Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film

Death sections

Is there anyway that these guidelines could actively discourage lists of deaths in film articles? e.g.. They are usually added by either new or anonymous users to horror film articles, either as a standalone section, or a subsection of 'Plot'. The problem is such that I feel it should be (economically) mentioned here as something to avoid. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Alas, I must agree that this would seem to be needed as people like to argue that the guideline "doesn't" forbid it, though it does seem to be obvious that it goes against multiple points of WP:NOT and WP:WAF. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think that it should be noted that if any of the deaths were notable enough to be mentioned then it should be covered in the appropriate section (e.g., writing, special effects, reception, etc.). Usually once a month, or every two months, someone will come by to all of the horror film articles and put in death lists.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not think anything can really be written in the guidelines; it seems best to cite WP:WAF about writing fictional detail without real-world context. Plot summaries in film articles are permissible accumulations of fictional detail per WP:NOT#PLOT; anything more is indiscriminate. I would just suggest gathering more opinions in this discussion and reference this discussion in the future when such death sections pop up again. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ratings section

Per the latest discussion at WikiProject Films's talk page, I am proposing a section for the guidelines to detail how to best cover movie ratings. We have repeated the consensus ad nauseum, and it seems proper to create a centralized guideline to point to. First, to outline the points to make sure everyone is on the same place:

1. Historically, there are two ends of the spectrum when it comes to identifying ratings. One end is to include selectively the "main" rating. This invariably turns out to be the MPAA rating, which is indicative of systemic bias toward an improper American presentation on the English-language Wikipedia. On the other end, a set of ratings could be presented. This is considered to be too indiscriminate per discussion to delete {{Infobox movie certificates}}.
2. Ratings are best included when independent coverage exists to determine a relationship beyond the fact the rating exists. Examples include controversy over whether or not a rating was well-decided, if filmmakers edited their work to achieve a certain rating, milestones crossed by a film with a certain rating, and so forth.

Any disagreement with these two points? We can use them to draft a proper paragraph. Should we have a separate "Rating" section or perhaps detail rating coverage within the context of the "Release" section in the guidelines? —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

These two points seem about right, and I think a new subsection under "Release" would be appropriate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't a rating seem to be subjective when various codes are in effect. Whenever a ratings issue is involved, then a further narrative would be satisfactory. Otherwise perhaps a disclaimer such as: PG (MPAA) would do. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC).

I think we need to make it clear that any ratings, including MPAA, generally don't belong, not just focusing purely on NPAA (though it is usually the worse offender). Anyone remember why the previously existing section that noted this was removed? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur, and since the notion of US-centric issues was already brought up, it's probably a "best let sleeping dogs lie" scenario. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC).

Proposed draft:

Ratings given to individual films by motion picture rating systems will vary by territories in accordance to their cultures and their types of governance. In film articles, avoid indiscriminate identification of ratings and instead focus on ratings for which there is substantial coverage from reliable sources. Coverage of ratings can include how a film is produced to target specific audiences, the late editing of a film to acquire a specific rating, or controversy over whether or not a film's rating was appropriately assigned. Since this is the English-language Wikipedia and not the American Wikipedia, avoid mere identification of ratings issued by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) to counter systemic bias (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias for more information). Provide global coverage of how different territories rate individual films if substantial coverage exists. Retrospective coverage is also welcomed to evaluate how films were rated in their time period, such as the 1969 film Midnight Cowboy being X-rated initially by the MPAA. Rating coverage generally belong in the "Release" section, though coverage can be elsewhere. For instance, the "Production" section can detail the filmmakers' goal to achieve a specific rating in making the film, or a stand-alone section can cover controversy surrounding a rating if enough detail exists.

I welcome suggestions to improve the draft! —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Upon initial reading, I find this to be a rather comprehensive look at how to handle ratings. It explains itself, and sticks to the point.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...I kinda feel its a little "wishy washy" in that it seems to leave a loop hole for people to say "okay, well ever review mentions the MPAA rating, that's independent coverage so I can list it." I think it needs a bit clearer that ratings should only be mentioned where its controversial/notable, etc and the specific rating is extensively discussed (why's; disagreements; etc). Also should be cleared that just because a film is old isn't a reason mention the rating, or they will be added to every film 10-20+ years old just because. Now Midnight Cowboy would be an exception, of course, because its rating has been discussed extensively. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

(ecX3) I think the ratings should most definitely be included in the articles. Whether it's in the Release section, or the info box, or wherever. If the US (MPAA) rates a film "X" - post it, if Europe says "NP" (No Problem) - post it, if a rating is contested - post it. While various organizations may be biased, and make subjective statements, at Wikipedia, we just "post it". I like the way the proposal is worded too, very well done. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 17:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Except that "coverage" is defined right after, and then after that it says "simply listing the ratings by the MPAA should be avoided". I think that if someone tried to argue that they have a "reliable source" listing the ratings, it should be just as easy to argue that they are not "covering" the ratings. To Ched, this has been debated for a long time, and we recently deleted the ratings template during the debate, signalling that the consensus was not include them indiscriminately. So if the only thing you know is a rating, then it isn't worth noting in the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian, how does "substantial coverage from reliable sources" sound? This should pretty strongly imply that "R for language and violence" at the end of a review does not count. I think that "substantial" should apply to "coverage" as used throughout the rest of the draft. It would be wikilawyering to argue otherwise, IMO. If you have any thoughts on how to tweak word choice, let me know. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'd just like to see it a bit more strongly worded. Maybe its fustration from all the issues lately of people trying to wikilawyer over "well it doesn't explicitly say this or that" and it seems like Ched also got the impression it was allowing any ratings (though I may be misreading), so that would be concerning. Will re-read this evening to see if I can think of some more specific feedback/examples. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to wake any sleeping dogs, poke any mastodons, or question any consensus - in fact if there is consensus anywhere anymore I am more than happy to abide by it. I guess the only thing I know is that I saw a topic thread that appeared to be asking for opinions, I read it, I offered mine. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 23:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Provide global coverage of how different territories rate individual films if the coverage exists in detail" could be Wikilawyer bait (a list is detail). "...if substantial coverage exists" better states that we're looking for more than an IMDb entry, and brings the wording into line with that used to refer to domestic coverage. Steve ^{T • C} 09:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense; I've amended the sentence. Thanks! —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposing a new layout

I propose a new layout for the guidelines. The layout will preserve the spirit of the guidelines and simply update how the guidelines are structured. I have drafted the updated structure at User:Erik/MOS:FILM. Allow me to share my thoughts on why restructuring is needed:

1. We need to identify primary topics for film articles. Primary topics are what we consistently expect in an article about an individual film. These include the lead section, plot, cast, themes, production, and reception. Currently, "Article body" is the closest structure. However, this heading does not encompass secondary topics that are less likely to be covered; see #2.
2. Presently, the guidelines do not offer room for how to cover secondary topics. We have subsections like "Marketing" and "Adaptations" mixed with "Linking dates" and "Trivia" under "Other article components", and the presentation can be better. My draft shows what could be some secondary topics that are not as frequent across film articles.
3. Another proposed segmentation is "Non-prose components" to serve as a heading for images, tables, templates, and categories. Other components could include formatting approaches.
4. The guidelines have focused primarily on articles about individual films. I propose "Guidelines for related topics" (a better heading name is welcomed) to provide briefer guidance on other types of articles in the scope of WikiProject Films.
5. Lastly, I propose a "Clean-up" section. In the above discussion to include a "Ratings" section, I was thinking that it was a bit strong to include specific instructions to fix minor elements in sections that should be more high-level. Elements to clean up include trivia, popular culture, taglines, and ratings. These tend to be the largest transgressions, and I think that they should be addressed more directly and more apart from the broad strokes of the rest of the guidelines.

My proposed restructuring does not need to take place right away. These are my preliminary thoughts for a cleaner presentation, and I welcome feedback on if any part of my proposal seems appropriate or misses the mark entirely. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I like it, this type of format would be easier to read as well as provide a better example for editors. We definitely need to start elaborating on the guidelines for related topics. Question though, do we consider themes to be one of the core requirements of our articles? I would think that it would be labeled as a secondary topic. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Themes do not belong solidly under either primary topics or secondary topics. Themes are more fundamental than any of the secondary topics and in the long term, possibly more fundamental than either production or reception. (I think we can agree that plot and cast are as skeletal as it gets.) Not all films will be referenced in scholarly materials, but if they are referenced, coverage should exist in the articles. Themes are rare like the secondary topics, but they are important like the primary topics, so I think that importance outweighs rarity for the classification of themes. We can explain their importance and encourage effort to cover them. Editors should strive to cover themes, but the lack of actual scholarly material will not affect the status an article can achieve. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Release Date clarification

Some editors are interpreting "Its first release dates in majority English-speaking countries only (because this is the English Wikipedia); e.g., United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. In some cases, it may be necessary to distinguish between limited releases and later wide releases." to mean that the release dates for every English speaking country should be included in a film's infobox. I've always thought the release field should have: home country release, and first English release (if not the home country), first release of any language (again, if not home country), but not adding every last release date for US, UK, Canada, Australia, etc etc etc. I think the wording needs to be clarified one way or another. Thoughts? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree that this needs to be clarified; an earlier discussion dissolved. The overall goal is to keep the infobox concise, so we should emphasize limited relevance. One most important item to discuss is criteria to include American release dates. These dates are more universal than any other national release date, but at what point does the universality escape reality and become systemic bias? If we can get a handle on when to best use American release dates, the criteria for the rest can follow easily. A fruitful discussion should lead to better wording about keeping a tight focus on relevant release dates. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

In the infobox, I generally list the theatrical release date in the home country (or countries, if more than one was involved), followed by the release date in the US (probably because I'm an American editor, which admittedly suggests I'm biased). I never list the release dates for every English speaking country, even if it's an English-language film. I reference film festival premieres and subsequent festival showings prior to its theatrical release within the body of the article. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

US release dates should only be included where relevant; to include them universally is highly inappropriate. I'm surprised we're even having to discuss this point. PC78 (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There should generally be only one home country, and a film is typically only owned outright by one studio (though, there can be exceptions).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

PC78, I meant "universal" in the relative sense. This better applies to mainstream films (which I follow more than non-mainstream), and they tend to make fairly sizable American appearances. That's why I'm asking about criteria for relevance. For example, The Proposition is an Australian film, yet the release date used in the infobox is American. In amending this, should we exclude the American release date entirely? I think it's safe to say that (for mainstream films) most editing is American-based (see obsession with adding MPAA ratings), so there exists a systemic bias. Whatever we pursue should counter that, so I'm asking to what degree of relevance this should be done. If we can determine this degree, it would be easier to address release dates from other territories. What we could do is explore a few cases (like whichever articles Collectonian has encountered) and possibly start from scratch a draft for release dates guidelines. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My reply was aimed more at LiteraryMaven than you. ;) Regarding The Proposition, under our current guideline it would be appropriate to include release dates from all English-speaking countries, but I would agree that this is something that needs a rethink. Clearly it is ludicrous for that article to incluse a US release date and not an Australian one, and my preferance would be to remove the US date from the infobox because it simply isn't (or at least doesn't appear to be) relevant. PC78 (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, clarification is needed, though I suspect there are always going to be exceptional cases where judgement is demanded. I would think along the lines of: (a) home country theatrical release date (though defining "home country" can sometimes be a can of worms in itself), (b) first theatrical release in a major English-speaking market (unless the same as (a)), (c) theatrical releases in any major markets English-speaking or otherwise if substantially later than (a) or (b) (a year or more). Barnabypage (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

For the curious, the page causing this question is Dragonball Evolution, in which I say the release box should have the Japan release (first), Australian release (first English) and US (home country) and that's it. Other editors want to put every last English country and claim that the guideline "means that the first release of each English-speaking country should be listed"[1] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Reception section change

When did the wording in the critical reception section get changed to "review aggregate websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic should be cited for statistics pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews" - from my understanding, those aggregate numbers are neither mandatory nor particularly useful unless there is little other content for a reception section? At best, this should say "might be useful"-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That's probably my fault. I drafted it after a reasonably inclusive discussion on the section's revamp, but the wording may be unintentionally stronger here than we originally intended. I'd certainly prefer a scholarly article that said "Film X was received well/poorly" over those sites statistics. That said, the critical consensus is important, more so than selective opinions of individual critics, and Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are often very useful (for more recent films); I'd definitely include them even in a critical reception section that already had plenty of content. Would changing the wording to "can be cited" resolve your concern? Steve ^{T • C} 22:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as right now it seems to imply it is required. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I find the edit here and the reference here, with opposition to the Rotten Tomatoes change beginning on the second-to-last vote of the section (vote is "Opposition"). (Note: Specified discussion started after the "consensus" add to the main page). In fact, you were the vote right underneath it... --Raijinili (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I opposed the sentence at all, and didn't realize it was implemented as "should be", making it seem required rather than something that "might" be good to add. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict). I see that there's been some discussion over the sites' usefulness over at Talk:Dragonball Evolution#Reception, and I agree that when used badly ("fresh"/"rotten") they can be next to useless. When used, there should always be an adequate sample size, and the article should always make clear how they calculate their statistics. Ideally, they should only complement a reception section that cites the consensus to several other reliable sources. Two examples of this kind of presentation can be found at Changeling (film)#Reception, or perhaps Hancock (film)#Reception. Steve ^{T • C} 22:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I just don't see how it complements the reception section at all. Saying it has a "freshness" rating of anything requires one to either spend a sentence or two explaining it (which seems to be overly promoting RottenTomatoes above other similar sites), or having it be meaningless to anyone who isn't very familiar with RT's site. Also, how does one explain how they calculate the number, as I still can't understand it myself. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The idea of "fresh" and "rotten" is completely irrelevant. Numbers speak for themselves, we don't need to hold a reader's hand. If a film has a 90% approval rating, then that is what should be said. We don't need to say "that's certified 'fresh'". The same with an approval rating of 20%, or even 55%.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Which brings up the secondary issue of possible undue weight. What makes RottenTomatoes approval rating the "official" one, or the best one. While IMDB is rejected as a reliable source, a repeated question of new users is why is RT's percentage okay but IMDB's is not. At first, I just repeated IMDB is not RS, RT is, but the more I think on it, the more I wonder, what makes RT's "statistic" anymore valid? Now, I know we are supposed to only use the number from the critics, not the users, of RT, but still, I continue scratching my head over what rationale there was behind its originally being declared "good" and how it conforms to guidelines? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your question in comparison to IMDb. IMDb's "ratings" are user ratings (i.e. the rating you or I would give a film). RT's ratings are determined by their employees. It's all on their FAQ page. They explain how they determine if a review is positive or negative, and how they calculate the tomatometer and the average rating. Why is RT's number used? Well, that's because it's the largest aggregate website that we have. It collects more reviews from more critics than just about any other place. It provides us with the best possible look at what the general perception of a film was by critics. If there were other aggregate sites, we'd use them. But RT has been around for over a decade.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

To follow up, online user ratings are flawed from the get-go, since they can be vote stacked (The Dark Knight at #1 of Top 250, really) and experience demographic skew (mostly male in the age range of 18-24). Bona fide polls are better for gauging audience response, and CinemaScore can do this. When it comes to Rotten Tomatoes, there's no collusion because the website doesn't just let anybody in, nor easily. There is not a demographic skew, either. Rotten Tomatoes has been cited in the news a few times... I remember a mid-year article from CNN in 2008 about Ratatouille getting the highest score. Rotten Tomatoes is a good gauge for recent films because there are enough reviews (blockbusters get 200+ reviews easily) and this statistically normalizes the RT score, meaning that if it's at 250 reviews with 45%, getting five more reviews won't budge the percentage much. However, one issue with the website is that its judgment of a review is either/or, which is why we pair RT with Metacritic, which gives a more specific score to each review in a more limited set. Metacritic has gotten recognition, too. There are a few other aggregate websites, but from my brief Googling around, they have not received similar press. Of course, I would discourage use of RT and MC for older films... I had the scores at Fight Club (film) some time ago, but I removed them. This is because the scores cannot be as well-compiled in retrospect. Fight Club has 81% on RT now, but it didn't become a cult film until after the DVD release. During its theatrical release, from what I can tell, critical reception was divided. Do you think any of this needs to be clarified here or on some kind of Rotten Tomatoes essay? —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"Mixed reviews"

(continued from Talk:Dragonball Evolution#Reception) What does "mixed reviews" mean to you, the editors of the movie articles?

If "mixed reviews" means to most people that there's no general consensus in the reviews (what I say it means), it needs a cite. If "mixed reviews" means "has both good and bad reviews", it's useless, since the vast majority of movies have both positive and negative reviews. I don't see a big difference, with regard to appropriateness, between saying "mixed reviews" and saying "it had a lot of people reviewing it" if most people go by the second definition. --Raijinili (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The first definition is definitely what we use. Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic can be cited for this kind of consensus for recent films, but for older films, more retrospective sources are useful. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend to see "mixed reviews" as being when there isn't a discernible difference between the number of positive and number of negative reviews. In other words, if there are say 215 reviews, and 110 of them are positive and 105 are negative, that's a pretty mixed reception.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As a note, I did ask Raijinili what wording he would suggest since he seemed to disagree with "mixed reviews" but made no attempt to change it either. From the responses here, its now been changed to "generally been panned". -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it still needs some sort of citation, for verifiability. --Raijinili (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

New layout

Hello, I revised the guidelines to have a new layout since there was discussion above and elsewhere on WikiProject Films about necessary changes. With the exception of the "Rating" section being added, no content was added to the guidelines this time. The new layout re-sorted topics of an article about an individual film into "primary topics" and "secondary topics", the latter being more specialized. There is also a "Non-prose components" section, though I would like to merge the brunt of the infobox-related content to the documentation at Template:Infobox Film. In addition, the most sparse section is the "Guidelines for related topics" section, which is one of interest to multiple editors since the guidelines have focused too much on individual films. Links are provided to start discussion about filling out these sections; hopefully their presence shows readers that there is help needed. Lastly, there is a "Clean-up" section which clarifies some of the not-so-clear items and in what context they best work (such as ratings needing relevance for inclusion). Please let me know your feedback about this layout. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of "Lead section"

I propose a rewrite of the "Lead section" in the guidelines, and the draft is shown below. The rewrite has two full paragraphs, and there is better clarification about what detail should be or can be in the first paragraph and succeeding paragraphs. The draft is based on what I think has been common practice in film articles.

The lead section should introduce the article's topic and provide a summary of the topic's most important aspects from the article body. At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the major genre(s) under which it can be classified. For presentation of foreign-language titles, see the naming conventions for foreign-language films. Ideally, the nationality of the film (based on its home studio) should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not clear, clarify the circumstances at a later point in the first paragraph. The first paragraph of the lead section should also identify the director and the star or stars of the film. If any writers or producers are well-known, they can also be identified in the paragraph. If the film is based on source material, that source material and its creators should be identified. If possible, convey the general premise of the film in the paragraph and identify actors' roles in the premise.

Succeeding paragraphs in the lead section should cover important aspects of the film detailed in the article body and not mentioned already in the first paragraph. These include milestones or major events in the film's production, prominent themes, reception of the film by critics and audiences, box office grosses and milestones, controversies, summary of awards and honors, spin-offs (e.g., sequels, remakes, other media), and any significant impact the film has made in society. Avoid using "award-winning" and similar phrases in the opening sentence to maintain a neutral point of view and summarize the awards in the proper context in a later paragraph of the lead section.

I would like to hear feedback about this draft, particularly regarding the "nationality" bit and the "award-winning" bit. I plan to implement this paragraph in a week to make the guideline-updating process more expedient. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks good. My only thing is the bit about "genre(s)". Most films have so many that it's really a pain to list them all, or the film is cross genres and lacks a defined identity. Remember the problems we had with The Dark Knight?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That was my goal with the word "major". Perhaps replace it with "overarching"? I think that a pair of genres isn't bad. In the case of The Dark Knight, "action" was kind of redundant to "superhero" in terms of genre (unlikely for a superhero film to not have action), and "noir" was thrown around way too easily (best applied retrospectively). —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, it looks good to me. I think I'd agree with Bignole on "major", maybe "main" or "overarching" (i.e. one-two words). My only other concern is that it does not seem to really properly emphasis WP:LEAD should be followed, particularly with regard to the second section which should be a summary of those details from the article rather than new facts. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What I took away from WP:LEAD was to "summarize the most important points". For example, some film articles may have in-depth "Production" sections but nothing important enough to go into a lead section. Is that what you mean? How can it be rewritten to be truer to WP:LEAD? —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean now and amended the draft to reflect that the succeeding paragraphs should highlight important points that were detailed in the article body itself. Any better? —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, thanks :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Discuss controversial issues of the film or events surrounding the film. This could include actors and crew members. If the issue is not extremely controversial it may still be placed under controversy if it is relevant and appeared in some form of newspaper, TV show, news, blog, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.3.6 (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! I was not sure if adding that would be too much, but I have gone ahead and inserted the word "controversies" in the list of what items are considered important. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

These comments are from someone who doesn't write much for Wikipedia but reads it a lot, especially the film articles. IMHO, there's too much information in the leads of most film articles right now. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I never consulted an encyclopedia that summarized a topic first and then discussed it in detail. I have found a lot of articles that list milestones or major events in the film's production, prominent themes, reception of the film by critics and audiences, box office grosses and milestones, controversies, summary of awards and honors, spin-offs, and any significant impact the film has made in the lead, which goes on and on and on. Then the same information is repeated in different sections later in the article, so you're reading the same thing twice. I don't see the purpose of that. Wikipedia isn't Reader's Digest so why condense everything in the beginning of an article for people who can't be bothered to read the whole thing? 209.247.22.166 (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Your question is really something aimed at all of Wikipedia rather than just this style guide. The film MoS cannot disregard the overall guidelines for style, which include WP:LEAD. The lead serves as an over view summary for those who may not wish to read the entire article, highlighting the important points. And yes, you may think they shouldn't get to know the important bits if they can't be bothered, but this somewhat mimics what you find any higher level professional writing - most peer reviewed journals give an abstract first, then the full content. Abstracts are used in a large number of writing areas, even if it is not used in some encyclopedias (and while Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is its own style...you would never find episode lists and character lists in most encyclopedias either :P) . So, in the end I highly doubt you would be able to convince the bulk of readers that the lead should be dropped or shortened, though. While it might be something you personally do like find useful, many people do, particularly with regards to a film or other media where it is not an issue of being "bothered" to read, but perhaps only wanting some more info on a film they have not yet seen without spoiling the plot. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Nehrams2020's Revert

Let's discuss Nehrams2020's revert. I propose the change because tables are clearer for cast sections. This enables people to easily seeandcompare the roles and actors and descriptions and implications in casting.68.148.149.184 (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

We can discuss your proposal, but we're not going to discuss the reversion. It has always been well-established that changes to guidelines need to be proposed on the talk page and found to meet consensus before being enacted. As for the proposal itself, I disagree - tables work against a prose style, which is generally encouraged within the encyclopedia, and the current format is far from unclear. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Prose tends to keep things in a more professional manner. A table can sometimes be alright for articles that have yet to really expand, and probably do not have casting info, but generally not for full fledged articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Your agreementargument that prose is generally encouraged within a encyclopedia is solidly false. A lot of science pages would be sorely disorganized and impossible to messageconvey if we put all data in prose. Concerning short sections such as cast lists, it's easier to look at the information and tell who was in which role, and easier for analysis to determine what the person did etc. etc..68.148.149.184 (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A simple list can display the actors and their roles just as well as a table and without any coding needed on any editor's part. Additionally, list form is better than table form because it can present prose better. Prose in a table cell creates extraneous white space; in a row with three cells (for example, actor, role, and background), a full paragraph about the background makes the cells for the actor and the role pretty empty indeed. This does not mean that tables are useless, though. Some exceptions, I think, include columns of multiple actors, such as at My Neighbor Totoro#Voice cast. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that prose or lists are preferable to a table for cast lists. Further to this, could the IP please stop converting cast sections to tables (as with Suspiria and Dance Flick)? Other editors, myself included, have already had to revert Watchmen and Witchfinder General. The conversions are counterproductive, especially given that this discussion is under way, and the edits are also removing the "Cast" section headings. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Cast headlines are not compulsory.68.148.149.184 (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

But why is prose better than table? Your arguments seem to be based on aesthetics with no scientific papers to back up readability. It is scientifically proven that tables are easier, and faster, to read and more comprehensible than prose. Prose is fine with plot summaries, but with data, they should be put into a table. There is a section that says that cast can be integrated with plot. There is no linguistic problem with that. This is an encyclopedia. You have to give me arguments that exemplify increased ease of readability compared with prose. Your agrument: "Background information about the cast and crew should be provided, ideally as well-written prose." is appropriate, WHEN WRITTEN IN PLOT SUMMARY.68.148.149.184 (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason NOT to use tables when listing cast.68.148.149.184 (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, one good reason is that this guideline directs us to use prose or lists, not tables. Given that it was ostensibly created through a process of consensus, it reflects the opinions of Wikipedia's editors, and should be taken as the preferred method. You may feel differently, and are of course entitled to your own opinion, but you cannot unilaterally rework sections in a manner contrary to the guideline. You need to achieve consensus for such a change first, and there does not appear to be any support for what you propose. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, could we please not request "scientific proof" for opinions, and then turn around and claim said "scientific proof" when we don't actually back that up with evidence? Just a thought. Frankly, Wikipedia is not governed by what other people do. Film pages are structured based on the consensus of the community. In this case, it is the consensus of the film project community that prose is more professional looking, takes up less space, and provides an easier means to present particular information in the article. You seem to disagree, which is perfectly fine, but that doesn't change the consensus. No one has to prove, through "scientific" evidence, that one way is better than another...not even you. It's a subjective call, and one that currently has consensus for a particular format.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There is NO reason to use tables for listing cast. It does not meet any guideline for the appropriate use of a table, and only makes the page more complex for in-experienced editors for no good reason. A tabled format does not add any added value over a list to make it worth the extra code, nor is a format that is likely to encourage editors to expand the cast section beyond a list of who played what (which, if that is all a cast list has, should be noted in the plot). Consensus has agreed with this formatting repeatedly, as shown in this guideline, and in high quality film articles (i.e. FA and GA level ones). Trying to assume good faith here, but when it was pointed out that your edits violated the guidelines, you tried to edit them to suit your personal preferences, which is highly inappropriate. You also seem to be disregarding other Wikipedia style guides regarding header names, disambig pages, etc, without any explanation nor discussion. This is not how Wikipedia works.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

For bony articles like the one's I edited I believe that the table suits them best, AT THE PRESENT TIME. Of course, the articles don't have that much content, and I would like to see the lists removed and integrated into the plot. I see no reason why the tables should not convey more information than just slabs of sentences. Even if this is the state that GA and FAs are in, that means, IN NO WAY, that it is better, or, atrociously, has merit.68.148.149.184 (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I think this is one of the few times in my several years here that my name has been included in the heading, so perhaps I should join in on the discussion. When I first started writing film articles in 2006, I used the tables for the cast lists because I thought that they worked better and it was pretty much the norm for other articles I was using as a model. However, when discussing cast, and the amount of information that is involved, I realized that cast lists better serve their purpose. Indeed, if the cast list is merely "actor" as "character" with no other character description or casting details, then the cast section should be removed and the actors' names simply added after their respective characters in the plot section. I don't see how adding tables "at the present time" would be beneficial if it would just have to be reverted later. I wouldn't say that tables are convoying more information, since there is no addition to the information, but rather than just a change in layout. The only reason I could see for using a table is when including the names of multiple voice actors for an animated film, when different actors are used for foreign releases. I don't understand why you would ask for how science articles use tables, because it seems like you are comparing apples to oranges. The tables in science articles are likely comparing statistics and measurements, where a table format would be beneficial. When an actor's role is being described composed of prose, which can at times be comprehensive, it doesn't need a table format to convey the information presented. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to your comparison of apples and oranges, tables will not be reverted. If we have a lack of information on a movie, a table should stay on the article, in which the article may remain unchanged for years.

The fact of the matter is many movies do not have a plot summary that describes the character's roles sufficiently as to integrate the actors' names into the synopsis. For those cases, we need tables.68.148.149.184 (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, tables will continue to be reverted when they are done as cast lists in film articles. No, a table should not stay in an article just because the article lacks additional information. If it has no plot, then a normal list of the cast is fine. Tables are not "needed". -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing need with format. If you have a problem with reading tables, just say it.68.148.149.184 (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You keeping adding a request for comment of scientists, and although I'm not a scientist, perhaps I can explain how the use of tables in film articles differ from scientific articles. Tables are used for a variety of articles on Wikipedia, for various needs in exhibiting data in a certain way. Film articles obviously differ from scientific articles in many ways, and attempting to state that just because tables are used in a scientific article, then film articles must use it as well, doesn't make sense. Tables are used in various film articles (see James Bond (film series)#Films or Clint Eastwood filmography#Filmography) when it is beneficial for comparing different types of content/data. Instead of stating that you think someone of being unable to read a table (it's highly unlikely that all opposing members here can't read tables :)), it would be best to detail why it would be best to list prose into a table format that can be difficult for new users to format and may not be aesthetically pleasing for large amounts of prose. I like tables as much as the next guy, but we don't need to include them just for the sake of using it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If it was difficult for new users to format tables, then we might as well never use tables at all. The reason we should use tables is that with a table, it lists CLEARLY which Setof data ALL correspond to one category.

For example, if I have a column of Names of Actors, I will put at the top in the ""Heading"", "Actor". This way, it is easy AT A GLANCE to see and COMPARE which actor has which role, when listed NEXT to a heading called "Character".68.148.149.184 (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

We can and still use tables in articles, but there would be no reason to complicate something that can be conveyed simply. The roles are not being compared against each other, the actor is being described with the role s/he is playing. Readers can likely differentiate the difference between the actor and the character based on the naming ("Tim Allen as Buzz Lightyear" or "Clint Eastwood as The Man With No Name"), by the wikilinks to the actors' main articles ("Robert Downey, Jr. as Kirk Lazarus" or "Arnold Schwarzenegger as Ben Richards"), the characters' articles ("Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt" or "Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane Watson"), or even the "as" is a dead giveaway. We are not comparing each role against the other roles (perhaps if an article comparing two franchises or actors who played the same character in a franchise, then a table would be beneficial). However based on these reasons, along with the many mentioned above (and below), I don't see why a table is required to be used. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

What the IP ignores is the obvious, which is consensus by inertia. If the article is edited in succession by a hundred editors and they all edit the cast section of a film as a chunk of prose after each character name then we can assume all hundred editors agree that they prefer that format. If one editor then changes the format, and is reverted by three separate editors, then they must assume that they are working against consensus. If a change is not made then it is implicit that consensus exists as much as if a change is made and kept. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That is not true.68.148.149.184 (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Tables are largely fine for more complex lists of information such as awards, because of the number of fields that need to be presented is larger. See here for an example. For cast lists, which are largely telling us that an actor played a role, they are discouraged. This is because while young articles will indeed only have a cast section that says "[Actor] as [role]" (see here), as the article develops, the section should be added to, in order to present relevant production information about the casting or characters (e.g. here). Indeed, by the time the section has fully matured, it may even be converted to a full prose section (as here). Starting off with a table works against this evolution, as it discourages the addition of real-world production information, and furthermore may discourage editors less familiar with working with tables. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 09:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, tables do not work against this evolution. It may take a large length of time before the table matures in a prose section, btw, I agree with, so at that stage in time, the cast section should be tablulated.68.148.149.184 (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Scientists requested

Can we not use tables in articles? Does it make sense to use tables in Science articles? Why not Film?68.148.149.184 (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)