This WikiProject Film page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I realize I have probably done something bone headed in breaking this style guide out, but on the project page it was getting buried under that huge list of participants. Glad people are into film, but I was finding it hard to get to the guide. In particular, I'm sure significant amounts of the discussion from the project talk page need to at least get linked to in some way from this page. But I'm not sure how to best go about that. Anyone? Isogolem 06:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
(I'm posting this here because obviously plot/synopsis descriptions are governed by style guidelines.)
With the growing popularity of 'extended DVD editions', are there any guidelines in place for descriptions of alternate versions of a plot? Some articles have a quite elaborate synopsis of the original theatrical release, which may not accurately describe the later (sometimes much longer) DVD edition.
A theatrical edit is governed by concerns different from a DVD edit. Should we consider them to be two different films? -- Radioflux 16:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Just a note that user mangoe has made a major revision of the style guideline with no attempt at discussion to give special exemptions to WikiProjects and RS standards to "documentaries," in order to then justify using the exemptions that he himself created on the "Bowling For Columbine" page. I suggest a revert until we have a consensus. Right now, the addition is incredibly vague and nebulous, for no other reason than to allow Mangoe to cite whatever sources that he wants. For instance, he claims that "Documentaries present a special case, as they present themselves as recounters of fact. Therefore criticism of content ought to be included if it is presented with reasonable documentation and if there is evidence of public awareness of the controversy" strikes me as a complete non-sequitor. What does the fact that documentaries present themselves as "recounters of fact" have to do with presenting controversy? Does that mean that you wouldn't include controversy surrounding non-documentaries (e.g., Clockwork Orange wasn't a documentary, but it does have controversy). "Reasonable documentation" is likewise vague. What constitutes "reasonable"? Are we assuming that current WP:RS standards apply?
The concept of "public awareness" is completely open to interpretation. For instance, Tom Cruise's involvement with scientology was HUGELY controversial and public at the time of Mission Impossible III, yet his involvement with scientology have a single mention doesn't have a single mention. Obviously, MI:III doesn't meet the standard, so what does? Further, how are we defining "controversy"? The word is defined in the dictionary as, "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion." So is one guy shouting that he didn't like a certain movie a real controversy? I don't think so. The claim that "The existence of a public controversy ought to be acknowledged whatever can be said about it" is incredibly vague and can include just about anything. - Schrodinger82 00:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Bowling_for_Columbine#Concern_over_original_research ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I would like some clarification on sections describing themes, interpretations, and influences. I would also like to discuss whether there is interest in creating a more detailed description of these sections in the style guidelines. Over time, I've noticed that these sections can be used in ambiguous and often misleading ways, as there are no clear standards for their use. For example, I recently began editing a "Themes and influences" section on The Fountain, only to discover to my surprise, that the section was a trivia section with very little underlying threads. After a few edits, I also realized that the "influences" (erroneously merged into themes) section was really a production-related detail. I'm concerned about the use of these sections, as the standards are mostly nonexistent. Take the use of influence or influences in two articles: Blade Runner describes the influence the film has had on popular culture, but 2001: A Space Odyssey describes the influence upon the production. The use of the "interpretations" section appears to be an alternate means of discussing the theme, accurate or not. I'm looking for consensus regarding the standardization of headings and their content. Standardization will have the added bonus of improving thematic and genre-related categorization of film articles whose sections are split off due to length. — Viriditas | Talk 05:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
One thing that would relieve many project members would be to define more specific guidelines on the inclusion of red links for unexisting film articles. Some that are notable and need an article are covered in Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable films. I have collected all red links from the lists of years in films, and started the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of films without article. The list is now being split in decades as we are facing the problem of the hundreds or maybe thousands of films, given as red links in actors' and directors' filmographies and there may be more in other articles too. Yet no one seems to know for sure how the Wikipedia:Red link applies to film titles. In dab pages some users take off the red links from films, following some more general dab guidelines. If I am not mistaken, here is the right place one should find some guidelines. Hoverfish 19:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The soundtrack needs to be moved down, perhaps to after the reception section. It really does not need to be directly after the plot. Agree/disagree?-- Supernumerary 03:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Compare the styles for cast listings on these different featured film articles.
I believe style #2 is the most logical. A table does not look good in this situation. Bolding the names of the actor and characters improves readability, and using paragraph form over list form is just sloppy and difficult to find information. Made of people 18:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
We're proceeding with a discussion about determining the release date for films in the WikiProject Films talk page. -- Corsair Armada 00:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I've recently made a few small contributions to the articles for some of my favorite films and I'm wondering about this title Reception which seems intended as what one titles a section concerning reviews, box office receipts, and the like. Just how wedded is the project to calling it that? I'm a little bothered by it simply because Reception seems more related to weddings, or radio broadcasts, than film reviews, criticism, etc. Cryptonymius 00:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I've seen the word 'Responses' used a lot. That seems like the best to me. Cop 633 19:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please explain why bolding the character and actor is the latest rage? I think it's unnecessary and that bolding should be reserved for emphasis. I also see no mention of bolding in the style guide here.-- Supernumerary 17:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Examples: Psycho (1960 film)#Cast, Pulp Fiction, GoldenEye#Cast, Serenity (film)#Cast. Note that Pulp Fiction's cast is no longer bolded because I unbolded it.-- Supernumerary 20:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering if an alternate to this style guideline would be that which is currently in place at Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film). With such a large cast, it makes sense to break it into categories (I think), and the table seems to sort it much better than if it were in prose. At least until the film is released, is this aceptable? Thanks, Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 20:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand that bolding is the "general style" that's been seen around – that's because it's what it says in this project page. But is there any consensus to allow tables as an alternate option for a cast list? For a really long cast list such as the one at Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film), I have a feeling more people would skip a cast list written in prose than one in a table. -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 00:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone here give me the short answer on uploading images? I've considered, for example, scanning the cover to such things as DVDs and books just to spice up various articles, where an image seemed needed, and I've tried sorting through the Wiki documention concerning copyrighted material...and at the rate I'm wading through it I may never get to the end of it... Cryptonymius 07:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Since we seem to keep having problems with scene-by-scene descriptions of a film's plot, I propose that we change the section heading to "Synopsis" to emphasize that the section should be a brief summary. It's already in use in some film articles, and Wikiproject Books has the similar heading "Plot summary" for fiction books. However, for graphic novels and TV shows "Plot" is used. Thoughts?-- Supernumerary 02:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
If you are dealing with a film that began from a literary source, like The Dark Knight, where would you list the creators of the characters? Should they be before the writers of the film, or after? BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 21:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Could anybody tell me if there is a way I can add a "color" section on the infobox? I want to add information like black and white, technicolor; tinted color etc. Is that impossible? Please just put your response on my discussion page if you can help.-- Dudeman5685 17:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Looking for clarification on this naming convention style guideline: should the year be the year the film was released or the year it was completed? The articles I'm working on are D.E.B.S. (2003 film), D.E.B.S. (2004 film); these titles match their IMDb years, however, from what I can tell the 2003 film made the festival circuit in '04 and the '04 film was released in '05. This doesn't seem to lead to too much conflict within the articles (they're still works in progress anyways), but it does when the films are placed on List pages and sometimes actor's filmographies. Any help ya'll can give on this would be great - thanks! Zue Jay ( talk) 16:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to use wikilinks to other WP articles in plot synopses? For example: "John Doe works in a sweatshop in China and falls in love with Jane Doe" - is this a good thing? I haven't seen many film articles with links in the synopses so I was wondering if it is an appropriate style convention, providing of course that it is not overdone. Ekantik talk 02:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious, as the "see also" help section didn't really "help", what exactly should/can go here. I mean, how close should things be to fit this section? Is there a guideline for this section of an article? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to purpose that use of the IMDB and similiar poll rankings of movies be either discouraged or made not within official policy for film articles. They are little more than fan dictated "my movie is better than your movie" boastings based on flawed polling techniques, as all passive polls are. As bad as rankings generally are, these passive fan polls are worse given to far too much "ballot stuffing" by fans. If someone starts doing a bona fide poll (you know, where they actually go out and get the results), then that would be different. RoyBatty42 20:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
How would you guys interpret something like IMDb's Weighted Average Ratings? I don't think it's an invalid point, but I agree that bona fide polls would be more realistic.. — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 21:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
How did we end up with Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the UK and the US, as the majority/traditional English speaking countries? What ever happened to Ireland, South Africa and Jamaica? And because this is the English language Wikipedia, wouldn't it also be noteworthy listing the release dates in countries where English is spoken or well understood (or has a colonial background), such as India, Singapore or Hong Kong? I understand that a lot of today's (English) movies are made in the US and are first shown in the US so it only makes sense to have its release date listed, but is this also the case for Australia, Canada and New Zealand? 210.7.7.19 23:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
After a bit of discussion with Hoverfish, I'd like to make a proposal for a one-sentence addition to the cast section of the guidelines, something akin to:
The rationale behind this includes:
Comment Depending on how detailed the cast section is small tables can often look quite neat in cast sections. However for larger cast details a large table clearly interrupts the flow of the article and is best written out which is for most. I disagree about what Erikster said about "avoiding tables encourages users to expand on actors background" -with all due respect this clearly not a reason - tables can accomdate a column equally for details. However I agree that is is best to avoid bloated tables from the articles certainly ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 18:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I think a table with class="wikitable sortable" looks good and is very practical, it has more functionality. Prose can either be put in a separate column or outside the table.-- Patrick 09:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I have been in a debate with User:Bbagot on Talk:The_Ultimate_Gift. I have quoted him the prohibition against IMDB user comments but he argues this isn't a prohibition against using the IMDB user ratings -- i.e., it doesn't explicitly prohibit them whereas I argued that it was a natural inference. He is insisting that the following be kept in The Ultimate Gift
On the IMDB movie site, where regular movie goers rate movies they have seen, the film had a mean rating of 7.9 out of 10.
Notice that he is using the higher "mean rating" vs. the average rating of 7.1 because he believes it is more accurate. So, I'm asking:
I'm not doubting that advertising helps the box office, I'm saying it only helps that first weekend. Look at Hulk. It had a strong opening weekend, but had one of the worst falls of any comic book film after that weekend. That should speak for fan response right there. 96,000 people, when you are talking about a film that has sold millions upon millions of tickets is nothing. If you met 96,000 people in person, yeah, that would be a large group, but if you met a poll sample that was actually representitive of movie going individuals, you'd be dealing with a much larger crowd. Here's the problem with using IMDb's user ratings...its an internet poll. The demographic is rather limited to just people that happen to know what IMDb is. I know plenty of people that love to go to movies, but don't know what IMDb or even Wikipedia is for that matter. It limits its own sample, and thus is not notable enough for wikipedia. American Idol is much bigger than IMDb, and they rake in millions of votes in one round. What was it, like 60 million votes in a final round? Yeah, if IMDb had 60 million votes for a film, I'd probably trust that rating. 96k vs. 60m??? Hmm..that's a hard one. American Idol gets tens of millions of viewers each show; a film gets tens of millions of admissions (if it's making a lot of money, like 300 is) by the end of its run. But IMDb can only find 96k people to vote on the film, while American Idol can find 60 mill? Again, IMDb is not a reliable representative sample of user voting. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
How can you trust a site that doesn't even provide a source for its information? Even sites like Batmanonfilm.com can be right some of the time, or even most of the time, but we don't base reliability on how often someone is right. Hindsight is 20/20, and IMDb is usually right....about films that have long come to pass, but they are usually wrong about films that haven't even been released yet. Box Office Mojo still lists both Pirates 2 and 3 with a budget of 225 million. I have a source that says that there has yet to be a definitive number for Pirates 2 released, and Pirates 3 (still doing some last minute work) could actually be above 300 mill. Nothing is definitive, but Box Office Mojo has had Pirate 3's budget up since before Pirates 2 was ever released (and we know that Pirates 3 had not even been filmed at that point..minus a handful of scenes). We need to look at their impact on films that are coming out, because they tend to get information right after the fact...yet they have yet to acknowledge that they have the wrong budget for Superman Returns still up, even after being provided with numerous sources that cite a completely different number. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Can I change the current verbiage:
Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the film was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known film reviewers, and not comments from members of the public (for example, quotes from users of Amazon.com and the Internet Movie Database do not count).
to read:
Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the film was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known film reviewers, and not comments from members of the public (for example, quotes or user ratings from users of Amazon.com and the Internet Movie Database do not count).
Is there consensus on this? Therefore 22:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Therefore 01:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the film was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known film reviewers, and not comments from members of the public (for example, quotes or user ratings from users of Amazon.com,
andthe Internet Movie Database and blogs do not count).
Thanks Bbagot 16:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Bbagot is accurate when he says that box office is not necessarily related to movie quality, only to its popularity. To gauge audience reception, popularity, i.e., box office returns, is the only measurement available. If, say, Gallup polled movie goers to rate movies, then that source would be valuable and used. But web based user ratings are by any definition inaccurate and can't be used.
As for exclusion being "tread upon" more lightly, I respectively disagree. The three pillars of Wikipedia: Neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research are all excluding principles. I agree with Bbagot that boldness and innovation should be encouraged but only within the constraints of these pillars. Therefore 23:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I edited the articles Films considered the greatest ever and Films considered the worst ever to remove references to the IMDB user ratings. All of the above arguments are true for these articles, and I don't see why they should have any special status with regards to using unverifiable data from non-reliable sources. However, both of the edits have been reverted by people who disagree, and think that IMDB user ratings are appropriate in these articles. [3] [4] What do you think? Chris Bainbridge ( talk) 23:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Prophecies of Nostradamus has two AMG ids. One as Prophecies of Nostradamus, which in the U.S. was a subtitled, very limited, art house release, and one as The Last Days of Planet Earth, which was dubbed and heavily edited for television and the only version released to home video (neither version is on Region 1 DVD). Trying to include both has messed up the infobox. How do I do it? -- Scottandrewhutchins 15:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is this project forcing "Cast" sections on all articles that dont need it? For instance, see featured article Tenebrae (film). No cast section. Instead all characters are introduced in the plot summary, with the actors names in brackets. Also there is already an infobox with the cast list in it. This is much nicer, and closer to "brilliant prose" - an FA requirement. Also see Halloween (film), another FA which has no Cast section, instead a Casting section which is all prose. Lists should generally be kept out of articles. I think forcing "cast" sections as mandatory is a bad idea, better to leave the "style" of giving the cast up to the individual editors.
p.s. dont now go and start editing the two mentioned articles, they're perfect as they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.156.253 ( talk • contribs)
yes i'm also concerned that the "cast" sections are often an excuse to extend the " in-universe" plot summary information, e.g "Tom Cruise as Doctor Slime - a 29-year old Venusian starship captain with blue tentacles. He is in love with Julia Jupiter but his Venusian morals prevent him from displaying emotion." Thats all in-universe information that should belong in the plot summary section if its important enough.
I will try to update that section of the style guideline soon, to equally allow the Tenebrae and Halloween styles, and focus on the fact that "information about cast and crew should be provided", and less on "you must have a section called X and use a table/list of this format etc". 82.3.64.139 12:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
It's interesting that the film style guideline suggests putting a spoiler warning in the plot section for all films. It doesn't appear that even a majority conform to this guideline. Furthermore on the talk page of Wikipedia: Spoiler_warnings, proponents on getting rid of all spoiler warnings declare it obvious that one would not include a spoiler warning in a plot section. Thoughts? I'd like to get a discussion going about removing that element of the style guide. Jussen 22:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I imagine that calling them "meat bags" is supposed to inspire an atmosphere of understanding, right? lol. Come on guys, you might as well ask who is disappointed about finding out that all politicians are not squeaky clean. A lot of people are embarrassed about having their little joy balloons popped, and being told to cowboy up when they complain is not really an incentive to do so in the first place.
And I did complain a few years ago, back before I registered as a name user (in fact, it's what inspired me to sign up). I made a comment about how an article should have had a spoiler warning, and was told to cowboy up and be a grown-up. I imagine that it is not unreasonable to assume that others just walk away, considering the advisor a jerk with passive-aggressive issues.
Arcayne
(cast a spell) 00:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict - rp to Phil's post)
I'm going to leave the page in its current (reverted) form, but I'm glad to see it finally got some discussion going. Again, voice your support for spoilers on Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler_warning#Callibrating_the_teeth_of_this_guideline Jussen 01:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict; rp to BillCJ)
Fair enough. Perhaps I was reading a snipe at the legitimacy of the argument in there when one wasn't present. :) Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a childish argument, and I only found out about it by seeing childish rogue edits on film pages. The spoiler warning doesn't hurt anything. I'll say it again. It doesn't hurt anything. The editors who have claimed some consensus that validates their POV and then rampantly edit the warning out of film articles without even consulting the Film Project style guide, nor discuss it here,... it makes my blood boil. So fine, remove all spoiler warnings, and sit back feeling powerful, and let readers get caught with divulged twists and surprises because they were supposed to know that a "Plot" section will detail everything. How pathetic. Enough to make me lose interest in improving film articles. David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍) 17:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Due to the current debate over the use of spoilers, I've added {{disputedtag|section=yes}} to the plot section. — Viriditas | Talk 03:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to propose expanding the style guidelines to include User:Bignole/Future films and reference guidelines, with a merge into Other article components/Upcoming and Article body/Notes and references. The merge is not yet ready for primetime, but I wanted to give a heads-up to the project. Upon completion, I would like to propose moving the style guidelines to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film-related articles). — Viriditas | Talk 03:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I just added the following to the section on reception:
What I was tempted to add, but didn't, was a note about using Google's site-specific search capability, e.g.:
Using google this way helps bypass the long list of amazon.com resellers that google sometimes prioritizes when you are searching for reviews of older films; in the case of the NYT, using google also provides access to the text of reviews without having to get an NYT login. 67.100.127.57 06:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC).
I would like to propose that the style guidelines include two new section: "Themes" and "Cinematic style." The guidelines as they stand do not encourage editors to discuss the meaning of the film, apart from its plot, production and reception. While those elements are important, the most obvious place to look for a film's meaning is in its themes and artistic style (its content and its form). A film-writing guideline that does not suggest these does a great disservice to the editors using it as it handicaps their articles later on (for example, when they arrive at GAC or FAC) and it discourages editors from producing a fully-fleshed out page. Users coming to pages lacking these sections will be missing a substantial part of what the movie is about. I would also recommend that the guidelines emphasize the use of scholarly film criticism. Since wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on the work of experts ( WP:ATT), film articles should be sourced to film critics and academics who study film as much as possible. Awadewit | talk 00:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
What did I say, seriously? I said the originals have tons of themes, and symbolisms, and most importantly scholarly works written about them. The numerous sequels do not. What is written is simply how they tried to copy their maker, and usually fail miserably. I have never come across any material that discusses the "Effects of gender roles and self perceptions" in Friday the 13th Part (take a pick), and that wasn't simply comparing it to how the original Friday the 13th started it all for the series. There wouldn't be any new information, and simple comparisons usually come with the film critics, as they rip apart these sequels because of their unoriginal ideas that were stolen from the first film (which itself stole from Halloween, which stole them from Black Christmas..but those last two are neither here nor there). Film scholars talk about Friday the 13th, and how it's 10 sequels never live up to it, and how they copy every idea, theme, concept and are never original. They don't write entire works about one particular sequel and its leap from the series into something totally obscure...although they might possibly do that for Friday the 13th: A New Beginning, because I know what those film makers were trying to do (which was that, branch off from the series..but I haven't found anything on it). Seriously, go to the search engine you just linked, and start putting in "part 2", "part 3", "part V". Watch the 208 scholarly works immediately get cut to 4, then 2, then 1 (with most just repeating the same source each time). Bignole 01:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
See, that is your flaw. You think that if a film is never talked about then it can't possibly have a great article written about it Wikipedia. For example, there may not be a single thing written about the themes present in Friday the 13th Part 3, but the film itself provided an innovation in 3-D technology, which itself became illegal afterward. What's important about that film isn't what the film conveys, but what actually went into making the film itself, the process that was created specifically for that film to develop a 3-D technology that worked well. Point is, why would I read an article that tells me word for word the same information about the themes (if it's even available), when I can read it once and know that it's something that transpired throughout the entire series. If no one writes anything different about the different sequels, or even mentions them in the light of day, why would you do a copy/paste job on the ones where it is mentioned, or more directly pointed to? That's redundant. Again, I didn't argue the guideline shouldn't mention it. I think it should, and I think it should provide a clear explaination on how to attain such information. Personally, you haven't convinced me there is a need to duplicate information from page to page. It's one thing if people are discussing different, relevant information with each successive film in a series. It's another if they simply say "This series as a whole does ....", and then expect us to copy/paste that information for every page. You're wrapped up in this idea that every film is going to have some abundant amount of scholarly works written about it, simply because it exists, which isn't true. You run a search for films and pull up some key words, but just because there is a key word hit doens't mean what you got is what you were searching for. There were 4 finds for "F13 Part 2" in the search you linked above (supplimenting "Part 2" into the text you had already supplied). The first link is dead. The second leads to "Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of the Slash Film", Part 2 is mentioned as part of the "sequels galore" section. The third link hit the key word "Friday the 13th Part 2", the only thing about that film in that was a film producer literally saying "Oh, it’s just the sequel. It’s like ‘Friday the 13th—Part 2, 3, 4, 5, 6." That was a key word hit that turned up nothing special. As for the last hit, I don't speak that language so I can't tell you what it says. The point is, saying "Apparently the experts think that there is something to talk about" when 208 results turn up in a search doesn't mean anything of the sort. It means that title turned up 208 times; it doesn't have to about anything relevant, not even in a "Google Scholar" search. To get to the final point (as I need sleep), simply doing a search and saying "looks like people wrote about it" isn't proof positive of diddly, and doesn't mean that anyone wrote anything about the themes, sybolims, etc in that particular film. Not every last film in the entire world of cinema has been written about, or even mentioned in a literary source. Some are just not that important. Yes, Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood is not important in any respect other than it's the sixth sequel in an endless supply of films. Does that mean an excellent article cannot be written about it? Absolutely not. Does it mean that article, while excellent in its own right, will be able to compare to another article where film scholars have disected the many themes involved in the film? No, it won't compare, not in the least. It will be an ant in a land of Gods, but that doesn't mean that what is available can't be great, or featured on Wikipedia. Not every article is equal. A Featured film article can't compare equally to a featured article in another topic. It can't even compare within it's own topic. I'm all for themes and other subsequent type of information on films, but I don't think that every film is going to be the same in regards to what people write about it, or that people have written about every film out there. Bignole 04:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I think film articles can reach featured article status based on what is available for them. Featured article status has nothing to do with what YOU think should be available, it's about what IS available. Just because YOU think there should information on themes and cinematique style in an article, and it turns out there NO ONE has written anything about such information does not take away from the fact that the article might be just as good right now. Remember, it's about summary style, and we can't have 70kb articles everywhere, some are just too large. If every scholarly work grabs 9 out of the 10 Friday the 13th movies, and discusses them as a whole, and not on an individual level, then there is no reason to do a copy/paste on each article. The way it is done is by mentioning briefly what is said, and then linking to a separate articles that expands in detail what was written. This is why we don't break out in explaination over every term used on a page, and why we put those little blue links in so people can click them and read further on that subject. If it turns out that a group of films (maybe not even related by series, but by genre) have bit mentions about themes and style, and are compared on a grand scale, the proper way to do that is to put {{see also|fill on article name#Themes and cinematique style of ____ genre}} below the header of a brief area that mentions what the information is about. If that was how it was for F13, for all the sequels, then for each of the sequels I'd have a section that linked to {{see also|Friday the 13th (film series)#Themes and cinematique style}}, while only mentioning in a brief statement that the film is compared with its successors and predecessors on its use of blah blah blah. There is no need to write, word-for-word, the exact same information on each article if people are writing it in a "film series" tone. If you think that film articles shouldn't be FA, just because someone doesn't write about their themes, well that's your perogative. But, we'll let others decide, I believe we have wasted enough space between the two of us. Bignole 11:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I would not oppose a guideline section explaining, among other things, the prospect of exploring themes and cinematic styles. However, I think that requiring such sections would be asking for too much. Of course all films have themes; the notions are undoubtedly embedded in their storylines and can be exemplified with cinematic direction. All films have notions with which we are familiar -- revenge, love triangles, betrayal, redemption, et cetera. I do not believe, though, that this should immediately require sections about themes and cinematic styles. From what I've noticed, these elements are already embedded in Production and Reception, as Arcayne pointed out above. I think that such sections should be explored on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a film article should have them. I do not think that lacking such sections should rob a film article of Featured Article status. Perhaps some criteria should be established to determine the strength of a film's themes in the public eye. For example, American Beauty, a film whose article I hope to improve, would undoubtedly have a range of themes to explore. In comparison, I doubt that a film like Stomp the Yard would be thematically notable in an encyclopedic context. Another issue, from a trend that I've noticed with film articles, is that there has been some stronger attention with films released in the past year. Lasting themes would not always be possible to determine so early on, and again, this should not mean that it cannot satisfy FA criteria. The drive for improvement does not stop when an article reaches FA status. I'll conclude my perspective here as not to get too long-winded. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 13:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I think part of it is that themes can be discussed in context in Production, which I find a lot easier to write. Alientraveller 14:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I am unwatching this page. It is useless to repeat myself over and over again. I did not believe that this proposal would be so controversial. It is inconceivable to me that it is. Since themes are integral to all movies, they should be included in any guideline about writing about them. Whether or not it may be difficult to do so at times because of a lack of sources is irrelevant. Themes and cinematic style are a key ingredient of any film. Awadewit | talk 16:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm torn. On the one hand, I think these sections would encourage people to focus on more enduring aspects of films instead of on in-universe trivia. On the other, I tend to oppose "required sections" and other such cookie-cutter approaches. And there are some films it's just not important to include a criticism section on. I'm hard pressed to explain why Leprechaun 4 needs a criticism section. On the other hand, Nude on the Moon is barely interesting outside the way in which Wishman was canonized by trash cinema scholars. I think words strongly encouraging such a section would almost certainly be appropriate, but that requiring it might be a mistake. Phil Sandifer 18:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
This is supposed to be a guideline, so why not pursue a section that can mention additional sections and subsections, for not just this thematic proposal, but elements like historical accuracy and pop culture impact as well. (It'd be nice to have a guideline for the latter, since so many people just throw together trivia bits and call it that.) — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 19:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think the consensus already is that a Themes section is not being targeted for every single film, being reserved only for those films that might benefit from having one. Seeing that the editors can benefit from having a guideline in place to refer to when there are editorial disputes over what to include and wnat not to, where it should go and whatnot. Arguments tend to occur in the absence of a well-written guideline to ease them over the hump. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I propose a slight change of wording to the "release dates" section to make it clear that only premieres which are open to the public (i.e. not just to industry insiders) should be listed. For example, Cars premiered at ShoWest in March 2006 (an event open only to owners of movie theatres), months before its public premiere. Esn 02:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
After reviewing WP:FICTION, WP:WAF, WP:FICT, and WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines, I'm proposing that the Films Plot Style Guidelines be revised to bring them in line with those for Novels and Fiction in general. This would have a primary effect of recommending that the Plot section "not contain an explication of every subplot in the film's story" since a "respectable encyclopedia entry [should not] describe every event and twist and turn of the story".
Fiction Style Guidelines specifically state a summarization is desired. In Films, however, many of the Plot sections are so detailed that they would border on WP:COPYVIO if they were for a novel or short story (see Shooter, for example). However, the current film guidelines are vague enough to allow this. Based on the comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Plot synopses too long, there appears to be enough interest to make this proposal. I expect there to be many concerns about the effect this change would have on existing Plot summaries, especially for those of recent, popular movies: if these revisions were accepted, much rewriting of Plot sections for well-written articles like The Prestige, Children of Men, and Dog Day Afternoon (a FA article) would have to be done. Examine my revision to the Plot section for The Last Mimzy for an illustration of this change.
Please take a look at this proposal and make comments below it. Suggestions for changes of course are welcome. I'm also suggesting that the
WP Film Sidebar template be reorganized to make the Style Guidelines more accessible.
Jim Dunning |
talk 07:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Proposed revision of Films Plot Style Guidelines
Comments
I'm going to revise the Guidelines with this material, assuming there are no objections (based on lack of comments either way).
Jim Dunning |
talk 19:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It might be useful, I think, to have some guidelines on which awards (e.g. Academy Awards, Baftas, Cannes etc.) are sufficiently notable to be mentioned. I've seen some articles ( United 93 (film) is an example) listing awards from very minor regional critics' associations, etc., and I'm concerned this could be misleading; if other film articles omit these, the reader might erroneously assume that fewer awards = less enthusiastic critical reception. Any candidates for inclusion on a list of notable awards? Barnabypage 13:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there something that specifies the country of a film? There is a user adding every country that contributes to the film to the "Country" section of the infobox. I was under the impression that the country of origin is reserved for those that own the rights. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Why do we need to list who plays who in the synopsis of a movie page that already has a cast section? -- ( trogga ) 00:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it mandatory (or even preferred?) that a cast list uses boldface? I recently had an editor refer me to WP:MOSFILMS#Cast and crew information, using that single example as evidence that boldface is the way to go. I gotta tell you, that within a list of fifteen or so cast names, the cumulative effect of all that boldface is not good. I wonder if the example in this guideline was simply to demonstrate where the character name and actor's name were to be placed. Anyway, when I look at something like this, with over twenty names listed in boldface, I wonder if we have the correct policy in place. Comments? Unschool 14:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
If you have no text coming after then the use of bold is irrelevant. I believe it's used for quick identification when you have a lot of text (like Smallville (TV series)#Cast does). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if there we can have some guidance as to whether documentaries of an event should be given their own wikipedia article or be included in the article on the event. The question has arisen in relation to the documentary Wholly Communion see Talk:Wholly Communion. You'll notice that in this case both articles are quite short and so would appear to benefit from amalgamation. regards Alexander110 04:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
First off, the dispute tag isn't an exact fit to the issue I'd like to bring up with the section, it was just the best fit I could find. Basically I think the section is a good idea -- absolutely necessary, actually -- but it REALLY needs to be retweaked.
My objection is, in a nutshell, thus: the word limit is too "one-size-fits-all" in nature; it needs to be more variable based on the length of the film and complexity of the plot. Right now it kind of hints at that, but sets a rigid upper limit of 900 words on all plot summaries. The ranges are also useless given that they provide no real measure by which to judge what the limit should be. (There's an excessively vague hint, but c'mon, who's going to pick the 400 word limit, honestly?)
A better way to base the limit would be akin to what the Plot summaries section of Wikipedia:Television episodes states: 100 words for every 10 minutes of content. Now this might need to be adjusted slightly, but I think it will cover all bases reasonably well, so to speak. It's certainly worked well for the TV eps folks.
Anyway, that's my whole spiel, except for this: please don't take my fairly pleasant demeanor as a sign that I'm not really passionate or enthusiastic in my opinion. I truly feel the Plot section in its current form is simply inadequate and cannot remain like that if the Style guidelines are to work. (Or at least, are to adequately reflect the reality of space requirements for plot summaries on most film articles) -- Y|yukichigai ( ramble argue check) 11:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I, too, believe that the majority of Plots — especially for current (and popular) films — are way too long and detailed. Fiction and Novel Guidelines stress that not every plot twist need be included, but that's what happens in many articles. The article shouldn't look like
SparkNotes. I think
Road to Perdition#Plot and
Live Free or Die Hard#Plot are excellent examples of what we should strive for. Also, look at the rewrite I did at
The Last Mimzy. Check out
Plot section guideline revision for a discussion of a proposed revision of the Guidelines for Plot section.
Jim Dunning |
talk 06:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Discussion has been moved to project mainspace for higher visibility. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 16:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Where and how do MPAA ratings fit into the style guidelines? I've noticed they don't seem to be added to the film info very often and there is no space for it in the infobox? Does that not belong in Wikipedia entries for films, or does it go in the text somewhere? AnmaFinotera 15:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
We don't list every release date, I don't see why we should list every, or necessarily any, ratings. It's a marketing concession and a somewhat suspect from what I understand. They don't look good, take up a lot of room and it's far more encyclopedic to include any important rating information in the prose instead, if it was banned or an especially controversial decision such as some of those named in This Film Is Not Yet Rated. For example, I don't think it's really needed to complement the prose here but if they are going to be used I'd rather have that than... well I was going to point to an FA with a long template but it looks like they're being disappeared. Anyway, I'm agin' 'em. Doctor Sunshine talk 21:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Video game pages have ratings from many different countries on their pages. Why not the same thing with movies? 71.48.123.56 ( talk) 22:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This WikiProject Film page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I realize I have probably done something bone headed in breaking this style guide out, but on the project page it was getting buried under that huge list of participants. Glad people are into film, but I was finding it hard to get to the guide. In particular, I'm sure significant amounts of the discussion from the project talk page need to at least get linked to in some way from this page. But I'm not sure how to best go about that. Anyone? Isogolem 06:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
(I'm posting this here because obviously plot/synopsis descriptions are governed by style guidelines.)
With the growing popularity of 'extended DVD editions', are there any guidelines in place for descriptions of alternate versions of a plot? Some articles have a quite elaborate synopsis of the original theatrical release, which may not accurately describe the later (sometimes much longer) DVD edition.
A theatrical edit is governed by concerns different from a DVD edit. Should we consider them to be two different films? -- Radioflux 16:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Just a note that user mangoe has made a major revision of the style guideline with no attempt at discussion to give special exemptions to WikiProjects and RS standards to "documentaries," in order to then justify using the exemptions that he himself created on the "Bowling For Columbine" page. I suggest a revert until we have a consensus. Right now, the addition is incredibly vague and nebulous, for no other reason than to allow Mangoe to cite whatever sources that he wants. For instance, he claims that "Documentaries present a special case, as they present themselves as recounters of fact. Therefore criticism of content ought to be included if it is presented with reasonable documentation and if there is evidence of public awareness of the controversy" strikes me as a complete non-sequitor. What does the fact that documentaries present themselves as "recounters of fact" have to do with presenting controversy? Does that mean that you wouldn't include controversy surrounding non-documentaries (e.g., Clockwork Orange wasn't a documentary, but it does have controversy). "Reasonable documentation" is likewise vague. What constitutes "reasonable"? Are we assuming that current WP:RS standards apply?
The concept of "public awareness" is completely open to interpretation. For instance, Tom Cruise's involvement with scientology was HUGELY controversial and public at the time of Mission Impossible III, yet his involvement with scientology have a single mention doesn't have a single mention. Obviously, MI:III doesn't meet the standard, so what does? Further, how are we defining "controversy"? The word is defined in the dictionary as, "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion." So is one guy shouting that he didn't like a certain movie a real controversy? I don't think so. The claim that "The existence of a public controversy ought to be acknowledged whatever can be said about it" is incredibly vague and can include just about anything. - Schrodinger82 00:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Bowling_for_Columbine#Concern_over_original_research ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I would like some clarification on sections describing themes, interpretations, and influences. I would also like to discuss whether there is interest in creating a more detailed description of these sections in the style guidelines. Over time, I've noticed that these sections can be used in ambiguous and often misleading ways, as there are no clear standards for their use. For example, I recently began editing a "Themes and influences" section on The Fountain, only to discover to my surprise, that the section was a trivia section with very little underlying threads. After a few edits, I also realized that the "influences" (erroneously merged into themes) section was really a production-related detail. I'm concerned about the use of these sections, as the standards are mostly nonexistent. Take the use of influence or influences in two articles: Blade Runner describes the influence the film has had on popular culture, but 2001: A Space Odyssey describes the influence upon the production. The use of the "interpretations" section appears to be an alternate means of discussing the theme, accurate or not. I'm looking for consensus regarding the standardization of headings and their content. Standardization will have the added bonus of improving thematic and genre-related categorization of film articles whose sections are split off due to length. — Viriditas | Talk 05:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
One thing that would relieve many project members would be to define more specific guidelines on the inclusion of red links for unexisting film articles. Some that are notable and need an article are covered in Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable films. I have collected all red links from the lists of years in films, and started the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of films without article. The list is now being split in decades as we are facing the problem of the hundreds or maybe thousands of films, given as red links in actors' and directors' filmographies and there may be more in other articles too. Yet no one seems to know for sure how the Wikipedia:Red link applies to film titles. In dab pages some users take off the red links from films, following some more general dab guidelines. If I am not mistaken, here is the right place one should find some guidelines. Hoverfish 19:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The soundtrack needs to be moved down, perhaps to after the reception section. It really does not need to be directly after the plot. Agree/disagree?-- Supernumerary 03:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Compare the styles for cast listings on these different featured film articles.
I believe style #2 is the most logical. A table does not look good in this situation. Bolding the names of the actor and characters improves readability, and using paragraph form over list form is just sloppy and difficult to find information. Made of people 18:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
We're proceeding with a discussion about determining the release date for films in the WikiProject Films talk page. -- Corsair Armada 00:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I've recently made a few small contributions to the articles for some of my favorite films and I'm wondering about this title Reception which seems intended as what one titles a section concerning reviews, box office receipts, and the like. Just how wedded is the project to calling it that? I'm a little bothered by it simply because Reception seems more related to weddings, or radio broadcasts, than film reviews, criticism, etc. Cryptonymius 00:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I've seen the word 'Responses' used a lot. That seems like the best to me. Cop 633 19:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please explain why bolding the character and actor is the latest rage? I think it's unnecessary and that bolding should be reserved for emphasis. I also see no mention of bolding in the style guide here.-- Supernumerary 17:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Examples: Psycho (1960 film)#Cast, Pulp Fiction, GoldenEye#Cast, Serenity (film)#Cast. Note that Pulp Fiction's cast is no longer bolded because I unbolded it.-- Supernumerary 20:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering if an alternate to this style guideline would be that which is currently in place at Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film). With such a large cast, it makes sense to break it into categories (I think), and the table seems to sort it much better than if it were in prose. At least until the film is released, is this aceptable? Thanks, Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 20:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand that bolding is the "general style" that's been seen around – that's because it's what it says in this project page. But is there any consensus to allow tables as an alternate option for a cast list? For a really long cast list such as the one at Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film), I have a feeling more people would skip a cast list written in prose than one in a table. -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 00:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone here give me the short answer on uploading images? I've considered, for example, scanning the cover to such things as DVDs and books just to spice up various articles, where an image seemed needed, and I've tried sorting through the Wiki documention concerning copyrighted material...and at the rate I'm wading through it I may never get to the end of it... Cryptonymius 07:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Since we seem to keep having problems with scene-by-scene descriptions of a film's plot, I propose that we change the section heading to "Synopsis" to emphasize that the section should be a brief summary. It's already in use in some film articles, and Wikiproject Books has the similar heading "Plot summary" for fiction books. However, for graphic novels and TV shows "Plot" is used. Thoughts?-- Supernumerary 02:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
If you are dealing with a film that began from a literary source, like The Dark Knight, where would you list the creators of the characters? Should they be before the writers of the film, or after? BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 21:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Could anybody tell me if there is a way I can add a "color" section on the infobox? I want to add information like black and white, technicolor; tinted color etc. Is that impossible? Please just put your response on my discussion page if you can help.-- Dudeman5685 17:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Looking for clarification on this naming convention style guideline: should the year be the year the film was released or the year it was completed? The articles I'm working on are D.E.B.S. (2003 film), D.E.B.S. (2004 film); these titles match their IMDb years, however, from what I can tell the 2003 film made the festival circuit in '04 and the '04 film was released in '05. This doesn't seem to lead to too much conflict within the articles (they're still works in progress anyways), but it does when the films are placed on List pages and sometimes actor's filmographies. Any help ya'll can give on this would be great - thanks! Zue Jay ( talk) 16:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to use wikilinks to other WP articles in plot synopses? For example: "John Doe works in a sweatshop in China and falls in love with Jane Doe" - is this a good thing? I haven't seen many film articles with links in the synopses so I was wondering if it is an appropriate style convention, providing of course that it is not overdone. Ekantik talk 02:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious, as the "see also" help section didn't really "help", what exactly should/can go here. I mean, how close should things be to fit this section? Is there a guideline for this section of an article? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to purpose that use of the IMDB and similiar poll rankings of movies be either discouraged or made not within official policy for film articles. They are little more than fan dictated "my movie is better than your movie" boastings based on flawed polling techniques, as all passive polls are. As bad as rankings generally are, these passive fan polls are worse given to far too much "ballot stuffing" by fans. If someone starts doing a bona fide poll (you know, where they actually go out and get the results), then that would be different. RoyBatty42 20:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
How would you guys interpret something like IMDb's Weighted Average Ratings? I don't think it's an invalid point, but I agree that bona fide polls would be more realistic.. — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 21:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
How did we end up with Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the UK and the US, as the majority/traditional English speaking countries? What ever happened to Ireland, South Africa and Jamaica? And because this is the English language Wikipedia, wouldn't it also be noteworthy listing the release dates in countries where English is spoken or well understood (or has a colonial background), such as India, Singapore or Hong Kong? I understand that a lot of today's (English) movies are made in the US and are first shown in the US so it only makes sense to have its release date listed, but is this also the case for Australia, Canada and New Zealand? 210.7.7.19 23:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
After a bit of discussion with Hoverfish, I'd like to make a proposal for a one-sentence addition to the cast section of the guidelines, something akin to:
The rationale behind this includes:
Comment Depending on how detailed the cast section is small tables can often look quite neat in cast sections. However for larger cast details a large table clearly interrupts the flow of the article and is best written out which is for most. I disagree about what Erikster said about "avoiding tables encourages users to expand on actors background" -with all due respect this clearly not a reason - tables can accomdate a column equally for details. However I agree that is is best to avoid bloated tables from the articles certainly ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 18:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I think a table with class="wikitable sortable" looks good and is very practical, it has more functionality. Prose can either be put in a separate column or outside the table.-- Patrick 09:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I have been in a debate with User:Bbagot on Talk:The_Ultimate_Gift. I have quoted him the prohibition against IMDB user comments but he argues this isn't a prohibition against using the IMDB user ratings -- i.e., it doesn't explicitly prohibit them whereas I argued that it was a natural inference. He is insisting that the following be kept in The Ultimate Gift
On the IMDB movie site, where regular movie goers rate movies they have seen, the film had a mean rating of 7.9 out of 10.
Notice that he is using the higher "mean rating" vs. the average rating of 7.1 because he believes it is more accurate. So, I'm asking:
I'm not doubting that advertising helps the box office, I'm saying it only helps that first weekend. Look at Hulk. It had a strong opening weekend, but had one of the worst falls of any comic book film after that weekend. That should speak for fan response right there. 96,000 people, when you are talking about a film that has sold millions upon millions of tickets is nothing. If you met 96,000 people in person, yeah, that would be a large group, but if you met a poll sample that was actually representitive of movie going individuals, you'd be dealing with a much larger crowd. Here's the problem with using IMDb's user ratings...its an internet poll. The demographic is rather limited to just people that happen to know what IMDb is. I know plenty of people that love to go to movies, but don't know what IMDb or even Wikipedia is for that matter. It limits its own sample, and thus is not notable enough for wikipedia. American Idol is much bigger than IMDb, and they rake in millions of votes in one round. What was it, like 60 million votes in a final round? Yeah, if IMDb had 60 million votes for a film, I'd probably trust that rating. 96k vs. 60m??? Hmm..that's a hard one. American Idol gets tens of millions of viewers each show; a film gets tens of millions of admissions (if it's making a lot of money, like 300 is) by the end of its run. But IMDb can only find 96k people to vote on the film, while American Idol can find 60 mill? Again, IMDb is not a reliable representative sample of user voting. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
How can you trust a site that doesn't even provide a source for its information? Even sites like Batmanonfilm.com can be right some of the time, or even most of the time, but we don't base reliability on how often someone is right. Hindsight is 20/20, and IMDb is usually right....about films that have long come to pass, but they are usually wrong about films that haven't even been released yet. Box Office Mojo still lists both Pirates 2 and 3 with a budget of 225 million. I have a source that says that there has yet to be a definitive number for Pirates 2 released, and Pirates 3 (still doing some last minute work) could actually be above 300 mill. Nothing is definitive, but Box Office Mojo has had Pirate 3's budget up since before Pirates 2 was ever released (and we know that Pirates 3 had not even been filmed at that point..minus a handful of scenes). We need to look at their impact on films that are coming out, because they tend to get information right after the fact...yet they have yet to acknowledge that they have the wrong budget for Superman Returns still up, even after being provided with numerous sources that cite a completely different number. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Can I change the current verbiage:
Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the film was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known film reviewers, and not comments from members of the public (for example, quotes from users of Amazon.com and the Internet Movie Database do not count).
to read:
Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the film was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known film reviewers, and not comments from members of the public (for example, quotes or user ratings from users of Amazon.com and the Internet Movie Database do not count).
Is there consensus on this? Therefore 22:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Therefore 01:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the film was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known film reviewers, and not comments from members of the public (for example, quotes or user ratings from users of Amazon.com,
andthe Internet Movie Database and blogs do not count).
Thanks Bbagot 16:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Bbagot is accurate when he says that box office is not necessarily related to movie quality, only to its popularity. To gauge audience reception, popularity, i.e., box office returns, is the only measurement available. If, say, Gallup polled movie goers to rate movies, then that source would be valuable and used. But web based user ratings are by any definition inaccurate and can't be used.
As for exclusion being "tread upon" more lightly, I respectively disagree. The three pillars of Wikipedia: Neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research are all excluding principles. I agree with Bbagot that boldness and innovation should be encouraged but only within the constraints of these pillars. Therefore 23:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I edited the articles Films considered the greatest ever and Films considered the worst ever to remove references to the IMDB user ratings. All of the above arguments are true for these articles, and I don't see why they should have any special status with regards to using unverifiable data from non-reliable sources. However, both of the edits have been reverted by people who disagree, and think that IMDB user ratings are appropriate in these articles. [3] [4] What do you think? Chris Bainbridge ( talk) 23:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Prophecies of Nostradamus has two AMG ids. One as Prophecies of Nostradamus, which in the U.S. was a subtitled, very limited, art house release, and one as The Last Days of Planet Earth, which was dubbed and heavily edited for television and the only version released to home video (neither version is on Region 1 DVD). Trying to include both has messed up the infobox. How do I do it? -- Scottandrewhutchins 15:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is this project forcing "Cast" sections on all articles that dont need it? For instance, see featured article Tenebrae (film). No cast section. Instead all characters are introduced in the plot summary, with the actors names in brackets. Also there is already an infobox with the cast list in it. This is much nicer, and closer to "brilliant prose" - an FA requirement. Also see Halloween (film), another FA which has no Cast section, instead a Casting section which is all prose. Lists should generally be kept out of articles. I think forcing "cast" sections as mandatory is a bad idea, better to leave the "style" of giving the cast up to the individual editors.
p.s. dont now go and start editing the two mentioned articles, they're perfect as they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.156.253 ( talk • contribs)
yes i'm also concerned that the "cast" sections are often an excuse to extend the " in-universe" plot summary information, e.g "Tom Cruise as Doctor Slime - a 29-year old Venusian starship captain with blue tentacles. He is in love with Julia Jupiter but his Venusian morals prevent him from displaying emotion." Thats all in-universe information that should belong in the plot summary section if its important enough.
I will try to update that section of the style guideline soon, to equally allow the Tenebrae and Halloween styles, and focus on the fact that "information about cast and crew should be provided", and less on "you must have a section called X and use a table/list of this format etc". 82.3.64.139 12:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
It's interesting that the film style guideline suggests putting a spoiler warning in the plot section for all films. It doesn't appear that even a majority conform to this guideline. Furthermore on the talk page of Wikipedia: Spoiler_warnings, proponents on getting rid of all spoiler warnings declare it obvious that one would not include a spoiler warning in a plot section. Thoughts? I'd like to get a discussion going about removing that element of the style guide. Jussen 22:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I imagine that calling them "meat bags" is supposed to inspire an atmosphere of understanding, right? lol. Come on guys, you might as well ask who is disappointed about finding out that all politicians are not squeaky clean. A lot of people are embarrassed about having their little joy balloons popped, and being told to cowboy up when they complain is not really an incentive to do so in the first place.
And I did complain a few years ago, back before I registered as a name user (in fact, it's what inspired me to sign up). I made a comment about how an article should have had a spoiler warning, and was told to cowboy up and be a grown-up. I imagine that it is not unreasonable to assume that others just walk away, considering the advisor a jerk with passive-aggressive issues.
Arcayne
(cast a spell) 00:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict - rp to Phil's post)
I'm going to leave the page in its current (reverted) form, but I'm glad to see it finally got some discussion going. Again, voice your support for spoilers on Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler_warning#Callibrating_the_teeth_of_this_guideline Jussen 01:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict; rp to BillCJ)
Fair enough. Perhaps I was reading a snipe at the legitimacy of the argument in there when one wasn't present. :) Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a childish argument, and I only found out about it by seeing childish rogue edits on film pages. The spoiler warning doesn't hurt anything. I'll say it again. It doesn't hurt anything. The editors who have claimed some consensus that validates their POV and then rampantly edit the warning out of film articles without even consulting the Film Project style guide, nor discuss it here,... it makes my blood boil. So fine, remove all spoiler warnings, and sit back feeling powerful, and let readers get caught with divulged twists and surprises because they were supposed to know that a "Plot" section will detail everything. How pathetic. Enough to make me lose interest in improving film articles. David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍) 17:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Due to the current debate over the use of spoilers, I've added {{disputedtag|section=yes}} to the plot section. — Viriditas | Talk 03:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to propose expanding the style guidelines to include User:Bignole/Future films and reference guidelines, with a merge into Other article components/Upcoming and Article body/Notes and references. The merge is not yet ready for primetime, but I wanted to give a heads-up to the project. Upon completion, I would like to propose moving the style guidelines to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film-related articles). — Viriditas | Talk 03:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I just added the following to the section on reception:
What I was tempted to add, but didn't, was a note about using Google's site-specific search capability, e.g.:
Using google this way helps bypass the long list of amazon.com resellers that google sometimes prioritizes when you are searching for reviews of older films; in the case of the NYT, using google also provides access to the text of reviews without having to get an NYT login. 67.100.127.57 06:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC).
I would like to propose that the style guidelines include two new section: "Themes" and "Cinematic style." The guidelines as they stand do not encourage editors to discuss the meaning of the film, apart from its plot, production and reception. While those elements are important, the most obvious place to look for a film's meaning is in its themes and artistic style (its content and its form). A film-writing guideline that does not suggest these does a great disservice to the editors using it as it handicaps their articles later on (for example, when they arrive at GAC or FAC) and it discourages editors from producing a fully-fleshed out page. Users coming to pages lacking these sections will be missing a substantial part of what the movie is about. I would also recommend that the guidelines emphasize the use of scholarly film criticism. Since wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on the work of experts ( WP:ATT), film articles should be sourced to film critics and academics who study film as much as possible. Awadewit | talk 00:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
What did I say, seriously? I said the originals have tons of themes, and symbolisms, and most importantly scholarly works written about them. The numerous sequels do not. What is written is simply how they tried to copy their maker, and usually fail miserably. I have never come across any material that discusses the "Effects of gender roles and self perceptions" in Friday the 13th Part (take a pick), and that wasn't simply comparing it to how the original Friday the 13th started it all for the series. There wouldn't be any new information, and simple comparisons usually come with the film critics, as they rip apart these sequels because of their unoriginal ideas that were stolen from the first film (which itself stole from Halloween, which stole them from Black Christmas..but those last two are neither here nor there). Film scholars talk about Friday the 13th, and how it's 10 sequels never live up to it, and how they copy every idea, theme, concept and are never original. They don't write entire works about one particular sequel and its leap from the series into something totally obscure...although they might possibly do that for Friday the 13th: A New Beginning, because I know what those film makers were trying to do (which was that, branch off from the series..but I haven't found anything on it). Seriously, go to the search engine you just linked, and start putting in "part 2", "part 3", "part V". Watch the 208 scholarly works immediately get cut to 4, then 2, then 1 (with most just repeating the same source each time). Bignole 01:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
See, that is your flaw. You think that if a film is never talked about then it can't possibly have a great article written about it Wikipedia. For example, there may not be a single thing written about the themes present in Friday the 13th Part 3, but the film itself provided an innovation in 3-D technology, which itself became illegal afterward. What's important about that film isn't what the film conveys, but what actually went into making the film itself, the process that was created specifically for that film to develop a 3-D technology that worked well. Point is, why would I read an article that tells me word for word the same information about the themes (if it's even available), when I can read it once and know that it's something that transpired throughout the entire series. If no one writes anything different about the different sequels, or even mentions them in the light of day, why would you do a copy/paste job on the ones where it is mentioned, or more directly pointed to? That's redundant. Again, I didn't argue the guideline shouldn't mention it. I think it should, and I think it should provide a clear explaination on how to attain such information. Personally, you haven't convinced me there is a need to duplicate information from page to page. It's one thing if people are discussing different, relevant information with each successive film in a series. It's another if they simply say "This series as a whole does ....", and then expect us to copy/paste that information for every page. You're wrapped up in this idea that every film is going to have some abundant amount of scholarly works written about it, simply because it exists, which isn't true. You run a search for films and pull up some key words, but just because there is a key word hit doens't mean what you got is what you were searching for. There were 4 finds for "F13 Part 2" in the search you linked above (supplimenting "Part 2" into the text you had already supplied). The first link is dead. The second leads to "Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of the Slash Film", Part 2 is mentioned as part of the "sequels galore" section. The third link hit the key word "Friday the 13th Part 2", the only thing about that film in that was a film producer literally saying "Oh, it’s just the sequel. It’s like ‘Friday the 13th—Part 2, 3, 4, 5, 6." That was a key word hit that turned up nothing special. As for the last hit, I don't speak that language so I can't tell you what it says. The point is, saying "Apparently the experts think that there is something to talk about" when 208 results turn up in a search doesn't mean anything of the sort. It means that title turned up 208 times; it doesn't have to about anything relevant, not even in a "Google Scholar" search. To get to the final point (as I need sleep), simply doing a search and saying "looks like people wrote about it" isn't proof positive of diddly, and doesn't mean that anyone wrote anything about the themes, sybolims, etc in that particular film. Not every last film in the entire world of cinema has been written about, or even mentioned in a literary source. Some are just not that important. Yes, Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood is not important in any respect other than it's the sixth sequel in an endless supply of films. Does that mean an excellent article cannot be written about it? Absolutely not. Does it mean that article, while excellent in its own right, will be able to compare to another article where film scholars have disected the many themes involved in the film? No, it won't compare, not in the least. It will be an ant in a land of Gods, but that doesn't mean that what is available can't be great, or featured on Wikipedia. Not every article is equal. A Featured film article can't compare equally to a featured article in another topic. It can't even compare within it's own topic. I'm all for themes and other subsequent type of information on films, but I don't think that every film is going to be the same in regards to what people write about it, or that people have written about every film out there. Bignole 04:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I think film articles can reach featured article status based on what is available for them. Featured article status has nothing to do with what YOU think should be available, it's about what IS available. Just because YOU think there should information on themes and cinematique style in an article, and it turns out there NO ONE has written anything about such information does not take away from the fact that the article might be just as good right now. Remember, it's about summary style, and we can't have 70kb articles everywhere, some are just too large. If every scholarly work grabs 9 out of the 10 Friday the 13th movies, and discusses them as a whole, and not on an individual level, then there is no reason to do a copy/paste on each article. The way it is done is by mentioning briefly what is said, and then linking to a separate articles that expands in detail what was written. This is why we don't break out in explaination over every term used on a page, and why we put those little blue links in so people can click them and read further on that subject. If it turns out that a group of films (maybe not even related by series, but by genre) have bit mentions about themes and style, and are compared on a grand scale, the proper way to do that is to put {{see also|fill on article name#Themes and cinematique style of ____ genre}} below the header of a brief area that mentions what the information is about. If that was how it was for F13, for all the sequels, then for each of the sequels I'd have a section that linked to {{see also|Friday the 13th (film series)#Themes and cinematique style}}, while only mentioning in a brief statement that the film is compared with its successors and predecessors on its use of blah blah blah. There is no need to write, word-for-word, the exact same information on each article if people are writing it in a "film series" tone. If you think that film articles shouldn't be FA, just because someone doesn't write about their themes, well that's your perogative. But, we'll let others decide, I believe we have wasted enough space between the two of us. Bignole 11:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I would not oppose a guideline section explaining, among other things, the prospect of exploring themes and cinematic styles. However, I think that requiring such sections would be asking for too much. Of course all films have themes; the notions are undoubtedly embedded in their storylines and can be exemplified with cinematic direction. All films have notions with which we are familiar -- revenge, love triangles, betrayal, redemption, et cetera. I do not believe, though, that this should immediately require sections about themes and cinematic styles. From what I've noticed, these elements are already embedded in Production and Reception, as Arcayne pointed out above. I think that such sections should be explored on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a film article should have them. I do not think that lacking such sections should rob a film article of Featured Article status. Perhaps some criteria should be established to determine the strength of a film's themes in the public eye. For example, American Beauty, a film whose article I hope to improve, would undoubtedly have a range of themes to explore. In comparison, I doubt that a film like Stomp the Yard would be thematically notable in an encyclopedic context. Another issue, from a trend that I've noticed with film articles, is that there has been some stronger attention with films released in the past year. Lasting themes would not always be possible to determine so early on, and again, this should not mean that it cannot satisfy FA criteria. The drive for improvement does not stop when an article reaches FA status. I'll conclude my perspective here as not to get too long-winded. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 13:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I think part of it is that themes can be discussed in context in Production, which I find a lot easier to write. Alientraveller 14:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I am unwatching this page. It is useless to repeat myself over and over again. I did not believe that this proposal would be so controversial. It is inconceivable to me that it is. Since themes are integral to all movies, they should be included in any guideline about writing about them. Whether or not it may be difficult to do so at times because of a lack of sources is irrelevant. Themes and cinematic style are a key ingredient of any film. Awadewit | talk 16:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm torn. On the one hand, I think these sections would encourage people to focus on more enduring aspects of films instead of on in-universe trivia. On the other, I tend to oppose "required sections" and other such cookie-cutter approaches. And there are some films it's just not important to include a criticism section on. I'm hard pressed to explain why Leprechaun 4 needs a criticism section. On the other hand, Nude on the Moon is barely interesting outside the way in which Wishman was canonized by trash cinema scholars. I think words strongly encouraging such a section would almost certainly be appropriate, but that requiring it might be a mistake. Phil Sandifer 18:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
This is supposed to be a guideline, so why not pursue a section that can mention additional sections and subsections, for not just this thematic proposal, but elements like historical accuracy and pop culture impact as well. (It'd be nice to have a guideline for the latter, since so many people just throw together trivia bits and call it that.) — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 19:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think the consensus already is that a Themes section is not being targeted for every single film, being reserved only for those films that might benefit from having one. Seeing that the editors can benefit from having a guideline in place to refer to when there are editorial disputes over what to include and wnat not to, where it should go and whatnot. Arguments tend to occur in the absence of a well-written guideline to ease them over the hump. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I propose a slight change of wording to the "release dates" section to make it clear that only premieres which are open to the public (i.e. not just to industry insiders) should be listed. For example, Cars premiered at ShoWest in March 2006 (an event open only to owners of movie theatres), months before its public premiere. Esn 02:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
After reviewing WP:FICTION, WP:WAF, WP:FICT, and WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines, I'm proposing that the Films Plot Style Guidelines be revised to bring them in line with those for Novels and Fiction in general. This would have a primary effect of recommending that the Plot section "not contain an explication of every subplot in the film's story" since a "respectable encyclopedia entry [should not] describe every event and twist and turn of the story".
Fiction Style Guidelines specifically state a summarization is desired. In Films, however, many of the Plot sections are so detailed that they would border on WP:COPYVIO if they were for a novel or short story (see Shooter, for example). However, the current film guidelines are vague enough to allow this. Based on the comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Plot synopses too long, there appears to be enough interest to make this proposal. I expect there to be many concerns about the effect this change would have on existing Plot summaries, especially for those of recent, popular movies: if these revisions were accepted, much rewriting of Plot sections for well-written articles like The Prestige, Children of Men, and Dog Day Afternoon (a FA article) would have to be done. Examine my revision to the Plot section for The Last Mimzy for an illustration of this change.
Please take a look at this proposal and make comments below it. Suggestions for changes of course are welcome. I'm also suggesting that the
WP Film Sidebar template be reorganized to make the Style Guidelines more accessible.
Jim Dunning |
talk 07:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Proposed revision of Films Plot Style Guidelines
Comments
I'm going to revise the Guidelines with this material, assuming there are no objections (based on lack of comments either way).
Jim Dunning |
talk 19:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It might be useful, I think, to have some guidelines on which awards (e.g. Academy Awards, Baftas, Cannes etc.) are sufficiently notable to be mentioned. I've seen some articles ( United 93 (film) is an example) listing awards from very minor regional critics' associations, etc., and I'm concerned this could be misleading; if other film articles omit these, the reader might erroneously assume that fewer awards = less enthusiastic critical reception. Any candidates for inclusion on a list of notable awards? Barnabypage 13:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there something that specifies the country of a film? There is a user adding every country that contributes to the film to the "Country" section of the infobox. I was under the impression that the country of origin is reserved for those that own the rights. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Why do we need to list who plays who in the synopsis of a movie page that already has a cast section? -- ( trogga ) 00:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it mandatory (or even preferred?) that a cast list uses boldface? I recently had an editor refer me to WP:MOSFILMS#Cast and crew information, using that single example as evidence that boldface is the way to go. I gotta tell you, that within a list of fifteen or so cast names, the cumulative effect of all that boldface is not good. I wonder if the example in this guideline was simply to demonstrate where the character name and actor's name were to be placed. Anyway, when I look at something like this, with over twenty names listed in boldface, I wonder if we have the correct policy in place. Comments? Unschool 14:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
If you have no text coming after then the use of bold is irrelevant. I believe it's used for quick identification when you have a lot of text (like Smallville (TV series)#Cast does). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if there we can have some guidance as to whether documentaries of an event should be given their own wikipedia article or be included in the article on the event. The question has arisen in relation to the documentary Wholly Communion see Talk:Wholly Communion. You'll notice that in this case both articles are quite short and so would appear to benefit from amalgamation. regards Alexander110 04:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
First off, the dispute tag isn't an exact fit to the issue I'd like to bring up with the section, it was just the best fit I could find. Basically I think the section is a good idea -- absolutely necessary, actually -- but it REALLY needs to be retweaked.
My objection is, in a nutshell, thus: the word limit is too "one-size-fits-all" in nature; it needs to be more variable based on the length of the film and complexity of the plot. Right now it kind of hints at that, but sets a rigid upper limit of 900 words on all plot summaries. The ranges are also useless given that they provide no real measure by which to judge what the limit should be. (There's an excessively vague hint, but c'mon, who's going to pick the 400 word limit, honestly?)
A better way to base the limit would be akin to what the Plot summaries section of Wikipedia:Television episodes states: 100 words for every 10 minutes of content. Now this might need to be adjusted slightly, but I think it will cover all bases reasonably well, so to speak. It's certainly worked well for the TV eps folks.
Anyway, that's my whole spiel, except for this: please don't take my fairly pleasant demeanor as a sign that I'm not really passionate or enthusiastic in my opinion. I truly feel the Plot section in its current form is simply inadequate and cannot remain like that if the Style guidelines are to work. (Or at least, are to adequately reflect the reality of space requirements for plot summaries on most film articles) -- Y|yukichigai ( ramble argue check) 11:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I, too, believe that the majority of Plots — especially for current (and popular) films — are way too long and detailed. Fiction and Novel Guidelines stress that not every plot twist need be included, but that's what happens in many articles. The article shouldn't look like
SparkNotes. I think
Road to Perdition#Plot and
Live Free or Die Hard#Plot are excellent examples of what we should strive for. Also, look at the rewrite I did at
The Last Mimzy. Check out
Plot section guideline revision for a discussion of a proposed revision of the Guidelines for Plot section.
Jim Dunning |
talk 06:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Discussion has been moved to project mainspace for higher visibility. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 16:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Where and how do MPAA ratings fit into the style guidelines? I've noticed they don't seem to be added to the film info very often and there is no space for it in the infobox? Does that not belong in Wikipedia entries for films, or does it go in the text somewhere? AnmaFinotera 15:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
We don't list every release date, I don't see why we should list every, or necessarily any, ratings. It's a marketing concession and a somewhat suspect from what I understand. They don't look good, take up a lot of room and it's far more encyclopedic to include any important rating information in the prose instead, if it was banned or an especially controversial decision such as some of those named in This Film Is Not Yet Rated. For example, I don't think it's really needed to complement the prose here but if they are going to be used I'd rather have that than... well I was going to point to an FA with a long template but it looks like they're being disappeared. Anyway, I'm agin' 'em. Doctor Sunshine talk 21:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Video game pages have ratings from many different countries on their pages. Why not the same thing with movies? 71.48.123.56 ( talk) 22:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)