Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:46, 6 March 2010

Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Misplaced Pages's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Misplaced Pages policies of Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Template:WP Film Sidebar

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Film page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 20 days

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Improving the organization of Plot

This is the proposal. It's better organized and introduces no new content. Any disinterested objections?

Plot summaries are self-contained sections in film articles. They are appropriate to complement wider coverage about the films' production, reception, themes, and other real-world aspects (see WP:PLOT). Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable. WP:PSTS says, "...a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge... Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary. Exceptions to the rule include upcoming films and "lost" films (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors should use secondary sources.

--Ring Cinema (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for it and the original properly puts it in context first, IMHO. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Don't fix what's not broken. Please contribute to film articles themselves; there's a lot to be done and can be done, using the guidelines as they are. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 17:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Should we make an excuse for the existence of the Plot section as if there's some question whether it belongs? I think not, and don't think it's normal or good practice. Should we group together sentences that cover the same topic? Yes, that's good organization. Should we start with the general statement and proceed to the specifics? I think so. It's an extremely simple improvement and Misplaced Pages gets better by making incremental improvements like that. There are other problems with the section but this is an extremely simple improvement. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is against you on these guidelines warranting change. You have contributed very little when it comes to film articles. I strongly encourage you to go build up experience in Misplaced Pages's core activity—editing—before you profess to know how to write guidelines for a WikiProject. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 22:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Erik, I knew when I made this suggestion that you would have a hard time accepting any changes, even though it's just about the most obvious improvement in the paragraph's organization. Some might say that says a lot about you, but not me. This is just how it is on Misplaced Pages. You wrote a paragraph, it wasn't perfect and others come along and offer improvements. That's how it goes here. You have not offered a substantive response to my reasoning, and I assume that means you are unable to think of a good reason not to improve the article's organization. (Neither can I!) In the meantime, the article on Wikiquette is available for rereading if you find the time. Do you need a link to that? Thanks again for all your hard work! --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a need to change it as it is currently written, nor consider the recommended change the "most obvious improvement" to the section. At this point, I'm more concerned about editors actually following the guideline to help improve the thousands of articles that conflict with the guideline. The section doesn't need to be perfect, and it never will be. However, as it currently stands it accurately represents the guidelines accepted through consensus in this project and other areas of Misplaced Pages. I'd say we should now stick to proposed changes to the plot, such as some of the above discussions in previous sections. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

When you say "the section doesn't need to be perfect" I take that as an acknowledgement that it can be improved. I agree. What would you say is the most obvious improvement? At the time Erik's somewhat disorganized draft was accepted, it was mentioned that it would be subject to editing like every other article on Misplaced Pages in the future. Fortunately, my proposal doesn't alter the content in any way so no issue of accuracy is involved. In fact, improving the organization of the lead paragraph on the Plot section might improve people following the guideline...? There's a chance. Apparently the main argument against editing an article on Misplaced Pages is that editing should not be done on Misplaced Pages articles. Is that how Misplaced Pages works? I'm still looking for someone to say that the current draft is better organized than my revision. I haven't heard that yet, so I'm pretty sure that my rather obvious improvement is in fact better organized. Hearing no objections, I assume at this point there is no doubt about that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Nehrams meant to say that we can keep shifting the words around and still achieve the same effect. There is no Featured Guidelines status for which to nominate it, but its meaning suffices for editors of film articles. Speaking of which, there is much work to be done in the mainspace, particularly outside film articles' complementary plot summaries. Please, I encourage you to do some actual editing and quit wasting our time. Erik (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Your version is not "better organized" nor does the current version introduce any new content. As Erik said, surely there are better things to do with your time than starting an argument over something so ridiculously minor. If, as you say, your version doesn't change the meaning, then why change it at all? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This section could use more reorganization than just the first paragraph. RC, you're starting your text with formatting instructions. I don't think that's better than starting with a justification for having the summary in the first place. The "right" way to start the section would be to say what a plot summary is before trying to discuss it. Right now, that's the first sentence of the third paragraph: "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events." The second sentence should state the summary's purpose. Also, discussion of the summary's content is buried in paragraphs 2 (complications) and 3 (details and spoilers). That should be consolidated, and the link to HTWAPS should be moved to the end of the section instead of being buried in the middle. —Codrdan (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right, and since my small edit was criticized as too trivial, I'll take up a more serious reorganization as soon as time permits. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Metacritic's so-called "normalized" scores

Editors are copying each other's mistaken interpretation of Metacritic's use of the term "normalize", resulting in an increasing number of film articles that are, to put it simply, very misleading about how exactly Metacritic scores are calculated.

Editors have linked several articles, supposedly "explaining" the concept of "normalize", include Normal, Standard score, and Normal distribution. None of these articles actually describe what Metacritic does in its statistical calculation. In fact, Metacritic itself provides very little explanation. Metacritic gives an analogy of "curving grades". When a teacher "curves" grades, that does not mean that the grades a standardized by placing them on a normal distribution curve, such that 68% of the class scores between the mean and one standard deviation on either side of the mean. If that was true, the normalized grades would always result in 2% of the class making an A grade and 2% always making an F grade. That's not the case. If you've ever had a grade curved, you simply had an increased score because the teacher added a constant number of points to all scores to offset a very low average score. That has nothing to do with "normalizing" the scores.

Absolutedly no evidence that I know of has been provided on Misplaced Pages about how specifically Metacritic converts its scores. In the absence of that, adding the word "normalized" (and especially a link to a statistical concept) is adding false information. Another term needs to be used. A "composite" score might work because it's vague in terms of how the scores are combined. But definitely not "normalize". Anyone who has taken an elementary statistics course knows that. Thank you. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

For all, Metacritic explains its process here and seems to explain it in detail. I am aware that a specific presentation of the metascore has proliferated. It is something like this: "At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film has received an average score of 49 based on 37 reviews." Maybe the key phrase we should use instead of "normalize" is "weighted average". What do others think? Erik (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, although I would disagree somewhat that Metacritic explains its procedure in detail. "Weighted average", in my opinion, is acceptable because the specifics of weighting (or any other aspect of the calculations) are not stated or implied as in the case of "normalize". 71.77.20.26 (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem! Thank you for bringing up the matter here. Let's have other editors weigh (no pun intended) in about this. If there is consensus to revise the language accordingly, we should be able to locate the wording since it's been consistent. Erik (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for finally bringing this up in a discussion, instead of edit waring. As I stated in my edit summary, that is what Metacritic calls it "normalized"., and they also call the scoring a weighed-average. I think the mini-consensus to change it was brought on the Avatar talk page. Btw, I did assume good faith with your first reversion, the second I did not, as my patience are quite low with IPs. Which I agree is something I need to work on, but as it stands, my patience is just flat out low for nameless users for obvious reasons. I'm sorry you felt I was biting you, but it is considered "disruptive" to keep reverting someone's edit without discussing it. Thank you. —Mike Allen 21:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike, I think that we may put too much emphasis on "normalized". Judging from Metacritic's page, the key term we should use is "weighted average". Let's make sure we can agree on the wording. It may just be a matter of replacing a string of words with another. 100 film articles use this wording; see this. Erik (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree Erik. And apology accepted MikeAllen, although you made another attack by accusing me of edit warring, which I did not. In any event, this is not the venue for personal issues, so let's move on. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, there probably are many more than 100 articles that use some variation of the wording. For example if you search using "normalized rating out of 100 to reviews", you get 356 articles. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree, we need more discussion. In my notes, I have for RT is "with a ]". However, MC and RT score differently. So do we put for MC "which assigns a ] rating"? Isn't that too eggy? —Mike Allen 22:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No. "Normalized" needs to be left out altogether, regardless of whether Metacritic uses the term. If I call a bologna sandwich a steak, that doesn't make it a steak. We may need to discuss in more detail about the specific wording, but "normalized" is simply wrong. As I said, anyone who has had a stat course knows that. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike, you should link to average, not weighted mean. For Metacritic, we can link to weighted mean (interchangeable with "weighed average") and exclude normalization-related wording. As for the 356 articles, you could edit these articles that do not fall under WikiProject Films, but you may want to check with these other WikiProjects first. In the meantime, when it comes to films, I am okay with the update and notified other editors about this ongoing discussion. Erik (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

My notes have been updated accordingly. I will look into those articles a little later, after I finish updating the just released film articles. —Mike Allen 23:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me use the example Hancock (film) here because I think it was one of the first to use this language. I would also like to verify the wording for Rotten Tomatoes, since it is usually paired with Metacritic. Currently, the article says, "Rotten Tomatoes reported that 40% of critics gave the film positive reviews based upon a sample of 209, with an average score of 5.4 out of 10. At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film has received an average score of 49 based on 37 reviews." My suggested revision:

Rotten Tomatoes reported that 40% of 209 sampled critics gave the film positive reviews and that it got a rating average of 5.4 out of 10. At Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average score out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film received an average score of 49 based on 37 reviews.

The websites are not italicized per MOS, and I tried to streamline the writing in general. Thoughts? Erik (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks fine to me; I'll take your word for it that it's using the right term now. :-) Maybe we should take this as a slight warning not to copy quite so freely when a useful-seeming bit of wording comes up (rest assured I'm just as guilty, if not the most guilty, for its dissemination). Steve  23:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The example above by Erik looks good to me, and statistically speaking, I don't see any problems. Thanks Erik. 71.77.20.26 (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Full cast listings

What should we do with cast lists containing every actor in the film, including bit parts such as "Passerby #2"? Are these roles really notable enough to be included in the film's article? I moved the cast list for My Sassy Girl (2008 film) into a separate page, but someone moved it back to the main page for the film. —Codrdan (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A full cast listing is too indiscriminate to include in an encyclopedic article. A listing should contain mostly the major roles, usually figures that are key in the film's progression. Erik (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe someone could add that to the film guideline? —Codrdan (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

While WP:FILMCAST is old, I think this applies: "...a cast list inserted into the body of the article may be appropriate, though some editors frown on lists inside articles. It should be longer than the list in the infobox, and, depending on the number of minor characters in the film, can be furnished with a dozen or more credits." Erik (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't address excessive length or bit parts. There should be some guidance to distinguish between small but significant roles vs. walk-ons. —Codrdan (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

National Designation

The White Ribbon has been identified as a German, Austrian, French, and Italian film. The latter two seem kind of incorrect to me but the justification is that some or all producers are French/Italian. I don't see a guideline on this issue. If a French citizen works on a German movie, that to me doesn't make it a French film. I could come up with exceptions, but what's a reliable source for something like this? --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it was taken from IMDb , and I don't how they determine (or whoever submitted it, lol) what country the film is. —Mike Allen 05:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, going by here, the top four production companies are: German, (Wega Film has "", I assume that stands for Austria?), France and Italy. That's how they came to that conclusion. What I understand is that this is the correct way to identify the "country" for the film and those counties should be listed in the infobox. A user name Betty brought this up in the past, but I don't remember where. —Mike Allen 05:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. This is not the method used by the AMPAS. It flies in the face of common sense. A Fellini film is Italian, a Spielberg film American, no matter who financed it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. So many films are international co-productions now that it often becomes almost meaningless to identify their "nationality" by looking at the production companies. The main considerations should include the lead production company, nationality of key non-acting personnel (director, writer, producer), principal country of filming, and to an extent language. It can't be made on any one alone - if Fellini had for some bizarre reason been hired to direct The Ladykillers it would still be very much a British film. Barnabypage (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Putting Production before Plot

In the guidelines, Plot is the first section after Lead, and this is how most articles are then written. However, it feels more logical for articles to be written with the Production before the Plot, as the production comes first, and gives the essential background information. The Production details put the Plot into context. It can feel a little disorienting going straight into a story synopsis without the grounding of who, what, where and why. The Plot is the fictional universe, while the Production is the encyclopedic details which structure the fictional universe. When writing the Lead, the basic production details are foregrounded over plot - we get the year of the film, the director, the stars, the book (if any) the film was based on, the production company, etc. We might get the theme or basic idea of the plot, but the actual plot details tend to only come in the second paragraph. It seems logical that the body of the article should also follow the sequence of the lead.

With articles about TV series, production sometimes comes before plot, with albums, the production always comes before any discussion of the music, and with literature the publishing background comes before the plot. It tends only to be in film articles that the plot nearly always comes first.

What objections are there to having the guidelines reorganised so that Production is placed before Plot? SilkTork * 00:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose such a change. The Plot puts the production and everything else in context, and all media articles that are properly following their MoS put it as the first section, including television, novels, and anime/manga - those that do not should be corrected, rather than trying to change the guideline to reflect outliers. The Plot is the summary of the What it is. Production is How it it was done. You can't talk about how without first talking about what. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the plot can be needed for context on the production (Filming the eruption of the volcano was fraught with danger) but it's less obvious how production details could be needed to understand the plot. This is assuming, of course, that people read from beginning to end. Having said that, anything truly remarkable about the production should be in the lead (see Russian Ark for a salient example) and I'd certainly support any tendency toward drastically reducing the length of plot sections. Barnabypage (talk)

(edit conflict) I disagree with this logic. People who go see movies do not learn about the production before they do. Knowing the story comes first. Once readers know the story, whether they have seen the film or not, they can delve into how that story was created and how it was received. Erik (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I would third that. The lede gives the quick summary, then the plot lets readers know what the film is about and the production would likely reference plot points or characters. With the plot moved down it would mean references to plot points would be in the wrong order. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This is what the Table of Contents are for. —Mike Allen 01:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The proposal should be received with a little more generosity. It's not the least bit obvious which way is better and those who claim it's clear one way or the other demonstrate mental ossification more than insight. It shouldn't be overlooked that the Plot section belongs in a reference article perhaps not at all. If there was one section to dispense with, Plot would be the first to go. It might improve the film articles quite a bit to leave it out and let people do the watching for the story. For reference purposes, staffing sections count the most, so there's definitely something of merit in SilkTork's thought. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to advocate doing away with the Plot section, but I do have some sympathy with your comment. No regular section in a film article causes me to roll my eyes and skip as much as a Plot section. I've always felt this should be an extremely brief one-paragraph summary just to give the idea what the film is about, and that, like everything else on Misplaced Pages, it should be cited to a reliable source. Dekkappai (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not advocating that Plot should go. I love working on them, that's why I can talk. When editors act like their own drafts are too good to change I roll my eyes (no, Erik, I'm not talking about you!). But since I love doing Plot sections I can take the contrary case with a bit more credibility. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, we're getting off the main point here (which I don't care about-- above or below, I can see either way, depending on the article)... But to me the plot sections are usually too long, with too much detail, and, worst of all, not sourced, and therefore very prone to sneaky, difficult-to-find vandalism. Dekkappai (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there's some truth to what you say. To some extent it's the nature of the beast. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sneaky, difficult-to-find vandalism can happen in passages with inline citations, especially if it is an offline source. Plot summaries are already sourced; the basic description comes from the primary source, the film itself, and information to locate it is in the lead section and the infobox. WP:FILMPLOT says to use secondary sources for disputable aspects of the plot or if the film is not accessible by the public. I do consider the section of little importance, though... many editors spend too much time worrying about that section than any other section. I'd bet good money the "Plot" section is the most edited section of most film articles. My impression is that if one writes a solid non-plot section, it can stand the test of time pretty well. In contrast, editors are forever fine-tuning the "Plot" section. In any case, I oppose any rule to have "Production" before "Plot". I believe most people agree with the flow that starts with "Plot". The order of sections in the guidelines is what is usually seen, but nowhere does it say that it has to be in that order. Sometimes "Themes" goes above "Production", sometimes it doesn't. But as I explained earlier, I don't think there is a compelling reason to move "Plot" down. Erik (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think this type of vandalism is as easy to sneak into a section is sourced. That's the whole point behind sourcing. I've seen ISPs change things like "blue" to "red", or such, in a Plot section and had no idea whether that was accurate or not. Offline sources? A bit more difficult to locate, but still much more feasible than watching even a readily-available film to check one specific edit. "Film as primary source" works (sort of) when you're dealing with mainstream, widely-available films, but not with more obscure films, which may not be readily available for viewing by any editor. Dekkappai (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Erik you make a good point that custom and practice are fairly well established on these matters. Any institution is based as much on practice as on rules. But when there is too much tension between the two problems can arise. Dekkappai's thoughts are serious. As a matter of principle, there is not really a good reason why Plot is the exception in matters of sourcing. Everything you say about sourcing of Plot could be said about any number of matters that we'd naturally insist on a source to accept (if challenged). Essentially your argument is "you don't have to take my word for it, just watch the film." Well, that is a little less sourced than is commonly expected. Not that I'm saying there should be a change. But the tension is there and where possible the tension should be ameliorated. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I get the impression there is no consensus for this. Is there enough interest to maintain a discussion? I would rather not get into a discussion on should there be a Plot section at all, or the sourcing of that section. I am interested in seeing if there's enough support to continue a discussion on should Production come before Plot in the guideline. SilkTork * 15:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm new to the project but generally opposed to this idea due to how people use the movie pages on Wiki (while acknowledging MikeAllen's statement about the TOC). I could be way off base, of course, but it seems that most are looking for a somewhat detailed plot summary before they want to know much else about a movie, particularly if they are coming here as opposed to looking up reviews or checking the cast list on IMDB. But like I said, that might just be me, so I could have it all backwards. It wouldn't ruin my day if it WAS changed, or anything. Millahnna (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Millahna is right about Misplaced Pages's purpose to film article seekers and I do believe that, while disagreements will inevitably arise, there is a general consensus to leave the plot before the production section. This would be both for the benefit of the reader and for clarity of context, as Collectonian put it, to explain the "what" before the "how". Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Because we include spoilers I don't think this is the place people look for a plot summary. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that's part of what I was thinking when I said that it might just be me who uses this site for that. For movies I haven't seen that I actually care about not being spoiled on, I typically read the first paragraph or two to get a better sense of what the movie is about (to decide if I'm going to watch it) since the IMDB plot summaries are mostly useless for that sort of thing. Honestly, a lot of times I just read the whole thing, spoilers and all. But often I'm looking at summaries for movies I've already seen and then I'm still typically here for the plot as opposed to anything else. And like I said, maybe my usage is not the norm. Too bad we can't poll users. I'd be happy to go with whichever layout made the most sense for the most people. Millahnna (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

> I typically read the first paragraph or two

If you're interested in commenting about Misplaced Pages:How to write a plot summary, this is a good reason to put a line in saying that spoilers should be mentioned as late in the summary as possible, and definitely not in the introductory paragraph. —Codrdan (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I would challenge the statement that inclusion of "spoilers" means that we're not the place where readers seek out film plot summaries. I would say that exactly because we don't consider ourselves bound by hiding "spoilers" do readers use Misplaced Pages for plot summary information. "Teasers" can be found on websites of studios, distributors and production companies. It really is the responsibility of the reader to understand the difference and know where to look for different types of information. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I find Millahnna's point quite compelling. We should gear Misplaced Pages to be the most useful to the most readers without compromising our standards, and Plot is quite possibly what most readers are mainly interested in from the evidence of what most gets edited the most ! I will take this off my watchlist. SilkTork * 18:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect plot sections are only so heavily edited because no research or knowledge is required other than having seen the movie. I wouldn't confuse that with reader interest! Barnabypage (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Right-- heavy editing only indicates that the section is popular with editors. And, as you point out, since it's the only area of WP (that I'm aware of) which requires no sourcing, just the personal knowledge of the editor, it's a magnet for easy editing. As a reader I almost always skip over a plot section more than a paragraph or so long. If I've seen the movie, it's redundant, and if I haven't seen it... I don't want to spoil the surprise. But of course I don't recommend doing away with the section, because, obviously, some people do use it, and I'm against unnecessarily removing useful information, even if I don't personally care for it. Dekkappai (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Dekkappai by and large. I don't see the argument that the inclusion of spoilers is a plus. It's just something that's consistent with completeness, for good or ill. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of spoilers is a different debate. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If I see a film then look it up on Misplaced Pages the first thing I do it check the plot, if it is too long I try to trim it, if it is the pre-release plot and or is missing the ending then I put them in. The plot deserves to be comprehensively covered, and even for films I haven't seen I will still take a look at the plot. As for "it needs a source", it doesn't, other than the film itself. Sure people will vandalise and change details but that's what rollback was invented for, adding sources won't stop that, even fully sourced sections get vandalised. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. IPs are also great at finding/fixing those minor details (blue vs red, etc). —Mike Allen 17:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Cast in Infobox

Is there a guideline I'm missing somewhere I could read about the cast list in the infobox specifically (have read all cast discussion on this page)? I stumbled onto an editor who was adding the "with," "and," introducing," & "featuring" types of denotations to cast sections in infoboxes. I'm assuming good faith because the edits generally matched the listings from each film's credits but did fix as many as I could find. I double checked his history for similar problems, which is how I discovered many freakishly long infobox cast lists. I was hoping to find a guideline covering length and style. I read our cast list and infobox sections but didn't feel either offered the clarity I was looking for. Is this something that has been left vague(ish) intentionally so as to allow for a case-by-case evaluation? It seems like we could provide more guidelines and still allow for that discretion, unless I have in fact missed something in my searching. Millahnna (mouse)talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC).

No such clarifications should be added. The template instructions itself notes the cast list should be name<br>name<br>etc. Such notes as "with", "and", and "featuring" are inappropriate and only clutter the box. I've clarified this in the template documentation. There have also been at least two recent discussions regarding cast lists which emphasized the consensus is that they should contain only the major players in a work, not the entire cast. The latter is already noted in the template instructions, but I've gone ahead and added a note here as well (may need grammar tweaking). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the clarifications to the instructions. That is exactly what I was looking for. If I find myself on another reverting spree I'll point it out to people. I thought I had read the "major players only" discussion somewhere but I'll be darned if I can track it down now, other than the brief references in above conversations (movie poster, good description). Time to reorganize my Wikihelp bookmarks, methinks. Millahnna (mouse)talk 14:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Collectonian mentions the infobox in How many actors in Cast section?. I would avoid using the word "cast" for the infobox. Since the section is called "Starring", it should only include the film's top stars. —Codrdan (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've mentioned this before but it deserves repeating: the honorific "starring" is frequently bestowed on actors who are not major actors in a movie. So if we say we're limiting it to "starring" roles, the movie credits usually can be a source for more expansive listings. Non-stars often get starring credit. That's why I have proposed "above the title plus three" for the infobox. I'm pretty sure it's the best standard except in cases where the listing is alphabetical (e.g. Woody Allen's movies). "Above the title + 3" means include actors listed above the title in the credits or poster plus the first three below the title. This gives a good sense of how much the infobox should have. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree as the credits are frequently in "order of appearance" and there is little consistency in how the credits are done in films. Using the poster or DVD/Home Media cover is more consistent and will generally have the major players in any film. Alternatively, we can go by what's listed in various reviews, but I think the poster/home media works better. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. You're right, "in order of appearance" is another important exception to consider. All these things need to be taken into account. Posters present problems with consistency and verifiability; they are not permanent or as widely, universally disseminated as the film's credits are. That's a substantial advantage in the context of sourcing consistently. Similarly with packaging: inconsistent and subject to change when a particular actor's career takes off or tanks (Shelley Long, OJ Simpson). We will have a better foundation if we work off the film instead of some marketing guy's latest fantasy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

> I'm pretty sure is the best standard

I can guarantee you that no simple numerical rule will ever be "best" in terms of accuracy. Separate Tables (film) is a good example of why. It has five stars, all listed before the title, and all of the remaining actors are in a "with" page after the title, clearly labeling them as supporting cast. —Codrdan (talk) 12:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, though. No single standard works for all cases. But for a standard, a guide, a starting place, "above the title plus three" is the best on offer. It's child's play to find exceptions, but that's not the point. The minute we abandon a numerical standard the door is opened for a large number of special pleadings that will over time bloat the infobox. And if there's one thing I don't want to see, it's a bloated infobox. Thanks a lot for your thoughts, which are as ever extremely valuable. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're confusing "standard" with "maximum". If all you're worried about is listing non-stars as stars, then it would be simpler and fairer to just limit the number to half a dozen or fewer, regardless of whether the actors are billed before the title or after. That way non-starring actors wouldn't be listed as stars simply because the real stars of the film were billed before the title, and real stars wouldn't be left out in films where all the actors are listed after the title. I'm glad you call the numerical rule a "starting place", because I thought from your earlier posts on this subject that you were recommending a "one size fits all" approach. Most films provide clues about who the "real" stars are, so I would avoid relying on numerical rules except in situations like the ones you mentioned, where the number of "stars" is more than some reasonable maximum. —Codrdan (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As a practical matter, "AT+3" works well. Unless there's a good reason, it would be wrong to leave out an actor listed above the title. With smaller films, it's usually good to include some below the title. A mixed solution is in order. Your approach is an invitation to continual tugs of war that are a waste of time. Special pleadings abound for reasons that are obvious. If I had to choose between an annoying tug of war with a rookie editor who might even be on someone's payroll or going by a number, I'll take the number. No harm is done by that. If Separate Tables has more than the usual number, c'est la vie. I still haven't heard a better standard and you haven't proposed one. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

> I still haven't heard a better standard

I disagree, and I would rather "waste" time trying to make things better than impose a crude, simple-minded solution on something as complex as the film-making industry. Have a nice day, RC. —Codrdan (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop signs are for intersections that would be unnavigable without them. Summaries are essential when dealing with a complex situation. Conventions and practices are alternatives to rules. When you get over your petulance, come back with a workable answer. Then there'll be something to discuss. Many thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no petulance, RC. I just think your suggestion is misguided. See the new section for my answer(s). —Codrdan (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

OK considering this conversation, and in the interest of figuring this out, what on earth should I do with Heat? My instinct is to cut it to Al, Val an DeNiro, plus maybe three like someone else suggested. But when you get to everyone else it all comes down to a subjective case of who is more notable. For me that would be Fitchner, Portman, Haysbert, and Sizmore (maybe with a side of Voight) because I know those actors better. Someone else may know others better or go by relative importance to the main plot of the movie. Either way that thing needs some slicing. Sin City has the same problem, particularly because of the nature of the movie itself. My instinct on that one would be the lead for each storyline plus one or two of the bad guys (I'd probably go with Wood, Hauer, and Stahl). Or maybe in that case it's really appropriate to leave it as is. I don't feel like it is but I'm new; what do I know. Millahnna (mouse)talk 21:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that the credits are neither alphabetical nor in order of appearance, which three are mentioned first after the title in the credit sequence of the film? --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for working with me on this. Erik hit up Heat literally seconds after I posted and dropped it down to the main three; I haven't seen that movie in years so I can't recall how the credits went. His rationale was that they are introduced in the article lead as being the stars and everyone is in the article's cast section. Sin City does an alpha sort in both beginning and end credits. Which is part of my reasoning above. Personally, I would go with Bruce Willis (possibly also Jessica Alba), Clive Owen, Mickey Rourke definitely (main protagonists). Nick Stahl would be a definite on the antagonists end of things; I'd probably go with Elijah Woods and Benicio Del Toro if adding one for each vignette. But again, it's a case of the subjective for movies with ensemble casts and even more so because of the nature of the film itself (5 vignettes, three large plot lines, one teeny one). Millahnna (mouse)talk 22:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you got what you need. Erik's take is probably sensible -- he seems to know the film well, although his reasoning might be somewhat OR. Sin City is a little bit sticky, isn't it. Personally, I think there's not one right way. I would say Alba, Owen, Rourke, Del Toro, Willis and Rosario Dawson deserve mention given the nature of the film, which is more ensemble than most. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

How many stars in infobox?

Since this subject has been discussed in both How many actors in Cast section? and Cast in Infobox, maybe it would help to consolidate the discussion in its own section. Here are some possible guidelines that might be used to decide how many actors should be called the "stars" of any particular film:

• Stars are supposed to be the key characters in a story, so there shouldn't be any more than about six. (The numerical maximum could even be as low as four.)
• Actors listed on or before the title screen are stars (up to the numerical max).
• Actors who are listed both after the title screen and after or below the word "with" are not stars. (The same may apply to the word "featuring" and even phrases like "also starring".)
• Listing actors before the title has more to do with the actors' fame or the director's whim than their roles in the film, so the numerical maximum should apply to the total number of stars, independent of whether they're billed before or after the title. Separate Tables (film) is an unusual example: Five actors are billed before the title, and all of the actors after the title are under the word "with".
• A young or newly discovered actor who is listed last, with "introducing" or some other special comment before his or her name, is probably a star, and at a minimum shouldn't be ruled out. The Parent Trap, Three Smart Girls, Fail-Safe (1964 film), and Girls' Dormitory are examples.
• If the number of key characters is agreed to be more than the max, the infobox should say "ensemble" instead of listing them.

—Codrdan (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The criteria is excessive, and we need to avoid instruction creep. This is one of multiple fields in an infobox, and the basic criteria is people who star in the film. Number of names will depend on the film and the primary editor(s), and as long as the listed names in "Starring" makes some kind of sense, it's No Big Deal. Erik (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Director's whim has nothing to do with it. The key question is just this: which actors listed below the title should or could go in the infobox? Let's figure that out and the thing is solved. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

e.g., A role larger than one listed above the title. That's definitely a criterion if not definitive.--Ring Cinema (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking about the "and," "with," and "featuring" type of listings specifically; sometimes those are fairly big-name actors in a notable cameo. In what few infox listings I've tried to cleanup, I've sometimes left those in just because of who the actor is, as opposed to the role they played. An example might be Bill Murray in Zombieland (although in that specific case I don't think I would leave him in, so perhaps not a great example). I really like the idea of just saying "ensemble" for the films where that truly is an issue and deferring to the regular cast section. I don't know if there's any precedent for that, though, and it might get too confusing for more casual editors though. Kind of like the issue of internal links for plot sections; there seems to be a great deal of discrepancy for how to approach that and it seems to cause confusion (it's certainly confusing me, heh). Millahnna (mouse)talk 19:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I disagree that a guideline absolutely must be created to deal with this. Additionally, the "above the title" and "below the title" criteria seem quite arbitrary to me. I might be more sympathetic towards some sort of official standardization if it was the case that articles within the scope of our project are experiencing difficulty in continued improvement as a result of a lack of guideline on this issue but that doesn't seem to be the case. I see no need to complicate things by trying too hard to simplify them. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Above the title is an infobox ticket. Pretty rare to find an exception. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What about Valentine's Day? There's 19 actors listed on the poster! I haven't seen it, so I don't know who is "Staring". I've heard that some only had screen time for very few minutes. IMO, this is excessive. —Mike Allen 20:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That movie is not on my radar at all but my understanding is that it's very much ensemble. I may have been misinformed, but perhaps this could warrant that "ensemble" listing idea from above. Millahnna (mouse)talk 21:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't go by posters or boxes. Look at the bottom where the credits are layed out according to the contracts. It's listed Studio / Producer / Director / Title / Actors alphabetically. No actor is above the title there. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

But all the actors are above the title in this poster. —Mike Allen 23:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Mike, you can't go by teaser poster graphics. Look at the bottom of the poster where the credits are done according to their obligations. That's the part that is consistent from poster to poster to film, because it's negotiated. All the actors are after the title. The film credits will reflect this listing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying the everyone that is listed there should be in the infobox under starring? Some people go by that, some people go by the names written right above or below the title (like my first comment), and some go by pictures on the front. So what should we do, watch the film ourselves and determine who is staring? I haven't seen it.. but surely all of them don't have "starring" roles. I think something like this should be made clear in a "guideline", so we don't have to keep discussing it. :) —Mike Allen 00:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, Mike. Everyone is below the title so they're not guaranteed a spot (as I already stated). That's twice in a row where you mischaracterized my view because you didn't pay attention to what I already said. So, one more time: above the title actors belong in the infobox. Below the title some kind of judgment or standard needs to be applied. Thanks for getting that straight the next time. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? There's no reason to be rude about this. God forbid I misunderstand what someone is saying. Do not worry, there will not be a next time. —Mike Allen 03:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm really sorry if I was rude, Mike. I hope I was being factual that you got me wrong. If not, I'm doubly sorry. Thanks for your input. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Mike, I think you will find that when I make a mistake I admit it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Linking guidelines

Tony1 added linking guidelines, but Collectonian reverted the addition. Tony1 has done a lot for Misplaced Pages to improve linking, and I believe his contributions to the film guidelines are worthwhile. I would like to see the linking information restored. What do others think? Erik (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I just felt it should be discussed before being added. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine with what both you and Tony1 did; being bold and all that. On the issue itself, I don't see the change as controversial, and endorse the addition. Perhaps the first part could be tweaked a little to include another way in which the link can be included, in prose; e.g., "X was widely considered the best film of 1999 by the American press ..." Steve  15:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony's addition on linking guidelines should be a benefit to article improvement. I do agree with Steve that some of the material needs to be tweaked although the example of "the best film of 1999" can probably be safely left out since it is exceedingly rare and, thus, likely doesn't require specific instructions. I would suggest a sample lead sentence be somehow incorporated both with and without the proposed link to the "See also" section as well as, perhaps, a short explanation of what a reader should expect to find in the "See also" section. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the "best film of" was just an example; other uses might be "the seventh most successful film of 1999"; "like other films in 1999" and a bunch more. But I've no real opinion one way or the other, so I'm happy with whatever's decided. :-) Steve  16:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Piping "1998 in film" to the plain year "1998" means that no one will ever click on it. The style guides are quite clear about the need to avoid deceptive, or "Easter egg" link pipes. The two methods mentioned are standard ways of improving the linking system. Articles on film do not, I'm afraid, have a good track record on making their "Year in film" links clear and accessible. Tony (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Tony’s additions are common-sense stuff that should have been here long ago. It’s clear that Misplaced Pages’s across-the-board direction with regard to links is to try to use them only if they will truly add to a reader's understanding of the article. If a reader is boning up on thermodynamics, they will be interested to know that internal energy is an article they can read up on. We just clutter up our articles with excessive blue if we link every silly little word, like “invented” just because technology enables us to do so. That’s the first part: link only the valuable stuff.

  The second part in the art of linking is “fair disclosure;” that is, alias them so readers have a clear idea what they will be taken to. Bear in mind that experienced readers of Misplaced Pages learned years ago to never click on links like 1999 because they will be taken to long lists of historical trivia that has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter. Readers should be able to tell at a glance what will happen if they click a link in “There were a number of notable films in 1999.” Clicking links isn’t supposed to be an Easter Egg hunt. If we want “year in architecture” or “year in music” articles to actually be clicked on and read, the last thing we’d ever want to do is make them look like those articles of random historical trivia that have nothing to do with the subject matter at hand. Greg L (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have a question about this approach. In the lead sentence of most film articles, we will see the release year and the major genre(s) mentioned. For example, "Foo is a 2010 American science fiction comedy film." At its most linked, it would be written as, "Foo is a ] ] ] ]." The argument is that these links exist in proper context because all descriptions are related to the film. I ask you and Tony1, what parts of this sentence should be linked or not linked? A current example is the lead sentence at Avatar (2009 film). I've de-linked these, but the links find their way back. Erik (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for (trying to) de-link them, Erik. Two of those aliases: ] ], are especially nasty and unfortunate and do our readers a disservice. They are, IMO, particularly poor examples of technical writing. Nothing a technical writer does should result in needless confusion. These two links would lead many readers to conclude that they will be taken A) in the case of 2010, to a mindless, random, list of historical free-for-all that has nothing to do with film, and B) in the case of American, to an article on the USA; already heard of the place.

  I’m not going to offer any proposed examples of work-arounds since many have already been discussed here and there are clearly sufficient Wikipedians haunting these grounds with enough creativity to figure out how to craft encyclopedic prose with links that sufficiently explain themselves. Tony’s on the right track here, but there seems to be too many editors who resent being told what should be galactically obvious. Greg L (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Greg, you can visit that archived discussion on the Avatar talk page here, if you haven't already. —Mike Allen 01:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, Mike. I agree 100% with what you wrote there. People who like common-sense approaches to things often find broad common ground with others who also like common-sense approaches. Greg L (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

> years should be linked only when there is good reason - i.e., when the link provides the reader with a connection to additional information and context specifically related to the date that is linked.
What is this supposed to mean? All it really says is that the link text (years) should be related to the link destination (information and context specifically related to the date). That's just common linking practice; it says nothing about films. —Codrdan (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I see your point, Codrdan. That text should end with …i.e., the linked article has content that is germane (i.e. “relevant” and “appropriate”) and is topical to the subject. The current text, by definition, pretty much says the date link should take the reader to something related to that date. Can’t go wrong there. “I link, therefore I am.” The principle (notwithstanding it getting mangled here), is that in this example sentence:

…the year should not be linked to the “1956” article (as the above example does) because that article contains nothing whatsoever pertaining to either architecture or Philip Johnson; that is, the target article is not germane to the subject matter at hand. Moreover, if one wants to link to an article like, 1956 in architecture, then editors should alias the link so it’s clear to the reader that they will land on an architectural-related article if they click on the devil. Greg L (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that what Tony1 meant by it? Are you two working together on this text? —Codrdan (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz removed the linking guidelines, wanting consensus. I'm fine with these linking guidelines, and I'm not seeing any resistance about including them. Are there any particular complaints to be had? Erik (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

While there may be merit to the date-links text (given the recent Arbcom resolution to the matter), there is little need to duplicate text from WP:LINK on this page. If it is even necessary at all, a simple link to the guideline would be more appropriate. That would cut down on unnecessary wordiness here, as well as avoiding the possibility of the wording here getting out of sync with potential changes to the actual guideline. --Ckatz_spy 04:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Like Tony1 said, "<year> in film" linking is a problem with film articles, and it helps to be more direct about what should be done. The Easter egg example is not a clear enough one, in my opinion. The reason I asked Greg L the question above is that editors believe that links like to the "<year> in film" article or the "Cinema of <country>" article are okay in the lead sentence because they're characteristics of the film. Erik (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Erik, thanks, but my concerns were with the so-called "common terms" text, not with the "year in film or other date-related matters. --Ckatz_spy 09:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like the text to be written clearly before agreeing to it. It's not even coherent yet. —Codrdan (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here is the text that Ckatz has completely removed, despite the fact that she is the only person who seems to take offence at it. Additions are in green:

Linking dates

Months and days should generally not be linked, and years should be linked only when there is good reason - i.e., when the link provides the reader with a connection to additional information and context specifically related to the date that is linked. The template {{filmyear}}, or {{fy}}, is available to conveniently link to "Year in Film" articles but its use should not be indiscriminate. Generally, it should be used to link release dates of films and other significant film-related events. Consider adding an unpiped link (see Misplaced Pages:Piped link) to the "See also" section instead of piping a plain year in the main text, which may be regarded by many readers as not relevant to the topic. Another alternative is to link only the first relevant year, explicitly and in parentheses, as in "(see 1989 in film)".

Internal links

Generally link only items that most English-speakers will be unfamiliar with. Avoid linking common terms (such as film, screenplay, director, actor), and try to make links specific by section-linking or finding a daughter article that is more relevant to the topic. See WP:LINKING for more information.

Now, does anyone have any suggestions for improving this text? To re-iterate the need for it: film-related articles provide greater-than-normal opportunities to improve wikilinking, particularly WRT dilution with common-term low-value links that have somehow crept in through editors' copying existing practices. Although the advice proposed is nothing new—it's all an extension of style-guide advice—we have much to gain by getting the message through to film editors. Tony (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony, could you answer my earlier question about the first sentence please? Also, what does "the first relevant year" mean? —Codrdan (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The date material, as I mentioned earlier, may be useful. The "internal links" section, however, is not necessary. Instead of cloning sections of an existing guideline into this guideline (and the two others where you're attempting the same thing), just put a direct link (if anything at all). The "common terms" text is largely a matter of personal opinion, after all, which is very different from the dates issue. The two should not be treated as one. --Ckatz_spy 09:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Do you have some sort of veto power I don’t know about Ckatz? There seems to be a number of people here (dare I use the word “consensus”) who would like to just make the wording here perfectly clear so editors don’t have to click on links to get the essential point. Why not let the above people roll up their sleeves and collaborate on some prose without you deleting it at every turn? Greg L (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Common terms may, as Ckatz suggests, sometimes come down to a matter of fine judgement. So does prose style (do I use an optional comma here or not?), balance, citation density—frankly, a whole lot of things. Just because personal judgement may occasionally be involved—when the decision to link, or not, is on the boundary of the criteria in the style guides—is the very reason is should be given a few lines in this guide, particularly when articles in this field present opportunities for improved linking practice. I have to reveal that it is Ckatz's clear agenda to retain as many links as possible in WP text; yet this goes against the style guides and, I have to say, against the established practice of smart wikilinking. There are no good reasons that we should not add mention of internal linking practice, when external linking and other important matters are treated here. Tony (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

We all have an agenda from the "right" side. Let's focus on matters of content here, and consensus will triumph. I agree that guidelines for external links means that there should be guidelines for internal links. These guidelines should be more targeted, though. For example, extensive linking, especially of "<year> in film", in the lead sentence is the biggest culprit and should have a direct explanation on what not to do. In my experience, though, I do not see that much abuse of linking common words like what was sampled in your writeup, at least not anymore than anywhere else. What is your experience with this? Erik (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Although I whole-heartedly agree that the lead sentence in film articles is generally overlinked, I'm just still not convinced that Tony's text would be 100% clear in direction to a newbie. One of the things that I would like to see is exactly what Tony had in mind when he said "Consider adding an unpiped link to the "See also" section". For example, in the lead sentence from Fight Club:

Fight Club is a 1999 American film adapted from the 1996 novel of the same name by Chuck Palahniuk.

where would the link to the "See also" section go? Additionally, many even FA class articles do not have a "See also" section. For those articles, do we offer an explanation of what purpose such a section would/should serve in a film article so that one can be created and facilitate the removal of excess links in the lead sentence? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to the lead sentence, we're trying to overcome the so-called tradition of linking items because they have always been linked. Older Featured Articles are traditional with linking in the lead sentence. I'm not sure what you're asking about the "See also" section, though. We have Fight Club (film)#See also, and this will be listed in TOC. Such links are not as valuable in the article body and particularly not in the lead section because they are so broad. A "See also" section at the footer ensures that we can practice smart linking in the lead sentence and still ensure access to the tangentially related topics later on. Is this what you mean? Erik (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been using the "See also" section quite regularly to place such links there and I find it quite useful. Tony's wording advising to add "an unpiped link to the "See also" section" has left me wondering what he means by this. Place a link to "See also" how? If the section exists, it will be in TOC and no further link needs to be placed to the section. Did he maybe mean to say "Consider adding an unpiped link (to ], ]) in the "See also" section"? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. :) Erik (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, do I ever feel stupid now! I completely misinterpreted what was being suggested by the text.

Adding a link in the "See also" section makes perfect sense. If I may, I'd like to propose "in" being substituted for "to" in that sentence to avoid other people being confused on the same level as myself.

Anyways, Tony, your text makes sense now and I support the inclusion into the guidelines. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is a coincidence or not, but TenPoundHammer nominated the {{filmyear}} template, which pipes "<year> in film" links. The TfD can be found here. If editors believe in applying these new linking guidelines for WikiProject Films, the TfD would accomplish part of that goal. Erik (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus for that came through pretty clearly... I would like to ask, while there are still eyes on this discussion, what are editors' thoughts about linking to genres, particularly in the lead sentence? I ask because this may be something to cover in internal links. Most film articles' lead sentences identify the films' genre(s) and quite often link to them. While this is not an issue of piping and intuitiveness, it may also be an issue of smart linking. Major genres are pretty well understood by most readers, and I think that the terminology is better off not linked to. Examples include comedy film, drama film, science fiction film, war film, etc. Readers would not learn anything new in context of an individual film article -- they already know that a film is funny, is dramatic, is beyond current sciences, or is about war. Sub-genres are less definitive and seem more worthwhile to link, such as screwball comedy film or heist film. Others' thoughts on that? Erik (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense to me; when I was still just a reader I would accidentally click on those excessive links in the lead and wind up in all sorts of unintended places. However, I suspect that much like excessive linking of cast names (e.g. in plots when a thorough cast section is already provided) this is something that more casual editors will end up editing back in a lot. So we may find ourselves doing a lot of upkeep to keeps things that way until people figure out what's going on. If that makes any sense. Millahnna (mouse)talk 00:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• All: Here’s a stress-breaker to lighten the moment: Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house. It’s rather topical right now. Greg L (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

piped

I'm not familiar with this use of the word 'piped'. It seems to merit an explanation or definition in the form of a link. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Piped link. Erik (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• As I understand it, “piped” is a Linux programmers’ lingo (slang) for this… | …symbol. I don’t use the term since it is unobvious what it means and must often be explained. I use “aliased” myself. Never once had someone ask what that means. Technical writing 101: “don’t cause needless confusion with the intended readership”… Wooooooow… Greg L (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Link added. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Release and Reception

This is probably silly, but my OCD is bugging me about it. MOSFILM suggest that "Release" section should be a level 2 header, with the "Reception" a level 3 and "Critical reviews/response" and "Box office" a level 4. Most film articles don't do this. Most that I've encountered add a Release section and provide however it was released and when (sometimes a box office section follows) and then a level 2 "Reception" along with the critical reviews and the box office performance section. I said all of that to ask this, is it done "right" on the Alice in Wonderland article? The headers don't seem to be done correctly to me. It looks odd. Input? —Mike Allen 02:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it needs to be realized that the section headings used in the guidelines do not need to be used in a film article. There are several variations on how to arrange reviews and box office figures. It's kind of messy in the guidelines because there can be release-related information that's not reception-related. For example, you could mention the film festivals where a film screened, but you may not necessarily have information on how it was received at each one. So don't look at it as if film articles have to emulate that messy setup. :) Do what works best for an article. Erik (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are examples of what I've done. Apt Pupil (film) has just one section heading, where Doomsday (film) has four subsection headings under one section heading. Do what works for the article and the content at hand. Erik (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So really it's just an article by article basics—whatever works for one article, may not work for another. In other words, use common sense. LOL. Thanks. —Mike Allen 06:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Bolding of cast sections

I know this has been discussed before, but what does the community think about bolding cast sections? Currently WP:FILMCAST backhandedly approves bolding while former discussions here and MOS:BOLD advocate the opposite. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 06:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMCAST (on this page) says that "Pertinent casting information might also be included in this section (or in production), and only then should bolding be used to make the credits stand out from the additional information." Bovineboy has recently brought to my attention this discussion, as well as WP:BOLD, which both are pertinent to the issue of bolding in cast sections. We've been conflicting over whether or not to bold names of actors & characters in bulleted cast sections such as Predator 2#Cast and Alien Resurrection#Cast, so we thought it best to open discussion here. In my opinion bolding the actor & cast names can be appropriate when, as this page currently states, there is other pertinent casting information in the list from which one might want the credits to stand out. To use an example of my own creation, I'm thinking when the section resembles Alien (film)#Casting. This is a practice I see employed in several (though not all) film FAs at the moment, for example Jurassic Park, But I'm a Cheerleader, Casablanca, and Casino Royale. I think we should discuss this, as current practice seems inconsistent. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"Bolding actors' names is a natural way to prevent them from being lost in large paragraphs of text, and it's commonly used outside of Misplaced Pages. Where does MOS:BOLD recommend against it? —Codrdan (talk) 07:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Do not use bold formatting at all in "Cast" sections. MOS:BOLD clearly says to use the formatting "only in a few special cases", none of which are the "Cast" section. Remove the formatting at sight, please. Some reviewed articles need this fixed. Erik (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot of those FA's are 4-6 years old. —Mike Allen 08:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking purely as a reader, cast list bolding wreaks havoc on my eyeballs. Don't know if that's helpful but there it is. Millahnna (mouse)talk 08:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we've gone overboard in banning bold. MOS:BOLD says only in special cases, and the example they choose is a glossary of trucking terms. In that case, the bold text is defined by the text that follows it. To me, that's not different from a case where the cast/character name is followed by its definition. We should adapt bold to our uses and this seems to be a good use for us. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Erik and Collectonian have already deleted the bolding text from the guideline page, so if there's any sentiment in favor of bolding, this would be the time to express it. The consensus in Bold formatting in "Cast" section seems to be that Erik and Collectonian are strongly against any bolding at all, Horkana is weakly against, and nobody in favor cared enough to post. Personally, I think it's a little pedantic, and harder for readers, not to use bold text for character descriptions longer than about fifty words or so, but someone raised a reasonable question in an earlier discussion about whether bold and regular names should be mixed in the same Cast section. —Codrdan (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not just our view, it is the consensus derived at all of the previous project discussions. The bolding is excessive, unnecessary, and goes against WP:MOSBOLD. Further, it serves absolutely no purpose at all. Its just "bold person as bold character", any intended affect of the bolding is lost. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I doesn't go against the guidelines, Collectonian. That is the question here. The example at WP:MOSBOLD needs to be viewed. In a case where a sentence fragment starts a paragraph as the subject of the paragraph, the guidelines allow bolding of the fragment. That's the case we have with the example given. For our purposes, there's nothing against the guidelines to bold either character names or actor names. I suspect that anyone who looks at the example cited will see that we're over-zealous in ruling out bolding for the cast sections. At the least, this can be a matter for each editor to decide on their own. Most editors can be trusted to make a good decision. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

> it is the consensus derived at all of the previous project discussions.

It appears to be the consensus in Bold formatting in "Cast" section, but Archive_1#Cast listings, ... and Archive_1#Cast were mixed. Obviously those are much older discussions, but "all of the previous project discussions" is an exaggeration.

> The bolding is excessive

There's nothing excessive about bolding four words out of fifty or more.

> goes against WP:MOSBOLD

That's debatable. Cast sections are not mentioned in the "Contraindications" section, and they're similar in structure to definition lists, in which bolding is allowed.

> Further, it serves absolutely no purpose at all.

Nonsense. Bolded key text in large paragraphs serves as a sort of informal heading.

> any intended affect of the bolding is lost.

That doesn't make sense. Bolding prevents names from being lost in lengthy character descriptions.

—Codrdan (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Definition lists are lists of definitions of terms. A cast section does not provide a list of definitions. It provides a list of actors and roles. All lists will have elements and descriptions related to these elements. That does not mean they are definition lists. If MOS:BOLD wrote just "Lists" instead of "Definition lists", then there would be an argument there. "Definition lists" identifies a specific subset of lists where bold formatting can be used. To say that cast lists can emulate formatting of definition lists is to say all lists can emulate formatting of definition lists, thereby defeating the purpose of the specification. If we had a Glossary of filmmaking terms, we can apply such formatting, but it does not work in film articles' cast sections. Erik (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, although there are clear parallels between definition lists and cast lists in cases where the character descriptions are as long as typical definitions. Also, the presence of a "Contraindications" section is confusing. It shouldn't be necessary if the previous sections already rule out cases that aren't explicitly mentioned. —Codrdan (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it inappropriate for editors to have removed the wording from this page while we are in the midst of discussing it. Consensus, remember? We haven't even been discussing this half a day, so jumping the gun and removing the part of the guideline you don't like before we can properly discuss it doesn't exactly strike me as good faith. That said, I'm in favor of bolding the names in certain cases, because it makes sense that we would want the actors' names and the names of their roles to stand out from the rest of the text. Obviously this isn't a one-size-fits all recommendation, but I find it works well when the cast section is formatted as a bulleted list that includes not just simply names, but a decent amount of information on the casting and actors' background. Not to toot my own horn, but I thought Alien (film)#Casting came out looking really good when I wrote it, and I remember an FA reviewer calling it "expecially exemplary" (and that's with the bolding; nothing in the GA or FA reviews recommended removing the bolding). I feel that un-bolding the names causes them to be lost amongst the other text and internal links, where the purpose of bulleting the names in the first place is to make them stand out. I feel this is a "special case" (as termed by MOS:BOLD) similar to a definition list, where we want the item being defined (the actor & character's name) to stand out in the list. Also I feel I should point out that MOS:BOLD doesn't seem to reflect actual practice across the project: we use boldface in several cases that would seem to be counter to BOLD, for example in infoboxes for the banner headlines and names of each field, and in discography articles where we bold the album titles to make them stand out from the other details (the discography project has over 130 FLs, almost 100% of which use bolding in this manner...clearly a "special case" situation similar to what we're dealing with here). --IllaZilla (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CONLIMITED says, "Participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." MOS:BOLD clearly identifies special cases for where to use bold formatting in the article body. We are used to having this formatting and need to overcome this mentality to comply with these generally accepted guidelines. Erik (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the whole issue here is whether bolding in the cast section contradicts BOLD or whether it is a "special case" like a definition list, so CONLIMITED isn't actually the issue here. I've posted a note at the WP:BOLD talk page, hoping to get some opinions into this discussion from over there. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a need for the bolding in the cast section. The section does not seem to comply with MOS:BOLD's "special cases" argument. Very seldom should bolding be used (mainly just for the main sentence article title), and the cast section is not so different from other sections/lists that would require bolding to differentiate for readers. Usually, bullet points are used which help to break it up, or some sort of spacing assists with that. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I defined the case that is indicated in the guidelines: when a sentence fragment starts a paragraph and forms the subject of the paragraph, it's a case where bold is allowed. Those who want something else are not following the guidelines. If I am wrong about that, let's hear an argument on the substance. Nehrams is wrong that bold should be used "very seldom." That's not following the guidelines. Those who don't want the bold, explain why the case in the example doesn't point to the case I'm describing. Well done everyone with your excellent editing! --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if my explanation would qualify as wrong, unless somewhere in MOS:BOLD says to bold frequently. The guideline lists several allowable reasons to bold, but I don't see cast listings as definitions, which is the closest of the three other reasons to bold. I'm also not seeing their example of the sentence fragment you are referring to. Like Erik pointed out above, our project's guidelines fall under the main guidelines, so if there is desire to add bold requirements for cast sections, then we need to clarify on the MOS:BOLD page, not here. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the example given as a permitted use. Glossary of trucking industry terms in the United States. Of course no one is proposing that we bold frequently, so that's not really on point. Naturally a general guideline isn't going to mention cast lists, so that's another straw man you're knocking down. In fact, the guide already allows bolding where a fragment is the subject of the following paragraph, so nothing needs to be added to the main guidelines. Although Erik wants to deviate from the main guidelines, I am not in favor of that. We should follow them. And I guess we can all understand instinctively why this use of bold makes perfect sense: the bold text is for emphasis of the matter under discussion. Many editors will probably not want to use it, too. That's also good. Thanks for your response! Excellent discussion! --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If we need emphasis on the names, couldn't we rely on the blue links? If we must have a cast list, we can also use the bullets to guide our eyes down the list. —Mike Allen 22:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This is readable, where this is truly overdone. We cannot allow our personal preferences, which have been instilled after years of misapplication, to override the guidelines, particularly the Manual of Style. Erik (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Character names usually aren't linked, and readers probably search the Cast section by character at least as often as by actor. Bullets don't help all that much when the character descriptions are around a hundred words or so. —Codrdan (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If this is a debate, mark me: luke-warm opposed to bolding. I would be luke-warm in favor of bolding only the performer, not the role name:

• So & So as Such & Such

but I'm strongly luke-warm either way... Dekkappai (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)