Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Budget

Hey all, I notice that the word "budget" doesn't appear in the MOS. Since budget is a big part of a film's finances, it might be a wise idea to add something about how budget should be reported in articles. I know that Template:Infobox film clarifies that budget typically pertains to production cost only, not secondary costs like print and advertising, and all that, but it's not clear how editors should treat budget elsewhere in an article. For example at List of most expensive Indian films, should the article, which does not have an infobox, be focused on production costs, or production + all other costs? Without community guidance, such lists could get weird. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd probably be most concerned with making sure they all use the same metric. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

{{Infobox film}} has some specific criteria which will help you. Basically the budget equates to the negative cost, although this may include tax credits depending on who is reporting. Marketings costs can be reported too but they are generally considered a different expenditure by the Hollywood press. Betty Logan (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

List gaps

There has recently been a discussion for MOS:TV where it was noted that many lists, particularly cast lists, are causing accessibility issues by leaving blank lines between list items, or by changing list markers mid list. It was agreed that this should be rectified across all offending TV articles, and I assume the same decision will be made for all offending film articles as well, but I thought I would make a note of it here before I made any mass changes in case there were any objections and/or in case we want to add a note about this in the cast section here. The specific section of MOS:ACCESS I am talking about is MOS:LISTGAP. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you show an example diff? I am not sure what you mean. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

See this example from Supergirl. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, thanks for the example! Adamstom.97, I've no problem with your making changes since MOS:LISTGAP is clear on this matter. Perhaps drop a note at WT:FILM? As for updating the MOS, maybe right after this sentence in WP:FILMCAST, "A 'Cast' section may be maintained but with more detailed bulleted entries..." since I assume this is where the problem most often happens. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I'll go ahead and add a line about it here, and drop a note at the project. We can discuss my new wording here if we need to. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Addition of "Columns" sub-section

Based on the discussion at WT:FILM here (permalink), I propose an addition of a "Columns" sub-section under "Non-prose components" to outline best practices when working with columns in film articles. Here is a preliminary write-up:

Columns are commonplace in Wikipedia articles about films, most often for "Cast" and "References" sections. If a single column of references or actors and roles takes up vertical space, it can be converted into multiple columns to use horizontal white space and reduce vertical space as long as there is a noticeable improvement for readers. However, editors should realize that readers view Wikipedia with different screen widths. Therefore, requiring a list to be broken up into a specific number of columns every time may appear unreadable or difficult to read with some screen widths. Instead of setting a specific number of columns, set an em value instead, which allows the number of columns presenting a list to change based on the reader's screen width. Please see the template documentation below for further guidance:

• References: {{Reflist}} (See "Columns" section)
• Cast list and other lists: {{Div col}} (see "Usage" section and |cols= and |colwidth= parameters)

The WikiProject Film community prefers 25em to be used as the default value unless there is a compelling reason to use a different value. Per WP:RESOL, editors need to ensure accessibility for resolutions of 1024 pixels wide and upward. The most popular laptop resolution is 1366x768, and the most popular desktop resolution is 1920x1080. The value of 25em allows for there to be two to four columns for all resolutions between 1024 and 1920.

Thoughts on this? Betty Logan, Millahnna, MarnetteD? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I like it. This is the sort of technical stuff that I personally have been slowest to learn. I suspect other people who, like me, mostly just poke at awkward writing, would find this type of clarification helpful. Millahnna (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Another thought that occurred to me, something that Betty mentioned, is that multiple columns should not be done if there are not many rows. For example, I do not do this in articles that have only five references. Not sure what rule of thumb we could consider for references as well as cast lists. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The Rack Pack (recently created) has only three references. This has no em value at all. This as 25em. I see three columns on my end, showing one reference per column, which to me seems more difficult to read than it has to be with just three references overall. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Your suggestion is fine by me. The three column Rack Pack looks a bit naff to be honest and it doesn't actually save any space either. The whole point of column dividing is to save on vertical space by using up horizontal whitespace, and no vertical space is saved in the The Rack Pack example (they both have three rows each), so it is self-defeating in this case. If you want to to see an extreme example contrast the "notes" section for Lee Grant: 1 column; 3 columns. Here you can see that the column splitting results in creating more horizontal whitespace and increasing the vertical height of the section i.e. it achieves the exact opposite of what it is supposed to do! Maybe we could simply add a recommendation that it is only worth using column dividers if it results in saving a noticeable amount of vertical space. Betty Logan (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

This proposal looks good to me as well. Like Millahnna learning these takes me awhile. Another benefit to having them in FILMMOS is to be able to point other editors to the reasons for using them in this manner. MarnetteD|Talk 16:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Haven't really been following, but this seems fine to add. I've also changed updated syntax in Erik's proposal for better formatting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I've added Betty's description about vertical space and horizontal white space. Any further suggestions? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

What about {{Columns}} as an option? IMO, with two columns, it looks neater than {{Div col}} on large screens. Daß Wölf 02:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure if it is a good practice. It shows an alert that says, "This template creates a table rather than actual columns. This means that it displays poorly on mobile devices or narrow screens and is sub-optimal in terms of accessibility. Approximately half of the readers of English Wikipedia articles are using mobile devices and may have trouble reading the content that is wrapped in this template. Please consider using one of the CSS-based column templates (listed at the end of this page) instead, or not using columns at all." I am not sure if there is a way to "cap" multiple columns so it is not too many on a super-wide screen. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Ultimately we are looking for a compromise that works on most displays. The first thing to bear in mind is that we have a responsibility to ensure that the article/list is accessible on all resolutions of 1024 pixels wide (basically landscape ipad) and upwards per WP:RESOL. We do not have a responsibility to resolutions below that. The second thing to consider is that there are only three resolutions that have over 5% usage: 360x640 (which we do not have to cater for), 1366x768 (the most popular laptop resolution) and 1920x 1080 (the most popular desktop resolution). So really we need a column width that works for resolutions between 1080 and 1920. I have provided some comparisons below for regular font size:

1. 1024x768 (2 columns for 25em, 1 column for higher)
2. 1366x768 (3 columns for 25em, 2 columns for 30em and 35em, 1 column for 40em and higher)
3. 1920x1200 (4 columns for 25em, 3 columns for 30em and 35em, 2 columns for 40em and higher)

So at 25em you get 2–4 columns for all resolutions between 1024 and 1920, which takes into account the two most popular resolutions and the lowest resolution we have to provide for, which I personally think is ok. We also know that 25em works on Marnette's display, but he loses his columns at 30em. The alternative is simply to hardcode two columns (which would give two columns at all resolutions) but I'm not sure how much resistance we would face considering that hardcoding the number of columns is deprecated. Personally I think 4 columns looks better than 2 columns at 1920, although I appreciate that's just my preference. If we could could cap it at three columns that would be fantastic although I don't think that's technically possible. Betty Logan (talk) 08:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Betty Logan, very useful analysis! I've gone ahead and updated the draft with the justification for 25em. Does that suffice? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You should take into account that em size depends on text size. References section has smaller text, so there can be extra columns. For instance, I'm getting five 25em columns in References on a 1920px screen. Daß Wölf 01:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters how many columns the references section has since i) they are at the bottom of the article anyway and ii) readers don't tend to read through them. Having lists—usually a cast list—plonked in the middle of the article can look aesthetically poor if the list is long and there is only a single column because you end up with a huge mass of whitespace in the middle of the article. References can stay at 30em or whatever the main MOS deems necessary. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if 30em was selected with the smaller font size of the references section in mind i.e. 30em at 90% regular font size (as in the reference section) will be equivalent to 27em at normal font size, so virtually identical to the 25em being proposed below. Betty Logan (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Why 25em over 30em? - i also dont see what others see - why ...as had to be pointed out in the examples above - font size selection - something that many many many people change. This discrepancy of 25em vs 30em will lead to nothing but problems if we have contradicting advice. There are many editors that do nothing but change set columns and odd ??em's to 30em....let alone people who will change 25em to 30em when they see it because its the new norm. Is it really best to not use the norm, thus leading to thousands of edits back and fourth for no real reason but for what a few see on their screens. Got to remember what one person sees will not be what others see - I would recommend that the guideline follow the norm WP:POLCON....as 25 vs 30 was debated over with one being selected. - Moxy (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The reason is that at 30em columns do not show up for all readers - at 25em they do. If we put it in MOSFILM then we can point editors to the proper policy and guideline. Yes edit wars "might" happen but they can be shut down (with blocks if necessary) with proper info in MOSFILM. MarnetteD|Talk 21:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[[]]

If your saying 30em does not work for many perhaps best we change all to 25em...as in guidelines , template pages and how-to pages........lets get an RfC going as this info that 30em is no working for all is a problem.--Moxy (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Moxy I would never say "many" unless I had empirical evidence to back it up :-) It might even be only a few readers that it would effect. I do know that I made a couple edits on the W&P article that didn't use any "em#" and Betty Logan helped me to learn why those weren't helpful. I apologize to all if my suggestion is causing problems with coming up with a solution. MarnetteD|Talk 21:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

We don't have to determine the optimal em value here. The wording can be softened, and we can determine in a more central location what em value, or what range of em values would be good to use. Betty's analysis can be shared. Maybe Village Pump? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Dame...sorry was a bit quick I guess-....change title of RfC.--Moxy (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We can soften the wording. It's a value based on Betty's analysis that we are putting forth. Any suggestions on re-wording? I used 30em personally because some documentation mentioned that as an example. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I was also a 30em stalwart until I realized it was causing some issues. What 25em guarantees is that on all displays over 1024 pixels wide (which WP:RESOL obliges us to cater for) you get at least two columns with an average font size, so that you don't have a load of whitespace next to a single-column list halfway through the article (which the film articles commonly get with cast lists). If you veer too far away from a standard browser resolution and default font size you can't expect an optimal browsing experience I guess, but it seem reasonable to me to have at least two column cast lists on resolutions over 1024 pixels at standard browser font size (16pt), which 25em is able to deliver. I don't mind it going to a site-wide RFC but the problem is motivated by a film-specific issue. Betty Logan (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support the proposed wording. Since this proposal has gone to RFC I would like to clear up exactly what the issue is and what is being proposed. The Film project is proposing a guideline that will tackle a specific issue with cast lists such as the one at War_and_Peace_(film_series)#Cast which frequently appear in film articles. If cast lists are restricted to a single column, the article can end up looking aesthetically ugly and disjointed with a huge amount of whitespace appearing to the right of the list on larger display screens. To this end it is common for long cast lists to use the {{div col}} feature so that the cast list is divided into columns, the number of which can be hardcoded using cols=2 or by setting the column width using colwidth=25em and allowing the browser to dynamically determine the number of columns. Hardcoding the number of columns is now deprecated and allowing the browser to determine the number of columns is preferred, although not policy. Bearing this in mind, the question is then what should the column width be set to?

As far as I am aware there is no prescribed site-wide preference. Template:Reflist#Columns recommends 30em for full references and 20em for shortened footnotes. However, the film project is proposing a "rule of thumb" width of 25em for casts lists only based on the following reasons:

• Per WP:RESOL the article/list is accessible on all resolutions of 1024 pixels wide (basically landscape ipad) and upwards.
• Only three resolutions have over 5% usage: 360x640 (which we do not have to cater for), 1366x768 (the most popular laptop resolution) and 1920x 1080 (the most popular desktop resolution).

So really we need a column width that works for resolutions between 1080 and 1920. I have provided some comparisons below for regular font size (the default for most browsers is 16pt):

1. 1024x768 (2 columns for 25em, 1 column for higher)
2. 1366x768 (3 columns for 25em, 2 columns for 30em and 35em, 1 column for 40em and higher)
3. 1920x1200 (4 columns for 25em, 3 columns for 30em and 35em, 2 columns for 40em and higher)

So at 25em you get 2–4 columns meaning whitespace will be eliminated for all resolutions between 1024 and 1920 at regaular font size. While I appreciate that selecting a column width is arbitrary (since there will always be users who fall outside the parameters you apply) it is better that arbitrary setting of the column widths is based on the most common resolutions and font sizes rather than an editor's own personal preference. Remember, this is just a guideline; there will always be exceptions (maybe the structure of the cast will lend itself to a more unique layout, or an editor may choose to fill the whitespace with images using public domain material such as at Gone_with_the_Wind_(film)#Cast, or perhaps the cast list is small enough to confine it to a box such as at Jaws_(film)#Casting) and this guideline is not mandating a layout, but just proposing a general column width based on some common metrics for cast lists which use multiple columns. Betty Logan (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

1. (invited by the bot) No objection but there is so much background info that is relevant here that I suggest that it be decided by persons who are more active in this area. North8000 (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing for production companies

Lately, I've been trying to source production companies in film articles. Besides the hoaxing by IP editors, there is sometimes disagreement over whether a company should be included, and editors frequently resort to original research to decide. I'm tired of having citations I add to articles get blanked because editors disagree with the conclusions reached by the source. I would propose we add wording to the MOS to suggest we base the production companies on what reliable sources say. For example: "Production companies should be based on what reliable sources report." Nothing fancy. This will hopefully cut down on the amount of times I have to have to leave irritable messages on talk pages because someone strips out a citation that doesn't jive with their own original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Editors really shouldn't be replacing any sourced content with unsourced content in any case, and when I see that being done I typically issue a warning. I don't think I've seen a situation where there was edit-warring after that point. DonIago (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to the proposed change if you think it will honestly help but doesn't policy already cover this? If someone removes sourced content and replaces it with unsourced content then I would simply revert them and refer them to WP:V. If they keep doing it they should simply be blocked. Betty Logan (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a significant minority of editors who believe production companies are obvious enough that you don't have to source them (and the sources are wrong, anyway). I see random editors constantly fiddling with production companies, like maybe changing one from Sony to Columbia to Columbia-Tristar to Tristar. And, I'm like, "Holy crap. Just stop. Here's a source that says it's Sony!" And then I get dragged into a debate over whether Sony is even a production company, like I care about Sony's corporate structure. But if this is too obvious, we could skip it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

They are probably cribbing the company names from the film credits or IMDB. The problem with that is that it is not always clear which function a company served on a film. It would perhaps be more helpful to specify which types of sources are preferred i.e. secondary sources that explicitly identify a company as a production company. Betty Logan (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, but I didn't want to get too fancy. Sometimes it's a logo on a poster, especially for upcoming films. It's difficult to find good sources on them, so people often turn to promotional material. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe something like, "When possible, production companies should be sourced to reliable secondary sources that explicitly identify the production companies." This would give people an exception for going to primary sources (like posters or the opening credits) when there are no other available sources. It's not like they're going to stop doing it, anyway. This'll cut back on the amount of interpretation based on primary sources, though. Or maybe we should say something to that effect? I don't know if that's necessary, but it would probably help explain why we're suggesting secondary sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

That's fine with me. It might be better to add it to the {{Infobox film}} guidelines rather than the MOS though. Betty Logan (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Support that change and what Betty said about the infobox - anything to help clarity on this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I'll tack on a short note at Template:Infobox film/doc. It's been almost two weeks since I proposed this change. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

See White Chicks, where Tjdrum2000 is edit warring to restore an unsourced production company. I swear, I'm just going to start reporting people to ANI for this. Once they've been blocked for 24 hours, maybe they'll stop. I will also start blocking people for this myself if I'm not "involved". I don't understand why editors think they can add whatever they want to infoboxes without sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I was only trying to because the logo for it was on the poster. Tjdrum2000 (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC at NCFILM

Seeking feedback of any kind for a proposal at WT:NCF#RFC: Clarifying the intended meaning. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Undesirable/extraneous

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere useful. A change was proposed, but it didn't gain consensus. It's time for the involved editors to move on now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Alright, let's settle this here. Again. Anyway, I think the word "unnecessary" is easier to understand than "undesirable" and "extraneous" because these two words both have a similar meaning to "unnecessary".

Also, are we seriously arguing over ONE word? I've already argued with Rhain over the use of the word "former" in the Grand Theft Auto III article and i'm not arguing over a word that actually is easier to understand in that one sentence in the "Soundtrack" section. Please don't insult me or treat me like an idiot. I'm not new to this site anymore. DBZFan30 (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

"We" nothing, you are the one who is reverting and now complaining on a talk page about one word. However, words like extraneous or undesirable do help carry the weight that what is not merited is to be actively avoided. Things can be unnecessary without being unwanted, but something not clearly meeting notability guidelines is unwanted as a subject. GRAPPLE ^X 00:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The wording "considered extraneous" is fine. There wasn't anything wrong with it and conveyed what it needed to properly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Most people don't even know what "extraneous" means. That's why I tried to make that one sentence easier to understand. DBZFan30 (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You tried to do a bit more than that: you also removed the notability requirement for album articles, and that is principally why I reverted you. If you had just changed the word I probably wouldn't although I agree with Grapple that "unnecessary" is the weakest of the three options put forward. Betty Logan (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Extraneous is not an uncommon English word. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a perfectly cromulent word that embiggens the MOS. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, @Lugnuts: I need proof that "extraneous" is not an uncommon word. Give me a reliable source that heavily uses the word or a quote from any film, TV show, video game, or anime that contains the word "extraneous" in it. DBZFan30 (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm rather curious as to what you're planning to do if no such proof is provided. Start an RfC? The burden isn't on anyone else to prove to you that extraneous is common terminology, but on you to achieve consensus for your change if you wish it to be incorporated. In any case, I'm sure you can find a reliable source here. Good hunting! DonIago (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

And let's not forget that the Simple English Wikipedia exists for those readers with limited English vocabularies. Betty Logan (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Doniago: @Betty Logan: How about "irrelevant" or "off-topic"? Which one sounds better to you? DBZFan30 (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Those words do not mean the same thing as "extraneous". GRAPPLE ^X 18:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Grapple X: There has to be some sort of word that can replace "extraneous". DBZFan30 (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, no, there doesn't have to be any replacement. There is nothing wrong with it as is, as can be seen from the fact that you're the only one trying to change it. GRAPPLE ^X 18:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Grapple X: I disagree. Every word has at least one replacement. This is why Wikipedia will always be an unfair and unreliable source. DBZFan30 (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

You can disagree all you want, and that's perfectly fine. That's why we have talk pages. But, the fact that you are one dissenting voice in the face of a consensus in favour of the status quo here means that your obstinacy alone will not change anything. And please, there's no need to ping me, I can use a watchlist. GRAPPLE ^X 19:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Grapple X: Wikipedia has no official policies. Everything on this site is made up by random people, including the policies. I don't trust anyone on the Internet, but I treat everyone with respect. I just want one word changed to make one sentence easier to understand for everyone. That's it. I don't understand why you, Lugnuts, Doniago, Betty Logan, Favre1fan93 and many others have to disagree with my suggestions that can actually make this site a better place for research. As I said at the beginning of this discussion, Please don't insult me or treat me like an idiot. DBZFan30 (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to be perfectly frank with you. If you cannot work with the concept of consensus, then editing wikipedia is not for you. GRAPPLE ^X 21:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

"Everything on this site is made up by random people, including the policies" - Correct. And if you get a WP:CONSENSUS, you can change said policy or policies. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Grapple X: @Lugnuts: As I said before, Wikipedia has no official policies. They can be edited by anyone just like any other page on this site. Just agree with changing "extraneous" to "off-topic" and this discussion will be done for good. I might stop editing Wikipedia in the future and focus on writing fictions here. DBZFan30 (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia very much has official policies. Don't know where you got the idea that they didn't. As Lugnuts said, if you disagree with said policies, you can form a new consensus to change them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. DBZ, I think you made a significant misstep when you unilaterally made an edit that changed the notability requirement for album articles, and then did not acknowledge...in fact, as near as I can tell you still have not acknowledged...that you made such a significant change to the MoS. For myself, that makes it more difficult to assume good faith with regards to the rest of this. Similarly, I don't feel you should be trivializing the fact that we're arguing over one word, especially as you are the one who initiated this thread.

If I were in your shoes, I would focus my efforts on convincing us, your fellow editors, whom you need to work with, that your word choice...any of them, in fact...will better serve the needs of the project than the existing word choice.

Alternately, or perhaps in addition, I would consider that I may have damaged other editors' faith in me, and work to reestablish that I have the best interests of the project in mind and show that I am willing to work with my fellow editors to make that happen. In that regard, statements such as your declaration that you don't trust anyone are counterproductive (and I might suggest taking a look at WP:AGF). In the end, I might recommend that you consider simply dropping the stick on this matter...since as you yourself said, it is simply about a single word. DonIago (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Doniago: I will not "drop the stick" (whatever that means) until someone agrees with me. I will not take "no" for an answer or read any of those made-up policies you linked. Just change that one word to "off-topic" and we won't argue over this anymore. DBZFan30 (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You really should drop the stick. Sometimes you just have to take a loss, even if you adamantly disagree with said outcome (such as here, because consensus is not in your favor), and just walk away (especially on a matter such as this about a single word). And even if someone agrees with you, that's not how consensus works, because it's not based on vote counting or majority rule. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

If you were trying to make me concerned that you're more interested in trolling us than in contributing constructively to Wikipedia, statements such as this one were a good way to do so. You 'will not take "no" for an answer'? That type of attitude toward editing here tends to lead to one being stripped of the ability to edit here. DonIago (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The statement that they won't even read the policies that others have linked to indicated WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:CIR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT problems. MarnetteD|Talk 14:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: @Doniago: @MarnetteD: I'm not trolling you! Everything on Wikipedia is FAKE! That's the truth right there. There are zero official policies since anyone can change them, just like everything else on any wiki. I still refuse to "drop the stick" or take "no" for an answer. Change that one word in that one sentence immediately. When I stop editing this site, you'll never see my name in anymore edit summaries and signatures, but you shall remember me as "The Notorious D.B.Z." DBZFan30 (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, we're not going to change it for a petulant child. The door is that way. ----> Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Do you even know how old I am? You wouldn't call an autistic teenager a "child", would you? DBZFan30 (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Judging by your behavior on here, I'm going to guess 12. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: You were four years off. If you have nothing nice to say, don't say it at all. Think before you speak. DBZFan30 (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

8? Wow. And if you've got nothing constructive to add and insist on throwing your toys out of your pram for not taking no as a reply, then kindly leave. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: I'm actually 16. DBZFan30 (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone that MOS pages are under discretionary sanctions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: How exactly does that work? I read the page but it is not clear to me. Could you unilaterally place the MOS under a 1RR restriction at your own discretion or do you have to get permission to do so? 1RR for MOS:FILM would not be a bad thing IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, some more info on this would be useful too. I didn't know those sanctions were in place, and their impact here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not experienced with discretionary sanctions, but my understanding is that any unvinvolved administrator can act unilaterally. That would include blocks, topic bans, and instituting 1RR. I get involved in debates here sometimes, so I have to watch out for taking "involved" actions. So, for example, if Lugnuts called me an incompetent jerk and reverted one of my edits, I certainly couldn't topic ban him. You get desysoped for that sort of thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Plot length in film series articles

I seem to recall we had some guidelines on how long to make the plot summary of each film in a film franchise article but can't seem to find whatever it is that I think I'm remembering. SO far my archive search fu is turning up nothing both here and at WT:FILM. I've recently noticed several franchise articles that have used the transclude tag to just pull the full plot over from the individual film articles. I completely see the appeal of this method but at the same time, it ends up being a lot of plot and I'd swear we've talked about this before. Perhaps this is something we might address in the MOS? I'm inclined to recommend a range of 100-300 words, myself. For an example of what I mean, see The Fast and the Furious. That's the only one I have bookmarked though I'm certain I've see it elsewhere, recently. Millahnna (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about any previous discussion on the matter, but on film franchise articles, only a basic overview plot is really necessary (ie the log line or the general plot overview used for the lead). See List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films as an example of this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Millahnna: It's at WP:FILMPLOT. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

You're the best. Thanks. Millahnna (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Wait... That doesn't specifically address series articles. I'm still planning on pruning at Fast & Furious I'm just wondering if we should throw a sentence into that part of the MOS to make some suggestions for franchise articles. Favre1fan93's reply to me would essentially do the job. Millahnna (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

You are right M about that being a good idea. This isn't the only thing that has come up recently about film series. I might be a good idea to add a separate section to MOSFILM about them. Until then anyone wants to post a possible wording about this here please feel free to do so. Then others can offer their input and it can be added in the appropriate place. MarnetteD|Talk 00:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd be fine with anything. WP:TVPLOT has some useful guidelines for their project. Since it's similar content (serialized stories), I sometimes refer to the TV MOS when I need inspiration on how to deal with film series articles. It could also help us come up with wording for our own MOS if we decide to include specific guidance about serialized fiction. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Soundtrack covers

I've been asked to discuss this issue here. I've talked to Mz7 about soundtrack covers in his talk page. He said as long as the cover is different from the film's poster, it's okay to include in an article. I recently got into a fight with Explicit over a soundtrack cover that was similar to the film's poster, and he threatened to block me. I don't want to lose my right to edit, so I think soundtrack covers should be allowed in articles about the film itself as long as the cover of the soundtrack is different from the film's poster. Is that fair? DBZFan30 (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's be clear here. I took a look and Explicit warned you not because he disagreed with you, but because you were removing other editors' legitimate discussion comments. This is a collaborative project, which means that editors are expected to work together. If you continue to say things like "I don't trust anyone on this site. I can do whatever I want." in edit summaries (see [1]), I think you will find that you will be asked to leave the project. I'm honestly a little confused why you were so adamant about reversing Explicit's actions to begin with. As you mentioned, I had talked with you just a few weeks ago about how the Wikipedia community has decided in the past not to include soundtrack covers when they are not substantially different from the film poster, and you're acknowledging that in this case, the cover was indeed similar to the film poster. If you knew you were in the wrong, why keep pushing for it?

With that being said, we're all willing to work with you on this, so it's good that you're starting a discussion here so that we can collaborate. I've had the impression for the past few years that if a soundtrack cover is substantially different from the film poster, that means the film poster is not enough to provide visual identification of the soundtrack cover, allowing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 to be met. Mz7 (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: What I said about me not trusting anyone on Wikipedia is true. I only signed up because you can't just wait for someone to add something important. I respect everyone on this site (including you), but I just don't trust anyone on the Internet at all. Another thing that bugs me is the "WP" and "MOS" rules. Anyone can change them at any time just like every other page on Wikipedia, which is why I never read them when someone undoes my edits. I just want Wikipedia to be a better place than it was before by allowing soundtrack covers that are different from the poster. DBZFan30 (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Soundtrack images should not be used in film articles per WP:NFCC#8. If it is the same image as the film's poster, then the soundtrack image does not add anything to a reader's knowledge. If it is different, then there needs to be some sort of reliable third party source giving critical commentary on the soundtrack cover, at which point it would be helpful to a reader to actually see the album cover. But simply saying "The soundtrack is different than the poster, it can be included" is not a argument that will get you far enough or win support. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. We have to remember that Wikipedia wants to limit use of non-free content. So when we include non-free content (in this case soundtrack cover images), we must have strong justification for it. In general, a stand-alone topic can have an identifying image to go with it, but a soundtrack would have to be notable on its own (and have its own article) to warrant its own identifying image. Beyond an identifying image, there must be a strong rationale for including another image. Soundtrack covers rarely qualify. A certain shot or copyrighted element of a film needs to be discussed to prompt the consideration of adding an image with the text to illustrate it for the readers. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Favre1fan93 and Erik. We are permitted under fair use laws to use a non-free image to identify the subject of the article. When you have an article exclusively about a soundtrack then it is acceptable to include the sountrack image, but when it is simply the sub-section of a film article the FUR does not hold up i.e. the soundtrack is not the subject of the article, the film is. If the law permitted us to use images to simply illustrate every aspect of an article or book under fair use then artists and photographers simply would not be able to earn a living. Betty Logan (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's a better exception: if the film itself stars a notable singer, musician or band (such as Alvin and the Chipmunks) who performs one or more songs in the film but the soundtrack is not notable for its own article, then the cover of the soundtrack should be allowed. Is that better? DBZFan30 (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that the album cover is still non-free content. It could have all the greatest musicians ever, but if the cover is visually similar to the poster used in the infobox, it shouldn't be used, to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify further, if there isn't commentary on said album cover then it still cannot be used. Non-free is non-free. All non-free images require justification. We have had to fight for film posters to be included based on "visual representation", but in all honestly they don't actually meet WP:NONFREE or WP:FUC completely. Given that, we cannot simply use the same logic for another image, especially when this isn't an article about said image.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the singular use is supported. WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion says, "To identify a subject of discussion, depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject generally suffices, thus only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion." If an album is not notable enough to stand alone, then it stays under the topic of the film, for which the single item of non-free content applies. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Erik: Here's one more exception: all movie soundtracks require their own article, regardless of notability. That way, soundtrack covers won't be a problem at all. How does that sound? DBZFan30 (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It sounds inappropriate to me. Not all movie soundtracks are notable by WP standards. DonIago (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This is getting silly. This talk page is not the place for contriving exceptions to Wikipedia policy. If a soundtrack is notable then we should create an article for it. If the section is so big such that splits are required to comply with WP:SIZERULE then we can spin the section off into a dedicated article. Otherwise the soundtrack section should remain part of the film article. If the inclusion of non-free artwork complies with WP:NFCC then we can add it, if not then we can't. It's that simple. We don't game the system to add illustrations we like to articles. Betty Logan (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

DBZFan30, we create articles if a topic is notable. It goes against guidelines to create soundtrack articles regardless of notability, especially to circumvent the policy of limiting non-free content. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Erik: Out of all the 845,000 files uploaded to Wikipedia, 579,000 of them are non-free. Wikipedia doesn't limit the use of non-free files at all. If Wikipedia wants to limit the use of non-free content, then they should stop accepting copyrighted files and delete every single one so the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't get sued. DBZFan30 (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation hosts the vast majority of free content at Wikimedia Commons, so it is no surprise that the non-free content makes up the majority of what it is uploaded to Wikipedia. Have you read WP:NFC? The lead section's second and third paragraphs explain how to consider non-free content. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll relate a story from the late 2000s in how this policy was enforced. When I first started editing Wikipedia, articles about TV series actually had a screenshot for each episode. This was challenged, and ultimately, these screenshots were deleted. In regard to film, we have almost always uploaded posters with low image resolution (see WP:IMAGERES), essentially to avoid being a source for deliberate copyright infringement. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Betty Logan, Doniago, and @Erik: if a movie is notable, the soundtrack is notable too. Some examples are Purple Rain and Scarface. They are both notable films and the soundtracks are notable too. However, the soundtrack itself is almost a completely different topic when it is mentioned in a film's article (examples are The Breakfast Club and I Saw the Light), which is why I suggested that all movie soundtracks have their own article. DBZFan30 (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Betty Logan (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that a film's soundtrack in any way inherits the notability of the film itself, as you seem to be suggesting. While that may be a trend, that doesn't make it a foregone conclusion. The notability of a film's soundtrack is established by significant coverage of it, just as the notability of a film is established by significant coverage of the film. DonIago (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@DBZFan30: Please do not make changes such as this one. Soundtrack albums are subject to notability guidelines just like any other album. This has been explained to you above by both myself and Doniago so please do not make changes that alter the fundamental interpretation of the guideline. Betty Logan (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: I do not take no for an answer. Just agree with me for once. DBZFan30 (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

That's an extremely poor attitude and you will not get very far in any discussion if you only can accept the outcome if it goes in your way (especially one like this that is on strict Wikipedia policy). I'm starting to sense that you're WP:NOTHERE. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Sorry about that. I just don't understand why everyone on Wikipedia has to disagree with me. First everyone disagreed on adding a controversial topic about a Nintendo game and now everyone disagrees with allowing soundtrack covers in film articles and even changing a single word in a sentence. I promise I will make better edits in the future and I will not start any new discussions or reply on anymore talk pages. This is the last time everyone will see my signature on this talk page. Goodbye. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

About nationalities

I think the nationality of a film should be covered later in the paragraph only if it's three or more nationalities instead of two, because I think two nationalities should be the maximum amount of them allowed in the first sentence. What do you guys think? Tjdrum2000 (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tjdrum2000. I agree. I tend to write "title is a 1995 internationally co-produced film..." instead of adding every single country in the lead if there's three or more. The finer details can be included in the section under production. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Ditto and I'm a fan of Lugnuts's method of writing to address the problem. Speaking purely as a reader as I rarely am involved in editing that stage of article development, the longer country lists end up making for a super clunky opening sentence. I've sometimes seen the 3+ country lists in conjunction with the longer lists of genres we've been trying to avoid, which rather compounds the problem. Millahnna (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Personally I'm so tired of seeing edit-warring over nationalities that I'd be amenable to seeing it kicked out of the lead sentence altogether, but I admit that's probably an unpopular opinion. DonIago (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Lugnuts, Millahnna, I think they are saying they want to do American-British but not American-British-French. I think even a pairing is too much because it still implies false equivalence and still leads to edit warring. Although like Doniago said, even one can be problematic. I prefer to kick the issue to the rest of the lead section if there's even a whiff of a debate (because it's so tiresome) and just explain what each country has to do with the film per WP:FILMLEAD. Sometimes it's simple as saying "co-production between" so-and-so, sometimes one can say this country's studio produced the film, this country provided some financing, etc. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

And, more to the point, people want to know what national culture has influenced the film - which principally means the Director, Producer, and where it was filmed. Too many editors try and add 'American' into the mix because a film has some American involvement in finance or distribution, which is missing the point MapReader (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that the nationality applied to a film is based on who "owns" the film, which generally comes down to studio, not director. If I (as an American) direct a film, but it's entirely funded by a Japanese company who will own it after my involvement is concluded, it's a Japanese film, by that definition.

Which just strengthens my view that we shouldn't mention nationality in the lead sentence if we're not even in agreement as to what it reflects. DonIago (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I have thought for some time we should defer to the Lumiere database for national identities where it is practical. They have a more nuanced methodology which could be incorporated into Wikipedia articles. Here are some examples:

• Avatar – An international co-production between the US and the UK.
• Skyfall – Produced by a British company that is at least partially owned by a US company (Eon Productions which produces the Bond films is half-owned by the Brocollis and and half-owned by American MGM)
• The Dark Knight – An American film produced through a British based company (basically an American satellite production)

Betty Logan (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Betty. Though, like AFI, it takes a little while to come out with pages for new releases, I have found Lumiere to be the single best source for nationality. It should be listed (and listed first) in the film infobox documentation guideline. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

LISTGAP compliant cast list formatting

Hi all. Per a discussion at WT:FILM (perma link here) that stemmed from some discussions at MOS:TV on cast list formatting with line breaks and MOS:LISTGAP, I have created the new template {{Cast list break}}. This template creates the sometimes desired formatting of putting character descriptions on a new line when the text wraps to a second line, but does not produce the screen reader issue that was encountered previously (see template examples for this). If there are any questions on the template, please comment here or drop me a line on my talk. We should add this into WP:FILMCAST as Adamstom.97 originally intended to alert users to the LISTGAP issue; this template provides an alternative. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Predominant language after nationality

I would like to propose modifying WP:FILMLEAD to mention the film's predominant language in the opening sentence in absence of a singular nationality. For example, Wolf Totem (film) is a Chinese-French co-production, so it would not be accurate to just call it a "Chinese film" in its opening sentence. Instead, I put "Chinese-language film" and later in the lead section explain that it is a Chinese-French co-production. For an example like this, is there any reason not to include the language as the next defining characteristic, if nationality is not singular?

For English-language films that are not of a singular nationality, we should include "English-language" in the opening sentence for a couple of reasons:

1. We should not presume that the absence of a nationality or language means that Wikipedia's readers from across the globe should know that a film is English-language. Another editor articulated it well that a film's nationality more often than not indicates that the film uses the country's predominant language. Calling a film American, British, Chinese, French, etc. indicates the predominant language unless needing to establish otherwise, as in the case of Indian films.
2. The predominant language is also a common characteristic in film listings, databases, reviews, etc. Like we have used these sources to establish a film's nationality, we can also use them to establish the predominant language.

What do other editors think? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I should mention a couple of recent examples worth highlighting: Dunkirk (2017 film) and Midnight in Paris. Another example I recall is Out of the Dark (2014 film), which is a Colombian-Spanish co-production but English-language. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Am I reading this right, in that you feel the language should be added if one or more of the following is true?

1. The opening mentions a nationality which does not reflect the film's predominant language.
2. The opening mentions no nationality.
3. The opening mentions more than one nationality.

Thanks for clarifying! If so, I'm inclined to support, though I'd like to hear what other editors have to say. DonIago (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I would say #3 usually leads to #2. If a film has multiple countries involved, it means simplifying the matter and taking it out. Not sure of an example of #2 where #3 does not apply. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I still see a number of film articles where a dual-nationality is used in the opening sentence, though until there's a debate I don't necessarily make changes. Basically my note above was saying "add a language if there's zero or two or more nationalities, but not if there is only one". DonIago (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment I was under the impression this had already been enacted following the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film/Archive_12#WP:FILMLEAD_tweak. However, it seems the proposed wording by NinjaRobotPirate was never installed. Perhaps we could just put that into the MOS? basically it all coms down to the same thing: if the primary language isn't obvious then it should be stated in the lead. Betty Logan (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Support. I don't see any damage in having a statement such as (for example): Midnight Schnaps in Budapest is a 2018 English-language, German-Hungarian romantic comedy film by Werner Herskó. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

First you can't have two countries in the lead, the guide is if there is more to one then omit altogether, and two, you see no problem with there being 4 pointless words in that sentence before getting to what the film actually is? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

"you see no problem with there being 4 pointless words in that sentence before getting to what the film actually is?" - No, I don't. I believe in providing information, not excluding information. "4 pointless words" ... you'd think they were 4 paragraphs and that Wikipedia exploded into flames because of it. Histrionics don't float my boat, so I'm outta here. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - It doesn't matter what language it is in, if it's in Japanese (and listed in the infobox) there will be english subtitles for it. The language is not important to reading the article nor is it, in the modern day, an impediment to understanding the film itself. There is absolutely no need for this to be added to the opening of any media article, not just film. What benefit is there to stating on the English wikipedia that Dunkirk is an English-language film? There's none. Oppose completely and utterly for pointless puffery, like stating all the countries that may have loaned a portion of money to a film's production in the opening (Looking at you Dunkirk). EDIT: " Calling a film American, British, Chinese, French, etc. indicates the predominant language" So by this logic, Dunkirk is a primarily English language, french language, german language film? No. We're creating an issue to compensate for basic common sense and the infobox which directly states what language the film is. Other sites DO act as a database, we're not a database, such minutiae is covered adequately in the infobox, it doesn't need to be a part of the opening sentence, nor does the nationality of the myriad nations tangentially involved.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

  So you're in favor of not stating the nationality at all either? The predominant language is suggested to serve as a similar basis. Not sure your point on Dunkirk. It is going to be primarily English-language. It is a good question about what to do with films with multiple languages, that the rest of us can discuss. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

  A single nationality is fine if necessary, though I don't think it is, but multiple nationalities completely not. It is not of any benefit to a reader to know that Mad Max Fury Road is an American-Australian production, it's set in an unspecified wasteland, it isn't inherently Australian or American in the culture it displays and it isn't as if America and Australia are at war and somehow funding a film together is some great logistical achievement that crosses barriers of race and creed. Yet the argument over it's inclusion that resulted in "American-Australian" being inserted into the lead resulted purely of a jingoistic purpose. It's seen in how many times people mess around deciding which country belongs in the infobox because they all want to take ownership of the final product. It's different to say something like Azumi (film) is Japanese in the lead because a) it is a single nation product, and b) stating that it is Japanese is actually saying a lot about what type of film you are getting because the type of film is culturally distinct to a traditional western film. But these cases are outliers given the all encompassing nature of western film.

  But I digress since I've gone on a lot about countries there. My point with Dunkirk is that in your opening argument you state that labelling a film as British, Chinese, French, etc indicates a predominant language. Yet the opening of Dunkirk calls it an American, Netherlands, and like two other countries production, but there is no implied assumption that it is predominantly presented in a language relevant to any of them and it has no bearing on understanding of the article since it is presented in English on the English Wikipedia. The predominant spoken language is a technical detail and it is already mentioned in the infobox. Putting it 4th in the opening sentence doesn't help and it's attempting to solve a small problem (people making strange assumptions about the film's spoken language when it's presented right there on the page in the infobox) by enacting a site-wide policy change. Enacting this change would embolden any user to add spoken language to every single film article on the site with no argument to stop it. There's no reason to try and enact a guideline change when you should just be able to do this on an individual basis in the 0.000001% of cases it would ever actually matter.

  TLDR; there is no reason to add the language spoken because there is no reason people should be assuming the language based on the 50 companies involved in a film's production or the actors involved or the directors involved or the props involved. And there's no reason to listen all the nations involved in the lead either. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

  What about something like Alien Convenant where the BFI says it's Australian, United Kingdom, American and New Zealand? All countries that are primarily English? Would you still feel that in lieu of nations that the article should open with English Language? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Not really sure where I fall on this, but I guess there are cases where mentioning this instead of a country of origin could be useful. But in general, I think most film articles (that I am involved with) should stick to saying "American film" rather than "English-language film". - adamstom97 (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, I am not suggesting replacing "American film" with "English-language film". I am saying for films with multiple countries involved, we would state the language instead. For example, The White Ribbon is a co-production between Germany, Austria, France and Italy, and we can't just say "German-Austrian-French-Italian film" in the opening sentence. It implies false equivalence, and "German-language film" is more suitable. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

  Okay, I think I support that then. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment @Erik: To add to your initial premise. I would say "Chinese-language" is blatantly ambiguous, since I assume we're dealing with spoken language it should state Mandarin-language, Cantonese, Hokkien, and so forth. The same is already done in the infobox, so if we're to bring it into the lead section, why increase the ambiguity? DA1 (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

  You're right about that. This was not a good example after all. I've removed the erroneous term. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Cast or Voice cast on animated films

For films that are animated, can the header be changed to Voice cast? We've got disagreements at The Lego Batman Movie regarding this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Either works, really... I don't think it warrants much discussion. If there is a disagreement, I would just defer to MOS:RETAIN. A possible compromise could be to have a sentence under "Cast" that explains about the voice acting roles. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo is being widely misinterpreted

Many editors (and consequently readers) are widely misinterpreting Box Office Mojo for worldwide tallies; particularly when it comes to foreign-films, or domestic small-budget films that receive a theatrical run overseas. On BOM pages, there is a section titled "Foreign total", which is indicated with n/a in the case of incomplete data.

Take for example: The Departed or Tron Legacy, major films with "Foreign totals" of [$157,463,039] and [$228,000,000], respectively. In contrast to, say Bleed for This (n/a) or Yakuza Apocalpyse (n/a). The latter of which, it only has records for 1 theater ($12,756).

Yet, I had come across article Yakuza Apocalypse which had that incomplete figure ($12,756) listed under Box Office, which I subsequently edited. And today came across Bleed for This which described it as "a box office disappointment, grossing just $6.7 million against its $6 million budget" – despite there being no Box Office tally for the film available for us to confirm (except domestic: $5,083,906, per BOM).

In cases, BOM will not include tallies for entire regions. Take for example The Raid (2011) which doesn't even include figures for its country of origin, Indonesia, or for Japan where it was also released (ザレイド) late in the year. The same is true for its sequel, where the data is further incomplete. But BOM is generous to specify such deficiencies when it indicates n/a in its tally. However, it is frequently ignored (I assume by mistake) and misrepresented on articles.

I would like to bring the WikiProject's attention to this; perhaps it is noteworthy enough to mention within the WP:MOSFILM (similar to where it states to avoid Rotten Tomatoes' "Top Critics" since it varies by region/user). In the same vein, editors should avoid worldwide BO's when there is no complete figure available – and not make up their own tallies from available limited figures with accompanying inference (success, disappointment, loss). - DA1 (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Erik:, Lugnuts, Millahnna, MapReader, Betty Logan, NinjaRobotPirate, et al.

I don't often play in this end of the film article editing (unless there's a run on sentence or something) but what you're saying makes sense to me. I seem to recall us running into something similar in regards to critical reception some years back where some films didn't have very conclusive listings and reviews on the various aggregate sites but were being written up as though they did (which is probably how we ended up with that notation about ROtten Tomatoes that you mention). I'm wondering, and those of you with more experience in this area please correct me if I'm way off base, if this is something we can address at least partially in the prose of an article itself. BOM, reports that the film earned $#### in countries x, y, and z but only has data for blah and blah. Am I making any sense? Erik, Lug, Betty and Ninja will likely have better thoughts than me on this. They do more of the in depth editing on articles than I do. I just poke at the text when the writing is terribad. Millahnna (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Millahnna: Thanks for your response. I am unaware of who was an expert in what. I decided to tag some of the active contributors in the discussions above, and get the ball rolling. I think your idea of 'elaborating' the available figures for countries is a good idea; though discretion should be made that given the overall n/a the countries listed (numbers) may be incomplete themselves; From my personal inference i think BOM loses track for [indy] films that are released across regions over a wide timespan. And in the case of foreign-films without a major domestic theatrical distribution (e.g., Yakuza Apocalypse) doesn't include overseas figures at all. DA1 (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, stuff like this comes up every so often. People misinterpret aggregators and databases to be conclusive about things they're simply not saying. I've probably screwed up a few times, too, especially when citing databases I'm not familiar with. I try to clean up stuff like "box office disappointment" when I find it, though. It's obviously original research, and you can't simply decide based on the gross whether a film is a "success" or "disappointment". For one thing, the gross is shared with the exhibitors, and it may not include all territories (as mentioned above). We probably should have some kind of guidance on this somewhere. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

As a note, the guy most responsible for this, Easy4me (talk · contribs), is indefinitely blocked. If you see someone mass-adding foreign grosses in ways that are inappropriate, it could be a sock puppet of Easy4me. I think I already blocked all the existing socks, but a new one sometimes pops up once one of my range blocks expires. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I am aware of this problem. It often comes up on older Hollywood films too, and there is a tangential discussion about missing Star Trek gross figures at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Problem_with_Star_Trek_Data that may be of interest to editors involved in this discussion. I disagree with the suggestion that we omit "incomplete" data because I believe we should provide as much complete data as possible. If that data only comes from a couple of countries then that can be qualified in the box office section. The bigger problem of editors making qualitative assessments of a film's success is an ongoing problem and one that plagues complete data just as much as it does incomplete data. For instance, a film's gross falling short of its budget doesn't necessarily make a film unsuccessful and a gross exceeding the budget doesn't necessarily make it a success; their are other revenue streams such as home video, merchandies and TV which should be taken into account as well as profit shares and marketing costs. In short editors should not be making claims about how successful a film was based on their own interpretation of the financials. MOS:FILM#Box office instructs to "Determine a consensus from objective (retrospective if possible) sources about how a film performed and why, but editors should avoid drawing their own conclusions about the success or failure of the film." Any unsourced original research about the success of the film should be removed from the article and if anyone challenges/reverts your removal you should direct them to MOS:FILM. Betty Logan (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Agreed, a film's "success" isn't simply on box office, but also home video and int'l distribution licensing (though one could argue Merchandise is distinct from the film's success). When you say that available data should be included; how do you go about doing that?

Should for example Yakuza Apocalypse's article's Box Office state $12,756? Wouldn't that be misinforming the reader who may assume that's a full tally. Or would it be more appropriate, in Bleed for This's case the infobox state $5,083,906 (US, Canada)? While 'elaborating' any additional information of the available overseas country figures in the "Release" or "Theatrical run" section? After all, you can't elaborate everything in the infobox or lead section, without being misconstrued by the reader. -DA1 (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The infobox is only ever meant to be a basic summary. It's great when that tells the whole story, but sometimes it doesn't. If the total comes from just a couple of countries you could probably get away with putting those in brackets after the figure; alternatively you could add a note if you think it would help. But my approach would be to provide the most complete figure available and then provide the context in the box-office section. Betty Logan (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I would say that some caveat should be added addressing this. I see similar things with Rotten Tomatoes and older films. People will add RT scores for films from the 80s and 90s, when RT wasn't even around, and use that to justify a critical reaction aggregate. For instance, if you look at what RT says about the original Friday the 13th now, it is in no way close to how it was received in 1980. I think that the box office information can be (unintentionally) misrepresented in the same way. It's something we should give some guidance on, so that editors at least have something to point to.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

  I tend to agree with this. The critical reception should reflect the reception at the time of release and the aggregators don't always reflect the contemporary reception for older films. Vertigo was a critical failure on its intial release but has 97% on Rotten Tomatoes and that is mainly due to modern reviews. WP:AGG#Limitations warns about this. Personally I would limit the use of aggregators to current films for initial reception because I don't really see the point of adding them to articles about older films when better analysis is often available. Betty Logan (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

  @Bignole,Betty Logan: So seemingly {Rotten Tomatoes} was started in 1998; perhaps a guideline could be made that any film older than say 4 years prior to RT's startup (that would be 1994 or earlier) should not be used to represent "critical response" except to indicate modern (retrospective) critical reception to the film. And the same be applied to other notable critic aggregators. That way editors and inturn readers are aware of what they're looking at, and how to properly edit/elaborate the language of the article. DA1 (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

  Bignole is discussing Rotten Tomatoes not Box Office Mojo in this case. I tabled a RFC a year or two ago stating that Rotten Tomatoes should only be used for current (i.e. twenty-first century) films but it failed to pass. That's not to say it is mandated though. Generally speaking, if they are included on older films it should be made clear it is not necessarily reflective of the initial reception. Betty Logan (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Betty Logan, That was a brainfart. I've reworded my comment. Please read it again. And what do you think about this discussion? Should we do an RFC for this here; What's the best way to get things done? DA1 (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

In the case of Rotten Tomatoes I agree in principle it should not be used on films released prior to 1998. I proposed this myself at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film/Archive_12#The_use_of_aggregators_on_articles_about_older_films but it failed to gain traction. For reasons explained above I don't think older films are well served by aggregators and we should seek out more authoritative retrospective analysis. In the case of Box Office Mojo I don't think editors should be barred from using it; they just need to be aware that sometimes the data is incomplete and when this is the case it needs to be clear in the box-office section. Betty Logan (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course they shouldn't be barred from using it (Box Office Mojo); what Im saying is that the MOS/guidelines should specifically point out that it may be incomplete and to note the n/a indicator – and inclusion of its available figures should be accompanied with a disclaimer/elaboration in the article. Otherwise, its just a gross misrepresentation of the facts (as pointed out in my OP). DA1 (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – BOM has always been North America-centric and iffy about non-domestic films, but ever since Amazon bought it, keeping track of foreign totals has deteriorated. Take Their Finest (released 21 April 2017) as an example: The Numbers reports a current worldwide b.o. (domestic and international) of $11.3 million; while BOM reports a gross of $3.5 million...for domestic only.

There should be a warning in MOS about relying on BOM. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Question about nationality in opening sentences vs. in infoboxes

If only one nationality can be listed in the opening sentence of a film article, why can multiple countries be listed in the infobox? –Matthew - (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The infobox is just listing countries involved in the production whereas nationality is a much stronger claim. For instance, is Bridget Jones's Baby a British-American-French film or is it a British film made with American and French backing? Those are both legitimate points of views. It would probably be more accurate to say it is British produced with American and French financing, which is the point that WP:FILMLEAD is making. Betty Logan (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Betty. It is commonplace for film databases to list countries, and we follow the most reliable ones (e.g., not IMDb). However, it is less commonplace to say so-and-so film is a "<nationality> film", so it is harder to source directly. Another challenge is that a film's nationality is wrapped up in who finances it, even though the country financing it has no non-financing element in the film. There are some sources out there that explain this, though it may be worthwhile to have a Wikipedia article consolidating the details to share with editors and readers in general. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

hello

Hello again. I'm only coming back here to tell you all a few things. The first thing is i'm sorry for acting the same way in my discussions (Favre1fan93 said I was "not here" because of this). I just don't understand why people have to disagree with my suggestions that can actually help Wikipedia. The second thing I have to say is about my second discussion: I was trolling you all along! (Doniago was right about that.) I like to play jokes and pranks on other people, but I do help out on this site whenever I feel like it. Lugnuts, if you're reading this, there was no reason to call me a "child". I was only trolling you once.

One last thing: I would like all of my discussions on this talk page to be deleted WITHOUT being archived. If they aren't deleted today, i'll have to delete them myself. I will no longer add anymore discussions on this talk page and I will no longer edit Wikipedia. I'm done helping. I've got better things to do. I don't care if my edits are permament. Do not block me again.

I regret nothing. DBZFan30 (talk) 11:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm tired of dealing with this. Think carefully about what you do next, because if you do anything disruptive – including, but not limited to, blanking conversations on this talk page – I will block you for a very long time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: That obviously won't happen, because i'm done with Wikipedia entirely. You've won this battle. I have surrendered to everyone who watches this talk page, especially Lugnuts. No one will see my username in another edit summary or talk page again. It was nice meeting you all. Goodbye forever, Wikipedia. You'll all miss me. DBZFan30 (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Section tables / expansion - suggestions

I am not sure about the proper phrasing here, but the following points should somehow be made.

1. Tables are a complex form of list and should not be misused to resolve visual layout problems. If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table. Where 10 or more items are placed in list form (divided in two or three columns if possible), they take up a minimal height in a section. The same items placed in table form streache out the section in height considerably. And where long names or multiple countries are placed in a cell, that cause lines to break when the window becomes narrower, or for a screen of narrower width, the table becomes considebly longer, while a list would only become slightly longer.
2. Usually the justification for using tables in film or award articles is their sortable feature. In cases where this is considered necessary, the appropriate data-sort-value="..." | have to be inserted. In titles starting with an English or foreign article (the, a, le, la, les, il, el, das, etc), a data-sort-value with the term (or terms) after the article should be given. For example "The Big Lebowski" should be soorted by ( data-sort-value="Big Lebowski" | ''[[The Big Lebowski]]'' ). Where names are involved, sorting should be by second (family) name ( data-sort-value="Scorsese" | Matin Scorsese ) or is a second perosn with same family name is in the list, ( data-sort-value="Scorsese, Martin" ). If a column contains several cases of 2-3 filmakers, or 2-3 countries together in a cell, it is obvious that this column shoud not be sortable. This can be separately arranged at the top by assigning the additional class="unsortable" right after scope="col"

Hoverfish Talk 19:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Add section under Clean-up about Flag icons in film articles.

I propose to add a section under "Clean-up", about how MOS:FLAG applies in film articles. I am thinking mainly about section "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" under "Inappropriate use". The use of flag icons in infoboxes has a very clear consensus of WP Film over the years, although this consensus was mainly taken on technical grounds. However flags keep decorating various film award articles where nationality of recipient (film or filmmaker) should be mere parenthetical information. The Best Foreign Language Film in the yearly Academy Awards articles has it as it should be, i.e. name of country in brackets. The only example of Appropriate use of flag icons in film articles I can think of, is in cases like the List of countries by number of Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film, where nationality IS the main issue. However, emphasizing nationality with flag icons in International Film Festivals places undue weight on nationality. Nationality of recipient is not mentioned or emphasized at all during award ceremonies. The award is given to a film for its qualities or to a person for her/his work.

Here are the milestones on the flag issue in the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film: New Cinema navigation box - Flags in info boxes - Flags in Academy Awards articles - Use of flags makes information harder to read - Flag icons - flag icons in infoboxes - Poll about Icons - Formatting of Award category lists - Question about flags - Use of flags. Hoverfish Talk 00:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Flag icons (suggestion)

{{shortcut|WP:FILMFLAG}}
Following MOS:FLAG, 1. Flag icon are only appropriate where the subject actually represents that country or nationality. In film articles and film award articles this is hardly ever the case. 2. Do not emphasize nationality without good reason. In film award articles, the use of flag icons is not appropriate, unless nationality is a main topic, like in the List of countries by number of Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film. Note that in international film festivals, the films, their directors or other filmmakers and actors do not represnt their country, and their nationality is mere parenthetical information. Therefore flag icons should not be used to accompany tiles and names. Apart from this, the use of flag icons in film infoboxes has been decided against by long-standing consensus.

Hoverfish Talk 20:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Rowspan question

I've had other editors indicate to me in edit summaries that the use of rowspans in tables (such as awards tables) has been deprecated, since A) they make tables difficult to read on mobile platforms, and B) it makes tables non-sortable. This all makes perfect sense to me, but I can't find any discussion about it or any MOS statement on it. Would someone here be able to point me to the pertinent background? Thanks! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

There are various discussions here where I find the general notion of "either rowspan or sortable, not both", mostly in featured lists. I haven't seen a MOS yet, but this should be a meta issue. I'll see if I can find something there. Hoverfish Talk 23:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, MOS:TABLES does say "The powerful and useful sorting feature can be enabled by adding class="sortable" to the top row. Extreme caution should be applied if rowspan or colspan is used." Hoverfish Talk 23:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, it's not deprecated. That doesn't mean that you won't get caught in an edit war if you try to use it, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

No it's not deprecated. Here is the meta page: [2]. I hope this helps. Hoverfish Talk 23:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why they say no colspans though. I use sortable with colspans and it works right. Maybe in some uses it makes a mess. Hoverfish Talk 23:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Columns are not sorted, so colspans are never separated. FWIW I think the accessibility issues may have been overreactions here. Rowspans are perfectly sortable on my desktop, and my old phone displays them just fine (while it cannot sort tables at all). Daß Wölf 00:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it depends how you do the row-spanning. For instance, the sorting function works fine for the year-spanning first column at Jenny_Agutter#Filmography, but sometimes you end up with spans in the middle of table (where tables look "boxy") which makes rows discontinuous for sorting purposes. The deeper into the table you go the more likely it is you will get into problems with sorting spanned rows and columns. Betty Logan (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Could be a browser issue. Here, whenever I sort the rows (even if it doesn't change the row order), all rowspans are "flattened" into repeating cells, even pretty convoluted designs such as this example. Daß Wölf 00:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Could even be a technical issue that was resolved years ago. I haven't done any convoluted table designs for years so I could just be out of date. But even then there are accessibility issues to consider because that type of rowspan (in your example) creates a discontinuity between the date column and the notes column and I am not sure how a screenreader would deal with the gap. Betty Logan (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Out of curiosity I tried that page with Microsoft Narrator :) I don't know what disabled people typically use, but this one would read the page row by row as I tabbed from link to link. As long as the link was not in a rowspanned cell, everything went fine. The Star! row failed, but that's not a common occurence anyway in filmographies. It might be a problem for accolade lists, however. Daß Wölf 01:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

If it was an issue that was fixed, then it was fixed by better implementation of newer versions of our browsers. Hoverfish Talk 02:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Allowing the use of two nationalities

The consensus is against allowing the use of two nationalities.

My earlier close, "The consensus is allowing two nationalities in the lead", had a typo. My apologies for the error.

Cunard (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

According to WP:FILMLEAD, which is found within Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film:

If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section.

I propose that two nationalities should be allowed in the opening sentence. Just for reference as to how this has been in practice in numerous film articles, please see Alien ("British-American"; also listed as a GA-class article), Godzilla, King of the Monsters! ("Japanese-American"), Once Upon a Time in the West ("Italian-American"), The Shining ("British-American"), An American Werewolf in London ("British-American"), Inglourious Basterds ("American-German"), and Elle ("French-German"). Now, of course, the fact that this has been done on such articles is not a clear reason to allow it, and I have seen several articles on internationally produced films that forego listing the countries in the lede. The above examples are to demonstrate the appearance of listing two countries in the opening sentence.

Adding two countries to an opening sentence does not make significant clutter. Now, when one goes over that limit, I find that it can indeed look cluttered. Take for example Hector and the Search for Happiness, which is written as a "German-British-Canadian" film, or Night of the Sharks, which is referred to as "Italian-Spanish-Mexican". This makes for unnecessary clutter, but I believe that having a maximum of two countries, rather than one or three+, gets the job done quite nicely.

This proposal first came to my mind when editing the article Baby Driver. The film is a British-American co-production, and there have been back-and-forth edits which either list it as British-American in the opening sentence, or starting the first sentence of the second lede paragraph with "An American-British co-production,...", which falls in line with the current Manual of Style for Film articles. This is how the article looks at the time I'm writing this proposal, wherein I edited the page to have "British-American" in the opening sentence, which I assumed was acceptable, as articles like Alien had done so for months, and possibly years of being in the mainspace.

So, long story short, I don't think there's anything wrong with listing two countries in a film article's opening sentence, and propose that a maximum of two nationalities in such opening sentences be officially allowed. If anyone has reasons against allowing such a thing, I'm open to hearing such concerns, but the only thing I can think of is the clutter that amounts from having three or more nationalities in the opening sentence, and I find that a maximum of two nationalities caps it off quite nicely without looking messy. It's straightforward and removes the obligation of having to include nationalities later on in a film's article's lede. –Matthew - (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: I realised shortly after writing this that this topic was discussed in non-RfC form previously on this talk page. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#About nationalities. –Matthew - (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose because it contributes to false equivalence. Identifying it this way implies even (50-50) contributions from both countries when this is rarely the case. It could easily be 10-90 or 90-10, and databases do not make distinctions. That is why this guideline exists, to state one nationality if it is straightforward enough. Beyond that, cases are always too complex to sum up in a pair of terms in the opening sentence. However, a few editors in the community seem to have argued doing away with nationality from the opening sentence altogether, and considering that this is a tiresome issue, I'm growing inclined to agree with them. Perhaps we should entirely relegate any claims of nationality to after the opening sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... I see your point. I would agree with you, but I think that two nationalities could possibly still be listed if reliable sources conclude as such. –Matthew - (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - The whole point of The Great Wall (Zhang Yimou), for instance, is that it was a collaboration between two veteran film industries. It happens, and it's noteworthy when it does.Fb2ts (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - We don't even need one nationality in the opening, there's no need for more than one, it's such a non vital piece of information in an age where there can be 10 countries tangentially related to the production of the film down to the director, studio, actors, financier, different producers. It's fluff info and it doesn't need to be expanded upon. It neither requires British-American nor "A British-American" production elsewhere in the lead. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

There's no wiggle room or exceptions in your eyes, especially for older films? Do you think it would useless information to note that Godzilla is a Japanese film, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly an Italian film, or Amélie a French film? –Matthew - (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - the point of national origin is certainly an important piece of information about any film -- except for perhaps when a film is produced in Hollywood or the United States -- because if you don't state French, Italian, Japanese or whatever, in an English language encyclopedia, it's arguably obvious.Fb2ts (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons I tend to oppose adding additional fields to infoboxes. This reads as an attempt to boil down information that should be discussed at length (how each nationality played into the film's production) and will encourage overly-casual editors to simply state the nationalities rather than exercising due diligence and writing prose to adequately explain why the film is dual nationality. DonIago (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm not sure I agree with the guideline the way it is now, that if there is a reliable source that defines it as a film from a certain country, that you "should" put it into lead, personally i think it would be better if that said you "could" put it in the lead. Any film that is released internationally will end up with the foreign countries reliable sources describing it in as an American(or where ever) film anyways. The obscure films are probably the only ones that aren't being covered internationally, and those would be ones not getting any sources outside its home country who won't always describe it with a nationality. WikiVirusC^(talk) 06:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I've been asked to comment on this. I agree that it is important to state the primary countries collaborating on a film, but do not think it should be limited to two countries, esp. in the case of 3 countries who contribute 33% each towards the film. Who would make the decision to delete one of the countries in the case of an "Italian-Spanish-Mexican" film, and what would the justification be? The information on an international production may be better integrated into the article itself, rather than in the lead sentence. Netherzone (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above. In the cases of more than two nations, then saying "X is an internationally co-produced film" (or similar) will be enough to avoid lead-country bloat. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The project would be better served by having less focus on nationalities, not more. GRAPPLE ^X 12:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone else confused by the closing statement? I see a whole lot of opposition here which it doesn't appear to reflect. DonIago (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

No, you're not the only one - @Cunard: - please can you re-look at this? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the close and suggest we look at other closing statements by this editor as they seem to have closed multiples discussions in the matter of minutes.--Moxy (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cast section and opening credits of Home Alone

There's an issue with Home Alone. In the opening credits, Larry Hankin who portrayed Larry Balzak, a police sergeant who works in the police family crisis, was featured on it even though it was a minor role, but TheOldJacobite removed him because of the factor that Hankin had a minor role, even though he was listed in the opening credits. When I reverted it, they were reverted back twice (one by TheOldJacobite, the other by Gareth Griffith-Jones). I set up a discussion for it in the Home Alone talk page, but they reverted to even go at it. We need to discuss this issue on here and on the Home Alone talk page if we can. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It is standard practice on WP not to include minor roles in the cast section, which should be for listing only the main cast members. Whether they appeared in the opening credits is irrelevant. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

No, it should be relevant. Those listed in opening credits should cast qualify to be put in case sections, regardless on how minor the roles are. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

To help resolve the difference of opinion, I appended at 52 credited cast members Talk:Home Alone#For the record: Home Alone on-screen cast credits the names of Home Alone actors as presented in the film's beginning and end (the credits are also easily available online). Again, for the record, the film lists 11 names in its opening credits and 52 names in its closing credits.

The actor in question, Larry Hankin, is billed 11th in the film's opening credits and 12th in the film's closing credits. As of this writing, the Wikipedia article Home Alone has 19 actors' names listed, only 10 of which are listed in the film's opening credits. Some of the remaining 9 names are far down the closing cast list (one of them, Terrie Snell, currently listed in 6th place under the article's cast list, is billed in 20th place on the film's list).

In fact, 10 of the names currently in the article's cast list, do not even appear in the film's opening credits. Since this film has only 6 main cast members, this article's current cast list of 19 is in violation of the argument that "[I]t is standard practice on WP not to include minor roles in the cast section, which should be for listing only the main cast members", thus presenting the opportunity to reduce the article's cast list to 6. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

We can't reduce cast sections. It would make things difficult for readers to find and click on links on some of the specific actor and some of the actors not in the opening credits had a little bigger roles, which is one of the reasons we can't reduce the cast section. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I would list the 11 opening credits in the cast section and then any of the other notables could be summarized in paragraphs following, as with Pixels (2015 film). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

You know what, I think we should put it back to where it was before the changes that were made on it. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I added 11th-billed Larry Hankin, but deleted all cast names after 14th-billed Kristin Minter, thus reducing the cast list from 19 names to 14 names. See Talk:Home Alone#Larry Hankin in the opening credits of Home Alone. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The rules for cast lists are much less strict than they are for the infobox (which must take space limitations into acount). I generally find it is helpful to list all the notable actors in the cast section (by this I mean those with articles, or are likely to have articles at some point). Beyond that it is largely down to consensus; if you are only missing a handful of names you may as well go for complete coverage, but if it is a large cast then editors need to select a sensible cut-off point. Betty Logan (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

On that basis, I have again revised Home Alone's cast so that it indicates the 11 names in opening credits (all of whom have Wikipedia articles) and, under sub-header "Selected cast list in closing credits", the 13 cherry-picked names (in on-screen order) who have articles and are only listed in closing credits. Thus, among the 52 cast names listed in closing credits, the cast list contains all 24 names with Wikipedia articles —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Forbidding IMDb scores makes no sense

It's peculiar that Wikipedia, a site that's mostly the summation of internet popular consensus, rejects movie score data that is arrived at by a similar process. If anyone has a problem with IMDb scores he's free to ignore them. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who finds that data to be more relevant than other sources, plus interesting to compare against critic reviews. Barring it from Wikipedia is harmful.

IMDb's vote counts are much larger than anything else so they're difficult to artificially influence. The site also tries to minimize such influences. Even assuming a few select movies are influenced, so what? So every now and then the score takes into account some niche group that feels strongly enough to spend the effort to affect a certain movie. If anything, those rare occasions add interest.

BTW, what triggered this post was someone's edit revert after I added the IMDb scores to a Pixar article. In that specific case the IMDb scores follow critic scores pretty closely: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Pixar_films&oldid=792042121#Critical_and_public_reception

¤ ehudshapira 16:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a "summation of internet popular consensus", it is a summation of reliably published information...which IMDB isn't. The fact that six Chris Nolan films are in the top 50 (and two more in the top 250) shows how much a dedicated fanbase can skew the poll. Wikipedia's biggest strength is that it keeps crap like the IMDB poll out. Betty Logan (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

IMDb is a reliable source for user votes. I'd argue that engineered scores there are as rare as wrong info in major news outlets, those which are considered reliable sources. And Chris Nolan, he scores pretty high also on Metacritic, very high on Rotten Tomatoes, and without being part of any fanbase I'd also agree that most of his movies are better than most. ¤ ehudshapira 19:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

No it's not. Erik has listed plenty of examples of vote tampering below. IMDB to my knowledge does not take any steps to prevent multiple voting by its users or to ensure that it is representative, therefore its poll is not a reliable source for how its users rate a film. If it confirmed identities and sampled its users in some appropriate manner then it might be different, but the poll is essentially the same as most other content on IMDB: it is uncorroborated and user-edited. Betty Logan (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See MOS:FILM#Audience response, which says, "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." It has been abused in the past, most recently with Ghostbusters. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that text forbidding IMDb is what I was referring to (RT's user votes I think are insignificant). Hiliting very few influenced movies on IMDb don't make the other 99.9% invalid. ¤ ehudshapira 19:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I Am Not Your Negro was similarly vote-stacked. See article about that here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

A couple more articles here and here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

If there is a wide discrepancy between critical reception and IMDb scores, and there's in-depth coverage of that discrepancy in RS, then write about that discrepancy. Otherwise I'm all for sticking to the current MOS:FILM and WP:UGC policy. E.g. the article on I Am Not Your Negro only included a casual mention of the score as of two months ago. This gives readers no information whatsoever about the controversy, and I've thus removed it. However, the controversy should IMO be covered, and maybe I'll do it myself when I have more time if no one else does. Daß Wölf 20:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Concur with policy of not using easily manipulable IMDb audience ratings and sticking solely with Cinemascore. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

We should include IMDb scores for limited cases. My comments copied from Talk:List of films considered the best#Highest rated films in film databases:

I think IMDB Top 250 should be included. That list seems stable and more resistive to vote stuffing. Probably the only larger sample size than IMDB (Netflix/Amazon/RT next?) is using box office receipts (some producers would say the highest ROI is "best"). More info on IMDB ratings: IMDB top 250 voting FAQ, IMDB ratings over the years, Combined IMDB & RT & MC No one gave any bad IMDB citations so here are two: 538 on Gunday and Wired on Indies.

The Pixar table by User:ehudshapira shows how closely aligned the rankings are, with a few anomalies. I think this usage is acceptable because it includes the other sources and are comparing only among Pixar movies. The source URL should be to the score demographics page so people can see some of the subtleties. Vote stacking is most noticeable early in the voting when there are few votes and show some recovery over time. (Perhaps the results of this voting shouldn't be covered due to campaigning and one (reliable?) source said there were millions of illegite votes; who knows if they really saw what they were voting for.) StrayBolt (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent article here about online movie ratings being flawed. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

"secondary sources" for the film's reception are NOT the same thing as what many editors are likely to read "secondary sources" as

@Flyer22 Reborn: Can you seriously tell what "not the reviews themselves" means, or are you just asking rhetorical questions in revert summaries for the heck of it? Obviously (to me and other experienced Wikipedians) in this context "secondary sources" means something different from what it means throughout the rest of the page, where "secondary sources" would usually refer to secondary sources on the films themselves. Secondary sources on the films themselves includes reviews of the films, but they are primary sources on the films' reception, specifically on the question of whether a film's "initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today".

Using the reviews themselves to determine if a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today is WP:OR, and is banned by policy. If we are assuming that people reading this MOS page are all already aware of the policy, then the whole sentence should be removed as redundant.

Linking WP:SECONDARY does not clarify any of this for editors who might need it clarified, and debateably makes it worse, since that page's saying that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. could easily be read by such editors as saying that basing the Wikipedia articles about films on "tertiary sources" (ones that analyze a wide range of critical reviews from the time of initial release and later) is inappropriate.

Why not just tell people on the MOS page what the MOS page actually means, which is to use secondary sources for the film's reception, rather than the original film reviews, which are WP:PRIMARY sources for the film's reception?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I reverted you here and here because I did not find the text to be clear. Your explanation here on the talk page is much better. And I still feel that "secondary sources" should be linked in that paragraph. You stated, "Obviously (to me and other experienced Wikipedians) in this context 'secondary sources' means something different from what it means throughout the rest of the page." Eh? We cannot define secondary sources differently than the policy page. With regard to your wording, I would like to see the opinions of others watching this page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Eh? Did you read the policy page before accusing me to try to define the term "secondary sources" differently from it? What counts as a secondary source varies from topic to topic. Donald Keene's A History of Japanese Literature (Vol. 1) is a secondary source on most of the classical and medieval literary works it discusses, but is a primary source on itself and its author; a review of the book in Monumenta Nipponica is a secondary source for the book itself, theoretically a tertiary source for any pre-modern literary work it might quote Keene on, and a primary source on Keene's book's reputation among scholars.

More on-point, one randomly cherry-picked review of a film is a secondary source (reliable or not) for the content of the film itself, but is a primary source for the critical reception of the film. It is original research to gather collections of "early" and "recent" reviews of a film, and contrast the reception the film had on its initial release to its current reputation.

Anyway, if you cannot present a coherent argument against my wording, other than saying that you personally find it hard to understand (when it seems you find the wording you restored equally hard to understand), then constantly reverting me and saying that you "would like to see the opinions of others watching this page" is not helpful.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Why are you pinging me when I obviously watch this page? I didn't accuse you of anything. You are the same as ever with your misinterpretations, I see, including below with your response to Izno, which literally makes it difficult to have a discussion with you. Unless you actually defined secondary sources in the guideline differently than we do at WP:Secondary sources, you didn't define a thing on the matter. You stated, "Obviously (to me and other experienced Wikipedians) in this context 'secondary sources' means something different from what it means throughout the rest of the page, where 'secondary sources' would usually refer to secondary sources on the films themselves." All I stated was "We cannot define secondary sources differently than the policy page." Of course I've read the policy page; it's on my watchlist, just like a number of other policies and guidelines. You claimed that I can't provide a coherent argument against your wording. And yet my argument that your wording is not clear is echoed by others in this section. If it was as clear as you think it is, everyone in this section would be supporting it. No one is. Your wording states: "Use secondary sources for the films' reception (not the original reviews themselves) to determine if a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today." What is meant by "the original reviews themselves"? Does this mean the initial reviews that came out at the time? If so, an editor can take that to mean that we should not use an original review that is noting that the film received largely negative reviews to report that the film received largely negative reviews at the time. We can do that; we can write a sentence about the film having received largely negative reviews in whatever year. And then we can write a sentence, using up-to-date sources, noting that the modern reception of the film has received largely positive reviews...if those up-to-date sources state that. That would not be WP:OR/WP:Synthesis. That would be citations supporting each individual sentence. What we should not do is throw together sources and use wording that is not supported by the sources; that would be WP:Synthesis. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Can we say something like "high-level" in regard to sources that assess any evolution of critical response to a film? Or something synonymous to that? I was not sure about "tertiary" (see WP:TERTIARY) because the bulleted description does not seem to match what we're discussing, yet the policy-labeled passage matches what we want to say. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Erik: I don't think we should say "tertiary", since that has the same problem as using "secondary" without defining it. We should of course not use tertiary sources for the evolution of critical response to a film, if such sources ("quaternary sources" for the film itself?) even exist, and telling editors to use tertiary sources for the film itself would miss the point as what we are actually telling them to use is secondary sources for the film's critical reception. "high-level" is a weird term that looks like it means "high-standard" or "reputable", and I don't think replacing "secondary sources" with "high-level sources" would address the problem, if I am even reading your suggestion correctly? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I left a note at WP:Film about weighing in (since some editors there may not have this page watchlisted). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I think both texts are unclear. Is the intent of the current text "use a secondary source which says 'the commentary changed'" or is the intent of the current text "use a secondary source to state more recent opinion, which may differ from the opinion from contemporary sources"? --Izno (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

(Mind you, I think both are fine, but if both are fine, we should say both are fine rather than the ambiguity of the present text. --Izno (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC))

@Izno: What exactly the original intent of whoever wrote the text in the first place was is beyond me (Ctrl+F the page history for "Critical response" and it shouldn't be too hard to figure out who that was, though). But I read it as putting the MOS recommendation in the context of NOR by telling editors not to collect a bunch of reviews and create an original comparison of the "early" and "recent" ones, and to use secondary sources that make the comparison instead. I saw this as problematic, though, since the wording it used made it look it was encouraging the opposite by telling editors to use the critical reviews themselves. The phrase "secondary sources" appears ten times on this page, with the exception of the passage in question, and in every single case we are contrasting "secondary sources" (critical reviews) to primary sources (the films themselves).

Put simply, my reading (and the one my edit reinforced) is the former one you suggest. I don't agree that both are acceptable. The second one you present is a fairly clear NOR-violation. We are not allowed take one source that says one thing and a later source that says something else, and claim based on the contradiction that the film's reputation has changed, unless the latter source explicitly makes this contrast (in which case the two readings you present are the same). If two sources present apparently contradictory claims in a matter-of-fact manner, we can't assume both were completely accurate for the time (as opposed to, say, the place) where they are published and combine the two to state that the situation has changed. (I mention place because, if we have a Japanese source from 1970 that says American Film A has a poor reputation among critics and a French one from 2012 that says the same film is well-loved by critics, we can't assume that the French source isn't describing something that was always the case in France. This is just one of the countless possible problems with that idea.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: I actually just now did the "Ctrl+F" process alluded to above, but was not thorough and so did not find who originally added the text and when, but I did find that the text in question (with "secondary sourcs") was not present as of this April 2009 edit, and at that time the page instead contained an explicit invitation to synthesize primary sources: For older films, seek reviews from the period of the film's release and the present to determine if a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today. If the current text is the result of other editors "clarifying" this text to be less explicit in its violation of policy (does anyone currently involved in this discussion remember?), then we should perhaps consider that the original text we have been working with should have just been thrown out and the whole thing rewritten to more accord with the spirit of WP:NOR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Found it. The explicit invitation to SYNTH was removed, and the reference to secondary sources added, by Betty in May 2015 per the result of this RFC. I think a fair case could be made for inviting back all the commenters in that RFC, and perhaps opening another one, for removing the phrase "secondary sources" altogether and replacing it with an explicit discouragement of SYNTH, since the original problem that led to that RFC was apparently its explicit encouragement of SYNTH, or at least that's what I'm getting from JzG's closing statement. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You misinterpret my second interpretation--I didn't say anything in that comment about using the source to make a statement that "they are different", only that "the second source may observe something different from the first, which we would document simply as a different observation", which we would document naturally per WP:NPOV.

To make the second clear, here's some text: "A said B about C today.(ref 1) D said E about C when it was released.(ref 2)". The first is "A said B about C today.(ref 1) D said E about C when it was released.(ref 2) This shows a change.(ref 3)". This is why the text looks ambiguous to me, because it is not obvious whether situation 1 or 2 is implied.

That said, we do need to summarize the changed state of things even if it's not in a reference--this is Composition 101. How do you propose to do so? I know that some will use aggregator summaries (which will often have such a statement), and more often than not, I would guess that old creative works will have a reliable source, which often says the same as in ref 2 and in ref 3, in my example; namely, that it was X and now it is Y and that this shows change Z, but some do not. We don't just drop a change in frame on someone's head without announcing a change of frame. --Izno (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You misinterpret my second interpretation--I didn't say anything in that comment about using the source to make a statement that "they are different", only that "the second source may observe something different from the first, which we would document simply as a different observation", which we would document naturally per WP:NPOV. I'm not misinterpreting anything -- the whole point of the passage is discussing the critical reception of films whose reputations have changed; if we are not trying to say "they are different", then there is no point. And yes, you are right that we should write our articles in accord with NPOV, but NOR and V trump NPOV in those cases: I've seen it happen in a half-dozen deletion discussions.

To make the second clear, here's some text: "[...]This shows a change.(ref 3)". Your clarification makes it clear that both the first and second are the same. This shows a change.(ref 3) is the same as first one, as both are saying that a change has taken place with a secondary source that explicitly states as much. The rest is messy and should probably be avoided, but that's not related to the question of what "secondary sources" means.

And no, we are not allowed say things that can't be backed up by references to reliable sources. That's WP:V. If you actually mean what you say by we do need to summarize the changed state of things even if it's not in a reference--this is Composition 101. that shows a severe misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. How do you propose to do so? If we don't have a reliable source that verifies the content we want to write, then we can't write it. That's the policy. I would guess that old creative works will have a reliable source, [...] but some do not. In the latter case ... well, ideally I would prefer that any article on a topic that has not be covered in enough reliable sources that we can write a neutral, accurate and verifiable summary of its critical reception, that article should be deleted or merged per WP:GNG. But I know a lot of people like having stub articles that contain nothing but fluff, and it would be easier just to leave out content that can't be attributed to reliable sources. We don't just drop a change in frame on someone's head without announcing a change of frame. ?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal maybe we could drop the terminology altogether and put it into clear English: "Use sources that explicitly address the critical reception to determine if a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today; do not WP:SYNTHESIZE a film's critical reputation by comparing reviews yourself." It doesn't have to be exactly like that, but you get the gist. Betty Logan (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion, Betty. My issue with Hijiri88's wording is that, like I stated above, "What is meant by 'the original reviews themselves'? Does this mean the initial reviews that came out at the time? If so, an editor can take that to mean that we should not use an original review that is noting that the film received largely negative reviews to report that the film received largely negative reviews at the time. We can do that; we can write a sentence about the film having received largely negative reviews in whatever year. And then we can write a sentence, using up-to-date sources, noting that the modern reception of the film has received largely positive reviews...if those up-to-date sources state that. That would not be WP:OR/WP:Synthesis. That would be citations supporting each individual sentence. What we should not do is throw together sources and use wording that is not supported by the sources; that would be WP:Synthesis." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree to Betty's solution. I honestly have no earthly idea what F22R is on about at this point (are we disagreeing over what a "review" is -- it was clearly meant to refer to a film review), but that doesn't matter. Let's just put Betty's wording in place. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

If you don't understand what I mean, or what Izno was stating, then, yeah, it's best to move on and see if we should go with Betty's exact wording or alter it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ditto. And you're right; even though I didn't state as much (because I hadn't seen it), I don't understand Izno's comment. It's possible that Izno is saying we should through both NOR and V out the window when it comes to the critical reception section of old films, but per WP:AGF I'm supposed to assume that I am simply misreading Izno's comment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I support Betty's exact wording. How about you, Erik and Izno? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Same here -- I thought that was obvious from my comment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Betty's is better. --Izno (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

From a grammatical perspective, I would suggest additional clarification and reducing the use of "reception" and/or "reputation":

Use sources that explicitly analyze a film's overall critical reception when explaining a contrast between the way it was initially received and the way it was received at a later date; do not synthesize this evolution by comparing reviews yourself.

Maybe that's a bit wordy and can be shortened a bit, but I think it's important to mention "overall critical reception" in that first part. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

In some cases it may be difficult to find sources that discuss the overall reception. In many cases you will find contemporary sources that discuss the reception and modern-day sources that discuss the film's current critical standing, and you might not be able to find a sources that cover both. I don't think this is a problem in itself provided you don't draw any new conclusions; you'd just be using two separate sources to outline its critical standing at two separate points in time. My original wording was much closers to yours, but I altered it after I realized it was imposing a condition that didn't necessarily need to be met (unless you actually want to explain the process of how opinion changed) and one that might not be be possible to meet. Betty Logan (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Betty, yes I agree. I think my explanation above may have been misleading. You would need a contemporary source that shows the overall "initial" reception, and then another modern-day source that shows the overall reception at a later point in time. I didn't meant to suggest that one source should cover both. My concern is that in either case, we should be using sources that gauge consensus as a whole and not relying on sources that only survey one author's opinion (if that makes sense). --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I take issue with "overall" per Betty's reasoning. I would have stated similarly had I seen your proposed wording first. Even without "overall," I think that your "when explaining a contrast between the way it was initially received and the way it was received at a later date" wording may be taken to mean that the source(s) should cover both, especially with the "do not synthesize this evolution by comparing reviews yourself" piece ending the statement. If it's not clear by my earlier commentary above, I can easily see editors thinking that including a source about the reception a film had one year and a different source about the reception a film has now is synthesis. It's not synthesis unless we are tying the two together in way that the sources don't explicitly support. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I can see how my attempt to add clarity may have backfired. The lingering concern, however, is that we aren't cherry-picking a couple reviews from a given point in time to show that reception was positive, mixed, or negative. We should be using sources that assess the critical consensus (or the overall reception) for us and not the individual reviews themselves. Using individual reviews to show how a film was received a long time ago would be a form of inappropriate aggregation. RT and MC do that aggregation for us now, but for older films, we obviously have to look for other sources as replacements. As long as this is clear, I'm indifferent on how it should be worded. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I think "do not WP:SYNTHESIZE a film's critical reputation by comparing reviews yourself" is probably fairly self-explanatory. I'm at a loss at how to make it clearer than that. If an editor does disregard this guideline then it's probably because they haven't read it. Betty Logan (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't notice this subdiscussion until just now, but I should clarify that if Betty (In many cases you will find contemporary sources that discuss the reception and modern-day sources that discuss the film's current critical standing, and you might not be able to find a sources that cover both) and others (Betty, yes I agree; I take issue with "overall" per Betty's reasoning) are saying that it is acceptable (not WP:SYNTH) to take one early source that summarizes a film's contemporary reputation and one later source that summarizes the same's film's reputation differently, and use that to simply state that the film's reputation has changed over time, I disagree. In cases like that, we should simply say "Scholar A in Year X summarized the film's reception like this ..., while Scholar B in Year Y said thus ..." Two scholars writing at the same time can disagree, so assuming that two sources from different times are merly stating "facts" and that the explanation for the change must be that the facts "changed" is inappropriate. We are not allowed say a film's critical reception has changed over time unless we have a source that says that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

comment: An experienced editor already knows how to interpret secondary sources in this context without additional explanation. If an editor can't comprehend this MOS guideline with their current understanding of policy, then perhaps their competence to edit Wikipedia should be brought into question. This MOS guideline even provides a link to WP:secondary sources and WP:SYNTH appears right below it on the very same page! So, adding in another sentence, or another paragraph for further clarification only serves to complicate things and seems like an exercise in redundancy to me. It appears that a problem is being created where none exists. As Betty Logan pointed out, it's only a problem if a user disregards the policy, and can be easily corrected by guiding them to the policy so they can read it. This MOS guideline already points to those policies... Huggums537 (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Huggums537: You have scarcely 600 edits to your name -- are you trying to tell me that you know more about how experienced editors read these guidelines than I do? And how is An experienced editor already knows even relevant? The point is that inexperienced editors are going to misread (or, rather, already are misreading) "secondary sources" as meaning the same thing the phrase means elsewhere on this page. On top of that, the only reason to link WP:SECONDARY is to tell editors that it doesn't mean comparing reviews oneself; in other words, linking WP:SYNTH is inherently better than linking WP:SECONDARY. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Generally agree with Betty's suggestion, without prejudice against minor clarification suggestions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Further entirely unnecessary comment Why has one of the very similar proposals not been implemented yet? I just want do not WP:SYNTHESIZE a film's critical reputation by comparing reviews yourself (which is the essence of my original edit, just worded better) added, and it seems like pretty much everyone is in agreement on it. I join Betty at her loss as to how to make it clearer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you are right and I should focus on what you said the point is about inexperienced editors misreading the guideline. So, I'm glad you mentioned my low number of edits because I believe this qualifies me very well as being an inexperienced editor. You should find my opinion to be a very valuable insight since you seem concerned about how we inexperienced editors will see things. Additionally, you will have the benefit of an actual inexperienced editor telling you exactly how I read the guidelines as opposed to how you think I might read them. Anyway, the truth is that I had the same response to your edit as Flyer22 did, which was to ask myself, what the heck does this mean? The guideline was simple to understand before that, and I couldn't understand what was going on after you modified it. It also seemed like things were getting unnecessarily complicated when other people started talking about making other modifications to it, even if they actually made sense. That's an honest point of view from the only inexperienced editor that has bothered to comment on the matter thus far. I can tell you this. It doesn't take any more than 600 edits for me to point out that policies probably work much better in tandem when you combine them together. So, WP:SYNTH is not better than WP:SECONDARY. It would be a better approach to say WP:SYNTH is better with WP:SECONDARY. And, as I mentioned earlier, the link that currently exists points to both of those already... Huggums537 (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• We really, really do need to make it clear that reviews published in newspapers and magazines and such are not secondary sources. There's a common misconception here, due to the poor wording at WP:RS and WP:NOR, that everything in a volume we use as a secondary source in some cases (e.g. a newspaper, because regular journalistic articles in it are secondary source material) is necessarily also secondary. This is, of course, totally absurd. Op-eds, advice columns, review, editorials, and frequently but not always investigative journalism pieces are primary, as are articles that are almost entirely quotation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

  WP:ANALYSIS completely supports a film review being a secondary source because it relies on the primary source (the film) "for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

  What constitutes a primary or secondary source in various circumstances is open to interpretation so that's why it is better to just drop the terminology altogether. Basically when we are discussing the reception of a film in general terms we actually want sources that discuss the reception in general terms, rather than an editor synthesizing an overview from cherry-picked sources. Nobody seems to be arguing against that view. Betty Logan (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

  If we want reception information, then a review would be a primary source. If we want something about the film itself, then a review would be a secondary source. That is just common sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

  Right. What's alarming to me are all these people who seem to think a review just is a secondary source, period, no matter what.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  As others have said, a film review is not always considered a secondary source. For discussing its plot, production, or other facets of the film itslf, a film review is secondary. When the focus shifts to a film's overall reception in a Wikipedia article, that changes. For example, for the statement, "Dunkirk was well-received by critics", a single film review becomes a primary source, because it is one opinion among many that would be used to support that claim. RT and MC would be the secondary sources for this, since they are analyzing multiple primary sources (the film reviews themselves). --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  "WP:ANALYSIS completely supports a film review being a secondary source because it relies on the primary source (the film)." Nope. The film is the subject. An opinion piece of any kind is always a primary source, no matter how many sources it may be based on anyway. That's the nature of an opinion piece.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  That interpretation would cause numerous articles on culture works to suddenly fail notability tests. Reviews- which represent a transformation of the film itself into an opinion by the reviewer - are always a secondary source by our WP:PSTS definition for the film itself. --MASEM (t) 17:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  If that were true it would have already happened. People are sorely confusing a few things here. A source is not primary, secondary or tertiary in every way for everything. A film or novel is a primary source for what it contains. A review is a primary source for the reviewer's opinion about the film. It may also be a secondary source for what happens in the plot or who the cast and crew were (because the work itself is a primary source for its own content). It is not possible for the work to be a primary source for anything subjective a reviewer wants to say. In simple terms, the film cannot be a primary source that the film is good.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  PS: If WP expunged a large number of crap stubs and trivia piles about works (and pseudo-celebrities) sourced to nothing but themselves and subjective reviews, often from publications which depend heavily on entertainment-industry advertising dollars and thus have WP:INDY problems) that would be a fantastic thing. Any time IMDb has a better article than we do or ever likely will, then WP is making a mistake having an article. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  I find it absolutely incredible that people could be conflating secondary sources for establishing the notability of some particular topic with secondary sources for citing some aspect of the topic for which the majority of secondary sources for the topic itself would actually be primary sources. This is really basic sourcing we are talking about: you are not allowed synthesize reviews themselves to say that a film's critical reputation has changed over time. For that you need secondary sources on the film's critical reputation, which is not the same thing as secondary sources on the film itself. I would like to echo SMcC's alarm at all these people who seem to think a review just is a secondary source, period, no matter what; no experienced Wikipedian should be thinking this way. (And yes, this is one of the reasons I think these MOS talk subpages should all be redirected to the main MOS talk page.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  I think there's some "talking past each other" but short reply is I agree with the points here: it is definitely synthesis to take the reviews a film has as to come to conclusion of what the average reception is for that film, as that is using the reviews-as-primary-sources to synthesize something novel. I do want to stress that I think that I don't see anyone here stating that "film reviews are secondary sources, period." Those involved in discussion seem pretty clear that they are certainly a secondary source for the film itself, and perhaps the people involved, but that's about as far as a film review's secondary nature extends, and becomes a primary source when speaking to the aggregate reception of the film. I do take issue with calling film reviews as primary sources for the film, because that directly contradicts the definition of secondary sources at WP:PSTS. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  Re: "I don't see ..." – See "WP:ANALYSIS completely supports ..." post above. It's a full-on argument that reviews are secondary sources, not that they can be for a tiny number of limited things. When you say things like your "I do take issue with ..." sentence, that's also very easy to read as a similar argument; if it were not for the preceding sentence, it would be indistinguishable from one. But this is beyond films. I encounter actual "it was from a [sometimes] reliable source, ergo it's secondary" reasoning again and again and again, ranging from claims that a press release from the AMA, an op-ed in a newspaper, and an opinion piece from a columnist in a magazine are all secondary sources, because the publisher is reputable and the editor has seen [radically different] material from this publisher cited and defended [in those cases correctly] as secondary sources before. Confusion on these matters is rampant across the entire project. Just the fact that this mega-thread exists demonstrates it for this topic, but it's by no means confined to this one. The locus of the problem is unclear wording at WP:RS and WP:NOR that people are loath to change despite it being terribly unclear.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  We are on the same page: no source is going to be secondary for every possible topic, it is an assessment relative to the topic of interest, and I agree some editors get into trouble thinking a secondary source is universally secondary for all topics. I am just concerned that your previous statement An opinion piece of any kind is always a primary source, no matter how many sources it may be based on anyway. is not true: an opinion piece is primary for that opinion, but it is secondary for what the opinion is covering. A film review is secondary source for that film, by our definition and very nature of a film review. It doesn't make it a secondary source for everyone else, automatically, only for the film. And I also do agree that there are issues with what people consider secondary, often confusing primary/secondary with first/third-party or dependent/independent classifications, and being especially clear what a secondary source is on this MOS would help. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  I'm suspecting a terminological and generalization problem. Will address this in another thread.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Question: What would be considered acceptable secondary sources for critical reception, aside from reviews? Seriously. Perhaps it would be more useful to inexperienced editors if you clarify what IS a secondary source as well as what ISN'T. So far, I haven't heard anything convincing enough to make me say, one way or the other, that reviews are/n't secondary sources for critical reception. I am, however, positive that nobody of considerable experience has offered up anything that clearly defines secondary sources we CAN use for critical reception. I would be more certain about the arguments that reviews are/n't secondary if you gave me some specific examples of sources that everyone agrees ARE secondary so that I could compare them and make a decision. However, it seems obvious to me, by the very fact that we are even having this conversation, that Betty is right about the whole thing being debatable, and open to interpretation depending on various circumstances... Huggums537 (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes (RT) and Metacritic (MC) would qualify, as well as any publication that has done a similar assessment (taking multiple reviews into account). Hopefully the example I listed above helps show this. If you are zeroing in on a specific event in a film or discussing an interpretation of the plot, for example, a single review could be used as a secondary source. You would provide counter-viewpoints from other authors that may disagree or see it differently, but they are all secondary sources. When they shift and become primary sources depends on the statement or claim being made. It is open to some interpretation, so yes, it would be difficult to explain all this in a short sentence or two. It would be best to leave a link to WP:NOR or WP:PSTS as opposed to wasting a lot of real estate that can lead to WP:CREEP. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: You are right that RT and MC are secondary sources for a film's reception, but it should be born in mind that in this particular context (where we want to be able to say that a film's critical reputation has evolved over time) RT (and probably also MC, although I don't really know it so well) is not usually very helpful. And the link should definitely be to NOR, not PSTS, since linking the latter would lead to ... exactly the same problem we are having here with every editor who takes us as talking about secondary sources for the films themselves. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually RT and MC should be seen as tertiary sources for the most part - they are not transforming the reviews they source into new thoughts, outside of their calculation of an aggregate score (though one could argue that RT's determination of a review being fresh or rotten is a bit of OR that qualifies as it then being a secondary source). We generally judge the difference between primary and secondary for a source with respect to a topic if that source is making new and transformative claims about the topic - which is exactly what a film review does. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, common sense applies here. A review is obviously going to be a primary source for reception info, but an article talking about reviews is a secondary source. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are the big ones for talking about reviews, but any article that discusses the reception of a film (rather than being a response to the film itself) would be an appropriate secondary source. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep. And a much higher-quality secondary source would be analytic material in a film studies or visual arts journal or academic volume (though some of these also run primary, subjective material).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

User:SMcCandlish, these are interesting suggestions. Do you have specific examples of any journals or academic volumes that currently exist? Huggums537 (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Not right off the top of my head, but there are lots of them; I don't presently have access to any of the WP:LIBRARY-provided freebie journal site access things (forgot to renew those after I was done with cat-related research and some other geekery). In 2009 or 2010 I took a film class for kicks, and ended up doing a paper on works of John Sayles using such journals; the university library had lots of (mostly older) ones on the shelves, and the direct journal-site access there for students provided loads more. I was able to use a dozen+ such sources for the paper (the thesis of which is that he does in fact have an identifiable, consistent style despite various critics saying that he doesn't). Doing a Google search on "film journals", "media studies journals", etc., produces lots of stuff right off the bat, but I don't know which ones might be open-access. There are also quite an lot of academic multi-author books, on particular directors, films, series, etc., even things like Battlestar Galactica and Firefly/Serenity. This isn't much help for articles here on things like The Lego Ninjago Movie, but they're great resources for things like Blade Runner and Chinatown and and other "classics", and on specific people like Joss Whedon or Quentin Tarantino. Some of those books are expensive university textbooks, but can usually be got for a while for free via inter-library loan (I also use that for getting access to insanely pricey veterinary works, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Huggums537: The relevant policy is WP:SYNTH. The problem is that individual reviews are primary sources for the specific claim that a film's reception has changed over time. You are not allowed collect a bunch of reviews yourself and compare the "early" ones with the "recent" ones. The reason we want to link WP:SYNTH is precisely to help users see the connection there. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The acid test is this: if you can summarise a film's overall reception using a single source then it is probably a secondary source, and those are the types of sources we seek. Rotten Tomatoes does this, Metacritic does this, even though they may arrive at different conclusions. On the other hand if a summary of the film's reception is sourced to multiple reviews then it is almost certainly synthesised and dependent on primary sources, and that is what we wish to avoid. Individual reviews should only be used to support individual opinions about the film, and they should be used in conjunction with WP:DUE to ensure they are representative of general sentiments. Betty Logan (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you to GoneIn60 for providing specific examples. I noticed that we still seem to be relying solely on reviews as sources even if they may be aggregated ones like RT and MC. However, I intentionally asked for sources aside from reviews, but it's almost like we have no other viable alternatives for sources. I think it's important to recognize this dependence on the reviews since we may start to view the reviews somewhat differently when we realize they're all we have, and all we've really talked about so far. Take note that a modification to the general guidelines in order to make a change that would essentially affect nothing else except "the reviews" might be considered inappropriate. I will say that I agree with Hijiri, Betty, and others that you are not allowed to take multiple sources and compile them yourself to synthesise material. But, that is a very easy to understand rule that currently has significant coverage on Wikipedia. I seriously doubt anybody is foolish enough to try to use this MOS guideline to synthesise multiple reviews, and in the very unlikely event that they do, they will be reverted soon enough. Huggums537 (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Betty has the right point here. There is no question that we desire a singular secondary source that compiles multiple film reviews into an overall summary of how the film was broadly received, but this is highly exception to actually find such a source. (RT and MC focus more on numbers and don't go into the detail we'd like to see). So we do engage in synthesis to compile a more cohesive picture of the film's reception because we lack that ideal source. This synthesis can be afoul of NOR if not done carefully, hence why adherence to WP:DUE, as well as using what would be considered the most respected/top-tier reviewers as a standard set, helps to avoid this synthesis from becoming problematic. (For me, this is why when I do reception sections, I wait until I can lay out all the top-tier reviews side by side so that I know I'm summarizing common themes and criticism/praise to those , rather than piecemealing it bit by bit). It is not the ideal, but it is really all that we have for 99% of films. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: "we desire a singular secondary source that [is actually secondary], but this is highly exception to actually find such a source." Very true, and just too bad. The same is true of secondary sourcing for many things (e.g. bios of academics), and we just have to live with it, and very, very carefully work around it a little, but the fact remains that there will necessarily be things we'd like to include that we can't due to lack of sourcing. People will have to write and read such material somewher else. "I desperately want there to be an article on [insert random movie here], and desperately want to inject some spin on its reception, because being complete and informative about this film is just so very important" is no excuse. While I know you're not arguing for such an excuse, it sure seems to be in the air, and to any extent we do not shoot that idea on sight we're enabling it. I respect the fact that you understand and are careful about the synthesis – in a sharply limited sense – that we all have to perform to convert piles of source material into encyclopedic prose, and can help articulate how it differs from the novel synthesis prohibited by WP:SYNTH. Many editors cannot seem to grasp the difference, and either wander into SYNTH all the time, or are at the opposite extreme, and fight tooth and nail against encyclopedic writing on the basis that, if you boil it down, it isn't borderline plagiarized. This, too, is a problem in how WP:NOR is written. I've largely given up trying to have a direct impact on the wording there; the cadre of regulars seem unwilling or unable to see the issues or do anything about them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Time to recognize Style sections as one of the Secondary contents?

There are FAs (Mulholland Drive (film) and Barton Fink) and the odd GA (Annie Hall) that feel the need the employ a Style section separate and apart from a (now conventional) Themes/Themes and interpretation section or Production sections. Sometimes it makes a lot of sense- some information/analysis of the writing and visual style will come from filmmakers themselves, some from critics, some from film scholars, making it a poor fit for the Production/Filming section(s); some of it doesn't exactly fit under the rubric of "themes". A standard, generic film like The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (a GA) wouldn't need this, but sometimes, the style is such a standout feature that it would be hard to do minimal research while expanding a film article without finding commentary on the style. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing "banning" anyone from creating such a section when appropriate. But by your own kind of oddly worded argument ("a standard, generic film ... wouldn't needed this"), it wouldn't usually be appropriate, thus not a standard section. It's actually quite difficult to do such a section properly, because most of the source material is primary, personal opinion. The last thing we should do is encourage people to add such a section to the average film article as a standard, expected section.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of items in Secondary contents that don't apply to every film- you think every film article will need Historical and scientific accuracies, Adaptation from source material, or even Soundtrack? (Editors of silent film articles would have a tough time with Soundtrack sections). And every single type of section in any type of article has the potential to attract primary, personal opinion, hence why guidelines exist to help editors to avoid it. So your point, aside from belligerently calling me odd and misquoting me about "banning" sections, would be.... ? Ribbet32 (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Gotta agree with SMcC here, as well. Covering this separately doesn't seem particularly important. Ribbet, maybe if you elaborated on what exactly you would like to add to the guideline?

And FWIW, accusing other editors of "misquoting" you because they put a word in scare-quotes is somewhat uncivil, and is seldom if ever helpful. Especially when done in the same breath as misquoting the person you say is misquoting you ("[you made a] kind of oddly worded argument" =/= "you are odd").

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

("if you elaborated on what exactly you would like to add to the guideline")- obviously, because I want to tear down and destroy Wikipedia. Or maybe- hard to fathom- I have a good faith desire to see MOS assist editors in expanding articles with references and add information useful for readers to understand the subject, because as I wrote, "sometimes, the style is such a standout feature that it would be hard to do minimal research while expanding a film article without finding commentary on the style", and that critics and film scholars do write about this, and FAs have included this. If you want to make an argument that this would he helpful to only a very small number of articles, fine, but it's disappointing other editors don't want to discuss the possibility, or don't want to discuss without resorting to ad hominems and ignoring the existence of secondary sources. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

obviously, because I want to tear down and destroy Wikipedia. Or maybe- hard to fathom- I have a good faith desire... Please read WP:SARCASM, and bear in mind that it's meant as satire. Please behave in a more civil manner -- no one is attacking you here, despite your belief that SMcC is behaving "belligerently" and I am accusing you of trying to tear down and destroy Wikipedia. I am not sure if you are just trying and failing to insert humour into this discussion, but if you are seriously elevating the wiki-tension because that is something you are apt to do, you should know that I have seen users get blocked for far less than the above.

because as I wrote, "sometimes, the style is such a standout feature that it would be hard to do minimal research while expanding a film article without finding commentary on the style" So, is that the text you propose be added to the guideline? It doesn't seem particularly problematic to me on its face, but it seems way too short to get its own subheading. Currently, the shortest subsection under "Secondary content" (that doesn't have a "Main page" link) is MOS:FILM#Adaptation from source material, which is 138 words.

If you want to make an argument that this would he helpful to only a very small number of articles, fine Did I say that? No, I said that SMcC had said that, and that your responding the way you did was not helpful.

but it's disappointing other editors don't want to discuss the possibility No, you just didn't make a make a concrete proposal, even in your third comment after you had been explicitly asked to make one. You instead responded to that request with sarcasm.

or don't want to discuss without resorting to ad hominems What? As far as I can see, you are the only one here making ad hominem remarks.

and ignoring the existence of secondary sources You didn't cite any secondary sources. You cited three Wikipedia articles, two of which include standalone sections on "Style", but also include standalone sections on "Genre", "Characters" and/or "Sources, inspirations, and allusions" (meaning that those topics are clearly such that, even if one interpreted MOS as a hard-and-fast "rule" that "banned" sections it didn't explicitly encourage, their articles would be cases of WP:IAR); the third, strictly speaking, has a standalone section on "Style and technique", which does not form a common pattern with the other two (which, as demonstrated, already treat MOS:FILM as the flexible guideline it is meant to be anyway).

By the way: Your username looked vaguely familiar so I checked our interactions. I hadn't the faintest recollection of your involvement in that 2013 incident, but if you are still angry at me over my somewhat "frustrated" behaviour there ... well, I apologize. I was under a lot of stress, inflicted on me over the course of almost a month by the other user whose side you took in that dispute, and if you look at their block log you will see that they were site-banned for harassing me not long after.

If, on the other hand, you have no idea what I am talking about, and the above is simply how you respond to every random third-party who comes in and makes suggestions in response to your proposals on PAG pages, then I would have to ask you to stop and read both WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA (specifically the bit about Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ribbet: I'm sorry that my giving you the standard DS notification came across as "escalation". I just meant to warn you that you were editing in a particularly contentious area where comments like the ones you posted above are even more dangerous than on most of the project. Dangerous for you: I thought I was doing you a favour by telling you.

Anyway, I guess if you want to disengage here without elaborating on exactly what text you want added to the MOS, then this thread can be closed, but I'll leave that for someone else to do.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Feedback request over at Wikifilm

I would like some more input at my Wikiproject film discussion which can be found here Thank you. --Deathawk (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Harvard referencing style for AV media

Does anybody know if AV references (i.e. audio commentary, featurettes) can be utilized with the Harvard referencing style, often found on offline refs such as books, magazines? SLIGHTLY^mad 06:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a variation of the citation template found here: {{Cite AV media}}. Does that help? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It depends how exactly you want them to look. I used a mixture of short footnotes and Harvard referencing for the David Gregory citations at Don't_Look_Now#cite_note-Gregory_.282002.29-19. It's a bit fiddly to do but possible. Betty Logan (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Betty, I was thinking of something akin to what you used with the Mark Sanderson citations, except instead of pages, they are time stamps. SLIGHTLY^mad 14:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the template I linked above has "minutes" and "time" (or "time-caption") parameters for this purpose. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

He's talking about the short footnote system. Even if you use AV media for the main bibliographic reference (which the Don't Look Now article does use incidentally) you still need a Harvard citation to link to it. You can use the {{sfn}} with timestamps, but instead of "pp=10–15" you can use "loc=10 minutes" instead (see [3]), which should give you a timestamp instead of a page number (see [4]). Betty Logan (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, duh. I get it now. That makes sense. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

"If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly."

Is this guideline ever followed? I've seen very few film or TV articles that didn't rely mostly (almost exclusively) on quotation, and actually the rest of the MOS section assumes quotes to be the default: it is recommended to quote a reasonable balance of these reviews not "to paraphrase (or quote)"; the section should contain quotes translated into English from non-English reviews not "should contain English paraphrases (or translated quotes if paraphrasing is disputed)", even though a "translated quote" is by definition further from the original than an accurate paraphrase in the same language); paraphrase not being mentioned anywhere. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

That wording, in my experience, has to do with a case like a source saying that a film receive "very positive reviews", and an editor writes "critical acclaim" in the Wikipedia article as paraphrasing. That synonymous approach could be challenged by others who consider that wording too much. As for "recommended to quote a reasonable balance", I think that is unintentional. We can change it to say "sample" instead of "quote", since that is what we really mean. The sample can be quoted or paraphrased. Feel free to change that. :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is followed, or WP would have a tiny fraction of the direct quotes it does.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

A suggestion to include about plot details

Something I see frequently for live-action film plot summaries (and to some extend tv, but it's more prevalent in film) is that editors want to call out a specific make/model/name of a prop or building that is completely identifiable without engaging in OR, but has no impact on the plot. This is particularly true with vehicles and guns. There are some clear cases where the vehicle/gun type is fundamental - for example, the Mini Coopers in The Italian Job (either version) - but the example I just found was from Speed that the plane that the bus runs into is called out, despite the make/model not being essential to the film nor made obvious from dialog and text.

I would suggest in the MOS section on plot to add language that editors should only spend the precious few words of a plot summary naming a make or model of some object if that fundamentally drives the plot or is key to the film's development or reception. Example of the latter: it does not matter to the plot of The Wizard that they play Super Mario Bros. 3 in the finale (it could have been any game the characters saw for the first time), but the movie was driven around hyping up the pending release of that game, so clearly it should be named within the plot. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Good point to add, and ties in with WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE policy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree but think it is already covered by WP:PRIMARY, which says for details to be verified "with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". Is it that wide of a problem? I recall dealing with it in the past occasionally but nothing recently. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The fact that it implicates multiple policies is an even better reason to add it. The purpose of a topical guideline like MOS:FILM is explaining how extant policies and guidelines apply to the topic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that Masem's suggestion is partly based on The Walking Dead (TV series) character articles. People love naming whatever guns were involved in a Rick Grimes matter, for example. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)