Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Anachrononisms or goofs: suitable for Wikipedia?

Recently, on the article of The Bank Job, I removed a section containting goofs in the film. I'm thinking such sections are trivial information, so I took it out. Another Wikipedian, Kotniski, thought otherwise and re-inserted the section. I looked at the guidelines, but couldn't find any. Any thoughts? --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 16:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:TRIVIA says that although trivia sections are discouraged, they are not to be deleted outright, but worked back into the article. I think the list of "anachronisms" is in any case more than just random trivia, and is likely to be of interest to readers (it's the sort of thing that interests me when I read about a film on WP). Of course it's not sourced and might be considered original research, but the same goes for pretty much all plot information in this and most other articles on movies, TV shows etc. In an ideal world there would be sources for all this, but the fact that there isn't is no reason to delete it outright. --Kotniski (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Kotniski, plot information is not original research. It is acceptable to provide a basic description of the topic in question, per WP:PSTS. Original research can wind up in plot sections, but we as editors need to review the wording to make sure it is not something up to interpretation. When it comes to the "Anachronisms" section in The Bank Job, these seem to be rather indiscriminate details. It is favorable to find reliable, third-party sources that talk about what may be incorrect in the film. Otherwise, the section is open to the addition of even the smallest, most irrelevant detail. MOS:FILM#Adaptations is tangential to this argument -- "Noting the differences between a film and its source work(s) without real-world context is discouraged." This can apply to the film and actual history. Let's try to find sources and possibly rewrite the section as prose backed with citations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Might be worth looking at Irish Times and Sydney Morning Herald. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The Anachronisms section lists production "goofs" (like a modern-day VISA/MasterCard logo in a 1970s shop window) and has nothing to do with the plot, therefore Plot guidelines do not apply. These mistakes or oversights appear in every film and should be addressed in the article's Production or Recption sections, but only if a reviewer or other credible source has noted them (which would likely only occur if their presence affected the film viewing experience in a significant way). Unless someone can find a reviewer or critic who took notice of these slips, the section should go. (Also, since most of the items in question appear to be lifted from IMDb, is there a copyvio concern — of course the material on IMDb could've been taken from WP, too!)
Jim Dunning | talk 16:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no copyvio if the facts are the same (facts aren't copyrightable) only if the expression of the facts is the same.

As for goofs - in general I don't think they have much place in an article, unless they've become well-known in and of themselves (like some of the mistakes in The Wizard of Oz), not because they're "original research" (I have an extremely forgiving take on that policy) but because they're usually just not very interesting. When most of the films that exist were made, no one anticipated that armies of geeks were going to be able to examine them frame by frame to find "mistakes" made by the filmmakers. People saw films once, or perhaps twice, and if they saw them again it was years later. Even when TV came along, commercial breaks, panning and scanning and the chopping up of movies to fit into time slots all made it unlikely that even the person who say through It's A Wonderful Life many times during the holiday season was going to pick up on those mistakes. Many films were made under the constraints of time and budget, and there just wasn't the chance (or the need) to dwell on every detail to get it precisely right to the standards of someone with the luxury of watching every nanosecond a practically infinite number of times. All of this explains why most of the "goofs" are just plain boring, and we don't need them.

It's a different matter when you get into how a film is adapted from its source material, where it differs in (non-trivial) ways, and any historical inaccuracies introduced because of the needs of story-telling and film-making. Those are interesting, and really need to be included in the article. (Despite guidelines which may seem to say otherwise, it is not "original research" to compare a film to its source material – I make the applicable argument here.) Much of what people "know" (or think they know) about many subjects, especially historical ones, comes from what they see in films and on television, so it behooves us to explicate for them how a film distorts reality. An incorrect Visa/MasterCard logo in the background of a shot is inconsequential, uninteresting and unencyclopedic, but the Ma Bell logo on the spacestation phone booth in 2001: A Space Odyssey is a valid and interesting thing to note, if properly done, because it illustrates the problems that a film which tries to predict the future has to contend with. Now, if it happens that someone has published on that topic, a cited referral would be easy enough, but even if that's not the case, it's not "original research" to note the existence of the "error" (which is actually only an error in retrospect), and allow the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 04:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A couple of questions are raised above:

1. Are trivia and anachronism info about works of fiction generally "boring"?
2. Are trivia and anachronism info about works of fiction ever of lasting worth?
3. When, if ever, should that kind of information be included in article space?

• A war movie was made in the earlier 1990s where Meg Ryan played the plucky pilot of a medevac helicopter. The film was focussed around whether she was heroic enough to be "the first woman to win the Congressional Medal of Honor". What was her heroic act? She brought her helicopter -- armed with a pintle-mounted machine gun in to attack an Iraqi tank. Reality check -- her helicopter was clearly marked with large Red Cross symbols. So, using it to mount an attack was not an act meriting an award -- it was a very clear war crime.

• The main character in the film Casablanca is world-weary American, Rick Blaine, who starts the film determined to remain neutral. The film is set early in the war, when the USA is still neutral. During the film events force the American hero to pick sides. At the end of the film he ends up shooting an SS officer. After he shoots the SS officer he throws out a bottle of Vichy mineral water, and a newspaper in the garbage can is dated December 6th, 1941. Both the Vichy water and the newspaper dated December 6th, 1941, have important symbolic values.
  • When Germany defeated France, in June 1940, the Germans allowed a puppet French regime to sue for Peace. Germany occupied the Atlantic coast, and some of the North. But the rural south of France, Frances colonies in Indochina, North Africa, and the Caribean, were, nominally, an independent, neutral country. And the new capital of this rump of France was the spa town of Vichy, previously most famous for its mineral water.
  • December 6th 1941 is the day before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor -- the event that drew a previously neutral USA into World War 2. The date of the newspaper was clearly not an accident. The filmmakers obviously planned for a symbolic juxtaposition of Rick Blaine's entry into WW2 and America's own entry, the next day.
• Richard McKenna's novel "The Sand Pebbles" is largely set in the remote provincial city of Changsha. The novel starts while a coalition of two modern political parties are uniting a China that had previously been divided up into the fiefs of corrupt independent local warlords. But much of the novel occurs during a civil war between those two parties. The novel is completely accurate in this.
  • The two parties were the Chinese Nationalist Party and the Chinese Communist Party. At that time local communist parties deferred to the instructions of the "Comintern", the Communist International, run by the Soviet Union. In modern industrialized countries the Comintern told communist parties to emulate the secret cells that allowed the Russian Communist Party to evade the Czar's secret police. But, in a China ruled by warlords the Soviet Union directed the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party to form a United Front with the Nationalists. The Communist leadership complied. Chiang Kai Chek, the leader of the Nationalist Party, appointed the senior communists to important posts.
  • The Soviet Union provided foreign aid -- until Chiang suddenly turned on the communists -- assassinated all the leaders of the Communists. He knew exactly where to find them, because they were all filling jobs he appointed them to. Mao Zedong had not been a member of the Communist Party's senior leadership when Chiang decapitated the Communist Party. He had been the administrator in charge of a remote provincial city -- Changsha. McKenna never spells it out, but the shadowy radicals who isolated the American sailors would have been lead by Mao Zedong. I am sure McKenna was aware that Changsha was Mao's city.

So, does what I wrote above about the connection between "The Sand Pebbles" and Mao Zedong belong in article space? No. I don't think so. Not unless a verifiable, authoritative sources writes about it. I haven't found anyone else who has noticed this connection. I figure it is important, but I am not a verifiable, authoritative source.

Does the December 6th/December 7th connection merit mention in the article on Casablanca? Without a verifiable, authoritative source to write about it none of the explanation belongs. Maybe it would be possible to mention that the newspaper in the Garbage can at the end of the film is dated December 6th, the day prior to Pearl Harbor. Or maybe not.

What about the war crimes of Meg Ryan's character? I don't think so -- again, not without a verifiable, authoritative source.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Film vs. Movie

"Previously, both Film Title (film) and Film Title (movie) were accepted as film article names; however, this has since changed due to a talk page consensus in early July 2005." Shouldn't the embedded link go to the archive of the discussion, rather than the current page?Heqwm2 (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"Award-winning"

I'd like to prompt some reconsideration of this sentence:

It is not recommended that the phrase "award-winning" be used in the first sentence of the lead: it provides insufficient context to the reader, and subsequent paragraphs in the lead can detail the major awards or nominations received by the film.

The problem isn't so much with what's written, as it is in what some people do with it. I'm getting pretty tired of people going around deleting "award-winning" en masse without at the same time providing the additional context and information that the clause above calls for.

Given the choice between an article which uses the phrase "Academy Award-winning" or "Golden Globe-winning" or just "award-winning" in the lede sentence, and one which doesn't mention a film's significant awards in the lede at all, I opt for the former as being more informative and useful to the reader.

Sure, it's legitimate to remove "award-winning" when the award came from the Film Society of Lapland - because it's literally true but not interesting or informative - or to remove "Academy Award-winning" when the award was for Best Toenail Polish - because it implies more than is true - but removing or challenging the phrase is different from just taking it out of articles by the dozen at a time, espeically when you're not providing the additional context that's needed to let the reader know that the film is an important, significant, popular or well-regarded film (conditions that are not true of most films).

I added language to the clause to make it clear that the editor has a responsibility to improve the article, not simply to delete a phrase and walk away, but it was reverted:

While it is not recommended that the phrase "award-winning" be used in the first sentence of the lead, because it provides insufficient context to the reader, and subsequent paragraphs in the lead can detail the major awards or nominations received by the film, it is also not appropriate to remove the phrase from the first sentence without also adding that additional information, for example, a quick summary of the film's most significant awards.

I think this makes the situation much more clear, and removes the carte blanche to delete and walk away - after all, we are all here to improve the articles. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the way you wrote it, Ed, it sounded more like a slap on the wrist for the guilty editors. In some instances, the film article may not have a substantial lead section at all. Better wording might be something along the lines of, "Avoid using the phrase 'award-winning' in the opening sentence of the lead section and instead provide an overview of the specific awards and their categories after the beginning of the lead section." Maybe it could be tweaked, but I think something like that works without sounding too negative or explicitly scolding. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Erik: Your point is well-taken, and spot-on - I wrote thaty sentence when I was annoyed, and you're right, it shows. I like your alternative, perhaps with a bit of a tweak:

Avoid using the phrase "award-winning" in the opening sentence of the lead section. Instead, for films that have won signficant awards in important categories (film, director, writer, actors, etc.) provide an overview of those awards later in the lead section.

Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 02:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Your revision works for me, although I wasn't sure about the phrase in parentheses. Maybe it is just the way that I am reading it, but it seems to be somewhat limiting, like it may not be relevant to mention costume design or visual effects. If the awards are significant, then would it matter that much what the categories are? Maybe you have a few examples of unimportant awards in mind, but it seems best to say "significant awards in the respective categories" or something of the like. Also, while we're on "Lead section", is there any more revising we can do? I've never considered this component to be that well-written, especially with the 'award-winning' tidbit being tacked on. Maybe figure out a way to flesh out the component a little bit with agreeable wording? One item that I think the component could use is a very brief premise of the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The parenthetical phrase was indeed intended to prevent a film that won an Oscar for, say, Best Costume Design, from having that relatively minor award trumpeted in the lede (putting it in a later "Awards and honors" section is obviously fine). On the other hand, any film that wins a lot of Oscars is inevitably going to get a few in minor categories, in which case it's fine to mention it because it's the number that's impressive, in and of itself. If you think the parenthetical clause is too limiting, let's strike it out and see how it reads. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 02:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any real difference between this new revision and the current wording, to be perfectly honest. If your intention (and that's how I read your initial comment) is to try and force those users removing vague peacock terms like "award winning" to then go and add a more correct overview, then that's simply unreasonable and unenforceable. PC78 (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's just as enforceable as any other style guideline. If you see no difference between my last suggestion and the current wording, then you shouldn't have any objection to exchanging one for the other. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 03:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

PC78, I think that the difference is a more active tone. The original revision did not quite link the removal of 'award-winning' and the helpful offset edit. The new revision ties them together more clearly. I think that it demonstrates a more driven purpose and addresses Ed's concerns about a lack of follow-up. In the future, we can point to this, "If you're cleaning up the vague phrasing in the opening sentence, the MOS says to ensure that the awards are covered in the lead section." —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That being said, I don't think it would be appropriate for someone reading this MOS to say, "well, if they don't add something in the lead about the awards them I'm just going to revert them back in." The difference is the removal of something the guideline says shouldn't be there, and the good faith the add it somewhere else. A guideline cannot force someone to edit something back in once it is removed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite, which is what I was getting at above. You simply can't insist that someone add something to an article when they take something away; that's a bit like insisting that someone add references to an article rather than simply tagging it with {{unreferenced}}. The removal of peacock terms such as "award winning" is in itself an act of cleanup which requires no follow up edit, and it certainly wouldn't be appropriate to revert someone who did this. This notion that "the editor has a responsibility to improve the article" (at least in the way you apparently mean) is completely false. Ed, I still don't support a change because I don't think your revision is an improvement on what we currently have. Tone is still an issue, and if you want to avoid using a certain phrase, it is only common sense to say why. I would go with something like:

It is not recommended that the phrase "award-winning" be used in the opening sentence of the lead, as it provides insufficient context to the reader. The significance of any awards or nominations received by the film should instead be summarized elsewhere in the lead.

But again, that's really just splitting hairs on what we currently have. PC78 (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with what you said PC78... except for your wording of the guideline sentence. It asks for the significance of the awards rather than the awards the film itself won. Wouldn't the significance of the awards be obvious by naming the awards themselves (eg. Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay = really good movie, very well written). I prefer:

Avoid using the phrase "award-winning" in the opening sentence of the lead section, as it provides insufficient context to the reader. Instead, provide an overview of major award nominations and wins later in the lead section.

"Avoid" rather than "not recommended" because the phrase should really never be used in the opening sentence. - kollision (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I favor Ed's revised proposal:

Avoid using the phrase "award-winning" in the opening sentence of the lead section. Instead, for films that have won significant awards in important categories, provide an overview of those awards later in the lead section.

I think that it exercises an active tone. While it does not explicitly tell the editor to replace the peacock term with an overview later, the lead-in suggestion is pretty suggestive. PC78, I wasn't sure if the revision was completely unacceptable or you think that there could be some tweaks. Kollision, your input is welcome, too. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, I still believe it needs to have "as it provides insufficient context to the reader" appended to the first sentence, as it is currently written in the guideline. And I don't think we need to say "important categories" either; what exactly do we mean by "important"? Based on Kollision's input above, I would prefer:

Avoid using the phrase "award-winning" in the opening sentence of the lead section, as it provides insufficient context to the reader. Instead, provide an overview of any significant award wins or nominations later in the lead section.

Does that still have the "active tone" you require? PC78 (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What is "important"? Well, what is "significant"? Both are judgment calls, and that's what we're trying to encourage here, some judicious use of the editor's powers of judgment. The Academy Awards are significant, but (sorry, sound dudes), the Academy Award for Sound Editing is not important enough to be mentioned in the lede, if it stands by itself. Nominations, also, are not nearly as important as wins - there are always 4 or 5 times as many noms as wins, so I wouldn't open the door for that by mentioning it, (although I also wouldn't remove them in the case of films that got bunches of noms but happened to be up against a blockbuster, for instance). As for the "lack of context" statement, I have no objection to it. How about this, then:

Avoid using the phrase "award-winning" in the opening sentence of the lead section, as it provides insufficient context to the reader. Instead, provide an overview of any significant award wins in important categories later in the lead section.

Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right that "significant" is equally vague and open to interpretation, but I don't think having two such vague terms back to back is particuarly helpful. "Significane" should, of course, be relative to a particular film. Not every film is in contention for Best Film at the Oscars, and a win at some minor film festival is likely to be big deal for a low budget indie film. An Academy Award for Sound Editing might be deemed important for a film that received praise for its technical aspects, though perhaps I'm stretching here. Nominations may also be significant for much the same reasons – it's all a question of context, which is why we avoid saying "award winning" in the first place. :) Isn't determining "significant awards" and "important categories" part of the same decision making process anyway? PC78 (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't determining "significant awards" and "important categories" part of the same decision making process anyway? Good point - so what if we remove "important categories" and use the time-honored "awards and recognition" or "awards and honors" phrasing? And add "short" to overview to avoid the entire Awards section being replicated uptop:

Avoid using the phrase "award-winning" in the opening sentence of the lead section, as it provides insufficient context to the reader. Instead, provide a short overview of any significant awards and honors later in the lead section.

Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 02:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

We can quibble over specific words from now until doomsday, but your latest revision is fine with me, providing nobody else has any further comment. :) PC78 (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Not until Doomsday, I've got a date with an angel on Doomsday -- I can work up until Doomsday Eve, though. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed "Marketing" component

I propose adding "Marketing" to "Other article components" because while the topic is not usually a staple in film articles, I think that it is prominent enough to identify and provide related guidelines. Viral marketing is becoming trendy, and studios are experimenting with unusual ways to attract audiences. There have also been controversies with films' promotions, too, such as Captivity having a controversial billboard or Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters causing a scare. Below is a preliminary draft of what we could introduce into MOS:FILM. Feedback would be greatly appreciated... do we need it? Do we need more or less examples? Do we need to provide any further guidance to editors about writing such a section?

The marketing of a film may warrant a separate section from the rest of the article body if there is significant coverage from reliable sources. The section can detail the marketing campaign pursued by the film's studio and the public's response to the campaign. For instance, a film could be specifically marketed for awards season or as a summer blockbuster film. Details of customary marketing such as trailers, TV spots, radio ads, and posters should be avoided unless they exhibit unusual characteristics that have been independently covered. Special examples include viral marketing, surprise trailers (e.g., Cloverfield), and controversial posters. Since a neutral point of view is a cornerstone of Wikipedia, avoid promotional language when discussing the film's marketing.

Thanks! —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I agree that controversial or unique should be covered, but I'm also hesitant to agree to having a new section as I can see people easily using as an excuse to note trailer releases and what not (which is already annoying enough as it is). As viral marketing is common now, I don't think it should even count as special or unique unless it has received extensive coverage elsewhere. As a whole, though, it seems rare enough to not need special highlighting in the MoS, but rather just a general note in the area that talks about "add/remove sections as needed." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's rather vague. The thing about trailers is as cool as they are, they're generally all standardised, montages of scenes. However, there are those which are works of art in their own right, like the teasers for Terminator 2: Judgment Day (Arnie being built) and Star Trek (the Enterprise being built), or the comedy ones for Hellboy II: The Golden Army. Toys and novelisations / prequel comics are works of art too and expand the world of the film, so these are always important. Hopefully we can merge the guideline about taglines into this new section. I think marketing always shapes people's expectation of their film and long afterward, just like word-of-mouth, fanboy backlash (typical IMO but sometimes it becomes really notable, like Casino Royale or Transformers) or a production section's discussion of secrecy or adapting a property for a general audience. Alientraveller (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for the addition, so long as it's clear that not every film is going to have as heavy marketing as other films, or even publications discussing said marketing. I don't want the section turned into a "Trailer B appeared on October X, 20XX".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts so far. I'll try to address them all. AnmaFinotera, I think we can elaborate "significant coverage from reliable sources" to show the kind of focus this section should have. I completely agree with your sentiment about detailing typical details like trailer release dates, and I was trying to avoid that with my "customary marketing" sentence. If you are experiencing issues with indiscriminate details, we could use this section for clarification. Perhaps we can get a little more specific, such as saying that articles should appear as immutable as possible, so if a new trailer comes out, just add it to "External links" instead of reporting it. As for viral marketing, maybe we can elaborate on what kinds there have been. I was not necessarily thinking official website contests, but more like The Dark Knight, Cloverfield, and I Heart Huckabees. Alientraveller, I think trailers would be okay to discuss with the "significant coverage from reliable sources". When it comes to merchandise, though, that area seems a little grayer. Certainly we can identify product placement in a film (another detail to look at!), but toys and such seem "customary" for the films of the relevant genres (animation, superhero). Any way we can shape the criteria for inclusion in such a section? Also, perhaps if there are novelizations and comics tied to the film, we could encourage a "Further reading" section to shore up the article's immutability. I usually add the novelization in such a section with whatever other reading materials seem relevant. Lastly, merging taglines into this section is a great idea; it ties into determining the discriminate and indiscriminate components of a film's marketing. I've always thought that the "Tagline" section was sparse and reactionary. Bignole, I think I pretty much touched on what you said earlier. If you have any ideas about addressing specifics, feel free to share. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well when writing out the section, I do recommend noting, "Did a company produce merchandise when it was released?" Alientraveller (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

How specific should one get, though? Obviously, someone can type in the film title in a shopping website and cite all the film-related items one could buy. I mean, why not consider toys for a family film or a superhero film a given? Just trying to determine where the line could be drawn. Doesn't have to be so solid, but I think that we can decide how far the section should go. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Merging "Tagline"

What do others think about merging the "Tagline" component with the "Marketing" component? I've always thought that the component was overly specific to directly address a sentence that would appear in a film article's lead section. I am thinking that it could be rewritten to say that the tagline should be excluded from the lead section for the most part (it seems it is very rare for a tagline to actually transcend the film's importance, except maybe the Jaws 2 example); without proper context, it is usually going to come off as unnecessarily promotional. However, we could say that taglines could be included in a "Marketing" section or, if it fits, a "Release" section if there is real-world context for it. I found a few online headlines that I added at Talk:Tagline, and I have found some print resources that have commentary on some unique taglines. We could use these as examples in this expanded "Marketing" component or maybe just improve the article tagline to reflect what taglines have been the source of commentary. What do others think? Of course, other ideas about the existing draft above would be welcome, too. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Below is a new draft that is a little more detailed and also merges the "Tagline" section:

Films are marketed by their studios to different audiences, and a film's marketing campaign may be detailed in its Wikipedia article if reliable sources exist. Details may be contained in a "Release" section, a "Marketing" subsection within it, or a stand-alone "Marketing" section, depending on the amount of coverage available. Since films tend to be treated by studios as commercial products, care must be taken to provide a neutral point of view about a film's marketing campaign.

Topics that can be covered include target demographics, test screenings, release dates, scale of release (limited vs. wide), product placement, merchandising, marketing controversies, and contending for awards. Do not merely describe the content of customary marketing methods such as trailers, TV spots, radio ads, and posters. Instead, use reliable sources to provide useful commentary about a method, such as the filmmakers' intent with the presentation of a trailer or the audience's reported reaction to it. For example, the viral marketing campaign for Cloverfield began with an untitled teaser trailer that generated strong hype. For merchandising and other tie-ins, cite reliable sources to demonstrate relevance outside a studio's website(s) or shopping websites. An example is to include commentary about how a studio used product placement in the film to lower its production costs.

In the past, film articles have sometimes displayed taglines in the lead sections. Since taglines are generally a small part of a film's marketing campaign, they are usually too indiscriminate to belong in what is intended to be a concise overview of the film article. Exceptions may include famous taglines such as Jaws 2's "Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water..." so use reliable sources to back claims to fame. If the tagline is not very famous but still considered relevant to a film's marketing, it can belong in the appropriate section of the article body.

Please let me know if anything needs to be tweaked! —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that looks good. You've eliminated probably my only concern with the last draft, which didn't really touch on the proper place for marketing material should there not be enough information for its own section. The current wording now covers that nicely, as the best place for marketing information to sit is of course the "Release" section unless weight of coverage determines otherwise. Do you think the wording on taglines leans the guideline back towards their inclusion? It can be read that way, even though I don't think that was your intention. Steve ^{T • C} 19:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not really hashed out the criteria in my head for what merits including a tagline in the article body. I think that the original section was more concerned about how taglines in the lead section would appear too promotional. I used the word "relevant" since "notable" on Wikipedia is define differently. Maybe we can advocate for reliable sources (which are third-party by nature) for commentary on the tagline(s)? For example, I added the Hiram Johnson connection at Platoon (film)#Marketing. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fantastic. Overall it's an excellent suggestion to note interesting analysis of promotion is worthwhile in articles. Alientraveller (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Tagline-wise, it looks fine. As far as the rest of marketing, perhaps a short clause reminding editors to avoid going into trivial detail? For most films, I don't think that's a problem, but I can easily see articles on films from big franchises with solid online fanbases, such as Star Wars or Star Trek, going into excessive detail regarding multiple trailer variants, promotional offerings, and other tie-in media. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think GS makes a good point - the marketing section shouldn't become the tail that wags the dog. As for taglines, integrating them into the marketing component is indeed a good idea, although they should continue to be limited to those which are memorable, have seeped into the general culture as a meme, or are interesting for what they say about the studio's perception of a film's selling points, which can differ from how they're seen in retrospect (for older films), or how they're received by the public. Vague criteria, I know, but, as always, disputes about this can be settled with a citation when necessary. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

For avoiding excessive detail, I tried to address that with these two sentences: 1) "Avoid straightforward descriptions of customary marketing methods such as trailers, TV spots, radio ads, and posters," and 2) "For merchandising, use editorial judgment to maintain a neutral tone and to avoid indiscriminate detail when writing about a film's tie-in products." Any way I can fine-tune these sentences to make the point clearer? I guess I was trying to think of a draft that would be universal, since franchise-related films only make up a part of all the cinema out there. Suggestions would be welcomed! —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten the second paragraph per expressed concerns. I think that the rewrite is more on target. Let me know if there needs to be any tweaking. I will see if I can mention this discussion in this month's newsletter to have a few eyes on this new component before adding it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Linking dates?

Regarding recent additions to this guideline, are we now saying that release dates should link to "Year in film" articles? And should "United States" (for example) link to Cinema of the United States rather than United States (this would seem to be contrary to current practise)? PC78 (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I have requested input from the editor who made the change. There's been a lot of shifting when it comes to dates, and I think we've all seen editors come through film articles, de-linking unnecessary wiki-links. There have been some discussions about the "year in film" articles. It seems to have boiled down to two sides; one side thinks that wiki-linking "year in film" is overlinking and creates Easter eggs (not knowing what the link is until you follow it), and the other side thinks that it is relevant to link to what is happening in cinema in that particular year. My opinion is that there needs to be demonstrable context for linking to "year in film" articles, such as in the opening sentence or identifying a film as the biggest hit in the year XXXX. I don't know what the community's consensus is when it comes to linking to these articles, but I think that we should de-link years in the infobox per ongoing procedure and discuss its merits or lack thereof. My take is that the release dates are rather specific, and looking at the infobox, it cannot be determined from the get-go if the linked year is the year link or the year in film link.

I think the procedure has also involved de-linking "United States" and "English" since they are far too common. Linking Cinema of the United States is actually not a bad idea; I wouldn't mind endorsing it. Depends on how discussion goes. Lastly, a point I wanted to bring up -- we do not need to link English in the infobox; if you don't link it, the infobox has coding that automatically links it and adds it to Category:English-language films. I think the same thing happens for most other languages. We could make this clearer in the template's documentation. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; yes, it was Ed's changes to the example infobox in this guideline that prompted my questions above. I don't have any strong feelings about the "Year in film" links to be honest, except to say that these articles are generally very US-centric and for many other countries it would be far more pertinant to link to the appropraite "List of Country films of year" articles (where they exist). I don't buy this "easter egg" argument that some people are throwing around; it tends to imply that piped links in general are bad, which is nonsense.

I also agree that linking to Cinema of the United States rather than simply United States is probably the way forward. I'd also say that we probably shouldn't be linking to language articles either, though a link might not be unreasonable for some more obscure languages. I'm sure someone else recently raised this point about linking to language articles in our infobox, but I can't recall who made the comment or where. PC78 (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, we might want to consider not linking countries in the "Release dates" section. PC78 (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Despite my tendency to be boldish (i.e. not really, actually bold, just mildly precipitous), I only made those changes in the ibox because I thought they were generally accepted. Certainly, the discussion about linking dates ended with a consensus to link release dates (the years only) to "year in film" articles, a weaker consensus to link birth and death dates of significant actors, and no consensus about what to do with other dates in film articles. Erik asked me to change from using the "fy" ("filmyear") shortcut template to the expanded form "XXXX in film", and that seems reasonable to me, so I changed it. As for the language and country templates, I do think that linking to "Cinema of XXXX" in film article infoboxes is better, more focused and specific, than linking to the generic country article (but I now realize that the example infobox should probably also use the expanded template rather than my shortcut). Regarding not linking the language, can someone reiterate the argument for that, I'm not familiar with it, and I typically link to English language (or whatever language) articles using the "English" shortcut template or the normal expanded form for other languages, all as a matter of course. What is the advantage of not linking these?

Finally, I agree that linking to the country name in the release entry seems a bit of overkill to me -- in fact, I normally use a different format entirely. Rather than this:

United Kingdom:
24 August 1954
United States:
9 September

I prefer to use

24 August 1954 (UK)
9 September (US)

which I find more compact, and visually cleaner. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm aware of the concensus not to wikilink dates, but not to link to the "Year in film" articles. (You couldn't point me to that discussion could you?) Personally I don't see a problem with those shortcut templates of yours. Regarding linking to language, I know we currently do this, but I believe the reasons for not doing so is all part of the larger WP:OVERLINK argument, i.e. we should all know what the English language is without linking to the article. I agree that we can find a better way of presenting release dates in the infobox; I had been working on a change to the template which would address this issue, but the idea kind of fell by the wayside. PC78 (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) PC78: Aren't the "year in film" articles more English language-centric than US-centric? In other words, wouldn't it still be worthwhile to link British films to "year in film" articles, and non-English films to the "List of Country films" articles, at least as far as mainstream commercial films are concerned? It's rare that I work on non-English films, and when I do they tend to be silents, or early classics rather than contemporary films, so guidance here would be appreciated. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"English language-centric" is possibly a better way of putting it, yes. I typically work on South Korean film articles, and for that purpose 2008 in film is pretty much useless; I would instead link to List of South Korean films of 2008, which at least provides some sort of context for the film in question. PC78 (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's way too much discussion going on in the community this week! :) Ed, just to clarify, I was asking to de-link the years because when readers look at the wiki-link, they may not know if it is a "year" link and a "year in film" link. It is discouraged to have a wiki-link that readers have to follow before knowing what it is. Also, I think that MOS:LINK has been revised; look at #Piped links. Might be worth looking at and applying here.

Let's see about building consensus for "Cinema of..." linking. I don't see a major issue with it, though I was wondering if it still wouldn't be useful to link to lesser-known countries on the English Wikipedia. (And what if they don't have a cinema page?) For linking languages, I think that "English" is a very common word on this particular Wikipedia, so it's understandable that it could be overlinking. For foreign languages, it may be more appropriate, but it seems difficult to know where to draw the line. Right after English, or further? Lastly, Ed, I follow a similar style to yours (though without italics). The lack of a year with September, though, seems strangely missing... I understand your goal, but I think that there have been cases of films having major gaps in release dates, even among English-speaking territories. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)) The discussion I was thinking of is this one.

I take your point about overlinking. I do recall the first time I saw an ibox with "English" linked to "English language", and I thought "Oh, I guess we're supposed to do that" and I've been doing it ever since. But the essence of determining when a link is unnecessary is imagining whether anyone is going to use it, and it seems unlikely to me that many people are seeing "English" in the language field and saying to themselves "Hmm, let me find out more about this English language thing they're talking about," so I guess that makes it an overlink. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding not knowing what the link is, when the cursor rolls over it,it pops up as "1954 in film", so I don't see that as a major problem. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that is possible, but WP:EGG says, "However, make sure that it is still clear what the link refers to without having to follow the link." —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Erik: I think the popup on rollover is sufficient for that -- after all, you can't click the link unless you put the cursor on it. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) PC78: Yes, I can go either way on repeating the year on multiple release dates, sometimes it seems redundant to me, other times not, sometimes I take it out because leaving it in makes the release date wrap around to another line, and I like to avoid that whenever possible. I think that (somewhere) I read that the date guidelines suggest not putting month and date alone without a year unless it's obvious by context, which I think this example has, but I also agree that it looks a little naked without the year. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ed, I don't think your rollover example makes sense. If that held true, then why would WP:EGG state that at all? If the rollover approach was widely accepted, then we could pipe-link at our own convenience. You do realize that not all readers may be as computer-savvy as you and me? :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Several thoughts from above comments: 1) With regard to the XXXX in film articles and English-language bias, yes this clearly exists. But the way to address this is to more aggressively add foreign films, not ghetto-ize a year in film into potentially 100+ articles. (This also presumes that a nationality grouping is more relevant than a genre grouping or a language grouping.) Those national lists are intended to be lists, and if anything, with more comprehensive and sortable listings within the year in film articles, may potentially be merge-able into the year in film articles.

2)Instead of creating what are presumably to be dozens of templates for countries and languages, it would make far more sense to create a sub-template for the infobox which would recognize particular magic words (the countries and languages) and automatically code the parameter to format the countries and languages to link to their Cinema of... and X-language articles. This could also automatically add the appropriate categories, too.

3)I think I've forgotten... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

GS: Although I later added the category-adding function to the FilmUK and FilmUS templates, that wasn't their purpose. They truly were written as shortcuts, so I didn't have to write out the full "[[Cinema of the United Kingdom|United Kingdom]]" text over and over again. Other editors can write similar shortcut templates (copied from these) if they frequently work on films from other countries and want to make life easier for themselves, but I don't think there needs to be any concerted organized effort to create shortcut templates for every country. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 02:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Giro; this bias with the "XXXX in film" articles appears to be a trend that has crept in with the most recent year articles. See 2007 in film, specifically the "Wide-release films" section where films are restricted to those "playing nationally on 600 screens or more in the United States and Canada". The articles would need a massive overhaul to redress this imbalance. PC78 (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) PC78: Erik: There's no particular computer savvy necessary to read a little box that pops up when you put your cursor on a link. Frankly, I'm at a loss to understand the objection here -- that could be my deficit, but it just makes no sense to me. The whole "easter egg" thingee looks to me like an example of overzealousness -- Wikipedia's full of them. Why are we expending energy on worrying about whether someone might make an errant click on a link, when the essence of the Internet is navigating hyperlinks? So they click on it without seeing the little "1954 in film" box and arrive somewhere they didn't expect - so they click on the back button, so what? What harm's been done? None that I can see. It's different if the link is in some way deceptive, if you click on "vacuum cleaner" and end up at the website for Hoovers, or expect to get to "spaghetti" and instead you're taken to an article on the problems of wiring electronic components, but click on a year in a film article, and being taken to "1954 in film" instead of "1954" just doesn't seem like a problem we should spend any nanoseconds on. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 02:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're replying to Erik here, not me. :) PC78 (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I got edit-conflicted with you just now trying to fix that. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 02:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I had a thought... is it possible to make this a non-issue and remove the example infobox from the style guidelines? It seems like there is going to be all these little variations we differ over, and the example seems to formalize the setup too much. We could work on clarifying the parameters in the documentation and say to look at WP:FILMSPOT for how Featured Articles and Good Articles have managed. Just an idea to sever the Gordian Knot. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but see this diff at War of the Worlds (2005 film); same user has been mass delinking countries in biography articles, so I think it's only a matter of time before we see more of this sort of thing. I like Giro's suggestion above to have the template autoformat these things, but I'm not sure to what extent this is do-able. PC78 (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Release dates: public release vs first dibs

I don't see the point of using the first premiere date of any kind as the release date in the infobox. The public release is when most reviews are published and the entire distribution and publicity circus is geared for that date. Early premieres at film festivals are meant to create a buzz, not to make films widely known and watched. It's the kind of information that is far more suitable in the article text, not as a quick fact for the casual reader. Case in point is Let the Right One In (film). The date January 24, ten months before the major public premiere, would only mislead me if I wanted to start looking for more information on it, especially if it related to publicity, merchandising or studio economics.

I tried looking through the talkpage archives for a motivation for this recommendation, and could find none. So why exactly is this recommendation the way it is, and why shouldn't I simple ignore it?

Peter ^Isotalo 18:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Where exactly are you reading that this is the only release date that should be included? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to post a response along these lines. There's nothing stopping the infobox including several dates, as long as it doesn't get too cumbersome. For example, Changeling (film) lists the initial Cannes premiere, plus both the US and UK releases. It seems to work out OK this way. If you (Peter) feel the guideline could use some clarification in this regard, I'm certain we can accommodate that. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 21:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Problem solved, I guess. I'm used to seeing just one release date in the infobox, and the example here only showed one date per country. User:GDallimore and I interpreted the recommendations as meaning only the first date should be used over at Talk:Let the Right One In (film).

Peter ^Isotalo 07:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Let the Right One In, I think that it may be better to link to Gothenburg Film Festival in the infobox rather than Sweden... at first glance, it seems like the film was commercially released in Sweden on that date, which isn't the case. For general usage, though, I've never been crazy about using film festival release dates in the infobox. It could depend on if the film made a big splash at the festival. I think there are quite a few films that don't garner much publicity when they premiered in some film festivals, though premieres like at Cannes may be more worth highlighting. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I read Låt den rätte komma in several years ago and loved it, I've been attending the Stockholm International Film Festival annually since 2001, I'm reasonably interested in film, and I don't live under a rock. But I wasn't aware that it had been made into a film until I read about the award it received at the film Tribeca Film Festival. I think it would be better to recommend that the most important release date should be in the infobox. An opening at Cannes could be a reasonable exception to general public releases, but a sneak preview at some obscure film festival doesn't seem relevant.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's unreasonable to list the first release of any sort, regardless of the prestige-factor - it's a question of documentation, and oftentimes these screenings are when the first reviews start to roll in. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Do we not try to keep the infobox succinct? I don't think that we should make film festival release dates mandatory as the style guidelines indicate. Historically speaking, it seems that the public release date is more cited. I think we should consider film festival release dates similar to how we consider release dates related to the subject matter, like having the Israeli release date for Munich. If the film festival release date is very much relevant, it could be included. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes are supposed to be quick reference sources. Documentation is what the main body of the article is for. That's where you in-depth details. It's not so about any "prestige-factor" as being the most relevant date for most people. And I don't know how it is in the rest of the world, but in Sweden you don't see a single published review until the official release date. Film festivals may attract attention, but never reviews, at least not in anyting resembling a major newspaper or magazine.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

TCM in ext link guidleline

Why is the TCM database not included in the external links section of the guideline, along with IMDB, AMG, Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes and others? For older movies especially, TCM usually has better information than AMG, and should certainly be listed. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 11:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No objections from me if you want to go ahead and add it. PC78 (talk) 11:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you share what content TCM provides that other external links may not? I have not used the website before, so I just want to understand what it can add. Does it have a template that can be used? I was also thinking, maybe for the MOS, we can say to include links if they really provide substance. I'm not talking about just TCM; Box Office Mojo and Rotten Tomatoes may not quite apply for lesser-known films. TCM may not be suitable for recent films (obviously). Maybe with that kind of caveat, we can attempt to include links that benefit beyond the Wikipedia article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The relevant tempate is {{tcmdb title}}; perhaps there are others to consider in Category:Film external link templates as well? I think your suggestion above is a good one. PC78 (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Erik: Although TCM sometimes has cast or crew information that IMDB or AMG don't have, the biggest advantage to the site is their "Notes" section, which has semi-raw research notes, with sources, that have been compiled for the purpose (I believe) of being used by Robert Osborne and the writing staff of TCM to put together the intros and outros that bracket TCM's presentation of films. (Although, with some frequency, Osborne seems to insert additional material which, I assume, is from his own knowledge.) Also very useful (and also obviously based in part on the research notes) are the signed articles that most films have, which not only provide additional information, but also tie together the raw notes into a coherent narrative.

I've used the TCM notes to provide production information, casting background, stuff about the relationship of the film to the censors at the Hays Office during the heyday of the Production Code, studio intrigues etc. It's strongest on films of the 30s-50s, but it's rare that a film doesn't have something in the Notes or the Article that isn't helpful. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's another tangentially related question - if some of these sites, such as BOM, RT, etc are already included in the references section, might it not be prudent to remove them from the external links, as they are already linked? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't, as someone could not be looking at the article in toto, and navigated directly to the External links. There's no reason to deny them the link they would not have seen because they skipped the "Notes" section. Also, with some frequency, the ref may be to a specific page on the TCM site, and not to the "Overview" section (their front page) that the template links to. I see no problem with a minor amount of duplication. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the "External links" section highlights links that are clearly useful. While we cite items like Rotten Tomatoes or Box Office Mojo, we only cite a small part of these websites in the article body. In the "Notes" section, they can be like any other link whose additional substance may not be realized. Hence the "External links" section can show websites that have content that the article won't fully hold. —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Agenda to improve style guidelines

The style guidelines have slowly evolved over the past year or so, and I would like to continue this evolution since I feel that some sections are outdated. Recent changes to the style guidelines have included the "Adaptations" section, the "Release" section and its "Theatrical" and "Home media" subsections, the "Critical reception" section, and the "Non-free images" section. A few discussions above, there is discussion to add a "Marketing" section. I would like to outline some points that I think we could address. I will ultimately start a separate discussion for each point, so if you have any ideas for additional points to explore in the style guidelines, we can gather them here to get an idea of what needs to be done.

1. Should the infobox always mention the first screening of a film at a film festival? I think that some ambiguity could be introduced into this criteria if the film festival is not prominent or if the film's presence at the film festival was not a major one. Two examples come to mind: 300 first screened at Butt-Numb-A-Thon in 2006, which does not seem to be a huge deal. Also, Franklyn recently screened at the 52nd London Film Festival, but it didn't make much of a splash. Since the infobox should be concise, it seems like film festival release dates shouldn't always be a staple.
2. Rewrite of "Lead section" so there are less stubby paragraphs. Added details could talk about how to adequately summarize parts of the article. For example, what information from "Production" would be ideal to use or how to best write the reception of a film with critics or in the box office. Another item would be criteria for citations in the lead section, such as information that may be found controversial (per the usual approach by some FAs).
3. Rewrite of "Plot" to clarify word count since "be between 400 and 700 words and should not exceed 900 words..." seems a little detached. We could try to explain that the section should be a descriptive claim of the primary source and to inject ambiguity in any disputed element of the plot (like calling a vehicle "a car" instead of arguing over whether it is '76 or '77). Any interpretations could fit better in the context of another section, especially if there are differing ones about a specific plot point. Another thought is if the film is too complex to warrant a basic description, we could fall back on a synopsis as reported by a reliable source. Reliable sources may also be necessary for some films that are not available to the public.
4. Rewrite of "Background/Production" to identify further topics that could be covered, and how they could be organized. For example, the history of a project leading up to filming could be in a "Development" subsection, visual effects could go into a "Visual effects" subsection, and so forth.
5. Rewrite of "Cast and crew information" to be more focused on the cast. (Crew information seems irrelevant in this section.) I think that we can touch different setups for a film article's "Cast" section depending on the content available (simple list vs. prose). We can also suggest limiting character descriptions to 1-2 short sentences and focus more on the real-world context of the actor and his/her role. Another point to address is to say that simple lists are preferable over wikitables, though wikitables could be used to lay out voice actors in different languages, such as original Japanese voices and dubbed English voices.
6. Rewrite of "Documentaries"... I haven't given this a lot of thought, but since documentaries, especially major ones, tend to be political in nature (on both ends of the spectrum), we may want to update this particular section.
7. Expansion of "Soundtrack" to outline some criteria of what could be included. For example, a track listing with multiple artists could be appropriate for the sake of navigation, but if one composer writes all or most of the tracks for a film, it may not be important to identify the tracks and their lengths. Also, we could talk about how to use the soundtrack infobox, especially whether or not to include a soundtrack cover. A final point is to determine when there should be a stand-alone article for the soundtrack. Some editors fork the content out of the main article, some merge it back in.
8. Rewrite of "References" to cover {{reflist}}, available templates to use like {{cite news}}, using multiple tags for one reference, and whatever else we can think of.
9. Expansion of "External links" to clarify that even if you can add an external link to a film article, it doesn't mean you should. The link should meet WP:EL criteria... for example, a 1930s film that may have a brief profile on Rotten Tomatoes or Box Office Mojo probably will not have useful off-wiki content for a reader. On the other hand, the TCM Movie Database may not relevant to link to for very recent films. Also, I was thinking about setting up the external links' templates in a table to reduce the white spacing in this section.
10. Expansion of "Linking dates" because I think that we can use this section to cover a few more relevant items. For example, WP:NBSP would apply to nearly all film articles. For example, we can encourage writing US$60 million and November 26, 2008 (see NBSP used in each coding) as examples of non-breaking spaces. Another topic to touch on is WP:ENGVAR. The MOS section could be newly called something like, "Text and link formatting".
11. Rewrite "Trivia" while keeping the main points, but perhaps suggest that Good Articles and Featured Articles usually lack such a section.
12. Reduce "Upcoming" since the only relevant template is {{Future film}}; we can link to the category that has the other "future" templates. Maybe we could link to WP:FUTFILM for more information about handling future film articles.

I think that there is a lot to cover. I don't think most of these points are too controversial, but it would be good to form solid consensus with some. Another component for the style guidelines could be for talk pages -- explaining how to use {{Film}} and its different features, {{talkheader}}, archiving, to-do, headline dump, etc. Any other points that we could turn into a bigger discussion later? —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't spot this when you posted it. I'll take a look at the points you've raised and if I've got any suggestions I'll post something later. However, there is something I've been meaning to bring up for some time. I think that at some point we should consider changing the title of the page to something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Article guidelines. While it may have been a manual of style at some point, the guideline is now more content-oriented than concerned with fonts and formatting issues, and as such doesn't really tie in with the aims and directives of the general manual of style. I don't think this would be too controversial a change; indeed, I think the folks over at WT:MOS would welcome it. If enough of us think it's a good idea, it might be a good idea to start a new discussion below to get further input. Steve ^{T • C} 09:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right... the guidelines have generally been a mix of style guidelines and content guidelines (yes, there is such thing). Do you think some kind of split is warranted? I think that there are still relevant formatting issues (my points above are mostly related to these). How have other WikiProjects handled it? I'd be okay with the change, but since it's a pretty big one, discussion would be ideal (I recommend WT:FILM). —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we'd need to split it at all. There's actually very little formatting guidance, even in your own suggestions above. Some of it, for example the proposed note on text linking and the use of non-breaking spaces, would perhaps be unnecessary duplication with the general MOS and its subpages. Any mention of them here might therefore be better done in passing as part of a wider section (such as Box Office section recommendations for the $ note). Steve ^{T • C} 18:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

We could ask editors at WT:WPMOS what they think could be done. If you want to offer up a concrete proposal to the community, we can see how people feel. I personally think it could best be treated as a content guideline (a much more comprehensive one than WP:EPISODE). —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Aspect Ratios (revisited)

There was some discussion last year about including the aspect ratio of a film. The idea was shot down because it was "not encyclopedic." However, I disagree on the basis that since Wikipedia is a reference site, the inclusion of an aspect ratio on a film's page can be useful for those who are actually utilizing a film print. One may see a full 1.37-1 image on a film and assume that the film should be shown that way, unaware of the fact that the intention is a soft matte. Complex situations, such as 65mm productions that were shown in 70mm at an AR of 2.20-1 but in 35mm at 2.35-1 may be expanded upon in the article.

That being said, I also stress the need for specific citation with the inclusion of such information by reputable sources (ie. NOT IMDb). There is a great deal of confusion out there regarding aspect ratios (another reason we should list such info here), and as I stated previously, there are a number of well-meaning but ignorant people out there who don't know any better and add wrong information onto IMDb. -The Photoplayer 06:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, there is a current proposal about citing IMDb that encompasses technical specs (part of an ongoing discussion about treating IMDb as a reliable source). It may be worth sharing what you've seen about aspect ratios. Also, do you remember around what time frame the previous discussion took place? It may be worth linking to it and seeing what was argued before so we don't repeat ourselves. :) First, I was wondering, how do you foresee the aspect ratio being mentioned in a film article? I am not sure if this is a major enough detail to warrant widespread inclusion. Like you said, people are not familiar with it. There are a lot of details about a film that aren't included, like crew members beyond who we see identified in the infobox (costume designers, visual effects supervisors, etc). Maybe a good approach would be to write about the aspect ratio of a film if it is uniquely relevant to the film? For example, a director tried something new with his production. Let me know what you think. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This is another problem with the IMDb - their aspect ratio system is massively flawed. There are only a few preset values that can be chosen during information submission, and in the case of anamorphic format films, they assume that 2.35:1 is the correct ratio. Which it is - if the film was made prior to 1970. SMPTE revisions since then have made the new ratio 2.39:1 (even though many still call in 2.35:1 - see anamorphic format for more details). I've petitioned the IMDb about this before, because the vast majority of post-1970 films are listing themselves as 2.35:1, and their response was a rather weak "we're aware of the problem, but it's rather extensive and requires major overhauls to implement, so we'll get around to it". That was four years ago. Based on that, I can't really invest any good faith into the technical sections. Furthermore, as I work in that part of the industry, I do a lot of data submission for the technical info, and it generally is not checked in any way - it's always taken on faith and without any requesting of confirming sources. Third, some of the information belies a lack of basic knowledge of the technical side of things - for example, a digital intermediate is not a cinematographic process (unlike Super 16, which is another option for that section), and should not be an option for that section - it is a post-production process which has nothing to do with filming configurations, and can be affected on any type of footage after the fact.

As for the discussion of a ratio within the article, I think it's only notable if it's been documented as such already. For example, Matty Libatique discusses the choice of 1.85:1 in the American Cinematographer article on Requiem for a Dream (IIRC...might have been The Fountain, though...), and why he used that instead of 2.39:1 because of Aronofsky's framing predilections. That's worth citing. Merely noting the ratio, though, or in trivial context ("this is X director's first fantasy film shot in Norway where he used 1.85:1") would not be worthwhile, however, IMHO. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The original discussion was here. I actually meant to post this on the infobox talk page, but inadvertently posted it here.

What Girolamo has stated are all good examples, particularly the problem of the 2.35-1 and 2.39-1 standards. I think that the aspect ratio being part of the infobox would be the most logical step in reducing confusion about them. Most films don't have anything unusual about their aspect ratio enough to warrant even a sentence about them in the article, but one line in the infobox would be sufficient to catalog whether a film was shot flat, 'scope or in a large format.

I also think that there are enough journals that are out there that documented the early days of wide-screen enough that an accurate documentation may be made. BoxOffice Magazine, for instance, printed the aspect ratio of every film from 1954 to 1968. These sources should be treated as primary sources, unlike the IMDb which is unsourced for such matters. -The Photoplayer 22:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that we try to keep the infobox as succinct as possible. I am not sure if mentioning the aspect ratio there is very critical. What about the possibility of using categories? We have Category:Films by technology... maybe make some more nuanced categories for the ratios you have in mind? —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think that would work. The idea behind a category is specifically to list articles with a specific connection. There are literally tens of thousands of films that use the 1.33-1, 1.37-1, 1.85-1 and 2.35-1 aspect ratios, so listing them all in categories wouldn't be beneficial, nor would it help as reference information, since it cannot be seen individually on each page.

While I agree that brevity is the goal of the infobox, it's just my personal opinion (but one shared by a number of movie guides) that listing technical data such as color process and aspect ratio are more important in such a listing than, for example, budget and gross, which are more suited for the main body of the article since the gross of a film can fluctuate from territory to territory. For example, a typical Variety review in 1954 consisted of the title, color process, producer, cast, director, writer, director of photography, editor, composer, release date, running time, and aspect ratio. In my mind, this is all of the "at a glance" line of data behind a film. -The Photoplayer 02:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really believe that the ratio is worth infobox-ing, as it's yet more box-creep, and only opens it up to yet more. (Format, color/bw, sound/silent, etc.) I would also agree that it's not worth categorizing either. Some of the special processes like 70 mm probably warrant this, but not all. At the end of the day, though, a film has to have some ratio, but this does not necessarily mean that the ratio was dictated for any particular artistic reason. I'd say that unless it has reason to be stated, such as my example above, it's not necessary information. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(response to Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)) Motion pictures, however, are both an art and science, and that being said, the science aspect of films are just as important as the art aspect of it, too. I do think the selection of aspect ratios is an artistic decision, too-- composition changes drastically between Academy, Flat and 'Scope ratios, and has a psychological impact on how the cameraman lines up his shots.

Aside from ignoring the issue, which I think we're all in agreement is not the right thing to do, there are three solutions we can come to:

1. Add "aspect ratio" and possibly "color format" and "sound" to the infobox.
2. Create a guideline for each film article in regards to "Technical Specifications".
3. Create a new, smaller infobox for technical information such as laboratory, aspect ratio, color process, sound process, cameras used, et cetra.

Because so little is generally known about the technological workings of motion pictures, I think many people are scared off or turned off to adding this information. However, I think that by informed people contributing this information, the outreach to people who are unaware of this sort of detail can be greater and therefore, raise recognition of such subjects. The Photoplayer 03:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that the infobox needs additional fields. Standardization does not seem to be the best approach right now... hypothetically, if we added such fields, I doubt that they would fill out so quickly, and even if the fields got filled, I think that it is very likely that the information will be culled from IMDb. I do like your third suggestion, a smaller infobox for the technical specifications. Maybe if it was utilized in a film article's "Production" section, it would fit in that context and also break the "wall" of text that we sometimes deal with. I think I would be okay with such an infobox, but I would suggest rigorous parameters to keep editors from just culling IMDb... we have a movie certificates infobox, and from what I can tell, editors frequently fill it with the details from IMDb. Like you indicated, there is limited appeal to technical specifications. I think it is difficult to implement top-down change; the best approach seems to offer the option of displaying some technical specifications as long as they were reliably sourced. That's just me, though... you may want to drop a line at WT:FILM for other editors to weigh in here about this topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Revisions to Background/Production section

Film articles often neglect the pre-production and post-production phases of making a film. I'm suggesting that we revise the style guidelines to encourage a more balanced presentation.

current: Included here should be a history of the film's background and development, such as how many studios, actors, directors and writers were involved with the project at one point or another. Continuing onto the production of the film, facts such as filming dates, budget figures, any noteworthy tidbits (such as delays, reshoots etc.) should be transformed into prose. Comments from the cast and crew are also welcomed.

proposed rewrite: This section describes the three phases of each film: (i) pre-production, which includes the film's background and development, its producers and studio, the recruiting of the most important artists (screenwriter, director, cast, and crew), script development, and storyboarding; (ii) production, which encompasses the actual filming - dates and places, important artistic decisions, and noteworthy tidbits (delays, reshoots, financial problems, etc.), and (iii) post-production, which includes completion of special effects, musical scoring, and editing. Comments from the cast and crew are also welcomed.

Any objections or improvements? Easchiff(talk) 19:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that you and I are like these historical figures who have invented something nearly simultaneously on opposite sides of the world! I just wrote up a proposed rewrite, too. Here it is. Maybe we can combine them?

The making of a film can be detailed in a "Production" section. Cover topics like the film's development history, writing process, casting, filming, cinematography, editing, and visual effects. If there is plenty of content about each topic, "Production" can be broken down into subsections like "Development" and "Filming". Some topics may be interlinked, such as a film having different writers attached throughout its development history, so structure the "Production" section to best fit the available content. Thoughts from the cast and crew can be interwoven into this section, but ensure that such thoughts are substantive, especially during a film's marketing campaign.

I think that you were more comprehensive with the available topics for the section, so we could replace my brief blurb of topics with yours. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's curious when 2 people come across the same idea simultaneously! In my case, I was trying to encourage discussion of matters such as the use of handheld cameras (to create a "you are there" effect) or improvisation by the actors (good for liveliness, but tough on editors). I'm perfectly happy if you merge my effort & yours together, or vice-versa. Let me know. Easchiff(talk) 20:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding lately! I will try to work both drafts together to see what kind of final product we can offer. When we do that, we can propose it at WT:FILM, where there are more eyes that can look at it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I haven't had much time for Wikipedia lately, but I'm happy to help with improving this. Cheers, Easchiff(talk) 16:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Combined drafts

The making of a film can be detailed in a "Production" section. The production cycle can be broken down into three phases: (i) pre-production, which includes the film's background and development, its producers and studio, financing, the recruiting of the most important artists (screenwriter, director, cast, and crew), script development, and storyboarding; (ii) production, which encompasses the actual filming - dates and places, important artistic decisions, and noteworthy events (delays, reshoots, financial problems, etc.), and (iii) post-production, which includes completion of special effects, musical scoring, and editing. Cover these topics in the "Production" section, and if there is plenty of content about each topic, the section can be broken down into subsections like "Development" and "Filming". Some topics may be interlinked, such as a film having different writers attached throughout its development history, so structure the "Production" section to best fit the available content. Thoughts from the cast and crew can be interwoven into this section, but ensure that such thoughts are substantive and avoid a promotional tone, especially during a film's marketing campaign.

Attempted to combine our drafts. Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This looks just fine to me! Thanks for your work Easchiff(talk) 00:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth hammering home the point of the last line by expanding it to say "...ensure that such thoughts are substantive and adhere to a neutral point of view..." but other than that, this looks good to me too. Steve ^{T • C} 00:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

How can we adhere to NPOV when it comes to thoughts? I mean, the way you say it sounds impossible, though I understand what you mean. Perhaps "avoid a promotional tone"? —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "avoid a promotional tone" works a lot better than directing someone to read a guideline page. Go for it (if you feel the paragraph needs it at all). Steve ^{T • C} 00:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The new paragraph reads well. I think it is ready to implement in the guidelines. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

A minor point (or two). Production entails three stages: pre-production, production, and post-production. Now, that's common terminology where production can mean either the entire process of creating the film or merely the filming portion of it. However, this could be confusing and seem recursive. Therefore, I'd reword the second stage as "filming", "principal photography", "shooting", or something of that ilk which is much clearer. Furthermore, it might be worth also adding a fourth stage - development, which is distinct from pre-production and generally details the early script concepts as well as the securing of financiers. That way a pre-production section can be more wholly devoted to creative prep work and testing done ahead of shooting. Thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The major thing missing up there that can make it all happen is probably financing pointed out by GS. I would probably call the whole section Filmmaking to avoid confusion between production of this and that and still brake it down to pre-p, p and post-p instead of using "filming" or "shooting" because production phase includes many more areas like special effects, make up grew etc. etc who are also considered to be part of prduction. Filming and Shooting feels like it refers to cinematography only. Also differences between development and pre-prdoction can be rather blurred...but it depends on the movie of course.

After taking a second look at Filmmaking, it seems like a good blueprint for the whole thing. I'd just add financing. --Termer (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Financing would be a good addition! I've worked on a few film articles recently that involved Germany providing funds for projects to be filmed in the country (Ninja Assassin, Pandorum). Regarding filmmaking, you amended your statement, so I'm not sure what you're suggesting. I don't think that the paragraph necessarily advocates for explicit pre-production, production, and post-production subsections, since the middle subsection would be redundant to the overall section heading. "Filming" strikes me as not limited to cinematography but more everything related to it. GS, what would be the attributes that differentiate development from pre-production? In my editing experience, most sources do not really state the pre-production ongoings (other than location scouting, I imagine). In the meantime, I've added "financing" until we can figure out a way to lay out the first two stages best. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Financing is a part of development. Basically, everything that's done until the money is fully secured (aka a greenlight) is development. At that point, the department heads are hired and pre-production begins, which is where location scouting, most of art department, some of visual effects, casting, and several other departments start to become active. Basically, what happens between the money being secured and the cameras starting to roll is pre-production. This can also include script changes too, as well as major personnel shuffling, such as a new director - assuming that this does not signficantly throw the film back off course...otherwise everything continues to be development again if pre-pro falters and the film stalls. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Erik Regarding filmmaking, so I'm not sure what you're suggesting. What I was suggesting, renaming "Background/Production" section alltogether to "Filmmaking". or another way to put it, sorry but the first sentence doesn't make much sense to me "The making of a film can be detailed in a "Production" section." because "the making of film", that's what it is "Filmmaking". So why not rename it all together and use Filmamking instead of this Background/Production which I'm not too sure of what does it mean exactly. For example, if anybody talks about background+ production in the context of film, the first thing that comes to my mind would be, is it about set setups perhaps? because many people in the business can refer to the sets as backgrounds lets say. So it sounds little like production of backgrounds or production of film sets, enviroments
RE GS: financing may be part of development but not necessarily. For example: many projects can go through development but because of unsuccessful financing, never make it. So I'd say that financing would be something that can be parallel to development, not part of it. In some cases, lest say truly some independent films, financing of the project may go on during the whole process of filmmaking.--Termer (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my intent was to rename it as "Production". I've always thought that "Background/Production" was a strange pairing of words. I think "Production" is most suitable as the section heading because it is not referring to the actual production stage, but the overall production cycle, which encompasses the stages we've discussed. As for where financing goes, we don't have to force the item into a particular stage. We could add it after the run-through of the stages, saying, "Additional production-related topics include financing and..." Can we identify any topics that would indisputably fall under development as well as pre-production? —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion what you're referring to while saying production would be overall "film production" that is often used in company names in descriptive manner explaining that what it is what are they doing exactly. Most often "film-producton" in general in that sense refers to producing- film producers only these days. I think for an average reader this can be confusing. Especially if we'd call this section overall "Production", say that its about the "making of the film" and than that this production includes another production within itself. I would keep it simple and would avoid using disambiguous terms next to each other. So that's why I'd call the whole thing instead of '(overall (film)) "production" ' simply "filmmaking" or filmmaking process or etc.--Termer (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I would strongly disagree with renaming it to Filmmaking. Its generic and doesn't sound grammatically nor structurally accurate. Filmmaking refers to a general career and focus. Production is a best name for the section, to me, as it more accurately reflects its scope, sounds more specific, and is more consistent with what is used for other media articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the overall header of "Production" with subheaders of things like, "Effects", "Filming", etc. My interpretation of "Production" has always been along the same lines as Erik, that you are referring to the overall idea of what went into making the film and not some specific component (e.g., building a soundstage). When I've written articles and got to the point where I was discussing the literal filming of the movie, I used the subheading of "Filming".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a suggestion to AnmaFinotera, please take another look at Wp article Filmmaking in case there might be any questions about "grammatical or structural soundings" etc. or any other possible concerns about the term. Other than that, as I've understood it, this discussion should be about making the guideline as clear as possible, something that should guide someone not familiar with the questions how to write an article about a film. Therefore my comments have been just suggestions how to make it possibly more clear to an average reader, that’s all.--Termer (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The filmmaking article has nothing to do with the discussion. I'm speaking specifically to the way it would appear in an actual article about a film. Films are produced, not filmmaking so speaking about its production is more appropriate and its "filmmaking" which would not be how you would speak of it. You wouldn't tell someone "this is about how this film was filmmade" you'd say, "this is about how the film was produced."-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: AnmaFinotera It's already pointed out above but since it was clearly missed: If professionals say "this is about how the film was produced." we're talking about it in the sense of film producer's. Once you say "this is about how this film was made", you're talking about filmmaking , meaning including producing, financing, development, pre-p, production, post etc.--Termer (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I never think about a film like that, ever. I discuss a film's production, not its filmmaking. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think what we need to remember is that film articles have had "Production" sections for a very long time. I do not think that there is really any confusion from the readership about what goes under that particular section heading. We could discuss how to avoid a "Production" subsection under the "Production" section, but I think that changing to "Filmmaking" is too unnecessary of a systemic change. I think we are better off trying to tackle the different topics that could be covered in such a section. Like for development and pre-production -- what items are most closely tied with these? —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is also consistent with what is used in the television, anime/manga, etc articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fine by me in case you AnmaFinotera "never think about a film like that". And I wouldn't have any comments to that since anybody is free to think any way they like. The only thing, just that in case this guideline is about how you think, please just make it clear to the reader what exactly are you talking about, I mean, in the guideline.--Termer (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Erik, I didn't get it exactly what were you asking? "...Like for development and pre-production -- what items are most closely tied with these"?--Termer (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

In general, how many people think of films as "lets discuss this film's filmmaking" instead of "let's discussion this film's production." Can you provide sources/examples/cases showing that readers are actually finding "production" confusing or hard to understand? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Please AnmaFinotera read the discussion above, several editors have pointed out that it might be confusing having "production" within "production" in this section of the guideline. Other than that, I have no idea why would you suggest anybody would talk about "lets discuss this film's filmmaking" . My best bet would be if anybody wants say anything like that they would say "lets discuss the making of -this film". "The making of" is pretty much a standard expression out there that covers everything from development until post production as far as I'm concerned. they even have an article on wikipedia Making-of that covers the basics of the idea.--Termer (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

PS.I don't know if this needs to be pointed out really but just in case, the difference between "making of -" and "filmmaking", the first is about a specific film, the second one a general term, since the guideline is about movies in general, it seems like a fit to me. And since AnmaFinotera asked for additional refs for it, please pick any out of 3,722 titles available at google books: Filmmaking--Termer (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) We have three stages outlined right now, and it is suggested to have a new one, "development", precede these three. This passage under discussion is to give the reader a brief understanding of the production cycle. If we're going to give an overview of development and pre-production, we should attach the relevant topics to these stages. (For example, is financing most common in development or not? Some composers prepare scores parallel to a film's production, some visual effects are developed in conjunction with production.) This overview does not mean that subsection headings have to follow these specific stages, though. There's no intent to up-end the general structure of "Production" sections as we know it; just presenting an array of topics in an organized fashion since the previous revision was so short. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Film is an art form and therefore there are no straight answers to "the production cycle". Sometimes development can go on as long as up to post production when entire sequences get cut and new ones storyboarded and some of the film reshot and new footage cut in. Also financing can be so that you have preset budget, vs. financing can last during the entire making of, not to mention things go over budget most often and financing needs to step in again during any stage etc. In filmmaking there never is anything like: that's the way it is, only in theory maybe. Every movie is different and so is different every 'making of (the film)'. You could only talk about specific habits of different filmmakers. For example Hitchcock was famous for being very careful during development and pre-production and planning in general. He storyboarded everything shot by shot and then just followed it during filming. Very few filmmakers are able to work like that and sometimes it's not the same movie what you had in development, during pre-production compared what comes out of the post-p.--Termer (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is true, but generally "development" is not a term used to refer to any period of creative work on the film - in the production cycle, it specifically refers to the period prior to the funding being secured, not necessarily script development - although scripting tends to be a large part of the development period, script work continues through post and ADR, as you alluded to. (And financing does not refer to distribution funding, necessarily, but merely funding through post-production.) Outliers must be regarded as outliers because, as you say, nothing is absolute. Or, to quote The Prestige: "because exact science is not an exact science". :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

So what change can we make to the draft we have so far? I'm having trouble translating the conversation so far into mutually agreed wording for the draft. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I made a small change to state the "production cycle". I would like to go ahead and add in the draft, if there is not going to be any further dialogue about defining development and pre-production for readers. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I still think that the WP Filmmaking article spells everything out about "production cycle" much more clearly, including anything that has to do with "defining development and pre-production for readers". So I'd just steal it from there.--Termer (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've wiki-linked it... it will give readers the lowdown about it all. What about mentioning the different phases in the draft? —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing: pre-production does not include development - they are two different phases. Implying that anything that hasn't gotten up to photography is in pre-production is actually wrong. If there's no backing, then there's no pre-pro. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the proposed draft the paragraph just after the heading to this section (Combined drafts), or is it located elsewhere?
Jim Dunning | talk 22:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. It's meant to expand the minimal one that currently exists in the guidelines. What are your thoughts about it? —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I was kind of lazy typist but that exactly what I meant by , "better steal it from Filmmaking" that also GS has pointd out: "pre-production does not include development". The way it has been put now "pre-production, which includes the film's background and development" actually doesn't make much sense.--Termer (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been able to contribute much to this discussion. I agree in principle that this one-paragraph guideline should follow the organization of the Filmmaking article, and separate out the elements of "development". How about having Erik or me put a lightly revised version of the "combined" draft somewhere, put a link to the draft in this section, and let the interested editors refine it collectively? I think that "Discussion Page" etiquette may be getting in the way of getting to a consensus draft. In any case, our product will surely be more helpful than the present text, and can act as a pointer to the Filmmaking article. Easchiff(talk) 11:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Next combined draft

The chronology of a film's creation (see the Filmmaking article) can be detailed in a "Development and Production" section describing four phases: (i) development, which includes development of the concept and script as well as securing of financing and producers, (ii) pre-production, which includes the recruiting of the most important artists (cast and crew) and the preparations for shooting, (iii) production or filming, which encompasses the actual filming - dates and places, important artistic decisions, and noteworthy events (delays, reshoots, financial problems, etc.), and (iv) post-production, which includes completion of special effects, musical scoring and sound, and editing. Cover these topics in the "Development and Production" section, and if there is plenty of content about each topic, the section can be broken down into subsections (such as "Development" and "Filming"). Some topics may be interlinked, such as a film having different writers attached throughout its development history, so structure the "Development and Production" section to best fit the available content. Thoughts from the cast and crew can be interwoven into this section, but ensure that such thoughts are substantive and avoid a promotional tone, especially during a film's marketing campaign.

I've tried to revise User:Erik's previous "combined draft" to accommodate a distinct "development" phase, as is done in the Filmmaking article. If we agree, we would rename the "Background/Production" section as "Development and Production". OK? Easchiff(talk) 13:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Easchiff's last draft seems to nicely summarize all of the proposed points thus far. I like the name change to "Development and Production". I suggest just a minor rewrite to make it visually more readable (such as moving the section name to the beginning and using bullets), slightly more concise, and to address a change of voice part way through —

The "Development and Production" section can be organized into four parts, coinciding with the chronology of a film's creation (see the Filmmaking article):

• development: development of the concept and script, as well as the securing of financing and producers;
• pre-production: recruitment of the most important artists (cast and crew), shooting preparations, and storyboarding;
• production or filming: actual filming – dates and places, important artistic decisions, and noteworthy events (delays, reshoots, financial problems, etc.);
• post-production: completion of special effects, musical scoring and sound, and editing.

This section should be structured to fit the available content: for example, if there is sufficient material about each topic, the section could be organized into subsections (such as "Development" and "Filming"); some topics may be interlinked, for instance, to handle situations when a film has different writers attached throughout its development. Thoughts from the cast and crew can be interwoven into this section, but such content should be substantive and avoid a promotional tone (especially during a film's marketing campaign).

Just a couple minor tweaks to tense and voice, and just streamlined a few sentences. Also, differentiated between "substantive thoughts" and "substantive content". You guys have done good work.
Jim Dunning | talk 16:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; your version is better, and looks fine to me. Cheers, Easchiff(talk) 17:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the major stages in filmmaking -Storyboarding that is the backbone of any movie deserving it's own section seems to be still missing from pre-production, otherwise everything looks good and makes sense to me.--Termer (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather keep the entire section titled "Production"... this has been the norm for quite some time, and I think it's accurate in the sense that it represents the entire production cycle. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Works for me.
Jim Dunning | talk 18:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've put storyboarding back in to JimDunning's version of the text just above; it was actually in Erik's version (previous subsection). I'm fine with Erik's suggestion that we call the section "Production" instead of "Development and production"; I assume that the "Production" is in lieu of the present "Background/Production" section heading. Easchiff(talk) 19:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just me but I'd still call the entire section instead of confusing "Background/Production" and ambiguous "Production" simply "The Making of (the title of the film)" --Termer (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That goes against the overall Wikipedia MoS regarding header names. It also has to much potential to be confused with actual "Making of" documentaries leaving people wondering if the section is going to be about the film's production or the documentary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Erik, keep it simple and leave it as "Production" which is clear, straight forward, and easy to understand. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and installed our text on the article page; I hope it will lead to better articles! Cheers, Easchiff(talk) 04:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Question on uncredited non-speaking roles

A question was posed over on Shrek regarding the lack of a cast credit for the role of Dragon. One user has inquired over who voiced the role, but a quick Google search (and also as supported by IMDB and elsewhere) shows that the Dragon does not have a speaking role or a cast member dedicated to voicing the character. The complaint is that there is not even a citation in the article that says "The role of Dragon was not cast, as it wasn't a speaking part", leading the user to some confusion as they thought there was missing information when there really wasn't any to be had. Looking for a film that had a speaking role that isn't listed in the cast section, I pointed out that the role of WOPR in WarGames is not credited either, but is an example of a situation where if no info exists to post, we don't post that in WP. What recommendations do you have over how to handle this situation? Appreciate your insight, thanks in advance. SpikeJones (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the Shrek article discussion page, I feel adding "*Dragon is not a speaking role and is thus uncredited." as a footnote to the cast section seems reasonable and within all guidelines. Without this, the synop seems confusing, since Dragon is a major character but does not appear under the cast.207.237.61.26 (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason why anything has to be said about the Dragon outside the "Plot" section? It does not seem that important to have a footnote for this situation. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

To close this discussion, the user made a request on the protected Shrek page to have a footnote added, and another editor added the footnote to the cast section. I won't revert that edit, but if it should not have been done per Film guidelines, please feel free to do so at your convenience as you are more familiar with those guidelines than I am. SpikeJones (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

seems like this was within all wikipedia guidelines. 207.237.33.80 (talk) 04:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

In reading the synop, it seemed that the Dragon was a wholly-participating character as much as any of the other characters (which is to say, there was no mention that this was a non-speaking role and did not require a cast credit). That this character was missing from the cast list seemed confusing. As I noted on the talk page for the Shrek article, I had to begin research outside Wiki before finding that this was a non-speaking role. Inclusion of this info in the Shrek article would add clarity and detail to the article. 207.237.61.26 (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The footnote seems sufficient. I don't think that the guidelines could really address a specific issue like this. After all, it's not everyday that there's a major, animated, non-speaking role in films. The trade-off seems okay to me. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Outside view

Please take a look at The Big Heat and its talk page -- there's an editor having trouble understanding that a separate section just for quotes (along with some other trivia) isn't encyclopedic. Would appreciate additional voices to help out; I got off on an acerbic and feel I might not be able to effectively help him see things straight. --EEMIV (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the condescension, friend. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Top Ten Lists

During the recent (phenomenal, I must say) rewrite of the Wall-E article this week, the question of the display of "Top Ten Critics List" came up. In a nutshell, as Wall-E has been critically acclaimed by a number of critics to the point of being named in many "top film of the year" lists, a summary listing was included with that information (view the article history circa Jan 1 2009 for an example before the rewrite). During the rewrite, the list was deleted and rewritten with a summary prose sentence stating a number of critics had listed the film as number 1 on their lists (while ignoring all other placements). Since there are a number of film articles that currently include a top ten list section, and I have not seen this directly addressed in the style guidelines, I pose the question of whether it needs to be explicitly mentioned as to how/why/when/if said listing needs to appear. Some articles that have such a list currently are Slumdog Millionaire, Tropic_Thunder, Funny Games (2008 film), Man on Wire, Milk (film), Frost/Nixon (film), The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (film). Obviously, the number of films a listing like this would apply to in any given movie year should be relatively slim compared to the total Hollywood output -- but for those films that are critically acclaimed, such a listing does have a sliver of encyclopedic merit. For disclosure: I like having the listing, but I also appreciate why it gets removed in some cases. What thoughts do you have? SpikeJones (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with them since the ranking is limited to top ten. If we had top 100 lists, that would be more of an issue. I've seen the content formatted into multiple columns, so it is presented pretty nicely, in my opinion. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Like Erik, I don't have a major issue with top-10 lists since -- by definition -- they will be somewhat limited and are unlikely to prove unwieldy. However, I do recommend a prose summary over a list format since the value of a particular critic's opinion will vary from reader to reader so the individual entries in the lists are not as important; a summary of the number of top-10s a film gets on (or doesn't) will be of more value to readers. Kind of like stressing the forest over the trees.The best would be a reference to a credible source noting how many top-10s a film makes.
Jim Dunning | talk 16:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Many of the current lists, and the Wall-E article, have a link to the "Top Ten" summary that is available on Metacritic. The only question about using that as a sole source is that Metacritic limits who is displayed and doesn't offer a) a wide selection of critics' opinions, and b) isn't updated in a timely basis for our needs. The benefit of using the Metacritic chart is that it offers a standard listing for inclusion here. So to address one of your points, a source does exist for some of the items that could appear; others would have to be sourced individually. SpikeJones (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant to be clearer about the source thing (sorry): I'm recommending that a sourced assessment or opinion of the number of top-10 lists (or something similar) is more valuable or noteworthy than a detailed list with a source for each list entry. In other words, I'd rather see a critic commenting on how many lists a film is on (and its position) than a WP editor creating a list of those lists.
Jim Dunning | talk 00:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

So in Wall-E's case, you would prefer to see a link to this page as a ref stating that "the film had 69 mentions in 125 lists"? The indiewire link further down the page could be worthwhile if the link worked. Will continue to see if I can track that page down. So should we assume this be your preference in a proposed guideline vs having a list in general? SpikeJones (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I do. Instead of a WP editor counting lists and assessing positions, we have a credible source noting the overall significance. Someone could argue that listing the lists is an effective way to convey the same information (and letting the reader decide), but who decides which lists are included? Which are excluded? Is the master list comprehensive? Does it contain some non-notable lists? This example is great because we have a critic making those decisions for us (of course, we might ask how notable that critic is . . . ?), However, hoping not to sound like I'm waffling, I'm not sure I'd want the guideline to handcuff an article to just doing it that way — especially if a suitable source is unavailable — but this would be my preferred style.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly exceptions can be made. Take a look at the Movie City News compilation link I added to WALL-E; spotchecking, it does seem to include high-profile mainstream recognized publications in the list. It seems to be a bit more comprehensive than the Metacritic listing, as it appears to show where every film in 2008 appeared, as opposed to merely showing a summary of critics' listings. Moving away from the Wall-E specific item that brought this to light, as there are a number of films that do have a "top ten" section, I just wanted to suggest that something be added to the guidelines to address similar high-profile, highly-regarded films ala the way "Academy-Award winning" is specifically said not to be mentioned in the opening sentence of an article per MOS. SpikeJones (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Metacritic is a reliable source. Movie City News is not. Your suggestion that people can just go to moviecitynews.com if they want to know which critics' top ten lists a film appears on is just a thinly veiled plug for that website, which apparently isn't notable enough to have an article. --Pixelface (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith here, Pixelface. There's absolutely no indication that SpikeJones is wanting to plug the website for any reason untoward. Moviecitynews.com is a source that is unfamiliar to me, but I can see from these references, in other more bona fide reliable sources such as USA Today, that there are circumstances in which the site could be deemed reliable. Steve ^{T • C} 21:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize SpikeJones, I was thinking of the TheLeopard, who said "people can just click on the Movie City News top ten list scoreboard and see what critics had it on their top ten list." Maybe moviecitynews.com is a reliable source. I don't know. I could have sworn I've discussed it somewhere before. What I take issue with is SpikeJones removing Metacritic citations for top ten lists from film articles, which you, Steve, gave me a barnstar for in the past. Apparently SpikeJones called for all top ten lists to be removed over at Talk:WALL-E. --Pixelface (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What is incontention.com and how is it a reliable source? --Pixelface (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Metacritic is a reliable source. The critics that Metacritic lists in their year-end top ten list summary are critics that Metacritic uses to calculate a film's metascore. They are notable film critics — so yes, Metacritic *does* limit who is displayed. If you want to replace the Metacritic citation for a certain critic with a direct link to the critic's website, be my guest. I think Moviecitynews gives some direct links. --Pixelface (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

A "sliver of encyclopedic merit"? Care to explain that? A notable film critic has listed a film among the top ten best films of the year. Nothing in an article needs to be there. It's just information for the reader. You appreciate why it gets removed in somes cases? You're the one doing the removing. --Pixelface (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Thank you, Steve. MCN merely compiled the info in a more complete fashion than MetaCritic did. MC lists 50 different critics (give or take, number used as an example only) and all those critics also appeared on MCN's more complete listing. I cross-checked to ensure that the rankings for those critics matched between the two sites before I proceeded to add the ref, and that MCN included other (notable) critics that weren't included on the MC summary list. If you have a different source that is equally or more complete as the MCN one is, please feel free to change the ref out. While I prefered the "top ten list" format for my own selfish reasons, I agree that the prose substitution is, in this case, a better choice. SpikeJones (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Movie City News does lists more critics. Metacritic lists notable professional critics, critics that factor into a film's metascore. Metacritic has an article. Movie City News does not. Metacritic is a notable review aggregator website and a reliable third-party source. If you want to cite Movie City News, that's fine with me. I suppose that's an issue for WP:RS/N. But please do not remove the critics that Metacritic mentions. We don't have to choose which critics to mention when Metacritic, a reliable third-party, has already done so. Rotten Tomatoes and Game Rankings both typically compile more reviews than Metacritic. But the sites tabulate reviews differently. So we cite both to represent fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. --Pixelface (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

First, thank you for your apology. Secondly, please keep your comments isolated to a single posting here in the MOS discussion as a central location on this topic as it will help keep proper timeline of discussion items, as you have commented on past items that had already been resolved. Anywhoo... if you saw that I had deleted a Metacritic ref, believe me that was not an on-purpose edit (I wouldn't have deleted it if you had simply re-added the ref, if that's where you were going). I was removing "top ten" lists and replacing it with a link to MCN; my intention was to supplement the ref to MC. You and I do agree, in that we both want to accurately represent reviews. MC is a mere subset of what MCN shows. As for suggesting a policy for critically-acclaimed films, feel free to chime in, as you seem to have an opinion on the topic....which is why I brought up the question in the first place. SpikeJones (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm sorry, I had you confused with another editor. But if your intention was to supplement the Metacritic ref, you shouldn't have removed it and replaced it with the Movie City News ref. If you didn't do that on purpose, it's okay. MOS:FILM already mentions Metacritic. However, it does not mention MCN. MOS:FILM doesn't say that Top ten lists are disallowed. I added a bunch last year in January 2008 for 2007 films, and people seemed to like them — I got a barnstar for doing it. When I started adding them again this month, many articles already had top ten lists; people apparently thought they were a good idea. If you want MOS:FILM to mention Top ten lists or MCN, make a proposal. Personally, I don't think a GIF chart over at MCN qualifies as a reliable source. The critic pages at MCN (with direct links to a critic's top ten list), however, might.

We can cite Metacritic to say that a film has appeared on multiple top ten lists. If people think MCN is a reliable source, we can also cite MCN. For a specific critic, a direct URL to the critic's top ten list is a better citation than Metacritic or MCN. --Pixelface (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It does not appear that you are aware of the full breadth of discussion on the topic that has occurred, so I will provide a very brief history: some articles had "top ten" lists for 2007. I began adding it for one or two for 2008, but was rebuffed. I protested, as I - like you - thought the lists were a good idea for some films. The concept was overruled in the process of making Wall-E a FA candidate, and the list was replaced by prose. It was suggested that we find a source that can properly source how well-received the film was on end-of-year lists, of which the MC list is but a subset (if you were to view the edit history of Wall-E, you'll see that there were many critics on that list that were not on MC's list). Hence the reason behind finding a source such as MCN's compilation. The difference between using MCN and MC is that with MC we can say that it appeared on these lists. With MCN we can say it appeared on x lists out of y, along with an easy way to track any of the films released in the year for their articles. They are compatible refs, not intended to overwrite one or the other. As for your suggestion of making a proposal, that's what this entire conversation began as, if you saw the initial posting. SpikeJones (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I appreciate it. I'm the one who added the top ten lists for 2007 films. It took me a long time to write all that up last year, and people seemed to like it. WALL-E was the first article about a 2008 film that I added a Top ten list section to, because WALL-E appeared on the most lists at Metacritic — 45 of them. I also added Top ten list sections to many other 2008 film articles. When a film only appeared on a few lists, I'd write it out in prose.

If the editors at Talk:WALL-E wanted to remove the top ten lists so they could get the article featured, I disagree. I don't think it was an improvement to remove that section from the article. But I guess I understand. If a film appears on many many top ten lists, the question of which critics to mention in the article comes up. I appreciate the information about top ten lists from MCN. I think it's valuable information. I don't take the conversation at Talk:WALL-E to mean that other articles can't have information about top ten lists. Maybe MOS:FILM should address top ten lists, but I don't know what it should say. --Pixelface (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

for the record, no, you weren't first. Had you beat by a few weeks. Then it was removed due to the whole FA rewrite, leading to this discussion. Check the history around Jan 1 to see how large it was getting, necessitating the need for the prose rewrite and/or other solution. SpikeJones (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean I was the first person to add a Top ten list section to the WALL-E article. That was just the first article for a 2008 film I — personally — added a section to. --Pixelface (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

References for Release/Home Media

Can anyone give me an idea of how the Home Media section should be referenced? I'm not sure where I would get reliable information beyond, say, amazon.com or imdb - which I assume would not qualify as a valid references. I looked at Fight Club's section but I'm not sure how to translate that into a useable guide. I did note that some of the references in that article are commerical (ie. Foxstore). Several appear to be too specific to Fight Club for generalisation (such as the Variety article). Is the notability of the home media release itself important for this section to exist? Any suggestions on how would I find valid references for less recent releases? I don't think trade magazines, assuming I can access them, would cover much older material. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

DVD reviews would work (most include the release date and most notable movies will have at least one on an RS site), the official film site or producing company's online catalog if it exists/contains (which would include FoxStore), otherwise Amazon.com or an other high end retail store (BestBuy.com, CircuitCity, etc) is a perfectly usable RS without any referral tags and if its the only/most exact available (not IMDB though, you are correct that it is not RS). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is not much information about the home media, it could fall under a more generic "Release" section (below information about the theatrical run). Like AnmaFinotera said, commercial websites are acceptable as reliable sources if the tone is neutral. For example, if you write, "Amazon.com offers x DVD for only $9.99 until the end of January 2009," that's going to be an inappropriate commercial tone. :) DVD reviews could also be used, but some DVD review websites may be questionable. My own rule of thumb is to look at the footer of a web page to see if it is self-published (generally meaning that it will just repeat the site domain). Examples that may not be reliable are dvdtown.com and dvdtalk.com. The website dvd.ign.com would be acceptable, though, since IGN Entertainment, Inc. is a pretty official organization (in turn owned by News Corporation). In addition, if you cite a DVD review, I would recommend focusing on details about the transfer and/or the special features. Any commentary on the film can be saved for the more general "Critical reception" section. Another example off the top of my head is Hancock (film)#Home media. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Difference Between Film and Non Fiction Source Book

A section on Marley & Me (film) noting differences between the film and its non-fiction source was recently annonymously deleted. My understanding from reading these guidelines that since it is non-fiction such a discussion is valid and in fact welcomed. Could you somebody please enlighten me (and also point me to the discussion/decision where differences was considered inappropriate. Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Did the section have reliable sources comparing the source material to the film adaptation? It may be useful to read MOS:FILM#Adaptations... it helps highlight any change that has been reported by secondary sources, so we do not make endless indiscriminate comparisons. Making a film involves creative and conventional approaches, so it's no surprise that there are differences. By using reliable sources, it can be discerned apart from editors' opinions what is relevant to mention. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. I had read the Adaptations article and found it minimally helpful. I understand the desire not to pick an innane things but the items that were deleted referred to real world articles on wikipedia. You can see the changes here. Also to understand this policy I would like to see the underlying consensus discussion. Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

None of that information was sourced at all, so their removal was wholly appropriate. See WP:OR and WP:V for the basis of that consensus. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't qualify as original research in the strictest sense. If you say a character existed in the source material but did not exist in the film, it's a simple observation. If one was noting thematic differences, that would go beyond a basic comparison. That's why the "Adaptations" section is written to per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and not WP:OR. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines/Archive 2#Adaptation differences. :) The differences in the diff you provided do not seem to me to be all that important. I am more of the opinion that the source material's article should be developed in its own right, and the same for the adaptation's article. If there is any reliably sourced change in the process (like Sebastian Tunney being removed due to time constraints, for example), that could be noted. Changes are always expected in the adaptation process. The guidelines discourage a section that merely lists them, hence the encouragement for using reliable sources. Fight Club (film)#Writing and The Mist (film)#Writing are two examples that note differences as part of commentary about the writing process for each film. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Erik for your polite and thoughtful replies. I think the policy is being interpteted incorrectly by many wiki editors with regards to nonfiction source book. That's why I would like to see the discussion that led to the policy (rather than the policy just seeming to appear out of nowhere). Thanks again. Americasroof (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Section needed on Origin

If the film style guide has a section on the minutiae of Production and Release, I think it definitely should have a secion on the Origin(s) of the film.

Was it a book? A short story? Who discovered it? Who campaigned to have it made into a screenplay? If it wasn't a short story or book, how did the concept come to be? Who worked on the screenplay, and how? How many people contributed to the screenplay? And so on and so forth. I think all of these factors have much more bearing on the film as a work than do the minutiae of production. Not only that, but the details of a film's origin are often publicized at the time of the film's release, but over the decades that information is forgotten, and should be preserved on Wikipedia.

Some cases in point: I believe Robert Redford is the one who "discovered" the third-rate pop novel Ordinary People, and campaigned to have it made into a screenplay — one which he himself would go on to direct, in his own directorial debut. It is said he liked the story because it reminded him of his own family and their habit of not talking about things. Another movie: Billy Wilder wrote the screenplay of Sabrina on set, daily, while they were filming. A finished script did not exist till the end of shooting.

Anyway, all of these various pieces of information are generally missing from Wikipedai, and are important to the understanding of a film, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that this generally falls under the development and writing activities of the production cycle. In my article work, I usually cover these activities, like at Hancock (film)#Production. I think that most articles are pretty good about identifying the source material, though they may not be as comprehensive about the adaptation process (which requires more specific reliable sources). I don't know if it is anything we need to include in the guidelines since it is usually part of the production process, and it may be too much instruction creep. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and you've personally done a good job on script development in that article. I guess my beef is that, for instance, in the case of the aforementioned Ordinary People, all that's mentioned in the Production section is trivia about the actual filming. Nothing is mentioned about the fascinating history of the Oscar-winning screenplay. I think many people confuse or conflate the word "Production" to mean "filming" and/or the gritty work of physically bringing the screenplay onto the celluloid.

I notice now that the "Production" section of this style guide has six words about the script. Perhaps that is not enough, and it's even on the same line as funding and producers. I mean, who really cares about funding and producers decades later? The film as a work of art hinges mainly upon three things: script, director, and actors. To have one of those three things subsumed into garnering funding seems way out of proportion. I'd much prefer, if nothing else, that those two items be in separate bullets. Permission to separate them? Thanks.

By the way, what is "instruction creep"? Softlavender (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If the information exists, add it :) However, a lot of times, there isn't any reliably sourceable information on that part of the film making, which is why many articles do not have them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Softlavender, take a look also at the relevant sections of these "better" film articles for development and adaptation treatments: The Prestige, No Country for Old Men, and There Will Be Blood. As AnmaFinotera says, much is dependent on sources which have directly covered this step in the process – but many are there and should be used to enhance the Development sections as you suggest. Instruction creep is what happens after editors develop minimal style guidelines ("minimal" so contributors are not handcuffed by rules, especially innovative editors), but then other pieces of guidelines are incrementally added until we wake up one morning and realize "minimal" disappeared months ago and editors are frustrated by too many rules.
Jim Dunning | talk 11:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ordinary People is a very underdeveloped article. I do not think that expanding on writing in the guidelines would prompt articles like that to have such commentary on that particular process. I am pretty confident that if an editor wanted to make Ordinary People a Good Article or a Featured Article, these details would be mentioned without any prompting. Even if this did not happen, there are usually review and candidacy processes in which the article can be critiqued for these kinds of details. There are quite a few underdeveloped articles on Wikipedia for some great films... it has more to do with time, motivation, and manpower than it does guideline specification. You can see that the guidelines cover quite a few topics, some out of necessity. It is less likely for someone to challenge the notion that readers should know about the film's source material and its adaptation process than it is for someone to believe that mere trailer descriptions are okay (which is why we have the "Marketing" section of the guidelines to point to). —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

See also

Are there any standard items to place into the "See also" section? Like links to the Film Portal, or the studio, etc? -- Mjquin_id (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"See also" is typically for things that are related, but not generally covered in the article. Film Portal has its own template link, and the studio is probably talked about sufficiently in any prose that appears in the production section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

advice on "list of xxxx characters" page

Can someone provide guidance on what information should be included (or excluded) for an individual character's entry on a "list of xxxxx characters" page? Many that I have run across seem to merely reiterate the plot from that character's point of view. What should it really contain? SpikeJones (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Might be best to ask at WT:FICT. It's more common to see "list of characters" pages with TV shows and other media rather than film. Most tend to need a lot of clean-up, since sometimes they are formed out of merged content of individual character articles. Characters of Smallville may be a good place to look for such detail. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Film Release Dates In English Majority Speaking Countries

Excuse me if there was already a discussion on this, but how about countries where an official language is English and the film was released in English, but the majority of the country does not speak English? I'm thinking India here. Spinach Monster (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If the primary language is English, then it can be used. I believe that India has multiple primary languages (but please correct me if I'm wrong), and I believe that one of them IS English.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

India's official language is Hindi. It is complicated, as List of countries where English is an official language even has a paragraph dedicated to India's English-speaking status (and the page Languages with official status in India is questionably WP:OR.) From the film MOS viewpoint, it may be worthwhile to see what high-visibility film articles in FA status have done - that would be good precedent, as the MOS is unclear with regards to foreign countries that speak multiple languages. There has been previous discussion on this, and it appears that the recent trend is not to include individual countries' release dates in the infobox (others can chime in on that). Hope that helps. SpikeJones (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

English is one of the official languages in India("subsidiary" official), even though Hindi is THE official language. They have around 20 official languages, it's complicated. Thanks for the info regarding the old discussion though! Spinach Monster (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless it's an Indian film, I'd err on the side of caution and say not to include it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Another acceptable manner of including the Indian release date would be if there was real-world context about the film being released there, even if it is not Indian-related. We try to keep the infobox pretty concise, so it may not necessarily belong there. However, if there is a "Release" section of sorts in the article, the Indian release date could be mentioned with details of how it performed there. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

I am requesting a page move from Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Article guidelines. I request this because while the guidelines provide style guidance for film-related articles, the guidelines also encompass content. Moving the page would accurately categorize the guidelines as covering both style and content. Like before, the guidelines will driven by consensus. Is there any issue to be encountered with this move? —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree with this idea. It is a "style guideline" per its own tag, and part of the "Manual of Style." I don't think its encompassing content changes that, as many of the MoS pages include both style and content. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any strong view one way or the other, but I would be happy like to see all content/style/naming guidelines related to specific topics named in a uniform way. Something like "WP:Article guidelines (X)"; so this one would be Wikipedia:Article guidelines (films). (Once you're down to a specific subject, there seems no need to break it down further into naming conventions, style guidelines, content guidelines, notability criteria and so on - just put it all on one page unless it gets particularly long.) Anyway, I don't care much which convention is adopted, but it would be better to do it somehow uniformly than have the mess we have at the moment.--Kotniski (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera, let me amend my statement... the guidelines focus far more on content than they do on style. The infobox section and the linking dates section are directly pertinent to styling, but the rest of the sections are essentially content-driven, with only a few suggestions on section headings. So it seems grossly inaccurate to say that this is a style guideline in any major part. With the move, we can say in the lead that it encompasses style and content. I was not planning to take it out of {{Style}} (where it falls under "Related policies and guidelines") nor de-list it from WP:WPMOS. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I support the idea. While it may have been a bona fide manual of style at some point, the guideline is now more content-oriented than concerned with fonts and formatting issues, and as such doesn't really tie in with the aims and directives of the general manual of style. Yes, many of the MoS pages do include both style and content, but this is almost exclusively content-oriented, and what we have is something more along the lines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. The move would still allow the page to retain its status as a guideline; this is more of a procedural thing to my mind. Steve ^{T • C} 19:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Style guidelines

When there is a discussion on this page and the consensus is different from what the style guidelines show, shouldn't they be changed? I remember two past discussions, one about the release date in the infobox and the other about plot summaries. I am 100% certain the consensus for the release date was the first THEATRICAL release, but the guidelines still show the first showing, even if it's at a film festival. I see some articles that list a few festival dates in the infobox and then a few release dates for different countries. This seems like way TMI. I am also sure the consensus about plot summaries was they shouldn't include cast names but the guidelines still show they should. Is my memory about the discussions not as clear as I think it is or is it just that nobody bothered to change the guidelines to agree with the consensus? 67.79.157.50 (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't remember on the first, but on the second that was incorrect. Consensus has always been that if all there is to say about the cast is their name (i.e. no useful real world production info for a full cast section), then merging the cast list into the plot is both acceptable and preferable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

To the original poster, I agree with you that consensus has been to identify the first public theatrical release date. I've gone ahead and revised it. If it's contested, we can discuss it further. Also, for plot summaries, there is no consensus about including cast members or not. I don't think there should be one; it can depend on what kind of film it is. For example, at Fight Club, there is no real Cast section since the three major actors are identified in the Plot section and are also repeatedly named throughout the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Could we please have a clarification of the guidelines for release dates in the infobox? I think User:Melty girl is misinterpreting them. They say, "Release dates should be restricted to the film's earliest public theatrical release." Following that they say, "Its first release dates in majority English-speaking countries only (because this is the English Wikipedia)." Melty girl seems to think this mean you should include all release dates in every English-speaking country. This could make the infobox a mile long! I think the guidelines are saying you should restrict the release date to the first date it was released in an English-speaking country only, not that you should list all of them. If it is supposed to be limited to the first release date in an English-speaking country, then maybe they should be reworded to say "Release dates should be restricted to the film's earliest public theatrical release in a majority English-speaking country (because this is the English Wikipedia); e.g., United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc." That would make it clear you shouldn't list all those countries, just the first one where it's released. Melty girl keeps putting too many release dates in the infobox for The Wind That Shakes the Barley which is why I'm asking this. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe Melty Girl is correct in her reading of the guideline, and I have also reverted Erik's change. The convention has always been, and I believe the guideline makes this clear, that the infobox should contain the following release dates:

• The film's premiere, whether publically or at a festival;
• The first public release date in each majority English-speaking country;
• The first public release date in each country that produced the film.

The infobox has never been limited to a single release date. PC78 (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel it was premature to revert Erik's change, which was based on a consensus reached via an earlier discussion on the film project talk page. What is the point of having these discussions and arriving at a decision based on majority opinion if they're not going to be implemented after the fact? And why is one coordinator permitted to undo the change of another whose edit was based on majority opinion without discussion first? Erik did not act rashly at all, whereas the reversal of his edit appears, to me at least, to have been unduly hasty.

There has been so much talk about keeping infobox data to the basics that it seems ludicrous to allow multiple release dates to clutter it. To include the first public release date in every majority English-speaking country and the first public release date in every country that produced the film will lengthen the infobox dramatically, which seems to be contrary to the efforts of those who have been trying to streamline it. Furthermore, I maintain the first public showing at a film festival is a premiere, not a release. It's a one-time viewing frequently limited to an industry-related audience. It usually precedes the date on which the film finally reaches the paying public by several months, and in some cases much longer. To designate this as a release date is, in my opinion, inaccurate and should be discouraged. Thank you for allowing me to throw in my two cents. LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Erik's edit came off the back of a single comment made here just over a day ago; there was little in the way of discussion and certainly no concensus, so I don't feel my revert was in any way premature. The long standing status quo of this guideline is as I have outlined it above, but if you want to discuss changing it then by all means be my guest. Based on his comment above I believe that Erik's change came from a misconception of what the guideline actually says. PC78 (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I can't speak for him, but I believe Erik's edit was based not on "a misconception" but rather his recollection of the outcome of a discussion about this very subject a few months back. I recall the consensus at that time was the release date in the infobox should be the first theatrical release, not a film festival showing. As far as discussing changing it, I thought that's what I was doing when I made the comments above. To reiterate, including the first public release date in every majority English-speaking country and the first public release date in every country that produced the film will lengthen the infobox dramatically. I suggest that information be included within the body of the article instead. And I continue to maintain the first public showing at a film festival is a premiere, not a release. Since it's a one-time viewing frequently limited to an industry-related audience and usually precedes the date on which the film finally reaches the paying public by several months, I think designating it as a release date is inaccurate and should be discouraged. Thanks again. LiteraryMaven (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Can you link to the discussion you refer to? In any case, concensus would seem to be a guideline that has remained unchanged since it was first written two years ago – compare the current wording of "Release dates" with this early revision from March 2007 – and for what it's worth I don't see any pressing need to change things, though I have in the past said that we need a better way of presenting this information in the infobox. To go back to my revert of Erik's edit, do bear in mind that in his edit summary he said "if in disagreement, feel free to revert and discuss", which I did ;). PC78 (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It's potentially highly misleading, as LiteraryMaven says, to use film-festival showings as release dates; films can be shown at festivals and never released. Barnabypage (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

In which case the answer would be to change the way in which we present such dates, not to exclude them altogether. But I don't see it as misleading if the festival is mentioned next to the date (as it should be). PC78 (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello and pardon my absence. First of all, I was following the BRD cycle, so it is acceptable for PC78 to revert me. Now we have discussion underway. :) Now I think we can agree that the infobox can have more than one release date. PC78, you are right that this has been written in the guidelines for some time, but I think this has more to do with the fact that changes were not actively pursued by those who thought that the criteria needed to be slightly modified. So my edit was not a "misconception"; it was the use of tacit knowledge to update the explicit knowledge in these guidelines. Let's use this as a forum to see what we can agree on about release dates and work from there. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Release dates in infobox

First of all, can we agree that the infobox should be as limited as realistically possible? We probably have different expectations when it comes to an exact number, but it's good practice to keep the infobox concise. With this in mind, let's examine the criteria we currently have. Looking at English-speaking territories, the guidelines say "majority", but a better word may be "predominantly", since in territories like India, English is a major language. Also, I think a slightly different approach is to not necessarily go out of our way to list every release date from predominantly English-speaking territories, especially if the dates are in the same time frame. For example, if a film came out in the UK on the 22nd and in Australia on the 23rd, it seems a little extraneous to note both. It comes down to editorial discretion, so ask the question, does the reader benefit from the listed dates? As for the release dates of the countries in which the film was produced, this could be worded better. An international array of production companies could help conceive the film, but I think it is better to say the home country of the major studio that produced the film.

Now, on the issue of the "first" release date. We have to remember on Wikipedia that even when a film is screened at a film festival, we still treat it as an upcoming film. The majority of reviews for a film comes out when the film is publicly released. This seems to me to be the clearest threshold. Film festival screenings can be important, in the sense that a major award like the Palme d'Or is won, but these screenings need context. The other release dates don't really need that -- they came out in the way everybody's used to. So film festival screenings should be saved for the article body where context can be established. What do others think? —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It's my understanding the purpose of the infobox is to provide a quick overview of the article's content by listing the most pertinent facts. To crowd it with numerous release dates seems to be counterproductive, especially when what I personally feel is more relevant information, such as the production and costume designers, is being excluded.

When a film has had numerous film festival showings prior to its theatrical release, I always include those details within the body of the article, which I feel is the appropriate place for them, as I previously stated. To reiterate, I strongly feel the release date in the infobox should be the day on which it opened to the paying public for the first time. If a film is a joint US/UK production, I include the release dates in both countries. If a French film had a major run in the US, I include the release dates in both countries as well. But to list the opening dates in the US, Canada, UK, Australia, and New Zealand, no matter how far apart the openings in those countries were, simply because it's an English-language film, doesn't make any sense to me, especially given most people agree the infobox should be limited. LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that you have a good argument against the indiscriminate release dates of predominantly English-speaking territories. I wouldn't mind leaning in that direction. It's possible that we do this because of the mentality that wanting to appeal to English-speaking readers, particular for recent films. Perhaps this carries over to older films. So do you mean to say, for a British film, if it screens over there, then later here, we should exclude the American release date? Others have thoughts about this? —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to do it that way really; to treat the UK and US as special cases at the expense of others such as Australia would be asking for trouble. And presumably it would follow that for a foreign language film we may have no release dates in the infobox for English-speaking territories. I also don't mind going this way, to be honest. With regards to festivals, I've argued before that festival-released films shouldn't necessarily be treated as "upcoming films", certainly not in all cases. Not all films get a public release – indeed, some are produced primarily for the festival circuit – and for those films we won't have any other release dates. Even for more mainstream films, a festival screening can be significant for all sorts of reasons, and if it is the premiere of a film then I still think it merits inclusion. I think leaving it to editorial discretion would be preferable to a more heavy handed approach. PC78 (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, for a British film widely seen in the States, I include both the UK and US release dates in the infobox. I agree a festival screening can be significant for all sorts of reasons, and if it is then it can be explained why within the body of the article, but I still feel the date should be excluded from the infobox. LiteraryMaven (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

But why not include an Australian date if the film was widely seen there too? Seems a bit arbitrary to me. PC78 (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not include an Australian date if the film was widely seen there too? Because the idea is to simplify the infobox, not expand it with numerous release dates. LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, but then why include the American release date for a British film? PC78 (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have really strong feelings about this issue -- in the case of The Wind That Shakes the Barley, I was really just trying to follow what I read in the community's consensed-upon guideline (because aren't we supposed to?!?). But I will say, that while I agree that the list shouldn't be too long, I do think that multiple release dates are often helpful, particularly when a film comes out a year apart on different continents. People do often really attach a year to the way they think of a film, so it bears explaining when that year is variable. The lead only allows for the earliest year, so the infobox, in a short list, can clarify why the year in the lead might not be what be what people expect. --Melty girl 18:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions about cast....

I am aware of a film article where an editor has taken a serious interest in protecting the article from other's input. This is laudable. However, every attempt to insert a more complete cast listing has been removed by this editor as "unsourced". It not being attempted to insert every cast member... only the main players who already have wiki notability. The editor has been politely reminded that for such non-contentious informations, the cast listing on IMDB is usually acceptable as WP:V of finished films, since the cast is unlikely to change once a film has been finished, and the simple WP:Verification is not being used to assert notability (point of fact being that these removed names already exist on Wiki as notable, so that is not the issue). Still, this editor is insisting that notables inserted as cast must be each be individually sourced. Is this now the new way to go? If so, I can see this standard as creating a whole lot of deletions of material in film articles all across wiki. Just asking. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the film itself is the primary source for the cast list, same as the plot, and the cast lists does not need inline citations for who played what unless its an uncredited role. IMDB is not a reliable source for using for any citations, but in this case, the film credits are the cite so it shouldn't even be needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No disagreement (and I won't even quibble with you about IMDB as simple V (not N) of released info (chuckle)... like your work too much). But it is a bit frustrating his insisting on it all being sourced and not responding to his talk page. Maybe he wants to wait until such time as he can sit down and watch the thing himself. Harumph. Shall I just wait him out? He has really taken a very close protection of the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If he isn't responding to talk page discussions at all, I'd be inclined to leave him a warning about WP:OWN, and, if you haven't already, point him to FA level articles to show him that they aren't cited. Then start some of the dispute resolution. First step would be here (done, though would help if you linked to the articles as some folks are likely to want to see it themselves and maybe respond to the talk page there :) ), where after discussion if consensus agrees and he is still ignoring, it becomes a bigger issue. Its not really something I think should be ignored as its not good for community editing and really its harmful to him as an editor as well as to the article as he could end up blocked for edit warring. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Understand... and that's whay I came here with the question to make sure the rules had not changed while I was out of the room. And to be frank, I did not give the diffs because I did not want to stir anything up prematurely. Maybe I am misreading the situation. Maybe he has an incomplete understanding of V, N, and OWN. Point being is that he has done nothing that cannot be undone, and those editors he's been reverting without cause aren't getting upset. Yet. I'll point the way to FA articles where cast is not one-by-one sourced amd explain that he has to loosen up the reins just a bit. If this still plays out as a case of ownership, I'll come to you and invite yo to the talk page. Things are on a slow simmer.... the pot ain't boiling over... I just wanted to check in and reassure myself. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-English reviews

Is it possible to work on the recommendations concerning critical reception so that it isn't almost completely focused on English-language reviews? My general impression from reading articles on films, no matter the quality, is that non-English critical response is virtually non-existent. Most of the time you're lucky to even find something not written by a US-based critics. It seems to hold true even for non-English film FAs like Kung Fu Hustle.

Has there been any discussion about how this affects the neutrality and systemic bias of film articles?

Peter ^Isotalo 10:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It is something we're aware of, and have attempted to address, most recently in a rewrite of this guideline last year. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Critical reception, which states (my emphasis):

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

This pretty much covers it, and if many film articles do not utilise non-English reviews, it may only be because of a general lack of awareness of this aspect of the guideline and the greater difficulty in sourcing and translating non-English reviews. Suggestions on ways in which this could be combated are of course very welcome. Steve ^{T • C} 10:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit that I am a little surprised that Kung Fu Hustle is a Featured Article without any reviews from its home territory. You should raise the issue on the talk page. Like Steve mentioned, we have it in the guidelines to show editors who are working on films that are not in English. It's certainly a point to raise for each foreign-language film article under review in the future. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm not so sure we should be encouraging editors to translate direct quotes. By all means say what the foreign-language source says, but direct quotes should be unmolested. PC78 (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Translations aren't a problem as long as the original quote is provided along with the citation.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is in keeping with the MOS. Only minimal changes should be made to quotes, and a traslation is pretty major. Paraphrasing is fine, though. PC78 (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That depends on the context. It can add much needed flavor to texts, even if some quotes are less appropriate than others to translate. Again, though, it's not that big of a problem as long as the original quote is provided in the footnote.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the section is slightly misleading to my mind in its recommendation to include quotes. As we do for English-speaking critics, we should paraphrase the non-English ones in the same manner. I'd like to propose a small amendment to the sentence so it reads:

In the case of films not in the English language, the section should contain reviews from the film's country of origin, whether in English or otherwise.

Or words to that effect. This covers both English and non-English reviews, and more directly addresses the "country of origin" point. Thoughts? Steve ^{T • C} 16:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. :) PC78 (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Some more thoughts. What about non-English language reviews of English-language films? It would seem very appropriate to have this as a criteria for major productions, like Titanic or Jurassic Park, where a majority of the audience isn't even English-speaking. Why Star Wars-articles should only include reviews by English-speaking (read: US-based) critics really is somewhat of a mystery to me.

And what about non-English reviews from countries other than where the film was produced? For example, I know that Let the Right One In has received much critical acclaim in Russia. That would seem more important to me than the top 10 list of some journalist working for the Howard County Times.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not see the rationale in having foreign-language reviews of English-language films just for the sake of including them. There are many English-language reviews for any given English-language film, so they largely suffice in showing the critical reception of a film. The only trend that would best take place would be related to the film's subject matter. For example, for the film Valkyrie, we have a "German critics" section. As for Let the Right One In, the section was listcruft, going beyond the shorter and more reasonable list that Metacritic provided to include unimportant names like the Howard County Times fella. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's fine, encouraged even, to summarise the reception in other markets if a reliable source can be found—not always possible, but publications like Variety will often throw us a bone in their international box office round-ups in the form of something like, "...a favourable critical reaction led to a strong opening in Italy..."—but I see no need to add a requirement to cite individual reviewers from countries that don't have a stronger link to the film than a standard release platform. With a well-constructed "Critical reception" section that appropriately summarises the reaction via secondary sources that specifically discuss the consensus—be it in the US, UK, Italy or wherever—the paragraphs we devote to individual critics' opinions become less important; all they're really doing is giving a flavour of the reaction to certain elements. It's the overall reception that counts, not the critic. Conversely, if you run across an article you feel would be enhanced by the addition of a non-English critic's remarks, there's no prohibition in this guideline to stop you doing so. Steve ^{T • C} 23:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if quotes from individual critics is only about flavor, then just about the only flavor we get is from US critics. That's not an ideal situation. Isn't this a matter of upholding standards of neutrality rather that discussing mere bonus improvements?

Peter ^Isotalo 10:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It has less to do with neutrality and more to do with verifiability, for which English-language sources will always be preferred if they are of equal or greater value to non-English sources. For example, the reception sections I write include remarks from critics that either reflect the consensus towards the element of the film being discussed, or present a reasonable balance of positive to negative remarks. That is, if several critics praised Angelina Jolie in Changeling, I'll include some to that effect. Where there's a body with the opposing view, I'll put something of that in too. It doesn't matter that these remarks come from an English-language critic, what's important is that they're representative. Now, for ease of verifiability by the widest possible body of editors, it has always been Wikipedia policy to prefer English-language sources where they get across the same point a non-English source. This means that reception sections of mainstream English-language film articles—being general representations—will in most circumstances be required to prefer English-language critics. However, I'll say again that if you run across an article you feel would be genuinely enhanced by the addition of a non-English critic's remarks, there's no prohibition in this guideline to stop you doing so. Indeed, I've even added non-English critics myself in a couple of sections (see this one, which includes comments from Libération—the rationale being the film's impact at Cannes). Steve ^{T • C} 11:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not raising this issue just to ask for permission to add non-English criticism. I'm worried that there seems to be an assumption that sources like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are representative for the rest of the world. Even if the situation overall is not as bad as in Kung Fu Hustle, comments from non-English critics are in my experience extremely rare in FA and GA film articles, even non-English films like Triumph of the Will and Aguirre, the Wrath of God. With this in mind, wouldn't it be a good idea to add a minimum of neutrality criteria concerning critical reception guidelines?

This may not be a problem in most cases, but when it comes to films that have culturally specific themes, like Let the Right One In, there are very few good arguments for the assumption that English-language critics should be considered representative for all countries except the home country.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right to bring up the use of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic; for films that have had an international impact, the article body should always make clear that these sites sample mainly US (and a few UK and OZ) critics. As for FAC, standards have risen in the last year or so, and I feel confident that any article that didn't include details of the critical response from the film's home country would have that concern raised. I agree that Triumph of the Will needs more German voices, and Aguirre, the Wrath of God is especially egregious in citing only US-based critics. I don't blame any editor for this; finding non-English sources, and determining their reliability/representativeness, is difficult. As for Let the Right One In, I also agree that a comprehensive reception section would include cites from its home country (Sweden) and major markets (US, etc.) Its reception in other culturally relevant countries—presumably the other Scandinavian regions?—is essentially a judgement call; I'm wary about hard-wiring anything into the guideline to this effect because these things are usually best decided on a case-by-case basis. Steve ^{T • C} 15:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

How about starting a list of links to other types of review-tallying sites for languages other than English? When I looked around for reviews for Let the Right One In in Swedish, I found Kritiker.se. I don't know if it's been tested for reliability, but it seems pretty useful.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems ok....if one could read it. I looked up Friday the 13th on there, and couldn't make out what it said (clearly, because I don't speak the language). I took the url to translating sites and not BabelFish (which doesn't even have a Swedish language option) and InterTran (which does), and I couldn't get it translated. This isn't like a book source, that someone has to find, we need to be able to verify the information beyond asking a personal translator what is being said. Now, I haven't searched for any more translating sites, so we may have some that can help us. If so, I think this could be a good addition for almost any article. It's always good to have some foreign opinion, even if the film did not have a significant box office draw there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there's not much point in citing reviews in, say, Czech or Norwegian in an article about Friday the 13th (or better yet, Titanic), but critical reception in major languages like Chinese, Japanese or French shouldn't be that much of a problem. I've never heard this type of argument raised about Non-English sources when it comes to other article topics. It just seems like a matter of working with the thousands of editors on English Wikipedia that are multilingual.

But my main concern is still non-English language films. For these, English-speaking countries can often be a minor, if significant, part of a much bigger market. Citing only English-language reviews for these is quite inappropriate, even in the few cases where domestic criticism is also included. I don't know if the particular website I mentioned is reliable, and it was just mean to serve as an example. However, I don't feel that it's a good idea to dismiss the the idea merely because all members of WP:FILM don't speak this or that language.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I thin you may have misread what I was saying. I wasn't dismissing it, I was actually saying that we should try and find some translating sites that will translate the webpages for us because it would be a good thing for ALL films, not just the non-english speaking films where it is the most pertinent. As for "multilingual editors", that's fine enough but unless you know someone for every language there is, you can't just pick and choose those foreign reviews based on just the "most spoken languages". We're not even guaranteed to be able to find someone for those languages on a regular schedule, which is why I believe it is just as important to find places that will translate the websites for us (for just about any language), so that we're not sitting around twiddling our thumbs waiting for someone to come translate a single review.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then we're on the same page. I don't know if machine translation is much of a long-term solution, though. It can be fairly unreliable if you want to quote or paraphrase reviews. For quality results you'll probably need a human translator at one point or another. It might seem a bit of a burden, but I don't think it's really that hard to find people willing to translate reviews, particularly not in the major languages.

The easy part is citing aggregate ratings. You don't need a translator for Kritiker.se's 1 to 5 scale, for example. What is needed is merely to establish that it's reliable.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, finding some place to translate the website will be good for initial use. If you find that you need to quote a large portion that seems inaccurate (you can usually tell when something was not translated correctly), then put in a request for a translator. As for the Kritiker scale, I'd really like to be able to know that the scale is showing me what I'm seeing, instead of assuming the numbers represent what I think they represent.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're looking for translators, this page will help: Wikipedia:Translators available. Cop 663 (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Kritiker.se has an about-page here. It says that it's run by Marcus Hansson. It's possible for registered users to add reviews, but only from a predetermined list of newspapers and websites. Focus is on the major newspapers and the criteria for sites is that they have an Alexa ranking that is higher than 200,000 and that they publish new reviews on a weekly basis. There are no details of exactly how the statistics are tallied, but from what I can tell, the average ratings for films seem accurate.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Google has a pretty decent translation ability (some words are not in the correct tense, but if you read the whole statement you know what they are saying). I'm a little turned off by the fact that Kritiker is run by this guy Hansson, "in [his] spare time"? That sounds like this isn't his job, and thus not an immediate concern of his as far as updating goes. As such, it might be a better site for attaining foreign reviews, than using his aggregate abilities to calculate a "score". I mean, and I'm sorry for going back to this example, but F13 only has like 10 reviews listed. There cannot be only 10 people in Sweden that review movies, The Dark Knight is listed with 23 reviews. I don't know, maybe those are good numbers...but I don't like to think that there are only 20+ odd film critics in Sweden, but maybe there are.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That was a pretty accurate translation, I must say. I guess I have to revise my stance on machine translation.

Kritiker.se doesn't appear to track only publications. Newspapers like Dagens Nyheter and Aftonbladet have many different critics tied to them, but it's not possible to search Kritiker.se for individual critics. It means that individual critics generally review a rather small proportion of the films that come out in any given year. And as far a I know there aren't any Swedish film critics that have their TV programs or regular space for reviews. There used to be something like it in Sveriges Television's show Filmkrönikan, but it was cancelled a few years ago.

As for the number of reviews, the figure for F13 seems to be a result of a genuine lack of interest in the press. Not that many papers thought it was worthwhile to review the film. I know that this sometimes happens with films that are generally considered too crappy and/or commercially uninteresting. The former is probably more important than the latter, I'd say. Films like F13 are overall not that interesting to non-US audiences. The highest number of reviews for any one film seems to be somewhere under 30, but I don't know what to compare that with. As pointed out, it represents a much larger number of individual critics.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I can understand the arguments being made here to a certain extent, but is there some policy that explicitly states that its perfectly acceptable to have wikipedia editors themselves translate foreign language text into English for use in wikipedia articles? This sounds like border-line Original Research to me, and "paraphrasing" foreign language reviews, which is mentioned above, seems even worse in terms of reliability. If a reliable English-language source contains translated text, then obviously quotes can be used from that source and I would see no problems with the policy suggested above. For what its worth, DVD Basen is a great source for international film reviews, but I don't see the point in having an editor, no matter how skilled, translate quotes and dump them into an article. Again, if a specific policy can be provided that explicitly authorizes such activity, please let me know. My argument is obviously way off-base if such policy exists.-Hal Raglan (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In theory, it's no different than an editor paraphrasing an english-language review. Wikipedia is not a mirror, and should not be written with large chunks of quoted text. Information should be paraphrased. Yeah, one could argue "how do we know they translated it correctly", but then again, one could argue in a similar fashion with regard to printed sources. Unless you have the actual source (or in this case, can translate it), then you have to assume that whomever did the work did it accurately. Worst comes to worst, you could simply request that they transpire the document on the talk page (which is a lot to ask), that way you know exactly what it says (you can even search out translating websites, like Google or BabelFish, to see if they were accurate).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. As far as I know, non-English sources have always been acceptable when no other alternatives are available.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So, in order to revive this: any thoughts on starting a list of sites that can be used to determine critical reception in outside of English-speaking countries?

Peter ^Isotalo 12:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Section break

In order to get the ball rolling here, I've made a tweak to the guidelines and, including a footnote linking to a separate sub-page for review resources. Peter ^Isotalo 11:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

First, I think you jumped the gun with creating Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Non-English review resources. Creating a WikiProject page is treated as a bigger deal than creating a sub-page for oneself. In this case, you do not have to create this page... I recommend creating a section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Resources with the content you have so far. In addition, I am fine with the "Chinese" and "French" mentions, but I think going from "desirable" to "usually desirable" is inappropriate because after all, this is the English-language Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, at least I revived the discussion. :-) I wasn't familiar with the exact procedure of creating project subpages. I just didn't want to start making a list here. The main WP:FILM resource subpage looks like a good alternative, though.

I'm fine without "usually", btw. It reads the same to me either way.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sneaky, are we? :P Does the "Reception" section of the Resources page seem like a good place to put resources? I don't know of any places to find non-English reviews, so I can't contribute... BTW, if we're going to change the focus to the Resources page, I suggest adding {{db-author}} to the page you created. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Subpage speedied and I started a sub-section on the resource page instead. I know it's a bit lame having just one link to a small language like Swedish, but it might at least attract some attention.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I also included the Swedish link at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Nordic cinema task force#Resources. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)