![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 |
Now that the audience score is verified on Rotten Tomatoes maybe they can be added to Reception section of movies that have come out since its inception, just like CinemaScore ratings? PCRON talk 03:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Now
? Linked article is from 2019. This idea was discussed then and rejected too.
WP:UGC user voted web polls are still not reliable sources
WP:RS. --
109.79.167.221 (
talk)
15:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Should the themes section really be placed in an article right after the Cast section and before the Production section? The placement in these guidelines seems to imply it should, but Themes would seem to me to fit better alongside (or as part of) the Reception section. (I noticed this placement of the section in the article for the film Nope (film) and it seemed strange to me, but the guidelines seem to suggest that's where this section should go.) -- 109.77.198.206 ( talk) 14:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
There is no defined order of the sectionseven if you have not defined it, you have implicitly suggested it and editors have followed. It would be helpful if the guideline provided more solid guidance. Can we even agree that a change would be helpful, are there editors who think the current implied placement is best? -- 109.77.198.206 ( talk) 14:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Looking at MOS:LAYOUT, the "Specialized layout" section says, "Certain topics have Manual of Style pages that include layout advice..." and names WP:FILM. So perhaps we can retire the "no defined order" sentence as too hardline, literally create a "Layout advice" section, and come up with advisory points so it is not such an either/or approach (to have no order dictated versus a complete order dictated). Some advisory points like "Plot" first may be universally accepted, while some others may depend on context. Thoughts on doing that? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 20:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Please weigh in at Talk:Top Gun: Maverick#American military propaganda... regarding how much coverage, where to place, and if it warrants mention in the lead. Thank you. GoneIn60 ( talk) 19:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I have a quick question: how should we handle plot summaries that have in medias res sequences? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 21:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Not only should a plot summary avoid a scene-by-scene recap, but there's also no reason that a plot summary has to cover the events of the story in the order in which they appear (though it is often useful).NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 04:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Does not make any sense to me. There was once an order that made some sense, even if it was not intended to be rigidly adhered to. I agree with Erik and Favre1fan93 above, and the current order is just misleading and confusing, IMO. Common sense dictates that accolades and audience reception come after production, and by grouping these kinds of section together, the style guide is easier for the reader to decide what section headings to use, or whether to collapse some of the release/reception/box office type sections. I would like to suggest reverting to the order that we had around June. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 08:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Section ordering, Plot first, then semi-chronologically is what past discussions around here used to recommend, and was used in many film articles. Following that logic, sections such as the Home media or the Awards/Accolades frequently got put at or near the end of the article. But then some people wanted to make more use the "Release" section heading (sometimes using it instead of the Reception section, sometimes having both). The semi-chronological ordering increasingly conflicted with logic of grouping "home media" under the Release section, or similarly grouping the Accolades under the Reception section. I mention this to provide context, and I hope this brief summary of how many articles ended up as they are now, might help keep the discussion moving. I also hope the desire to keep things flexible will not prevent the guidelines from recommend some reasonable defaults that work well enough for most cases. -- 109.76.131.219 ( talk) 12:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Also, question of whether this should be applied to navboxes. If there's a standalone filmography and accolades article for a subject, then should they be listed per order on the main article (filmography first), or alphbetically (accolades first). [2] Thanks, Indagate ( talk) 08:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
It was recently brought up at Talk:Shazam! (film)#mid and post credit scenes? that WP:FILMPLOT says the following regarding post-credits scenes, with emphasis added:
Mid- and post-credit scenes should generally not be included in the plot summary. Exceptions are made for these scenes if they provide key relevant details for the film itself (the identity of the villain in Young Sherlock Holmes), are part of sourced discussion in the rest of the article (the reuse of the post-credit scene of Ferris Bueller's Day Off) or if the film is part of a franchise and the scene helps establish details for a known future film in production (such as many Marvel Cinematic Universe films).
Because the MoS specifies that a post-credits scene has to pertain a known future film in production
in order to be included, an IP editor has pushed for the removal of the mid-credits scene of Shazam! on the grounds that it has not been actually confirmed that the scene's characters will appear in a future film. I suggest that
WP:FILMPLOT be amended to just say for a potential future film
, because oftentimes we won't get immediate confirmation that a scene directly sets up a film known to be in development, much less in production
, but it's obvious from the scene's context that it's intended to set up a future property. If this change doesn't happen, then several films (including
Spider-Man: Homecoming,
Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness,
Thor: Love and Thunder,
Morbius, etc.) are in trouble.
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
03:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
When determining whether to include mid- or post-credits scenes in plot summaries, use the same judgement applied to non-post-credits scenes. In other words, scenes solely included for comedic effect should generally not be included.? If we want to keep the "part of sourced discussion" exception that's fine with me, but I just checked the Ferris Bueller's Day Off article and it ... doesn't include said discussion (unless I somehow missed it). InfiniteNexus ( talk) 00:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
When determining whether to include mid- or post-credits scenes in plot summaries, use the same judgement applied to non-post-credits scenes. In other words, scenes solely included for comedic effect should generally not be included, though the inclusion or creation of these scenes may be appropriate to discuss elsewhere in the article.That covers an instance like Spider-Man: Homecoming, where the post credits of Cap talking about patience doesn't have any merit being in the plot summary (versus the mid-credits of Toomes in prison), but that is discussed in the production section, where that is entirely appropriate for that scene. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 02:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the wording. I'm only concerned with a the slippery slope of mid/post credit scenes that get argued about importance because of fan knowledge. An example is Guardians of the Galaxy 2. It reads: In a series of mid-and post-credit scenes, Kraglin takes up Yondu's telekinetic arrow and control-fin; Ravager leader Stakar Ogord reunites with his ex-teammates; Ayesha creates a new artificial being with whom she plans to destroy the Guardians, naming him Adam;[N 1] Groot has grown into a teenager;[N 2] and a group of uninterested Watchers abandon their informant, who is discussing his experiences on Earth.. The telekinetic arrow seems relevant, Ayesha seems relevant. Groot growing would be relevant. The Stakar thing isn't. He's a sub-minor character in the film and him reuniting with ex-teammates makes not nevermind because it wasn't really a plot point of the film. The watcher stuff is just for Stan Lee fans. It has not bearing. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
joke scenethat was brought up earlier. The Stakar scene though, could prove relevant for the next film. For cases such as this one, I do think that they could be removed from the plot summary until it is proven that they are relevant for a
known future film in production, as the guideline currently reads. — El Millo ( talk) 18:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the last things you said. I don't think post credit/med credit stuff should be treated any differently. If it's relevant, then include it. If it's not relevant (i.e., not essential to understanding the plot of the film) then it shouldn't be included. It would be no different than not including a specific joke that is stated. Funny yes. Essential to understanding the film, super unlikely. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I just read that same passage in the guideline and was surprised by it. I see that it was discussed but not changed. As written, it advocates for not summarizing post-credits scenes, but then frankly seems to exclude the majority of post-credits scenes from that guidance. The unspoken consensus of the actual editors working on film summaries seems to be, in general, to include such scenes, so I feel that a guideline starting from a negative assumption is not practical. I like
InfiniteNexus's suggestion and would modify it slightly: Determine the inclusion of mid- or post-credits scenes in plot summaries by using the same criteria used for all other scenes. Scenes solely included for comedic effect should generally not be included. If a scene is included, there is no need to set it apart from the rest of the summary by identifying it as a post-credits scenes. If a scene is not included in the plot summary, it may still be discussed elsewhere in the article if appropriate.
By saying "there is no need to set it apart from the rest of the summary by identifying it as a post-credits scenes," I'm trying to get at the idea that it can be included wherever it's relevant, but I failed to find a good way to word it. It's best explained by example. The summary for
Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness doesn't at all include Strange cursing Pizza Poppa, and rightly so. But, if it did, it might go something like, "Strange curses Pizza Poppa to hit himself in the face." And then at the end, "In a post-credits scene set three weeks later, Pizza Poppa stops hitting himself." I envision it being changed to "Strange curses Pizza Poppa to hit himself in the face for three weeks." If anyone can think of a similar example, where the events are actually worthy of summary inclusion, we could use it directly in the guideline. --
DavidK93 (
talk)
05:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
But at the very least, since I'm not seeing any clear-cut consensus on the current guideline, it should be removed from the MoS.With that being said, I must admit I'm not 100% on board with
If a scene is included, there is no need to set it apart from the rest of the summary by identifying it as a post-credits scenes.The rest, I agree. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 06:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Base the inclusion of mid- or post-credits scenes in plot summaries on the same criteria used for all other scenes. Their placement relative to the credits does not need to be mentioned.I felt a direct imperative verb was simpler in the first sentence. In the second sentence, I thought "as such" might not be clear to everyone. What do you think? -- DavidK93 ( talk) 06:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
The inclusion of mid- and post-credit scenes should be based on the same inclusion criteria used to judge the relevance of other scenes.
The plot section describes...". I think it's an editor preference on whether or not to call a post-credits scene what it is, especially in cases where its inclusion is borderline. In such instances, it may be helpful to a reader to know this occurred during or after the credits, although I would agree that doing so is unnecessary in most circumstances. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 06:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
I've narrowed it down to three elements of a proposed rewording:
- A:
The inclusion of mid- and post-credit scenes should be based on the same inclusion criteria used to judge the relevance of other scenes.(from GoneIn60)- B:
Scenes solely included for comedic effect should generally not be included, though the inclusion or creation of these scenes may be appropriate to discuss elsewhere in the article.(from Favre1fan93)- C:
Their placement relative to the credits does not need to be mentioned.(from DavidK93)
Which of the above should we include, or should we keep the current wording? InfiniteNexus ( talk) 06:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Okay, so most everybody seems to be in agreement that the current wording should be changed, i.e. there is unanimous support for A. The consensus isn't as clear for B, but it's leaning toward not including it, and it's pretty clear C is a no-go. I'll go ahead and update the MoS accordingly (using DavidK93's wording for A), feel free to perform additional c/e. Thanks all. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 01:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Talk:The Super Mario Bros. Movie#Marketing section regarding the lengthy indiscriminate list of trailer and other promotional materials. If anyone has any opinions on it. I've actually noticed this type of editing in quite a few upcoming film articles. Mike Allen 17:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry if this has been discussed already and I'm missing it, but between the following:
a) Individual credit slides before scroll
b) The scroll itself
c) Poster
... what is the order of precedence? YouCanDoBetter ( talk) 04:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
After a long vacation of ten years, I am back.🙃 I have some questions regarding the current MOS consensus. What are the thoughts on having tables with box office data? Music track listings like this? Is this useful? These articles passed as GA back in 2011, so they obviously need updating. Thanks for any input. Mike Allen 21:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I identified this issue on this talk page three years ago and it keeps recurring!
We need to have a section in this part of the Manual of Style on how to correctly describe a film premiere.
The problem with the silly phrase "[title] had its premiere" is that it comes with the bizarre implication that the film itself has agency, in the philosophical or sociological sense. No, a film does not premiere itself. The vast majority of professional journalists write that a film "premiered" at a location or that the film's premiere occurred or was held at a location. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 05:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
The broader issue is that a lot of amateur WP editors are writing as if films have agency.
this kind of phrasing bothers me too, in particular when people write that a film "holds" a score, it would be fine in casual writing but it does not seem professional enough for an encyclopedia. It reminds me of the old joke "Don't anthropomorphise computers: they hate that!". Surely there is already a higher level writing style guide somewhere that could be invoked that recommends a more professional writing style that indirectly covers this concern? --
109.79.175.194 (
talk)
12:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:List of South Park episodes § "Films". The discussion concerns how to list films as episodes for a television series, where films are considered major works and television episodes are considered minor works. --
Alex_21
TALK
00:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
In the absence of a page like this one covering theatrical works, is it reasonable to point to this page for guidance on such matters as plot style and length for stage play articles? Largoplazo ( talk) 03:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
This edit (by Erik) to sort the sections describing the content alphabetically was just absurd. I know it comes out of a desire to avoid the implication that that is the suggested order for articles, but this just defies common sense and makes the MOS unnecessarily difficult to follow. The MOS in any case should have some guidance on the rough order of elements, and "should be chosen to best suit the needs of the article" without any suggestions is inadequately helpful. While the first section could reasonably be about the production background rather than the plot, surely there's no situation where Accolades should come first in the article.
Seeing as this was already disputed under #Alphabetical order of sections in this style guide above, I'm reverting to the status quo ante. (Though that discussion didn't reach a conclusive outcome, it's clear there's more opposition to the current ordering than the previous.) -- Paul_012 ( talk) 06:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Since many films have widely varying release patterns, the structuring and ordering of the sections—with the exception of the lead, references, and external links—is left to editorial judgment, and should be chosen to best suit the needs of the article. See also MOS:SECTIONORDER.
Just seeing this new discussion (after first getting to the MOS page on my watchlist). I've gone back to a "suggested order" and added some text in addition to Erik's already to make it clear this is not definitive. Lead, References, and External links definitely need to be first and the last, respectively to follow Wikipedia convention, and then after that the rest kinda fall into place. My edit here I think covers what GoneIn60 was looking for, along with Facu-el Millo and Paul_012. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 01:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
After stating that plot sections typically follow lead sections, this part is a little vague to me: "although a film's specific context may warrant otherwise
". Can someone explain what is meant by "specific context"? Is there a good example we can look at or link to? --
GoneIn60 (
talk)
05:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Noticed this section appears before "Box office" in the MoS. The placement strikes me as odd, as you would expect it to chronologically follow "Box office" and "Critical reception", not come before it. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 05:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
There used to be multiple hidden warnings on the article The Super Mario Bros. Movie. They cluttered the article, some say DO NOT REMOVE without any reasoning, like the editor table. If there is already an editor especially if credited on the poster, why would it get vandalized? However, FILMLEAD is what I will talk about mainly, because one of the warnings for it used to say "only one genre", but when did it say only one? I have seen articles that list more than one genre on films, and FILMLEAD stated primary or sub. I think I need some form of consensus about this issue. BaldiBasicsFan ( talk) 22:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, In the case of a 1964 film, and even if a still is on the page, is the mention that the film is in black and white really irrelevant? Thank you. — MY, OH, MY! 00:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
As this discussion has been placed by OP in two places at once, I'll be copying these comments to the other place, where the discussion has developed further. — El Millo ( talk) 19:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
An editor is claiming that the UK release date for Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness should be included in the Release section because it was partly filmed in the UK. The MOS doesn't go into detail on this, but it does provide a link to the Release dates section of the Infobox Film template, which states that "Release dates should therefore be restricted to [...] the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film".
It seems to me that the "countries that produced the film" should be restricted to the countries where the production companies are located and not extended to those providing filming locations. In this particular case, we'd also have to include the release dates in Canada, Norway, Iceland and Italy, which seems like overkill.
Thoughts? And should the Release section both here and at the Infobox usage guidelines be updated with more specific information, particularly with regards as to what constitutes a "production country"? Barry Wom ( talk) 16:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
in several countries" for the earliest May 4 releases, and then list the UK May 5 release, before the US May 6 date. Trailblazer101 ( talk) 17:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
If other release dates are found to be notable, it may be appropriate to include them in the main body of the article.(On that note, the example given of Water (2005 film) does not feel like it is an appropriate example anymore). - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 20:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
some consistency is required. We must be wary of WP:CREEP.
If other release dates are found to be notable, it may be appropriate to include them in the main body of the articlein FILMRELEASE is broad enough to cover instances in which additional coverage of dates can be mentioned. It doesn't need to be "cookie-cutter"/strictly a set amount of criteria. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 15:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#DL, sections, and mobile readers and change. Gonnym ( talk) 11:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Free-use film trailers are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Trailers in articles?, and more editors may be helpful. Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I’m a bit confused. I’m getting the impression that adding trailers to film articles is acceptable as long as they’re fair use or public domain with commentary attributed to sources but are trailers acceptable in the way that Randy added them? See here, [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] Armegon ( talk) 16:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
These edits at Chakravyuham:The Trap italicize the names of the roles of the actors in its simple bulleted cast listing. MOS:FILMCAST is explicit that bold not be used, but is silent on the use of italics. Use of italics in this manner does not seem to be consistent with what I have seen in other film articles. Is this okay? — Archer1234 ( t· c) 16:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
When we are writing about fiction, we should provide the reader with "Careful differentiation between the work itself and aspects of its production process", according to MOS:FICTIONAL.
Here at the Film style guide, I propose to remove the option of describing real-world casting information from the individual character entries in the "Cast list". The cast list should name the character and the actor, and allow the option to briefly describe the character's fictional aspects at each bulleted character entry.
Real-world casting information should be presented in prose in the "Production" section. Our style guide already says this at MOS:FILMPRODUCTION: "Add detail about how the actors were found and what creative choices were made during casting ..."
The problem I wish to fix is that casting information is also allowed to be presented in the "Cast" section, based on our style guide which currently allows us to add "Real-world context... about how the role was written, how the actor came to be cast for the role, and what preparations were necessary for filming." I don't think this contradiction in the guide should exist, allowing two very different routes. Let's streamline the instructions and restrict "how a role was written" to an optional prose paragraph below the bulleted cast list, and move all the casting and role preparation stuff to the Production section. Pinging Erik who authored this bit in 2012.
Note that 90% of the films at WP:Featured article already have a clear separation between fictional elements and real-world context. The suggested change would align our guide with standard practice. Binksternet ( talk) 21:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Why is there so much content before the actors and basic plot overview? A lot of film article lead paragraphs are in the format of title> production companies> distributors> directors> writers> actors> plot sentence(s). This structure means the hover-over preview and Google search snippet don't tell you the most salient facts people are looking for. I had to actually visit Morbius to learn the main gist is "vampire scientist"... JoelleJay ( talk) 05:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia: The Film (stylized as WIKIPEDIA: The Film and marketed in Singapore as The Wikipedia Film). It's a common problem on Wikipedia. I try to remove as much of the trivia as possible whenever I find it, move it later in the lead, etc. But Wikipedians love their trivia, so it usually gets put back eventually. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 03:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:The Conjuring Universe § Italics in page title and lead sentence are technically wrong.
Joeyconnick (
talk)
15:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Howdy everyone; long time no see to those who remember me and nice to meet you to those who don't. I've recently run into an IP editor who is determined to fight over the usage of "mixed-to-negative" in reference to a film's reception (they want to, I think it sounds meaningless). The editor is also basing their entire determination of this on the scores at RT, a common mistake for newer editors (one I made myself when I was new to the project 11 kajillion years ago). For that reason I was wondering if there is any way we can mention this in the MOS, specifically. In one instance the related text is in the lead of an article so it's not as easy to polish out as it is in a proper reception section where we can just skip straight to the scores and reviews.
I'm of the opinion that part of the reason this sort of thing keeps getting added is because we haven't specifically addressed it, despite a longstanding consensus here to remove it, for reasons most of us are probably familiar with. I feel like addressing the mixed-to-whatever problem would be easy enough to explain. It's trying to explain why an RT score of 30% doesn't necessarily mean "generally negative" that I'm unsure of; I understand it but can't articulate it. Would anyone be open to us adding, at the very least, a short sentence in the MOS about the mixed thing? Millahnna ( talk) 19:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't see this implemented in MOS:FILMCRITICS, was the discussion halted? There seems to be a consensus here. I support clarifying that "mixed-to-positive/negative" isn't acceptable language for critical receptions. It should recommend that if both aggregators report a generally positive reception (i.e., MC stating generally positive and RT's percentage being majority positive), that may be used as the reception summary in the lead. But if there's a discrepancy, then quote what secondary sources say the overall reception is. If there are contradictory summaries given by RS's, note that in the article. Lapadite ( talk) 07:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The long standing consensus from many discussions was don't do that. The above discussion has reiterated that. Here's one such discussion from the archives: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_48#Mixed_to_positive_%2F_Mixed_to_negative I see no reason to believe there is any change in the consensus (or the basics of good writing). -- 109.77.196.204 ( talk) 19:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I have a general question regarding the plot summaries for feature films. When a film has been released in its native country, such as the first part of Sailor Moon Cosmos in Japan, should we consider changing the section name to "Plot" and expand it if it's needed? Thanks. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 19:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Propose adding the following wording to MOS:FILMCRITICS:
Describing a film as being "critically acclaimed" is a loaded phrase and exceptional claim that requires the backing of an exceptional number of highly reputable sources, demonstrating near-unanimity in sources' assessment. Editors must not merely synthesize or extrapolate sources or review aggregators. Metacritic classifies all films with a score of 81 or above as having "universal acclaim", so it alone cannot be used to support this claim.
From time to time, editors have tried adding "critically acclaimed" to articles without adequate sourcing, often leading to edit-wars and drawn-out talk page debates. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 16:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
"critical acclaim" must be a more common description in sources than the standard "positive reviews"is the definition of SYNTH and OR. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 16:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
critically acclaimed,
widespread critical acclaim,
was a box-office bomb,
was a box-office failure,
widely praised,
regarded as one of the greatest _____ films of all time... InfiniteNexus ( talk) 16:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Okay, here is an abbreviated one-sentence version:
Describing a film as being "critically acclaimed" is a loaded phrase and exceptional claim that must be attributed to multiple highly reputable sources.
InfiniteNexus ( talk) 22:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Describing a film with superlatives such as "critical acclaimed" or "box-office bomb"...InfiniteNexus ( talk) 04:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Added to FILMLEAD, see
MOS:ACCLAIMED /
WP:ACCLAIMED /
MOS:ACCLAIM /
WP:ACCLAIM.
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
05:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Avoid weasel words. If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly. Describing a film with superlatives such as "critically acclaimed" or "box-office bomb" is loaded language and an exceptional claim that must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources.
This has been discussed before but I believe it should be considered again. I think providing a simple "Actor as Character" section would benefit those looking for basic actor information on a film. Speaking from personal experience, simply wanting to know who is in a film, skipping past all other sections, has spoiled films. Yes, those of us who have encountered this problem could look for it elsewhere, but that would promote the idea to visit other sites for other info as well. The information as listed could be preserved with a different heading and a simple Cast "Actor as Character" section added. 24.170.127.153 ( talk) 09:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Late comment but the Batman Begins article is an example of Cast section with an abundance of information that "may be placed in the plot summary or in the "Casting" subsection of a "Production" section
" and doing that might address some of your concerns. Also the guideline
WP:SPOILER warns against deleting or omitting information but
WP:UNDUE and relevance still applies, and the information does not need to be repeated all over the place. Revelations about characters such as Darth Vader or Kaiser Soze would usually belong only in the plot section of a film article (but the character article for
Darth Vader is unavoidably front-loaded with information that readers might not want to know until later), and there would need to be specific good reasons to include or repeat such details elsewhere (and
MOS:FILMCAST says "All names should be referred to as credited" and as Kaiser Soze is not listed in the film credits so he generally should not be listed in the
cast section.) It can sometimes help to order details chronologically, it is simply better writing in many cases. For example if a character begins a film with one name and ends with another, then the later name can be put near the end of the character description rather than right at the start. --
109.77.196.25 (
talk)
04:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Mos:FILMAUDIENCE has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 11 § Mos:FILMAUDIENCE until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont)
23:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 |
Now that the audience score is verified on Rotten Tomatoes maybe they can be added to Reception section of movies that have come out since its inception, just like CinemaScore ratings? PCRON talk 03:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Now
? Linked article is from 2019. This idea was discussed then and rejected too.
WP:UGC user voted web polls are still not reliable sources
WP:RS. --
109.79.167.221 (
talk)
15:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Should the themes section really be placed in an article right after the Cast section and before the Production section? The placement in these guidelines seems to imply it should, but Themes would seem to me to fit better alongside (or as part of) the Reception section. (I noticed this placement of the section in the article for the film Nope (film) and it seemed strange to me, but the guidelines seem to suggest that's where this section should go.) -- 109.77.198.206 ( talk) 14:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
There is no defined order of the sectionseven if you have not defined it, you have implicitly suggested it and editors have followed. It would be helpful if the guideline provided more solid guidance. Can we even agree that a change would be helpful, are there editors who think the current implied placement is best? -- 109.77.198.206 ( talk) 14:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Looking at MOS:LAYOUT, the "Specialized layout" section says, "Certain topics have Manual of Style pages that include layout advice..." and names WP:FILM. So perhaps we can retire the "no defined order" sentence as too hardline, literally create a "Layout advice" section, and come up with advisory points so it is not such an either/or approach (to have no order dictated versus a complete order dictated). Some advisory points like "Plot" first may be universally accepted, while some others may depend on context. Thoughts on doing that? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 20:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Please weigh in at Talk:Top Gun: Maverick#American military propaganda... regarding how much coverage, where to place, and if it warrants mention in the lead. Thank you. GoneIn60 ( talk) 19:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I have a quick question: how should we handle plot summaries that have in medias res sequences? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 21:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Not only should a plot summary avoid a scene-by-scene recap, but there's also no reason that a plot summary has to cover the events of the story in the order in which they appear (though it is often useful).NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 04:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Does not make any sense to me. There was once an order that made some sense, even if it was not intended to be rigidly adhered to. I agree with Erik and Favre1fan93 above, and the current order is just misleading and confusing, IMO. Common sense dictates that accolades and audience reception come after production, and by grouping these kinds of section together, the style guide is easier for the reader to decide what section headings to use, or whether to collapse some of the release/reception/box office type sections. I would like to suggest reverting to the order that we had around June. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 08:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Section ordering, Plot first, then semi-chronologically is what past discussions around here used to recommend, and was used in many film articles. Following that logic, sections such as the Home media or the Awards/Accolades frequently got put at or near the end of the article. But then some people wanted to make more use the "Release" section heading (sometimes using it instead of the Reception section, sometimes having both). The semi-chronological ordering increasingly conflicted with logic of grouping "home media" under the Release section, or similarly grouping the Accolades under the Reception section. I mention this to provide context, and I hope this brief summary of how many articles ended up as they are now, might help keep the discussion moving. I also hope the desire to keep things flexible will not prevent the guidelines from recommend some reasonable defaults that work well enough for most cases. -- 109.76.131.219 ( talk) 12:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Also, question of whether this should be applied to navboxes. If there's a standalone filmography and accolades article for a subject, then should they be listed per order on the main article (filmography first), or alphbetically (accolades first). [2] Thanks, Indagate ( talk) 08:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
It was recently brought up at Talk:Shazam! (film)#mid and post credit scenes? that WP:FILMPLOT says the following regarding post-credits scenes, with emphasis added:
Mid- and post-credit scenes should generally not be included in the plot summary. Exceptions are made for these scenes if they provide key relevant details for the film itself (the identity of the villain in Young Sherlock Holmes), are part of sourced discussion in the rest of the article (the reuse of the post-credit scene of Ferris Bueller's Day Off) or if the film is part of a franchise and the scene helps establish details for a known future film in production (such as many Marvel Cinematic Universe films).
Because the MoS specifies that a post-credits scene has to pertain a known future film in production
in order to be included, an IP editor has pushed for the removal of the mid-credits scene of Shazam! on the grounds that it has not been actually confirmed that the scene's characters will appear in a future film. I suggest that
WP:FILMPLOT be amended to just say for a potential future film
, because oftentimes we won't get immediate confirmation that a scene directly sets up a film known to be in development, much less in production
, but it's obvious from the scene's context that it's intended to set up a future property. If this change doesn't happen, then several films (including
Spider-Man: Homecoming,
Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness,
Thor: Love and Thunder,
Morbius, etc.) are in trouble.
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
03:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
When determining whether to include mid- or post-credits scenes in plot summaries, use the same judgement applied to non-post-credits scenes. In other words, scenes solely included for comedic effect should generally not be included.? If we want to keep the "part of sourced discussion" exception that's fine with me, but I just checked the Ferris Bueller's Day Off article and it ... doesn't include said discussion (unless I somehow missed it). InfiniteNexus ( talk) 00:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
When determining whether to include mid- or post-credits scenes in plot summaries, use the same judgement applied to non-post-credits scenes. In other words, scenes solely included for comedic effect should generally not be included, though the inclusion or creation of these scenes may be appropriate to discuss elsewhere in the article.That covers an instance like Spider-Man: Homecoming, where the post credits of Cap talking about patience doesn't have any merit being in the plot summary (versus the mid-credits of Toomes in prison), but that is discussed in the production section, where that is entirely appropriate for that scene. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 02:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the wording. I'm only concerned with a the slippery slope of mid/post credit scenes that get argued about importance because of fan knowledge. An example is Guardians of the Galaxy 2. It reads: In a series of mid-and post-credit scenes, Kraglin takes up Yondu's telekinetic arrow and control-fin; Ravager leader Stakar Ogord reunites with his ex-teammates; Ayesha creates a new artificial being with whom she plans to destroy the Guardians, naming him Adam;[N 1] Groot has grown into a teenager;[N 2] and a group of uninterested Watchers abandon their informant, who is discussing his experiences on Earth.. The telekinetic arrow seems relevant, Ayesha seems relevant. Groot growing would be relevant. The Stakar thing isn't. He's a sub-minor character in the film and him reuniting with ex-teammates makes not nevermind because it wasn't really a plot point of the film. The watcher stuff is just for Stan Lee fans. It has not bearing. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
joke scenethat was brought up earlier. The Stakar scene though, could prove relevant for the next film. For cases such as this one, I do think that they could be removed from the plot summary until it is proven that they are relevant for a
known future film in production, as the guideline currently reads. — El Millo ( talk) 18:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the last things you said. I don't think post credit/med credit stuff should be treated any differently. If it's relevant, then include it. If it's not relevant (i.e., not essential to understanding the plot of the film) then it shouldn't be included. It would be no different than not including a specific joke that is stated. Funny yes. Essential to understanding the film, super unlikely. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I just read that same passage in the guideline and was surprised by it. I see that it was discussed but not changed. As written, it advocates for not summarizing post-credits scenes, but then frankly seems to exclude the majority of post-credits scenes from that guidance. The unspoken consensus of the actual editors working on film summaries seems to be, in general, to include such scenes, so I feel that a guideline starting from a negative assumption is not practical. I like
InfiniteNexus's suggestion and would modify it slightly: Determine the inclusion of mid- or post-credits scenes in plot summaries by using the same criteria used for all other scenes. Scenes solely included for comedic effect should generally not be included. If a scene is included, there is no need to set it apart from the rest of the summary by identifying it as a post-credits scenes. If a scene is not included in the plot summary, it may still be discussed elsewhere in the article if appropriate.
By saying "there is no need to set it apart from the rest of the summary by identifying it as a post-credits scenes," I'm trying to get at the idea that it can be included wherever it's relevant, but I failed to find a good way to word it. It's best explained by example. The summary for
Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness doesn't at all include Strange cursing Pizza Poppa, and rightly so. But, if it did, it might go something like, "Strange curses Pizza Poppa to hit himself in the face." And then at the end, "In a post-credits scene set three weeks later, Pizza Poppa stops hitting himself." I envision it being changed to "Strange curses Pizza Poppa to hit himself in the face for three weeks." If anyone can think of a similar example, where the events are actually worthy of summary inclusion, we could use it directly in the guideline. --
DavidK93 (
talk)
05:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
But at the very least, since I'm not seeing any clear-cut consensus on the current guideline, it should be removed from the MoS.With that being said, I must admit I'm not 100% on board with
If a scene is included, there is no need to set it apart from the rest of the summary by identifying it as a post-credits scenes.The rest, I agree. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 06:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Base the inclusion of mid- or post-credits scenes in plot summaries on the same criteria used for all other scenes. Their placement relative to the credits does not need to be mentioned.I felt a direct imperative verb was simpler in the first sentence. In the second sentence, I thought "as such" might not be clear to everyone. What do you think? -- DavidK93 ( talk) 06:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
The inclusion of mid- and post-credit scenes should be based on the same inclusion criteria used to judge the relevance of other scenes.
The plot section describes...". I think it's an editor preference on whether or not to call a post-credits scene what it is, especially in cases where its inclusion is borderline. In such instances, it may be helpful to a reader to know this occurred during or after the credits, although I would agree that doing so is unnecessary in most circumstances. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 06:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
I've narrowed it down to three elements of a proposed rewording:
- A:
The inclusion of mid- and post-credit scenes should be based on the same inclusion criteria used to judge the relevance of other scenes.(from GoneIn60)- B:
Scenes solely included for comedic effect should generally not be included, though the inclusion or creation of these scenes may be appropriate to discuss elsewhere in the article.(from Favre1fan93)- C:
Their placement relative to the credits does not need to be mentioned.(from DavidK93)
Which of the above should we include, or should we keep the current wording? InfiniteNexus ( talk) 06:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Okay, so most everybody seems to be in agreement that the current wording should be changed, i.e. there is unanimous support for A. The consensus isn't as clear for B, but it's leaning toward not including it, and it's pretty clear C is a no-go. I'll go ahead and update the MoS accordingly (using DavidK93's wording for A), feel free to perform additional c/e. Thanks all. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 01:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Talk:The Super Mario Bros. Movie#Marketing section regarding the lengthy indiscriminate list of trailer and other promotional materials. If anyone has any opinions on it. I've actually noticed this type of editing in quite a few upcoming film articles. Mike Allen 17:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry if this has been discussed already and I'm missing it, but between the following:
a) Individual credit slides before scroll
b) The scroll itself
c) Poster
... what is the order of precedence? YouCanDoBetter ( talk) 04:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
After a long vacation of ten years, I am back.🙃 I have some questions regarding the current MOS consensus. What are the thoughts on having tables with box office data? Music track listings like this? Is this useful? These articles passed as GA back in 2011, so they obviously need updating. Thanks for any input. Mike Allen 21:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I identified this issue on this talk page three years ago and it keeps recurring!
We need to have a section in this part of the Manual of Style on how to correctly describe a film premiere.
The problem with the silly phrase "[title] had its premiere" is that it comes with the bizarre implication that the film itself has agency, in the philosophical or sociological sense. No, a film does not premiere itself. The vast majority of professional journalists write that a film "premiered" at a location or that the film's premiere occurred or was held at a location. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 05:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
The broader issue is that a lot of amateur WP editors are writing as if films have agency.
this kind of phrasing bothers me too, in particular when people write that a film "holds" a score, it would be fine in casual writing but it does not seem professional enough for an encyclopedia. It reminds me of the old joke "Don't anthropomorphise computers: they hate that!". Surely there is already a higher level writing style guide somewhere that could be invoked that recommends a more professional writing style that indirectly covers this concern? --
109.79.175.194 (
talk)
12:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:List of South Park episodes § "Films". The discussion concerns how to list films as episodes for a television series, where films are considered major works and television episodes are considered minor works. --
Alex_21
TALK
00:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
In the absence of a page like this one covering theatrical works, is it reasonable to point to this page for guidance on such matters as plot style and length for stage play articles? Largoplazo ( talk) 03:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
This edit (by Erik) to sort the sections describing the content alphabetically was just absurd. I know it comes out of a desire to avoid the implication that that is the suggested order for articles, but this just defies common sense and makes the MOS unnecessarily difficult to follow. The MOS in any case should have some guidance on the rough order of elements, and "should be chosen to best suit the needs of the article" without any suggestions is inadequately helpful. While the first section could reasonably be about the production background rather than the plot, surely there's no situation where Accolades should come first in the article.
Seeing as this was already disputed under #Alphabetical order of sections in this style guide above, I'm reverting to the status quo ante. (Though that discussion didn't reach a conclusive outcome, it's clear there's more opposition to the current ordering than the previous.) -- Paul_012 ( talk) 06:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Since many films have widely varying release patterns, the structuring and ordering of the sections—with the exception of the lead, references, and external links—is left to editorial judgment, and should be chosen to best suit the needs of the article. See also MOS:SECTIONORDER.
Just seeing this new discussion (after first getting to the MOS page on my watchlist). I've gone back to a "suggested order" and added some text in addition to Erik's already to make it clear this is not definitive. Lead, References, and External links definitely need to be first and the last, respectively to follow Wikipedia convention, and then after that the rest kinda fall into place. My edit here I think covers what GoneIn60 was looking for, along with Facu-el Millo and Paul_012. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 01:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
After stating that plot sections typically follow lead sections, this part is a little vague to me: "although a film's specific context may warrant otherwise
". Can someone explain what is meant by "specific context"? Is there a good example we can look at or link to? --
GoneIn60 (
talk)
05:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Noticed this section appears before "Box office" in the MoS. The placement strikes me as odd, as you would expect it to chronologically follow "Box office" and "Critical reception", not come before it. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 05:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
There used to be multiple hidden warnings on the article The Super Mario Bros. Movie. They cluttered the article, some say DO NOT REMOVE without any reasoning, like the editor table. If there is already an editor especially if credited on the poster, why would it get vandalized? However, FILMLEAD is what I will talk about mainly, because one of the warnings for it used to say "only one genre", but when did it say only one? I have seen articles that list more than one genre on films, and FILMLEAD stated primary or sub. I think I need some form of consensus about this issue. BaldiBasicsFan ( talk) 22:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, In the case of a 1964 film, and even if a still is on the page, is the mention that the film is in black and white really irrelevant? Thank you. — MY, OH, MY! 00:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
As this discussion has been placed by OP in two places at once, I'll be copying these comments to the other place, where the discussion has developed further. — El Millo ( talk) 19:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
An editor is claiming that the UK release date for Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness should be included in the Release section because it was partly filmed in the UK. The MOS doesn't go into detail on this, but it does provide a link to the Release dates section of the Infobox Film template, which states that "Release dates should therefore be restricted to [...] the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film".
It seems to me that the "countries that produced the film" should be restricted to the countries where the production companies are located and not extended to those providing filming locations. In this particular case, we'd also have to include the release dates in Canada, Norway, Iceland and Italy, which seems like overkill.
Thoughts? And should the Release section both here and at the Infobox usage guidelines be updated with more specific information, particularly with regards as to what constitutes a "production country"? Barry Wom ( talk) 16:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
in several countries" for the earliest May 4 releases, and then list the UK May 5 release, before the US May 6 date. Trailblazer101 ( talk) 17:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
If other release dates are found to be notable, it may be appropriate to include them in the main body of the article.(On that note, the example given of Water (2005 film) does not feel like it is an appropriate example anymore). - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 20:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
some consistency is required. We must be wary of WP:CREEP.
If other release dates are found to be notable, it may be appropriate to include them in the main body of the articlein FILMRELEASE is broad enough to cover instances in which additional coverage of dates can be mentioned. It doesn't need to be "cookie-cutter"/strictly a set amount of criteria. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 15:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#DL, sections, and mobile readers and change. Gonnym ( talk) 11:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Free-use film trailers are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Trailers in articles?, and more editors may be helpful. Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I’m a bit confused. I’m getting the impression that adding trailers to film articles is acceptable as long as they’re fair use or public domain with commentary attributed to sources but are trailers acceptable in the way that Randy added them? See here, [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] Armegon ( talk) 16:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
These edits at Chakravyuham:The Trap italicize the names of the roles of the actors in its simple bulleted cast listing. MOS:FILMCAST is explicit that bold not be used, but is silent on the use of italics. Use of italics in this manner does not seem to be consistent with what I have seen in other film articles. Is this okay? — Archer1234 ( t· c) 16:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
When we are writing about fiction, we should provide the reader with "Careful differentiation between the work itself and aspects of its production process", according to MOS:FICTIONAL.
Here at the Film style guide, I propose to remove the option of describing real-world casting information from the individual character entries in the "Cast list". The cast list should name the character and the actor, and allow the option to briefly describe the character's fictional aspects at each bulleted character entry.
Real-world casting information should be presented in prose in the "Production" section. Our style guide already says this at MOS:FILMPRODUCTION: "Add detail about how the actors were found and what creative choices were made during casting ..."
The problem I wish to fix is that casting information is also allowed to be presented in the "Cast" section, based on our style guide which currently allows us to add "Real-world context... about how the role was written, how the actor came to be cast for the role, and what preparations were necessary for filming." I don't think this contradiction in the guide should exist, allowing two very different routes. Let's streamline the instructions and restrict "how a role was written" to an optional prose paragraph below the bulleted cast list, and move all the casting and role preparation stuff to the Production section. Pinging Erik who authored this bit in 2012.
Note that 90% of the films at WP:Featured article already have a clear separation between fictional elements and real-world context. The suggested change would align our guide with standard practice. Binksternet ( talk) 21:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Why is there so much content before the actors and basic plot overview? A lot of film article lead paragraphs are in the format of title> production companies> distributors> directors> writers> actors> plot sentence(s). This structure means the hover-over preview and Google search snippet don't tell you the most salient facts people are looking for. I had to actually visit Morbius to learn the main gist is "vampire scientist"... JoelleJay ( talk) 05:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia: The Film (stylized as WIKIPEDIA: The Film and marketed in Singapore as The Wikipedia Film). It's a common problem on Wikipedia. I try to remove as much of the trivia as possible whenever I find it, move it later in the lead, etc. But Wikipedians love their trivia, so it usually gets put back eventually. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 03:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:The Conjuring Universe § Italics in page title and lead sentence are technically wrong.
Joeyconnick (
talk)
15:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Howdy everyone; long time no see to those who remember me and nice to meet you to those who don't. I've recently run into an IP editor who is determined to fight over the usage of "mixed-to-negative" in reference to a film's reception (they want to, I think it sounds meaningless). The editor is also basing their entire determination of this on the scores at RT, a common mistake for newer editors (one I made myself when I was new to the project 11 kajillion years ago). For that reason I was wondering if there is any way we can mention this in the MOS, specifically. In one instance the related text is in the lead of an article so it's not as easy to polish out as it is in a proper reception section where we can just skip straight to the scores and reviews.
I'm of the opinion that part of the reason this sort of thing keeps getting added is because we haven't specifically addressed it, despite a longstanding consensus here to remove it, for reasons most of us are probably familiar with. I feel like addressing the mixed-to-whatever problem would be easy enough to explain. It's trying to explain why an RT score of 30% doesn't necessarily mean "generally negative" that I'm unsure of; I understand it but can't articulate it. Would anyone be open to us adding, at the very least, a short sentence in the MOS about the mixed thing? Millahnna ( talk) 19:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't see this implemented in MOS:FILMCRITICS, was the discussion halted? There seems to be a consensus here. I support clarifying that "mixed-to-positive/negative" isn't acceptable language for critical receptions. It should recommend that if both aggregators report a generally positive reception (i.e., MC stating generally positive and RT's percentage being majority positive), that may be used as the reception summary in the lead. But if there's a discrepancy, then quote what secondary sources say the overall reception is. If there are contradictory summaries given by RS's, note that in the article. Lapadite ( talk) 07:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The long standing consensus from many discussions was don't do that. The above discussion has reiterated that. Here's one such discussion from the archives: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_48#Mixed_to_positive_%2F_Mixed_to_negative I see no reason to believe there is any change in the consensus (or the basics of good writing). -- 109.77.196.204 ( talk) 19:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I have a general question regarding the plot summaries for feature films. When a film has been released in its native country, such as the first part of Sailor Moon Cosmos in Japan, should we consider changing the section name to "Plot" and expand it if it's needed? Thanks. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 19:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Propose adding the following wording to MOS:FILMCRITICS:
Describing a film as being "critically acclaimed" is a loaded phrase and exceptional claim that requires the backing of an exceptional number of highly reputable sources, demonstrating near-unanimity in sources' assessment. Editors must not merely synthesize or extrapolate sources or review aggregators. Metacritic classifies all films with a score of 81 or above as having "universal acclaim", so it alone cannot be used to support this claim.
From time to time, editors have tried adding "critically acclaimed" to articles without adequate sourcing, often leading to edit-wars and drawn-out talk page debates. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 16:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
"critical acclaim" must be a more common description in sources than the standard "positive reviews"is the definition of SYNTH and OR. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 16:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
critically acclaimed,
widespread critical acclaim,
was a box-office bomb,
was a box-office failure,
widely praised,
regarded as one of the greatest _____ films of all time... InfiniteNexus ( talk) 16:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Okay, here is an abbreviated one-sentence version:
Describing a film as being "critically acclaimed" is a loaded phrase and exceptional claim that must be attributed to multiple highly reputable sources.
InfiniteNexus ( talk) 22:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Describing a film with superlatives such as "critical acclaimed" or "box-office bomb"...InfiniteNexus ( talk) 04:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Added to FILMLEAD, see
MOS:ACCLAIMED /
WP:ACCLAIMED /
MOS:ACCLAIM /
WP:ACCLAIM.
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
05:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Avoid weasel words. If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly. Describing a film with superlatives such as "critically acclaimed" or "box-office bomb" is loaded language and an exceptional claim that must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources.
This has been discussed before but I believe it should be considered again. I think providing a simple "Actor as Character" section would benefit those looking for basic actor information on a film. Speaking from personal experience, simply wanting to know who is in a film, skipping past all other sections, has spoiled films. Yes, those of us who have encountered this problem could look for it elsewhere, but that would promote the idea to visit other sites for other info as well. The information as listed could be preserved with a different heading and a simple Cast "Actor as Character" section added. 24.170.127.153 ( talk) 09:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Late comment but the Batman Begins article is an example of Cast section with an abundance of information that "may be placed in the plot summary or in the "Casting" subsection of a "Production" section
" and doing that might address some of your concerns. Also the guideline
WP:SPOILER warns against deleting or omitting information but
WP:UNDUE and relevance still applies, and the information does not need to be repeated all over the place. Revelations about characters such as Darth Vader or Kaiser Soze would usually belong only in the plot section of a film article (but the character article for
Darth Vader is unavoidably front-loaded with information that readers might not want to know until later), and there would need to be specific good reasons to include or repeat such details elsewhere (and
MOS:FILMCAST says "All names should be referred to as credited" and as Kaiser Soze is not listed in the film credits so he generally should not be listed in the
cast section.) It can sometimes help to order details chronologically, it is simply better writing in many cases. For example if a character begins a film with one name and ends with another, then the later name can be put near the end of the character description rather than right at the start. --
109.77.196.25 (
talk)
04:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Mos:FILMAUDIENCE has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 11 § Mos:FILMAUDIENCE until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont)
23:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)