). So, essentially: Plot, Cast (if you're just doing a list), Production, Marketing, Release, Reception (critical and box office), etc. I'm sure you can group some together, but generally I always saw that as the most logical order.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your ordering tip to toe. That is the most logical order that a typical film would have during its life cycle — DaxServer (t · m · c) 07:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Concur with Bignole. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Section ordering, Plot first, then semi-chronologically is what past discussions around here used to recommend, and was used in many film articles. Following that logic, sections such as the Home media or the Awards/Accolades frequently got put at or near the end of the article. But then some people wanted to make more use the "Release" section heading (sometimes using it instead of the Reception section, sometimes having both). The semi-chronological ordering increasingly conflicted with logic of grouping "home media" under the Release section, or similarly grouping the Accolades under the Reception section. I mention this to provide context, and I hope this brief summary of how many articles ended up as they are now, might help keep the discussion moving. I also hope the desire to keep things flexible will not prevent the guidelines from recommend some reasonable defaults that work well enough for most cases. -- 109.76.131.219 (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• I think we can broadly agree that we should have the lead, then the plot, then production-centric content and then release centric content. The variations generally come with the release cycle. Some articles follow a strictly chronological format, others a more thematic format (i.e. grouping all the release windows together, for example). I am okay with either—in fact one of my pet hates is fly-by editors who completely alter the acceptable structure of an article from one style to another. Sometimes a particular style lends itself well to a specific kind of coverage. I have a strong preference for a purely chronological approach (probably because that is how most articles naturally evolve), but I sometimes opt for the "thematic" approach when a film has had multiple theatrical releases so I can group similar content together. Ultimately articles will reflect the whims and design decisions of those editors who most frequently work on them and I am generally okay with that unless somebody adopts a completely unorthodox approach (such as sticking the plot summary at the end of the article—which I have never seen btw, although I am now very tempted to go and order the Memento article in reverse!). Betty Logan (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, question of whether this should be applied to navboxes. If there's a standalone filmography and accolades article for a subject, then should they be listed per order on the main article (filmography first), or alphbetically (accolades first). [2] Thanks, Indagate (talk) 08:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Post-credits scenes

It was recently brought up at Talk:Shazam! (film)#mid and post credit scenes? that WP:FILMPLOT says the following regarding post-credits scenes, with emphasis added:

Mid- and post-credit scenes should generally not be included in the plot summary. Exceptions are made for these scenes if they provide key relevant details for the film itself (the identity of the villain in Young Sherlock Holmes), are part of sourced discussion in the rest of the article (the reuse of the post-credit scene of Ferris Bueller's Day Off) or if the film is part of a franchise and the scene helps establish details for a known future film in production (such as many Marvel Cinematic Universe films).

Because the MoS specifies that a post-credits scene has to pertain a known future film in production in order to be included, an IP editor has pushed for the removal of the mid-credits scene of Shazam! on the grounds that it has not been actually confirmed that the scene's characters will appear in a future film. I suggest that WP:FILMPLOT be amended to just say for a potential future film, because oftentimes we won't get immediate confirmation that a scene directly sets up a film known to be in development, much less in production, but it's obvious from the scene's context that it's intended to set up a future property. If this change doesn't happen, then several films (including Spider-Man: Homecoming, Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, Thor: Love and Thunder, Morbius, etc.) are in trouble. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't that wording pave the way for including essentially all mid/post-credit scenes that were included with the intent to create a sequel, whether or not one ever comes to pass? DonIago (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

When did we add the bit about the MCU and "potential future film". It was always if the end/mid credit scene actually added something to the current film's plot (e.g., Skeletor appearing at the end credits of Masters of the Universe established that he didn't die). Anything else and you're getting into either crystal ball territory or revisionist history of film plots---we don't go back and change events in a plot summary because a later film reveals a character to be alive. Every page stands on its own and is not and should not be predicated on any other page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I feel like post-credits scenes primarily appear for mainstream films, and as a result, we can generally expect coverage from reliable sources about such scenes, whether or not they are important. Maybe instead of (or in addition to) considering whether or not to add text to the plot summary, we could also consider explanatory notes. Help:Explanatory notes says, "Explanatory or content notes are used to add explanations, comments or other additional information relating to the main content but would make the text too long or awkward to read." So if a non-essential scene exists, the note could explain in a sentence what the scene was, as backed by reliable sources. That content would be set apart from the plot summary and still be described somewhere. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Question: If plot elements are only really supposed to be used to enhance real world information found in the article, how do you (not you personally) justify the inclusion of mid/post credit scenes in plot summary that seem to only serve to make fans feel better than it is mentioned?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I think inclusion (in various ways) can be justified based on reliable sources covering these scenes pretty routinely. It could be text added to the plot summary or it could be an explanatory note that sets the scene part from the summary. Yet another idea is to point to a list article that lists all the post-credits scenes, like List of Marvel Cinematic Universe post-credits scenes, that could be even more set apart from the film article and more in a specialist (in other words, dedicated-fan) scope as long as content is supported by reliable sources. I don't mind covering them but acknowledge that they can be awkward to include, hence these other ideas I suggested. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I think saying "covering" makes it seem like someone is writing some type of analysis of the scene. People "cover" them the same way they cover trailers, but announcing they exist or simply stating what happens. It's rarely a level of coverage that makes the scene important enough to be included. You'll always find a website that says "there's a post credit scene and this is what happens in it". To me, that's not really coverage that invokes significance to the plot element that is enough to justify its inclusion. It really seems like we've just given into fan demand to include these little easter eggs (which is what they are most of the time) from a film. What would be different than including the post-credit tag line, "Captain American will return in "The Avengers""?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should be including joke post-credits scenes that don't add anything to the plot; we shouldn't. But the current wording specifies that only scenes setting up a film known to be in production can be included, which effectively prohibits the inclusion of many post-credits scenes because we don't always know if they'll play a role in the film's sequel, if there is even one. But consider this: we don't include joke or minor scenes in the rest of the plot summary anyway, so if a non-joke post-credits scene was not a post-credits scene, it would most likely have been included. Under the current guideline, however, it can't, so I think that needs to be changed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe "cover" is the wrong word, because we should avoid language about significant coverage to establish notability since that is for determining standalone articles. It's more about what is discriminate versus indiscriminate, and if reliable sources highlight post-credits scenes often, that reflects discriminate interest. I get that such scenes can be out of place to mention in a typical plot summary, hence the suggestions of explanatory notes or a list focused on such scenes. That said, It looks like Masem added it two years ago as seen here, and I do not think there was any discussion for it. They may simply have been bold, and it has stood unchallenged for two years. If it is being challenged now, though, there is no explicit consensus behind it, so yet another way to go about this discussion is to remove that paragraph and have a new discussion about what we should actually say (if anything) in the MOS. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I will need to check when I am not on mobile as to see what prompted me to include that. The specific example of YSH points to something I don't think I selected (its not a film well set in my mind) so I suspect it came from somewhere else. Masem (t) 22:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, I have looked and have no idea where I added from. I will point out there have been past discussions here on this [3] and [4] but that was 2011/2012 (eg within the MCU's timeframe so that these started to be more than gag reals). From my stance on how we should treat fictional works, one should remember that we don't give extra word count to post-credits and thus, there's good reason to omit them if they do not add anything to the plot as that gives back extra words to the main film's plot. Masem (t) 00:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

How about we just change the wording to something like When determining whether to include mid- or post-credits scenes in plot summaries, use the same judgement applied to non-post-credits scenes. In other words, scenes solely included for comedic effect should generally not be included.? If we want to keep the "part of sourced discussion" exception that's fine with me, but I just checked the Ferris Bueller's Day Off article and it ... doesn't include said discussion (unless I somehow missed it). InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I would add the following to what InfiniteNexus suggested: When determining whether to include mid- or post-credits scenes in plot summaries, use the same judgement applied to non-post-credits scenes. In other words, scenes solely included for comedic effect should generally not be included, though the inclusion or creation of these scenes may be appropriate to discuss elsewhere in the article. That covers an instance like Spider-Man: Homecoming, where the post credits of Cap talking about patience doesn't have any merit being in the plot summary (versus the mid-credits of Toomes in prison), but that is discussed in the production section, where that is entirely appropriate for that scene. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the wording. I'm only concerned with a the slippery slope of mid/post credit scenes that get argued about importance because of fan knowledge. An example is Guardians of the Galaxy 2. It reads: In a series of mid-and post-credit scenes, Kraglin takes up Yondu's telekinetic arrow and control-fin; Ravager leader Stakar Ogord reunites with his ex-teammates; Ayesha creates a new artificial being with whom she plans to destroy the Guardians, naming him Adam;[N 1] Groot has grown into a teenager;[N 2] and a group of uninterested Watchers abandon their informant, who is discussing his experiences on Earth.. The telekinetic arrow seems relevant, Ayesha seems relevant. Groot growing would be relevant. The Stakar thing isn't. He's a sub-minor character in the film and him reuniting with ex-teammates makes not nevermind because it wasn't really a plot point of the film. The watcher stuff is just for Stan Lee fans. It has not bearing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the Stan Lee scene shouldn't be there, as it fits the definition of joke scene that was brought up earlier. The Stakar scene though, could prove relevant for the next film. For cases such as this one, I do think that they could be removed from the plot summary until it is proven that they are relevant for a known future film in production, as the guideline currently reads. —El Millo (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

That's my point that you either get into crystal ball territory or revisionist history saying, "see, now it's important". Why would something that doesn't impact the current film plot be suddenly relevant because of another film? It would only be relevant to the new film's plot (possibly).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

As I've said, it makes no sense to judge whether to include post-credits scenes differently from regular scenes just because they're after the credits. Except for the ones played for laughs, a post-credits scene is essentially just the ending scene of a film but cut out and moved to after the credits (think Far From Home and Multiverse of Madness, their mid-credits scenes literally pick up moments after the ending scene). So just because the producers made a creative choice to play that scene after the credits instead of before, that scene is not allowed to be included in the plot summary unless it sets up a film in production (not just "in development", by the way) or fulfills one of two other criteria? That doesn't make sense. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Are there any editors in favor of changing the current guideline? Because of not, several articles will need to have their post-credits scenes removed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm more than a bit tired right now, but I think you're looking at this the wrong way...you seem to be saying that post-credits scenes are currently being judged differently from the rest of the plot summary, but in my estimation it's the editors including them merely because they're post-credits scenes who are the ones judging them differently, not editors who want to apply a "omit it unless it's relevant for a film currently in production" view. If a post-credits scene previously omitted is subsequently found to be relevant to a sequel, there's no reason why it can't then be added. DonIago (talk) 05:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I see that as the problem. Films (and their pages) are judged by themselves. If the scene is relevant, then it should be included. It shouldn't be retroactively included because someone decided 6 years later to finally deliver on the payoff of some random post credit scene. It just shows that the plot summaries are being written by fans, not be Wiki editors (and I mean that in the sense of where their philosophy of editing lies). If you're just following any other guide, you would only include things in the plot summary that are essential to understanding the film itself. Most post credits scenes are not that, but some are. The only people who constantly battle to have every mid/post credit scene added are fans (not intended to be derogatory) who are doing it because they think the scene is cool and not because it is essential. There is no way to argue that Stan Lee's cameos are "essential" to any plot summary of any MCU film. The only argument is because it's Stan Lee and it's "cool" that he was included. Another example would be the Wolverine suit appearing at the end of The Wolverine. It's a cool easter egg....it is completely irrelevant to the film itself, and even if he wears it in Deadpool 3 it would still be irrelevant to The Wolverine.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Those are fair points. DonIago (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with all of this.

My position on post-credits scenes is:

• If the scene matters to the plot, then mention it. If it doesn't, don't.
• Whether the scene comes before, during or after the credits is a technical/editing detail and not part of the plot. Just as we wouldn't write "40 minutes into the film, Batman kills Superman", or "The film transitions to a new scene, in which Batman kills Superman", don't write: "In a post-credits scene, Superman kills Batman." Just write: "Superman kills Batman."

In other words, treat them no differently from any other part of the plot. I would support changing the guidelines to match that. Popcornfud (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not advocating for the inclusion of post-credits scenes just because they're post-credits scenes, nor am I calling for Stan Lee cameos to be included. The only part of the guideline as it stands which I have a problem with is its prohibition of the inclusion of scenes which set up a property not known to be in production. I disagree with the notion that scenes which set up a potential sequel are irrelevant to the plot. In general, plot summaries should discuss the status of the major characters by the end of the film, but in some cases a character's final "major" scene happens after the credits. Take Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness as an example: Doctor Strange's journey in the film doesn't end with him developing a third eye, it ends with him meeting Clea. Granted, we don't know if Clea will even show up in a future property, but I'd say that's a pretty significant development in Strange's journey. Omitting that scene would be misleading. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It's only misleading if you're viewing it with a future lens, which we're not supposed to do when writing for an encyclopedia. Again, you're ascribing importance to something based on an assumption it could be important later. If it was important currently, it wouldn't have been an end-credit scene...it would have been in the main running of the movie. To clarify, maybe Clea is important, but to argue that even a majority of post credit scenes are anything other than easter eggs would be the real misleading statement. Need an example? How about the original post credit scene for Josstice League, where Luthor tells Deathstroke he wants to form his own band of criminals. It has gone nowhere and in all reality was only relevant to comic fans who know what he's referencing. Should it really be included in the plot summary? Arguably not. Could it? Maybe...I actually think it currently is to be fair, but a lot of things are that shouldn't be across film articles so that isn't an argument anyway. Do I think the guideline should have a caveat for scenes that "set up future films"...no. That falls into crystal ball territory which we have an policy on. If a character is presumed dead and a post credit scene shows they are alive, that makes sense to me. Tony Stark showing up at the end of The Incredible Hulk is irrelevant. You think it means something, but turns out it doesn't because Tony and the Avengers weren't used to round up the Hulk....they just sent Natasha to get Banner. Tony is also portrayed as being on board with the Avengers, yet in the actual movie he doesn't want to do it. So, talk about misleading information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to keep the plot summary focused on what's important to the plot of that film, rather than later films. Popcornfud (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

If we're going with that, then we should apply the same logic to the rest of the plot summary too, i.e. scenes that set to a potential sequel should not be included. Just kidding, that's a terrible idea and would probably be impractical to enforce. Look, the crux of the issue is not that sequel setups are irrelevant to a film's plot, but that post-credits scenes should not be treated differently from regular scenes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the last things you said. I don't think post credit/med credit stuff should be treated any differently. If it's relevant, then include it. If it's not relevant (i.e., not essential to understanding the plot of the film) then it shouldn't be included. It would be no different than not including a specific joke that is stated. Funny yes. Essential to understanding the film, super unlikely.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we should judge mid- and post-credit scenes like any other scenes, the reason we need special mention of it in the MOS is because some people insist on including them even if they would not include the same scene if it was in the body of the film. So if the scene is part of the plot and would be mentioned anyway (a character is revealed to be alive, a new character or place is introduced, etc.) it should be included, otherwise (a joke scene, a reference that does not add to the film and only some people will get it, etc.) it should be left out. We shouldn't be making special mention of scenes that clearly set-up future films (I'm not sure when that line was added to the MOS but I don't think it was ever discussed). - adamstom97 (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

As I've established, scenes that set up a future property are relevant because that's where the character's journey actually ends in a film. But at the very least, since I'm not seeing any clear-cut consensus on the current guideline, it should be removed from the MoS. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I just read that same passage in the guideline and was surprised by it. I see that it was discussed but not changed. As written, it advocates for not summarizing post-credits scenes, but then frankly seems to exclude the majority of post-credits scenes from that guidance. The unspoken consensus of the actual editors working on film summaries seems to be, in general, to include such scenes, so I feel that a guideline starting from a negative assumption is not practical. I like InfiniteNexus's suggestion and would modify it slightly: Determine the inclusion of mid- or post-credits scenes in plot summaries by using the same criteria used for all other scenes. Scenes solely included for comedic effect should generally not be included. If a scene is included, there is no need to set it apart from the rest of the summary by identifying it as a post-credits scenes. If a scene is not included in the plot summary, it may still be discussed elsewhere in the article if appropriate. By saying "there is no need to set it apart from the rest of the summary by identifying it as a post-credits scenes," I'm trying to get at the idea that it can be included wherever it's relevant, but I failed to find a good way to word it. It's best explained by example. The summary for Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness doesn't at all include Strange cursing Pizza Poppa, and rightly so. But, if it did, it might go something like, "Strange curses Pizza Poppa to hit himself in the face." And then at the end, "In a post-credits scene set three weeks later, Pizza Poppa stops hitting himself." I envision it being changed to "Strange curses Pizza Poppa to hit himself in the face for three weeks." If anyone can think of a similar example, where the events are actually worthy of summary inclusion, we could use it directly in the guideline. --DavidK93 (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I will continue to advocate for this guideline to be amended, particularly the bit about post-credits scenes that set-up future properties, but the lack of movement in the discussion above has worn me out. More frustrating was the lack of response to my comment that But at the very least, since I'm not seeing any clear-cut consensus on the current guideline, it should be removed from the MoS. With that being said, I must admit I'm not 100% on board with If a scene is included, there is no need to set it apart from the rest of the summary by identifying it as a post-credits scenes. The rest, I agree. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Having just seen Doctor Strange, I'd leave out the Pizza Poppa stuff entirely as it's just an opportunity for a Bruce Campbell cameo that has no significant relevance to the plot of the film. Otherwise, I think I'm on the same page as you, in that I don't feel there's any good reason to explicitly call out post-credits scenes (in fact, generally we don't break the fourth wall in plot summaries, so I don't see why this should be an exception).

I think your wording is a good start but I'd like to see it be more concise. Maybe something like: "Including mid- or post-credits scenes in plot summaries should be determined using the same criteria used for all other scenes. They do not need to be identified as such." The rest felt a bit superfluous to me, but I'm happy to defer to other editors. DonIago (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't object to being more concise. How about: Base the inclusion of mid- or post-credits scenes in plot summaries on the same criteria used for all other scenes. Their placement relative to the credits does not need to be mentioned. I felt a direct imperative verb was simpler in the first sentence. In the second sentence, I thought "as such" might not be clear to everyone. What do you think? --DavidK93 (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest something a little less precise in its recommendation, reducing it to a single sentence:

The inclusion of mid- and post-credit scenes should be based on the same inclusion criteria used to judge the relevance of other scenes.

Then I would merge this sentence with the preceding paragraph that begins with, "The plot section describes...". I think it's an editor preference on whether or not to call a post-credits scene what it is, especially in cases where its inclusion is borderline. In such instances, it may be helpful to a reader to know this occurred during or after the credits, although I would agree that doing so is unnecessary in most circumstances. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts. A cliffhanger can be significant regardless of where it occurs in the film: before, during, or after the credits. First example that springs to mind is Back to the Future. Darkwarriorblake has done a fantastic job of reworking this article and can perhaps share an opinion, but the ending cliffhanger would have belonged in the plot summary regardless if a sequel was ever made (and fun fact, a motion picture sequel wasn't originally planned). You could argue, "Well GoneIn60, that scene played prior to the credits!", but I'd argue that if the film had been released in the post-Iron Man era, it would have likely been placed post-credits. Regardless of placement, the bottom line is that a separate but significant plotline should be included in the plot summary, even if it abruptly appears as a brief segue for the next film. These are an author's intentional break in the story, and we shouldn't ignore them simply because we only get the beginning of a new plotline. The key is the scene's significance to a principle character's development: lives or fates are changed, moral dilemmas are presented, high-stake decisions, etc. All of those warrant inclusion IMHO, and the stipulation of future relevance, such as a sequel being in development, shouldn't be imposed in the MoS for reasons Bignole described. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Survey

I've narrowed it down to three elements of a proposed rewording:

• A: The inclusion of mid- and post-credit scenes should be based on the same inclusion criteria used to judge the relevance of other scenes. (from GoneIn60)
• B: Scenes solely included for comedic effect should generally not be included, though the inclusion or creation of these scenes may be appropriate to discuss elsewhere in the article. (from Favre1fan93)
• C: Their placement relative to the credits does not need to be mentioned. (from DavidK93)

Which of the above should we include, or should we keep the current wording? InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• A and B – This covers all my concerns. I think it's still helpful to mention how to deal with joke scenes, and I'm not a fan of including C. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• A and B. Once it's agreed that a mid- or post-credits scene should be included, I think it's relevant that it is in fact placed after the credits, so it is clear that it is in a way placed separate from the rest of the film. —El Millo (talk) 06:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• A – I think this is sufficient, although I would suggest a slight rewording to "The inclusion of mid- and post-credit scenes should be based on the same criteria used to evaluate other scenes." Some of the words struck me as redundant to what "criteria" are, or to the fact that the guideline is about inclusion of scenes. I don't think we need B, and if we do include it I'm more specifically concerned about the wording, in that the use of the word "inclusion" in the second half of the sentence could be confusing, as the sentence is about not including things in the summary. If this sentence is included, I would suggest changing the second half (after the comma) to "though it may be appropriate to discuss these scenes elsewhere in the article." This also avoids passive voice. --DavidK93 (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• A or similar wording as DavidK93 suggests (though I would keep "relevance"). I'm for the minimalist approach when it comes to guidelines. The more you write, the less they read. The Plot section is already 6 paragraphs long. B has the right intentions, but it's redundant. If you're already being told to evaluate inclusion like you would any other scene, then a "joke" scene wouldn't make the cut. No need to reiterate that as an example. Plus the first paragraph already says to avoid "individual jokes". With C, I don't think you'll ever get a strong consensus on that one. I happen to think readers these days want to know about placement. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  If we don't include B, my fear is that some editors will try to add in joke post-credits scenes because it's not explicitly prohibited in the MoS. A more specific wording would eliminate any ambiguity. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Nah, being explicitly forbidden in the MoS isn't going to change anything. For starters, nobody reads the directions anyway. But if they did, they'd see the part about avoiding "individual jokes" in the 1st paragraph. Policies like WP:V / WP:ONUS / WP:CON work just fine without help from the MoS, and editors who think the MoS is the bible need to be educated. I advise all participants here to take a long glance at WP:FILMPLOT, and after realizing it's already long in the tooth, go ahead and picture it with an additional 63 words (388 characters)! That's overkill people! --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  I would agree with Gone. I don't think people would add it because it isn't explicitly stated (as option A already accounts for what would be essential). My agreement with B was only on the belief that it acknowledges that things less important to the plot can still have potential importance in the real world production section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  FWIW, that was my intent with the "B" option, that it could be helpful for editors/readers to know that such info might have more importance outside the plot section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• All - I don't see a problem (at current glance) with all of it, as they don't contradict each other. If it isn't essential (that may be my only word change), as relevance is more subjective than essential, then it shouldn't be included. If there was something of note about it, it could be relevant to the production side of the article, but not relevant to the plot. And I don't see why you need to single it out as a "post" or "mid" credit scene.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• A and C - A is rather the key point of any change I think, and I don't feel we need to or necessarily should be calling out mid or post-credit scenes as somehow being "special" relative to the rest of the film. B seems superfluous to me. DonIago (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• A and C, I think B would apply if it fell under A anyway. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 13:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• A, or none per WP:CREEP. This is a matter subject to article-by-article consensus, WP:IMPLICIT or through discussion. Oppose C because the very placement oftentimes informs the significance of the scene. Nardog (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Nardog, the intent of C was not to forbid mentioning the placement of the scene, but merely to make clear that it shouldn't be considered a requirement. It's similar to how a summary may state that parts of the film are presented in flashback, or it may not and instead order the events chronologically. So, if a post-credits scene resolves a plot point earlier in the film, it might make sense to simply state the resolution when the plot point is introduced in the summary. But it seems like a lot of people take for granted that this information, if included, should always be presented at the end of the summary and prefaced by "In a post-credits scene." So I hoped to make clear that it's a choice. Unfortunately, I think it's just very difficult to convey except by example. --DavidK93 (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  Though created with good intentions, I don't think it adds any value. Consider the following scenario:

  1) John adds a scene to the plot mentioning it occurred mid-credits.

  2) Suzie leaves the scene intact but removes "mid-credits" citing this guideline.

  3) John adds "mid-credits" back claiming the guideline doesn't mandate removal.

  4) Suzie takes it to the talk page to discuss the content dispute.

  Adding C to the guideline does nothing for either editor. With or without it, placement will remain a content dispute. Editors will assume there's no mandatory rule in place about stating "mid-credits" in the plot summary. The guideline is better off with less verbiage (i.e. less noise) to sift through. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• A, though for any scene we would not actually write in the "Plot" section, we should be open to using explanatory notes that could be used in different ways: a jump to a "Notes" section where the context is mentioned (per reliable sourcing), to the relevant line at mid-credits and post-credits scenes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, or wherever in the actual article body would explain that scene. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
• I would go with A and B. A is just common sense and standard editing. B at least makes some sense of the existing wording, where the “…generally not be included…” is effectively contradicted by the immediately following “exceptions are made….”, since - other than the case of comedic effect - one of the currently listed reasons for an exception is very likely to be why the scene was included in the film in the first place, making a nonsense of that “generally”. C seems unimportant and not a matter that really needs a rule. MapReader (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• A & B— write it out like you would any of the plot (in just one or two sentences) and have a footnote displayed saying it is a mid/end-credit scene. Mike Allen 22:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Next steps

Okay, so most everybody seems to be in agreement that the current wording should be changed, i.e. there is unanimous support for A. The consensus isn't as clear for B, but it's leaning toward not including it, and it's pretty clear C is a no-go. I'll go ahead and update the MoS accordingly (using DavidK93's wording for A), feel free to perform additional c/e. Thanks all. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Marketing sections

I've started a discussion at Talk:The Super Mario Bros. Movie#Marketing section regarding the lengthy indiscriminate list of trailer and other promotional materials. If anyone has any opinions on it. I've actually noticed this type of editing in quite a few upcoming film articles. Mike Allen 17:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't the guideline already prohibit mention of generic marketing?Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 17:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It does, WP:FILMMARKETING. Unfortunately, many film articles on WP, especially those with few active watchers, go against this guideline. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Cast order

Sorry if this has been discussed already and I'm missing it, but between the following:

a) Individual credit slides before scroll

b) The scroll itself

c) Poster

... what is the order of precedence? YouCanDoBetter (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

There is not necessarily a preference, it is up to local consensus at each article. The poster billing is often used because it is the first official cast order available, but it is not uncommon to change to the main titles' order when the film is out. That would generally be preferred over the full credits scroll since it is restricted to just the main cast members. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I prefer (and this is for the Cast section, not the infobox) to go by the end credit scenes and also for character names, such as this. I feel it should cut down on confusion because it's literally written out for you at the end of the film. Mike Allen 04:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the end credits are a better choice for the cast list section (as opposed to the infobox) because they are more comprehensive. Generally there are more names in cast sections than there are in the opening credits or in a poster billing block, so you will probably end up deferring to the end credits anyway. Ultimately though, as pointed out above, it is generally left to a local consensus, but the ordering still needs to be verifiable in some manner (e.g. using the end credits, the opening credits, a secondary source etc). Betty Logan (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Why does the order need to be verifiable? Polemically speaking who cares about the order (that is minor variations of it)?--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

In my experience in just the last month it seems some people (not directed at YouCanDoBetter) like to move around the cast list ordering based on their opinion of who should be credited first, third, last etc. By using the end credits it is verifiable and correct. For the info box and “starring” roles, the top billing on the poster or at the end of the film’s trailer should be used. If any disagreements occur it should be taken on the film’s talk page because not every film/article will be the same. But this basic guidance should work for the majority of pages.

I wished there was a similar way to verify genres because that is also getting out of hand. But that’s another topic. Sigh Mike Allen 14:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with all the above regarding the how and the why. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Tables for box office performance/track listings

After a long vacation of ten years, I am back.🙃 I have some questions regarding the current MOS consensus. What are the thoughts on having tables with box office data? Music track listings like this? Is this useful? These articles passed as GA back in 2011, so they obviously need updating. Thanks for any input. Mike Allen 21:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a table for the BO there, but that track listing stuff is making my brain hurt. I cannot fathom what the encyclopedic need is for track listing breakdowns like this.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Bignole. Good to see you're still around! I have been working on the Saw GA articles that I heavily edited back in 2010-2011. They have not been maintained well, needless to say. I went ahead and removed that box office table, it looked like this this. About the tracklisting, I agree. I don't know what the reasoning was to add that into every Saw article (was I part of that trend? I can't remember). They were actually a Wiki page for every Saw film soundtrack, just listing every track. I redirected all of them to their film article music section, however the pages probably should be deleted. It would be like 10 different AFD discussions. :\ Mike Allen 18:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with that BO removal. I don't see a reason for a table with 1 line, and it would be rather indiscriminate of us to include very country and their box office total. That's why we link to BOM and The-Numbers. The Tables make sense for franchise/film series pages where you're comparing multiple films against each other.

As for the track listing, I would point anyone/everyone to the soundtrack section of this page. Specifically: "Track listings for film scores are generally discouraged since the score is usually composed by one person and the score's tracks are generic descriptions of scenes from the film. Noteworthy tracks from the film score can be identified and discussed in prose." --- I think that would generally disqualify those hefty (and that was hefty) track listings on Saw and other similar pages. Alot of issues are really just a matter of maintenance. Regular editors tend to move on with their lives and new editors come in without having read all the various MOS pages (not that it's a requirement) and add things they think would benefit an article. Next thing you know, pages have changed dramatically in a short period of time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The guidelines have become much clearer that WP:PROSE is preferred over tables, particularly short tables. Removing the table is usually the right way to go. -- 109.79.175.194 (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

This part of the MoS needs to explain how to describe a film premiere properly

I identified this issue on this talk page three years ago and it keeps recurring!

We need to have a section in this part of the Manual of Style on how to correctly describe a film premiere.

The problem with the silly phrase "[title] had its premiere" is that it comes with the bizarre implication that the film itself has agency, in the philosophical or sociological sense. No, a film does not premiere itself. The vast majority of professional journalists write that a film "premiered" at a location or that the film's premiere occurred or was held at a location. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me like instruction creep to modify the MoS to call out one particular bit of phrasing, even if one were to assume that people editing film articles and in particular those using the phrase you take issue with even read the MoS.

If this is part of a more broad problem, I'd be happy to consider it in those terms. DonIago (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it is part of a broader problem. The broader issue is that a lot of amateur WP editors are writing as if films have agency. For example, they'll write that a film is releasing on a certain date. Professional writers usually write that a film is set or scheduled to be released on a certain date.

The point is that a film is merely a work of art, it's like a painting or a song which is merely created and acted upon by human beings. But it can't do anything by itself. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay. What changes would you specifically propose to the MoS as a way of addressing this? DonIago (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that specifying grammar down to this granular level is WP:CREEP, but even if you can make a reasonable case that it's not, it doesn't belong in MOS:FILM. Instead, such a guideline would need to be written at a much broader level of the MoS, because film wouldn't be the only work of art the proposed guideline applies to. I suggest taking your concern to WT:MOS or a relevant area within WP:VILLAGEPUMP.

Heads up, however, that there are reputable sources that write phrases like "had its premiere" all the time, such as this NYT article which states: "...the same year as Graham’s Embattled Garden had its premiere". I also find the second example you gave to be much weaker and simply a matter of personal preference. The number of examples in reliable sources that write "a film is releasing" or "a film released" is even more abundant. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I just remembered to circle back and follow up on this. I'm beginning to see the real issue. This is actually a West Coast v. East Coast regional difference, similar to other regional linguistic differences like the soda v. pop v. soft drink mess.

For example, using the site: operator on Google returns 1,030 hits at nytimes.com for "premiered at" versus over 5,700 for "had its premiere". Using the site: operator on Google against latimes.com returns 2,930 hits for "premiered at" versus 655 hits for "had its premiere". I hadn't noticed that subtle dialectal difference before because I don't follow the entertainment sections of the East Coast papers as closely as their counterparts in the West Coast papers. I read the NYT, WP, and WSJ primarily for their breaking news, current events, politics and business coverage.

The question then becomes whether we need to standardize on one regional usage at this time. I think we need to note the regional difference and then allow whichever is more prevalent in the city where the premiere actually was held. So a film first released in LA premiered at the Dolby but a film first released in NYC had its premiere at the Ziegfeld. What do others think? --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the sources show that either approach is grammatically acceptable. It also seems you've glossed over two points that have been made:

1. WP:CREEP – Unnecessary rules drown out the emphasis of necessary rules. The fact that it does occur on Wikipedia is not reason enough to conclude that it's necessary, especially given the evidence that both approaches are used in reliable sources. As long as an article is consistently using one approach (in the spirit of MOS:RETAIN), it shouldn't matter which approach is selected by local consensus.
2. Scope – The main argument here is that we shouldn't give a "work of art" agency to perform an action; action is instead acted upon a work of art. Even if deemed necessary, it doesn't belong at this level of the MoS. A work of art applies to more than just film and should be discussed higher up as suggested earlier.

If you made this kind of preference change at an article I was working at, I wouldn't oppose it, and in fact I might even agree with it. Do I see it as a problem in need of a MoS solution? No. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The broader issue is that a lot of amateur WP editors are writing as if films have agency. this kind of phrasing bothers me too, in particular when people write that a film "holds" a score, it would be fine in casual writing but it does not seem professional enough for an encyclopedia. It reminds me of the old joke "Don't anthropomorphise computers: they hate that!". Surely there is already a higher level writing style guide somewhere that could be invoked that recommends a more professional writing style that indirectly covers this concern? -- 109.79.175.194 (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I get it, but the problem stems from the sources. If highly-reputable sources are writing that way, then it's only going to carry over here in some form or another. Ultimately, it's a conversation best had at a higher level of the MoS, since a "work of art" applies to more than just film. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of South Park episodes § "Films"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of South Park episodes § "Films". The discussion concerns how to list films as episodes for a television series, where films are considered major works and television episodes are considered minor works. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Theatrical works

In the absence of a page like this one covering theatrical works, is it reasonable to point to this page for guidance on such matters as plot style and length for stage play articles? Largoplazo (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you may want to reach out to Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre to see what they think (though I don't know how active that WikiProject is). In my experience, stage plays or musicals can have exceptionally long summaries. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

MOS section order

This edit (by Erik) to sort the sections describing the content alphabetically was just absurd. I know it comes out of a desire to avoid the implication that that is the suggested order for articles, but this just defies common sense and makes the MOS unnecessarily difficult to follow. The MOS in any case should have some guidance on the rough order of elements, and "should be chosen to best suit the needs of the article" without any suggestions is inadequately helpful. While the first section could reasonably be about the production background rather than the plot, surely there's no situation where Accolades should come first in the article.

Seeing as this was already disputed under #Alphabetical order of sections in this style guide above, I'm reverting to the status quo ante. (Though that discussion didn't reach a conclusive outcome, it's clear there's more opposition to the current ordering than the previous.) --Paul_012 (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

It's been fine for the last five months. Just start a section suggesting the order already, so editors don't falsely assume that the order of sections within this MOS is supposed to be matched in film articles. The lack of a suggested-ordering section is the real problem. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I started the "Suggested ordering" section. Based on widespread practices, it's clear now that release and reception information should come after plot and production information. I strongly discourage getting more specific than that because every film is different. It's completely possible, for example, to have a one-paragraph "Release" section that covers box office and home media, followed by a "Critical reception" section. We can never accommodate for every single possibility and should avoid that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

That's a good start, but I still insist that it's only logical for the MOS to follow that suggestion in order not to confuse consulting editors. Descriptions can be ordered alphabetically within each group. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the MoS should be in the suggested order, as there no perceived advantage for listing them alphabetically in an order they'll never be in any article. —El Millo (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The opening of the Primary Content section already states:

Since many films have widely varying release patterns, the structuring and ordering of the sections—with the exception of the lead, references, and external links—is left to editorial judgment, and should be chosen to best suit the needs of the article. See also MOS:SECTIONORDER.

Instead of the new ordering section you added, should we consider condensing the two into the same short paragraph? It currently feels longer than it needs to be.

As for alphabetical ordering, I think I prefer the way it was before. With a proper disclaimer at the top, we make it clear that the order can vary from article to article, but for newbies trying to emulate a common practice, it would be helpful for them to see how sections are typically ordered (even if that ordering does not work for every article). --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Just seeing this new discussion (after first getting to the MOS page on my watchlist). I've gone back to a "suggested order" and added some text in addition to Erik's already to make it clear this is not definitive. Lead, References, and External links definitely need to be first and the last, respectively to follow Wikipedia convention, and then after that the rest kinda fall into place. My edit here I think covers what GoneIn60 was looking for, along with Facu-el Millo and Paul_012. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I made further changes here here in an effort to shorten it a bit. I'm sure it can be condensed even further if anyone so desires. We mention the order varies on more than one occassion, so that's probably overkill. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Works for me! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

--GoneIn60 (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

After stating that plot sections typically follow lead sections, this part is a little vague to me: "although a film's specific context may warrant otherwise". Can someone explain what is meant by "specific context"? Is there a good example we can look at or link to? --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Going randomly through some Featured Articles, It's Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues in School and Trembling Before G-d are both documentaries that have a Background section preceding Synopsis, which does seem appropriate for establishing context. There's also The Turn of the Screw (2009 film), which begins with a Production section before Plot, though I don't really see a difference with most other articles here. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Paul_012, that helps. We may need to consider a better way to convey that point instead of just saying "specific context". --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Home media

Noticed this section appears before "Box office" in the MoS. The placement strikes me as odd, as you would expect it to chronologically follow "Box office" and "Critical reception", not come before it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

That is a valid assumption. It also seems to be a standard practice to put all the release info together, like under h2 Release -> h3 Certification, h3 Theatrical release, h3 Distribution, h3 Screenings, h3 Home media, etc. Also I disagree with the order of BO -> critical reception. Almost all of the critics give their reviews within the first few days. Movie runs for a while and BO is an ongoing process. Hence I think chronologically, critical reception comes first and then BO — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

FILMLEAD

There used to be multiple hidden warnings on the article The Super Mario Bros. Movie. They cluttered the article, some say DO NOT REMOVE without any reasoning, like the editor table. If there is already an editor especially if credited on the poster, why would it get vandalized? However, FILMLEAD is what I will talk about mainly, because one of the warnings for it used to say "only one genre", but when did it say only one? I have seen articles that list more than one genre on films, and FILMLEAD stated primary or sub. I think I need some form of consensus about this issue. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The lead should mention the primary genre or sub-genre per MOS:FILMLEAD. That could be a horror film, or a romantic-comedy film etc; a composite genre should be limited to sub-genres as identified in reliable sources. It's true that the MOS doesn't say "Don't include more than one genre", but the purpose of the MOS is to outline best practice. Best practice here is to include only the primary genre, as implied by the use of the word "primary" in a singular sense. If the MOS advised the inclusion of multiple genres then it would stipulate that. The MOS isn't a policy and can't prohibit anything, but generally an editor should have a good reason for deviating from it, and if that reason is challenged then the normal rules for consensus building should be followed. There are many articles where the MOS isn't followed (especially in stub and start class articles), but it is one of the criteria for promotion to GA and FA status. Betty Logan (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. MOS isn't like a list of rules, but editors can see what the problem is, some don't though. True that promotions can lead to some of the best articles but everything is not really perfect. I have spotted issues in multiple articles, and while some articles are good they may not fall under criteria. Film articles especially. The Mario movie article can get continuous clutter warnings and it may get annoying, which is why we need consensus to do some changes to MOS guidelines. MOS:A&M states that the three most-relevant genres should be the limit, but can that apply to everything else too? This includes movies and TV shows made outside of Japan. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

B&W

Hello, In the case of a 1964 film, and even if a still is on the page, is the mention that the film is in black and white really irrelevant? Thank you. — MY, OH, MY! 00:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I would think that it would be relevant. I'm not sure when Italian film makers switched predominately to color, but in the US it was certainly earlier than the 60s. Generally speaking, the 60s are considered the beginning of the colorized era, so anything there on done in black and white would be notable (IMO). ButlerBlog (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it is relevant. Black & white was still the most dominant color process in European film moving into the 1960s. Indeed, Atonioni's first color film was Red Desert in 1964, and Kubrick only shot one film in color prior to 2001: A Space Odyssey in 1968 (his last b&w one, incidentally, was Dr Strangelove in 1963). A Hard Day's Night in 1964 was b&w, but The Beatles switched to color the following year. In the UK, b&w quickly died out after the BBC switched to color in 1967. The 1960s was a transitional decade in Western Europe, and I doubt that b&w was a conscious creative decision for most of those films, so probably not worth mentioning. Betty Logan (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you both. Indeed, it was certainly not a conscious creative decision in the beginning, as for almost every shift in art. It is nonetheless part of the objective description of any film and everything you say, Betty, would tend to prove it's very relevant during those pivotal years. In the case I mentioned above, after due consideration, I will put the mention back in the LS of the article in question, because that particular film is part of 3, filmed the same year (same duo, same director), and 2 happen to be b/w, and 1 in colour. But from this discussion, I find confirmed the fact that FILM/MOS does not include specific guidelines on the matter. Generally speaking, I would tend to think a mention in the LS is useful (when it makes sense at all, of course) for the reader. It is not necessary to dwell on it extensively every time but it cannot be expected from them to bear in mind the relative outline of every region concerning technological improvements. Thank you again. Your replies are most useful and much appreciated. Best, — MY, OH, MY! 20:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Me again. I have a related question about another film by Fulci (I have asked@User:Cavarrone). But I might leave a note on the Project main talk page later if it's necessary. Just letting you know that if it happens it might be on another page. Yours — MY, OH, MY! 12:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Removal of films from streaming platform: WP:NOTEWORTHY?

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film § Removal of films from streaming platform: WP:NOTEWORTHY?

As this discussion has been placed by OP in two places at once, I'll be copying these comments to the other place, where the discussion has developed further. —El Millo (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of release dates in countries where filmed

An editor is claiming that the UK release date for Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness should be included in the Release section because it was partly filmed in the UK. The MOS doesn't go into detail on this, but it does provide a link to the Release dates section of the Infobox Film template, which states that "Release dates should therefore be restricted to [...] the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film".

It seems to me that the "countries that produced the film" should be restricted to the countries where the production companies are located and not extended to those providing filming locations. In this particular case, we'd also have to include the release dates in Canada, Norway, Iceland and Italy, which seems like overkill.

Thoughts? And should the Release section both here and at the Infobox usage guidelines be updated with more specific information, particularly with regards as to what constitutes a "production country"? Barry Wom (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Full disclosure, filming for it occurred in London, Surrey, and Somerset, with only six weeks of reshoots in Los Angeles. The issue lies in which countries should be included for the earliest release of a film. Similar inclusions are at other Marvel film articles, such as Doctor Strange (2016 film)#Release, Captain America: Civil War#Release, and Avengers: Infinity War#Release, among countless others, and there was recently a discussion at Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3#WP:FILMRELEASE on a similar matter. I see no reason why if a film is primarily shot in a country why said country should be excluded from the Release section, as, from my understanding, that is a country where the production occurred. For this film and others, editing and pre-production can occur elsewhere, namely at the production company's headquarters and studios, which for this, would be in the US. For the article in question, I am thinking we use a similar wording as done at the Guardians 3 article and state "in several countries" for the earliest May 4 releases, and then list the UK May 5 release, before the US May 6 date. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:FILMRELEASE first and foremost is in regards to what dates get listed in the infobox. Prose is then another matter. And while from that guidance of not listing every single release date, some notable ones that can be covered include world premieres/screenings (generally the first public release of the film), any further notable screenings around the world, the release date in the country(s) of production, the release date in the location of primary filming (if different from country of production), as well as any earlier wide release dates between premiere and any of the two previously mentioned dates. For major American blockbusters these days (Marvel films included), many overseas territories receive the film before the US date. So some form of "The film was released on [Date] in [x number] of territories, before releasing in the United States on [date]." feels acceptable, so you have an understanding of the release roll out. The purpose is not to laundry list every single release. And in the specific case of Multiverse of Madness, since there was one primary filming location (UK) which was not the country of production (US), noting it against the US date, the premiere, and the start of the global rollout does not seem excessive. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh and to the last question, "production country" as always meant the country where the producing company resides. And I did not include in my response above, this part of FILMRELEASE, which Barry did not quote: If other release dates are found to be notable, it may be appropriate to include them in the main body of the article. (On that note, the example given of Water (2005 film) does not feel like it is an appropriate example anymore). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment We have a strict formalism for the infobox due to severe space limitations, but a bit more discretion is permitted for the release section. Ultimately this is an issue that is best reolved through WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on the article talk page, and I don't think the infobox guidelines should be misused to prevent coverage of a possibly relevant release date in a relevant country. I haven't looked at the issue in close detail, but personally I think it is reasonable to consider including the release date (in the release section) for a country where most of the filming took place. Regardless of the corporate nationality of the film, there is clearly a significant British element to the film, and therefore potentially significant interest in the film's UK release. If I were an author at this article I would ultimately determine this issue on the basis of how much coverage I wished to devote to the UK release: is UK reception notably different in some way from the general reception, is the UK box-office performance worth talking about? If there are interesting things to say about the UK release then the article should probably include the UK release date. If there only thing you are going to say about the UK release is the release date then it's probably not necessary. Betty Logan (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. There's a whiff of Anglocentrism involved here, as it's rare that articles on American productions primarily filmed in foreign countries other than the UK list the release dates in those countries. As a couple of random examples, there's no mention of the Bulgarian release date in the Rambo: Last Blood article nor the Canadian release date for Chicago. A good example of where the release date in the country of filming is clearly justified is at Slumdog Millionaire, which lists the Indian release date but also contains an entire three-paragraph section detailing the release in that country.

That said, I'm not vehemently opposed to including the release date in the country where filmed, but I do think that some consistency is required, which is why I brought the subject up here rather than the article's talk page. If an agreement is reached that "production country" can include the country where most of the film was made then that should be spelled out. In either case, I think the guidelines currently provided are too vague and need updating. Barry Wom (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I told the editor to discuss at the film's talk page after they brought it up to mine, so I am not sure why it was brought up here. As the UK box office and reception, the UK was one of the film's largest markets, and we do include at least four UK-based sources for reception via The Guardian, Empire, Den of Geek, and BBC.com. There is not much one can say that would be further necessary on the UK release date in those sections other than financial specifications and the UK-based perspectives of the film itself. There is no value in listing several countries, so my prior suggestion of stating the earliest May 4 release was in several countries and then in May 5 in the UK seems the most productive, given the UK was the primary filming location. There can definitely be room to expand on the UK coverage of the film if need be, though I feel that would be a more specific discussion to be had at the article page. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think some consistency is required. We must be wary of WP:CREEP. If other release dates are found to be notable, it may be appropriate to include them in the main body of the article in FILMRELEASE is broad enough to cover instances in which additional coverage of dates can be mentioned. It doesn't need to be "cookie-cutter"/strictly a set amount of criteria. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

You're quoting from the Infobox guidelines. All it says here is "Do not include information on the film's release in every territory". I think suggestions as to which territories it is appropriate to include should be added. Barry Wom (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Which in turn is pointing towards the wording at the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Repeated linking change at Manual of Style/Linking

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#DL, sections, and mobile readers and change. Gonnym (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Trailers

Free-use film trailers are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Trailers in articles?, and more editors may be helpful. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems more apt to discuss it here...where the guideline about what to include in film articles is located.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. With the amount of opposition to using fair-use trailers maybe this needs an RfC. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: could you point us to the film articles that have trailers included? As you said the trailers are included in Commons, these seem not to be fair use, but actually not copyrigthed or public domain, which is very different from fair use. —El Millo (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Facu-el Millo, virtually the entire Commons collection is already distributed, long before I was picking up some of the stragglers. I'd say that 75% of what I looked at were already on the pages. This is a long-standing use of images. Not copyrighted and public domain, yes, I stand corrected, but that stil means free use and that's why they've stayed both on Commons and on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Now that's something else. The general opposition was always against the idea of using fair use trailers, not public domain ones, which need no extra justification for inclusion. —El Millo (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Keep free-use trailers in film articles. I honestly feel there's nothing wrong and everything to gain in keeping free-use trailers in film articles. They are full of information about a film, accent the common use of adding single-frames or promotional photographs of actors in the films which is done on a regular basis (the actors move and/or talk in a trailer - how is that any different in scope than using a single frame?), and provide direct full-access to a film's historical narritive. Nothing broken, and am puzzled by the opposition. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
• Opposed: WP:TRAILER, and editors on Wiki Project Film, pointed out that the inclusion of a trailer isn’t warranted without merit e.g. commentary regarding its impact, record breaking views, or the hype it generated like Cloverfield’s marketing did. But remember that trailers are advertisement, and Wiki guidelines prohibit promotion of any kind, see WP:YESPROMO: “Wikipedia does not allow promotion, advertising, marketing or public relations.” Armegon (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Most trailers under discussion appear to be those that are for films already out of copyright, so any commercial value of the trailer or film would be null. Thus the notpromo concern is minimized. It would be different if for some reason the next Pixar film trailer is released under CC BY, while the film is under normal copyright, in which case the inclusion of the trailer would be a problem under notpromo. Masem (t) 18:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Not promotion, these are historical artifiacts of the page topics. Wikipedia allows the use of film posters, single-shots from trailers, promotional images of the film's actors put out by both the studios and film magazines, etc. The trailer is nothing more than one of those and have been used for years, maybe since Wikipedia was formed. To say "promotional use" is forbidden we'd have to include the posters, individual photographs, etc., all of those, and that would change the entire concept of fair-use on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support free-use trailers being included as historical artifacts. Wikipedia encourages free content, and if certain films' trailers are not copyrighted, then that is an opportunity to show visual media rather than just text. It's essentially a premade video that gives a general idea of the film. WP:TRAILER does not apply because that is more about text about marketing, like saying, "The teaser trailer for Foo premiered on May 14, 2023. The theatrical trailer for Foo premiered on June 14, 2023." That kind of indiscriminate text is what is being rejected. Most marketing materials will be copyrighted, so to justify fair use, critical commentary needs to go with it. If we have free-use trailers, we don't need to do any justifying. It's simply additional visual content. Depending on how this goes, though, I'm fine with discussing placement of embedding trailers and if there's a particular way to go about it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
• Slight tangent I'm surprised that some of these trailers are legitimately in the public domain to begin with. I know that the Lawrence trailer fulfills the US PD requirements on the face of it, but that trailer is a UK production (it even says so right in the trailer) and the UK was a signatory to the Berne Convention long before the US. Have any of the copyright experts taken a closer look at these? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m a bit confused. I’m getting the impression that adding trailers to film articles is acceptable as long as they’re fair use or public domain with commentary attributed to sources but are trailers acceptable in the way that Randy added them? See here, [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] Armegon (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The confusion may be that the question above is asked about free use, not fair use of copyrighted material. Those showing support so far appear to be supporting free use. Some clarification may be needed on what exactly is being asked, and I would suggest someone with in-depth knowledge about copyright reframe the question. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I remember I once reverted the addition of a trailer to The Wolverine (film), but was re-reverted because the trailer was apparently tagged with a CC BY license on YouTube. I thought that was a little odd, considering the film's pretty recent, but decided not to look deeper into it. I see it has been re-removed since then. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Here is the file in question, and here is the YouTube link. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  That is something to be real suspicious about. The account looks fishy and unclear if they are the actual license holder, which would make that copyright-washing and not acceptable. Even if legit, there is far too many questions in regards to copyright that we shouldn't consider it free without affirmation from the distributor. Masem (t) 23:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Use of italics in simple cast listing

These edits at Chakravyuham:The Trap italicize the names of the roles of the actors in its simple bulleted cast listing. MOS:FILMCAST is explicit that bold not be used, but is silent on the use of italics. Use of italics in this manner does not seem to be consistent with what I have seen in other film articles. Is this okay?  — Archer1234 (t·c) 16:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Both MOS:ITALICS and MOS:IT list the appropriate ways to use italics. This doesn't qualify as any of them, so it's incorrect. Merely aesthetic italics or bold should be reverted. —El Millo (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Separating fictional character descriptions from real-world casting context

When we are writing about fiction, we should provide the reader with "Careful differentiation between the work itself and aspects of its production process", according to MOS:FICTIONAL.

Here at the Film style guide, I propose to remove the option of describing real-world casting information from the individual character entries in the "Cast list". The cast list should name the character and the actor, and allow the option to briefly describe the character's fictional aspects at each bulleted character entry.

Real-world casting information should be presented in prose in the "Production" section. Our style guide already says this at MOS:FILMPRODUCTION: "Add detail about how the actors were found and what creative choices were made during casting ..."

The problem I wish to fix is that casting information is also allowed to be presented in the "Cast" section, based on our style guide which currently allows us to add "Real-world context... about how the role was written, how the actor came to be cast for the role, and what preparations were necessary for filming." I don't think this contradiction in the guide should exist, allowing two very different routes. Let's streamline the instructions and restrict "how a role was written" to an optional prose paragraph below the bulleted cast list, and move all the casting and role preparation stuff to the Production section. Pinging Erik who authored this bit in 2012.

Note that 90% of the films at WP:Featured article already have a clear separation between fictional elements and real-world context. The suggested change would align our guide with standard practice. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I think this is attempting to solve an issue that doesn't really exist. It is possible to describe a character and who they are from a real-world perspective, and that's what MOS:FICTIONAL is urging toward, to avoid an in-universe style that presents the characters as if they are real. "Harrison Ford as Han Solo, a smuggler. Ford was cast blah blah blah, and these people were considered," isn't mixing the fictional with the real word. The title "Cast" itself is already real-world. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Fixing this problem would solve the current edit war at One Hundred and One Dalmatians, with two editors reverting each other. The argument is whether to have casting information presented in prose in one section, or to have casting information presented at the character's bulleted entry in the cast list.[10] We should provide guidance in such situations. Binksternet (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Many articles make use of the Cast section for real-world info, many others have a Casting section within Production. We don't need to say either is wrong because there's an edit war in one article where they haven't even started a discussion. There's can be many different right ways to present information. The only thing they need to do in this case is discuss, see if there actually is an advantage to either method in that particular article, and if not just keep whichever method was originally used per WP:STATUSQUO. —El Millo (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

What we can do is add a recommendation to the Manual of Style that says that a Casting subsection within Production is preferred if the information on casting is abundant, whereas it can be included in the Cast section if there's not much info. —El Millo (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is a local issue, then. Proposing a project-level change to solve one edit war is a huge escalation. An article can have a dedicated casting section under production or it can house the casting information in the cast section in-line with the bullets or underneath, any and all are valid based on the needs of each individual article. I agree with Millo that perhaps we can clarify some recommendations, but one is not inherently wrong just bc there's an edit war between two editors. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is something that the MOS should be prescriptive about, either way makes sense for different films. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead paragraph: production co., directors, distributors, etc. before actors and basic plot info?

Why is there so much content before the actors and basic plot overview? A lot of film article lead paragraphs are in the format of title> production companies> distributors> directors> writers> actors> plot sentence(s). This structure means the hover-over preview and Google search snippet don't tell you the most salient facts people are looking for. I had to actually visit Morbius to learn the main gist is "vampire scientist"... JoelleJay (talk) 05:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no requirement anywhere that leads be written in a specific order, and I don't think there should be. Different elements will be more important for different films, and that should be determined through local consensus at each article. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Most leads are written poorly. They bury the important information under mountains of trivia readers generally don't care about. Sometimes you even get the crap like "Wikipedia: The Film (stylized as WIKIPEDIA: The Film and marketed in Singapore as The Wikipedia Film). It's a common problem on Wikipedia. I try to remove as much of the trivia as possible whenever I find it, move it later in the lead, etc. But Wikipedians love their trivia, so it usually gets put back eventually. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Really? This again? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the above responses. Other than general expectations, especially for the lead sentence, there is some play in the order items can be introduced. Typically, I move info about distribution and production out of the first paragraph (as described at MOS:FILMLEAD). A long list of actors/writers/directors can still push the synopsis too far down, however, in terms of the brief summary that appears on Google, which is unfortunate but sometimes a necessary casualty. Depends on the film. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that it's often better to have something be at the end of the lead, or at the end of a paragraph, than in the middle of it. It seems to me that it's often more visible either at the beginning or the end than in the middle. —El Millo (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• IMO, and I hate this on the MCU articles, the production companies and distributors (especially distributors) have no business in the lead AT ALL, UNLESS there was something notable about the companies involvement in the actual production, i.e. them refusing funding, something that directly impacted the making of the film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I think the studio being Marvel Studios is of relevance for the lead, the distributor we could probably do without. However, there is an added relevance to the initial films up to Iron Man 3, which were originally distributed by Paramount and then the rights were transferred to Disney. I don't know if that warrants its inclusion in the lead though. —El Millo (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Good points. The distributor is not a must have in any lead, but depending on the situation, its inclusion may be warranted. I find that when mentioned, it's easy to include it in the same sentence as "theatrically released by XYZ on [date]", where XYZ is the distributor. A small amount of real estate there in the 3rd or 4th paragraph doesn't hurt much. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, can you define why Marvel Studios being the studio makes it relevant for mention over say Gordon Pictures on Die Hard or Columbia Pictures on Ghostbusters, on every single MCU article? Similarly, why Paramount distributing up to Iron Man 3 needs to be mentioned on every article and Walt Disney every article thereafter, instead of just, on Iron Man 3 alone, say, mentioning Walt Disney bought all the rights? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

In the case of MCU films, the fact that they're part of the MCU, i.e. produced by Marvel Studios, is one of the most important pieces of information about it. You can argue that the lead section already includes the film being part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but the production company in the case of MCU is still more relevant than in most other films and franchises. Regarding the distributor, I just clarified that the MCU films up to Iron Man 3 had an anomaly to its distribution, which could give it enough relevance to be included in the lead section, but I said I wasn't sure if it was enough to warrant its inclusion there. I'm not saying either the studio or the distributor must be included in the lead, but at least the studio has an order of relevance above most other cases, especially when it comes to other, adjacent films and shared universes such as Sony's Spider-Man Universe and the other Spider-Man films, which weren't produced by Marvel Studios. —El Millo (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the distributor stuff can be moved towards the end of the lead. Sometimes the production company info is important, especially if the company functions as an auteur—Marvel would fit the bill in some cases (it seems important to identify where a superhero is a Marvel or a DC one), but also Lucasfilm, Eon productions etc. That first paragraph in the lead should be identifying the film and its key creative components, and sometimes a bespoke production company can be part of that. For example, I think it is important to identify Disney in the first sentence at Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film), although there is no reason in the world for RKO to be there too. Betty Logan (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Conjuring Universe § Italics in page title and lead sentence are technically wrong

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Conjuring Universe § Italics in page title and lead sentence are technically wrong. Joeyconnick (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Mixed to positive/negative reception (again) & what RT scores really mean

Howdy everyone; long time no see to those who remember me and nice to meet you to those who don't. I've recently run into an IP editor who is determined to fight over the usage of "mixed-to-negative" in reference to a film's reception (they want to, I think it sounds meaningless). The editor is also basing their entire determination of this on the scores at RT, a common mistake for newer editors (one I made myself when I was new to the project 11 kajillion years ago). For that reason I was wondering if there is any way we can mention this in the MOS, specifically. In one instance the related text is in the lead of an article so it's not as easy to polish out as it is in a proper reception section where we can just skip straight to the scores and reviews.

I'm of the opinion that part of the reason this sort of thing keeps getting added is because we haven't specifically addressed it, despite a longstanding consensus here to remove it, for reasons most of us are probably familiar with. I feel like addressing the mixed-to-whatever problem would be easy enough to explain. It's trying to explain why an RT score of 30% doesn't necessarily mean "generally negative" that I'm unsure of; I understand it but can't articulate it. Would anyone be open to us adding, at the very least, a short sentence in the MOS about the mixed thing? Millahnna (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd support adding it, this discussion has been had before so might as well deal with it long term. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been around en masse, so to speak, in a long time but I've been involved in several of those discussions. It's getting tiresome trying to explain it. I'm just worried any attempt to address my second question regarding the scores might get too wordy with instruction creep. Millahnna (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I think, for a start, it's already understood, at least among experienced editors as I don't actually read the MOS, that we should only be using sourced terms. So if someone says "positive reception" we can use that, but we shouldn't ever be interpreting scores. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

If almost all reviews are positive or negative then I think it is fine to say that, but if things are more mixed it has become standard (in my experience) to just summarise the key pros and cons from the different reviews. I think it would be good to say something along those lines in the MOS. I also think it is worth having a proper explanation of the RT scores somewhere, perhaps there is a more appropriate place for that which we could link to from here? - adamstom97 (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem I'm having in the specific situation I'm in right now (and maybe this part would be better discussed at the main project page) is that this isn't even in the reception section; it's the bit in the lead summarizing reception. So we aren't even getting into the individual reviews. In an actual reception section, as you say, it's fairly easy to edit out any reference to mixed/positive/negative and just go straight to the aggregate scores and reviews. I thought about removing the sentence entirely from the lead but that doesn't seem like the best choice given what the lead is supposed to be. Millahnna (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I remember you! We started around the same time (circa, 2010). I just came back a couple of months ago myself. Not much has changed. Lol.

I would agree something should be added in MOS:FILMCRITICS to address this constant "mixed to [ ]" verbiage. We need to use secondary sources to describe a film with overall "positive", "mixed", or "negative" reception. With that and constant genre switcheroos, it seems to be the most common conflicts editors have. Maybe we are to somewhat blame for readers' distorted view of reception scores, since we do add RT and MC in the lead sentence of the reception section, and have for years. Mike Allen 19:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not so bad in the reception section since we go on to be more specific with the actual scores and reviews. It's when it's summarized in the lead where it gets tricky for me. We don't always summarize reception in the lead, though we should, but when we do it's often to brief to really edit around the interpretative statements. Millahnna (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, Rotten Tomatoes uses a binary system that only recognizes the existence of positive or negative reviews. Metacritic is an interesting case because it gives both a score (out of 100) and text descriptor, ranging from "overwhelming dislike" to "universal acclaim". "Universal acclaim" in particular is hyperbolic and demonstrably untrue in some cases, which is why I get irritable when use Metacritic in wikivoice without following WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The other thing that tends to make me irritable is when people decide they're going to ignore what the aggregators say and just invent something themselves, such as "mixed to negative". That's pure synthesis. The problem, then, becomes how you deal with a "mixed" result in Metacritic and a "rotten" rating on Rotten Tomatoes. WP:VG/MIXED is relevant. What I often do is just quote whatever the sources say and let them speak for themselves. Other editors then typically come around and remove it because they think it sounds terrible. Yes, it does sound terrible to say "the film received mixed reviews on Metacritic and negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, and The New York Times said it polarized critics". But cherry picking sources is not a good solution, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

That dovetails a bit with my personal bugbear, which is someone wants to quote the entire critic summary from Rotten Tomatoes verbatim and use that as the summation of critical consensus. But I think you should be able to find, in the example above, more sources than just the NYT who call it mixed.

As for the "mixed-to-X" thing, I get why it comes up. RT and Metacritic's scores aren't a box and whisker plot and so don't really tell you how divergent opinions were about a film, and in what direction. At the same time, they don't tell you that so we shouldn't include it, and it's clunky phrasing (given that we've already said opinions were mixed, and the definition of "mixed to positive" versus "mixed to negative" is even more opaque. So I'd support a short explanation getting added to the manual of style to explain why not to use it so that if necessary people can just get wikilinked and be done with it (adding in a bit about not over privileging outlets might also be justified.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no such thing as 'mixed to negative'. Something is either mixed, or it isn't mixed, one or the other. --SubSeven (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. It drives me bonkers as it's completely meaningless. WHich is why I would like to address it in the MOS. Millahnna (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Aside from the obvious problems with interpreting sources, as discussed above, "mixed to negative" or "mixed to positive" is a contradiction in terms. Popcornfud (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

It is because "mixed" is being conflated with "average". Something can be "average to positive" (although still mealy-mouthed and I wouldn't advocate for such phrasing) and in that case it is "mixed". "Mixed to positive" is semantically meaningless. Betty Logan (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see this implemented in MOS:FILMCRITICS, was the discussion halted? There seems to be a consensus here. I support clarifying that "mixed-to-positive/negative" isn't acceptable language for critical receptions. It should recommend that if both aggregators report a generally positive reception (i.e., MC stating generally positive and RT's percentage being majority positive), that may be used as the reception summary in the lead. But if there's a discrepancy, then quote what secondary sources say the overall reception is. If there are contradictory summaries given by RS's, note that in the article. Lapadite (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The long standing consensus from many discussions was don't do that. The above discussion has reiterated that. Here's one such discussion from the archives: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_48#Mixed_to_positive_%2F_Mixed_to_negative I see no reason to believe there is any change in the consensus (or the basics of good writing). -- 109.77.196.204 (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Plot summary?

Hello. I have a general question regarding the plot summaries for feature films. When a film has been released in its native country, such as the first part of Sailor Moon Cosmos in Japan, should we consider changing the section name to "Plot" and expand it if it's needed? Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe so. I always thought all film articles did that once a film is released. Armegon (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Once a film or any work has reached a point where it has been should to a general public audience, such that multiple people unconnected with the film can verify its plot, a plot summary can be written. Thus generally means a theatrical showing including sneak leajs. Masem (t) 23:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

There were occasional problems with people simply making a fake film plot summary, which lead to understandable concerns about verification WP:V, but also the lack of common access to a source WP:SOURCEACCESS doesn't mean it cannot be used in an encyclopedia. So you can add the plot, and editors can challenge you to verify it if seems contentious or dubious.

Even relatively recently a film may have a week or two delay between the US or UK release date and some editors will complain about the plot section being added before their local release, but in that case WP:SPOILERS apply and the information should be included when it is available. -- 109.77.196.204 (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Critical acclaim

Propose adding the following wording to MOS:FILMCRITICS:

Describing a film as being "critically acclaimed" is a loaded phrase and exceptional claim that requires the backing of an exceptional number of highly reputable sources, demonstrating near-unanimity in sources' assessment. Editors must not merely synthesize or extrapolate sources or review aggregators. Metacritic classifies all films with a score of 81 or above as having "universal acclaim", so it alone cannot be used to support this claim.

From time to time, editors have tried adding "critically acclaimed" to articles without adequate sourcing, often leading to edit-wars and drawn-out talk page debates. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

What qualifies as an "exceptional number"? Wouldn't it be simpler to say that due weight about any acclaim must be demonstrated (i.e., "critical acclaim" must be a more common description in sources than the standard "positive reviews")? KyleJoan^talk 17:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This proposed wording just paves the way for arguments over what counts as an "exceptional number". DonIago (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Guys, that part was taken directly from WP:EXCEPTIONAL, I didn't make it up. As for how many exactly, I don't think we should be specifying a number (CREEP), but Barbie (film)#Critical response and The Dark Knight#Critical response have good examples. As for "due weight", "critical acclaim" must be a more common description in sources than the standard "positive reviews" is the definition of SYNTH and OR. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:EXCEPTIONAL states "multiple" sources, not an "exceptional number", so that can be seen as a departure that adds uncertainty. The primary focus of EXCEPTIONAL is that high-quality sources (often more than one) are needed for exceptional claims. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

While I agree with the sentiments reflected in that statement above, adding a paragraph to an already long-in-the-tooth MOS:FILM is a bit much. If we can trim that down to one sentence, the proposal would be more appealing. Consider dropping statements that are already covered in existing guidelines, and realize that the caution against synthesizing sources has been already been called out several times: Lead section, Historical and scientific accuracies, and the opening sentence of MOS:FILMCRITICS. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Even worse, sometimes you come across the phrase “universal acclaim” in articles, reflecting the metacritic usage. Yet in plain English this means that every single review has acclaimed the film, which is both most unlikely and almost impossible to establish by referencing. MC’s own use (effectively a mis-use of the word “universal”, given the 80% threshold) of the term is bad enough, but it shouldn’t be appearing here as an encyclopedic descriptor. MapReader (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree. This would be a term worth searching for, and replacing instances of it that appear in Wikipedia's own voice rather being than directly quoted and attributed as MC's categorization of the film.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, if we were to make a list of all the phrases to watch, that would be really long: critically acclaimed, widespread critical acclaim, was a box-office bomb, was a box-office failure, widely praised, regarded as one of the greatest _____ films of all time ... InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It would not be hurtful at all to add that short list as illustrative examples.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

If you scroll up, you can see there was opposition to anything longer than a sentence. But if you insist, you can add an efn. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, here is an abbreviated one-sentence version:

Describing a film as being "critically acclaimed" is a loaded phrase and exceptional claim that must be attributed to multiple highly reputable sources.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

That actually seems pretty reasonable to me. What we have here is a WP:NPOV and MOS:TONE problem that is fairly frequently occurring in film articles, despite the existence of that policy and guideline. So some specific guidance about not using such wording willy-nilly with regard to films seems pertinent.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Not to change the scope, but can we throw in "box-office bomb" and perhaps "box-office failure" (as I just had an editor claim the two are synonyms) as well?

Which is to say, I think this wording could work. DonIago (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

That can be arranged; "critically panned" and "one of the greatest [genre] films of all time" also come up from time to time, so perhaps Describing a film with superlatives such as "critical acclaimed" or "box-office bomb"... InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Yep.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I could support a statement like that. However, I would caution against "box-office bomb" being lumped in without further discussion. We have articles here and here on the topic, so it's a relative term that shouldn't necessarily be shunned in favor of a synonym (although synonyms are perfectly acceptable). Perhaps one of the main editors of that realm, Betty Logan, can weigh in. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind, not sure what I was thinking. We aren't shunning, just advising that exceptional sources are needed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

 Added to FILMLEAD, see MOS:ACCLAIMED / WP:ACCLAIMED / MOS:ACCLAIM / WP:ACCLAIM. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not desirable to create "WP:" shortcuts that match new "MOS:" ones. The entire point of the "MOS:" pseudo-namespace is to stop taking up all mnemonic/sensible shortcuts for MoS sections.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I also wonder whether the shortcuts are a bit ambiguous in this case, as the changes apply specifically to film articles, which isn't clear from the shortcut names. I might be making something out of nothing here though. DonIago (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the shortcuts are in line with other shortcuts on Wikipedia; most editors don't bother to check whether a shortcut's "correct" prefix is WP or MOS. As for the ambiguity comment, if there are any other places "WP:ACCLAIMED" could possibly refer to, we can create a hatnote if necessary. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Completely missing the point. MoS has a lot of historical "WP:" shortcuts because it was sucking up all the available "good" ones. A cork was put in that by creating the "MOS:" pseudo-namespace, and you're pulling the cork back out. It has nothing to do with whether "WP:{{var:SOMETHING}}" might be meaningful to someone as an MoS shortcut, or whether we could do the additional work of creating a bunch of disambiguatory hatnotes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Nice work, but since this applies to overall film reception regardless of where it appears in the article, should we consider moving this new statement to MOS:FILMCRITICS? It could be moved to its own paragraph (2nd paragraph in the section), combining it with the statement about weasel words, so that it reads:

Avoid weasel words. If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly. Describing a film with superlatives such as "critically acclaimed" or "box-office bomb" is loaded language and an exceptional claim that must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources.

Another benefit of the move is that MOS:ACCLAIMED would be able to point to its own paragraph. Not absolutely necessary, but just a thought considering MOS:FILMLEAD has an abundance of shortcuts already. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Would not be opposed to that idea. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good to me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Separation of Cast from Character Biography

This has been discussed before but I believe it should be considered again. I think providing a simple "Actor as Character" section would benefit those looking for basic actor information on a film. Speaking from personal experience, simply wanting to know who is in a film, skipping past all other sections, has spoiled films. Yes, those of us who have encountered this problem could look for it elsewhere, but that would promote the idea to visit other sites for other info as well. The information as listed could be preserved with a different heading and a simple Cast "Actor as Character" section added. 24.170.127.153 (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Tend to agree with this, and it's already commonplace in our film and TV and theatrical-production artiles to have a list of character-to-actor correspondences in its own section (which people can get directly to via the ToC). Wouldn't be much to standardize this. I think the wording problem we have is here: "The structure of the article may also influence form [of cast information]. A basic cast list in a "Cast" section is appropriate for the majority of Stub-class articles. When the article is in an advanced stage of development, information about the cast can be presented in other ways. ... or a table or infobox grouping actors and their roles may be placed in the plot summary ...." First, a cast list in its own section is appropriate for more than just stubs; and second, there is no reason to put a cast list/table/box inside the plot section where the work will be "spoiled" easily for many readers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that the pitch here isn't a separate cast section, but a proposal for a cast section that lists only credits, then all further elaboration about the role or character goes into a further separate section. Essentially, a "Cast" and a "Characters" section where the former is "Actor as character" and the latter is "Character is details" if there are any further details to be had. Which, I don't really personally see reason to do. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Your understanding of my proposal was correct. As I must assume you've never personally encountered a problem with the current format, I understand your dismissal of the idea. All I can say is that I have encountered the issue numerous times over the last 13 years. Rather than showing a simple cast list, some articles will provide info such as, "Actor as Character, secretly the main antagonist."

Look at the cast section for Batman Begins. I personally question if all of the backstory info provided, both about actor and about character, is really appropriate for a cast list. 24.170.127.153 (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why it's necessarily inappropriate; the information describes the role. Please see WP:SPOILER. That guideline largely concerns itself with deleting spoilers from articles, but the underlying principles it describes regarding completeness apply here as well. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I question the appropriateness due to the fact that a cast list is simply a list of which actor is performing which character. The additional information is a mishmash of character biography, actor information, and production notes.

As for the guideline, I was first made aware of this guideline back in 2010 after making a character-spoiler edit thinking it was mean-spirited vandalism. The guideline does not suggest spoilers need remain in every section of an article. Obviously if someone reads the plot, reader beware. I still see no reason for those looking for an actor/character name to be made aware of plot points in this particular section. There is no reason guidelines cannot be amended.

I only make this suggestion, not to be difficult, but as a way to better serve people visiting Wikipedia rather than bow to the idea of "it's always been done this way." 24.170.127.153 (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Do note, at least in your Batman Begins example, it is not a "Cast list" section, but just titled "Cast", which in turn would serve as a good location to put information about an actor and their characters, that wouldn't necessarily fit in any other part of the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

But WP:SPOILER does apply to the whole article. I have been spoiled by Wikipedia cast sections before and every time it has been my fault for checking it, not the article's fault. The only place I generally think we should try not to include spoilers is in the lead section, where they would be unnecessary and it would be hard not to read them if they're sitting right at the top of the article, but even then, if necessary, spoilers may still be included. —El Millo (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

On the specific case of Batman Begins, you can see why, for example, we must include the spoiler that Henri Ducard is actually Ra's al Ghul, as it's integral to the plot section to talk about what character Liam Neeson's actually playing. I'll also add that I personally don't generally see unnecessary spoilers included in Cast sections, or in any other sections for that matter. —El Millo (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It appears obvious that my suggestion is an unpopular one. Batman Begins was more an example of extraneous information than as an example of spoilers. But @El Millo mentions the plot section. There would be no need to hide the twist of Neeson's character in the plot section while still maintaining a cast listing of "Neeson as Ducard" and "Watanabe as Ra's al Ghul."

Again, most replies seem to dismiss the idea, but I still ask those reading to keep in the back of your minds the idea of separate "Cast List" and "Characters and Casting" sections.

Thanks for reading. 24.170.127.153 (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with you entirely. There's a tiny little camp of questionable editors who love injecting terrible spoilers and then defending it as permitted by "the rules". I had a big fight with someone over this when it came to a Walking Dead episode a couple of years ago. It's not a really frequent problem, but it's still a real one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

But no, because that is being intentionally misleading in order not to reveal info, which is exactly what WP:SPOILER is about. If a spoiler is truly unnecessary, as SMcCandlish said above, then of course we'll remove it, because spoiling for no reason is just mean, but the fact that Liam Neeson is playing Ra's al Ghul and that Watanabe is not is crucial information about the film and about the cast, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia meant to inform about the film, not be coy about its details. Most developed film articles already display the main cast both in the lead section and in the infobox, of course not including who they are playing, so if someone just wants to know who acts in the film and not get spoiled they can look at that. However, readers actively avoiding spoilers should avoid Wikipedia articles entirely, as some information is so important about a film yet a spoiler at the same time that it even will be included in the infobox, such as is the case for Spider-Man: No Way Home with previously-unannounced actors. —El Millo (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Late comment but the Batman Begins article is an example of Cast section with an abundance of information that "may be placed in the plot summary or in the "Casting" subsection of a "Production" section" and doing that might address some of your concerns. Also the guideline WP:SPOILER warns against deleting or omitting information but WP:UNDUE and relevance still applies, and the information does not need to be repeated all over the place. Revelations about characters such as Darth Vader or Kaiser Soze would usually belong only in the plot section of a film article (but the character article for Darth Vader is unavoidably front-loaded with information that readers might not want to know until later), and there would need to be specific good reasons to include or repeat such details elsewhere (and MOS:FILMCAST says "All names should be referred to as credited" and as Kaiser Soze is not listed in the film credits so he generally should not be listed in the cast section.) It can sometimes help to order details chronologically, it is simply better writing in many cases. For example if a character begins a film with one name and ends with another, then the later name can be put near the end of the character description rather than right at the start. -- 109.77.196.25 (talk) 04:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

"Mos:FILMAUDIENCE" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mos:FILMAUDIENCE has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 11 § Mos:FILMAUDIENCE until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Considering how determined user are to add Rotten Tomatoes audience scores it is very helpful to have a redirect like this in addition to WP:UGC. It is also consistent with MOS:TVAUDIENCE. -- 109.77.196.25 (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It's solely about capitalization. MOS:FILMAUDIENCE still exists and is not up for deletion. Nardog (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Weird that case sensitivy is even a thing, but okay. So long as one version exists. -- 109.77.198.106 (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It's "a thing" in this case because "MOS:" is not an actual namespace (or namespace alias) like "WP:" and "WT:"; MOS:FILMAUDIENCE is actually "lives" in mainspace and is a cross-namespace redirect. Our mainspace is case sensitive so that, e.g., "ABCD" and "Abcd" can be separate articles, one on an acronym and one on a non-acronym word/name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Superlatives

Nyxaros, in your recent edit, the text you added is redundant. The reason is because the statement already says, "Describing a film with superlatives ... must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources".

Your edit now changes that to, "Describing a film with superlatives ... must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources that include these superlatives". Completely unnecessary and redundant. When you attribute a claim to high-quality sources, then of course these sources must include that claim. No need to restate that again.

Also you said something in your edit summary about a recent edit war over the term "multiple" being the reason. However, what you added had nothing to do with that. Furthermore, we shouldn't be going back and forth in a policy or guideline page. As soon as you're reverted, you are expected to take it to talk. I did you the courtesy this time, but for future reference, please don't argue your case in an edit summary, especially in this namespace. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it's redundant and should be reverted. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Read the edit summaries of the previous editors. I added it because one of the editors wrote a sentence about reviews being used for the exceptional claims. I don't think it is the best description either, but the wording seems to cause some misinterpretation. ภץאคгöร 18:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I have read them, but I fail to see how your change addresses that. The concern discussed was about changing the term from "multiple" to "many". What you added doesn't address that in any way, shape, or form. It also doesn't change the concern about "reviews" being used as high-quality sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Then you have not read them through. Additionally, majority of the reviews do not include statements like "this film I'm about to review is critically acclaimed". That's why the issue also becomes WP:SYNTH. ภץאคгöร 20:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It's understandable if the wording could use improvement, but the redundancy isn't an improvement. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

You can improve. ภץאคгöร 20:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The root problem here is WP:EXCEPTIONAL using the word "multiple", so I've raised an issue with this at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#EXCEPTIONAL tweak to close wikilawyering loophole.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The issue I've raised in this discussion is the redundant addition of "that include these superlatives". It has yet to be explained why this is necessary redundancy and how it ties into the other dispute regarding multiple vs many. As for the other dispute, it's worth further discussion, so great that you've got the ball rolling at WT:V. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't realize that was still under discussion after multiple objections. I'll add mine: it is definitely not a necessary redundancy. WP:Policy writing is hard, but it's not that hard. If we say that "Describing ... with superlatives ... must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources" it necessarily means that the superlatives are found in those sources. There is no other reasonable interpretation, and no one else seems to be confused about this. The real problem is people thinking that if two rando reviewers say something is the GoAT and most sources think it's trash that this is a green-light to describe it as the GoAT because "multiple" sources said so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

"The real problem is people thinking that if two rando reviewers say something is the GoAT and most sources think it's trash..."

A claim must generally satisfy due weight, whether it is EXCEPTIONAL or not. That's one of the first bars of inclusion for any content. Once that bar is satisfied, there is another bar that comes into play for exceptional claims. In addition to being prevalent in lower-quality sources, it must also have the support of multiple high-quality sources. That's how I've always understood it; perhaps the discussion you've started will shed additional light. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about the function of {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} and similar Metacritic template

There is currently a discussion at {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} in regards to listing it as a substonly template that may interest editors of this WikiProject. The discussion can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose has an RfC

Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Including actor names in plot

Most film articles make no mention of who plays what character. Including actor names when describing a film's plot is common in English-language newspapers, magazines, film reviews etc. I'm not sure why the guideline does not allow for actor names, and I propose that this guideline be changed. Fredlesaltique (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't because the cast section should exist separately, making listing them in the plot redundant. Most film articles have a separate section underneath the plot, for example: Casablanca (film)#Cast, Gangs of New York#Cast, The Handmaiden#Cast. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The reason the community consensus settled on not including actors' names in plot summaries is that it can get messy. The plot summary is far more detailed than what shows up in secondary sources, and it tends to name more characters than these sources would. So that means you could have a character named toward the end of a summary, and wind up naming the actor too. I think it's more appropriate to do this in the lead section because that tends to name the starring actors and has a high-level synopsis of the plot summary. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The plot section is a summary of the key events depicted on screen; within the plot the actors are in character and what matters to the plot is their portrayed character, not who the actor is. The information for the credited cast is listed in a separate section, commonly the section immediately following, providing an encyclopaedic reference for anyone seeking that information. Breaking up the plot section with actors’ names in brackets every time a new character is mentioned would therefore be both duplication, potential confusion as Erik says, and a distraction for the reader from what the plot section is there to do. MapReader (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with all of the above. This has been rehashed many times, and consensus has not changed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, so it does not have to mimic newspaper movie review habits. Our information is more sectionally presented.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Fully concur. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT

The last sentence of the first paragraph says

Do not include actors' names in the plot summary, as it is redundant to the "Cast" section.

But, it's not uncommon for people to do this. When a rule is commonly ignored, and since rules are supposed to mainly codify good practice, that's a good indication that it's a bad rule. As this one is, because there's no good reason for following it.

Because, the reason given for not including the names in the Plot section is that it is redundant to the Cast section. But having two ways to do things, including learning info, is fine. That's why you can copy-and-paste with Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V or by selecting Copy and Paste from a dropdown menu. Nobody is like "Well, let's disable Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V cos it's redundant to the dropdown menu." We don't usually say "Get rid of the picture, the thing is already described well enough in the text". People have different learning methods, so redundancy here is good pedagogy and also good human factors design. We don't want to make both the round readers and the square readers go thru the square hole.

Not only that, but the Cast section sometimes only lists the names of the cast members, not the role they play. And the list in the infobox, if there is one, never does. So in that case there's no way to know who played what. This is information that many readers are going to want. And even if the actor-character info is given in the Cast section has to go down to the Cast section and then back up to the plot narrative. For each character. This breaks up smooth flow of the reading.

I removed the sentence, as I think the case for doing so is strong enugh. If you disagree, fine, roll it back and let's talk. Herostratus (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Readers should not have to search through the plot summary to find who is playing what characters, that information should be clearly presented in a cast section. And if it is in a cast section then also having it in the plot summary would indeed be redundant. We have pushed to keep non-plot information out of the plot summary in other ways as well, so this is also an extension of that. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

What kind of non-plot info? Herostratus (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

As plot summaries already tend to face issues with being overly long (I've spent a fair amount of my time on Wiki trying to cut back overly long summaries), I don't think we should remove a guideline that discourages editors from making summaries even longer by including non-essential detail that in all likelihood is presented elsewhere in the article (and typically right below the plot summary). DonIago (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with both adamstom97 and Donlago, having cast names in the Plot summary is redundant, breaks the flow of the plot, and makes summaries longer than they need to be. In addition, have an actor's name following the character name in the plot is more of a thing for a magazine or newspaper article where there isn't already a cast section. Do we really want to stop being an "encyclopedia" and become more of an informal, amateurish publication? DonaldD23 talk to me 03:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep the cast names out of the plot section. The reason that the media are seen doing it is because they don't have a dedicated cast list like we do. Binksternet (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

OK. Thank you all for responding. But, with one exception, I don't find these points compelling at all. I agree that plots are often too long, but as far as the actual amount of text added to a long plot, it's going to be way less than 1%. However, adding this tiny percent is not the same as interrupting the flow of text. That's a reasonable point and I'll discuss it below. And nobody's suggesting that the cast section be removed.

I key point I want to get across is that' redundant is good. It's not like "redundant" is an argument against the change. It's an argument for the change. I gave some examples above. People have different ways of processing information. If you can't fill in the blank in this sentence, you're not making a useful argument: "It's redundant, and this redundancy is a net negative for the typical reader's experience because ____________." (Redundant is not always good, I'm talking about here.)

The one point made that was reasonable (to my mind) is that adding in the names of the players is going to interrupt the flow of text. It is! I'm confident that this is not enough to balance the positives tho . This is hard to prove either way but there are probably some ways to think about that. I suspect a RfC might be required here to really dig into all thiw. Herostratus (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not you agree with the opinions that have been expressed, to suggest that an RfC 'might be required' when thus far you're the only voice advocating for including cast names in the plot summaries (or at least, not providing guidance that they not be included), strikes me as bordering on WP:IDHT. Disregarding arguments because you don't personally find them compelling isn't how WP:CONSENSUS works. If and when other editors chime in supporting your perspective, I'll be more inclined to believe that an RfC may be necessary. DonIago (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The blank in Herostratus's sentence is easily filled in with "repetitive, distracting, counter to the purpose of the section as a summary of the plot not of the production, irrelevant to the plot being summarized", and several other things. The idea "redundancy is good" is only true in very specific contexts, and "the wording of probably back-to-back sections" is not one of them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Largoplazzo reverted removal of the guideline material ('Do not include actors' names in the plot summary, as it is redundant to the "Cast" section.'). I agree with the reversion. There is clearly not a consensus to remove that guidance.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

With regards to the statment above, "the Cast section sometimes only lists the names of the cast members, not the role they play." Why not just update the cast section to list the names of the actors and the role they play instead of adding them in the plot section? This would follow current guidelines/manual of style, and this discussion would be moot. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. If a Cast section only has the names of the actors without even the name of the character they play, then that section is incomplete and not fulfilling its purpose even in its more basic form. That would be no metric to change the guidelines on another section. —El Millo (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Or it could be an unreleased film that has not had the character names revealed and no plot is yet available.

Adding cast names into the plot section was kind of standard over 10 years ago, but we've long moved away from that and I think it works out best (for the reasons mentioned above).

@Herostratus

But, it's not uncommon for people to do this.

It's not common either. Mike Allen 21:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

And that's never a rational reason to change MoS anyway. E.g., it's extremely common for people to over-capitalize things that are not proper names just to "big-note" them, as a form of emphasis, but that is simply a reason to clean up after them, not to delete MOS:SIGCAPS, MOS:DOCTCAPS, and a dozen other MoS sections against over-capitalization. The bare facts are that mutiple styles of writing exist, and we cannot depend upon editors reading and absorbing all of MoS. (It does not exist to prevent editors, especially new ones, from doing something we'd prefer they didn't; it exists as a guideline for cleanup copyediting and, when necessary, for resolution of disputes about style questions. No incoming editor is required to read and absorbe the full contents of any of our guidelines and policies before editing, only to comply with the bare basics of the WP:CCPOL, which we point out to them quickly with templates like {{Welcome}}.) There are multiple styles of capitalization, and there are multiple styles of writing about movies, but WP only intends to have one style of each, after we get done cleaning up material written by editors who have not yet absorbed our style. "I can find material on WP that doesn't obey the rule" does not in any way means that the rule is faulty. Indeed, if material here never diverged from the rule, then we would have no need of an MoS line item about it in the first place. E.g., we don't have a rule that multi-word names of people and places are spelled with spaces in them, because no one actually goes around writing MichaelJackson and UnitedKingdom or Michael-Jackson and United-Kingdom.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

To take another tack (I don't think I've seen this here yet): The section is called "Plot". That Spider-Man was admitted to the Avengers is part of the plot of Avengers: Infinity War. That Spider-Man was played by Tom Holland is not part of the plot and is irrelevant to it. (The casting may be relevant to the plot on occasion, as when Julia Roberts' character masqueraded, in Ocean's 12, as Julia Roberts.) Largoplazo (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The guideline should not be removed. The purpose of the Plot section is to summarize the narrative; the purpose of the Cast section is to list the performers. This is the same reason we don't put section links in the infobox (because that is the purpose of the table of contents) or references in the lead (because that is the purpose of the article body). InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Synopsis for concert films

I would like to check with editors if MOS:FILMPLOT guidelines (e.g. summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words.) apply to concert films. This is noting that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film states that Generally, A plot section (called synopsis for documentaries) should usually appear immediately following the lead section, although a film's specific context may warrant otherwise. Thank you. starship.paint (RUN) 03:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

In the case of concert films, the synopsis is not really a plot summary and would be closer to a pre-release premise for a film. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

What would "pre-release" have to do with it? Anyway, these don't usually have synopses (they're categorically a case of "a film's specific context may warrant otherwise"), but background information on the event and the A/V production, and a track list, and reviews/reaction/impact stuff. See, e.g., The Song Remains the Same (film). Most such articles don't seem to have a synopsis, though Stop Making Sense does. I'm not sure it's the best way to approach such a work, though maybe others disagree. Dunno if we could achieve enough consensus to have specific guideline wording about this genre.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

"Pre-release" as in the short blurb we use before the film is released and a full plot summary is available. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I understoodd that part, I just don't see what this has to do with a concert film in particular versus some other sort of documentary work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Would a track listing not suffice, showing what songs played? It could be prefaced by a short paragraph about the venue and the performers and the aesthetic. Also don't know if any comments before/during/after would typically happen, that could just be captured in that paragraph too? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Kinda what I was thinking. The Song Remains the Same (film) is written how I would expect this to be handled, while Stop Making Sense seems to go too far.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking that a synopsis section would/should provide a brief overview of the concert being performed, the structure of the film, etc. I guess this wouldn't only apply to concert films, but all documentary films. Summer of Soul does this well; Michael Jackson's This Is It goes a bit too far. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Ridiculous length of of plot summaries in Wikipedia articles

Hello, I am noticing more and more Wikipedia articles have plot sections which are so ridiculously long and detailed as to make the article unwieldy and difficult to read, thereby making the page user-unfriendly. Additionally, they give away every little detail, potentially ruining the film for someone who came to Wikipedia to get a general idea of a film before deciding whether to see it.

Can there please be a rule that each article needs to have a brief summary of the film, let's say one to two paragraphs in length, three short paragraphs at the most? As it is, I myself frequently find myself clicking on the link to the film's IMDb page in order to read a very brief description, and this makes Wikipedia redundant.

This self-induldent, almost thesis-length plot descriptions used to be a rarity, but it now seems like they're becoming the majority, and it's incredibly frustrating from a Wikipedia reader's perspective. 49.184.187.19 (talk) 49.184.187.19 (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a guideline on this project page, at MOS:FILMPLOT: "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words." Largoplazo (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I would support a tightening of that guideline and cap them at maybe 400 words. I don't think that would be popular with editors but it would keep the focus on the right thing. Plot summaries so often become a distraction. Popcornfud (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea, but as an editor who spends a fair amount of time trimming overly long plot summaries, I'd find it fairly challenging to comply with a guideline that necessitated reducing existing summaries to such a drastic degree. DonIago (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that is still overly long, and there are so many that are a lot longer than that, making it an ordeal to read an article, including having to scroll a long time just to get back to the top.

If these are the official lengths, then is there a way to get rid of the plot sections that go beyond this already very generous length? 49.183.144.127 (talk) 49.183.144.127 (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

As with anything in a Wikipedia article that violates the guidelines, the solution is something called "editing". 😀 You put the article in Edit mode and edit the section as needed so that the outcome is a good plot summary that meets the guidelines. Or else, you go to the article's talk page and add a new section noting the unduly long plot section and soliciting others to edit it down. Largoplazo (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The length is something addressed, but we do have a guideline that says that we do not care about hiding WP:SPOILERS, as long as the work has been released in a public manner. Film summaries should be concise but they also should be comprehensive and should include major reveals that are essential to the plot. Masem (t) 13:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

To add on, WP:FILMPLOT is based on policy at WP:NOTPLOT, that there should be "concise summaries of these works". This is under the policy of Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information, and to avoid summary-only descriptions of works. I read WP:NOTPLOT to mean that a concise summary should only exist to complement the rest of the article body. (It is purely incidental that some people will go to these articles just to read the plot, and that is not the purpose of Wikipedia at all.) So if we had a Stub-class film article, we shouldn't even have 400 words of plot detail if there is barely anything else. The goal of the plot is to give a reader an idea of the work so they can comprehend the rest of the article.

On another note, try using ChatGPT to summarize a plot summary that's too long and review it to see if it still holds up. WP:LLM seems to indicate that this is fine to do. The review part is a critical step to avoid hallucinatory detail. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest that it's not possible to be both concise and comprehensive, and that it's not a summary at all if it must "include major reveals that are essential to the plot"... But if this is what is acceptable in a "Plot", then I would like to suggest that articles should have a very short, concise "Plot Summary" in addition to the annoyingly long, detailed "Plot Description" section?

I think having a short plot summary in addition to the detailed Plot description would be a good solution. Can this become an official Wikipedia policy? 49.183.144.127 (talk) 49.183.144.127 (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

... should be comprehensive and should include major reveals that are essential to the plot From where do you derive that?. The guidelines say spoilers are OK, they don't say every spoiler must be revealed. The section is supposed to be a summary. Largoplazo (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

"Comprehensive" means the summary should cover the film from start to end, and for that to be understandable, dancing around spoilers rarely helps when adding in the "conciseness". It is impossible to have a concise description of "The Usual Suspects", for example, without explanating the film's major plot twist that comes right at the end. Masem (t) 13:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The word "comprehensive" doesn't appear in the guideline. And "summary" and "concise" are both opposites of "comprehensive". You're correct, it would be really hard to have a comprehensive, concise summary—because it's a contradiction. What the guideline calls for are the "concise" and "summary" parts, not comprehensiveness. Largoplazo (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I think at the end of the day, to answer 49.183.144.127 directly, we already have a guideline to keep the plot section around 400-700 words, and some editors do try to cut longer sections down. What happens is basically scope creep, with passerby editors adding more and more detail over time, incidentally growing toward unnecessary comprehensiveness. Not to mention there's probably thousands and thousands of ways to word a film's plot. Involved editors just have to guard against that with the thankless work of copyediting down in size (or rolling back to an existing smaller size). Another consideration is that the lead section have a summary of a summary (already covered in MOS:FILMLEAD) where the film's plot is covered in 1-3 sentences. I don't see this happen often enough and would support it happening more. The lead section is a microcosm of the article body, so it makes sense to touch on the plot there along with everything else written about the film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there's already a guideline in place, it only needs to be more thoroughly implemented, by using the {{long plot}} template and then by actually trimming those plot summaries that go over the limit. Would there be a possibility for plots longer that 700 words to be automatically added to a "Long plot" category? There already is a plot length counter. —El Millo (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

While these might be edge cases, I think automated attempts to do word counts could be foiled by photo captions or section breaks within the summary...which is to say, if we were going to pursue an automated way to do a word count, we might need a way to override it for certain film articles. DonIago (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

A bot could add the {{Long plot}} template to plot summaries that are above 700 words and we could have a template in the vein of {{cbignore}} for the edge cases or those were there was consensus to go above the limit. I don't know whether any of this can be done though. —El Millo (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I would support this, and it's not the first time this was discussed. I can't seem to find the previous discussion, though, which is probably 5-10 years old by now. I recall a good suggestion to do the bot approach to flag articles with plot summaries of over 1,000 words (or higher) first to treat these as the cases to be most immediately addressed. Otherwise such a request would flag articles that could just be a few words over 700, which isn't a big deal. Betty Logan, do you recall this discussion at all? I can't remember if you were part of it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Erik. Typically when you come across an overlong plot summary, it’s possible to shorten it considerably simply by good copy-editing, going through removing the repetition, superfluous padding, and irrelevant plot details. Often this arose from an originally reasonably concise summary to which successive editors have added one after another minor detail. If there were a way to flag those that are problematic in terms of length, it would help direct those of us with some spare time to head in their direction carrying our sharpest copy-editing shears. It is generally easier to do a good copyedit if you haven’t (recently) seen the film, and a lot of the problem is that editor-fans see the film and rush to edit in all the trivial details that they liked. MapReader (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a topic that comes up repeatedly, and I don't recall the exact one you reference, but I support the suggestion. This issue recently arose at Doctor Zhivago (film); the summary used to be very indulgent, but after a good copy-edit an editor brought it down to ~800 words, and questioned whether that was sufficient. We came to the conclusion it was. Betty Logan (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it might actually have been me who proposed this, like a decade ago. Or at least I was one of the editors who may have proposed it over the years. Popcornfud (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Popcornfud It has gotten better over time but there are still articles that editors refuse to fix. The plot section for Love Actually remains absurdly long, and full of information that is not strictly plot related. -- 109.79.68.151 (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Could a filter be added for those edits that add to an edit summary? While some are justified, most additions I come across are just trivial and/or unnecessary. —El Millo (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

A bot could also automatically revert edits that increase a film's plot summary to 700+ (if special consensus on a particular article is to go beyond for whatever reason, {{Bots}} can easily be added). InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to a bot that automatically performed that kind of reversion unless it also left a clear notice for the editor regarding why their edit had been reverted (perhaps using text similar to that used at Template:uw-plotsum1. I know if I was a new editor who expanded a plot summary in good faith and my edit was bot-reverted without clear explanation, I'd be at best confused and at worst very upset that my hard work had been so effortlessly discarded and I wasn't even being told why.

If that would be part of the bot's design, then I'm still not sure the cut-off should be strictly at 700 words, and I wonder whether it would be better to tell the editor that their summary exceeded the guideline and ask them to self-correct it rather than auto-reverting...except that these days, mobile editors don't necessarily see notices left at their Talk pages either, so there's a bit of a conundrum there. DonIago (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps automatic reversion is a bit too much —just because I haven't heard it done before, if it's commonly done in other cases, then let's go ahead— but a warning before publishing the edit, plus a notice at their talk page and filter for the edit could work, along with automatically adding any article with a plot summary over 700 words to the Category:Wikipedia articles with plot summary needing attention. The {{Long plot}} template adds articles to this category already, so I don't know if that can be automatically added or if it's easier to directly add the category. —El Millo (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I would support an automated bot to deal with this. There are thousands of movies and it’s impossible to police them. Toa Nidhiki05 00:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I think after an edit puts a plot summary between 700 and 800 (850?) it just tags the section with {{Long plot}}. If the edit puts the plot beyond 800/850, I don't necessarily think a reversion is appropriate, but if there was a way to have a warning before publishing plus a notice on their talk page and then maybe an additional category so project members can be notified of truly long/over the limit articles, that could work. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

An editfilter than puts up a notice before you save the page would be reasonable. Automated tagging with plot-too-long template might be permissible (I think some would object to it), as long as it is not repeated (if an editor manually removes that tag, it is not permissible for a bot to automatically re-tag it, even if the section is edited again, which of course it will be). And automated reversion by a bot of anyting but certain vandalism would be against multiple policies (WP:EDITING and WP:BOTPOL for starters). Bots are here to help human editors build an encyclopedia; editors are not beholden to bots nor required to suppress their own editorial judgment to make some other editor's bot happy. That would be the tail wagging the dog and then some.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Strongly opposed to automatic reversion, and only slightly less so to automated drive-by maintenance tags. Barely supportive of an edit filter, on the condition that it be carefully and mildly worded and never rejects a submission. Underlying my views are the principle that no article's plot section is perfect, and an editor that wants to add something that is warranted shouldn't be aggressively badgered about it or be placed in a position to make something else go away to allow their own edit. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

An editfilter before submission would be better than the current situation which ultimately results in reverts or rollback to a shorter version sooner or later. There has to be a reasonable way to discourage new or poorly informed editors (unfamiliar with WP:FILMPLOT) who increase a plot summary from under 700 words to over 1000 words without setting a nasty mousetrap or being unfair to editors making good faith smaller incremental edits. -- 109.79.68.151 (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually I would have an editfilter show a warning at any increase that leaves a plot summary at over 700 words... if you can't make your edit fit within the guidelines, you shouldn't be making it. Incremental edits should always bring us closer to guidelines, not farther away. All you would need is 5 well-meaning edits adding 15 words each to a 700-word summary and you'd be over 10% beyond the 400 to 700 word range.

On their own, of course, it's no big deal: 700 words or 715 words... not a huge discrepancy. But it can add up quickly.

I would also definitely support a bot auto-tagging plot sections that are too long. Most people probably aren't even aware of the given range and so anything we can do to educate them would be helpful.

In either case, it's an opportunity to say "Hey—did you know we have guidelines? Here's where you can find the one relevant to the edit you're making." As a Wikipedia newbie, I would have vastly preferred an automated message encouraging me to check out our guidelines rather than finding out about them when someone reverted me (which was certainly done a few times without them pointing me to the relevant guideline). —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Critical acclaim, again

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#"Attributed to multiple references" and the three other linked discussions. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Future

Is there any guidelines about the Future/Legacy section? When it should be named Future and when it should be named Legacy? Redjedi23 (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I would consider these distinct topics. "Future" to me sounds like "Planned sequel(s)". That can be awkward to cover because someone can say they plan to make a sequel, and ten years pass with nothing new, and what do we say exactly at that point?

"Legacy" to me means how the film has been received in retrospect. That kind of commentary can be found in news articles about the film's anniversary, or print books (or chapters) writing about the film historically. The one section I've done in this regard is The Social Network § Post-2010s assessment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)