Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film

	Film Project‑class
Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Manual of Style

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

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

Shortcut

• WT:MOSFILM

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

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Separation of Cast from Character Biography

This has been discussed before but I believe it should be considered again. I think providing a simple "Actor as Character" section would benefit those looking for basic actor information on a film. Speaking from personal experience, simply wanting to know who is in a film, skipping past all other sections, has spoiled films. Yes, those of us who have encountered this problem could look for it elsewhere, but that would promote the idea to visit other sites for other info as well. The information as listed could be preserved with a different heading and a simple Cast "Actor as Character" section added. 24.170.127.153 (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree with this, and it's already commonplace in our film and TV and theatrical-production artiles to have a list of character-to-actor correspondences in its own section (which people can get directly to via the ToC). Wouldn't be much to standardize this. I think the wording problem we have is here: "The structure of the article may also influence form [of cast information]. A basic cast list in a "Cast" section is appropriate for the majority of Stub-class articles. When the article is in an advanced stage of development, information about the cast can be presented in other ways. ... or a table or infobox grouping actors and their roles may be placed in the plot summary ...." First, a cast list in its own section is appropriate for more than just stubs; and second, there is no reason to put a cast list/table/box inside the plot section where the work will be "spoiled" easily for many readers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the pitch here isn't a separate cast section, but a proposal for a cast section that lists only credits, then all further elaboration about the role or character goes into a further separate section. Essentially, a "Cast" and a "Characters" section where the former is "Actor as character" and the latter is "Character is details" if there are any further details to be had. Which, I don't really personally see reason to do. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding of my proposal was correct. As I must assume you've never personally encountered a problem with the current format, I understand your dismissal of the idea. All I can say is that I have encountered the issue numerous times over the last 13 years. Rather than showing a simple cast list, some articles will provide info such as, "Actor as Character, secretly the main antagonist."

Look at the cast section for Batman Begins. I personally question if all of the backstory info provided, both about actor and about character, is really appropriate for a cast list. 24.170.127.153 (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it's necessarily inappropriate; the information describes the role. Please see

WP:SPOILER. That guideline largely concerns itself with deleting spoilers from articles, but the underlying principles it describes regarding completeness apply here as well. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I question the appropriateness due to the fact that a cast list is simply a list of which actor is performing which character. The additional information is a mishmash of character biography, actor information, and production notes.

As for the guideline, I was first made aware of this guideline back in 2010 after making a character-spoiler edit thinking it was mean-spirited vandalism. The guideline does not suggest spoilers need remain in every section of an article. Obviously if someone reads the plot, reader beware. I still see no reason for those looking for an actor/character name to be made aware of plot points in this particular section. There is no reason guidelines cannot be amended.

I only make this suggestion, not to be difficult, but as a way to better serve people visiting Wikipedia rather than bow to the idea of "it's always been done this way." 24.170.127.153 (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do note, at least in your Batman Begins example, it is not a "Cast list" section, but just titled "Cast", which in turn would serve as a good location to put information about an actor and their characters, that wouldn't necessarily fit in any other part of the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But

WP:SPOILER does apply to the whole article. I have been spoiled by Wikipedia cast sections before and every time it has been my fault for checking it, not the article's fault. The only place I generally think we should try not to include spoilers is in the lead section, where they would be unnecessary and it would be hard not to read them if they're sitting right at the top of the article, but even then, if necessary, spoilers may still be included. —El Millo (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

On the specific case of Batman Begins, you can see why, for example, we must include the spoiler that Henri Ducard is actually Ra's al Ghul, as it's integral to the plot section to talk about what character Liam Neeson's actually playing. I'll also add that I personally don't generally see unnecessary spoilers included in Cast sections, or in any other sections for that matter. —El Millo (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears obvious that my suggestion is an unpopular one. Batman Begins was more an example of extraneous information than as an example of spoilers. But @El Millo mentions the plot section. There would be no need to hide the twist of Neeson's character in the plot section while still maintaining a cast listing of "Neeson as Ducard" and "Watanabe as Ra's al Ghul."

Again, most replies seem to dismiss the idea, but I still ask those reading to keep in the back of your minds the idea of separate "Cast List" and "Characters and Casting" sections.

Thanks for reading. 24.170.127.153 (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree with you entirely. There's a tiny little camp of questionable editors who love injecting terrible spoilers and then defending it as permitted by "the rules". I had a big fight with someone over this when it came to a Walking Dead episode a couple of years ago. It's not a really frequent problem, but it's still a real one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But no, because that is being intentionally misleading in order not to reveal info, which is exactly what

WP:SPOILER is about. If a spoiler is truly unnecessary, as SMcCandlish said above, then of course we'll remove it, because spoiling for no reason is just mean, but the fact that Liam Neeson is playing Ra's al Ghul and that Watanabe is not is crucial information about the film and about the cast, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia meant to inform about the film, not be coy about its details. Most developed film articles already display the main cast both in the lead section and in the infobox, of course not including who they are playing, so if someone just wants to know who acts in the film and not get spoiled they can look at that. However, readers actively avoiding spoilers should avoid Wikipedia articles entirely, as some information is so important about a film yet a spoiler at the same time that it even will be included in the infobox, such as is the case for Spider-Man: No Way Home with previously-unannounced actors. —El Millo (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Late comment but the Batman Begins article is an example of Cast section with an abundance of information that "may be placed in the plot summary or in the "Casting" subsection of a "Production" section" and doing that might address some of your concerns. Also the guideline

MOS:FILMCAST says "All names should be referred to as credited" and as Kaiser Soze is not listed in the film credits so he generally should not be listed in the cast section.) It can sometimes help to order details chronologically, it is simply better writing in many cases. For example if a character begins a film with one name and ends with another, then the later name can be put near the end of the character description rather than right at the start. -- 109.77.196.25 (talk) 04:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to support "positive", "mixed", "negative"

I've encountered uses of RT and MC (or just one) to support the quoted terms as part of neutral claims about films' reviews. Since RT requires our interpretation of its scores, I don't believe the scores themselves are sufficient to support the quoted terms–the elements being praised and criticized notwithstanding since the site's critics' consensus often specify these. MT, on the other hand, does not require interpretation since they indicate what the scores mean. That said, I also believe that MT is one source and that its content should be demonstrated as

due

. I propose adding a version of this clause to the MOS:

Rotten Tomatoes does not specify whether critics' overall perception of a film is positive, mixed, or negative, therefore, it should not be used to support claims about films' general critical reception. Metacritic, which provides brief descriptions of what their scores indicate, may be used when the claim it supports is demonstrated as

due.

KyleJoan^talk 13:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

I'm a little concerned that this would be instruction creep that's already covered by Wikipedia:Review aggregators. DonIago (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Except that

WP:AGG is just an essay that doesn't have any teeth. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Maybe some of the text from there should be promoted to here, then? DonIago (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, that's essentially what's being proposed here, except not just copy-pasting wording from the essay.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? Rotten Tomatoes does not require any interpretation on our part, and I'm ready to start blocking people who violate

WP:NOR. It quite clearly states whether a film is "fresh" or "rotten". Rotten Tomatoes is also much more prominent than Metacritic. This article from Vulture is pretty clear that it is central to the popularity of films despite its limitations and flaws. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

My points about interpretation were specifically regarding scores' relation to "positive", "mixed", "negative" and using RT by itself to support those terms. "Critical reaction to [Ghosts of Girlfriends Past] was negative" on Emma Stone and "[Deep Water] received largely negative reviews" on Ben Affleck, both featured articles, are two of many examples I could provide. Would you consider these instances NOR failures? KyleJoan^talk 04:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My objection to the RT terminology would be a different one - “fresh” and “rotten” are jargon, related to tomatoes, and familiar to readers who already visit those sites or who edit film articles regularly. But for the casual reader, remembering that WP is used by English-speakers all around the world, quoting the term “certified fresh” in relation to the quality of a film surely needs explanation, and must leave some readers completely mystified. That isn’t good terminology to use in a global encyclopaedia. MapReader (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KyleJoan, can you link directly to the article section you're referring to in those examples? I'm not seeing it.

Generally, RT can only be used for negative/unfavorable (read "rotten") or positive (read "fresh"). It does not provide ample support for "mixed", and many in the film project have doubted if 59% is truly a negative score. I'm not sure we've ever all agreed on that point, which is why there isn't anything in the MOS, at least not in absolute terms. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Third paragraph, second sentence on Ben Affleck#2020–present: Supporting roles and Air and first paragraph, fourth sentence on Emma Stone#2009–2011: Breakthrough. Is that generalization ("Fresh" = positive, "Rotten" = negative) not an interpretation? And what about "Certified Fresh"? Does it equal "critical acclaim"? KyleJoan^talk 18:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FILM doesn't cover articles about actors. I agree those are inappropriate uses of aggregators as sources though. Nardog (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s easy to do a search on the term “certified fresh” and you will see there are tons of them, mostly in film articles. It’s a ridiculous term to put in an encyclopaedia about films. MapReader (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When RT and MC disagree, we really shouldn't be cherry-picking one over the other, which was done in that Ben Affleck example. At Metacritic, "mixed or average" was reported for that film (link). It would be best to ditch the aggregators in that scenario and rely on other highly-reputable sources instead, with the best being those that publish in printed form (books, magazines, journals, etc). --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need to start from the top. When we write an encyclopedic article about a film and how critics received it, we need to approach this correctly. Rotten Tomatoes is first and foremost a commercial service to tell movie fans if a movie is worth watching or not. This does not directly translate into encyclopedic value, especially as reflected by the fact that a movie is only "fresh" (positive) or "rotten" (negative). In this, RT provides zero middle ground. (No bruised tomato, no moldy tomato.) Not to mention that its percentage is just based on the positive-to-negative ratio.

In essence, for encyclopedic value, the main percentage is unreliable for reporting the critical reception. The secondary data points, the rating average (x out of 10) and the critics' consensus (however imperfect), have credible encyclopedic value. Metacritic is a similar commercial service, but its useful data points are upfront -- the metascore (which is similar to RT's rating average) and the five-level prose-label categorization. Its review breakdown (positive/mixed/negative) is also useful to report. It's not cherry-picking if Metacritic's primary determinations are reliable (plus clearly labeled) where Rotten Tomatoes's primary determinations are not. When comparing the two, Metacritic should be selected over Rotten Tomatoes for a prose-label of a film's overall critical reception. Beyond these, coverage about a film's critical reception should take precedent (though subject to

I tend to be in agreement with all of that, Erik.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should not be giving Metacritic undue weight to source "positive", "negative", or "mixed". As noted in the previous discussion about

MOS:ACCLAIMED, Metacritic labels anything with a 81+ score as "universal acclaim" and anything with a score below 19 as "overwhelming dislike". If we allow editors to use Metacritic alone as a source for "positive" or "negative", that will encourage editors to start using Metacritic alone as a source for "acclaim" and "panned". InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

So, have a more explicit rule against wording like "acclaimed" or "panned"? That seems more practical than trying to get editors to stop citing Metacritic or RT. And RT's "fresh" or "rotten" false dichotomy is much worse that Metacritic's "overwhelming dislike" to "universal acclaim" range, even if their use of superlative terms is misleading.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Loaded prose-labels are easier to deem inappropriate, as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch's standard for their inclusion is high. Why shouldn't there be a guideline that says RT's statuses shouldn't be translated into these prose-labels and MC's labels must be due for inclusion? KyleJoan^talk 02:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Metacritic nor Rotten Tomatoes should be used for reception summary labels. You can argue that one is more accurate/useful than the other, but in the end, they are both numbers computed using a formula. Using that number to determine what has been positively or negatively received is akin to deciding that an article subject is considered notable as long as they have a certain number of Google News results. We should stick to how publications — written by people (so probably not CNET) — assess the critical reception. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that already covered by the first paragraph of "

Critical reception"? Perhaps we could explicitly exclude aggregators' automatic labels based on numbers, in addition to original syntheses of individual reviews. Is that the sort of thing you're proposing? Nardog (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

That's sort of what I'm proposing, and I say that because my concern has more to do with citing the automatic labels to write something else entirely that no other source denotes (or in RT's case, that the source itself does not denote) than the labels themselves. KyleJoan^talk 10:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well that boils down to avoiding RT for a "mixed" designation, which is technically the only label that it doesn't inherently support. And generally, using any label that isn't supported by a source is already covered in the opening sentence of that section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that goes far enough because it doesn't address the inappropriateness of converting "Certified Fresh" into positive reviews, "Fresh" also into positive reviews, "Rotten" into negative reviews. KyleJoan^talk 01:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The conversion is already done by Rotten Tomatoes on their own site, where the Tomatometer is defined as displaying "the percentage of professional critic reviews that are positive for a given film or television show". Reputable reliable sources have also explained the Tomatometer in published articles, such as this one from the LA Times, which states:

Today, moviegoers rely on the Tomatometer, a number that shows what percentage of critics recommend the film. In Tomato-speak, a movie with mostly negative reviews is deemed “rotten” and tagged with a green splat. Movies that are mostly well-reviewed get a “fresh" red tomato.

While we generally prefer RT and MC to be used as complementary sources when affixing a label, who's to say Wikipedia editors are wrong to write that reception was "generally positive" after seeing an RT score of 87% and an MC score of 85? Both ratings, which are considered reliable, are communicating that overall reception was positive. We've covered a couple scenarios where that doesn't work and you need better sourcing, but there are plenty of situations where it does. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But that example is an improper synthesis because 85 on MC indicates "universal acclaim". We would need to water down that indication to make it compatible with "Certified Fresh" equaling "generally positive" in order to make both RT and MC usable for that claim. KyleJoan^talk 05:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asserting that "universal acclaim" doesn't fall into the realm of "generally positive"? In any event, as NRP notes below, it's often a bit facetious to use the term "universal acclaim", and likely more accurate to say "generally positive". DonIago (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's ever appropriate to write "universal acclaim", it suggests a higher or larger degree of phrase than the more-common "generally positive". If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that citing any combination of "Fresh" or "Certified Fresh" and "generally favorable" or "universal acclaim" allows us to neutrally write "generally positive". While I disagree, I understand. KyleJoan^talk 08:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

‘Universal acclaim’ certainly shouldn’t be used within an article, since as a statement it means that every single review has been positive; even were this to be the case, it would be impossible to prove and hence there isn’t going to be a citation. However brilliant a film, there will be someone somewhere who has written a poor review, if only because coming up with a unique angle on something is one way for a critic to get published and win attention. MapReader (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not improper synthesis. Any rating that is 61 or higher on Metacritic is coded in green. According to an explanation published on the site, "green scores" represent "favorable reviews". While green is divided into two categories of "generally favorable" and "universal acclaim", we can choose to ignore any jargon or peacock labels. Both mean positive or favorable to some degree, and therefore both RT and MC agree in that scenario. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"It's not cherry-picking if Metacritic's primary determinations are reliable...[and] Rotten Tomatoes' primary determinations are not."

It's not like Metacritic is the holy grail when it comes to accuracy. You have to remember that a lot of critic reviews don't even assign a letter grade or star rating to begin with. So Metacritic, just like Rotten Tomatoes, has to rely on some level of subjectivity when assigning a value in these situations. And even when a review does contain a grade or rating, the conversion to binary (RT) or to a numerical value (MC) isn't always perfect. MC's method actually introduces more nuance if you think about it. Converting an opinion into a numerical value (ranging from 0-100) involves a much higher level of precision than RT. The rest of its formula heavily depends on the accuracy of that initial conversion, whereas RT's simple approach only has to deem it more positive than negative or vice-versa, an arguably easier task. MC then processes this conversion a step further by using a weighted average and normalizing scores (i.e. grading on a curve), both of which add additional subjectivity into the mix. One final aspect worth mentioning is the sample of critics. Despite MC's reliance on only top critics, its sample size is significantly smaller for most films.

There are pros and cons to either approach, and I'm not sure you can say with any certainty that one has a more reliable "primary determination" than the other. Both methods spit out a numerical final result, which in turn gets converted back into prose by eager Wikipedia editors. Accuracy and objectivity are lost at each conversion and data-crunching step along the way. What we end up with on Wikipedia is questionable at best, especially in the "mixed" realm.

The solution? We've never really agreed on one, but I don't think picking one metric over another or deeming which aggregator reigns supreme gets us any closer. When it leads to a dispute, I encourage editors to tie claims to a highly-reputable source not named Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Metacritic is very useful, but it's a black box. Nobody understands how it works or how they assign scores – some of which they invent themselves out of thin air. There's also the whole "universal acclaim" thing, which is sometimes downright false. There are occasionally films that have "universal" acclaim and a negative review. Even more so, Rotten Tomatoes is the industry standard. It would be undue weight to put so much emphasis on Metacritic and ignore Rotten Tomatoes. Academic sources would be the best, of course. I think we should be emphasizing their use more and try to discourage the use of junk sources. In too many articles, we cite articles to sources that are one step away from being

content mills simply because some super-fan wants a source that says the film got "critical acclaim". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

It would be helpful I think if we just dropped the aggregator

WP:JARGON completely. Describing a film as "rotten" is misleading if 59% of the reviews are positive, meaning more critics gave the film a positive review than a negative one. It is similarly unhelpful to describe a film as having "universal acclaim" if it score 81%, simply because it means that 1 in 5 critics didn't like it (hardly universal!). The way the aggregators use language to describe these films is not consistent with dictionary usage. As Erik mentions above, the data points have much more value. Betty Logan (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Consider you received a D or F on a test in school. These percentages can still technically be greater than 50%, but that doesn't translate to a positive grade. It's the same concept here. Yes, more than half the reviews are positive at 59%, but it doesn't cross a threshold to be considered positive reception. Having said that, scores that fall in the middling range of 40-60% (the realm defined as "mixed or average" on Metacritic) are probably best left without a label of overall reception on Wikipedia, unless it can be tied to other reputable sources. If RT says 55% and MC says 45, look elsewhere for support of a "mixed" claim; RT's percentage doesn't support such a label, and cherry-picking with MC isn't the best solution. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making a case that 59% translates to a positive reception, but rather pointing out the statistical fact that if there are more positive then negative reviews then to label a film as "rotten" is misleading i.e. the "rotten" grading is not synonymous with how a typical reader would interpret the term. This is why I think it is better to look beyond Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for sourced commentary describing the critical reception of a film. They tend to use plain English rather than employing these jargonistic categorizations that the aggregators use. Words that are used in a way that do not equate to their general English language definitions are unhelpful at best, and misleading at worst. And can I just say that if you scored 50% and got an "F" then you had some very tough markers at school! Betty Logan (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I think it is better to look beyond Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for sourced commentary describing the critical reception of a film.

I think you and I are beating the same drum for different reasons, and that's OK! When scores are in the middling ranges of 40-60%, we agree on the same premise, though not from a statistical standpoint or reasoning, but because each aggregator treats this range differently with different labels (mixed vs unfavorable/negative). When they disagree, neither aggregator provides the adequate support needed for a "mixed" or "negative" label on Wikipedia; if we choose "negative", MC disagrees, and if we choose "mixed", RT disagrees. We both reach the same conclusion following different paths. I'm fine with that!

And yes, perhaps the "F" range is a little different here in the States (or at least when I was in school many moons ago)! --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"It would be helpful I think if we just dropped the aggregator

WP:JARGON completely." Yes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm completely okay with avoiding using the "universal acclaim" label when it comes to Metacritic. When any reliable source uses that praise, we can reasonably assume they don't mean that it's 100% that way everywhere every single place. We can paraphrase based on consensus, either local or in general. It could be something like "widely praised" or "highly regarded". The problem is that we have no language from RT to paraphrase other than positive or negative. We don't have any degrees of either, or anything in between (mixed, lukewarm, whatever).

To respond to

WP:MEDRS

exists. We can similarly recognize more (relatively) statistically sound measures.

I think we can recognize here that some aspects of the aggregators are simplistic and that we can work with the best aspects that serve an encyclopedia's long-term coverage of how a film was received. The sentence, "The film got mixed reviews from critics," is more enduring language than "The film got a 65% on Rotten Tomatoes". At the end of the day, we are trying to make these not-directly-designed-for-us tools work for us because it is unthinkable (per

WP:SYNTH and amount of grunt work) for us to figure out from individual reviews what the overall trends are. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The "universal acclaimed" categorization on Metacritic is precisely that: a categorization. It is the direct result of the Metascore reaching a certain threshold, not the result of careful consideration of reviews. There is also the matter of

WP:WEIGHT to consider: we should use the most frequently utilized descriptor when describing the reception. Betty Logan (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

WP is directed at the wider community of English speakers around the world, not the narrow world of film experts who happen to know that ‘universal acclaim’ is a categorisation and doesn’t actually mean universal acclaim. We shouldn’t be using misleading terminology like that. MapReader (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very informative and enlightening. Thanking you and your cohorts for the clarity and sober analysis. Gwankoo (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to flag that there is a discussion at MOS:TV here, which both raises the same issues as here, but in relation to television articles, and also challenges the use of "universal acclaim" within articles based on the Metacritic terminology. This may interest editors who contributed here, so pinging @Nyxaros:, @KyleJoan:, @Betty Logan:, @Erik:, @SMcCandlish:, @GoneIn60:, @Doniago:, @InfiniteNexus:, @NinjaRobotPirate: — Preceding unsigned comment added by MapReader (talk • contribs) 07:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pings don't work if you don't sign your comment. copying pings from above @Nyxaros:, @KyleJoan:, @Betty Logan:, @Erik:, @SMcCandlish:, @GoneIn60:, @Doniago:, @InfiniteNexus:, @NinjaRobotPirate:. Indagate (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Mos:FILMAUDIENCE has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 11 § Mos:FILMAUDIENCE until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how determined user are to add Rotten Tomatoes audience scores it is very helpful to have a redirect like this in addition to

MOS:TVAUDIENCE. -- 109.77.196.25 (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

It's solely about capitalization.

MOS:FILMAUDIENCE still exists and is not up for deletion. Nardog (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Weird that case sensitivy is even a thing, but okay. So long as one version exists. -- 109.77.198.106 (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's "a thing" in this case because "MOS:" is not an actual namespace (or namespace alias) like "WP:" and "WT:";

MOS:FILMAUDIENCE is actually "lives" in mainspace and is a cross-namespace redirect. Our mainspace is case sensitive so that, e.g., "ABCD" and "Abcd" can be separate articles, one on an acronym and one on a non-acronym word/name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Most film articles make no mention of who plays what character. Including actor names when describing a film's plot is common in English-language newspapers, magazines, film reviews etc. I'm not sure why the guideline does not allow for actor names, and I propose that this guideline be changed. Fredlesaltique (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't because the cast section should exist separately, making listing them in the plot redundant. Most film articles have a separate section underneath the plot, for example: Casablanca (film)#Cast, Gangs of New York#Cast, The Handmaiden#Cast. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the community consensus settled on not including actors' names in plot summaries is that it can get messy. The plot summary is far more detailed than what shows up in secondary sources, and it tends to name more characters than these sources would. So that means you could have a character named toward the end of a summary, and wind up naming the actor too. I think it's more appropriate to do this in the lead section because that tends to name the starring actors and has a high-level synopsis of the plot summary. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The plot section is a summary of the key events depicted on screen; within the plot the actors are in character and what matters to the plot is their portrayed character, not who the actor is. The information for the credited cast is listed in a separate section, commonly the section immediately following, providing an encyclopaedic reference for anyone seeking that information. Breaking up the plot section with actors’ names in brackets every time a new character is mentioned would therefore be both duplication, potential confusion as Erik says, and a distraction for the reader from what the plot section is there to do. MapReader (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with all of the above. This has been rehashed many times, and consensus has not changed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, so it does not have to mimic newspaper movie review habits. Our information is more sectionally presented.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fully concur. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMPLOT

The last sentence of the first paragraph says

Do not include actors' names in the plot summary, as it is redundant to the "Cast" section.

But, it's not uncommon for people to do this. When a rule is commonly ignored, and since rules are supposed to mainly codify good practice, that's a good indication that it's a bad rule. As this one is, because there's no good reason for following it.

Because, the reason given for not including the names in the Plot section is that it is redundant to the Cast section. But having two ways to do things, including learning info, is fine. That's why you can copy-and-paste with Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V or by selecting Copy and Paste from a dropdown menu. Nobody is like "Well, let's disable Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V cos it's redundant to the dropdown menu." We don't usually say "Get rid of the picture, the thing is already described well enough in the text". People have different learning methods, so redundancy here is good pedagogy and also good human factors design. We don't want to make both the round readers and the square readers go thru the square hole.

Not only that, but the Cast section sometimes only lists the names of the cast members, not the role they play. And the list in the infobox, if there is one, never does. So in that case there's no way to know who played what. This is information that many readers are going to want. And even if the actor-character info is given in the Cast section has to go down to the Cast section and then back up to the plot narrative. For each character. This breaks up smooth flow of the reading.

I removed the sentence, as I think the case for doing so is strong enugh. If you disagree, fine, roll it back and let's talk. Herostratus (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Readers should not have to search through the plot summary to find who is playing what characters, that information should be clearly presented in a cast section. And if it is in a cast section then also having it in the plot summary would indeed be redundant. We have pushed to keep non-plot information out of the plot summary in other ways as well, so this is also an extension of that. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of non-plot info? Herostratus (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As plot summaries already tend to face issues with being overly long (I've spent a fair amount of my time on Wiki trying to cut back overly long summaries), I don't think we should remove a guideline that discourages editors from making summaries even longer by including non-essential detail that in all likelihood is presented elsewhere in the article (and typically right below the plot summary). DonIago (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both adamstom97 and Donlago, having cast names in the Plot summary is redundant, breaks the flow of the plot, and makes summaries longer than they need to be. In addition, have an actor's name following the character name in the plot is more of a thing for a magazine or newspaper article where there isn't already a cast section. Do we really want to stop being an "encyclopedia" and become more of an informal, amateurish publication? DonaldD23 talk to me 03:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the cast names out of the plot section. The reason that the media are seen doing it is because they don't have a dedicated cast list like we do. Binksternet (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you all for responding. But, with one exception, I don't find these points compelling at all. I agree that plots are often too long, but as far as the actual amount of text added to a long plot, it's going to be way less than 1%. However, adding this tiny percent is not the same as interrupting the flow of text. That's a reasonable point and I'll discuss it below. And nobody's suggesting that the cast section be removed.

I key point I want to get across is that' redundant is good. It's not like "redundant" is an argument against the change. It's an argument for the change. I gave some examples above. People have different ways of processing information. If you can't fill in the blank in this sentence, you're not making a useful argument: "It's redundant, and this redundancy is a net negative for the typical reader's experience because ____________." (Redundant is not always good, I'm talking about here.)

The one point made that was reasonable (to my mind) is that adding in the names of the players is going to interrupt the flow of text. It is! I'm confident that this is not enough to balance the positives tho . This is hard to prove either way but there are probably some ways to think about that. I suspect a RfC might be required here to really dig into all thiw. Herostratus (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you agree with the opinions that have been expressed, to suggest that an RfC 'might be required' when thus far you're the only voice advocating for including cast names in the plot summaries (or at least, not providing guidance that they not be included), strikes me as bordering on

WP:CONSENSUS works. If and when other editors chime in supporting your perspective, I'll be more inclined to believe that an RfC may be necessary. DonIago (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The blank in Herostratus's sentence is easily filled in with "repetitive, distracting, counter to the purpose of the section as a summary of the plot not of the production, irrelevant to the plot being summarized", and several other things. The idea "redundancy is good" is only true in very specific contexts, and "the wording of probably back-to-back sections" is not one of them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Largoplazzo reverted removal of the guideline material ('Do not include actors' names in the plot summary, as it is redundant to the "Cast" section.'). I agree with the reversion. There is clearly not a consensus to remove that guidance.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the statment above, "the Cast section sometimes only lists the names of the cast members, not the role they play." Why not just update the cast section to list the names of the actors and the role they play instead of adding them in the plot section? This would follow current guidelines/manual of style, and this discussion would be moot. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If a Cast section only has the names of the actors without even the name of the character they play, then that section is incomplete and not fulfilling its purpose even in its more basic form. That would be no metric to change the guidelines on another section. —El Millo (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or it could be an unreleased film that has not had the character names revealed and no plot is yet available.

Adding cast names into the plot section was kind of standard over 10 years ago, but we've long moved away from that and I think it works out best (for the reasons mentioned above).

@Herostratus

But, it's not uncommon for people to do this.

It's not common either. Mike Allen 21:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And that's never a rational reason to change MoS anyway. E.g., it's extremely common for people to over-capitalize things that are not proper names just to "big-note" them, as a form of emphasis, but that is simply a reason to clean up after them, not to delete

WP:CCPOL, which we point out to them quickly with templates like {{Welcome}}.) There are multiple styles of capitalization, and there are multiple styles of writing about movies, but WP only intends to have one style of each, after we get done cleaning up material written by editors who have not yet absorbed our style. "I can find material on WP that doesn't obey the rule" does not in any way means that the rule is faulty. Indeed, if material here never diverged from the rule, then we would have no need of an MoS line item about it in the first place. E.g., we don't have a rule that multi-word names of people and places are spelled with spaces in them, because no one actually goes around writing MichaelJackson and UnitedKingdom or Michael-Jackson and United-Kingdom.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

To take another tack (I don't think I've seen this here yet): The section is called "Plot". That Spider-Man was admitted to the Avengers is part of the plot of Avengers: Infinity War. That Spider-Man was played by Tom Holland is not part of the plot and is irrelevant to it. (The casting may be relevant to the plot on occasion, as when Julia Roberts' character masqueraded, in Ocean's 12, as Julia Roberts.) Largoplazo (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline should not be removed. The purpose of the Plot section is to summarize the narrative; the purpose of the Cast section is to list the performers. This is the same reason we don't put section links in the infobox (because that is the purpose of the table of contents) or references in the lead (because that is the purpose of the article body). InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nyxaros, in your recent edit, the text you added is redundant. The reason is because the statement already says, "Describing a film with superlatives ... must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources".

Your edit now changes that to, "Describing a film with superlatives ... must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources that include these superlatives". Completely unnecessary and redundant. When you attribute a claim to high-quality sources, then of course these sources must include that claim. No need to restate that again.

Also you said something in your edit summary about a recent edit war over the term "multiple" being the reason. However, what you added had nothing to do with that. Furthermore, we shouldn't be going back and forth in a policy or guideline page. As soon as you're reverted, you are expected to take it to talk. I did you the courtesy this time, but for future reference, please don't argue your case in an edit summary, especially in this namespace. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's redundant and should be reverted. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the edit summaries of the previous editors. I added it because one of the editors wrote a sentence about reviews being used for the exceptional claims. I don't think it is the best description either, but the wording seems to cause some misinterpretation. ภץאคгöร 18:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have read them, but I fail to see how your change addresses that. The concern discussed was about changing the term from "multiple" to "many". What you added doesn't address that in any way, shape, or form. It also doesn't change the concern about "reviews" being used as high-quality sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have not read them through. Additionally, majority of the reviews do not include statements like "this film I'm about to review is critically acclaimed". That's why the issue also becomes

WP:SYNTH. ภץאคгöร 20:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

It's understandable if the wording could use improvement, but the redundancy isn't an improvement. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can improve. ภץאคгöร 20:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The root problem here is

WP:EXCEPTIONAL using the word "multiple", so I've raised an issue with this at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#EXCEPTIONAL tweak to close wikilawyering loophole.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The issue I've raised in this discussion is the redundant addition of "that include these superlatives". It has yet to be explained why this is necessary redundancy and how it ties into the other dispute regarding multiple vs many. As for the other dispute, it's worth further discussion, so great that you've got the ball rolling at

WT:V. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I didn't realize that was still under discussion after multiple objections. I'll add mine: it is definitely not a necessary redundancy. WP:Policy writing is hard, but it's not that hard. If we say that "Describing ... with superlatives ... must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources" it necessarily means that the superlatives are found in those sources. There is no other reasonable interpretation, and no one else seems to be confused about this. The real problem is people thinking that if two rando reviewers say something is the GoAT and most sources think it's trash that this is a green-light to describe it as the GoAT because "multiple" sources said so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The real problem is people thinking that if two rando reviewers say something is the GoAT and most sources think it's trash..."

A claim must generally satisfy

due weight, whether it is EXCEPTIONAL or not. That's one of the first bars of inclusion for any content. Once that bar is satisfied, there is another bar that comes into play for exceptional claims. In addition to being prevalent in lower-quality sources, it must also have the support of multiple high-quality sources. That's how I've always understood it; perhaps the discussion you've started will shed additional light. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

There is currently a discussion at {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} in regards to listing it as a substonly template that may interest editors of this WikiProject. The discussion can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to check with editors if

In the case of concert films, the synopsis is not really a plot summary and would be closer to a pre-release premise for a film. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What would "pre-release" have to do with it? Anyway, these don't usually have synopses (they're categorically a case of "a film's specific context may warrant otherwise"), but background information on the event and the A/V production, and a track list, and reviews/reaction/impact stuff. See, e.g., The Song Remains the Same (film). Most such articles don't seem to have a synopsis, though Stop Making Sense does. I'm not sure it's the best way to approach such a work, though maybe others disagree. Dunno if we could achieve enough consensus to have specific guideline wording about this genre.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Pre-release" as in the short blurb we use before the film is released and a full plot summary is available. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understoodd that part, I just don't see what this has to do with a concert film in particular versus some other sort of documentary work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would a track listing not suffice, showing what songs played? It could be prefaced by a short paragraph about the venue and the performers and the aesthetic. Also don't know if any comments before/during/after would typically happen, that could just be captured in that paragraph too? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda what I was thinking. The Song Remains the Same (film) is written how I would expect this to be handled, while Stop Making Sense seems to go too far.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that a synopsis section would/should provide a brief overview of the concert being performed, the structure of the film, etc. I guess this wouldn't only apply to concert films, but all documentary films. Summer of Soul does this well; Michael Jackson's This Is It goes a bit too far. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am noticing more and more Wikipedia articles have plot sections which are so ridiculously long and detailed as to make the article unwieldy and difficult to read, thereby making the page user-unfriendly. Additionally, they give away every little detail, potentially ruining the film for someone who came to Wikipedia to get a general idea of a film before deciding whether to see it.

Can there please be a rule that each article needs to have a brief summary of the film, let's say one to two paragraphs in length, three short paragraphs at the most? As it is, I myself frequently find myself clicking on the link to the film's IMDb page in order to read a very brief description, and this makes Wikipedia redundant.

This self-induldent, almost thesis-length plot descriptions used to be a rarity, but it now seems like they're becoming the majority, and it's incredibly frustrating from a Wikipedia reader's perspective. 49.184.187.19 (talk) 49.184.187.19 (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a guideline on this project page, at

MOS:FILMPLOT: "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words." Largoplazo (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Honestly, I would support a tightening of that guideline and cap them at maybe 400 words. I don't think that would be popular with editors but it would keep the focus on the right thing. Plot summaries so often become a distraction. Popcornfud (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting idea, but as an editor who spends a fair amount of time trimming overly long plot summaries, I'd find it fairly challenging to comply with a guideline that necessitated reducing existing summaries to such a drastic degree. DonIago (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is still overly long, and there are so many that are a lot longer than that, making it an ordeal to read an article, including having to scroll a long time just to get back to the top.

If these are the official lengths, then is there a way to get rid of the plot sections that go beyond this already very generous length? 49.183.144.127 (talk) 49.183.144.127 (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As with anything in a Wikipedia article that violates the guidelines, the solution is something called "editing". 😀 You put the article in Edit mode and edit the section as needed so that the outcome is a good plot summary that meets the guidelines. Or else, you go to the article's talk page and add a new section noting the unduly long plot section and soliciting others to edit it down. Largoplazo (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The length is something addressed, but we do have a guideline that says that we do not care about hiding

WP:SPOILERS, as long as the work has been released in a public manner. Film summaries should be concise but they also should be comprehensive and should include major reveals that are essential to the plot. Masem (t) 13:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

To add on, WP:FILMPLOT is based on policy at

WP:NOTPLOT

, that there should be "concise summaries of these works". This is under the policy of Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information, and to avoid summary-only descriptions of works. I read WP:NOTPLOT to mean that a concise summary should only exist to complement the rest of the article body. (It is purely incidental that some people will go to these articles just to read the plot, and that is not the purpose of Wikipedia at all.) So if we had a Stub-class film article, we shouldn't even have 400 words of plot detail if there is barely anything else. The goal of the plot is to give a reader an idea of the work so they can comprehend the rest of the article.

On another note, try using ChatGPT to summarize a plot summary that's too long and review it to see if it still holds up.

WP:LLM seems to indicate that this is fine to do. The review part is a critical step to avoid hallucinatory detail. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I would suggest that it's not possible to be both concise and comprehensive, and that it's not a summary at all if it must "include major reveals that are essential to the plot"... But if this is what is acceptable in a "Plot", then I would like to suggest that articles should have a very short, concise "Plot Summary" in addition to the annoyingly long, detailed "Plot Description" section?

I think having a short plot summary in addition to the detailed Plot description would be a good solution. Can this become an official Wikipedia policy? 49.183.144.127 (talk) 49.183.144.127 (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... should be comprehensive and should include major reveals that are essential to the plot From where do you derive that?. The guidelines say spoilers are OK, they don't say every spoiler must be revealed. The section is supposed to be a summary. Largoplazo (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Comprehensive" means the summary should cover the film from start to end, and for that to be understandable, dancing around spoilers rarely helps when adding in the "conciseness". It is impossible to have a concise description of "The Usual Suspects", for example, without explanating the film's major plot twist that comes right at the end. Masem (t) 13:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The word "comprehensive" doesn't appear in the guideline. And "summary" and "concise" are both opposites of "comprehensive". You're correct, it would be really hard to have a comprehensive, concise summary—because it's a contradiction. What the guideline calls for are the "concise" and "summary" parts, not comprehensiveness. Largoplazo (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think at the end of the day, to answer 49.183.144.127 directly, we already have a guideline to keep the plot section around 400-700 words, and some editors do try to cut longer sections down. What happens is basically scope creep, with passerby editors adding more and more detail over time, incidentally growing toward unnecessary comprehensiveness. Not to mention there's probably thousands and thousands of ways to word a film's plot. Involved editors just have to guard against that with the thankless work of copyediting down in size (or rolling back to an existing smaller size). Another consideration is that the lead section have a summary of a summary (already covered in

MOS:FILMLEAD) where the film's plot is covered in 1-3 sentences. I don't see this happen often enough and would support it happening more. The lead section is a microcosm of the article body, so it makes sense to touch on the plot there along with everything else written about the film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, there's already a guideline in place, it only needs to be more thoroughly implemented, by using the {{long plot}} template and then by actually trimming those plot summaries that go over the limit. Would there be a possibility for plots longer that 700 words to be automatically added to a "Long plot" category? There already is a plot length counter. —El Millo (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While these might be edge cases, I think automated attempts to do word counts could be foiled by photo captions or section breaks within the summary...which is to say, if we were going to pursue an automated way to do a word count, we might need a way to override it for certain film articles. DonIago (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A bot could add the {{Long plot}} template to plot summaries that are above 700 words and we could have a template in the vein of {{cbignore}} for the edge cases or those were there was consensus to go above the limit. I don't know whether any of this can be done though. —El Millo (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this, and it's not the first time this was discussed. I can't seem to find the previous discussion, though, which is probably 5-10 years old by now. I recall a good suggestion to do the bot approach to flag articles with plot summaries of over 1,000 words (or higher) first to treat these as the cases to be most immediately addressed. Otherwise such a request would flag articles that could just be a few words over 700, which isn't a big deal. Betty Logan, do you recall this discussion at all? I can't remember if you were part of it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Erik. Typically when you come across an overlong plot summary, it’s possible to shorten it considerably simply by good copy-editing, going through removing the repetition, superfluous padding, and irrelevant plot details. Often this arose from an originally reasonably concise summary to which successive editors have added one after another minor detail. If there were a way to flag those that are problematic in terms of length, it would help direct those of us with some spare time to head in their direction carrying our sharpest copy-editing shears. It is generally easier to do a good copyedit if you haven’t (recently) seen the film, and a lot of the problem is that editor-fans see the film and rush to edit in all the trivial details that they liked. MapReader (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a topic that comes up repeatedly, and I don't recall the exact one you reference, but I support the suggestion. This issue recently arose at Doctor Zhivago (film); the summary used to be very indulgent, but after a good copy-edit an editor brought it down to ~800 words, and questioned whether that was sufficient. We came to the conclusion it was. Betty Logan (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might actually have been me who proposed this, like a decade ago. Or at least I was one of the editors who may have proposed it over the years. Popcornfud (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Popcornfud It has gotten better over time but there are still articles that editors refuse to fix. The plot section for Love Actually remains absurdly long, and full of information that is not strictly plot related. -- 109.79.68.151 (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could a filter be added for those edits that add to an edit summary? While some are justified, most additions I come across are just trivial and/or unnecessary. —El Millo (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A bot could also automatically revert edits that increase a film's plot summary to 700+ (if special consensus on a particular article is to go beyond for whatever reason, {{Bots}} can easily be added). InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be opposed to a bot that automatically performed that kind of reversion unless it also left a clear notice for the editor regarding why their edit had been reverted (perhaps using text similar to that used at Template:uw-plotsum1. I know if I was a new editor who expanded a plot summary in good faith and my edit was bot-reverted without clear explanation, I'd be at best confused and at worst very upset that my hard work had been so effortlessly discarded and I wasn't even being told why.

If that would be part of the bot's design, then I'm still not sure the cut-off should be strictly at 700 words, and I wonder whether it would be better to tell the editor that their summary exceeded the guideline and ask them to self-correct it rather than auto-reverting...except that these days, mobile editors don't necessarily see notices left at their Talk pages either, so there's a bit of a conundrum there. DonIago (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps automatic reversion is a bit too much —just because I haven't heard it done before, if it's commonly done in other cases, then let's go ahead— but a warning before publishing the edit, plus a notice at their talk page and filter for the edit could work, along with automatically adding any article with a plot summary over 700 words to the Category:Wikipedia articles with plot summary needing attention. The {{Long plot}} template adds articles to this category already, so I don't know if that can be automatically added or if it's easier to directly add the category. —El Millo (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would support an automated bot to deal with this. There are thousands of movies and it’s impossible to police them. Toa Nidhiki05 00:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think after an edit puts a plot summary between 700 and 800 (850?) it just tags the section with {{Long plot}}. If the edit puts the plot beyond 800/850, I don't necessarily think a reversion is appropriate, but if there was a way to have a warning before publishing plus a notice on their talk page and then maybe an additional category so project members can be notified of truly long/over the limit articles, that could work. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editfilter than puts up a notice before you save the page would be reasonable. Automated tagging with plot-too-long template might be permissible (I think some would object to it), as long as it is not repeated (if an editor manually removes that tag, it is not permissible for a bot to automatically re-tag it, even if the section is edited again, which of course it will be). And automated reversion by a bot of anyting but certain vandalism would be against multiple policies (

WP:BOTPOL for starters). Bots are here to help human editors build an encyclopedia; editors are not beholden to bots nor required to suppress their own editorial judgment to make some other editor's bot happy. That would be the tail wagging the dog and then some.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Strongly opposed to automatic reversion, and only slightly less so to automated drive-by maintenance tags. Barely supportive of an edit filter, on the condition that it be carefully and mildly worded and never rejects a submission. Underlying my views are the principle that no article's plot section is perfect, and an editor that wants to add something that is warranted shouldn't be aggressively badgered about it or be placed in a position to make something else go away to allow their own edit. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editfilter before submission would be better than the current situation which ultimately results in reverts or rollback to a shorter version sooner or later. There has to be a reasonable way to discourage new or poorly informed editors (unfamiliar with

WP:FILMPLOT) who increase a plot summary from under 700 words to over 1000 words without setting a nasty mousetrap or being unfair to editors making good faith smaller incremental edits. -- 109.79.68.151 (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually I would have an editfilter show a warning at any increase that leaves a plot summary at over 700 words... if you can't make your edit fit within the guidelines, you shouldn't be making it. Incremental edits should always bring us closer to guidelines, not farther away. All you would need is 5 well-meaning edits adding 15 words each to a 700-word summary and you'd be over 10% beyond the 400 to 700 word range.

On their own, of course, it's no big deal: 700 words or 715 words... not a huge discrepancy. But it can add up quickly.

I would also definitely support a bot auto-tagging plot sections that are too long. Most people probably aren't even aware of the given range and so anything we can do to educate them would be helpful.

In either case, it's an opportunity to say "Hey—did you know we have guidelines? Here's where you can find the one relevant to the edit you're making." As a Wikipedia newbie, I would have vastly preferred an automated message encouraging me to check out our guidelines rather than finding out about them when someone reverted me (which was certainly done a few times without them pointing me to the relevant guideline). —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed lately that a number of articles for animated films, which previously included links to "

Have any discussions taken place before or since these changes, regarding whether to link "animated film" in the lead sentences of animated film articles, or whether to specify the method of animation used? If linking to "animated film" is a violation of MOS:OL, I presume this would be on the basis of "animated film" falling under "Everyday words understood by most readers in context". However, the guideline also makes an exception for terms that are "particularly relevant to the context in the article" (hence why we link to genre terms like "comedy film" or "horror film", which most readers would also understand in context). —Matthew  / (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would continue linking these terms in the leads of the film articles, per "particularly relevant to the context in the article" and standard practice of linking other genre terms in other film articles. The point of the link is not providing a dictionary definition, as if no one understands what "animated film" means; the point is providing the context of animated film history and culture as an easy link from an exemplar of that subject. It's the same reason we link to veterinarian in the lead of a notable verterinarian even though everyone already knows what a veterinarian is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is unnecessary to link as it is a very common term and concept that everyone knows in context. It is also not relevant to the context in the article it generally just is a way of indicating the project isn't live-action. It would be like linking

MOS:NOPIPE. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

As stated above, most people would presumably also know what most film genres are in the same context, but we link those as well. I don't see your point regarding

animated film" are two distinct topics and articles; in fact, the former is sometimes utilized in an otherwise live-action film. Could you elaborate on what you mean? —Matthew  / (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

We shouldn't be linking the common film genres either. It reduces the effectiveness of having links when too many common things are linked. Links should be added with deliberate consideration of if they will add value by having them. A list of linked common adjectives in an intro is actually detrimental by masking the few that might actually need to be linked due to being uncommon and not well-understood. We generally excise the links for common occupation names in bio intros, no reason no not purge the unnecessary common genres links too. I do think that it improves an article to remove unneeded links and I generally do so with consideration of what adds value and what doesn't when I make the edits to remove or add them.

As for

WP:NOTBROKEN. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand your points on linking medium/genres, but I disagree with your position that they lack value or effectiveness. If I understand your point regarding

MOS:NOPIPE, then I disagree with that as well. The term "animated" in the lead sentence of an article about an animated film should link to the more specific "Animated film", not to "Animation". Just as "science fiction" should link to "Science fiction film", "drama" to "Drama (film and television)", etc. —Matthew  / (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

If a piped link goes to the same location as the redirect it shouldn't be piped.

MOS:FILMGENRE this would be less of an issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Drama film

doesn't need to be piped for that reason but I see your point if piping is used when the word film is removed from the displayed term but it is the desired target [...] This is what I was referring to, yes. So on that we do agree. [...] although I'd use [[Drama film|drama]] in that case so the reason for piping is obvious. This is fine with me as well. I also agree that excessive genres in the lead sentence can be an issue, and it's something that can be particularly prevalent when it comes to animated films that feature elements of many genres.

I personally think that linking to film genres is acceptable. As opposed to, say, linking to the article on "film" itself, or to most occupations. —Matthew  / (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of films are live-action works of fiction given by actors speaking their lines. Animated films are not this. Musical films are not this. Documentaries are not this. These terms need to be called out as part of the lede to set expectations to the reader. --Masem (t) 04:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be mentioned as the default is live-action, but linking adds no value other than the emphasis of seeing another blue word in a connected list of linked genre terms. I saw no existing consensus to link the word, it was just a pro-forma practice with no actual need or consideration given to it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment regarding consensus: per

WP:EDITCON, "Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement. In this way, the encyclopedia gradually improves over time." So this conversation is a good thing! —Matthew  / (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I concur with Masem on this one. The default format for film is a live-action work of fiction with relatively little diegetic music (as distinguished from jukebox and musical films). The types of films that do not fall into that format are notable and should be linked. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They should be noted in the intro. But linking a well-understood word that will never be clicked on by any reader just adds to the clutter of adjacent blue links in the intro. Has as much value as linking the nationality. Linking is not meant to be a form of emphasis. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is anecdotal, but I'd like to note that I've definitely clicked on "animated" from articles of animated films before. Same with probably every genre as well. Maybe I'm weird though. —Matthew  / (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with others about linking to "animated film". Per

MOS:OVERLINK, it is a term that is "particularly relevant to the context in the article" and is thus appropriate, like with film genres. A key component of an article about an animated film would be to discuss how the film's animation was done, and how it looked to critics and audiences. In contrast, if it were something like an article about a politician's campaign in which a commercial that involved some animation was discussed, we wouldn't stress about linking to that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Every descriptive word in the intro section should be relevant to the context of the article, they define the topic. From OL "A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from. Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, ... The well-understood word "animation" isn't particularly relevant. Pick the words to link that add value to the reader and try to avoid

MOS:SEAOFBLUE where everything is linked and nothing stands out. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

There was no follow-on comments to my last comment. I saw no compelling reason in the discussion to ignore the plain reading of

MOS:SOB. I remove links that in my deliberate judgment add no value to understanding. I do not remove all links to computer-animated and deliberately leave them when it makes sense for the link to be there in context, particularly in articles where the animation process is actually discussed. I specifically look for and do remove unnecessary piping when I see it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not an OVERLINK, in any context. And just because people stopped replying to you does not mean they now agree with you and there is consensus for your position. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This current discussion has not resulted in any changes to any MOS guidelines including this one.

MOS:FILMLEAD suggests that process information be covered later in the lead if important. Contents of the lead section should reflect what is in the article. If how a film is animated is important it will be covered in the article and reflected in the lead - a second sentence mention would be the place to put it. That a film is animated is defining, the default for almost all current animated films is using computers to do it. Some animated film articles have a lot of detail about the creation process, most don't. Also this discussion is about film articles, not other articles where a film is referenced. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

"Animated film" or "computer-animated" are not mentioned in any MoS guideline, including OVERLINK and MOS:FILM, so it is left to editors' discretion in interpreting whether these are considered OVERLINKs. Multiple editors have expressed above that they do not believe they are, and your arguments to the contrary were largely met with skepticism. That means there is no consensus to remove these links, let alone on a large scale, and operating against consensus is disruptive. Computer animation is not a ubiquitous concept widely understood by most parts of the world, so it cannot be regarded as an OVERLINK. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said I leave in the link when it makes sense to for the article in question using my editorial discretion for a particular article use case when it adds value. I do remove the unnecessary piping when I see it which is actually what my edits are mostly targeting. I am strictly following the manual of style as written. This discussion is an interesting take on how other editors may make their choices. It is interesting that few of the participants see any problems with the

MOS:SEAOFBLUE issues of excessive linking of adjacent descriptive adjectives in an article intro sentence. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Just a comment here that if WP:SEAOFBLUE is the primary concern, then a good workaround is to move "computer-animated" out of the opening sentence into a later portion of the lead. For example, the next sentence that starts with "The film" can instead be changed to "The

computer-animated film", or something similar. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Computer animated should be mentioned and linked in the next sentence only if it is covered in the article body itself and shown to be noteworthy for the film. Otherwise the method of production is not worth mentioning in the lead. Most modern animated films use computers as the main animation tool and it is seldom worth mentioning unless it is a pioneer film or they do something innovative for this particular film. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Per

MOS:LEADREL, not every factual claim in the lead section must appear in the body of the article. "Basic facts" of an article's subject may sometimes only appear in the lead and not receive any coverage in the rest of the article. Genres are a perfect example. They rarely receive coverage outside of the lead. The detail about a film being computer animated may or may not be covered by this guideline, but it's worth mentioning in case you were not aware. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Methods of production are not basic facts, that it is animated is a basic fact but not the tools used to do it or how it was done. Those are the types of details that should be covered in the article and likely a good animated film article will describe the actual software used, maybe hardware used for rendering, and how the film was created if that information is available. \ Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have emphasized "may or may not" above in case that was missed. The difference between "animated" and "computer animated" is subtle; one could argue subtle enough that the latter is still a basic fact. I do not intend to argue this point. I offered some middle ground, and this is where I plan to exit! -- GoneIn60 (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is non-existent for most modern animated films as computer production is the normal and standard way of creating animated films. Animators using computers can generate any look they wish and produce output that matches any animation style. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, even though genres may be something that is only mentioned in the lead and infobox, it should still be sourced and match how the film is described in the majority of sources. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This goes without saying and is getting off-track. I don't think anyone is arguing that challengeable claims don't require proper backing in sources. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that in the lede sentence, that linking "film", "animated film", "documentary", and similar film types when there is generally two or three genres preceding that is SEAOFBLUE problems, though that should still be a linked term in the infobox. We should presume some basic reader competency of knowing broadly the terms for films. (Hwoever, I still stand that things like "animated film" and the like should remain in the prose even if not linked) Masem (t) 03:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geraldo, you can keep repeating your arguments that they shouldn't be linked, but so far no one has been convinced. If you continue to remove links anyway, you are willfully ignoring consensus, or the lack thereof. That is disruptive and asking to be reverted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made any recent edits related to the topic of this discussion. What I get as a conclusion related to the topic is that linking

animated film should be done in the intro to animated film articles if there are no SEAOFBLUE issues where the link could be omitted. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

It's important that SEAOFBLUE is a recommendation, not a requirement. Yes, that's the case for all guidelines, but it explicitly says "if possible", not "should". It's a nice-to-have, not should-have. "Computer-animated" and "animated" are modifiers, so it is impossible to separate them from the linked noun that it modifies without sounding awkward. This extends beyond the leads of film articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only justification given in this discussion for linking "animated" per

WP:OL is when it is "particularly relevant to the context in the article". That is arguably why is may be linked in the intro of an animated film article and other articles where the topic of animation is actually under discussion. There is no justification for linking "animated" in other articles particularly when they just reference a film. Readers know what an animated film is, that is common knowledge. Telling readers a film is an animated film when the film is referred to is part of basic identification. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

They may know what an animated film is, but do they know what computer animation is? I don't think they necessarily do. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is self-defining. Animation done using a computer. People are familiar with both concepts. For the last 20 or so years that is the standard normal expected way that animation is done since we got computers powerful enough to do it. It is appropriate to link in an article where specific hardware and software production techniques are being covered to give background for that level of coverage, a good example is Toy Story, but outside that it adds no value. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Computer animation is not a ubiquitous concept. As you said, it's only been around for 30 years. Animation has been around for 116 years and can therefore can be more comfortably argued as an OVERLINK outside of articles about animated films. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It somewhat depends on the age of the reader. People familiar with animation know recent animated projects use computers as a tool and older ones didn't. Most people won't care how it is done. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. You said it.

WP:OVERLINK states: [T]ry to be conscious of your own demographic biases – what is well known in your age group, line of work, or country may be less known in others. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Of course, but we still need to have some reasonable expectations of readers basic understanding. We don't have to link things less likely to be generally known if it isn't brought up in the first place. There are very few cases where the tools used matter, what matters is the result. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#"Attributed to multiple references" and the three other linked discussions. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any guidelines about the Future/Legacy section? When it should be named Future and when it should be named Legacy? Redjedi23 (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider these distinct topics. "Future" to me sounds like "Planned sequel(s)". That can be awkward to cover because someone can say they plan to make a sequel, and ten years pass with nothing new, and what do we say exactly at that point?

"Legacy" to me means how the film has been received in retrospect. That kind of commentary can be found in news articles about the film's anniversary, or print books (or chapters) writing about the film historically. The one section I've done in this regard is The Social Network § Post-2010s assessment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]