Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:10, 28 June 2012

Film Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

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.

To discuss the {{Infobox film}} template and its parameters, please visit Template talk:Infobox film.

WikiProject Film
General information ( v t e ) Main project page + talk → Discussion archives Style guidelines talk → Multimedia talk → Naming conventions talk → Copy-editing essentials talk Notability guidelines talk Announcements and open tasks talk → Article alerts → Cleanup listing → New articles talk → Nominations for deletion talk → Popular pages → Requests talk Spotlight talk Film portal talk Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization Coordinators talk Participants talk Project banner talk Project category talk
Departments Assessment talk → B-Class → Instructions Categorization talk Core talk Outreach talk Resources talk Review talk Spotlight talk → Spotlight cleanup listing Topic workshop talk
Task forces General topics Film awards talk Film festivals talk Film finance talk Filmmaking talk Silent films talk Genre Animated films talk Christian films talk Comic book films talk Documentary films talk Marvel Cinematic Universe talk Skydance Media talk War films talk Avant-garde and experimental films talk National and regional American cinema talk Argentine cinema talk Australian cinema talk Baltic cinema talk Belgian cinema talk British cinema talk Canadian cinema talk Chinese cinema talk French cinema talk German cinema talk Indian cinema talk Italian cinema talk Japanese cinema talk Korean cinema talk Mexican cinema talk New Zealand cinema talk Nordic cinema talk Pakistani cinema talk Persian cinema talk Southeast Asian cinema talk Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk Spanish cinema talk Uruguayan cinema talk Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates banner DVD citation DVD liner notes citation infobox invite plot cleanup stub userbox

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 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Box-office sections

There is a big problem about what should or should not be written in box-office sections. I believe it's time to write down specifically what records are needed because some editors keep deleting box-office data from so-called "over-detailed" box-office sections while others believe that some box-office sections should be expanded. This concerns mostly films that performed exceptionally well in markets outside North America, including recent hits like Pirates 4 and Deathly Hallows Part 2. Their "overseas" earnings have surpassed $800 million making it obvious that there are many countries where they broke records. I can't bear thinking about the box-office section of Avatar, where the box office records, either "domestic" or worldwide or for individual markets, are tossed together in no logical sequence. Moreover, some have been overtaken. Arbitrary deletions or additions of box-office data happen continuously. And the problem is that there are no guidelines to help control what is written in a box office section. What do other editors believe? Spinc5 (talk) 8:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the key to presenting a balanced overview is not try to present coverage of every single market, but to represent the perspectives from those markets. The worldwide overview goes without saying, but the other two perspectives are those of the native markets and the non-native markets. A native market would be North America for a US film, and the European Union for a European film, and China, Taiwan, Hong Kong for a Chinese film for example; there should be some depth of coverage given to the performance of a film in its native market (or markets if it is an international production). As for the non-native markets, I think we should just summarise the box office collectively, although we should list any records the film sets in specific countries. For example, if an American film sets an opening record in India then we should cover that, but if it doesn't we don't really need to document the figures. I would like to see roughly equal weight given to the worldwide perspective, the native markets perspective, and the non-native perspective. Obviously weighting does come down to what information is available, but that's the idea approach. Another point is that the records won't stand for more than a couple of years usually, but that doesn't mean we pull them when they are superseded. I'd like to see the records written in a tense free way i.e. Harry Potter set an opening weekend record of $400 million (or whatever). That applies while it holds the record, and also once it loses the record. If this isn't adequate for covering the financial breakdown of the film's performance, I would prefer the sub-article approach. A sub-article would also allow for DVD sales, TV rights etc. Betty Logan (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, obviously records are being continuously overtaken by newer movies. So should we write only about a film that broke the opening weekend record or should we also mention a film that made the second or third largest opening weekend. I don't think it's so simple. There are so many kinds of records: for exapmle it might make the largest opening for an animated title in a specific country or it might be the highest-grossing animated title in total earnings, it might be the second highest-grossing film of all time in a specific country, it might be third. It might the highest-grossing film of a franchise or of a studio in a specific country. Or the highest-grossing film of the year in a non-native country. There are dozens of records one can can come up with. The problem is that whenever Box Office Mojo or The Hollywood Reporter or Variety or any another website mentions a record, then editors write it down. It might not even be a record. For example they may just write about how much a film grossed in its second and third weekend, during which the film wasn't even in first place nor did it have a small decline. Simultaneously, there may be an impressive record that wasn't mentioned by the media but when searching a bit you can find it at Box Office Mojo or other sites with box-office data. Such records aren't mentioned in Misplaced Pages in most of occasions.

On the other hand, when a movie has such a big difference in box office earnings from native and non-native territories (like Ice Age 3 or Pirates 4 or even Harry Potter 8) the balance between the worldwide perspective, the native markets perspective and the non-native perspective is difficult to be achieved. A film might not do well in its native countries but it may do exceptionally well in other countries (this is the case for Ice Age 3 and Pirates 4 among top grossers overseas). In addition, I don't know if it sounds good to end up after some years with 30 films that say: "it set an opening weekend record in China" for example. It may be confusing. Spinc5 (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Basically I think it's ok to document any kind of record in any market, since that is notable. The problem is with the level of non-notable financial analysis that keeps seeping into the article. I think you get the balance a lot better than most editors, and I have a lot of sympathy for what you are trying to do with the box office sections, but the level of detail sometimes overwhelms the article. It would be much better if you joined the discussion on the Harry Potter page, since the current issue primarily affects that article. Betty Logan (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Soundtrack

I provided a preliminary writeup for the "Soundtrack" section as seen here. I attempted to reflect the precedent I have seen in articles and the consensus I have seen in discussions. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 16:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it makes sense and I agree with the statements given there. I'd wonder if we should be stronger on dissuading the use of cover images, although I'd stop short of outright forbidding them - but since they only serve to identify something which any images from the parent film will have already identified. GRAPPLE X 16:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not want to come out too strongly against cover images in the preliminary writeup, but it seems to me that people agree that the cover image is typically a derivative of the film's promotional materials, for example often being similar to the film's poster. We need to limit the number of non-free images in a film article to what is contextually significant, and I think that the poster image is sufficient as cover art being used for identification. An album's cover image does not add anything more, unless there is specific coverage about its imagery. I think that is unlikely for a soundtrack album; stand-alone albums do have coverage about their imagery. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This may come into conflict with WikiProject Albums (it seemed like the last discussion we had, they were for always creating separate articles for soundtracks/scores), but it looks good for WP:FILM since we do indicate to include a summary and not to split off unless it meets the criteria. I would definitely also say to include more details about not including the cover image unless especially notable (of course, I can't think of any examples off the top of my head). Something we may want to consider with the MOSFILM is adding example articles (with previous revisions of course) that meet the guidelines that new editors can click to for examples of what it says in the guidelines (somewhat similar to the limited examples we have at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Film/Multimedia). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I added the following, "The poster image in the film infobox is sufficient for identification of the topic, and cover images in the film article's album infoboxes is considered extraneous." As for examples, I'm not sure. I was considering Tropic Thunder as an example but it seems like someone created album sub-articles just to be able to use cover images. Would like a more stable example. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I should have been more clear. I suggest that we have example articles for each section listed in the guidelines. For plot, we could link to two or three film example revisions for ideas on what a plot should look like. A few article revisions could be provided for themes, box office, etc. With a few examples for each topic, it will hopefully clear up any confusion over the wording and provide a helpful visual for new editors. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Quick (and probably stupid) question - do all soundtrack albums come under the scope of the Film Project? Lugnuts (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. They're also under the purview of the Albums project too. It's like how, say, Batman falls under the Film project, but also under several others. GRAPPLE X 14:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, it's a good question. I sampled talk pages of soundtrack articles from Category:Soundtracks by year, and some articles have the WikiProject Film banner and some do not. I'm not sure if we've ever discussed tagging these kinds of articles. Since soundtracks fall under film articles if they are not notable enough on their own, they should be tagged, I think. I just don't think very many editors care about the quality of soundtrack articles, unfortunately. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Use of parenthesis

Is there a consensus regarding the style in which the year of release in the lede sentence on film article should be presented? For example, I see that this style is routinely used on Good or Featured articles:

Tropic Thunder is a 2008 American action satire comedy film written, produced, and directed by Ben Stiller, and starring Stiller, Robert Downey, Jr., and Jack Black.

However, a few editors are changing ledes to the one like this below:

Waterloo Bridge (1931) is an American drama film directed by James Whale. The screenplay by Benn Levy and Tom Reed is based on the 1930 play of the same title by Robert E. Sherwood.

I'd like to know which is correct/acceptable/whatever or if there is even a consensus on this matter as I think there should be some clarity on the matter so film articles all look the same. I have "fixed" a few only to be reverted by one or two editors repeatedly. Thanks. Pinkadelica 05:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw someone do this too! I just can't remember where. I don't understand the sudden change of the format, considering it's been written as "a 2008.." for years now. Parenthesis just seem too informal for the lead sentence of the article. —Mike Allen 05:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the change either, and it seems that only a few people are implementing the parenthesis on older film articles that don't get much traffic. I think it has more to do with a personal preference than actual policy or guideline which is why I'm checking here to get more community input. It is tiresome to change the lede only to go back a few weeks/months later to see it changed back. Pinkadelica 06:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I see the parens version more on articles that don't seem to have a lot of edits (older films like you said, obscure action flicks, etc.). I have no problem with either version myself and don't see a reason to specify that either/or is preferable. I do think it's a little weird to change the (I'm guessing) more common "a ####" to the parens specifically but whatever. This is one of those things where I don't really see the need for all film articles to be the same; I just don't think it matters since the meaning is clear in either case. But if folks want to pin it down I'm good with that. Whatevs. For whatever it's worth, I don't think the year in parens would be regarded as all that informal; it's a pretty common notation style for academic papers and the like. Millahnna (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind parentheses used in the article body, like if one film is compared to another, and that other film has the release year after it in parentheses (as a kind of date marker). In the lead sentence, though, it seems odd to have it right after the title and in particular separate from the other descriptors like nationality and genre. I agree with the assessment that such parentheses are seen in articles about older and more obscure films. You may have also seen some strange formatting of cast lists in these wild parts of WikiProject Film, like heavy bolding or italicizing. I would prefer not to use the parentheses, but I don't think it's necessary to specify use in the guidelines. After all, it appears that the quirk gets ironed out when an article gets to good or featured status. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there are certain editors who are a bugger for doing this. It just looks wrong, so I change it to "X is a 1941 film...", etc. Lugnuts (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the parenthesis is an equal option to the alternative. And some variety is preferable. The wording that grates with me is the " film" construction as above. It's awkward and can be avoided. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is variety preferable in this instance? I was under the impression that formatting for things like paragraphs, etc. should be consistent throughout the project. Pinkadelica 01:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah you would think a little consistency would play a part in this encyclopedia. —Mike Allen 02:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead sections should strive to maintain consistency, but variety in the article body is vital to keep prose from sounding stale. I'm not keen on brackets in general, as I think they're quite informal. "Name is a 20X6 surrealist neo-noir film" or "Name, released in 20X6, is a surrealist neo-noir film" are both fine constructions, but beyond that I wouldn't bother with further variation in leads. GRAPPLE X 02:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If anything I think parenthesis is the more elegant and formal way to not it. Attaching a year and genre to the front of a title is ugly and cumbersome. The MOS on lead already contains sufficient outline for those sections. There's a need for variety both within the article, but also across the encyclopaedia, that allows experimentation. I prefer brackets, but don't think there should be a rule on this either way. Best--Ktlynch (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Consistency is the hobgoblin of a certain type. The cookie cutter approach ignores the strength of Misplaced Pages: the input of many editors making incremental changes. If we're not prepared to be attentive to that method of improvement, we are undermining the encyclopedia. The authoritarian impulse in this context is badly out of place and should be recognized as against the ethos of Misplaced Pages. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ring Cinema, what changes do you make on Misplaced Pages, other than on talk pages? —Mike Allen 23:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, Mike. It's really nice to know that I have been on your radar for so many years. I don't feel the need to toot my own horn about it, though, since, after all, the entirety of our contributions here will someday be overwritten by our successors. But again, thank you for asking. I'm flattered and humbled. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

In other words - absolutely none. Lugnuts (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If you think my contributions matter in some way then I'd suggest you apologize for lying about me. If you don't repeat your lie, I'll assume you recognize that your easily checked error didn't belong here anyway. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Not apologizing, as your user contributions cleary state the truth. Lugnuts (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You have my sympathy. Your lie is transparently obvious and you lack the common decency to correct yourself. The opinion of a chronic liar matters very little so it would be a mistake to waste time on you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ring Cinema (talk · contribs · count) shows otherwise. The majority of your edits are not in the article space. Hardly a lie. Lugnuts (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

So in summary, you lied about something that doesn't matter and tried to justify it with an inaccurate restatement of the evidence that actually confirms you lied. Wow. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

On little details like this, there's room for flexibility. But if other editors want to nail down an actual defined format for this, well some of y'all know I do enjoy cleaning up little bits of trivial changes (like the year in film egg links, and the succession infobox fields) so I'll be happy to go along either way and will likely go on one of my random cleanup binges if you do pin it down. I'm rather used to the year without parens but I think it does often make for a clunky sentence (probably because of other factors like genre bloat). I also think Ktlynch makes a good point that the parens are a more formal notation style. So while I don't think we need a rule, if we're going to make one, I lean slightly on the side of the parenthetical. Millahnna (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I think a consensus/defined style would be beneficial and make things a whole lot more clear for those of us who clean up/work on film articles. As I said, I've changed many ledes only to go back and find them switched backed for no reason. If the use of parenthesis ends up winning out, that's fine, I would just like to know that there is actually one style that should be implemented instead of just having a few folks force their personal preference into articles. Pinkadelica 05:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the benefit to having one style on a matter like this? If uniformity is the goal, we could have a form for editors instead of guidelines, but I don't see the evidence that this self-appointed group of experts should dictate to editors who are not interested in this forum. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I stated the benefit in my first sentence. I said nothing about this Wikiproject dictating anything. Like it or not, groups of editors do decide on things like style guidelines, so it's not like I was suggesting anything untowards. If you're not interested, so be it, but others are allowed to question why we've being reverted by a few editors over things that are not spelled out in the guideline clearly. Pinkadelica 08:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I don't understand what you want guidance about. The form of the lede can be handled by the editors on each page and a guideline would be an attempt to short circuit that essential aspect of Misplaced Pages editing. As it happens, I am interested in this forum but many editors are not, and they are probably better editors, too. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the personal attacks on Ring Cinema are entirely unwarranted and below anyone who works this project. His comment above is a sterling example of his fine contributions: it cogently summarises the strength of Misplaced Pages's model and I endorse it fully. For those looking for clarity, know that there is not only one, but several accepted styles. Misplaced Pages has this in common with journalism, publishing and academia. It is standard on other stylistic issues. Usage should be consistent within an article, but not necessarily across several. Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I see no personal attacks whatsoever. Further, if different styles are acceptable this should be stated in the film guideline. At present there is no example of how the lede should be written which is why I posed the question in the first place. Pinkadelica 08:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The sneering question and responses concerning his editing history blatantly constituted a personal attack. Concerning your complaint, I cannot speak for those articles since I have not seen the formula of which you speak in article leads, in any case I think it is maladroit there but absolutely correct in every other part of the article. I don't support creating any kind of policy about this. Try and raise it with the editors in question or on the article talk page. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Plot vs. Plot Summary

A discussion of the relative virtues of "Plot" or "Plot Summary" as the preferred section header on film articles...or at least the film articles for the Back to the Future series...is emerging here. Folks may want to take a look and chime in. Doniago (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Worth noting to others that WP:FILMPLOT says, "Plot summaries should exist as self-contained sections ('Plot', 'Plot summary') in film articles." I think the related discussion for that writeup just meant to suggest flexibility, so it does not come off like it must be "Plot" every time. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I prefer "Plot" and agree with Bignole's reasoning at the article talk page; as a section header "Plot summary" seems redundant. I know we sometimes make the exception for "Premise" when all we have is a short synopsis for an unreleased film. But "Plot summary" is needlessly wordy and "Plot" seems to be the standard (i.e. we use it more than the other). I know I've changed a lot of Plot section headers to omit the "summary" in my quick clean up passes on film articles so if I've been in the wrong on that I'd like to know. Millahnna (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither heading is wrong. Both are perfectly understandable. The term "plot summary" is appropriate and has been used in other sources. Both headings' mention in the guidelines just means not to worry so much about which one it should be. If it's "Plot", leave it as is, and vice versa. There are more valuable edits and related discussion to be had on Misplaced Pages. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 10:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Erik. It's not something I ever do by itself but something I'll grab when I'm doing a light clean on a whole page (killing some overlinking, putting sections in a reasonable order, that sort of thing). I'll not bother unless we decide to get more specific in the MOS, from here on out. I have sometimes, however, changed a section titled just "Summary" to the appropriate "Plot". I guess that probably doesn't really matter either; it's still pretty clear what is going to be there. But you never know what someone's reading comprehension is like so I like having the word "plot" there for clarity. Millahnna (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Same here. While I appreciate the spirit of allowing either option to be valid, I'm concerned that the end result may be pointless edit warring and an unneeded apparent inconsistency between film articles that may confuse some editors. While it doesn't seem like the type of thing that would or should need immediate enforcement across the project, I wouldn't object if "Plot" was considered the standard heading and editors were encouraged to change it in the course of other edits. Doniago (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with setting the standard at "Plot", if only to prevent pointless arguments and edit wars over something as trivial as this. I see no real benefit from leaving it flexible, as "plot", "plot summary" and "synopsis" are interchangeable. The upside: "Plot" is shorter and takes up less text space. As Erik says - There are more valuable edits and related discussion to be had on Misplaced Pages. Eliminating this type of pointless discussion by setting a precise standard can only help the project.Shirtwaist ☎ 19:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What I said is referring to people who worry about whether or not the heading is "Plot" or "Plot summary". Either heading is sufficient, as arguments can be made for either one. What is needed is a change in perspective. It is not something to worry about, and that's the message that needs to be conveyed, not one saying, "'Plot' should be written, no other way is allowed." Other headings can have their set of variations too. It's not always "Critical reception", sometimes it's "Critics" (and "Box office") under "Release". We don't need to lock it down this much. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

So, are you saying that not locking it down, and thereby allowing lengthy, time-consuming discussions like this one happen again on other film talk pages, is preferable to setting a standard that would prevent them? I think the cost/benefit ratio for setting a "Plot" standard is firmly weighted on the "benefit" side here. Shirtwaist ☎ 22:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It won't prevent discussions. If an editor goes out and enforces this rule and references a guideline saying so, disagreeing editors will come here and argue that "Plot summary" is a perfectly valid alternative. If you're working on an article, and someone else changes the heading from one thing to another, let it be. The real benefit is that this acceptance can be applied to other minor edits, hence my comment about valuable edits and related discussion. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir as far as "letting it be", but that's beside the point. The fact that some editors won't let it be is why we're discussing this. One obvious advantage to setting a standard like this is that it will shift inevitable arguments from numerous film articles to this one place where the consensus can be accepted or challenged, which is common here. As it stands now with the undefined standard, arguments are occurring in both places. I see the latter as a detriment, not a benefit. Shirtwaist ☎ 00:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• I don't accept that "Plot" and "Plot summary" are tautologies, or are at least always perceived as being so. For instance, IMDB makes a distinction between "synopsis" and a "summary"; on there a summary is a brief plot overview of not much more than a paragraph, while a synopsis is a substantial outline of the plot. I would say that here on Misplaced Pages we generally aim for a synopsis rather than a summary. Now, we have guidelines that cover the length of the 'plot' section but most editors aren't familiar with them, so we must be careful that editors don't formulate assumptions based on section headings alone. Using "summary" can imply to the editor that all we want is a short paragraph, whereas we actually want something more substantial. On that basis I think "Plot" is better because it doesn't imply anything to an editor about the form the plot outline should take. Betty Logan (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

  The template {{plot}} has used the term "plot summary" forever. At WP:PLOT, "concise summary" and "plot summaries" are the terms used, and the policy links to the guideline Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Plot summaries, which links to the essay Misplaced Pages:How to write a plot summary. The term is acceptable, just like "Plot" is. Novice editors are not being guided by the section heading on how much to write; they're guided by examples they've seen (good or bad) and by their ability (or inability) to compress information. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

My concern is that it makes film articles look a bit weaker when the section heading, which IMO should be clear-cut, isn't consistent between articles. I will grant that for purposes of what they entail, "Plot" or "Plot summary" are essentially identical; I just think it looks messy when x% of articles use one and y% of articles use the other for no apparent reason beyond, "both are acceptable". That being said, ultimately I doubt it makes much of a difference to a casual reader either way, though it clearly can and has led to some possibly unnecessary confusion between editors. Doniago (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Box office revision

Due to a recent discussion at Talk:Real Steel about box office information added to Real Steel, I think it may help to revise the guidelines in the "Box office" section. The guidelines currently mention the kind of box office information to include: "In addition to worldwide box office statistics, this section may detail specific results of opening weekends, results from different English-speaking territories, the number of theatres the film was released into, and audience demographics. Coverage of a notable opening in a country not of the film's origin may be included (e.g., an article on an American film set in China may include discussion of the film's performance in that country)." The way it is written may be unintentionally self-limiting in the sense that it sounds like only these details should be included. In this day and age, there is a lot of box office analysis to be found, with different kinds of observations and milestones reported, so my suggestion is to re-word the guidelines to suggest referencing reliable sources that have assessed a film's box office performance (as opposed to just drawing conclusions from tables), then list examples and make it clear that these examples are not inclusive. That should permit flexibility, but at the same time, what should the upper limit of such coverage be? If one at all? We do not want to be indiscriminate, so is relying on secondary sources' analysis enough? Or can the analysis go too far to report all the details in a Misplaced Pages article? I personally have a liberal outlook to having such information and am fine with a sub-article of box office detail (from reliably sourced analysis, of course) as I believe has been done a few times for major blockbusters. (The main article would have a summary section of that sub-article with the highlights of the highlights.) Thoughts on the re-wording or certain restrictions? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Is having too much information (not my normal context for that phrase) likely to be an issue in this case? It doesn't strike me as the sort of thing that would tend to be problematic. Doniago (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured article American Beauty (film)#Theatrical run has quite a bit of box office information, especially for other countries. Do you think that's too much? These details were highlighted in the sources' box office analyses and just reported on Misplaced Pages. I think it's kind of hard to gauge in a broad sense how much is too much. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ohhh, here's a heavier example: Hancock (film)#Theatrical run. See each footnote to get an idea of the sources (mainly Box Office Mojo, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter) covering box office performance frequently. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There have been a few cases recently where the box office section monopolised the article. In those case separate box-office articles were created and just a summary was included in the main article, and I think the solution has worked reasonably well. The fact is, if a film sets records in many markets that is notable whichever way you look at it, so editors shouldn't be deterred from documenting the information. Betty Logan (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say if the information is simply a tiresome list of, say, opening weekend figures in different markets, or an unnecessary breakdown of week by week gross which could be more succinctly put, then there's a problem, and it's just a case of copy-editing, rather than guideline changes. I'm not really sure we need to amend the guidelines, as they seem to me to read more as a suggested structure rather than as a set of limits. GRAPPLE X 21:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it depends on how one reads it. To say that one "may" include so-and-so detail can be seen as one "may not" include details not endorsed here. I've done a few writeups here, and I try to be open-ended. (I think I may have contributed to this one too; I don't remember!) If one shouldn't do something, the guidelines will be explicit (such as in the first paragraph about use of "domestic"). Maybe a smaller tweak is more appropriate, such as saying "...include sourced details like specific results..."? Erik (talk | contribs) 22:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with Grapple — and there's a larger issue here: Allowing open rein on "record setting" is an invitation to meaningless promotional claims. The marketing and promotion department of every major studio sends out press releases for every major movie touting some "record" or other, most of them meaningless to anyone outside the trade. "Biggest IMAX opening in October" is one good example, as are things I've seen that include "weekend's top comedy for women 18-34."

Including the straightforward box-office numbers for pertinent milestones like opening weekend and initial theatrical run makes sense. A plethora of inflated "records," which all soon get dated anyway, serves no meaningful purpose to the general reader. If anywhere, these belong in a list article of "Box office records," where they can be broken down and updated much more readily than by trying to scour thousands of movie articles for "Highest-grossing sports comedy in New Zealand." --Tenebrae (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Tenebrae, do you not consider the trade papers Variety and The Hollywood Reporter reliable sources? Your example of "biggest IMAX opening in October" comes from this secondary source. I don't see a reason to mistrust this source. The sources are reliable, and the tone can be revised to be neutral, so it is a matter of being discriminate. Grapple X is saying that he does not think the details mentioned in the guidelines are the only ones that should be in film articles. What is the wording to be used when we have all these details from sourced analysis? What can we say—"cover the performance within reason"? "Use editorial discretion"? Like I said, I am liberal with such information, but we could discuss an approach to encourage a summary paragraph at the beginning of a "Box office" section, and the reader can choose to dive into more detailed paragraphs or skip to the next section. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the guidelines could focus on approach rather than what to/not include i.e. the sort of data we'd include for a Hollywood film is probably going to be different to what we would include for an arthouse film. Perhaps we focus too much on raw data, I mean generally this is frowned upon on Misplaced Pages because raw box office records are akin to primary sources. Diving into a research article and grabbing data probably wouldn't be tolerated on science articles, and a secondary source would be required to interpret the data. Perhaps what we need to do is focus more on financial analysis. Requiring sources to interpret the financial data (rather than just reeling off records) would help temper the bloated sections, because this results directly from Misplaced Pages editors deciding what is relevant (ending up with indiscriminate data), rather than than relevance being decided by reliable third party sources. The fact that when a billion dollar hit comes along and it triggers lots of little changes on other articles as ranks are adjusted says to me that the sections aren't particularly well written, because they are not being written with a long-term view. Betty Logan (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tenebrae that something like "Weekends top film for transvestite north korean midgets between the age of 5 and 63 who are really into MASH" is not really a notable thing. Biggest opening in October, biggest opening weekend in October, biggest opening day, midnight launch, 5 day weekend, things of that nature to which other films will be compared. Biggest film of 2011 if it is the first and only film of 2011? No. I don't see a problem with lots of detail as long as it is notable and not, as someone else mentioned, a breakdown of every weekend. If, in that weekend it opened in a new market and had a notable performance, then sure, like a late China/Japan opening as some films seem to get. EDIT Also depends on the film. A billion dollar film is probably requiring a larger BO section than say...er...Green Lantern. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Betty and Blake, I think we can all agree on using secondary sources' analyses to make observations about a film's box office performance. What I mean to say is that even with these analyses, the amount of detail can be considered by some to be excessive. For example, Hancock (film)#Theatrical run is all based on analyses, and it is a pretty long section. I'm personally fine with that amount of detail but can see a benefit of having a summary paragraph for readers who may not want to read through the whole section. Do you think we should have wording in the guidelines to say to focus on secondary sources' analyses (less constrained than listing examples perceived as the only details one can include), and should we also have wording that somehow says there can be too much analysis? Erik (talk | contribs) 11:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just gone to the Hancock link you note, and not to put too fine a point on, I'm appalled. It's an incredibly dense jumble of minutiae that, even if an argument could be made for including all this indiscriminate dump of data, should be given in list or chart form — in which case all we're doing is duplicating Box Office Mojo.

And I'm seeing great inconsistencies in approach, which is what guidelines are supposed to avoid. There's no intrinsic reason, if opening-week box office figures in Russia and Brazil are deemed important, not to have them for every film, not just major Hollywood movies. Arthouse movies have their own hits, just with smaller dollar amounts. Again, how important to the general reader of English-language Misplaced Pages is a country-by-country breakdown for every film? Unless you're in the trade (in which case you'd readily have other sources than Misplaced Pages), I'm not sure why that general reader would care about anything other than worldwide box-office total in order to get a reasonable sense of how a movie did commercially.

I do see us, at least, as a group, moving away from the idea of just dumping numbers and "records" and adding sourced/quoted analysis, like that very good Chad Hartigan quote at Hancock. It's also becoming clear that if we're talking about what amounts to a significant change in WP:FILM guidelines, that's a bigger thing than a half-dozen of us talking about it here. I'm thinking we need to open this up to the larger Misplaced Pages community with a posted WP:RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

We're probably better off trying to move this forward as a smaller discussion, come up with something substantive and then kick it into the wider arena. If you have 20-30 people in a discussion, it's hard enough just getting them to agree to something, let alone formulate new guidelines. Betty Logan (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Like a steering committee. That makes sense. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

In defense of Hancock, there are details throughout that cannot be conveyed in lists or charts. Like Grapple X said, such write-ups can be copy-edited. This Misplaced Pages being the English-language version does not mean that coverage cannot be global. (Especially considering that this film grossed more outside the United States than in it.) It is easy to provide box office information for the United States (even for foreign-language films imported from elsewhere), but such information is not always so public for other territories. Through these other territories, we can get a sense of how a blockbuster debuts in them. I think it is difficult to surmise what "the general public" wants, so I advocate liberally providing this kind of information. However, I am open to ways to organize it so the highlights (e.g., total box office gross) are at the top of the section and readers can choose whether or not to delve deeper into that specific sub-topic. I think it's unrealistic to try to list what can and cannot be included in such a section. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages (and the rest of the world) lists what can and cannot be include in published material all the time. At the moment, though, the country-by-country breakdown is in vio of WP:FILM guidelines. I'm also not sure how numbers and countries running together in a prose sentence is supposed to be clearer to read than in a chart.

And again, why just "blockbusters"? If a country by country breakdown of opening weekend is critical, necessary information, then why shouldn't that be true of any US film released internationally? It's an artificial distinction to say only "blockbusters" (a vague, imprecise word; Halloween and My Big, Fat Greek Weekend did huge business, but no one calls them "blockbuster") are of commercial importance. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think calling the examples a violation of the film guidelines is a bit strong. The string of details that can be included were meant as examples and suggestions. The way these guidelines are written in general, it is clear when it says not to include something or not to write something in a particular way. For example, we encourage box office results from English-language territories in particular because we have readers from these territories, but that does not preclude mentioning other territories if some analysis has highlighted performances in them. If you're asking why US films' articles are not more covered internationally, I think it's because the effort has not been made. It's easy to pull the figures from a film's primary web page at the US-oriented Box Office Mojo, where other figures are in tables or in analysis not quite discoverable (or paywalled, like Variety can be after too many views). For example, My Big Fat Greek Wedding is too old to have any "Related Stories" on Box Office Mojo, and Variety is not showing any results I can see, which may mean one has to use a subscription-only database. I personally think that box office analysis has become prevalent in the past decade (more "Related Stories", for one) and possibly because films get more and more of an international distribution. Some American films are even distributed elsewhere before here. In terms of blockbuster talk, the bigger films are closely scrutinized compared to indie ones, though analysis of indie films do like to mention the gross per theater, whether it's good or bad. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The box office results can go global... but sure things can get too overdetailed to the point of cruft. Saying where the film had the highest numbers (i.e. "five highest-grossing markets" or "surpassed $10 million in said countries"), OK, but from that to listing every country where it set an opening day/weekend record (specially when the ref used can't prove this fact!) or just dumping the BO numbers is too much. I have had somewhat heated arguments on this ever since my work on Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides required shortening a 28 kb section on box office (divided in continental regions!) to a manageable size. Of course some films are successful enough to warrant an article on box office performance - but still, only the first, third and seventh in the highest-grossing films of all time have such a thing. igordebraga ≠ 18:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like for the larger section in On Stranger Tides, quite a few tables of raw data were referenced. I think referencing analysis makes it more manageable. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

And I'm done discussing here for a couple of days. I feel like I've contributed too many KBs' worth of comments. I hope others can share their thoughts, and I encourage making them actionable (i.e., possible rewrite). Erik (talk | contribs) 19:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious what the opinion is of Fast_Five_(film)#Box_office in regards to this proposal. As for country breakdowns, I'd agree to listing the first weeks as I believe it gives a good picture of how each country reacts to a film financially, but (its not really possible anyway) following them beyond the first week unless something significant happened, seems over indulgent. If it made $300,000 in Saudi Arabia in week 1, OK, that it made $266,000 in week 3 is not necessary info and provides no real knowledge. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, based on what has already been said in this discussion, I believe most things written in the box-office section of Fast Five are OK, but they should be written in a more brief way. However there are some negative aspects:

• It is evident that a film opening in April might have a chance of posting the highest opening weekend of a year so far, because most major blockbusters come out during the following months. Therefore, I think that things like: "the highest-grossing film of 2011 to date" are unecessary, because it dosen't actually indicate any record. For example, when The Green Hornet (2011 film) came out, it had posted the highest-grossing opening of 2011 to date, but I don't think that this fact has any significance, since almost all other 2011 movies hadn't yet been released.

So I think this chronological presentation should't be included. Paragraph 2, lets say, under Box Office in my opinion should go something like this: "Fast Five overtook Fast & Furious to become the highest-grossing film in the Fast and the Furious franchise worldwide, in North America (both adjusted and inadjusted for infaltion) and overseas (all markets outside North America)" (perhaps the date could be mentioned but not gross-to-date). Everything else about Rio and Pirates 4 and its worldwide rank aren't necessary because now other 2011 films have taken the top spots and because its worldwide rank is already mentioned in paragraph 1. This also happens in Pragraph 2 under "United States and Canada".

• Also, the comparisons with Thor could be briefer and the excessive detail about second and third weekend (overseas and domestic) could be removed
• The part about UAE is inaccurate, because the grosses that you mention are the total grosses from all the movies during that weekend (Fast Five on its own is $1.7M and Pirates 4 is $1.9M).
• The table at the end isn't necessary since it contains info already mentioned in the text
• also these sentences could be removed: "On May 31, 2011, Fast Five, with a cumulative gross of $350M, was replaced as the highest-grossing film of 2011 internationally by Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides ($472.3M)." and "Fast Five was followed by The Hangover Part II and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides on this basis."

In this way, nothing notable will be removed from the article. But the section will become briefer and more comprehensive because unnecessary detail will be removed. Thank you. Spinc5 (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to go back to a point someone made before about second- and third-weekend grosses. It may be a failure of imagination on my part, but I cannot imagine the average moviegoer in St. Louis or Milwaukee or Spokane really caring about anything but the opening weekend, and that only because opening weekends get hyped all over the media, piquing average moviergers' curiosity. But if we absolutely have to have second- and third-weekend grosses, these would be much easier to read in chart form than in prose. Same if we're listing opening weekends in foreign countries (and unless we're setting an arbitrary limit, we're talking around at least two dozen countries per movie release). A laundry list of country (number), country (number), country (number) is hard to read and difficult to digest in prose form, as oppose to a chart or list — that's graphic design 101.

My feeling is that the box-office guidelines as they now exist aren't broke, and don't need fixing: Opening weekend, domestic and worldwide gross, and specific foreign territories only if there's some organic reason ton include them, like for Australia when a U.S. movie has an Australian star.

A week-by-week, country-by-country breakdown is overkill, in my opinion.

And on a separate note, I wonder if Box Office Mojo would have concerns about Misplaced Pages coming over the copy-paste posting all that work they do. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just had to revert User:Spinc5's unilateral and disruptive restoration here of the some of the very disputed material we're still discussing on this page. His unilateral reinsertion of that disputed material, which some editors here consider hype-y, promotional, inside-trade fluff, while a discussion about its very appropriateness for Misplaced Pages is ongoing, seems to me outrageous and in bad faith. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What I don't understand is how can someone shrink a boxoffice section of a specific movie from three paragraphs to five lines, claiming it contains promotional data etc. but on the other hand how come he doens't do that to other movies (like this, this, this and this - among others) which were also written in a similar way (using raw data). Isn't this a non-neutral approach? If this material is hype-y, promotional, inside-trade fluff then I don't see any reason for it existing in any of those articles. And concerning raw data, if it is wrong to combine many charts from Box Office Mojo in order to determine the rank of a movie (for example combine yearly charts to determine all-time rank in a country) then there isn't evidently any other option than just copying and pasting only the records or ranks that are explicitly stated (using our own words). So how can this be inacceptable, as stated here ("And on a separate note, I wonder if Box Office Mojo would have concerns about Misplaced Pages coming over the copy-paste posting all that work they do.")? What else could we do except of this and except of not mentioning the record at all? Spinc5 (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Other stuff existing does not mean that its presence is warranted. We'll have to deal with these articles that you pointed out. It really is a matter of a difference between being discriminate and indiscriminate. By referencing an analysis, we are reporting an observation that someone else has already made. See WP:PSTS, which says Misplaced Pages articles need to be based on secondary sources. "They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." So we need to reference the analysis and not the table of raw data. That's the threshold for inclusion. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I am coming in in the middle, but am I correct that the only fact under dispute for inclusion involves how quickly Pirates... Chest reached the billion dollar mark? Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It's possible that some highlights can be included if it has already been reported by analysis elsewhere. Here, we have some mining of raw data. For example, this sentence: "Moreover, is the highest-grossing Disney film of all time as well as the highest-grossing adventure-period, pirate, swashbuckler and treasure hunt film of all time." Same approach with specific countries, such as the Italian and Swedish mentions. We can get quite indiscriminate with mentioning all these genre and country figures, so the threshold for inclusion is to at least have a highlight reported in an analysis, so we know it's worth noting. Tenebrae thinks the threshold should be lower since there can still be a lot of information, like with the Hancock example, which references a lot of analyses for the box office section. What do you think? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems like I'm a little more permissive (but not a lot), because of the following.... We read articles and we summarize them with a listing of the source. That is standard here. So if we read a table and summarize it with a listing of the source, that's about the same thing. But okay if it's double indexed from separate tables as you mention, that is OR. The other point that might matter a little is that if a film's "accomplishment" is that they had, say, the best grosses on a third weekend in October for a comedy this century, that is damning with faint praise. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Section break

If a movie broke many records then it is logical that its box-office section will contain lots of information. So, I don't see why the volume of information is a problem. If it is necessary the volume of information will be big. This doesn't make the article over-detailed, if all the records are notable. Also, I will agree that a single table can be considered a secondary source just like an article, as long as we mention ranks that are directly related to the table (e.g. we can say that a movie is the 20th highest-grossing worldwide if we use an all-time worldwide table, but we can't say that it is the 3rd highest-grossing animated film worldwide, using the same table but using a table that shows the worldwide grosses only of animated films). But on the other hand, when there isn't a lot to say in box-office articles then, many times, the author mentions records that he wouldn't have if other information existed. e.g. here it is mentioned that Kung Fu Panda 2 broke the opening weekend record in Vietnam ($1 million), but here there is nothing said about the opening weekend records that HP7 broke in many Latin American countries. Isn't it more important, though, that HP7 broke the opening weekend record in Colombia ($2.1 million), or that it earned $8.7 million in Spain just because it is a larger number? Of ocurse Box Office Mojo can say whatever it wants in its articles but shouldn't Misplaced Pages search for the important parts (that may not be so promoted by secondary sources as are other information)? Similarly, if Kung Fu Panda had debuted in 6 other major markets on that weekend (implying it would score higher but maybe not record-breaking grosses) then that record in Vietnam wouldn't have been mentioned. So why can't Misplaced Pages combine info from many articles and tables of the same source to arrive at a conclusion that is still promoting the same ideas as the source (e.g. Box Office Mojo's basic goal is to present box office data and mention records, so if we combine data from different articles and tables of this source to cite records, what is the problem?) --Spinc5 (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

One of Misplaced Pages's policies is not to be an indiscriminate collection of information. In particular, it should not be an excessive listing of statistics. For a blockbuster film, we are going to deal with an overabundance of information about its box office performance that could be included in an encyclopedic article. There are ways we can moderate that, one of which is having analyses as the threshold for inclusion. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be based chiefly on secondary sources; primary sources need to be used with care. A film doing well at the box office can mean a longer section, and there can be the appearance of a non-neutral tone. The point of the threshold is to reference reliable sources that note certain highlights in their analysis. For Dead Man's Chest, for example, we see on Box Office Mojo that it is the top-ranked pirate-genre film. We are referencing a table and piling on the observations that can be made about the film's box office performance. If we cannot back the pirate genre observation with a secondary source, then it should not be treated as a highlight. (After all, it's not like we have pirate genre films out-competing each other every year.) By reporting observations explicitly made elsewhere, we can at least say, "They said it, not us" in regard to significance and neutrality concerns. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Erik. I think he explains a complicated situation clearly and understandably. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Images of cast members in an article about an unreleased film

There has been disagreement at Lincoln (2012 film) and its talk page about including images of its stars, Daniel Day-Lewis and Sally Field plus the historical figures Abraham Lincoln and Mary Todd Lincoln. The images in question are freely licensed. I believe that they add encyclopedic value allowing interested readers to evaluate how similar or different the appearance of the actors compares to the Lincolns. Rusted AutoParts has raised a variety of objections, all of which I've addressed. Yet the editor has continued to remove them each time I add them. I asked Michael Q. Schmidt for an opinion on his talk page. He pretty much agreed with my interpretation and said so on Rusted AutoParts talk page as well. He did recommend further discussion here, so thoughts of other editors would be appreciated. Cullen Let's discuss it 21:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Cullen because the current text at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Film#Free licence images is somewhat ambiguous. When speaking about cast images, the section reads "The cast and crew can be photographed at the various premieres of the resulting film as well as any components of production on display," as seeming to instruct how an editor can take his own camera and personally take a piture that he might then upload to the project for free use. It does not address situations where might aleady have free use images. And with my understanding that "can be" does not mean "must be", and based on that guideline's ambiguity, it can be reasonably argued that as these are the only ones free use ones available until filming commences, and they are suitable in adding to a reader"s understanding of the topic being discussed, they should be okay until we have ones more directly related to the film. This is the first time I have been asked about this specific type of usage within a film article, and as the editors have not reached agreement through discussuion the the film's talk page, I suggested they both come here to seek wider input on the intent of that section. Schmidt, 23:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

In general, I would say if it's free it's not a serious problem (unless you're flooding images for the sake of having them). Having looked at the images and the reasoning for using them, I do find some potential issues. First, if I'm going to compare Day Lewis to Lincoln, I would probably want a picture where he looks like Lincoln, and not a picture where he's merely scruffy and wearing a hat. That picture of him alone looks significantly different than say this picture and almost made me think they were two different people. If he can look so different from himself, he's most certainly going to look different than a portrait of Lincoln. As for Sally Field, the picture being used is 21 years old. How should a reader compare a picture of Sally Field from 2 decades ago with Mary Todd when Sally Field has certainly aged considerably since then (we're talking the difference between being 45 years old and 65 years old).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice. Sensible consideration of how appropriate a chosen image might not be the best first choice for its intended use. Cullen... any newer ones? Schmidt, 02:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The main focus of the discussion here, in my opinion, ought to be whether there is any general principle that would prevent free images of cast members to be used to illustrate an article about an unreleased movie. I see no basis in policy, guidelines or established consensus for that opinion. Once the broad question has been discussed, I am more than happy to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these particular photos.

As to the specific photos here: We are fortunate enough to have several choices of free images available on Wikimedia Commons of Daniel Day-Lewis. Most are from 2007 or 2008, so are fairly recent if not brand new. The one now used in the article is also the one that illustrates the Daniel Day-Lewis biography. I am open to changing it to another free image of Day-Lewis, and I used another image in an earlier edit. So editors who think that an image of him should be in the article are also free to suggest a better image. As for preferring an image where he "looks like Lincoln" as opposed to "a picture where he's merely scruffy and wearing a hat", let me remind Bignole that Abraham Lincoln was very well known for looking scruffy and wearing hats. His consistently scruffy appearance drove his wife crazy, and many of his friends and associates commented on it in great detail over the course of many years.

As for Sally Field, we have only one free image on Commons to work with, although the source image (which includes three people) could be cropped a bit better and less tightly, so that the resolution would be a bit higher. It is a mediocre image at best, and was taken 21 years ago. However, it is the only free image we have of her, and now illustrates her biography Sally Field. Ironically, one slight benefit of the image is that she was much closer in age when the photo was taken to Mary Todd Lincoln at the time of the events of the film than she is now. Field was 43 when that photo was taken and Mary Todd Lincoln was 46 in the first few months of 1865. Spielberg is bold enough to cast Field as a woman 19 years younger, and Field is bold enough to take the role. So the make-up artists will strive to make Sally Field look a few years younger than she was when our photo was taken. In this context, I am willing to accept this photo as useful until we have something better.

What I hope to do, if there is a consensus to keep the images, is to crop all the photos so that the heads are roughly the same size. That will make it a bit easier for readers to ponder the actors and the historical figures that they are portraying. And let me say again that I am completely receptive to changing to better or more current images once those are available. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

To the first, no there isn't a policy against the use of free images in a film article. To the idea that Abe Lincoln "looked scruffy" and "wore hats", there is a big difference between a random image of Daniel Day-Lewis wearing some fedora and Abe Lincoln wearing a top hat. They aren't the same thing. As for "scruffy", that isn't the picture you have in the article. If you're intention is to create a way for readers to compare the way the actor looks with the president, then you need to find images where you can better make that analysis. For instance, a cleaner shaven Lewis image (like that one I provided above) coupled with this image of Lincoln might be better suited for comparison purposes. If that is not your intention, then you don't need a picture of Lincoln in the first place, because he's a pretty well known president to begin with and his article is riddled with images. If you're going to be doing "comparison" shots, then they need to be side-by-side and not one on top of the other.

As for Sally, I don't see anything that says she's going to be wearing make-up to look younger (which again calls into question that ability to use a random image of her for comparison purposes if they're going to put make up on her just to make her look like Mary Todd). So, as I said before there is no rule or policy against the use of a free image in an article. But at the same time, having an image for the sake of an image does not necessarly help an article, especially if the images are not the best representation for the article's subject matter (the Lewis/Lincoln images do not mesh with each other or give any remote ability to accurately compare likenesses). So, go with the consensus on the article talk page (which a discussion should be presented there) as to whether all 4 images are necessary, and/or what images are best to use.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is ok to have images for comparisons between cast members and their real-life counterparts, but to be honest I don't see the point in using any old photo. The photographs should show the actors "in character", using publicity stills or fair use screen caps, or if possible public domain photos taken on set with the actors filming/in costume (although the fair use criteria would also require the prose to address physical appearance/resemblance). If you slap in any old photo you are not drawing a direct comparison between the real-life person and the depiction of them in the film, which is the underlying purpose of such illustration. Betty Logan (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Bignole, The image of Daniel Day-Lewis you linked to is great but is not a free image and can't be used here, so please suggest a free image that you think would be better. The image I chose is not "random" as it is one of a handful of free images we have, and shows him wearing a hat with some beard growth. As for clean-shaven images, Lincoln was bearded in 1865 and the fine historic image you linked to was taken in 1860 when he was five years younger. This is a film about the final months of Lincoln's life, and any image of Lincoln we use ought to be from 1864 or 1865. As for Sally Field, it seems self-evident to me that the filmmakers will try to make her appear younger since she is playing a woman who was 19 years younger than she is now. Why would they make her look 65? It is not a "random image" but rather the only free image of her now available. You seem to have a difficulty looking at the images of Daniel Day-Lewis and Abraham Lincoln, and then of Sally Field and Mary Todd Lincoln, and pondering how well the actors will be able to visually portray the historical figures. I have no such difficulty, and I find it interesting and informative to look at the photos together.

Betty Logan, thank you for your input but there are no photos available yet of the actors "in character", and I will gladly and instantly agree to changing the photos once that type of photo is available. The photos now in the article are not "any old photo" but are selected from the limited range of free photos (one in the case of Sally Field) that we have available to us at this time. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no difficulty looking at the images, I have difficulty seeing (in this case) where all 4 images are necessary. Has someone commented on Lewis's resemblance to Lincoln, or to Field's to Mary Todd? If so, then I'm sure it would be relevant to a reader. Now, if you're trying to insinuate that there is a resemblance, then that would probably be a bit of original research. If you're not, then it begs to argue why we need all 4 images in the first place. If no reliable source is talking about any visual comparison between the actors and their historical counterparts, then it isn't our place to initiate such conversation. For example, I think there was at least a brief mentioning (by Tom Cruise himself) regarding Cruise's visual resemblance to Von Stauffenberg in Valkyrie (film). Either way, this isn't the page to discuss such things and I have no desire to edit Lincoln, so this needs to be a discussion between the editors that watch that page on that article's discussion page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Film Plot References

I have read over WP:FILMPLOT, but it does not mention if the Plot section of a movie article should be referenced. Most movie articles do not include references for the plot section. The better ones read like they came off the back of the DVD container, and others like the editor wrote the plot from memory after seeing the movie. I have now come from the article Snow Prince, which was assessed B-class by WP:Film and is under GAR, but it doesn't have references in the Plot section. What is the position of editors here: Do plot sections of movie articles need references? Boneyard90 (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Generally the Plot section should strictly be reporting what occurs on screen, and as such does not need sourcing. That can change if any interpretation or original research or clarification from TPTB is a desirable addition. Doniago (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

This is covered explicitly in WP:FILMPLOT. Perhaps it is not clear. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to think that the ones that read like the back of a DVD cover are not prevalent, because that stuff is written from the perspective of selling the film. Our plots should be written from the perspective of just summarizing the major events of the film without any bias or titilation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There are ALOT of really bad film articles out there, and alot of lazy writers. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies. I re-read the section. For a concerned editor, it is mildly vague. The section says that the movie as primary source is acceptable, and secondary sources are not necessary. It does not say that "there may be no references in a plot section", which even though the movie itself is a primary source, made me wonder if the movie itself shouldn't be referenced... but I suppose not. Since plot summaries are freely written, this explains why there is such a high degree of variation. Thanks again. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The only reason we wouldn't put a primary reference in the plot section is because the infobox acts as the primary reference template. What you would fill out in a Template:Cite video (or similar) is what you fill out in the infobox. So, it just doesn't get an in-line citation, but technically the citation is on the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think the rationale is that the film is the text that the section summarizes, in the same way that the views of a critic are summarized in the reception section. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"Bulleted" crew lists?

In studying the manual of style, the only references to how to handle crew is found at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Film#Cast... where that section concerntrates more on cast and less on crew, and at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Film#Production which more specifically states how to handle the most important artists (cast and crew). I have come across a quite diligent editor improving Cinema of India articles, and I strongly applaud his efforts.

However, I wish to get wider input here about whether or not WP:MOSFILM should be tweaked to more specifically address the use or not of bulleted crew lists. Myself, I think that the more important members of production who are not already part of the infobox template, such as executive producer, project consultant, script doctor, production designer, music director, sound designer, graphics supervisor, casting director, make-up artist, and costume designer (example ) should be best treated as sourced and informative prose... and not be simply a bullet list.

Suggested change to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Film#Production is that a sentence be added that states "When including the more important members of production who are not already part of the infobox template, the information should be offered as sourced and informative prose and not as a list".

Again, the editor who used them at Dam 999 is doing some terrific work and I do not wish to discourage him in any way. So I'm hoping that MOSFILM can be tweaked to more specically instruct that lessor major crew may be included as prose and to discourage lessor major crew in less inciteful bullet lists. Schmidt, 20:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You can see something like this in action here. User:Erik is the one that first started using this on selected articles. Since the infobox can not handle all this information, I don't see why we can't add a crew list in the production section. The film's credits is the source for these people, so I don't think a secondary source is needed. —Mike Allen 01:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't use crew "Lists". That's what IMDb is for. I mean, looking at Saw, I have to ask why we have a list that duplicates the infobox with exception to just 3 names? If they are not notable enough to put into prose (more than a list that's in prose form), then let IMDb credit all of them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the 444 bytes of data. —Mike Allen 03:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I also applaud the idea of more behind the camera and it's long overdue. This is an area extremely overlooked and it's a more balanced view of filmmaking to integrate the idea that lead performers are less significant than crew leaders and daily crew members have more skills than supporting actors. It's probably the area where we can most easily improve the articles. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if you're talking about what they are doing exactly, but simply identifying someone is needless. It doesn't hold real value just to put a name in there. That's why we don't include stand-in characters in the cast list. IMDb is more than capable of keeping a comprehensive list of actors and crew.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that having just a crew list is not needed and is not very informative. This should apply to cast lists too. If the names are already in the infobox having a second list in the article body does not seem to be needed when we can have a cast list inside the plot. If we can have more prose explaining what is important about the cast/crew seems to be better. --Peppage 15:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The infobox doesn't come close to naming every important crew member (or cast member either). I don't think even the art director is there, and that's a very important person. Morever, every film article doesn't need to be a short film course to justify something. The focus on actors and directors ("above the line" people) is fine as a reflection of pop culture, but there the crew's importance is never overstated. A reflection of film culture is also important and I'm certain we can trust page editors to manage this if they know about making movies. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Through consensus and discussion, the infobox template could be expanded. If a behind-the-scenes crewmember is worthy of inclusion, the best way to make a case would be to present sourced prose so as to better inform the reader in context to the production. I am myself quite involved in film and television, and I salute the behind-the-scenes efforts that bring any production together. In my own recognizing that some of these unsung individuals are worthy of note, I have written articles on individuals such as Marilyn Vance... a woman whose work as a costume designer has recived enough recognition to allow her the notability required by Misplaced Pages for an article. As valuable as crew is to production, for us to best recognize that value we need to provide our readers with contextual content of their contributions. I fully agree that "long overdue" would seem more a call for articles and improved content. But just a list of names? Our readers need context. Schmidt, 21:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't really mean that. There have been discussions over there (about Art Director, for example). That's not my point. The infobox is big enough anyway. However, since we are comfortable simply listing the names of the cast members quite often, so I don't see why the crew is different. People come to an encyclopedia for information. We can use our editorial judgement and we should. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Film articles that are just "listing cast members" are probably also film articles with little to no information and probably no direction. Even our MOS discourages simply listing things like IMDb, as again, IMDb is comprehensive enough for both of us. If the art director is that important, chances are there should be something out there to write about him/her in prose format. If your argument is that we need start listing crew members simply because you believe they are "important" then to me that's not a real reason to start turning ourselves into IMDb. Yes, there are plenty or important Art Directors and Costume Designers, but again without prose their level of importance is regulated to personal judgment. If that's the case, the Best Boy is just as important as the Producer and we should have a list of them as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No, these are not good points. Perhaps it's going to shock you, but the reason we put things in Misplaced Pages is because of their importance. The other word for that is notability. The crew on a film is important. More important than the cast. By your logic we should not include the cast members, I guess, since most of them aren't written about and other web sites already list them. Clearly this is not the point. I realize that the misunderstanding about the prominent role of the crew extends even to those who edit film articles. It's unfortunate, but there are good sources out there that explain who does what. Once a person becomes familiar with that, there will no longer be any question about including the crew in the film articles. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Just listing out cast members or crew members without any further information is not useful. Unless cited information can be shown as to why these members were important (did they win awards? is there information regarding their views on their input to the film?) then they should not be included. This goes for the infobox as well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It is indisputable that some people (such as art director and production designer) do a more important job than supporting cast members, but ultimately inclusion is based on the proportion of coverage in reliable sources i.e. if a secondary cast member receives more coverage than the art director then that is basically reflected in the structure of the article. This is the problem with lists really, and why we're generally against them, because they don't give equal weighting based on coverage. I'm a huge fan of the Halloween (1978 film) article which simply brings in an actor's name in the plot summary, and has a Casting section which discusses the casting process and is weighted by coverage in reliable sources. It looks much more integrated into the article. Betty Logan (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

No, this is just a double standard. What is overlooked here is that the person's notability in the context of the film is what they did. Cast members are included all the time who have very minor roles and I am sure Andrzejbanas didn't have a tantrum. An actor shows up for a day and does their job and we consider it notable, but the Art Director has to have some extra notability? Hey, if the film is notable enough to have a page, the Art Director is already notable. Obviously, this is ignorance about filmmaking. There's no other explanation. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your blanket summary that editors in this discussion have an "ignorance about filmmaking"... being myself an actor in film and television, I am in no way ignorant of the value of behind-the-scenes contributions. But being valuable does not automatically equate to notability. Your argument that being a crew member for a notable film makes that crew member notable falls afoul of WP:NOTINHERITED. If a crew member has sources discussing his participation in a film, or in some other manner meets the notability criteria of WP:PEOPLE, then by all means add some sourced prose discussing them and that participation. But if the only thing that can be said about a crew mwember is they are listed somewhere as being part of a film's production crew, then they have pretty much not met the criteria. No double standard here at all. Schmidt, 05:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

In some cases it can be perceived as a double standard though; there are lots of articles like The Night of the Hunter (film) that just include a basic cast list, and we let it slide for the most part. It's probably something we need to come in on, because if you allow that then why not add a crew list? Any cast list that doesn't include casting info should be pulled in my view. Betty Logan (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The double standard is obvious. Actors are included because they play small roles. Why? Well, clearly it is understood that it is notable that they appeared in a notable film. No particular secondary source is required; the source is the credits and the notability arises instantly. This is not an example of letting something slide. It's perfectly comprehensible to all that playing a speaking role of any size in a famous film merits inclusion in the film's article. That is encyclopedic information. So the new standard is that no actor should be in any article unless there is something written about that actor in, say, an article about the film? And that has to be sourced or the actor is off the page? Yeah, right. --Ring Cinema (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I can accept the utility of a cast list supported by plot and context or critical reception, and anyone can view the film and see the work of the actors and judge their contextual creative efforts as part of the film. But in viewing a film, and despite us "knowing" that a film cannot be made without them, we see only the results of the behind-the-scenes work of production personal. Shall we emulate IMDB then and list everyone that was in any way a part of production? Look at what IMDB lists for Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone past the director, writers, and actors: 8 entries for producer, 4 for casting, 9 for art direction, 22 for make-up, 7 for production management, 17 for second unit director or assistant director, nearly 100 for the art department, 28 for sound department, over 100 for special effects, over 400 for visual effects, 59 for camera and electrical department, etc, etc, etc. Not difficult to see that a bullet list of perhaps 700+ production personel would overwhelm the Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) article. BUT as sometimes such less-than-primary personel can win awards and receive recognition for their efforts, what common sense tells me is that when sources DO speak toward the work of less-than-primary production personel, we can include them as sourced prose. But to open the doors to bare lists of perhaps hundreds of entries?? Where is the line of usefullness to our readers to be drawn? Schmidt, 19:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is the Saw article being used as a battleground? —Mike Allen 12:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If the Saw article continues being a battleground in order to make a point, there will be quite likely be repercussions. Schmidt, 19:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

My view on this is that, yes, all films have production designers, art directors, set directors, etc. But there are some films (like Saw and its spawns) that are prop-heavy and the most of the same crew works on each one. I thought it would benefit the reader to go through each article and compare. (But this is made easier on the Saw (franchise)#Production article) I did this for Resident Evil: Afterlife, but they are also listed in prose. I look at the crew table as an infobox for the production section. I would like to know where this Saw discussion is going on at.... It is clear the table is not wanted (the GA reviewer for Saw II requested it be removed from that article too). It's not that big of a deal (even though I prefer it to stay), so I removed it. —Mike Allen 23:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the more notable and well-covered the film is, the more likely it is that we might have coverage of some of the behind-the scenes crew suitable for accompanying prose and a list if' the prose is supported by reliable sources. We do not have a hard and fast "rule" about such, but for GA we need ackmowledge that MOS:FILM encourages prose over lists. What brought me here was a crew list inclusion in some lessor-known films where they did not have RS sourcing or accompanying prose, and an assertion there that simply being crew for a notable film was enough... and it's really not. Schmidt, 04:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't need another source beyond the film credits, Michael. That is a reliable source. The requirement for secondary sources is not how we judge for cast members -- and I think that's perfectly fine. Complete coverage of a film includes its important crew, just as it includes people in the category of actor who only work one day. I'm sorry, but it is actually absurd to suggest that the Art Director doesn't belong in the article because there wasn't a separate article about them. This is something like saying that the editor of a work of fiction doesn't belong in the article unless someone does a story about how they edited the book; no, they are listed in the book as the editor so full coverage of the novel will include the editor. I see a double standard, so perhaps you can explain your standard. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Cast arguments aside, we are speaking about lists for crew. The example I offered above about the Harry Potter cast underscores the issue that we need some common sense restraint else any such cast list could become unwieldy or ridiculously long. And even with consideration of a crew list, we need consider just what crew members are worth consideration and why. Again, I have no issue with sourced prose about any crewmember, but an insistance that less-than-primary production personal can or must be in a bullet list runs afoul of MOS:FILM. The result being that we are here to discuss possible changes to the film style guidelines, because currently we generally do not have simple lists of crew members unless otherwise supported by sourced prose. We are not IMDB. And in an issue more related to notability than article style, simply being part of a crew is a WP:NOTINHERITED situation. Do you propose a new SNG WP:CREW to deal with such in the same manner as does WP:ACTOR? Schmidt, 00:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, that lists can be too long. Still, we are an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, this issue can be clouded by consideration of articles that receive too little or too much attention. I would point out that when someone wants to know something factual, engines regularly send them to Misplaced Pages. I believe that is because so many facts are in this place. ("Who invented the transponder?" sends us to an article on Telstar.) The idea that we would leave an actor out of an article simply because we couldn't still find another article on their appearance on the internet -- somewhere else, because of course now Misplaced Pages is the main source for so many things -- that, to me, is not complete coverage. Sure, we can push our traffic to IMDb, just as we could refer questions on philosophy to the excellent Stanford online philosophical encyclopedia instead of doing our best here.
Okay, so we are an encyclopedia. What is the minimum standard for inclusion of an actor in an article? Editors may differ, which is fine, but it's going to be somewhere around here: a character who speaks, or one with a name, or one who appears in the plot summary. The differences are fine, but I think that's about the right place or the article will be incomplete. Okay, so which members of the crew, in terms of film culture, are in the same constellation? Clearly, there are many and if different articles handle it differently that will be a chance for all of us to see what is good coverage. Thanks for your response. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If I may offer a model that we might use, the major trade magazine for theater owners, Film Journal International, uses a more compact list of core credits that do Variety or The Hollywood Reporter. These presumably are the credits that, in its editorial judgment, are the ones theater owners, who deal with civilian audiences and their expectations, would want to know. They are: Writer, Director, Producer, Executive Producer, Cinematographer, Editor, Composer, Production designer, Casting and Wardrobe. This or some variation would seem a manageable list. I've often wanted to see these things in a list outside the infobox, where footnotes can make infoboxes seem crowded and cluttered. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That is a good list. As a reflection of popular culture, it is a good starting place. Film culture also should be accounted for, and there are probably some good sources out there that reflect expert knowledge of the important people on a film. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That might be a slippery slope and we have most of those already in the infobox. What does another list provide. I realize that these people are important but it would be nice to get some prose going about it which should be possible when it's an important part of the film. Even cast lists don't usually add a lot to articles. --Peppage 14:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Again the double standard. Why is there a slippery slope on crew but not on cast? Many cast members not in the infobox obviously belong in the article. The same applies to the crew. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The current MOS:FILM was established over many years and through input and consensus created by many editors with interest in standardization of film article format. The MOS tells us that prose is the preferred manner in which to speak about crew, and per MOS, options have been repeated above on how to treat production personel that are not in the infobox. What you call a "slippery slope" exists because our readers can view the film and SEE the the cast in action, and major production personel {director, producer, writer, composer, editor) are the ones most often spoken of in sources in context to a film in a non-trivial fashion. The other less-than-primary production crew are not. With enough examples where they are spoken about more-than-trvially, an argument can be made for their inclusion in the infobox. You're advocating a crew list in contravention of the MOS for film articles. User:Tenebrae offers a decent consideration for a change to the MOS, but until consensus changes and MOS:FILM is changed, we generally do not put crew in lists and instead deal with them as MOS:FILM instructs... as prose. Schmidt, 20:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That is a meaningless distinction. The editor of a book is not seen, not written about, but obviously it is information that belongs in the article on the book. It's just a double standard. Since you are an actor, your bias in favor of actors is not surprising. I might mention anecdotally that I discussed this issue with a friend of mine who wrote for television and, when I said that including the Art Director was a little bit of a hard sell, his response was unprintable. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is not to display credits. If the art director had important information about them then that information would belong/appear in the article. We have articles like Little Miss Sunshine that don't have a cast section and it's great, it's the preferred way. Film articles definitely have a problem with long cast lists, random people get added and it bloats the article. I think when an article starts the editor does not have much to go on and adds the cast list. If you want to make a change to the MOS then I think we should require prose. --Peppage 05:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

My "bias" is found in my supporting application of MOS:FILM, and not because of anything I do in real life. We might change the applicable style guidelines through consensus, but not through disaparaging the views of another editor. Schmidt, 07:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you were offended, but you asked us to accept your expertise on the basis that you are an actor. Since that fact also weakens your argument in another way, it is not out of bounds to mention the bias. There would be no question of your bias if you took the view that minimized actors' contributions, but you choose to argue for the members of your group. That may not be bias, but it is consistent with bias. Setting that aside, I hope you will agree that we should end the double standard I've pointed out. Sometimes lists are okay for the cast, so sometimes lists must be okay for the crew. Complete coverage of a film includes actors whose contribution might be minor, so complete coverage should also include crew whose contribution might be minor. This is how we can make the film articles better. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

My acknowledging being for many years an actor (no big secret) was in response to your assertion above that editors disagreeing with you were showing "ignorance about filmmaking" when the better assertion is that they were showing an unbiased knowledge about guideline and policy. Despite your insistance that crew members are not treated the same way as actors, I can only reply yet again that per MOS:FILM they are treated the same way... in that MOS:FILM encourages prose over lists for anyone involved in production. And while certainly prose is not always as readily available for crew members as it is for actors, specially for films that pre-date the internet, we use that manual of style for our format. And while we do often see cast lists when such prose is unavailable, for articles that have cast lists when prose IS available, it is prefered that one-by-one over time and through regular editing, those lists be replaced with prose. But we do not create lists just to have lists that do not increase a reader's understanding of the topic... and certainly not to emulate IMDB. See MOS:LIST, WP:LISTPEOPLE, and WP:EMBED. Prose is always the preference... and we make articles better by having prose rather than simple lists, or improving them to add sourced prose. And yet again... until such time as MOS:FILM is modified to encourage lists over prose, we go with prose. Schmidt, 22:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Quite a few straw men there that I will ignore. Instead, let me point out that, although you say that cast and crew are (I assume you mean "should be") treated the same, that is not even the case in your own arguments. I have corrected your double standard at least twice. But maybe we agree that there should be no double standard per policy. Since lists are okay for actors, crew lists are just as acceptable. I am quite sure that cast lists will be around because complete coverage of a film will include its cast. I am not one who believes in the magic of prose in a reference. But that's a discussion for another day. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Writing as a part of Production?

An editor at Talk:Annie Hall is concerned that 'writing' is not a part of 'production', and should therefore be a separate section. He argues that the guidelines show "a shortfall of knowledge of film culture". I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. The JPS 21:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Writing falls under the whole "pre-production" umbrella, which I would contain within a production section. If there's enough information to split the production section into sub-sections then a clearer delineation can be drawn; "Pre-production", "Filming" and "Post-production" being the main steps to detail. GRAPPLE X 21:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, pre-production is not part of production and neither is post-production. This is a good summary. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

While the semantics of "production" as a physical stage of filmmaking versus a generic noun reflecting the creation of a finish product, why not just rename the header to something more all-encompassing? "Creation", "Behind the scenes", etc? More high-level headers, especially in an article which already has so many, can look messy, and as a reader I find the flow from conception to actualisation to read better than breaking these into separate chunks. GRAPPLE X 00:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

We've used "Production" as a term to describe the completion of a film from all stages, not the physical work done in front of a camera. What goes into the production of a film would include the writing of a screenplay. Now, what goes into the principal photography would not include writing but the actual filming of the movie. Both are parts of the overall film production, they are just different stages. So, I think a general heading of "Production" is still accurate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not accurate. This source makes it clear that the entire process is not called 'production'. So does this one, this one, this one, this one, this one ("3. Production... The actual shooting of the movie happens in this stage."), and even this one. Yes, even Cracked.com knows that production is the stage when the movie is actually filmed. So on what basis do you say it's "accurate"? --Ring Cinema (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The page you linked actually calls the entire process "film production", which includes: "from an initial story, idea, or commission, through scriptwriting, casting, shooting, editing, and screening." - Writing is part of that process. We are using "production" as the shortened form of "Film production" because it seems redonkulous to say "Film production" as a header, and then "Production" as a subheader describing just filming. Principal photography is generally labeled as "Filming", which is very straight forward. You're confusing a specific term used within the film world with a general term used outside of the film world. Regardless, "writing" should still be part of the overall section because it is part of the making of the product.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not confused; I'm correct because I know how to use the word. Unfortunately, those who wrote the guidelines didn't. It is, I agree, a bit absurd that the heading "Production" is found under the subheading "Production". The more accurate method would be to eliminate the heading altogether, since there is no reason that the making of the film must be under a master heading. We could simply use the four headings (Development, Pre-, Productin, Post-). Those four areas have sub-areas of their own. And, of course, it has the great advantage of being correct. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It would have the great disadvantage of losing flow and cleanness. I vastly prefer a master heading for the whole process of creating the finish result, it makes narrative sense and is instantly grokked by the reader. If the term "production" (which, having several distinct meanings, is still a correct header for the whole thing) is the issue, then simply term it something else. GRAPPLE X 21:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem practical unless there is a strong feeling about it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

When to post plot

This has probably been answered, but I couldn't actually find mention of this at WP:FILMPLOT: Since the source of a movie plot is the movie itself — a primary source for which WP:PSTS says, "is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" —it would seem to follow that we don't put up movie plots until a film has been commercially released in order for reasonable, educated people to see it for themselves. So if someone has seen a movie at a press screening that the general public cannot see, it would seem to follow logically that the person who attended that screening cannot, under PSTS, post a synopsis. Thoughts? -- Tenebrae (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree. Frankly, I prefer if a plot is sourced to something, just for consistency's sake; it certainly shouldn't be based on something entirely unverifiable. GRAPPLE X 00:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the key fact with sourcing the film itself for the plot, is that after it is released then the source (i.e. the film) is verifiable. Prior to general release the source is not verifiable so shouldn't really be used. The whole point of source verifiability is that there is some sort of mechanism in place that allows you, as the reader, to check the validity of the claim. Sometimes it may be difficult i.e. a film that is playing in just one city in the world but still open to the general public still makes the source technically verifiable, but press screenings are closed off to most people which rules them out. Betty Logan (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Thank you both for your usual thoughtful responses.

One more question, and I'll sit on it for a couple or three days. Given that we're just stating clearly what the guidelines say implicitly, would anyone mind if I add a sentence to WP:FILMPLOT simply saying, "Full plots are not posted in film articles until the movie is released commercially in its home country."

I might be going out on a limb with that last part, but really, with Battleship and The Avengers, to name just two big, high-profile movies, opening overseas before opening in the U.S., do we really want to post the entire plot before home-country filmgoers can see it? We're on no WP:DEADLINE. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "home country" so much as "to the public"; something opening in the UK before the US is still as verifiable as a French or Indian film, for example, that doesn't get distributed in the US at all, after all. GRAPPLE X 03:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to concur with Grapple. I understand your reason but we can't install a guideline that places an extra requirement on verifiability. It would possibly violate WP:SOURCEACCESS, so if someone really pressed the point they would get it overruled at the RS noticeboard. Betty Logan (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"Full plots are not posted in film articles until the movie is released commercially in its home country." See Misplaced Pages:Spoiler - "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." That's why the spoiler tag was deleted in the first place. I've got Che (part 2) on my Sky+ ready to watch, but I'm not going to insist the plot it removed until I see it. A little bit of self control from the user NOT to go to the article on a film they plan to see. Lugnuts (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between "deleting information," to quote the guideline, and not posting it in the first place. There's also a difference between there being a spoiler for a film already released — that is, a spoiler for a particular individual who hasn't seen a given film — and posting the entire plot of a $100- to $200-million-budget movie before it's released in its home country. I'm not sure we want to invite the wrath of the film industry, who WILL descend on us and, no matter what our rights are, they will tar Misplaced Pages and Wikipedians as copyright violators. Not saying they're right, but what's the upside of our posting a complete plot early? There's no WP:DEADLINE. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Does it violate IP rights to post a summary of a plot from someone who has seen the film legally? I would like a professional opinion about exactly this matter. I don't think so, but Misplaced Pages is particular about intellectual property rights. Anyone know whom to ask? --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a really good question. My gut instinct says we'd be within our legal rights (though I've only an informed layman's opinion on that, as a journalist). My gut instinct also tells me, however, that even if we're right, that if we did this for several major movies the press would get wind of it and the film industry would lay what's colloquially called a shitstorm on us. I've seen The Avengers myself already in the US at a press screening, and though I'm itching to write a synopsis, I'm not sure it'd be worth it if it'll help stir up that kind of trouble. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Arrangement of sections

Why is it recommended that the release section be separate from the box office and reception? There is rarely enough information available for release and there is absolutely no reason that a section, whose largest part will probably be home media to be above the box office takings/critical reception. As far as I am aware this section has always been "Release" > Box Office - Critical Reception - Accolades. This works well across multiple articles, including several GA ones and others Full Metal Jacket Captain America: The First Avenger Thor (film) Fast Five, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, The Thing (2011 film), Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Alien vs. Predator (film), The Mummy (1999 film), Transformers (film), Jurassic Park (film), Manhunter (film), Blade Runner. Though they sometimes name the section reception and vice versa. This seems like a much better way of doing it and is implemented successfully here. A similar question for why critical reception should come first since accolades are a subset of critical reception and yet they are divided by the box office subsection. I think the layout should be officially changed to Release > Box Office - Critical Reception - Accolades OR Release > Critical Reception > Box Office > Accolades, but not Release > Home Media AND Reception, so forth. Box Office and critical reception should come under the Release section, there is no explanation for it not doing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Which must come first: Cast or Plot?

I'm reading Ratatouille (film), and I think that Characters must come first before Plot, unless anybody disagrees. Cast/Characters must come first, so it helps readers learn more about characters first before proceeding to plot. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not usually the case. Almost all film FAs have the plot first. Cast/Casting sections shouldn't be mainly about the characters, they should be about the casting process. Characters' roles in the story should be explained in the plot section. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If the cast comes first you have no context, just a list of names. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Very often you can combine the two. --Ktlynch (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

While there will be the occasional article that will have a different order to the sections most articles follow the layout as described here Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Film#Primary content. Those that don't should be switched over. MarnetteD | Talk 15:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Post Credit Scenes

Should add that "Post Credit Scenes" are not part of the plot and should not be included in the "Plot section" of the article.--JOJ 21:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. They're set in the fictional events of the film, and just serve as any other epilogue would. GRAPPLE X 21:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a "Main Event" of the film and only add to the myth that film plots need to be scene by scene descriptions of each film.--JOJ 21:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether they are "main events" of the film is irrelevant. They are story events, and the place to describe those is in the plot section. It's certainly possible to write them in there without turning it into a scene-by-scene description. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Story is not the same thing as "plot".--JOJ 22:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a 700 word limit, if it comes under 700 words I don't know what your complaint is and it is naive to think that the majority of people who view these articles are not interested in key information, and a lot of these stings are being used to telegraph sequels. People want that info. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I ask a question and now I'm "Naive"? Is this personal? Is that an attack of some sort? I asked in good faith and somehow I'm being treated as if I'm suppressing information. Want to redact that? Plot is for "Main Points" of the film. 700 words limit is good, but we don't have to have 700 words in every single film plot.--JOJ 22:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So long as you have a succinct summary within the confines of WP:FILMPLOT, I see no problem including them. Granted some scenes like those in the Marvel Comics films leading up to The Avengers could probably be better discussed from a real-world perspective elsewhere in the article as establishing the sequel piecemeal; but stingers such as those of X-Men: The Last Stand or Napoleon Dynamite, which directly relate to the plot that has gone before, would benefit from a passing mention in a plot summary. GRAPPLE X 22:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

By way of example from a summary standpoint, in The Avengers (2012 film) the post-credits scene of alien dude conferring with Thanos is certainly relevant to the overall story, whereas the second post-credits scene of the heroes sitting around eating shawarma is not. It's about context and relevance; saying "include all" or "exclude all" isn't an appropriate measure. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree that there is context and relevance, but not all Credit Scenes are part of the plot. Many are just jokes that ere inserted to keep people in their seats to watch the credits role. WP:FILMPLOT clearly says "Main Points" of the plot, not a beat by beat synopsis of every single detail of the film, which happens more often than it should.--JOJ 22:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Project-Class film pages
• WikiProject Film articles
• WikiProject Film talk pages