Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Squeeky Clean

I realize I have probably done something bone headed in breaking this style guide out, but on the project page it was getting buried under that huge list of participants. Glad people are into film, but I was finding it hard to get to the guide. In particular, I'm sure significant amounts of the discussion from the project talk page need to at least get linked to in some way from this page. But I'm not sure how to best go about that. Anyone? Isogolem 06:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Good move. As you say, this thing is long enough without being buried inside another article. That said, when I first came to the project page, I was a bit put off because it seems like it was all lists and addenda and no meat, which is apparently the style section that was spun off to make this article. So, you might want to consider some kind of summary of style on the project page. Because keeping track of an active Talk page is like herding cats, there's probably no need for specific links back to the project Talk page from here. Though it's indeed a good idea to keep this section separate, bifurcating the subject does make discussion a bit problematic, as you suggest. — J M Rice 18:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

In terms of the split of was shooting for something like WP:Chem. Obviously, it's not there yet, but maybe shouldn't be exactly like that ever, but edible chunks are good. I'm glad we're agreed on that point.

Summary of style sounds good, but isn't that what this is supposed to be?

And What I meant by "linking back" to discussions on the main page, was should I move disucssions around article style from the main talk page to here (and if so how)? -- Isogolem 07:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Alternate versions

(I'm posting this here because obviously plot/synopsis descriptions are governed by style guidelines.)

With the growing popularity of 'extended DVD editions', are there any guidelines in place for descriptions of alternate versions of a plot? Some articles have a quite elaborate synopsis of the original theatrical release, which may not accurately describe the later (sometimes much longer) DVD edition.

A theatrical edit is governed by concerns different from a DVD edit. Should we consider them to be two different films? --Radioflux 16:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In many pages I've seen, there has been a sub-topic of Plot entitled Alternate version or Alternate ending (could also change alternate to alternative), this seems to work nicely (see Dead Poets' Society). You may also want to take this up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films as they run it. Cbrown1023 20:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Mangoe

Just a note that user mangoe has made a major revision of the style guideline with no attempt at discussion to give special exemptions to WikiProjects and RS standards to "documentaries," in order to then justify using the exemptions that he himself created on the "Bowling For Columbine" page. I suggest a revert until we have a consensus. Right now, the addition is incredibly vague and nebulous, for no other reason than to allow Mangoe to cite whatever sources that he wants. For instance, he claims that "Documentaries present a special case, as they present themselves as recounters of fact. Therefore criticism of content ought to be included if it is presented with reasonable documentation and if there is evidence of public awareness of the controversy" strikes me as a complete non-sequitor. What does the fact that documentaries present themselves as "recounters of fact" have to do with presenting controversy? Does that mean that you wouldn't include controversy surrounding non-documentaries (e.g., Clockwork Orange wasn't a documentary, but it does have controversy). "Reasonable documentation" is likewise vague. What constitutes "reasonable"? Are we assuming that current WP:RS standards apply?

The concept of "public awareness" is completely open to interpretation. For instance, Tom Cruise's involvement with scientology was HUGELY controversial and public at the time of Mission Impossible III, yet his involvement with scientology have a single mention doesn't have a single mention. Obviously, MI:III doesn't meet the standard, so what does? Further, how are we defining "controversy"? The word is defined in the dictionary as, "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion." So is one guy shouting that he didn't like a certain movie a real controversy? I don't think so. The claim that "The existence of a public controversy ought to be acknowledged whatever can be said about it" is incredibly vague and can include just about anything. -Schrodinger82 00:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to leave this to the filmic people to discuss. I think the point is self-evident and does not need an elaborate justification. Your accusation is completely dishonest. I was quite open about having edited this article and I do not intend to refer to the edited version in order to defend myself. Mangoe 11:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you comment?

Talk:Bowling_for_Columbine#Concern_over_original_research ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Themes, influences, and interpretations

Hello. I would like some clarification on sections describing themes, interpretations, and influences. I would also like to discuss whether there is interest in creating a more detailed description of these sections in the style guidelines. Over time, I've noticed that these sections can be used in ambiguous and often misleading ways, as there are no clear standards for their use. For example, I recently began editing a "Themes and influences" section on The Fountain, only to discover to my surprise, that the section was a trivia section with very little underlying threads. After a few edits, I also realized that the "influences" (erroneously merged into themes) section was really a production-related detail. I'm concerned about the use of these sections, as the standards are mostly nonexistent. Take the use of influence or influences in two articles: Blade Runner describes the influence the film has had on popular culture, but 2001: A Space Odyssey describes the influence upon the production. The use of the "interpretations" section appears to be an alternate means of discussing the theme, accurate or not. I'm looking for consensus regarding the standardization of headings and their content. Standardization will have the added bonus of improving thematic and genre-related categorization of film articles whose sections are split off due to length. —Viriditas | Talk 05:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines on inclusion of red links

One thing that would relieve many project members would be to define more specific guidelines on the inclusion of red links for unexisting film articles. Some that are notable and need an article are covered in Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable films. I have collected all red links from the lists of years in films, and started the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of films without article. The list is now being split in decades as we are facing the problem of the hundreds or maybe thousands of films, given as red links in actors' and directors' filmographies and there may be more in other articles too. Yet no one seems to know for sure how the Wikipedia:Red link applies to film titles. In dab pages some users take off the red links from films, following some more general dab guidelines. If I am not mistaken, here is the right place one should find some guidelines. Hoverfish 19:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like this is already covered by WP:RED and WP:DAB, and if not, modifications should be made to those pages. What do you think? —Viriditas | Talk 03:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

In an unrelated discussion, Ling.Nut reminded me of WP:MOS. —Viriditas | Talk 01:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Soundtrack

The soundtrack needs to be moved down, perhaps to after the reception section. It really does not need to be directly after the plot. Agree/disagree?--Supernumerary 03:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree, it just appeared there. It should be one of the last things to appear, before refs and links. Gonna boldly move it. Cbrown1023 03:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Cast listings, form a consensus on style.

Compare the styles for cast listings on these different featured film articles.

1. Dog_Day_Afternoon#Cast uses a wikitable with column headings Character, Actor/Actress, and Role.
2. Blade_Runner#Cast uses a bulleted list while bolding the names of the actor and and his character. Follows with a short description after each character. This style is also seen here Star_Wars_Episode_IV:_A_New_Hope#Cast and V_for_Vendetta_(film)#Cast.
3. Casablanca_(film)#Cast uses a bulleted list, non-bolding the names, and separating the actors into different classes, top-billed, second-billed, also creditted, and notable uncredited.
4. Sunset_Boulevard_(1950_film)#Casting and Halloween_(film)#Casting do not even have proper cast listings, but instead have the information expressed in paragraph form.

I believe style #2 is the most logical. A table does not look good in this situation. Bolding the names of the actor and characters improves readability, and using paragraph form over list form is just sloppy and difficult to find information. Made of people 18:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

True, but there is a big difference between "Cast" and "Casting". #2 would be my choice for a "Cast list" as well except that I don't particularly like the bold text. "Casting" is a process as surely as other aspects of production such as cinematography or musical scoring, and its discussion in text form is highly relevant IMO. The examples in points 1, 2 and 3 are presenting a basic list in different forms, and I think standardizing them is a good idea. I'd support option #2 (preferably without the bold text). The examples in #4 are somewhat different in what they are attempting to address. Perhaps a "Cast list" as a summary with "Casting" that precedes the text but I don't think it would benefit the articles to replace one with the other. I'll have a go at the Sunset Boulevard article as an example. If it's no good it can easily be reverted. Editors are often encouraged to convert lists into prose where possible. This may be an alternative. Rossrs 08:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Do limited release dates count?

We're proceeding with a discussion about determining the release date for films in the WikiProject Films talk page. -- Corsair Armada 00:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Reception

I've recently made a few small contributions to the articles for some of my favorite films and I'm wondering about this title Reception which seems intended as what one titles a section concerning reviews, box office receipts, and the like. Just how wedded is the project to calling it that? I'm a little bothered by it simply because Reception seems more related to weddings, or radio broadcasts, than film reviews, criticism, etc. Cryptonymius 00:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have an alternate name that would connote reviews from critics and the public, box office success, publicity, and everything else that reception currently does? Personally, I'm not particularly fond of it, but I cannot think of a better term that incorporates everything that reception does.--Supernumerary 08:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly, there's response... but that sounds a little too unprofesional for an encyclopedia. Response would probably incorporate it... idk... Cbrown1023 22:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've used "reaction". I think it works well enough to cover both positive and negative commentary and all the points described above. It could also lead into a discussion of the longer term impact or subsequent projects it influenced if necessary. Example Sunset Boulevard (1950 film)#Reaction to the film, although in this case the reaction discussed is more immediate/short term. Rossrs 01:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I had thought of Critical Response but I guess that hints too much of nuclear melt-downs, or something. Reaction to the film isn't bad. I keep thinking there must be some industry term or phrase that would do the job and be zippy besides, but I can't guess what it is. Reception in the marketplace? In-release notes? Track Record? Related Content? Theatrical Response? Critiques & Receipts? Cryptonymius 07:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look through some books I have, and see what terminology is used by various writers. It'll be a few days at least, and with a bit of luck, someone will come along with the perfect term in the meantime! :-) Rossrs 14:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the word 'Responses' used a lot. That seems like the best to me. Cop 633 19:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Cast

Could someone please explain why bolding the character and actor is the latest rage? I think it's unnecessary and that bolding should be reserved for emphasis. I also see no mention of bolding in the style guide here.--Supernumerary 17:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Got an example? Offhand, I'd say, no bolding ;) as it's less readable; bolding is for isolated terms, or headlines. Some pages (some of the animated films) use tables for cast, which is quite nice. Perhaps we need to just set down a basic style on this page. Can we get a consensus on format? Something I used recently was

bullet [ACTOR] ellipsis [CHARACTER]

which gives us

* Robert Mitchum ... Harry Kilmer

Whaddya think? It's easy to convert from third party sources like IMDb (not that simply copying is permitted, of course). David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 19:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Psst, while we're at it, we don't have any style guidelines for Memorable quotes ... I've added 1-2 using the Memory Alpha format, shall we discuss that here, too? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

Examples:Psycho (1960 film)#Cast, Pulp Fiction, GoldenEye#Cast, Serenity (film)#Cast. Note that Pulp Fiction's cast is no longer bolded because I unbolded it.--Supernumerary 20:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Of these examples, I only liked Psycho (1960 film)#Cast. Why? The name needed to stand out in the paragraph about the character. But the others were just overuse of bolding, IMHO. Thanks for the examples for talking points. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

I can see bolding when you have a paragraph, but what about the rest of the names for Psycho? Should they be in bold as well just to be consistent?--Supernumerary 02:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've always disliked the bolding, but I assumed that it was written into some kind of style guide. I agree that it's unnecessary and should only be used for emphasis. I prefer the Robert Mitchum style example given above. Rossrs 00:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather stick with the "Actor as Character" format simply because it is already in place on so many articles and that "Actor ... Character" is not too different and looks too much like IMDB. Also the "Actor as Character" is easier to understand than two names separated by "...".--Supernumerary 00:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Sorry, I was not clear. I meant to convey that I prefer the Robert Mitchum example because it was without the bold text. Yes, I would prefer "Actor as Character" also. Example : I recently changed Sunset Boulevard (1950 film)#Casting - this shows the format I prefer. Rossrs 01:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you, Super. If [ACTOR] as [CHARACTER] has been used generally, let's put it in the style guideline. If it's already a "norm" (or "practice"), no reason not to put it in writing. ,:) As [Jakob Nielsen put it once, If 80% of the Web are doing it wrong, do it the same way as users will expect that. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 01:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if an alternate to this style guideline would be that which is currently in place at Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film). With such a large cast, it makes sense to break it into categories (I think), and the table seems to sort it much better than if it were in prose. At least until the film is released, is this aceptable? Thanks, Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen that before and really like that layout and the presentation of the information. :) Cbrown1023 21:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I tend to use tables for a film's cast (actor/role) but a recent edit on the Aliens entry [1] replaced the table with the explanation that featured articles don't use tables. If right then it would be wise to avoid tables and go for the "Actor as Character" which is the form described in the style guide, otherwise you'd only have to change it later (if you were goin for FA I suppose). (Emperor 02:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

Well, can we have some more opinions on the table? I don't seen anything visually unappealling about it (personally I think it looks better than the bold-faced text). But would it be awful to state two options for this guideline? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Making character names bold is a general style I've seen around (especially when they are done definition style - usually I'll admit with books so there are no actors) but making actor and role bold does seem odd. I suppose the arguement against tables is the same one against excessive use of lists - if it can be said in prose form then it possibly should. That said usability studies suggest that when used sparingly tables and lists can convey information much more simply and effectively as people don't read the page they scan it and pick out the bits they want. I usually find the table most handy for cast information and the double bolding on the long format isn't helpful (perhaps only bold the character?). (Emperor 05:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

I understand that bolding is the "general style" that's been seen around – that's because it's what it says in this project page. But is there any consensus to allow tables as an alternate option for a cast list? For a really long cast list such as the one at Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film), I have a feeling more people would skip a cast list written in prose than one in a table. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use versus ... ?

Can anyone here give me the short answer on uploading images? I've considered, for example, scanning the cover to such things as DVDs and books just to spice up various articles, where an image seemed needed, and I've tried sorting through the Wiki documention concerning copyrighted material...and at the rate I'm wading through it I may never get to the end of it... Cryptonymius 07:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Just scan the image... put a fair use tag and a fair use rationale on the image page and put it in an article. Cbrown1023 16:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Plot vs Synopsis

Since we seem to keep having problems with scene-by-scene descriptions of a film's plot, I propose that we change the section heading to "Synopsis" to emphasize that the section should be a brief summary. It's already in use in some film articles, and Wikiproject Books has the similar heading "Plot summary" for fiction books. However, for graphic novels and TV shows "Plot" is used. Thoughts?--Supernumerary 02:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the word "Plot" personally, but I do see good backing to your argument and would not go against the change. It may help new users know that it is a "synopsis", as you said, and not a repeat of the entire movie scene-by-scene or punch-by-punch. Someone could somehow do a round with AWB to change all of this as well. (I'm not sure how that would be done, but it would certainly be consistent.) Cbrown1023 02:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Weirdly, I came here to ask the exact same question. I'm not too bothered about which (although your argument for Synopsis makes sense), but I think consistency should be good. If it is gonna be synopsis, then this page should be changed to reflect that. Trebor 22:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to make the change unless people are aware of it. Perhaps we should do a straw poll at the main project talk page?--Supernumerary 00:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good idea. :) Cbrown1023 00:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

If you are dealing with a film that began from a literary source, like The Dark Knight, where would you list the creators of the characters? Should they be before the writers of the film, or after?  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  21:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they should be in the infobox at all, that should be reserved for the filmmakers. Discuss the origins in the main body only. Does anyone else have a view? Cop 633 00:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If the author of the novel was A and the screenwriter was B, I would put A ([[novel]])<br>B ([[screenplay]]). Make sure to follow the WGA screenwriting credit system too. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would favor adding a line to the infobox "Based on the novel by..." so that the information is showcased and immediately accessible and presented as distinct from the screenplay credit. Cryptonymius 00:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that might involve changing the infobox template. But what I'm really focused on is instances like comics to films, where you can't say "based on JLA #34" or something like that. My question is in regards to something that would read like "Joe Shuster and Jerry Seigel (characters)", because they are the creators of the characters, and no particular work is the basis for the film, just the characters. It's a debate on The Dark Knight film infobox. One user felt they should come first, and another believed they should come after the script writers. I'm asking so that a frame of reference can be attained for future instances.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  02:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering the characters came before the screenplay (unless there's some super whacked out business of screenwriting going on here), I would say that the characters would logically come first. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox color?

Could anybody tell me if there is a way I can add a "color" section on the infobox? I want to add information like black and white, technicolor; tinted color etc. Is that impossible? Please just put your response on my discussion page if you can help.--Dudeman5685 17:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Film title (Year film)

Looking for clarification on this naming convention style guideline: should the year be the year the film was released or the year it was completed? The articles I'm working on are D.E.B.S. (2003 film), D.E.B.S. (2004 film); these titles match their IMDb years, however, from what I can tell the 2003 film made the festival circuit in '04 and the '04 film was released in '05. This doesn't seem to lead to too much conflict within the articles (they're still works in progress anyways), but it does when the films are placed on List pages and sometimes actor's filmographies. Any help ya'll can give on this would be great - thanks! ZueJay (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the problem. These are two separate films, right? (A short film, and then a feature length film?) IMDB quite clearly shows that the '2003 film' began doing the festival circuit in 2003, not 2004.[2] If it helps, our policy is to follow IMDB in treating the film's 'year' as the year of its first screening, not the year of its first wide release. So The 2004 DEBS would still be 2004 because that's the year it premiered at festivals.Cop 633 17:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That's all I wanted to check on. I wanna make sure I've got this correct before I change any articles' placing the film ambiguously in '05 (i.e. they don't say release date, etc.). Simply saying your policy is to follow IMDb film years clears it right up. Thanks. ZueJay (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinking in synopses

Is it appropriate to use wikilinks to other WP articles in plot synopses? For example: "John Doe works in a sweatshop in China and falls in love with Jane Doe" - is this a good thing? I haven't seen many film articles with links in the synopses so I was wondering if it is an appropriate style convention, providing of course that it is not overdone. Ekantik ^talk 02:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

See Also

I'm curious, as the "see also" help section didn't really "help", what exactly should/can go here. I mean, how close should things be to fit this section? Is there a guideline for this section of an article?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

IMDB "Poll" results

I would like to purpose that use of the IMDB and similiar poll rankings of movies be either discouraged or made not within official policy for film articles. They are little more than fan dictated "my movie is better than your movie" boastings based on flawed polling techniques, as all passive polls are. As bad as rankings generally are, these passive fan polls are worse given to far too much "ballot stuffing" by fans. If someone starts doing a bona fide poll (you know, where they actually go out and get the results), then that would be different. RoyBatty42 20:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Some fellow editors and I believe that the "box office take" is sufficient enough to show what fan response is. I read one article that used the IMDb user reviews, and then even quoted one of the anonymous reviewers about how awesome the movie was.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

How would you guys interpret something like IMDb's Weighted Average Ratings? I don't think it's an invalid point, but I agree that bona fide polls would be more realistic.. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to voting online, you can almost never guarantee that it isn't going to happen, not unless you require proof of identity. I think it's noble that they take measures to reduce it, which I'm sure they do, but even they it's simple an "attempt" to reduce the vote stacking. I think reviews are best left to those that get paid for it, and the box office numbers speak for the fans the like the film. If critics hate a film, and yet it breaks records, obviously they don't speak for what the "fans" truly think.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Release dates

How did we end up with Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the UK and the US, as the majority/traditional English speaking countries? What ever happened to Ireland, South Africa and Jamaica? And because this is the English language Wikipedia, wouldn't it also be noteworthy listing the release dates in countries where English is spoken or well understood (or has a colonial background), such as India, Singapore or Hong Kong? I understand that a lot of today's (English) movies are made in the US and are first shown in the US so it only makes sense to have its release date listed, but is this also the case for Australia, Canada and New Zealand? 210.7.7.19 23:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think the main reason is simply that Australian, NZ, US, Canada and UK release dates are easily available on the IMDB whereas South African, Irish and Jamaican ones aren't, except for the most recent films. I don't think there's any deliberate intention to ignore these countries, but people who care about them will have to figure out where to find the information.
• Regarding India, Singapore and Hong Kong, there are certainly lots of English speakers there but (I assume) the majority speak it as a second language. Is it normal for films to be screened in these countries in English, or are they normally subtitled or dubbed? I have no idea myself, so we'll need input from someone who does.
• If we want to include release dates for every country, there's no difficulty, but they'll need to be in a separate table, because the infobox can't hold them all.Cop 633 18:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: I just altered the section in question to add an 'etc.' after the list of English-speaking countries, in order to be less restrictive. Cop 633 18:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Cast section tables

After a bit of discussion with Hoverfish, I'd like to make a proposal for a one-sentence addition to the cast section of the guidelines, something akin to:

"Tables for casts sections is not recommended. Tables in this section should be used sparingly and only when they would clarify complex casting situations."

The rationale behind this includes:

1) The style guidelines offer "Credits should be written in the "ACTOR as CHARACTER" format", and don't say anything about a table.

2) A table makes the guideline line (but for credits where the character has not been mentioned in the plot section, a short summary of the importance and role of the character in the film would be necessary) impossible.

3) IMHO a table of two columns is generally useless for casting purposes. I could see an exception if there were extended columns - such as multiple roles for the same actor in the same film.

4) Like The Terminator article, a table breaks the continuity/flow of reading the article.SkierRMH 18:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I agree that tables break the flow of reading the article. Avoiding the table format and its coding may also encourage editors to expand on actors' background (in terms of how they got involved with the film) or the characters' description. I've been implementing non-table formats whenever possible. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I support this addition. --Crzycheetah 08:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, tables are ugly. Cop 633 11:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. Tables may be needed in some special cases, but not in simple actor-role-(note) listings. Even when they are needed, I find it advisable to be formatted with border=0 instead of class=wikitable. Hoverfish Talk 17:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Depending on how detailed the cast section is small tables can often look quite neat in cast sections. However for larger cast details a large table clearly interrupts the flow of the article and is best written out which is for most. I disagree about what Erikster said about "avoiding tables encourages users to expand on actors background" -with all due respect this clearly not a reason - tables can accomdate a column equally for details. However I agree that is is best to avoid bloated tables from the articles certainly ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 18:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with ESB that there are a few times that a cast table can look good, but those IMHO are really rare. I would disagree about using a table w/a column for cast details. Unless all the cast members are getting something in that column (which would noramlly be the case, only one or two would be getting details), it leaves a very unbalanced table (lots of blank cells), which looks very awkward.

As an aside, I did see an excellent use (forgot which article) of a table in a Russian language film article, where the table was: Russian name, Russian character, English name, English character... worked wonderfully in that situation. SkierRMH 17:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, here is a small collection of not so very bright tables. FUBAR: The Movie, Drawing Flies, Trailer Park Boys: The Movie, The Wrong Guy, Screamers (1995 film). I also repeat that (for these rare cases) one respectable looking solution is to use border=0, so that things align nicely and it doesn't interrupt the flow. I should add also with no headers (which in my opinion is overstating the obvious and looks childish). Hoverfish Talk 18:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a table with class="wikitable sortable" looks good and is very practical, it has more functionality. Prose can either be put in a separate column or outside the table.--Patrick 09:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Tables can be distracting when they are that small, and they are really irrelevant when actors' names appear in the plot section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Comparing a table with a list, a table is more useful. The table and its sortability are especially useful if there are many actors/characters. It can be made even better using {{sortname}} to sort by last name.--Patrick 12:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

With regard to style, we could use an other class than wikitable, so that people can specify their preferences in their CSS.--Patrick 12:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

When you are dealing with a section where you typically do not list the entire cast, it isn't functionally useful for one film...not when you can easily list their names in the plot. When you are dealing with multiple films, like a film series (see Spider-Man film series) then it becomes applicable. There's no reason for a "sort name" feature on a table that generally fits quite easily on even the smallest of resolutions. Even then, a "sort name" feature doesn't provide usefulness with regard to names of actors or characters, but they are not measurable items. If it was box office take for many films, that would be useful, because you could easily see the order in which they fall from largest to smallest. Sorting names alphabetically doesn't really serve a purpose other than just that, sorting them alphabetically. It doesn't show anything about the actors, or the page. It simply says "hey look they're in order". Again, useless when they are mentioned in the plot section. If you don't want to mention them in a plot section, then bullets and bolded words is the best option, because it requires you to find real world information to support your list. Even if you were to set the width to 99%, it would be distracting because you'd have two columns containing a single name, taking up the entire width of the page. That's a lot of blank space. They aren't practical for single films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously sorting is not only useful for numbers but also for names: to easily find one, or check whether a particular one is in the list.

With a class other than wikitable, you could specify that you do not want borders and that you want a background color equal to the general background.--Patrick 13:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorting last names doesn't help you find them anymore than just staring at the general list. Single film cast sections are not that large to begin with. Again, completely unnecessary with the names in the plot. It's called being redundant when you have a cast section that does nothing but repeat other sections.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Cast lists - if they are allowed to exist - should generally be kept to an absolute minimum. Given that, I can't see the need for sortable tables - cast lists usually are ordered by prominence; alphabetical ordering only makes sense when dealing with ensemble pieces, which are usually alphabetical by convention. (This is to say that most ensembles tend to list actors alphabetically, not that most alphabetical cast lists are ensemble films.) Girolamo Savonarola 23:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If the wikitext is in order of prominence, which is fine, this makes alphabetic sortability even more useful.--Patrick 01:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Being usefule is not always a criteria for Wikipedia. Just because you can sort a cast table doesn't change the redundancy when you're listing actors names in the plot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy can be good when the same info is presented in different ways or contexts, such as when the same cast info is both in plot prose and in a table. Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#It's_useful confirms the obvious, that an encyclopedia is supposed to be useful.--Patrick (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not useful to read the same names, put together, three times in a row. It's completely unnecessary. It's a waste of space. 13:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bignole (talk • contribs)

Two points. First: lists are not encyclopedic and the info should be turned into prose. Second: the cast is irrelevant to the plot. The two should be kept separate and not repeated. The cast section should discuss who, why and how the cast was selected for the movie:maybe include near misses where relevant. The plot should summarize the story with a minimum of detail:what is the movie about. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Then the "cast" section is no longer a "cast" section, but actually a "Casting" section. Which, in my opinion, is better as it limits the availability to put in needless IU information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

IU?--Patrick (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "is useful"? You don't like useful info??--Patrick (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I get used to using abbreviations with most people I forget not everyone knows what they all are. "IU" is "in-universe". For reference, "OOU" is "out of universe". Basically, what I was saying was that casts lists, even ones that follow the MOS style of "Actor as Character" are breeding grounds for in-universe information. To better clarify, people like to put additional, detailed plot information in these sections instead of OOU information--or information with real world content--in them. By making a "Casting" section, and having it all written in prose format you limit, or even completely eliminate, the unnecessary plot information that gets added to cast lists. A table format become redundant because you have nothing but the actor and character names, which are things already stated in the plot section that is directly above the cast table.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Brief extra in-universe info in the cast table in a third column is fine, with e.g. "father of .. ".--Patrick (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, would that not be covered in the plot section? Why should we create a section that literally repeats the plot section?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is also in the plot section, and it summarizes the cast info contained in that. In addition it can contain extra info about casting (a fourth column, or some prose).--Patrick (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Face it, it's a redundant, useless section. Names can be found in the plot. Casting information should be in complete prose (i.e. you cannot have prose information in a table, it defeats the purpose of a table), which means paragraphs. That's no longer "Cast" but "Casting", and should go under "Production". Please see Halloween (1978 film).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Calling the section 'Casting' is probably a good idea. I've never liked the idea of including the cast in the plot. The plot has nothing to do with the cast. Think of a play like Hamlet which has been filmed and staged many many times. The plot is always the same. The casting changes between films or stage productions. Put the actors in 'casting' and you eliminate redundancy and reduce 'in-universe' references. Wikipedia articles are not commercial film reviews but akin to literary analysis or criticism. It is the same reason as to why 'spoilers' are unnecessary in Wikipedia. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A remake of a film has its own article with its own plot section, because even apart from the cast there are differences.--Patrick (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

IMDB User Ratings

I have been in a debate with User:Bbagot on Talk:The_Ultimate_Gift. I have quoted him the prohibition against IMDB user comments but he argues this isn't a prohibition against using the IMDB user ratings -- i.e., it doesn't explicitly prohibit them whereas I argued that it was a natural inference. He is insisting that the following be kept in The Ultimate Gift

On the IMDB movie site, where regular movie goers rate movies they have seen, the film had a mean rating of 7.9 out of 10.

Notice that he is using the higher "mean rating" vs. the average rating of 7.1 because he believes it is more accurate. So, I'm asking:

Arithmetic mean is a standard statistical tool commonly used to describe home values, household income, etc. There was also a median value of 9, but I bypassed this number as the mean is usually preferred. IMDb does not offer a straight arithmetic average. If one was calcuated, it would be 7.88 Bbagot 16:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please allow me to correct myself, as what I just stated above has errors. Home values and household incomes are usually reported using the median average, not the mean. Nevertheless, for movie ratings I believe that mean is more appropriate, thus the 7.9 is more appropriate than reporting the 9. Bbagot 21:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Should the use of IMDB user ratings be explicitly prohibited?
• Does anyone want to come to The Ultimate Gift and give another opinion on this matter? He is very insistent and I loathe edit wars which his history shows he is not shy about. Some of his additions have been POV (e.g., "harsher reviews") which I've given up on but this issue of IMDB user ratings should be excluded. Thoughts? Therefore 20:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Verifying that people aren't vote stacking there is very hard, and even IMDb talks about some precautions that they take to try and reduce that. Secondly, it isn't a true randomized, poll. The box office take is generally a good idea of what the movie going people think.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've found that advertising has a stronger correlation with box office than movie quality in the absense of a large budget and especially if positive critical review is not forthcoming. While there are movies like The Blair Witch Project which break this trend of needing advertising, most movies from film festivals have very poor box office, yet I think most of us would agree that's not necessarily due to the quality of their films. Bbagot 16:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Advertising might increase the initial weekend, but that's it. After that weekend, word-of-mouth is what drives box office performance. You think you're going to go see a film that every one of your friends say "sucks, and you should wait for cable", just because you see it on TV a bunch of times? Also, IMDb's "user rating" (and the same for Rotten Tomatoes) doesn't even begin to represent the whole of the movie going society. You mean to tell me that the 96,000 votes on IMDb for 300 is supposed to be a reliable representitive sample of the opinions of movie goers? Even if we say that those 96k people haven't voted more than once, that's less than 1 mill worth of box office revenue. I guess those 96k people went and saw the film 200 times since its release. We might as well go out and find 5 of our friends and come back and say "well, 300 has a 100% positive rating among fans". There is not enough empirically supported data in IMDb's user rating to garner notability on Wikipedia. We cannot verify that each of them didn't vote more than once.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Advertising gets people to see the movie and, hopefully, if it is favorable and large numbers of people saw it, then they can get others to see it as well. Word of mouth will have limited effect if few people have heard of it and it leaves the theatre rounds quickly. A few, like My Big Fat Greek Wedding can succeed, but they are the exceptions. Again, very few movies at the film festivals will make large amounts of revenue, but that is not necessarily a reflection that they are all poor quality. -- As far as 300 goes, 96,000 people is a large number and precludes undue weight to any individual or any small number of individuals; anyone can vote on it who wishes, and we are all equals. And the ability to stop duplicates is certainly superior to say, American Idol, and much more is at stake for those results vs. what we are talking about for IMDb ratings. Bbagot 21:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not doubting that advertising helps the box office, I'm saying it only helps that first weekend. Look at Hulk. It had a strong opening weekend, but had one of the worst falls of any comic book film after that weekend. That should speak for fan response right there. 96,000 people, when you are talking about a film that has sold millions upon millions of tickets is nothing. If you met 96,000 people in person, yeah, that would be a large group, but if you met a poll sample that was actually representitive of movie going individuals, you'd be dealing with a much larger crowd. Here's the problem with using IMDb's user ratings...its an internet poll. The demographic is rather limited to just people that happen to know what IMDb is. I know plenty of people that love to go to movies, but don't know what IMDb or even Wikipedia is for that matter. It limits its own sample, and thus is not notable enough for wikipedia. American Idol is much bigger than IMDb, and they rake in millions of votes in one round. What was it, like 60 million votes in a final round? Yeah, if IMDb had 60 million votes for a film, I'd probably trust that rating. 96k vs. 60m??? Hmm..that's a hard one. American Idol gets tens of millions of viewers each show; a film gets tens of millions of admissions (if it's making a lot of money, like 300 is) by the end of its run. But IMDb can only find 96k people to vote on the film, while American Idol can find 60 mill? Again, IMDb is not a reliable representative sample of user voting.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bignole. 300 had an issue of garnering 2,000 votes two weeks before the film ever came out, and it was actually placed in the Top 250 for a while. User ratings, especially in online environments, are at the risk of vote stacking. I know IMDb has a policy somewhere on its site that it says that it does its best to minimize such activity, but it's not promised. I think that a film's recognition is more appropriately reflected with its box office performance (especially the "legs" of consistently good weekends) in combination with the results of review sites that aggregate film critics' reviews, such as Rotten Tomatoes. DVD sales can also be used, as some films garnered recognition after their theatrical release, such as Fight Club. Do you need these comments to be placed on the film article's talk page, or is Bbagot aware of your request for clarification in regard to user ratings? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe IMDb prohibits rating accumlation until after a movie is already showing, either in release or pre-release. Overall 300 is still rated highly, a film goer rating that in this case matches the box office as well. Bbagot 16:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I informed him that I was going to ask for a second opinion. I will direct him to this dicussion. Therefore 22:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the problem with IMDb reviews is Reliable sources. We use IMDb abuntantly for film facts, but reviews should be from professional critics to cite. Am I missing something? Hoverfish Talk 22:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. For critical reviews, your established wikipolicy is well thought out and presented. It would be unwise to allow quotes from any individual reviewed on movie sites as the sheer volume alone would be almost bottomless and it would remove the whole concept of critical reviewers being professionals. Hopefully this policy will not be revisited. Bbagot 16:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of "facts" that's something that should be limited also. IMDb doesn't generally provide a source for where they get their "facts", which are usually user submitted. The user may provide a source to verify it for IMDb, but that doesn't mean that IMDb uses Wikipedia's standard of reliable sources.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I've noticed, after a film's release, IMDb publishes credits as they appear at the end of the film. (Hence why some are alphabetically listed and some are not, I believe.) I don't think that it's an issue to use IMDb for the basic cast/crew information, but plot summaries and trivia bits are user-submitted. I've even noticed that the trivia bits for Spider-Man 3 at IMDb were taken word-for-word from the Wikipedia article. In addition, IMDb does not have much reliability for pre-release information. For example, Alfonso Cuaron was listed to be the director of Logan's Run, despite there being nothing in the news. It's gone now, so there is clearly things going on behind the curtain that are not as visible as here on Wikipedia with page histories and citations. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the IMDB trivia pages are constructed via anonymous user submissions; it's rather similar to Wikipedia, except that it's almost impossible to correct wrong information, as the process is incredibly slow or non-working. We do seem to have a problem with Wikipedia users thinking that IMDB trivia sections are gospel truth, when they're not. Do you think it might be a good idea for the Film Project to write a little essay on this, perhaps mentioning other unreliable sources that are also being unwisely used? Cop 633 18:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe so. A fellow editor (Erikster) and I have discussed the unreliability of most budget information. Budgets are some of the hardest things to verify, and places like BoxOfficeMojo and IMDb don't list their sources for this information. I think an essay talking about how we need sources that contain some form of interview or response from either the filmmakers or studio saying something explicitely, instead of the vague "rumor has it that the budget is..." type of information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've found that budgets have a tendency to be an area where film makers report what they wish and are often misleading due to slights of hand in accounting and classification. Even if there are sources, their accuracy would be suspect. I would actually trust information more from BoxOfficeMojo or IMDb as they know the ropes and can weed through much of the fluff that can cloud the picture. The only area I have found in the movie making world that is more questionable would be in the area of profitability. When the studio that produced the mega blockbuster Batman was being sued for a portion of the profits for the film, they actually claimed that there were none to give as the film lost money. Bbagot 16:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I find that funny, sorry. BOM and IMDb over first hand interviews? Remember, Wikipedia is not about what is "true" but what is verifiable, and a first hand interview is much more verifiable that a website that doesn't tell you were they get their information. I could post a blog and say "a studio insider told me....", that doesn't make it verifiable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not talking about exclusiary decisions. I would not wish to prevent studio proclamations from being noted, but nor would I wish to exclude information from well known websites that are solely devoted to movies and the movie industry. Do I trust BoxOfficeMojo and IMDb more than the movie studios? Well certainly looking at the example of Batman above, I'd say Yes. But do I believe this should somehow become wikipolicy? No. Bbagot 21:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you trust a site that doesn't even provide a source for its information? Even sites like Batmanonfilm.com can be right some of the time, or even most of the time, but we don't base reliability on how often someone is right. Hindsight is 20/20, and IMDb is usually right....about films that have long come to pass, but they are usually wrong about films that haven't even been released yet. Box Office Mojo still lists both Pirates 2 and 3 with a budget of 225 million. I have a source that says that there has yet to be a definitive number for Pirates 2 released, and Pirates 3 (still doing some last minute work) could actually be above 300 mill. Nothing is definitive, but Box Office Mojo has had Pirate 3's budget up since before Pirates 2 was ever released (and we know that Pirates 3 had not even been filmed at that point..minus a handful of scenes). We need to look at their impact on films that are coming out, because they tend to get information right after the fact...yet they have yet to acknowledge that they have the wrong budget for Superman Returns still up, even after being provided with numerous sources that cite a completely different number.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I change the current verbiage:

Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the film was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known film reviewers, and not comments from members of the public (for example, quotes from users of Amazon.com and the Internet Movie Database do not count).

to read:

Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the film was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known film reviewers, and not comments from members of the public (for example, quotes or user ratings from users of Amazon.com and the Internet Movie Database do not count).

Is there consensus on this? Therefore 22:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, although you should add ", or bloggers", because a lot of articles quote non-notable bloggers. Cop 633 01:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

While I would agree with this sentiment, at some point you may want to re-address this issue. A number of bloggers have become quite notable as far as following whereas after reading the comments sections of many of the on-line reviewers, they either have limited following or their articles do not promote passion in their readers to respond. I was surprised to find in the latest article of newsweek that they refer their readers to a blogger site for home loans, so some areas of the blogging community are breaking into the mainstream. Bbagot 16:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

How about:

Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the film was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known film reviewers, and not comments from members of the public (for example, quotes or user ratings from users of Amazon.com, and the Internet Movie Database and blogs do not count).

Therefore 01:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A thought to be added: I believe that it is important to set policy guidelines for positive elements that should be included to make quality articles on individual films worthy of wikipedia. But exclusion, as in something can not be allowed, should be tread upon far more lightly and an understanding reached after careful deliberation and consideration. I would hope that where possible we will encourage wiki editors to be creative, and prohibitions that would curtail this should be limited.

Thanks Bbagot 16:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Bbagot is accurate when he says that box office is not necessarily related to movie quality, only to its popularity. To gauge audience reception, popularity, i.e., box office returns, is the only measurement available. If, say, Gallup polled movie goers to rate movies, then that source would be valuable and used. But web based user ratings are by any definition inaccurate and can't be used.

As for exclusion being "tread upon" more lightly, I respectively disagree. The three pillars of Wikipedia: Neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research are all excluding principles. I agree with Bbagot that boldness and innovation should be encouraged but only within the constraints of these pillars. Therefore 23:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Never claimed that box office take was equal to movie quality. We cannot verifiabily measure movie quality on a user basis. The closest thing we can do is compare the critical response to the box office take. We can verify 200 film critics, as they have names and links to their newspapers; we cannot verify 96k anonymous users.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in 100% agreement. Never wanted to imply that you thought otherwise. Therefore 23:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, we just have some much discussion here it's hard to keep up with who's talking about what and to whom.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I edited the articles Films considered the greatest ever and Films considered the worst ever to remove references to the IMDB user ratings. All of the above arguments are true for these articles, and I don't see why they should have any special status with regards to using unverifiable data from non-reliable sources. However, both of the edits have been reverted by people who disagree, and think that IMDB user ratings are appropriate in these articles.[3][4] What do you think? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The big difference between the discussion here and Films considered the greatest ever is that the article has a section specifically about how films have been rated in audience polls. The discussions on this page, and the guidelines in the MOS do not address articles which are specifically about user ratings. Would you remove references to IMDB user ratings from the article about the IMDB? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Uncontrolled user ratings, including the ones at IMDb, are a poor gauge of determining a film's greatness. Films can come and go from the Top 250; it's too dynamic. Polls like the ones from Sight & Sound are appropriately set in stone. Votestacking is an issue with films due to the ease of swarming such ratings. Take a look at 14% from critics for Hitman and 65% from users for the same film. We are better off avoiding dynamic online user ratings in their entirety -- they are too easily slanted as opposed to bona fide/limited polls. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a big difference between writing about how user ratings are constructed in the IMDB article, and actually using those user ratings in other articles. In the latter case, you're presenting survey results from an organisation that isn't considered to be a reputable polling organisation, and is not a reliable source. Consider the alternative - anybody could set up a web site, produce an unverifiable poll of visitors, and then add the resulting information to Wikipedia ("According to visitors to website xxx"), claiming that it's a reliable source. There would be no end to the amount of misinformation being added, since the results are completely unverifiable. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that people should refrain from adding an IMDB rating to every film. However, that is very different from banning the mention that The Godfather is the highest rated film on the IMDB's list of the top 250 films as rated by their users. This is like saying that you can't mention that The Godfather won the Academy Award for best picture because it is not a reliable source for choosing pictures which are the best. After all, critics often disagree with their choices, their sampling is overly biased towards US filmmakers, and the studios engage in votestacking. The reason we mention the IMDB and the Academy is because they are notable, not because they are correct. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The top three movies on IMDb's yop 250 have been on same the location for many years. To think that a few experts can say which movies are better than hundreds of thousands of people is ridiculous. It's an elitist attitude that I wouldn't expect to find in a place like Wikipedia. It's one thing if all movies were changing place like once a month, but this isn't the case. I don't see the harm of mentioning it in the article if the movie is highly placed. Perhaps a poll would be appropriate?--The monkeyhate (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not at simple as that. There are various rules at Wikipedia regarding reliable sources etc. - if you cite something in a third party article, then you're supposed to be able to show that the person you're citing has an established reputation amongst other professionals in the field for fact-checking and accuracy. Otherwise you'd have editors quoting any old rubbish. There's a huge thread at Talk:Films_considered_the_greatest_ever#IMDB_user_ratings you might like to read. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Two AMG ids

Prophecies of Nostradamus has two AMG ids. One as Prophecies of Nostradamus, which in the U.S. was a subtitled, very limited, art house release, and one as The Last Days of Planet Earth, which was dubbed and heavily edited for television and the only version released to home video (neither version is on Region 1 DVD). Trying to include both has messed up the infobox. How do I do it? --Scottandrewhutchins 15:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Dont need a cast section

Why is this project forcing "Cast" sections on all articles that dont need it? For instance, see featured article Tenebrae (film). No cast section. Instead all characters are introduced in the plot summary, with the actors names in brackets. Also there is already an infobox with the cast list in it. This is much nicer, and closer to "brilliant prose" - an FA requirement. Also see Halloween (film), another FA which has no Cast section, instead a Casting section which is all prose. Lists should generally be kept out of articles. I think forcing "cast" sections as mandatory is a bad idea, better to leave the "style" of giving the cast up to the individual editors.

p.s. dont now go and start editing the two mentioned articles, they're perfect as they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.156.253 (talk • contribs)

Don't forget to sign your comments with 4 tildes (~). I have to agree with Mr.Anon. If you require a cast section, or even gently request that films have them, you run into to possibilities. Either it will be a table format (blah), or you'll have the standard (which is really what is wanted) "John Doe as Jane Doe: is a 35 year old transexual from transelvania. He blah blah blah...". The way it's requested kind of leaves the area open for character interpretation, by adding qualifiers, or sneaking in thos little details that were stricken from the plot because Wiki isn't a substitution for watching the film. If people only look at a film article for the plot information, and who played what character...there are far better websites for that kind of frivolous film information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

yes i'm also concerned that the "cast" sections are often an excuse to extend the "in-universe" plot summary information, e.g "Tom Cruise as Doctor Slime - a 29-year old Venusian starship captain with blue tentacles. He is in love with Julia Jupiter but his Venusian morals prevent him from displaying emotion." Thats all in-universe information that should belong in the plot summary section if its important enough.

I will try to update that section of the style guideline soon, to equally allow the Tenebrae and Halloween styles, and focus on the fact that "information about cast and crew should be provided", and less on "you must have a section called X and use a table/list of this format etc". 82.3.64.139 12:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could recommend a cast section, but not mandate it? See WP:EMBED, where lists are appropriate in place of prose: for gathering quick information. One thing that's useful about Wikipedia's cast list, at least for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film), which I'm currently work on (note that the film has not yet been released), is that it is difficult to find a site online with an accurate cast list (IMDb does not cite its sources, and it's user-submitted, so kind of like an unreferenced Wikipedia). Especially with a film with a cast of that size, it would be impossible to write about every character in a plot summary section. Thus I suggest that cast sections not be "outlawed," per se, but not required, either. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, especially in instances where the film isn't release yet. If the film hasn't been released then your "plot", or "synopsis" in this case, is really bare and you'd just be guessing at what some character is doing. But, for film's like Halloween, or another horror movie where the cast is generally limited in number anyway, I don't see a reason to force a cast list when you could simply cover most, if not all of them, in the plot section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

ok i finally got round to updating the text. i also noticed that psycho was not an FA so replaced the example with an FA-class article.

now, there is also one changed needed in the Template:FilmsWikiProject - the line which links to Cast will need to now point to Cast and crew information. How can that change be made, as the template is protected? 82.12.241.113 19:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning

It's interesting that the film style guideline suggests putting a spoiler warning in the plot section for all films. It doesn't appear that even a majority conform to this guideline. Furthermore on the talk page of Wikipedia: Spoiler_warnings, proponents on getting rid of all spoiler warnings declare it obvious that one would not include a spoiler warning in a plot section. Thoughts? I'd like to get a discussion going about removing that element of the style guide. Jussen 22:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll WP:BOLD? Jussen 22:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should wait until after a consensus is reached before editing the guidelines, as I don't beleive they are recent addiotions, and thus were put in prior to the latest round of discussions. - BillCJ 23:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Originally, there were spoiler templates in most of the film articles. However, the users David Gerard, JzG, Stormie, and probably others have been removing them systematically within the last week or so from numerous film articles through scripts like AWB. --PhantomS 22:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I've made the changes to work with their edits, but I'd rather talk about it first. Anyone a fan of spoiler warnings? Jussen 22:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning is where the new version seems to be being hashed out. There's one really important question being asked there: "Would the pro-warning people be so kind as to provide, briefly, any accounts they are aware of where people have complained because their enjoyment of a work was actually diminished by a spoiler revealed in Wikipedia? Not a case where you think someone's enjoyment might be, or where you personally learned a detail about a movie that you were maybe kinda going to see one day. I'm talking about cases where somebody looked up Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince while they were still reading it, learned that Snape killed Dumbledore, and were upset to learn this information. If we can have a sense of who is actually upset and hurt by spoilers, it's a lot easier to write an appropriate guideline." So far the response is ... tumbleweeds blowing past. Does anyone here have actual evidence of complaint that a film ==Plot summary== section in Wikipedia without a spoiler warning spoiled the film for a reader? I don't mean from an editor - only an editor would be reading this page - but from one of the actual readers all this is supposed to be for - David Gerard 23:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

ps: AutoWikiBrowser isn't a bot or script - it's a no-foolin' web browser for Wikipedia (well, it renders using IE) that makes repetitive edits a lot less tedious, but you still have to press 'save' by hand each and every time, preferably after looking at what you're about to do (as I've been trying to, and my apologies for any mistakes) - David Gerard 23:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to film pages, but it would certianly be poor form to edit guidelines PRIOR to a consensus on changing them within the project I do work in, WP:AIR. Maybe the standards are different here, I don't know. If the matter is still under discussion on the Spoilers talk page, the proper thing to do would be to wait for a consensus there before trying to make pages on articles that are already covered by guidelines which ipmly required use of the templates. - BillCJ 23:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And not to be too flippant about it, David, but that question has been answered repeatedly by a great many users. If you don't personally agree with those reasons, you are certainly allowed to. However, it is a bit manipulative to imply that no one is answering the question (ie, the tumbleweeds reference).In point of fact, the article discussion was removed to an RfC regarding the matter, which might indicate why no one has responded recently In itself, the question is a logic contruct based solely upon the idea that the reader is some whiner who is going to complain when the surprise ending is given. Speaking persoanlly, I had not seen Unbreakable before I read the WP article. Imagine my surprise (and disappointment) when I discover the ending was given without spoiler warnings. Shymalan's other films appear to have spoiler warnings; indeed, the critical success of films with surprise endings, like The Usual Suspects, depends upon the secret being kept. Other films, like The Blair Witch Project (a mess of an article, to be sure) depended upon the viewer's specifically manipulated (via the media) belief that they are viewing actual documentary footage, rely on spoiler warnings - some people are still not aware that the film was a complete fiction.

People keep making the argument that WP is an encyclopedia, so we 'best grow up and act like one', or some such elitist nonsense. Frankly, the point being missed is that we are an online encyclopedia, and a great many people are used to spoiler warnings, as they are considered courteous. Not "mollycoddling", but polite. Do articles need to be written better? Yes, I think that's evident. However, changing the policy regarding spoiler warnings is akin to simply changing the brand of band-aid purchased to stop a sucking chest wound.

Lastly, its rather unfair to accuse users like David of attempting to cabal thir own interpretation of a guideline to force a fait accompli down the community's throat. Certainly, they are surely waiting for the dust to settle and some sort of guideline/policy to solidly emerge before doing something to disrupt Wikipedia simply to make a point. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know if the "its rather unfair to accuse users like David of attempting to cabal thir own interpretation" comment was directed at me. But just in case it was, as my comments followed David's, I was reffrring to this diff made by User:Jussen, where he removed an example of and reference to spoiler tags. Sorry for any confusion, but I had not even read David's comments when I wrote that, and have not observed any of his edits to the guidelines. - BillCJ 23:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, nobody, to date, has answered the question David asked there. Are there any actual readers that have been upset by being spoiled on Wikipedia? Not hypothetical ones we're concerned about. Actual meatbags who are upset. Phil Sandifer 23:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Not quite - actual people who flagged their upset before either of us asked the question - David Gerard 23:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd even take an anecdote of "I was really upset by this a year ago but didn't complain," actually. Phil Sandifer 23:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would. Six years, zero documented complaints - David Gerard 00:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that calling them "meat bags" is supposed to inspire an atmosphere of understanding, right? lol. Come on guys, you might as well ask who is disappointed about finding out that all politicians are not squeaky clean. A lot of people are embarrassed about having their little joy balloons popped, and being told to cowboy up when they complain is not really an incentive to do so in the first place.
And I did complain a few years ago, back before I registered as a name user (in fact, it's what inspired me to sign up). I made a comment about how an article should have had a spoiler warning, and was told to cowboy up and be a grown-up. I imagine that it is not unreasonable to assume that others just walk away, considering the advisor a jerk with passive-aggressive issues. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, calling them meat bags was a way to stress that I am looking for actual people here, not hypotheticals. It's not unreasonable to assume that people might be upset about being spoiled. But in the absence of any actual people who have been upset, it's also not unreasonable to assume that actually, nobody cares. Phil Sandifer 00:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

How long has the Spoiler Warning convention been in place? Could it be that there have been no complaints because there have been warnings on most of the relevant articles for most of the past 6 years? Anyway, if we do start removing spoiler tags, we just might start to see complaints. I think pre-emption in this case is good. We're striving to be a responsible encyclopedia, and a little courtesy doesn't hurt. But the consensus is to learn the hard way, go ahead. But I will be here to say "See, I told you so", and I will gloat :) - BillCJ 00:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

45,000 spoiler tags at high water mark, a lot more (I don't have the number on hand, I should gather it) fiction articles. Also note that includes a lot of spoilers on articles that aren't about fictional matters at all, but someone included a film in the 'Trivia' section so someone else put spoilers around it. (Srsly - trivia sections with TV, books, comics and film, and it's just the film section with spoiler tags on it.) - David Gerard 00:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict - rp to Phil's post)

Well, i think it is not unreasonable to assume that folk - seeing how others who complain about untagged spoilers - might not want to engage in a tete a tete in regards to having a bit of the fun sucked out of the film or book for them. Using The Usual Suspects as an example, most people didn't even know that Keyser Soze was masquerading as Kint; I imagine having removed the spoiler tags would kinda ruin the film. Likewise, Presumed Innocent doesn't give anything away, but is a pretty threadbare article (I would consider it almost a stub). Had it told us that Sabich's wife did the deed, I would expect a spoiler tag tolet me know beforehand. In films like Braveheart, those who aren't familiar with Scottish history, won't know that the Bruce ponied up at the end and kicked English ass. As plot summaries are not intended to be all-inclusive or too-detailed, the question becomes when to apply the spoiler tag and not if they should be applied.

Specifically, spoiler tags are more important in those mediums where surprise or twists are unanticipated, but as that can be difficult to assess, it is better to apply it to all films and assess on a case-by-case basis instead of a blanket removal/purge. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

See, we can argue hypotheticals for thousands of words - I could counter with my hypothetical that it's not unreasonable to assume that zero substantiated complaints in six years indicates a lack of reader concern. But I'm sure you can understand that if there's reader concern, surely there'd be ANY evidence of it before directly asking the question. They certainly complain at length about anything and everything else about our content. So I'd like to see some before I can possibly conclude the readers actually care about spoilers - not hypothetical reasons that hypothetical readers might hypothetically care. Actual complaints from real ones, from before I asked if there were any, please - David Gerard 00:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had enough of debating people who are unreasonable; I do not include you or Phil in that grouping. I have already said that I complained well before this debate over spoilers began, so consider this to be at least one user/reader who cares about spoiler warnings.

I think the argument for and against user complaints (apathy vs. fear of ridicule, or simply an example of picking one's battles) is fairly well-balanced, and they effectively cancels each other out. I suggest it not be utilized as such, since there are too many factors feeding into the decision to complain or not complain. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, then, how many readers (not editors!) have complained about the existanece of spoiler-warning tags? I honestly don't know, but doubt there have been any many legitimate ones either. - BillCJ 01:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to leave the page in its current (reverted) form, but I'm glad to see it finally got some discussion going. Again, voice your support for spoilers on Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler_warning#Callibrating_the_teeth_of_this_guideline Jussen 01:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict; rp to BillCJ)

OK, then, how many readers (not editors!) have complained about the existanece of spoiler-warning tags? I honestly don't know, but doubt there have been any many legitimate ones either. - BillCJ 01:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that WP:AGF comes into play a bit in regards to the "legitimacy" of edits. Having pointed that out, I think it bears repeating that my initial complaints about untagged spoilers predates my involvement in WP as an editor. Arguing that no one has complained because no one can find complaints (using an unknown method to arrive at this conclusion), is a bit like deciding to calculate the speed of light, as it is too difficult to calculate the speed of darkness. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much (or not enough!) into my "legitimate" reference. It was just a clarifying adjective refrring to "complaints", not meant to deny good faith to any editor. I know I'm new on here, but am I that hard to understand? Please AGF for my comments too! - BillCJ 01:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps I was reading a snipe at the legitimacy of the argument in there when one wasn't present. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a childish argument, and I only found out about it by seeing childish rogue edits on film pages. The spoiler warning doesn't hurt anything. I'll say it again. It doesn't hurt anything. The editors who have claimed some consensus that validates their POV and then rampantly edit the warning out of film articles without even consulting the Film Project style guide, nor discuss it here,... it makes my blood boil. So fine, remove all spoiler warnings, and sit back feeling powerful, and let readers get caught with divulged twists and surprises because they were supposed to know that a "Plot" section will detail everything. How pathetic. Enough to make me lose interest in improving film articles. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Although I support removing spoiler tags, it does appear that both sides have merit. I feel that this can be solved using opt-in methods discussed by myself and others. With preferences, Wikipedians should be able to control how they see the site. —Viriditas | Talk 23:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Disputed section

Due to the current debate over the use of spoilers, I've added {{disputedtag|section=yes}} to the plot section. —Viriditas | Talk 03:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Good move. Jussen 04:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reworded it slightly to note the controversy and avoid mandating spoilers in guidelines; while there is certainly ongoing discussion, it is plain that there is no consensus to mandate spoiler warnings. Guidelines should not flat-out instruct users to do things that are so controversial... we can edit it to reflect a more clear consensus when one emerges, but for now the old wording is plainly unsupported. --Aquillion 20:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Right now, consensus does seem to form around the fact that spoiler warnings should not go in plot sections. Perhaps spoiler warnings deserve their own section. Jussen 23:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I would like to propose expanding the style guidelines to include User:Bignole/Future films and reference guidelines, with a merge into Other article components/Upcoming and Article body/Notes and references. The merge is not yet ready for primetime, but I wanted to give a heads-up to the project. Upon completion, I would like to propose moving the style guidelines to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film-related articles). —Viriditas | Talk 03:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources for contemporaneous reviews

I just added the following to the section on reception:

Websites for The New York Times, Time, and Variety can be searched for contemporaneous reviews of films; besides serving as sources for quotes, such websites are particularly useful for checking if a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation that a film has today.

What I was tempted to add, but didn't, was a note about using Google's site-specific search capability, e.g.:

• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22citizen+kane%22+1941+review+site%3Anytimes.com
• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22citizen+kane%22+1941+review+site%3Avariety.com
• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22citizen+kane%22+1941+review+site%3Atime.com

Using google this way helps bypass the long list of amazon.com resellers that google sometimes prioritizes when you are searching for reviews of older films; in the case of the NYT, using google also provides access to the text of reviews without having to get an NYT login. 67.100.127.57 06:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC).

I'm not a member of the project but I strongly suggest you add a section to your style guideline that suggests avoiding links to outside reviews, professional or not, unless there is something notable about that particular review (which is rare). A couple of problems are arising time and time again. First, overenthusiastic editors who happen to like a film, or a particular publication or reviewer, are selectively adding reviews in the "external links" or "critical reaction" section. When a movie typically generates 100 or more professional reviews online, it's just arbitrary and very amateurish for wikipedia to happen to link to a hodgepodge of random reviews just because some editor decided to put them up, particularly when people can use google or metacritic or rottentomatoes as a better resource. Second, amateur reviewers, bloggers, and the like are linkspamming us with links to their own site they are trying to promote. Some of these sites are well written, professional looking, and even worth reading, but that's beside the point. If we allow this kind of self-promotion we'll never see the end of it. I think the people know what they're doing is wrong because they sometimes go to some efforts to hide (or at least not reveal) that they are single purpose accounts out their to promote their own blog or amateur writing career. For example, Special:Contributions/Henrychrist has added dozens of links to a single blog site in several marathon linking sessions, without otherwise contributing to the film articles. I'm going to remove some of these as link spam but it would be nice in the future if we can point to a style guideline that says random film review links are disfavored. Wikidemo 17:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for new sections

I would like to propose that the style guidelines include two new section: "Themes" and "Cinematic style." The guidelines as they stand do not encourage editors to discuss the meaning of the film, apart from its plot, production and reception. While those elements are important, the most obvious place to look for a film's meaning is in its themes and artistic style (its content and its form). A film-writing guideline that does not suggest these does a great disservice to the editors using it as it handicaps their articles later on (for example, when they arrive at GAC or FAC) and it discourages editors from producing a fully-fleshed out page. Users coming to pages lacking these sections will be missing a substantial part of what the movie is about. I would also recommend that the guidelines emphasize the use of scholarly film criticism. Since wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on the work of experts (WP:ATT), film articles should be sourced to film critics and academics who study film as much as possible. Awadewit | talk 00:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is important, but it should also be important to note that not every film really has any symbolism going on, at least not to the degree that some films do. Every film is different. I think it's something good to include, to make sure editors look for that stuff, but it should be noted that not every single film will have some underlying meaning in it. There are probably countless B-horror films whose only real theme would be "kill the stupid people". Certainly, there are classics that actually do have some underlying themes in them, but some do not. Bignole 00:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you are simply wrong here. Not all films have symbolism such as "A symbolizes B" but all films have themes. Also, you may believe that some films have "deeper" or more "profound" themes (although we could debate a lot about what exactly that means) but that does not mean that a movie with a "simple" meaning (whatever that might be) does not have a theme. And, by the way, those B-horror films that you think have no meaning - those films have provided some of the richest material for academics in film studies. Entire books have been written on the genre. The theme of B-horror films is rarely "kill the stupid people" (that is the plot). It is not just so-called "art films" or "classics" that have themes. Spiderman and its various sequels, for example, are replete with themes. To name just three broad ones: the struggle to gain and retain a distinct identity; the claims of the individual vs. the claims of the many; and the blurring between "good" and "evil." Awadewit | talk 01:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there aren't too many themes going on in Friday the 13th Part VII. What happens in a original is rarely translated in any other fashion that "duplication" in it's sequels. I don't doubt the themes within Spider-Man, as I said, not all films are the same. But, what is said about the original Friday the 13th, Halloween, or Hellraiser is usually just about the exact same thing said about their numerous sequels, except with the added bonus of the sequels being weaker interpretations of the same tired themes. My point is that for some films, namely horror sequels, there isn't a lot of original content there to begin with, and when it comes to F13, they pretty much duplicate the same movie over and over again. Bignole 01:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And yet there is all this scholarship on Friday the 13th, Halloween and Hellraiser. Apparently the experts think that there is something to talk about, and it is the experts we should defer to. Awadewit | talk 01:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What did I say, seriously? I said the originals have tons of themes, and symbolisms, and most importantly scholarly works written about them. The numerous sequels do not. What is written is simply how they tried to copy their maker, and usually fail miserably. I have never come across any material that discusses the "Effects of gender roles and self perceptions" in Friday the 13th Part (take a pick), and that wasn't simply comparing it to how the original Friday the 13th started it all for the series. There wouldn't be any new information, and simple comparisons usually come with the film critics, as they rip apart these sequels because of their unoriginal ideas that were stolen from the first film (which itself stole from Halloween, which stole them from Black Christmas..but those last two are neither here nor there). Film scholars talk about Friday the 13th, and how it's 10 sequels never live up to it, and how they copy every idea, theme, concept and are never original. They don't write entire works about one particular sequel and its leap from the series into something totally obscure...although they might possibly do that for Friday the 13th: A New Beginning, because I know what those film makers were trying to do (which was that, branch off from the series..but I haven't found anything on it). Seriously, go to the search engine you just linked, and start putting in "part 2", "part 3", "part V". Watch the 208 scholarly works immediately get cut to 4, then 2, then 1 (with most just repeating the same source each time). Bignole 01:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Film scholars talk about Friday the 13th, and how it's 10 sequels never live up to it, and how they copy every idea, theme, concept and are never original. - You have just admitted that the experts indeed think that these films have themes. Since the experts discuss their themes, often in great depth, so should wikipedia articles. Awadewit | talk 02:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You are now switching arguments, claiming that because some horror film sequels copy themes from their predecessors, we should not discuss them. The logical consequences of what you are saying are staggering: wikipedia articles should only cover original themes. That is next to impossible to find because all works of art build on what has come before. Under your logic, any article on a work that "copies" themes from Homer's Iliad, for example, should not mention those themes, because they have been copied. Awadewit | talk 02:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If what scholars say about the sequels is that they copy themes, then that is what should be in the article; the article should discuss what themes the movies are copying, plain and simple. Awadewit | talk 02:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Finally, just because there isn't an article on the exact movie you are referring to does not mean that you cannot write an excellent article on it. You just have to draw from broader sources and discuss the subject in broader language. I am forced to do this all of the time, since very little has been written on the people and texts I usually write about for wikipedia (Mary Martha Sherwood or Sarah Trimmer, for example). Right now, even those types of broad claims are missing from many film articles and I would venture a guess that it is partially because the guidelines do not stipulate a "Themes" section. (And what about "Cinematic style," by the way?) Awadewit | talk 02:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The point was that there isn't going to be any great depth of knowledge on each individual sequel in those areas, especially when it's the same criticism for each film. It's simply going to be a repitition on each article page. A "broad coverage" doesn't always equate to a substantial section. What is said about F13 Part 6, but be word for word what is said about Part 7. Not much of a discussion for the article. You're asking for mandatory sections for some films that may not actually have enough scholarly work to support an entire section. Scholars discussing the series as a whole, and less at the individual sequels (for F13), might be something better suited for that page. Also, just because you don't see a "Themes" section does not mean that film articles are not discussing it. Sometimes they are placed in a reception section. The names of headers isn't a defined thing. As for Cinematic style, again, it depends on the films. The Spider-Man films were virtually made by the exact same people each time, so the cinematic style might just be all the same for each film, and be better suited on the film series page, where it can be talked about as a whole. When you start getting into repitition, it is sometimes better to discuss things as a whole, hence why the scholarly works for a lot of horror films (not all) are generally comparing the films to each other, instead of devoting everything to one particular film. Not saying there aren't instances of that, because there are, but there just isn't going to be that much information on some uptenth sequel that hasn't changed a thing other than character names. Bignole 02:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter if the information is repeated across several pages - that happens all over wikipedia. Information is located where it is appropriate. If someone looks only at the Spiderman 2 page, they should still receive information about the film's style, even if they decided not to look at the series page. Awadewit | talk 02:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• It doesn't matter if the section is "substantial," as you say. Editors must cover the topic as best they can with a combination of sources. Awadewit | talk 02:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• What I am asking is that the guidelines include sections on "Themes" and "Cinematic style" so that editors will know to make them. Too many film articles do not have this information at all (I started looking - it is appalling). And I assume that the film project's "guidelines" are not wikipolicies, so they can be broken if the editor has a good reason. What the guideline should be is a "best practice" - what a film article should have in it. Awadewit | talk 02:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Placing a discussion of the themes in the "Reception" section is poor writing - it demonstrates a lack of organization. A section entitled "Reception" does not alert the reader that there is going to be a discussion of the film's content in it, it only alerts the reader to the fact that there is going to be a discussion of ticket sales, popularity, and film reviews. Awadewit | talk 02:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• If the movies are so repetitious in every way and since scholars discuss them together, perhaps wikipedia should not have separate pages for each film. If the editors are unwilling or unable to discuss each film as a distinct entity, then there is no reason to have 13 separate pages for Halloween, is there? Why not just have the series page? To be clear - I am not advocating for this, but I am trying to point out where your argument leads. If you claim a film is so indistinct from its sequels that the only differences are bland facts such as cast and ticket sales, there is no reason for a separate page for each one. If, on the other hand, you claim that each film is a distinct work of art, then you can justify the separate pages. Awadewit | talk 02:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

When I read a reception section I don't immediately think there is only going to be objective information, with some "I liked it" from film critics. The most prominant critics will often go into details about themes, symbolisms, and personal interprations of characters, storylines, etc. If there is an abundant amount of information, it is usually sectioned off, if not then there isn't a reason to section it off. Poor writing is also having an entire section devoted to 4 sentences of information (if that be the case). First, it's good we don't have 13 Halloween films. Secondly, my argument doesn't lead to "why even have those pages". The reason why we have those pages is because if I developed every F13 article into the standard that is already here (even without a themes section, as you want mandated), there would be so much information that you wouldn't be able to open up the "film series" page if it were all crammed in there. Yes, I do plan on doing just that (not the cramming into one page part), and I plan to look for themes for the first film, because I know they exist. I also know that film scholars could care less about the abundant sequels that spewed out simply because someone wanted a fat check they could cash without having to spend more than a million dollars on a film. Films can be different from their sequels in how they are made, and not necessarily what they are meant to convey. All the themes and symbolisms in Hitchcock's Psycho are the exact same ones in Gus Van Sant Psycho. Why, because Van Sant did a shot for shot remake. Anything you say about the original would be pure duplication for the remake. Van Sant didn't convey any new message, or a reinterpretation of an original message. He wasn't trying to do something different. It's the same film, just in color. He changed like 2 minor aspects, which could be seen as a change in the presentation of women in film (as it involved the reaction of one of the principle female characters), but there isn't going to be an entire section worth of information about those two details. Probably something good in a reception section, as film critics analyze why he changed those two things. But Wikipedia has a manual of style about summarizing. Unless you list every possible scholar, who discusses those two changes (which will most likely be the same argument from each one), there isn't going to be enough to support a "section". Maybe a weak subsection, but definitely not an entire section. I'm not advocating that we shouldn't tell editors to find themes, other other similiar information for films. I'm talking about the fact that every film will not be able to satisfy an entire "section", especially if you are advocating that it should be mandatory if a film is to be featured. I'm saying that a case by case basis should be established, depending on what the film is. You are less likely to find much in the way of scholarly writings when you start getting into numerous sequels of low quality films. I do not doubt there will be plenty of most films, but that there will be some where it will be almost non-existent and that should not be held against the article just because people don't write about it. Bignole 03:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Apparently the idea of a condensed "series" page has escaped you; the individual articles that are spun off provide the detail. Awadewit | talk 03:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• The fact remains that despite a sequel's reliance or non-reliance on the themes of the previous movie(s), that film itself still has themes. The fact that they are repetitious is irrelevant. Awadewit | talk 03:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• If I go to the Van Sant Psycho page, I should receive just as much information on symbolism in the film (because the symbolism is still there) as I would on the Hitchcock page. It would just obviously be contextualized differently in light of its remake status. You are privileging "original" themes - there is no such thing. Awadewit | talk 03:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• The point I am making is that the ideal film page, and certainly any GA or FA page, is going to discuss the film's themes. Finding one obscure example where that might not be possible (although I haven't seen one yet) doesn't do much good. The point is that film pages should have these sections since "theme" and "cinematic style" are integral to the medium. To argue that a guideline should not include such basic sections because maybe some films don't have enough critical commentary to meet wikipedia standards does not lessen the fact that an article without a discussion of the themes and the cinematic style of the film is deeply flawed and incomplete. If the reason that it lacks that discussion is because no sources are available, that is too bad. The article is still lacking major pieces of information. The project's guidelines should suggest ideas for what would make a good/great article, not what would make a mediocre article. Awadewit | talk 03:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

See, that is your flaw. You think that if a film is never talked about then it can't possibly have a great article written about it Wikipedia. For example, there may not be a single thing written about the themes present in Friday the 13th Part 3, but the film itself provided an innovation in 3-D technology, which itself became illegal afterward. What's important about that film isn't what the film conveys, but what actually went into making the film itself, the process that was created specifically for that film to develop a 3-D technology that worked well. Point is, why would I read an article that tells me word for word the same information about the themes (if it's even available), when I can read it once and know that it's something that transpired throughout the entire series. If no one writes anything different about the different sequels, or even mentions them in the light of day, why would you do a copy/paste job on the ones where it is mentioned, or more directly pointed to? That's redundant. Again, I didn't argue the guideline shouldn't mention it. I think it should, and I think it should provide a clear explaination on how to attain such information. Personally, you haven't convinced me there is a need to duplicate information from page to page. It's one thing if people are discussing different, relevant information with each successive film in a series. It's another if they simply say "This series as a whole does ....", and then expect us to copy/paste that information for every page. You're wrapped up in this idea that every film is going to have some abundant amount of scholarly works written about it, simply because it exists, which isn't true. You run a search for films and pull up some key words, but just because there is a key word hit doens't mean what you got is what you were searching for. There were 4 finds for "F13 Part 2" in the search you linked above (supplimenting "Part 2" into the text you had already supplied). The first link is dead. The second leads to "Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of the Slash Film", Part 2 is mentioned as part of the "sequels galore" section. The third link hit the key word "Friday the 13th Part 2", the only thing about that film in that was a film producer literally saying "Oh, it’s just the sequel. It’s like ‘Friday the 13th—Part 2, 3, 4, 5, 6." That was a key word hit that turned up nothing special. As for the last hit, I don't speak that language so I can't tell you what it says. The point is, saying "Apparently the experts think that there is something to talk about" when 208 results turn up in a search doesn't mean anything of the sort. It means that title turned up 208 times; it doesn't have to about anything relevant, not even in a "Google Scholar" search. To get to the final point (as I need sleep), simply doing a search and saying "looks like people wrote about it" isn't proof positive of diddly, and doesn't mean that anyone wrote anything about the themes, sybolims, etc in that particular film. Not every last film in the entire world of cinema has been written about, or even mentioned in a literary source. Some are just not that important. Yes, Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood is not important in any respect other than it's the sixth sequel in an endless supply of films. Does that mean an excellent article cannot be written about it? Absolutely not. Does it mean that article, while excellent in its own right, will be able to compare to another article where film scholars have disected the many themes involved in the film? No, it won't compare, not in the least. It will be an ant in a land of Gods, but that doesn't mean that what is available can't be great, or featured on Wikipedia. Not every article is equal. A Featured film article can't compare equally to a featured article in another topic. It can't even compare within it's own topic. I'm all for themes and other subsequent type of information on films, but I don't think that every film is going to be the same in regards to what people write about it, or that people have written about every film out there. Bignole 04:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• You think that if a film is never talked about then it can't possibly have a great article written about it Wikipedia. - That is correct. According to wikipedia policies, all articles must be supported by reliable sources. If no reliable sources have discussed a film, not much can be said about it. Awadewit | talk 04:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• For example, there may not be a single thing written about the themes present in Friday the 13th Part 3, but the film itself provided an innovation in 3-D technology, which itself became illegal afterward. - I have never said that these other aspects of film-making are not important. They are. What I am saying is that the page is incomplete unless it considers all of the major aspects of the filmic medium in regards to the film in question. Strawman argument. Awadewit | talk 04:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Point is, why would I read an article that tells me word for word the same information about the themes (if it's even available), when I can read it once and know that it's something that transpired throughout the entire series. - It doesn't matter what you would do - wikipedia should be as user friendly as possible. If someone is looking only for information on Halloween 6, they should not be confronted with a shoddy article simply because editors don't want to bother to repeat themselves. I repeat myself all of the time in my articles - I have to explain the same historical context over and over again. Wouldn't it be nice if readers just went to the best place for information? But, they don't, so we need to anticipate their needs. Moreover, I highly doubt that the movies are as repetitious as you say. I doubt that editors would be "cutting and pasting." Awadewit | talk 04:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• You're wrapped up in this idea that every film is going to have some abundant amount of scholarly works written about it, simply because it exists, which isn't true. - I hardly think that. In fact, I think that most films have nothing written about them whatsover. Think about all of those films in MSTK3000. If you tried to write pages on those, it would be near impossible. I know the problems with researching obscure material since I do it every day (my dissertation is on eighteenth-century British children's literature - not much has been written about that). Awadewit | talk 04:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• You run a search for films and pull up some key words, but just because there is a key word hit doens't mean what you got is what you were searching for. - Of course not. That is the heavy lifting of research. It takes a lot of time and effort; one must think hard to research - it is not easy. One begins with the obvious and moves to the less obvious searches. One reads material - that material leads one to other material. Good researching takes a long time. Awadewit | talk 04:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• The point is, saying "Apparently the experts think that there is something to talk about" when 208 results turn up in a search doesn't mean anything of the sort. It means that title turned up 208 times; it doesn't have to about anything relevant, not even in a "Google Scholar" search. - I was simply pointing to examples of research on horror films since you claimed that there was next to none. Just because not every result is helpful in the first google scholar search I did is hardly cause for alarm. I spent one minute looking for that material, so it is hardly an adequate representation of the sources available. Like I said, research takes time. I was only making a point that there is material available. Awadewit | talk 04:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Not every article is equal. A Featured film article can't compare equally to a featured article in another topic. It can't even compare within it's own topic. - FAs within a genre like film must have some sort of similar standard or there is no point to the process or the ranking at all. Awadewit | talk 04:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm all for themes and other subsequent type of information on films, but I don't think that every film is going to be the same in regards to what people write about it, or that people have written about every film out there. - The article is dictated by what the experts, broadly defined, write about the film (WP:ATT, WP:CITE, WP:RS). If there is nothing, there can be no article. Awadewit | talk 04:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

One aspect about a film that isn't covered by any third party reliable source doesn't mean the film could not be featured. You are trying to say that every film is the same when it's "the best". You're picking out one aspect and saying if you can't find attributable sources for that aspect then the article is incomplete. Sorry, but you're wrong. The article isn't incomplete if it covers everything possible. What is incomplete are scholarly works about that subject. If someone doesn't analyze it, then it isn't the film's fault, or the Wikipedia editor's fault for not finding it, and should not be held against it. I'm not saying don't look. I'm saying that if it's determined that nothing exists for that paricular film, then that isn't cause to say "hey, this article sucks," or "this article is incomplete". No, the article is as complete as it can possibly be given the attributable sources written about it. If the fact remains that there isn't something written about it, then not being able to write what wasn't written about anyone else should not be a fault of the article. If you don't like the fact that a film was never thematically analyzed by some film scholar, take it up with culture. As you pointed out, there are plenty of films that are not talked about, especially those on MST3K. That doesn't mean that a comprehensive article, based on what is available, cannot be written. It just won't have the depth that others have, because no one cares enough to analyze it in that capacity. Comprenhensive, according to FA criteria is: "the article does not neglect major facts and details". My point, if there are no details about it missing then it is comprenhensive. That means you cannot simply say "where is a themes section" if no one has ever written about themes in that movie. The fact that the film obviously has themes is irrelevant to the fact that no one has written about it. I'm sure there are plenty of themes in Attack of the Giant Shrews, but if no one writes about it, then that is not a problem with the article as the article itself would be comprenhensive to what facts are available, and not what facts should be available but apparently aren't. Bignole 04:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• You're picking out one aspect and saying if you can't find attributable sources for that aspect then the article is incomplete. - No, I am saying when a major aspect of the film is not covered (such as its theme or its cinematic style), then the article is incomplete. Awadewit | talk 06:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• The article isn't incomplete if it covers everything possible. What is incomplete are scholarly works about that subject. - You have the logic twisted here. Of course the scholarly works are incomplete if they can't properly source a film article on themes, style, reception and production. That is what makes the article incomplete. Awadewit | talk 06:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• If someone doesn't analyze it, then it isn't the film's fault, or the Wikipedia editor's fault for not finding it, and should not be held against it. - I am not blaming the film or the editors for the dearth of sources, but that is not the issue. The issue is: when there is dearth of sources and one cannot cover all of the basic information about a film, then that article is incomplete. I, for example, do not make stubs for every eighteenth-century children's book. There is not enough written about some of them to justify an article. Maybe some day there will be. There is not right now. Awadewit | talk 06:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• If you don't like the fact that a film was never thematically analyzed by some film scholar, take it up with culture. As you pointed out, there are plenty of films that are not talked about, especially those on MST3K. That doesn't mean that a comprehensive article, based on what is available, cannot be written. It just won't have the depth that others have, because no one cares enough to analyze it in that capacity. Comprenhensive, according to FA criteria is: "the article does not neglect major facts and details". - An article that summarizes all of the sources can indeed be written, but that does not make the article comprehensive. Not all articles can become FA, that is why GA was created: "Wikipedia:Good articles is a list of articles considered to be of good quality but which are unlikely to be suitable featured article candidates." Awadewit | talk 06:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

We are drifting from the main point here: the ideal film article should have a themes and a cinematic style section. The guidelines should alert editors to these important elements of the article. The fact that such sections may be difficult to write and research for some films should be noted (helpful research hints should be given). But, under no circumstances should a guideline (as I said before) aspire to mediocrity. It should offer editors the chance to achieve truly comprehensive articles and it should not deny readers the pleasure of learning that information, either. Awadewit | talk 06:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think film articles can reach featured article status based on what is available for them. Featured article status has nothing to do with what YOU think should be available, it's about what IS available. Just because YOU think there should information on themes and cinematique style in an article, and it turns out there NO ONE has written anything about such information does not take away from the fact that the article might be just as good right now. Remember, it's about summary style, and we can't have 70kb articles everywhere, some are just too large. If every scholarly work grabs 9 out of the 10 Friday the 13th movies, and discusses them as a whole, and not on an individual level, then there is no reason to do a copy/paste on each article. The way it is done is by mentioning briefly what is said, and then linking to a separate articles that expands in detail what was written. This is why we don't break out in explaination over every term used on a page, and why we put those little blue links in so people can click them and read further on that subject. If it turns out that a group of films (maybe not even related by series, but by genre) have bit mentions about themes and style, and are compared on a grand scale, the proper way to do that is to put {{see also|fill on article name#Themes and cinematique style of ____ genre}} below the header of a brief area that mentions what the information is about. If that was how it was for F13, for all the sequels, then for each of the sequels I'd have a section that linked to {{see also|Friday the 13th (film series)#Themes and cinematique style}}, while only mentioning in a brief statement that the film is compared with its successors and predecessors on its use of blah blah blah. There is no need to write, word-for-word, the exact same information on each article if people are writing it in a "film series" tone. If you think that film articles shouldn't be FA, just because someone doesn't write about their themes, well that's your perogative. But, we'll let others decide, I believe we have wasted enough space between the two of us. Bignole 11:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

(outdent) Wow, 31k of section; someone should seriously consider starting a new one. :)

I think that a thematic section wouldn't hurt those films that could benefit from it. However, as has been mentioned a few times before above, not all films have a lot going on in the themes department - or at least, not a lot of cited chatter about it. I would suggest that any such guidelines allow for the possibility that some films are not much in the way in the way of theme, and provide a guideline for those films that warrant it, so as to provide for more in the way of uniformity of sections. As for cinematic style, I think that is covered both in Production and Reception sections currrently existent; nothing wrong with it staying in those areas.

And I had no idea that 3D was now illegal. Could someone tell me on my Talk page when and why that happened? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I would not oppose a guideline section explaining, among other things, the prospect of exploring themes and cinematic styles. However, I think that requiring such sections would be asking for too much. Of course all films have themes; the notions are undoubtedly embedded in their storylines and can be exemplified with cinematic direction. All films have notions with which we are familiar -- revenge, love triangles, betrayal, redemption, et cetera. I do not believe, though, that this should immediately require sections about themes and cinematic styles. From what I've noticed, these elements are already embedded in Production and Reception, as Arcayne pointed out above. I think that such sections should be explored on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a film article should have them. I do not think that lacking such sections should rob a film article of Featured Article status. Perhaps some criteria should be established to determine the strength of a film's themes in the public eye. For example, American Beauty, a film whose article I hope to improve, would undoubtedly have a range of themes to explore. In comparison, I doubt that a film like Stomp the Yard would be thematically notable in an encyclopedic context. Another issue, from a trend that I've noticed with film articles, is that there has been some stronger attention with films released in the past year. Lasting themes would not always be possible to determine so early on, and again, this should not mean that it cannot satisfy FA criteria. The drive for improvement does not stop when an article reaches FA status. I'll conclude my perspective here as not to get too long-winded. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, despite its noted mediocrity, Stomp the Yard is thematically notable at least in part an encyclopedic context, because of its focus upon a (fictional) historically black college and, in particular, its long-time tradition of stepping. --FuriousFreddy 03:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think part of it is that themes can be discussed in context in Production, which I find a lot easier to write. Alientraveller 14:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that not having a theme section in an article shouldn't prevent it from achieving FA status. If a film warrants such, then there should be one. If there isn't much in the way of theme, it can likely be folded into the Production section. A couple of questions arise from this consideration: first, should shorter themes be a part of the production section or reception; and what how much theme is enough to warrant its own section? This is a medium-sized can of worms that we can avoid by allowing for a guideline that explains the bendy parts of when and where a theme section should be utilized, and when it isn't. That themes have been discussed as a part of Production up until this point shouldn't really be a factor in the decision process; I've come to feel that Production should cover the more technical aspects of the film rather than the soft and squishy parts. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with attributing intended themes in a film. The placement should depend on the notability of themes in a film. Sometimes a director will say, "This is why we did that," but there's not always an attempt to incorporate stand-out thematic elements. If there is strong intent, as I've been exploring in my revision of Road to Perdition, then stand-alone thematic sections would be most appropriate. I'm less certain about writing about unintended themes; I've come across essays that seem to "read too much" in some thematically-noted films. A couple of examples off the top of my head are incest in American Beauty and the degradation of women in Fight Club, when, from my research so far for both films, neither was the intent. I was thinking that the appropriate criteria may be a theme that recurs along essays about a film, as to phase out unnecessary fringe perspectives. For example, I would imagine that the Christian allegories in E.T. would be a recurring mention in essays. I'm just offering this perspective but am open to suggestions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you think these essays by scholars "read too much" into the film. They are the experts and we are not. Therefore, what they have published is what wikipedia uses. Moreover, the intent of the director is irrelevant (intentional fallacy). Literary and film scholars have not worried about what authors "intended" for 50 years. One can never really know that, anyway, and there are some authors and directors who are famous for misleading critics. Interpretations can rely on the statements of the creator if they choose, but they are not bound by that, as anyone who works in literary studies will tell you. To argue that film pages should only contain statements about a film's intended meaning (if you could ever prove that anyway) would be to put wikipedia's page in the 1950s in terms of scholarship. Their pages will not be considered reliable or reputable and will be doing the reader a grave injustice. Awadewit | talk 15:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

To suggest that interesting themes or cinematic style are so rare in films that such sections should only be considered as optional by the editors shows a deep misunderstanding of the medium. I am not quite sure why the respondents here want to privilege plot, production and reception. It is inconceivable to me. I am sure that there are plenty of movies where the "production" is far from interesting, but that section is listed here. I am going to reiterate once again: the guidelines should describe the best article possible, not a mediocre article. Awadewit | talk 15:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

How would you suggest the structure of an ideal film article, in terms of what you propose? Are there any films with which you are familiar that you can describe the appropriate layout that implements the studied themes and cinematic styles? What would you recommend for films that are too recent to establish a history of criticism, if any will ever be had? Should only films with decades of time only be recognized as a Featured Article? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ideal structure: Plot summary (with cast perhaps?), Themes and symbols, Cinematic style, Production (subsections for special effects and the like or entire sections if needed), Reception, Awards (off the top of my head). Clearly sections and subsections can be added as necessary, but this would be a basic outline. Awadewit | talk 16:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

First, let me correct your misunderstanding. None of us have mentioned a single thing about plots. I personally could care less if there was a plot on any of these pages, hence, if you look at my contributions I always try and make sure they are at least kept in check from becoming some detail for detail description. Secondly, I am personally not doubting that things exist in films, whether intentional or unintentional, but that film scholars write about them. It is MY personal opinion that if a film scholor chooses not to write about say "Silence of the Lambs" (which I'm sure they have, so please don't supply me with some Google link to a thousand results), then that is irrelevant to the article. Comprehension is based on what facts are available. If facts say that no one has written about a film in some specific aspect then that should not harm the article's quality. Sorry, but in my opinion, the themes resulting from any Friday the 13th movie are not that important. They are great to stop and say "hey, I never thought of that", but they weren't what those movies were all about. The fact that someone has disected the film into symbolisms and allegories doesn't change what the film itself set out to do (in this instance it was simply to cash in on Halloween). Again, I'm not saying it wouldn't be material well worth looking for, and needed on a very many of films, just that not only do some film not get that treatment, but some films were not designed to be looked at in that way. Again, as you said it isn't about "intention of the film makers", but it shouldn't be all about "dissection from scholars" either, which is what you want it to be. From the way you are talking, it seems we should simply have a page that has the film's title and everything else should be a dissection of the themes, symbolisms and style of the film. Bignole 16:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If facts say that no one has written about a film in some specific aspect then that should not harm the article's quality. - If there are no reliable sources to provide material on themes, cinematic style, production, or reception, then the article is incomplete. If all I can write on a movie is a single paragraph because of the lack of sources, that does not make it good. Awadewit | talk 16:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but in my opinion, the themes resulting from any Friday the 13th movie are not that important. - That is your opinion, unfortunately, themes are integral to the medium, so your opinion on the matter irrelevant. Awadewit | talk 16:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"The fact that someone has disected the film into symbolisms and allegories doesn't change what the film itself set out to do (in this instance it was simply to cash in on Halloween)." - That is only thing it set out to do. Awadewit | talk 16:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

From the way you are talking, it seems we should simply have a page that has the film's title and everything else should be a dissection of the themes, symbolisms and style of the film. - I have never said this. My initial proposal was to add these missing sections. I would never suggest that reception and production are not important (I talk about such things on my own pages all of the time). Don't make up things I never said. Awadewit | talk 16:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am unwatching this page. It is useless to repeat myself over and over again. I did not believe that this proposal would be so controversial. It is inconceivable to me that it is. Since themes are integral to all movies, they should be included in any guideline about writing about them. Whether or not it may be difficult to do so at times because of a lack of sources is irrelevant. Themes and cinematic style are a key ingredient of any film. Awadewit | talk 16:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Themes aren't all that. Maybe for drama, but for the genres I engage in it's often better to put into context in production. Alientraveller 16:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Three people have disclosed why it shouldn't be a mandated practice for every film page. Not one has said that it wouldn't be helpful for other films. As always, you try and interpret what I said (you didn't appear to like it when I made an assumption about what you said, so I'd be obliged if you stopped doing it to me). I never mentioned anything about not finding reliable sources on reception, production. What I said was that not every scholar writes about the themes of a every film. Themes are subjective, and not always relevant. Sorry if you disagree, but that is probably your literary bias bleeding into this discussion. Themes are integral to sum genres, not all. If you don't understand that then there is no point for us to waste our time repeating it to you. Themes ARE important, to some films, not all. The themes are not always integral to every film. Bignole 16:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm torn. On the one hand, I think these sections would encourage people to focus on more enduring aspects of films instead of on in-universe trivia. On the other, I tend to oppose "required sections" and other such cookie-cutter approaches. And there are some films it's just not important to include a criticism section on. I'm hard pressed to explain why Leprechaun 4 needs a criticism section. On the other hand, Nude on the Moon is barely interesting outside the way in which Wishman was canonized by trash cinema scholars. I think words strongly encouraging such a section would almost certainly be appropriate, but that requiring it might be a mistake. Phil Sandifer 18:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Phil Sandifer; each film is unique and each film article has the possibility of playing off different strengths and therefore include different sections. I'm rather against the idea of making sections outside of Plot, Cast, and Development mandatory for film articles. We shouldn't work in a box because films certainly don't; they're like snowflakes, yeah?  ;) María (críticame) 19:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a guideline, so why not pursue a section that can mention additional sections and subsections, for not just this thematic proposal, but elements like historical accuracy and pop culture impact as well. (It'd be nice to have a guideline for the latter, since so many people just throw together trivia bits and call it that.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think the consensus already is that a Themes section is not being targeted for every single film, being reserved only for those films that might benefit from having one. Seeing that the editors can benefit from having a guideline in place to refer to when there are editorial disputes over what to include and wnat not to, where it should go and whatnot. Arguments tend to occur in the absence of a well-written guideline to ease them over the hump. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, as I've tried to make clear, I'm not opposed to the inclusion of the sections with some detailed explaination on how to look for sources for that information. I'm opposed to a mandate that says every film must have it in order to be featured. Featured articles are not featured based on their notability in literature, they are featured because of comprenhensiveness based on what is available on them, and how well the article itself is written. I'm not saying don't look for the information, but it if turns out that people don't talk about Leprechaun 4 in any type of scholarly work, but we can develop a comprehensive production section, along with a comprehensive critical reaction section (to get an idea of what film critics liked/hated about the film) then I don't believe that it should be kept away from FA status. Maybe away from the main page, but that's a different argument. I don't think FA articles for films should be based on whether or not the film should be in the Library of Congress, but if they are written "brilliantly" (criteria wording), have verifiable, reliable sources, and cover what information is out there comprehensively. If people talk about the film's themes, then it should be included. If they don't, then there isn't a reason to disqualify it from FAC based purely on that lone section missing. Bignole 19:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I meant a section outlining possible additional sections, in case that wasn't made clear by my previous suggestion. I think for critical interpretations, it would be a good idea to provide instructions on how people can do research, especially for older films. Not everything will be found on the Internet, obviously. I think that if one of us can provide a film's Featured Article with exemplary coverage over its critical interpretations, then that could be a launchpad to encourage editors to see what else is out there. After all, I think many of us look to the existing Featured Articles for guidance, not just the guideline. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, we are all (well, the larger part of us, anyway) in agreement that:

1. Theme sections are not required in film articles, but

2. nifty to include if you have the referential material to do so, and

3. shouldn't be necessary for achieving FA status.

We should now try to help out that user wanting to put one into the article by defining how to guide aforementioned intrepid soul. Right? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I would quibble with wording in two cases. In the case of #2, I would go with "strongly encouraged" or some similar phrasing - these are often integral to a good article on a film. Just not always. And for #3, I'd again point out that there are a tremendous number of films where these sections should be necessary. Looking at some of our featured articles on films, the lack of a section dealing with academic criticism seems to me a major failing of several Blade Runner, Jaws (film), Night of the Living Dead, and Sunset Boulevard (1950 film) are particularly egregious - frankly, I'd be tempted to unfeature them over the omission of any significant attention to academic reception. So while it's not necessary for all films, I think it should be necessary for some. Phil Sandifer 17:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Release dates

I propose a slight change of wording to the "release dates" section to make it clear that only premieres which are open to the public (i.e. not just to industry insiders) should be listed. For example, Cars premiered at ShoWest in March 2006 (an event open only to owners of movie theatres), months before its public premiere. Esn 02:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot section guideline revision

After reviewing WP:FICTION, WP:WAF, WP:FICT, and WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines, I'm proposing that the Films Plot Style Guidelines be revised to bring them in line with those for Novels and Fiction in general. This would have a primary effect of recommending that the Plot section "not contain an explication of every subplot in the film's story" since a "respectable encyclopedia entry [should not] describe every event and twist and turn of the story".

Fiction Style Guidelines specifically state a summarization is desired. In Films, however, many of the Plot sections are so detailed that they would border on WP:COPYVIO if they were for a novel or short story (see Shooter, for example). However, the current film guidelines are vague enough to allow this. Based on the comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Plot synopses too long, there appears to be enough interest to make this proposal. I expect there to be many concerns about the effect this change would have on existing Plot summaries, especially for those of recent, popular movies: if these revisions were accepted, much rewriting of Plot sections for well-written articles like The Prestige, Children of Men, and Dog Day Afternoon (a FA article) would have to be done. Examine my revision to the Plot section for The Last Mimzy for an illustration of this change.

Please take a look at this proposal and make comments below it. Suggestions for changes of course are welcome. I'm also suggesting that the WP Film Sidebar template be reorganized to make the Style Guidelines more accessible.
Jim Dunning | talk 07:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed revision of Films Plot Style Guidelines

The plot section should be short and an integral part of the article. Although frequently called a synopsis, it is more a summarization of the work's plot, and should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering information on the work's achievements, impact or cultural/historical significance. It is written in an out-of-universe style, as opposed to an in-universe perspective (also see WP:FICTION).

Although a part of the article, the plot section is a self-contained component laid out as a separate section (designated by "==Plot==" Wikimarkup), so plot details and actor names already mentioned in the lead section are repeated here.

First describe the basic premise of the film in a couple of sentences, introducing key events and characters (with actors' names in parentheses after them — e.g. "Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) is a working class stage magician . . ."). This introduction is intended to give a general, spoiler free overview. It should not exceed 80 words unless there is a compelling reason.

Follow this brief introduction with a more comprehensive plot summary. This should be no more than three or four paragraphs in length. Treatments for a complex plot, such as that found in The Prestige, should be on the longer side; shorter or less complex films should have shorter summaries, as exemplified in The Last Mimzy. No matter the length, the summary should not contain an explication of every subplot in the film's story, nor need it be told in the same order as the film itself (see Pulp Fiction). Well-written plot summaries are extremely difficult to achieve, and one of the ways to make your article look like SparkNotes rather than a respectable encyclopedia entry is to describe every event and twist and turn of the story rather than to attempt to truly summarize the film. A summary details the most important or essential events and character relationships in the story. With that said, however, the content of the plot summary should support topics discussed in other article sections (such as Themes or Production).

As this is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement, plot twists and a description of the ending should be included. Placing a {{spoiler}} template at the beginning (warning readers that this is a complete plot summary) is considered unnecessary and generally discouraged.

Comments

• I am wondering, how one would write a plot summary for a film that utilizes different styles, such as flashbacks, interwoven storylines, and interpretative events? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • My first inclination would be describe the story linearly, but making clear what the style was and the effect it had on the story-telling experience. The treatment for Memento was handled this way, reversing the order of movie events (although the story-telling method the Nolans used and its effect could have been better described). I expect a good handling of Pulp Fiction would diverge from the movie's event order as well.
    Jim Dunning | talk 17:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• I'm hoping for more input on this change, or isn't it perceived as significant enough for discussion? Jim Dunning / Talk 11:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to revise the Guidelines with this material, assuming there are no objections (based on lack of comments either way).
Jim Dunning | talk 19:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus. I wish we had more discussion about this... oh, well. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please allow some time for interested parties to become aware of your suggestion and chime in. An emotional issue with the spoiler notice controversy is that global changes were made very quickly, before some users even had a chance to visit and catch up. Just because you dont' get comments here in 13 days doesn't mean noone cares. An alternative if the change is drastic (I haven't read it yet, but will), is perhaps a mention in the WProject Films newsletter, so everyone gets a heads' up. Make sense? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 19:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

My feedback (not trying to flame you, only contesting certain phrases):
*"...Should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering information on the work's achievements, impact or cultural/historical significance... doesn't belong here. The Plot summary should be only that; leave analysis, impact, significance, blah blah blah in the Reception or Background sections. Bear in mind that any discussion of "significance" or "impact" have gotta be cited; else, they are WP:OR and ought to go bye'bye.
*"However, the current film guidelines are vague enough to allow this." Nope, the current guideline states, "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a complicated plot." That's pretty clear to me.
*"(with actors' names in parentheses after them — e.g. "Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) is a working class stage magician . . .")." Too specific. The current guideline is clear enough without an example, which some may feel is a "template."
*"It should not exceed 80 words unless there is a compelling reason." Again, too specific. by describing the Plot lead as a summary, you've said enough.
"Treatments for a complex plot, such as that found in The Prestige,..." Please refrain from using linked examples, as the article may and will change independently of the guideline.
*"Well-written plot summaries are extremely difficult to achieve, and one of the ways to make your article look like SparkNotes rather than a respectable encyclopedia entry is to describe every event and twist and turn of the story rather than to attempt to truly summarize the film." Inappropriate criticism of an article, this whole sentence can be left out. Do your axe-grinding elsewhere. ;)
*"With that said, however, tThe content of the plot summary should support topics discussed in other article sections (such as Themes or Production)." As such. No need for dual hanging redundant clauses.

In general, your new gist is good. I think you just "overwrote" it a bit with more explicit examples and instructions than necessary. Remember, this is a guideline, not a recipe or instruction manual. ;) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 20:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Jim, good work, although I would make a number of minor changes in several areas. Unlike novels, film is a visual medium, and some of the problems with plot lengths are due to editors attempting to describe scenes visually. Before I get to that, there's another topic that I find more pressing; I would like to see a proposal for expanding the synopsis/plot guidelines for documentary films; how would you go about adding that into your new style guideline? —Viriditas | Talk 06:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Awards

It might be useful, I think, to have some guidelines on which awards (e.g. Academy Awards, Baftas, Cannes etc.) are sufficiently notable to be mentioned. I've seen some articles (United 93 (film) is an example) listing awards from very minor regional critics' associations, etc., and I'm concerned this could be misleading; if other film articles omit these, the reader might erroneously assume that fewer awards = less enthusiastic critical reception. Any candidates for inclusion on a list of notable awards? Barnabypage 13:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I would think it would depend on the film. What if a film didn't get nominated for any of the higher profile awards, like the Oscars or BAFTA, but was nominated and won lower profile awards like The Society of American Cinematographers...or something like that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:NOTE ought to be sufficient guidelines. If the Wisconsin Print Movie Critics Year-End Recommendations isn't notable enough to have an article, why cite them in a film article. AFI ... notable. BAFTA ... notable. AMPAS ... notable. Full Frame Festival ... notable. Nevermore festival (Durham, NC, horror film festival) ... questionable. -- Again, this is a reference work, not a database or almanac (like IMDB), no need to list every single friggin' award a film got. And of course WP:CITE rules as well, I wouldnt think twice about deleting a reference to an obscure award if there was no way to confirm the citation. :P Man, I'm grumpy today. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 20:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely the kind of information I would like to see in Wikipedia:Films citation guidelines, in addition to a section on leads, sample citations for the most common film refs, how to cite transcripts, etc. —Viriditas | Talk 06:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Country of Origin

Is there something that specifies the country of a film? There is a user adding every country that contributes to the film to the "Country" section of the infobox. I was under the impression that the country of origin is reserved for those that own the rights.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Normally, the 'country' of a film refers to the nationality of the production companies that made it (so, not the country that 'owns the rights', since different distribution companies own the rights in different countries). That's how the IMDB does it. It doesn't refer to, e.g., the nationality of the director, or the country the film is set in. Cop 663 17:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Owning the film rights and owning the distribution rights are different though. I've never seen multiple countries listed in the "Country" section, just the primary owner.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes. Anyway, the main point is that we should list the nationality of the companies that made the film, rather than the ones that own it (because the latter can change over time, I presume). Or at least that's how IMDB does it, and the template style guide currently suggests the same thing. Cop 663 00:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Cast in synopsis

Why do we need to list who plays who in the synopsis of a movie page that already has a cast section? --(trogga) 00:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would assume because the reader doesn't have to go back and forth between the Plot and Cast sections to determine who portrayed what role while reading the story. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Then what's the point of the Cast section? --(trogga) 21:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It is convenient to have both, but if I would have to choose, I would prefer the cast in the synopsis. The cast section is an extra.--Patrick 21:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of boldface

Is it mandatory (or even preferred?) that a cast list uses boldface? I recently had an editor refer me to WP:MOSFILMS#Cast and crew information, using that single example as evidence that boldface is the way to go. I gotta tell you, that within a list of fifteen or so cast names, the cumulative effect of all that boldface is not good. I wonder if the example in this guideline was simply to demonstrate where the character name and actor's name were to be placed. Anyway, when I look at something like this, with over twenty names listed in boldface, I wonder if we have the correct policy in place. Comments? Unschool 14:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I always believed it was to help distinguish between what's a simple identification statement, and what's part of a grammatically correct prose. I mean, "Actor as Character" wouldn't really be a grammatically correct sentence. I see it as a quick identifier of the cast, when you are doing a list...which wouldn't be done if you were writing it entirely in a prose format, like you would if you it was a "Casting" section instead.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Transformers may need to have their entries be fleshed out to really implement boldface best. Here's a personal example: Sunshine (2007 film)#Characters. It allows each new entry to stand out in a list, so a reader can quickly recognize a specific entry and read it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Erik, I must admit that the Sunshine entry looks better, but I'm still not sold. This is purely my personal opinion, but I think that there's entirely too much use of boldface, italics, and (in other venues, not Wikipedia) all-caps by people who are trying to somehow express themselves more forcefully or dramatically, thinking (erroneously) that adding these font modifications makes their writing stronger—which it most certainly does not. Now Bignole raises an interesting point, about wanting to quickly recognize the cast list for what it is. Well, first of all, I tend to think that, if the section is headed "Cast", and it says, "Michelle Yeoh as Corazon", that the reader will recognize what we are doing; that is, they will recognize that Michelle Yeoh is a member of the acting profession and in the movie that is the subject of the article, that she played the role of "Corzaon". Furthermore, I don't really think that they will be offended if we leave that as it is, whether it be as a sentence fragment with a period after it, or with a colon preceding a description of the character. I just don't think we need the boldface to make the point. Anyway, this isn't a huge issue for me, it's just my opinion, and not one that I feel so strongly about that I'm going to get up in arms about it. (I'm neither saint nor pacifist; I do have other issues that I would be willing to take to the mat.) Unschool 03:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the use of boldface in the cast section. —Viriditas | Talk 04:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The appearance, when the bold is removed, is startlingly different. The bold helps to catch your eye when reading the section. If isn't bolded, it tends to blend in with the rest of the prose content, if there happens to be some...sometimes there's nothing there but the actor and character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Actor as Role looks okay when there are sentences that come after the role, but I think a plain bulleted list of Actor as Role is too much. If no more information is provided perhaps it should be Actor as Role or just Actor as Role. Tables can look nice, although when copying/pasting them as they are displayed creates some issues. I don't think the word "as" should be mandatory. I think dashes work fine, although I don't think people should be using ellipses. --Pixelface 09:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have no text coming after then the use of bold is irrelevant. I believe it's used for quick identification when you have a lot of text (like Smallville (TV series)#Cast does).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Documentaries

I wonder if there we can have some guidance as to whether documentaries of an event should be given their own wikipedia article or be included in the article on the event. The question has arisen in relation to the documentary Wholly Communion see Talk:Wholly Communion. You'll notice that in this case both articles are quite short and so would appear to benefit from amalgamation. regards Alexander110 04:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Issue with the Plot length guideline (Or "why the disputed tag is in the plot section")

First off, the dispute tag isn't an exact fit to the issue I'd like to bring up with the section, it was just the best fit I could find. Basically I think the section is a good idea -- absolutely necessary, actually -- but it REALLY needs to be retweaked.

My objection is, in a nutshell, thus: the word limit is too "one-size-fits-all" in nature; it needs to be more variable based on the length of the film and complexity of the plot. Right now it kind of hints at that, but sets a rigid upper limit of 900 words on all plot summaries. The ranges are also useless given that they provide no real measure by which to judge what the limit should be. (There's an excessively vague hint, but c'mon, who's going to pick the 400 word limit, honestly?)

A better way to base the limit would be akin to what the Plot summaries section of Wikipedia:Television episodes states: 100 words for every 10 minutes of content. Now this might need to be adjusted slightly, but I think it will cover all bases reasonably well, so to speak. It's certainly worked well for the TV eps folks.

Anyway, that's my whole spiel, except for this: please don't take my fairly pleasant demeanor as a sign that I'm not really passionate or enthusiastic in my opinion. I truly feel the Plot section in its current form is simply inadequate and cannot remain like that if the Style guidelines are to work. (Or at least, are to adequately reflect the reality of space requirements for plot summaries on most film articles) -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 11:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Raises hand* I'd pick the 400 word limit. I believe in brevity, and the power of "they can watch the movie themselves". In my experience writing articles, plots are only for context about the real world information, and if it's important it will probably be mentioned in those other sections anyway.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the criteria can be improved other than making the word limit smaller, like Bignole suggested. I don't think that the number of words per set of minutes criteria would apply very well because films by nature are incredibly varied. Sometimes a certain 10 minutes in a film needs to be explained more than the next 10 minutes. I think that after the cap criteria, it needs to be served on a case-by-case basis. There should be more examples provided of different examples of plots, as Pulp Fiction is not a good one any longer. (We should provide oldids for this, not wiki-links that can degrade.) A couple of Plot sections that I've written are at Road to Perdition#Plot and Live Free or Die Hard#Plot, and they are, in my opinion, pretty succinct. I have to say that the Plot section is the least of a film article's concerns; on an encyclopedia like this, the real-world context is what is most relevant. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where I read this, but overly long plot sections start getting into copyright infringement - the plot is intellectual property owned by the production company. The Pulp Fiction one is a good example of one which is, to be honest, awful. Whilst not perfect, the summary at xXx makes more sense as a summary - it gives a taste of each aspect of the movie, the twists and the main points (btw. I wrote that one, after seeing the overly long one that was there before). We shouln't be writing a transcript of the movie.

Regards the numerical limit, 900 words is plenty to summarise a movie. Any more than that and you start moving into the 'then he walked around a corner and...' type writing. If the movie is complex to follow, then obviously there must be some leeway (ie. if the movie is filled with twists, double and triple crosses etc...). But that would be an exception to the rule.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright refers the actual content of the film - so posting the script would be a copyright violation. Summarizing it would not, no matter how long it was (assuming no direct plagiarism). Clearly, though, we are all in agreement that plot summaries should be a moderate length. As for Pulp Fiction, I restored that back to the article because someone months ago had decided to delete all of the plot. The rationale was that it was better to have a highly flawed over-long plot section (which was also tagged as such) than none at all. Especially for a film as well known as PF. No one I am aware of has argued that it should remain at its current length - it's just that no one has gotten around to trimming it either. Girolamo Savonarola 03:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I, too, believe that the majority of Plots — especially for current (and popular) films — are way too long and detailed. Fiction and Novel Guidelines stress that not every plot twist need be included, but that's what happens in many articles. The article shouldn't look like SparkNotes. I think Road to Perdition#Plot and Live Free or Die Hard#Plot are excellent examples of what we should strive for. Also, look at the rewrite I did at The Last Mimzy. Check out Plot section guideline revision for a discussion of a proposed revision of the Guidelines for Plot section.
Jim Dunning | talk 06:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Producers, executive producers, et al.

Further information: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films § Conflict over listing a film's producers

Discussion has been moved to project mainspace for higher visibility. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

MPAA Rating

Where and how do MPAA ratings fit into the style guidelines? I've noticed they don't seem to be added to the film info very often and there is no space for it in the infobox? Does that not belong in Wikipedia entries for films, or does it go in the text somewhere? AnmaFinotera 15:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

MPAA ratings are American-based. This is the English Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia so the information needs to cater beyond just America. Usually, a list of ratings is considered indiscriminate (as there is no lasting encyclopedic value) unless there can be some substance behind a film's rating in a country (not necessarily limited to the United States). An example would be Live Free or Die Hard becoming PG-13 when previous Die Hard installments were rated R. Hope this helps! If you have any further questions, let me know. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an infobox that editors can include in film articles to show how a film has been rated in various countries, {{Infobox movie certificates}}. A rating given by the Motion Picture Association of America would go on the United_States line. --Pixelface 10:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone else going to voice an opinion, because it seems this discussion has been transported to my talk page, and I think we need to get an opinion on this matter so that we can make a note of it one way or the other on the main page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never been a big fan of the certificates infobox, but I certainly am not against it either. I'm confused - is there some gap it's not filling? Girolamo Savonarola 06:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

We basically need to find some type of community consensus about listing the ratings for a film from each country, or every English-speaking country--basically filling in that certificate box. As Erik has explained on other occassions, and it's a feeling that I share, listing ratings is basically indiscriminate information. Ratings are different from country to country, and that goes as far as they use different representations for their ratings, and their qualifications for each rating are different. Given then it is usually specific things about a film that get criticized by the MPAA, and other organizations, for them to say "it has sexuality" is rather vague, and doesn't lend to the understanding of why that film got that particular rating. Pixelface has brought up the fact that we include the runtime and the release date, but, to me, those things don't typically vary from country to country. Runtime rarely varies at all, unless there is a specific reason someone cut something from the film, and release dates usually only have a couple different dates (in regard to the English-speaking countries), and neither is as diverse, or vague in their meaning as a rating.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

When the template {{Infobox movie certificates}} was nominated for deletion, the consensus was to keep. Erik said this is "not the American Wikipedia" and I think the template makes it clear that ratings from other countries are desired, not just MPAA ratings — in order to make articles neutral. I think disallowing all ratings is not a way to address the issue. If reasons behind the ratings are desired, the reasons behind MPAA ratings can be found at http://www.mpaa.org and the reasons behind BBFC ratings can be found at http://www.bbfc.co.uk. I have seen comments that the template is indiscriminate, but WP:NOT#INFO says "consider using infoboxes or tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists" and that is what it does. A rating can limit the potential audience for a film and can affect box office grosses. Just recently, Screen Gems marketing chief Mark Weinstock said that the R rating of The Heartbreak Kid could have contributed to it's poor opening weekend in the United States.[5] --Pixelface 07:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't reasons, those are generic classifications based on who knows what. "Sexuality" is vague. "Language" is vague. That does not explain why it got a PG-13 or a R or any other rating for that matter. It also doesn't explain how it gets the rating in Australia. "Could" is subjective, and hard to determine. Wedding Crashers was an "R" rated film, and it performed quite well at the box office. The simple fact that people want to blame their ratings on their poor performance still doesn't explain what caused them to get those ratings in the first place. It's an indiscriminate list. It becomes unnecessarily large if you fairly include everyone that should be included. This is Wikipedia, not IMDb. IMDb is a database for a reason, they collect data. The simple fact that is is not in the film infobox should be an indication that it probably isn't the most important thing to be be listing, considering the infobox already lists things.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia is not the Internet Movie Database. When information is present on the Internet Movie Database, that doesn't mean we should remove that information from Wikipedia. And other sources report film certifications too — film critics[6], Rotten Tomatoes[7], Yahoo! Movies[8], etc. Readers frequently don't know why a particular actor is given a role in a film, but that does not mean the actor should be left out of a film article. If you want to limit how many ratings appear in the template, ratings could potentially be limited to predominantly English-speaking countries (Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States) since this is the English-language Wikipedia. Things to also consider may be: country where a film had its widest release, country where a film was produced, country where a film was first released, primary language of the film, etc. I don't think they should be limited, but it is one option. The template is an attempt to present worldwide ratings in a neutral way. It has also been noted on Template talk:Infobox movie certificates that the template can be hidden by adding this line to your monobook.css or common.css file:

#filmratingsbox {display:none;}

In the TFD it was mentioned that merging {{Infobox movie certificates}} into {{Infobox film}} would make a long infobox even longer. I don't think {{Infobox movie certificates}} should be mandatory, and I don't think it should be forbidden. If a film was produced in Argentina, I don't think it's biased to include the rating given to the film in Argentina. And the inclusion of ratings in other countries helps an article represent a better worldwide view of a subject. --Pixelface 08:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as merging to {{Infobox film}} goes, the ratings could be included in a collapsible section. This was done in {{Infobox animanga/Manga}} for "Other publishers" for example. Dl2000 04:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

We also don't list every single person that appears in the film. If a film becomes FA, we generally do know why because we have casting information. It isn't just about limiting how many are there, because no one has any clue what they mean. You can click a link to the page and see what the general ratings mean, but they give no clue as to what they mean in relation to the film in question. Inclusion of ratings from other countries would help the article, if readers knew what they meant. That is why it is "indiscriminate", because it gives no inclination as to why it is important, or what it has to do with the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ratings have to do with a film's verifiability and notability. Verifiability because ratings agencies can confirm a film's existence and key facts. In the case of a UK rating, BBFC is a reliable source where film details such as genre, cast, film length, etc. can be found. Ratings demonstrate notability, especially when a film is rated in multiple nations. Why deny an effective mechanism to fulfill Wikipedia's core policies? Dl2000 04:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability, yes, but notability, no. WP:NF establishes notability standards, which generally involves critical response in some form or another. Films are not notable simply by virtue of being rated wide and far, even though those factors are probably fairly correlative. As for verifiability, how much can they verify? The rating, the film's release info, probably not much more. Girolamo Savonarola 04:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Explain that one please. How does a rating, which is standard operating procedure, have to deal with notability and verifiability? What, it verifies the movie exists? Ok, I'm pretty sure there are other, better, ways of doing that...like say the film itself. We don't need BBFC to tell us the film existed, or who the cast, genre, film lenth, etc etc is. Funny thing about film reviews, they tend to have that information too, and they show notability. Ratings do not demonstrate notability, again, because it's standard procedure to rate a film for the general public so they know they can take their kids to go see it or not. It has nothing to do with its impact on culture, society, or an encyclopedia. I think you have a miscontrude definition of notability. Ratings are not "significant coverage" because they aren't covering the film. They aren't talking about the film in a critical way, they aren't saying anything other than "they have language". There are far too many ratings systems out there to effectively explain how each of them rated a film and why. Hell, we cannot even do that for the ones here in the States. These vague terms of "strong sexuality, brief nudity, language" mean about as much as me saying "soda pop, snickers, dog". It has no meaning with no context.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ratings don't have to be notable to be included in an article, although some ratings are more notable than others. Midnight Cowboy was the first and only rated-X film to win an Oscar. The guidelines on notability "pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles." If a rating cites a reliable source, I see no reason why it can't be included in an article. The reasons behind a rating might not mean anything to you, but the ratings limit the potential audience of a film and affect box office grosses. --Pixelface 13:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read his/her statement again, they said that the rating made the film notable, not that the rating was notable. Ratings don't make a film notable, but a film could be notable because of that reason, as you pointed out. Discussing how an X-rated film won an Oscar would be encyclopedic. Simply stating that fact is useless to the article. You have no empirically supported data to support the statement of "ratings limit box office gross". There are plenty of R-rated films that have performed extremely well. Ratings are only a suggestion, and they don't keep anyone out that doesn't really want to see it. If it's an R-rated film, you only need to be 16 years old to see it, or have someone that is 18 years old with you if you are under 16. Sometimes, you don't even need that. Not all information, even when it has a reliable source, is encyclopedic. That is the whole point of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia isn't just a collection of information. If you can show that a film performed badly because of its rating, be my guest. But simply creating a meaningless list of letters has absolutely no value to the film article in correspondence to notability, understanding of the topic, or just about anything else you could imagine that isn't just saying "it's PG-13". IMDb.com covers a lot of the more meaningless data about a film. That's why we don't list every single cast member in the article, or every single production crew.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Dl2000. Ratings generally do not make a film notable. And I pointed out that ratings do not have to be notable to be included in an article, only verifiable. Data does not have to be notable to be included in an article because the guideline on notability has to do with the topic of an article, it does not limit article content. If you want to refer to WP:NOT#INFO, it says "consider using infoboxes or tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists" and that is what {{Infobox movie certificates}} is, an infobox. And ratings do affect box office grosses. No NC-17 rated film has ever grossed more than $21 million in North America[9] Film producers know that a certain rating can affect a film's profitability. There are many people who criticize film certifications, but that is not a reason to leave certifications out of articles. --Pixelface 20:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I posted this reply to Erik at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films and I think it applies here:

The Internet Movie Database is not the only source for film certifications. Film certifications are available from multiple sources: film critics[10], Rotten Tomatoes[11], Yahoo! Movies[12], etc. There are also available direct from ratings boards: US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Canada (Alberta), Canada (British Columbia), Canada (Manitoba), Canada (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island), Canada (Ontario), etc. A list of movie certificates shows readers the age limit that a country or territory's ratings board has placed on a film. Seeing how a film has been rated in various countries helps readers research social norms worldwide, particularly if a country/territory has banned a film. Movie certificates can affect box office grosses, so they do provide real-world context. Film producers know that a film's rating can affect it's profitability so they will often cut content out of a film to get a more commercially viable rating or even add content to appeal to a certain rating demographic. --Pixelface 20:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I just have trouble seeing this as such an important part of a film as to be in its infobox. Phil Sandifer 20:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The IMDb mention, IMO, wasn't so much about verifiability - we're all well aware that there are plenty of reliable sources to get that info from. The "we're not IMDb" has more to do with the question of what information is worthy of an encyclopedia article. And I have to agree on this point; we're never going to supercede the IMDb, nor is it in our scope or desire to do so. But that being said, I would say that the film's rating has to be relevant to the text; in other words, it's not germane unto itself. If the film's producer made a citable comment such as "we decided to cut scenes x and y in order to get a PG-13 rating", that is certainly worth inclusion for purpose of larger real-world context. But simply stating a film is PG-13 is not relevant, much for the same reason that we generally don't discuss the poster artists. In both cases, we'd require exceptional context and citation to raise the matter. (eg, the iconic Star Wars poster, or in the case of ratings, the re-editing of Eyes Wide Shut) Girolamo Savonarola 20:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a reason why simply stating the ratings has not meaning. Please look at Quan Jing, Star Wars, and Bloodthirst 2. The first two have PG ratings, while Bloodthirst 2 has a PG-13 rating. Now, look at the reasoning for the MPAA's ratings of those films. Quan Jing - "martial arts action, mild language, brief partial nudity, and rude humor."; Star Wars - "sci-fi violence and brief mild language."; Bloodthirst 2 - "some violence/gore." — Now, please explain how that those rating terminologies explain why the film received a PG rating over a PG-13 rating? Explain how the MPAA thought nudity, language, violence, and rude humor was better than "some violence/gore"? Unless you have a reliable source explaining it, you cannot, because that would be original research to explain it yourself. The fact remains, that without explaination, MPAA ratings don't have encyclopedic value on their own. They are vague, and obviously inconsistent. Better yet. Scroll down the MPAA's film list to Curse of the Ring, and then compare that to the R-rated film Kibakichi. CotR's rating is based on "intense action violence and brief sexuality/nudity", while Kibakichi's is for "strong violence and some sexual content." What exactly makes "intense violence" less than "strong violence", or "brief sexuality/nudity" less than "some sexual content"? No explaintion for why they get these ratings, or why they are relevant to the film articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Wikipedia does not require sources to explain their reasoning, or require their reasoning to be consistent. Wikipedia only requires that statements in articles are verifiable and come from a reliable source. Your issue seems to be with perceived inconsistencies between film certifications for various films given by the the MPAA. There are critics of that system, but that is no reason to exclude MPAA ratings from articles. Criticism of the MPAA rating system also has nothing to do with film certifications by other film boards. You don't have to personally agree with the ratings, just like you don't have to personally agree with a particular critic's opinion of a film. NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. That is what {{Infobox movie certificates}} attempts to do: present a worldwide view of a film's certifications. --Pixelface 10:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You note that imdb says Star Wars is PG for "sci-fi violence and brief mild language." There's a good reason we don't say why: it isn't verifiable. Prior to 1990, mpaa gave no reason whatsoever for its ratings. Explaining Star Wars' PG is speculation -- which is exactly what much of the info on imdb is. - -- Mdbrownmsw (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't list every release date, I don't see why we should list every, or necessarily any, ratings. It's a marketing concession and a somewhat suspect from what I understand. They don't look good, take up a lot of room and it's far more encyclopedic to include any important rating information in the prose instead, if it was banned or an especially controversial decision such as some of those named in This Film Is Not Yet Rated. For example, I don't think it's really needed to complement the prose here but if they are going to be used I'd rather have that than... well I was going to point to an FA with a long template but it looks like they're being disappeared. Anyway, I'm agin' 'em. Doctor Sunshine talk 21:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Video game pages have ratings from many different countries on their pages. Why not the same thing with movies? 71.48.123.56 (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about video games, but movies get ratings for specific reasons, reasons the public generally don't know about. A movie can get an R rating for language, violence, and nudity...while another movie might get a PG-13 rating for the same thing--the difference could be the severity of those three things in the films. We don't know because the MPAA doesn't explain them. When you separate that away from the US, we don't know how the other countries make their decisions on ratings. It's never as simple as a general language problem, or general violence in the film. A documentary can have nudity all over the place, but receive a PG rating, because it's educational. Without context, the ratings are just letters with no real meaning.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)