Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 7

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.

I'm not familiar with this use of the word 'piped'. It seems to merit an explanation or definition in the form of a link. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Piped link. Erik (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• As I understand it, “piped” is a Linux programmers’ lingo (slang) for this… | …symbol. I don’t use the term since it is unobvious what it means and must often be explained. I use “aliased” myself. Never once had someone ask what that means. Technical writing 101: “don’t cause needless confusion with the intended readership”… Wooooooow… Greg L (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Link added. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This is probably silly, but my OCD is bugging me about it. MOSFILM suggest that "

I think it needs to be realized that the section headings used in the guidelines do not need to be used in a film article. There are several variations on how to arrange reviews and box office figures. It's kind of messy in the guidelines because there can be release-related information that's not reception-related. For example, you could mention the film festivals where a film screened, but you may not necessarily have information on how it was received at each one. So don't look at it as if film articles have to emulate that messy setup. :) Do what works best for an article. Erik (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are examples of what I've done. Apt Pupil (film) has just one section heading, where Doomsday (film) has four subsection headings under one section heading. Do what works for the article and the content at hand. Erik (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So really it's just an article by article basics—whatever works for one article, may not work for another. In other words, use

common sense. LOL. Thanks. —Mike Allen

06:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

On the same note, shouldn't be "Awards" a subsection of "Reception" instead of a secondary topic? --uKER (talk) 05:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I know this has been discussed before, but what does the community think about bolding cast sections? Currently

WP:BOLD, which both are pertinent to the issue of bolding in cast sections. We've been conflicting over whether or not to bold names of actors & characters in bulleted cast sections such as Predator 2#Cast and Alien Resurrection#Cast, so we thought it best to open discussion here. In my opinion bolding the actor & cast names can be appropriate when, as this page currently states, there is other pertinent casting information in the list from which one might want the credits to stand out. To use an example of my own creation, I'm thinking when the section resembles Alien (film)#Casting. This is a practice I see employed in several (though not all) film FAs at the moment, for example Jurassic Park, But I'm a Cheerleader, Casablanca, and Casino Royale. I think we should discuss this, as current practice seems inconsistent. --IllaZilla (talk

) 06:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Do not use bold formatting at all in "Cast" sections.

MOS:BOLD clearly says to use the formatting "only in a few special cases", none of which are the "Cast" section. Remove the formatting at sight, please. Some reviewed articles need this fixed. Erik (talk

) 07:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot of those FA's are 4-6 years old. —Mike Allen 08:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking purely as a reader, cast list bolding wreaks havoc on my eyeballs. Don't know if that's helpful but there it is. Millahnna (mouse)talk 08:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we've gone overboard in banning bold.

MOS:BOLD says only in special cases, and the example they choose is a glossary of trucking terms. In that case, the bold text is defined by the text that follows it. To me, that's not different from a case where the cast/character name is followed by its definition. We should adapt bold to our uses and this seems to be a good use for us. --Ring Cinema (talk

) 13:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not just our view, it is the consensus derived at all of the previous project discussions. The bolding is excessive, unnecessary, and goes against

talk · contribs

) 18:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I doesn't go against the guidelines, AnmaFinotera. That is the question here. The example at

WP:MOSBOLD needs to be viewed. In a case where a sentence fragment starts a paragraph as the subject of the paragraph, the guidelines allow bolding of the fragment. That's the case we have with the example given. For our purposes, there's nothing against the guidelines to bold either character names or actor names. I suspect that anyone who looks at the example cited will see that we're over-zealous in ruling out bolding for the cast sections. At the least, this can be a matter for each editor to decide on their own. Most editors can be trusted to make a good decision. --Ring Cinema (talk

) 18:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Definition lists are lists of definitions of terms. A cast section does not provide a list of definitions. It provides a list of actors and roles. All lists will have elements and descriptions related to these elements. That does not mean they are definition lists. If MOS:BOLD wrote just "Lists" instead of "Definition lists", then there would be an argument there. "Definition lists" identifies a specific subset of lists where bold formatting can be used. To say that cast lists can emulate formatting of definition lists is to say all lists can emulate formatting of definition lists, thereby defeating the purpose of the specification. If we had a Glossary of filmmaking terms, we can apply such formatting, but it does not work in film articles' cast sections. Erik (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Not true, Erik, that the guidelines only allow bolding for definitions. Please take another look if you're not clear on what they say. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, although there are clear parallels between definition lists and cast lists in cases where the character descriptions are as long as typical definitions. Also, the presence of a "Contraindications" section is confusing. It shouldn't be necessary if the previous sections already rule out cases that aren't explicitly mentioned. —

talk

) 23:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it inappropriate for editors to have removed the wording from this page while we are in the midst of discussing it.

Consensus, remember? We haven't even been discussing this half a day, so jumping the gun and removing the part of the guideline you don't like before we can properly discuss it doesn't exactly strike me as good faith. That said, I'm in favor of bolding the names in certain cases, because it makes sense that we would want the actors' names and the names of their roles to stand out from the rest of the text. Obviously this isn't a one-size-fits all recommendation, but I find it works well when the cast section is formatted as a bulleted list that includes not just simply names, but a decent amount of information on the casting and actors' background. Not to toot my own horn, but I thought Alien (film)#Casting came out looking really good when I wrote it, and I remember an FA reviewer calling it "expecially exemplary" (and that's with the bolding; nothing in the GA or FA reviews recommended removing the bolding). I feel that un-bolding the names causes them to be lost amongst the other text and internal links, where the purpose of bulleting the names in the first place is to make them stand out. I feel this is a "special case" (as termed by MOS:BOLD) similar to a definition list, where we want the item being defined (the actor & character's name) to stand out in the list. Also I feel I should point out that MOS:BOLD doesn't seem to reflect actual practice across the project: we use boldface in several cases that would seem to be counter to BOLD, for example in infoboxes for the banner headlines and names of each field, and in discography articles where we bold the album titles to make them stand out from the other details (the discography project has over 130 FLs, almost 100% of which use bolding in this manner...clearly a "special case" situation similar to what we're dealing with here). --IllaZilla (talk

) 18:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CONLIMITED says, "Participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." MOS:BOLD clearly identifies special cases for where to use bold formatting in the article body. We are used to having this formatting and need to overcome this mentality to comply with these generally accepted guidelines. Erik (talk

) 18:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the whole issue here is whether bolding in the cast section contradicts BOLD or whether it is a "special case" like a definition list, so CONLIMITED isn't actually the issue here. I've posted a note at the WP:BOLD talk page, hoping to get some opinions into this discussion from over there. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a need for the bolding in the cast section. The section does not seem to comply with MOS:BOLD's "special cases" argument. Very seldom should bolding be used (mainly just for the main sentence article title), and the cast section is not so different from other sections/lists that would require bolding to differentiate for readers. Usually, bullet points are used which help to break it up, or some sort of spacing assists with that. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I defined the case that is indicated in the guidelines: when a sentence fragment starts a paragraph and forms the subject of the paragraph, it's a case where bold is allowed. Those who want something else are not following the guidelines. If I am wrong about that, let's hear an argument on the substance. Nehrams is wrong that bold should be used "very seldom." That's not following the guidelines. Those who don't want the bold, explain why the case in the example doesn't point to the case I'm describing. Well done everyone with your excellent editing! --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if my explanation would qualify as wrong, unless somewhere in MOS:BOLD says to bold frequently. The guideline lists several allowable reasons to bold, but I don't see cast listings as definitions, which is the closest of the

three other reasons to bold. I'm also not seeing their example of the sentence fragment you are referring to. Like Erik pointed out above, our project's guidelines fall under the main guidelines, so if there is desire to add bold requirements for cast sections, then we need to clarify on the MOS:BOLD page, not here. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib

) 20:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the example given as a permitted use.

Glossary of trucking industry terms in the United States. Of course no one is proposing that we bold frequently, so that's not really on point. Naturally a general guideline isn't going to mention cast lists, so that's another straw man you're knocking down. In fact, the guide already allows bolding where a fragment is the subject of the following paragraph, so nothing needs to be added to the main guidelines. Although Erik wants to deviate from the main guidelines, I am not in favor of that. We should follow them. And I guess we can all understand instinctively why this use of bold makes perfect sense: the bold text is for emphasis of the matter under discussion. Many editors will probably not want to use it, too. That's also good. Thanks for your response! Excellent discussion! --Ring Cinema (talk

) 21:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If we need emphasis on the names, couldn't we rely on the blue links? If we must have a cast list, we can also use the bullets to guide our eyes down the list. —Mike Allen 22:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This is readable, where this is truly overdone. We cannot allow our personal preferences, which have been instilled after years of misapplication, to override the guidelines, particularly the Manual of Style. Erik (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It begs the question to assume that the guidelines buttress your claim. It's also wrong to argue that if some bolding is overdone then any bolding is too much. Thanks a lot. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Erik (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Character names usually aren't linked, and readers probably search the Cast section by character at least as often as by actor. Bullets don't help all that much when the character descriptions are around a hundred words or so. —

talk

) 23:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be in favor of using bold for cast names in such a situation as Codrdan and others have noted. While it kills my eyeballs on shorter entries where it's just "Some Dude as Some other dude" it IS helpful when the character descriptions go longer than one line. Millahnna (mouse)talk 00:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Using the formatting in any way with the cast section still does not comply with the Manual of Style, though. The guidelines were very specific about identifying the special cases of where to use the formatting. Our personal preferences cannot override these guidelines. If we are writing about actors and their roles in multiple lines, we should consider having prose about them, perhaps preceded by a simple bullet list of actors and their roles. We can identify them in such a list, then we can write in-depth paragraphs about them after. There are numerous ways to approach a cast section without bold formatting. Film articles can survive without the formatting used this way. Erik (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You're mistaken on this, Erik. The example given demonstrates clearly the type of case where bold is allowed. I'm sorry to keep mentioning the fact that the guidelines as written don't seem to support your position, but you repeat your conclusion seemingly without support. I have explained what I believe is the permissible case and why that fits (fragment heading, content). If you have a reason beyond your opinion, you have to go a little further and explain either how I'm mistaken or what is the paradigmatic case where bolding is allowed and why our cast lists are definitely, clearly, unambiguously outside that case. (I would mention that we are allowed to be silent on this issue in our guidelines and personally I think that's the best way to go.) Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If this is a debate, mark me: luke-warm opposed to bolding. I would be luke-warm in favor of bolding only the performer, not the role name:

• So & So as Such & Such

but I'm strongly luke-warm either way... Dekkappai (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Less is more. I can see how bold works in some articles but even then we could do without it, and as a general rule I think it makes more sense to be very selective and not use bold in the cast list. (Personally I'd italicize the character names.) My bigger objection would be to Wikipedia Project Film and Project Television having inconsistent guidelines, and last I checked (a few months back) they were using a lot of bold in the cast list. Two subprojects both doing different things but somehow claiming consensus is daft. -- Horkana (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually

talk · contribs

) 01:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So is the idea there that the plot summary lists the cast when a character is mentioned and there's a separate section for Characters that gives a paragraph on who that character is and their place in the piece? --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

First off, there shouldn't be sections devoted to character information. Any cast section should, ideally, talk about casting of characters and possibly notable character choices made by the actor. If there isn't that information, then the cast section becomes redundant of the plot section and they can easily be merged. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 02:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the idea that separate elements should somehow get mashed together seems misbegotten. The plot section's purpose is to tell the plot. The cast section gives the cast. The reception section covers one thing, production another. Sure, we could "merge" the reception section with the production section. Wouldn't improve the clarity of the article. The reason that plot summaries sometimes include an actor's name is not get it out of the way. The reason for that is that it gives a reference/reminder to the reader, i.e. which one was the brother? oh, yeah, now I remember. The idea that it substitutes for including the cast elsewhere is not thinking right. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It doesn't make sense to force readers to read the plot when they want to know about the cast and/or characters and vice versa. —

talk

) 05:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Depends on the series. If there is a need, a standalone character list is appropriate, but of course that would not apply to films. In the standalone character lists, the character names are NOT bolded, nor are the actor names. --

talk · contribs

) 02:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Still counting myself in favor of bolding, I seem to share a view with Bovineboy2008 and Ring Cinema (and I imagine others share this view as well) that the primary purpose of a "cast" or "casting" section is to focus on the casting process and the choice of actors, not to rehash or expand on character details from the plot. I often revert editors who fill the cast section with character details, on the basis that the cast section is not "plot summary, part 2". It should focus on the actors themselves: why they were chosen, what they had to say about the roles, notable credits that made them suitable for the role, and other pertinent real-world information. Obviously this can take the format of paragraphs or a bulleted lists, and right now we have FAs that use either or both of these formats (and there's certainly nothing wrong with that...whatever works best for each individual article). It's my feeling that, in a bulleted list format, we should aim for having enough supporting prose that each actor's entry contains at least a couple of lines of real-world background info. Given that, it's my opinion that bolding the actor & character names in such a list allows them to stand out, thereby aiding the reader in quickly eyeballing names and roles in a list (that ought to be) filled with supporting text and internal links. This combines the functionality of a simple "so-and-so as so-and-so" list with the substantive qualities of well-written prose. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, FAs that are 3+ years old is really not a good source for current MOS guidelines. As you may know consensus can change on a month by month basics. So what worked three years ago may not 'work' anymore. If any emphasis must be added, I advocate Ring's proposal of using italics. IMO, that would work just as well. —Mike Allen 06:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Mike, I didn't suggest italics. I don't think that's been proposed yet. My proposal is that we follow the guidelines and allow bolding of sentence fragments that are the topic of the paragraph following. Or, perhaps better, allow each editor to make up their own mind about it. (By the way, it is not true (per Erik) that the guidelines say that bolding is only for definitions. We're not limited that way.) Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup you're right, it was Horkana that said he would personally italicized. I apologize it's been a crazy day in wikiland for me. —Mike Allen 07:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Interpreting MOS:BOLD

RingCinema, I'm confused. Where does it say you can bold sentence fragments? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 15:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The rule is implied in the example given, where a permissible example of bolding is offered. There, a word or phrase (a fragment) is bold and followed by its definition. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Where? I fail to see an example at

MOS:BOLD advocating fragments are exceptions to the rule. It says it can be used for definitions. A cast section is clearly not a glossary of terms. BOVINEBOY2008 :)

17:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The guides don't say that only glossaries are permitted. It's an example. Well, what is it about the example that makes it a token of a general case? It's fair to interpret that for our purposes to include a fragment (as are all definienda in a dictionary) that forms the topic of the paragraph following. For this reason, cast lists are fine for bold. At the least, we should leave it up to page editors and stop trying to dictate. Let the editors edit. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The example glossary is an instance of a definition list. A cast list is not an instance of a definition list. There is no room for interpretation. Erik (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone who says there's not room for interpretation is unaware of how much interpreting they're doing. Definitions are one case under "Other Uses." Those are some other uses, not all other uses. Cast lists or even a similar list is not excluded. There's plenty of room for intelligent thinking, and what is lost by trying to dictate is that we lose the good ideas that new editors might bring to the pages. This is a relatively marginal issue, so it's preferable to trust the editors and follow the guidelines. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Those are some other uses, not all other uses." This is patently false. The passage clearly says, "Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases," and it lists what these few special cases are. It does not say "including" or "such as" to open the door to other possibilities. So yes, we should follow these Manual of Style guidelines, and the WikiProject guidelines should not contradict them. Erik (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for offering an interpretation, Erik. That is one possibility and clearly I read the guides differently. Seems like the guidelines say that there are a few special cases where bold is allowed (for example where a fragment is followed by its definition). In other words, if the page is better organized with the use of bold on lead fragments, that can work. Now, why we would want to prevent editors from making the articles as good as they can, I don't understand. I agree, we should follow the guidelines, but without foreclosing on good ideas in the future. Thanks again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that he is offering an interpretation, he is clearly stating what examples the guideline provides. Although you mentioned that fragmented sentences should start with bold font, that seems more like an interpretation since that is not mentioned anywhere in the guideline. I wouldn't say that by going one way or another on the bolding, the article is going to be any better or worse. Readers can still see the same words as they're written, we're just determining if making them pop out is really necessary when it's already broken up by spacing or bullets. As much as everyone wants to go back and forth on this, it still seems like the best option is to get specific guidelines determined at the main MOS:BOLD page, as clarification would be helpful for both our project and others (including WP:TV). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If he's not interpreting it, I'm not interpreting it. Sorry, that's just tendentious sophistry on your part. And transparent. I too can offer that I'm merely saying what the guidelines say. And please don't bother getting your "clarification." It's easy for all of us to see what an empty rubber stamp exercise that would be. You can't handle an open discussion even about something fairly trivial, you don't want to collaborate, you don't want to find common ground, you can't come up with a meaningful proposal that might be broadly acceptable. So what do you do? You try to find a way to quash the opinions you don't find convenient. Why haven't you criticized Erik for his bad faith? That's a serious matter, it's obvious that he can't handle having his judgment questioned, and this is your response. That's not leadership, and I believe you are supposed to offer something like leadership from time to time. Do you have it in you? --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The matter is closed. Since there are enough views that the WikiProject guidelines contradicted the Manual of Style, the guidelines will no longer expressly endorse bold formatting in any sense. However, since there are some views of its value in cast sections, the WikiProject will defer to MOS:BOLD, meaning that at this point the WikiProject guidelines will be silent on the matter. I will personally remove bold formatting from cast sections so film articles comply with the MOS, and I encourage other editors to ensure this compliance. The contradiction of the guidelines was really the heart of the matter, and it is now addressed. It should be expected that because WikiProject Films has practiced the tradition of using bold formatting for so long, it is understandable that moving away from these preferences and toward the Manual of Style is difficult. After all, I did endorse in the past bold formatting with multi-line bulleted items. Wikipedia is a dynamic enough place that we should be able to work with the characteristics of lists, prose, tables, etc. to figure out how to present a cast section without the bold formatting. Erik (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That's really sad, Erik. We all can see that you can't handle having your judgment questioned. Of course this matter is not closed. I'm afraid you've shown your true colors. You're comfortable as a dictator, not as a collaborator. And I emphasize, this matter is relatively trivial. Incredibly, you don't want your copy edited on Wikipedia! You don't understand how it works. Absolutely shameful behavior on your part. The matter is not closed and editors should feel free to use bold as they see fit. We're all going to have to ignore you until you show you want to collaborate with others. I will leave it to you to figure out in your heart and mind how you learn to compromise. For now, I think you should recognize that you are not fit to serve as a coordinator. Your obvious bad faith is transparent and you should show your respect for Wikipedia by resigning. Thank you for leaving gracefully. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

While I sympathize with Ring Cinema based on what I feel is heavy-handedness on Erik's part, I have to agree with Erik about the technicalities of

Thanks for continuing the discussion despite Erik's untoward actions. Hopefully he will resign soon for the good of the project. As for your point, I agree that guidelines limit the usage of bolding. By the same token, I'm sure the usage we're considering was not contemplated when they were written. Since we have a similar use in mind and many editors see the bolding as useful, I think it's in keeping with the guidelines to include some bolding per film article practices. But if some editors don't like it, that's fine too. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I would really like to again invite you to read

WP:AGF. I'm not too sure what the leadership requirement you are referring to above is. Coordinators do not get extra speaking power or bonus points in discussions, we are here to look at this issue and continue to look for ways to improve the long-term goals of the project. This is a simple discussion about a style change. There is no reason to continually focus on the editors, we should be dedicated to the guidelines themselves. As said before, our project falls under the guidelines of the main guidelines which were developed through consensus. We do not have the ability to create new guidelines that conflict with MOS:BOLD, especially when other projects rely on it. I will say again, as others have here, to focus our efforts at the main guideline page so this discussion can continue to move forward. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib

) 05:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want to address yourself to Erik's bad practices (probably because you happen to agree with him), you look just a little bit hypocritical. It was positively bizarre that he tried to declare the subject closed only a few hours after he first tried to justify his intepretation. So much for airing it out. (2) I'll repeat for you that I propose we follow the guidelines. There might be different ways to interpret them, but I'm not proposing that we ignore the guidelines. So you have to defend your interpretation, not just restate it. Cordrdan, for example, has done a very respectable job on that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Alien Resurrection & Predator 2

Can someone please de-bold the cast sections at Predator 2 and Alien Resurrection? Setting flagrant ignorance of MOS:BOLD aside, the bold formatting in these sections are pretty much useless with the bulleted items so close together. Erik (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Alien Resurrection is well within the guidelines. The page editors can handle it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I find Erik's request in very bad faith. He has been contiunally reverting the bolding in both those articles, and I've asked him to stop doing so as we are in mid-discussion about whether or not bolding in the cast section is appropriate. It is inappropriate to go around making stylistic changes in the midst of a discussion about them in which you yourself are a participant.

guideline, not a policy, and as it says right on the page: "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." --IllaZilla (talk

) 19:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Seven people are against adding boldface, and three people are for it. What more do you want to discuss? —Mike Allen 21:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Mike, with all due respect, I don't think you're the ideal person to ascertain the balance of opinion. Consensus doesn't mean quick polling in any event. There's no reason why the page editors can't handle it adequately. And Erik didn't offer a reason for his thinking until today. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Who's the page editors? —Mike Allen 22:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Since we're throwing out examples; Batman Returns is definitely excessive. Again, if those cast explanations went longer than one line each, I personally would have no problem with it (actor names only, not character) as I feel it could help readability. But this is definitely a case where bolding has been abused. Millahnna (mouse)talk 00:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to remove the bold formatting where you see it. You can open Microsoft Word or equivalent, paste the cast section in it, and replace all "<code>'''</code> instances with nothing to remove them. Then paste the section back into the article. Erik (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2010 (UT

Just to be really clear on things, I think it bears mentioning that we have three different types of information that could conceivably be sectioned separately. 1. characters: Hamlet, Polonius, Ghost, etc. 2. cast: Branagh as Hamlet, Kiera Knightley as Ophelia, etc. 3. Casting: The producers originally wanted Olivier to play Hamlet until they found out he was unavailable, so they turned to Branagh, who had to do a screen test, etc. These are three different ways of looking at it, at least. Maybe I'm forgetting one. So let's refer to them differently, too. There are characters played by the cast after the casting was completed. --Ring Cinema (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

... and while we dither around with these discussions instead of working on articles, articles are stupidly being made less useful... some project... Dekkappai (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the reason given for that edit and I just don't get it. How was having that link in there NOT helpful. Can someone explain the reasoning on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Millahnna (talk • contribs) 01:04, March 8, 2010

If you are referring to

WP:NAMB, it basically means that a reader would have arrived at a disambiguated article with purpose. They would not accidentally come across it looking for something else. (If the topic in question is confused with something else, then a hatnote is appropriate.) A popular instance with films is that when they are adaptations of source material, their articles will be disambiguated from the source material's articles (which is usually the primary topic). A reader who searches for the title could be looking for either the source material or the film, and the hatnote says, "If this isn't what you're looking for, then this will take you to what you're looking for." If a reader arrives at a film article that has the disambiguation, the reader clearly was not looking to find the source material's article. Does that make sense? Erik (talk

) 05:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It does make sense but on that basis I think that removing this particular hatnote may have been unwise. If you searched for Black Rain directly on Wikipedia you shouldn't have any issues as you'll see the distinctions for "Japanese film" and "film" and should know which you're NOT looking for. If you search by entering keywords into the Friefox awesome bar (which is how I generally end up looking for something unless I'm already here) you could end up at either depending on your choice of keywords. And the American film still has the hatnote directing misguided searchers to the Japanese movie. It seems to me like it is to the readers' benefit to leave the hatnote on the Japanese movie, as well. So I must be missing something or misinterpreting. Millahnna (mouse)talk 06:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

To be clear to all, we are talking about

WP:NCF#Betwen films of the same name, we should move both of them to Black Rain (1989 American film) and Black Rain (1989 Japanese film), respectively. We could then update the disambiguation page and no longer need the hatnotes. Erik (talk

) 14:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If you disambiguated by country, would the years still be needed? Seems like they could be dropped unless there are other films titled Black Rain from other years. But I don't know if there are. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point about not needing the years. The guidelines might have had a very common title in mind, like if there were five films of the same name and two of them were released in the same year, then we'd use the year and the country for these two. I looked up "Black Rain" at IMDb, and the only one that comes close is

Black Rain (American film). What do others think? Erik (talk

) 21:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not do what I suggested

Blu-ray Disc

first and BD afterwards?

As for some of your objections:

"An encyclopedia should aim to be clear. [...]" – That's why the two official forms should be used, and the first usage is normally hyperlinked, after all. By the way, take a look at the logo, it's a stylized "B" and "D".

"No one uses the BD acronym and so that shouldnt be used." – I do, and many people within and outside the industry do. Why would we be "no one"? Besides quantity doesn't equal quality, and oftentimes people would refer to things in an incorrect way; doesn't mean an encyclopedia should.

"go with common sense and call it Blu-ray" – To me, calling it Blu-ray Disc and BD, respectively, is common sense, and I take umbrage at my stance being labeled otherwise. Why should your idea of what constitutes common sense be worth more than mine? But you know what? It doesn't matter what our perceptions of common sense are, as this is simply a matter of correct or incorrect, and Blu-ray is the incorrect form – and the medium is a disc, after all, not a ray. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about elsewhere, but "blu-ray" seems to be the most common term here in the UK. I don't mind using "blu-ray disc" for precision, but the "BD" acronym seems rather obscure. It's not something I've ever seen used in the real world. PC78 (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Be in no doubt, everyone may comment on anything in Wikipedia. Even if they are completely wrong they are entitled to their stupid opinion.
The acronym BD never caught on even if it is "official" and should not be used, it is not in common usage anywhere near the extent of CD (from CD-ROM) or DVD. Don't do it. Ever. An encyclopedia should definitely try to be more correct even if most people do not feel it is necessary in common usage. Acronyms are a terrible idea generally as they tend to obfuscate simple ideas and especially so in documentation or any medium such as an encyclopedia where you are trying to be clear and to educate others (unlike academic papers where people throw acronyms like seeds on a farm, and expect you to just know what they mean and realize how clever they are by making things more difficult than they need to be).
Sure the official meaning of DVD is Digital Versatile Disc but it changed from the original Digital Video Disc after the fact, so I've a very low opinion of so called "official" names, any claim we should use BD when it really is not widely used. Seriously avoid acronyms, avoid abbreviations. Your readers will not even know to thank you but they will find your work less unpleasant to read. This is not a case of one source being correct and others not making an effort to do proper research, the term is not commonly used. Even so, in the unlikely event you convince people to use the acronym Blu-ray (BD) you must be sure to explain it properly the first time you use it in an article but again I would strongly discourage you from using it at all.
I'm a little surprised uKer felt the need to argue this point, but I suppose it does come up in the Home media section of almost every film article so it is good to have clarification. I would hope uKer learned from this discussion that "common sense" is a loaded term and that to use it is to presume your opponent is wrong without actually giving a solid reason. It's something we all do on occasion, it is difficult sometimes to be clear why one way on doing things is not a good idea, but it is always better to try to explain. -- Horkana (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

By common sense I meant going for the most common usage, which serves the purpose of maximizing clarity. It may be arguable what term you prefer to use, but there's absolutely no denying that "Blu-ray" is what the format is called in everyday life (go to any forum on the subject and see for yourself), and I personally see no improvement in calling it "Blu-ray Disc". Just my two cents. And yes, I saw it necessary to bring it up because it's relevant to a great part of current film articles and not just the article in question, which you can relate to from the fact that I opened the discussion here in MOSFILM. --uKER (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

On this basis, perhaps there is a case for moving the

Blu-ray Disc article to Blu-ray? In fact, looking at the talk page I see that Ὁ οἶστρος was pushing for use of "BD" there as well a few months back, though there weren't any takers. PC78 (talk

) 11:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"Blu-ray" is the whole format specification which defines a set of codecs, bitrates, resolutions, DRM, programmability, you name it. "Blu-ray Disc" is just the media the format defines, and in fact you can put a Blu-ray film onto a DVD and it will still adhere to the Blu-ray spec. That is why, saying a film comes out on "Blu-ray Disc" is like saying films came out on "VHS casettes" or games came out on "SNES cartridge". It's a pedantic, impractical technicism. Summing it up, Blu-ray Disc is the name of the media, not the format itself. --uKER (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

uKER, what you write there is simply not true. But don't believe me: Please consult the official white papers by the BDA (yes, that's BDA, the Blu-ray Disc Association, not BRA or any such thing) and check for yourself.

And the terminology is not redundant, either (and not analogous to the examples you mentioned) – constructions like BD disc, CD disc and DVD disc would be.

I still don't get why everyone is arguing with common usage. Why should that matter? It's a quantitative argument, not a qualitative one. Could someone please explain to me substantively why quantity should override quality? And isn't that also against

Blu-ray Disc article

to Blu-ray? (or to Blu-ray, also used frequently) – it would be plain wrong, but at least consequent.

And yes, I did suggest to use the acronym in the

Blu-ray Disc article

after introducing and explaining it first, as that would make the article much more readable. But except someone who has been harassing me ever since (claiming, among other things, feature film BDs wouldn't [normally] be present in 24p / 23.976p), nobody seemed interested to discuss it, so I didn't pursue it further.

Horkana, you wrote: "Even so, in the unlikely event you convince people to use the acronym Blu-ray (BD) [...]" – does that mean you plead for Blu-ray Disc only or do I misinterpret you? I didn't quite understand on which side you come down here – except that you're against the use of the short form BD. On this, among other things, you wrote that it never caught on. Well, yes and no. It's true many people, even advertisers, don't use it (which, again, I fail to see the relevance of, since there are many things which a majority has a wrong or imprecise perception of) but on the other hand, you can see the acronym on every BD box – after all, the logo is the acronym!

(Now, where does that leave us? Will somebody just say something like "Well, that ὁ οἶστρος guy is clearly in the minority here, no matter whether his points are any good or not, so I hereby declare that consense is found and hitherto "Blu-ray" shall be used in all pertinent instances.", or how is consense determinded? My apologies for my ignorance of Wikipedia's inner workings.) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Horkana makes a good point that 'Blu-ray' is the adjective that says what kind of disc it is. It's a Kleenex tissue, they are prescription glasses, it's an MP3 player, etc. So there are many ways to be stylish after the initial use of the term to refer to the same thing without ambiguity and we should be free to use them. ("I clean the glasses with a Kleenex to find the remote for my iPod.") A good writer takes advantage of that. But to never use the complete form seems pretty clearly wrong. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If using "BD" is objectionable, I'd suggesting using "Blu-ray Disc" for the first instance, then using "Blu-ray" for subsequent instances. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be mentioned that date references for upcoming films should NOT be expressed relative to the season of the year (eg "Summer 2011")? This timeframe is usually bound to the north hemisphere, and for this reason, doesn't provide a universally clear timeframe. --uKER (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

We can point to

WP:SEASON. Do you think it warrants a mention here? Erik (talk | contribs

) 15:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know that existed. Now I know and will be using it, but perhaps mentioning it proves useful for people to come. Feel free to decide whether it's worth it. --uKER (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I added mention of it at

MOS:FILM#Date formatting. It could not really fit in any of the previous sections because it could apply to production or to release. If anyone else has a better idea of where to put it, go for it. Erik (talk | contribs

) 15:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with it as it is. Good work. --uKER (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm looking for input about this discussion over at

I've started a discussion here. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Even suggesting a limit seems silly. A movie can run from an hour to over three hours, to demand it be summarized in 700 words or less seems arbitrary. The wording should be downgraded to a suggestion, or so many words suggested per hour of plot. An arbitrary limit just seems silly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The 400–700 word range is not a hard & fast mandate. Refer to the second and third sentences of the guideline:

• Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.)

Clearly a film over 3 hours in length with a very complicated plot falls within "plot is too complicated to summarize in this range" category. The suggestion of 400–700 words is fine in my opinion and suits the majority of film articles, while still allowing leeway for some summaries to exceed that length. I see no problem with the current guideline and have rarely had a problem working within it, even on articles about long films or films with complex plots. Careful writing and revision can almost always reduce a long plot summary down to the most salient details. As Strunk says, "make every word tell" (section 13). --IllaZilla (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

400–700 words is roughly half to one full side of A4, and you can pretty much summarise anything on a page of A4 whether it runs for 20 minutes, 2 hours or 4 hours. It's just a case of choosing an appropriate level of abstraction. The main point of the plot section is to tell the reader what the film is about, and they probably just want to give a couple of minutes to reading the plot summary, regardless of the length of the film. If you allow plot summaries over 1000 words going up to 2000 or 3000 words then you're getting into essay territory and I'm guessing no-one wants to read an essay. There are exceptions to that like when a film has more than one narrative thread like Pulp Fiction, where you need to adequately summarise each distinct story, or something like War and Peace which is broken into four distinct parts, but in the general case a side of A4 is easily enough. I actually don't think it is arbitrary, I think the 400–700 word guideline is well judged and well thought out in regards to what it is supposed to provide and what the reader requires from it. Betty Logan (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur with IllaZilla. The range suffices for the vast majority of feature films, especially the mainstream ones whose articles will be frequently edited and to the point of excessive detail. As a guideline, we use common sense in applying it and noting the occasional exceptions. Extraordinarily short or long films would be these exceptions. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Richard is complaining about the plot summary of Tron: Legacy being tagged. See related discussion here. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know a litle more about how the consensus of the day settled on that 400-700 word guideline. The plot summaries I've enjoyed have tended to be 800 words and upwards. I appreciate the detail and like to know nearly enough that I might be able talk a little about the film without having actually seen it. Admittedly some good editors are able to take those longer summaries and slimmed them to ~700 words without losing too much but it seems like more often and editor does a total hatchet job and cutting it down to 400 words. I do actually support longer summaries but only up to a point and I hate to see good work chucked out by over eager deletionists so I don't want to stray too far from the guidelines.

As Erik noted

Inception (film) and the plot summary there is a few hundred words shorter. -- Horkana (talk

) 02:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Horkana's perception seems right to me. Summaries of our length lose quite a bit of detail and not always to the benefit of the article. Personally, I feel that length should be relaxed or restricted not only based on complexity or running time, but also on the film's relative notability. One index of that is the number of page views. However, we may not have agreement on the purpose of the section. The audience we write for is vaguely defined (perhaps for good reason) so there's no rational basis to include or exclude any particular event. Sometimes that yields delightful results in the hands of a good editor. Sometimes something else happens that seems bad for the readers. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is that a concise plot summary is appropriate in presence of real-world coverage of a fictional work. A Wikipedia article is not supposed to be a plot-only description of the fictional work. Based on this, a plot summary for a film article should not be self-serving. Ideally, the way to go about writing a plot summary would be to maximize real-world coverage of the fictional work, then to write the summary in a way that the reader can absorb the story and any elements that will be later discussed. It's rarely that planned out, of course, unless an editor is making a dedicated effort to write a Featured Article. The problem is that in reality, details beget details. The more detailed we get, the more detailed we want to be. This is usually without any consideration for the summary's relationship with the rest of the article. We should discuss what conciseness means. Should the plot summary be relatively concise (compared to the rest of the article)? Should the summary be within a given range to be concise? For me, I don't think a plot summary is concise when it's especially over 1,000 words, even if the article is 100 KB in size. To me, concise means that a reader should have a reasonable understanding of what happens in the film. I would even be okay with a smaller range because the current range is one where details start to beget details, as opposed to 100 or 200 words, where you really do focus on the broad strokes, like in a studio's synopsis. Most film reviews, I think, are able to convey the story as part of their analyses without having to go into as much detail as some film articles do. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Erik. I think that sometimes editors forget that these are supposed to be summaries. Summaries generally give an overview of the plot, describing the major characters and events without delving into minute detail (this as opposed to a synopsis which is much shorter and really just broad strokes, or a retelling which would be much more detailed). The longer a plot summary grows, the more it tends to turn into a blow-by-blow of the entire story rather than summarizing the story for the reader, and the further our articles get from our goal of providing a high percentage of real-world information about the work in question. When you are asked to summarize a story for someone, you are not being asked to retell it word-for-word, you are being asked to give a concise overview. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

We may disagree on the details but we all to be pretty firmly in agreement that over 1000 words is just far too much. -- Horkana (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the important thing to bear in mind is that there are lots of top drawer plot summaries on Wikipedia within the guidelines so any problem with the summary most likely isn't because of them. Good short summaries can be written and the guidelines as they are encourage that. To be fair I wouldn't tag a 800–900 word summary as overlong since it is only just outside the goal posts, but once you get to around 1000 words it definitely needs tightening up. Betty Logan (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Very true, Betty. The real world dilemma that actually occurs: the choice between a short hack job and a well written longer one. I think the subtext here is that the limit might not make the articles better, given the interests of the readers. Anyone want to drag in something tangled and ugly like a piece of evidence? To some extent, it counts for something that some editors think the limit is too severe. They're not just ignorant or green or cretins; Wikipedia does its best when it gives the page to someone who is trying to write something useful. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how well a plot summary is written if it is not appropriately concise, and we need to determine what it means to be concise. Readers who are not familiar with policy or guideline will write bloated plot summaries at unattended film articles, so it is already evident that a hands-off approach will not lead to better-written plot summaries. Without a limit, then what should be the guiding criteria? To me, WikiProject Film is pretty lenient with its range, because "concise" to me would mean a tighter word count. After all, it's defined as "expressing or covering much in few words; brief in form but comprehensive in scope". Studio synopses are especially concise. It may be that the common ceiling of 700 words is a way to permit a little more detail than is actually needed. Now there's a clamoring for room for more details, without consideration for actual summarizing or being in service of the rest of the article. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I've never watched a film that had a plot summary that needed more than maybe 800 words (speaking specifically of overly complicated films). The best example of that would be Mememto, which plays backwards and forwards and is generally confusing for the average reader to follow. For that very reason though, I could still summarize the film's main events in probably 600 words if I chose to write it in chronological order, instead of following the confusing past/present dictation that the film uses. Which is only effective when watching and not when reading. I find that people want to include very minute details about films too often because those details were somehow "important". Maybe they were and maybe they weren't, but at one point is the plot summary just a substitution for watching the film?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The only reason the current limits work fairly well is because fast-paced films tend to be short and slower ones are usually long, so most feature films have about the same amount of content. But the limits don't work for short films or extended sagas, and they don't provide any guidance for whether any particular summary should be closer to 400 or to 700. —Coder Dan (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that's why it's called a guideline...because it doesn't require any sort of rigid adherence. Doniago (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that has nothing to do with my point...because I was talking about the guideline itself, not meta-rules about compliance with guidelines. —Coder Dan (talk) 00:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You claimed that the limits don't work for short films or sagas. My point is the limits don't -need- to work for those films because it's not a rule, it's a guideline. And even if it -was- a rule WP allows for exceptions to rules. Do you have actual suggestions for how the guideline's wording could be improved? If so, why not bring it up? Doniago (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The limits don't need to work for anything. We could discuss every film individually and have no guideline at all if we really wanted to. My point is that the guideline sucks, and your point that it's not explicitly prohibited by Wikipedia policy is irrelevant. As for suggestions, I suggest that we stop making excuses for the current limits and either discuss better ones or admit that Wikipedia's consensus-building system doesn't work. —Coder Dan (talk) 04:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool. What do you propose as a better one? Doniago (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I would start with a target range of five to six words per minute of runtime, with allowances of up to one word per minute for pace, complexity, and novelty. —Coder Dan (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

According to this, the top 50 films of 2008 averaged 110 minutes. That's 550 to 660 words for the plot summary. If a film is relatively complex, the extra-word allowance puts the summary at 770 words, which is outside the range but permissible as an exception per the guidelines. Why do you think the guidelines suck if your proposal falls in the same territory as them? Erik (talk | contribs) 06:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I already explained that:

> the limits don't work for short films or extended sagas, and they don't provide any guidance for whether any particular summary should be closer to 400 or to 700.

Maybe you should learn how to read.

—Coder Dan (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That proposal seems unnecessarily complex to me. —Mike Allen 06:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If that seems complex to you, then Wikipedia is doomed. The proposal is childishly simple given the complexity and variety of films covered by Wikipedia. The problem is not the complexity of the proposal, it's the simplicity of Wikipedians. ;) —Coder Dan (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Some editors prefer brief summaries, others more detailed summaries, so the current guidelines leave the level of detail to the discretion of the editors working on the article. It is not the place of a Wikiproject to tell editors how to write their aricles, but there comes a point when a plot summary becomes so long it is tedious to read, so all the guideline is designed to do is prevent plot bloat, which it does do when it is adhered to. Betty Logan (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The guideline sucks. —Coder Dan (talk) 14:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The guideline allows for exceptions, so short films or extended sagas are easily qualifiable exceptions which the guideline exempts, and can be dealt with on a case by case basis if they present a problem. Something like "War and Peace" for instance, would probably need an adequate summary for each part, and I don't think an editor would seriously by expected to provide a 400 word summary for a ten minute short—usually there is an obvious rationale for why the guideline shouldn't be applied in some cases. As for guidelines within the limit, I think that's getting too prescriptive—if the plot summary is well written and between the limits I don't think it should be taken to task because we have a 90 minute film with a 700 word summary and 3 hour film with a 400 word summary; if the summaries are serviceable then leave the editors to it. Betty Logan (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

"Anyone want to drag in something tangled and ugly like a piece of evidence?" — Sure, I'm game. Lately I've been browsing through Category:All Wikipedia articles with plot summary needing attention, looking for titles I'm familiar with, and seeing if I can tighten up the plot summary to get it within the 400–700 word range. A good example would be Dragonheart: It was at 1,330 words for a a bloody 103 minute film. By summarizing most of the play-by-play retelling & sticking to the most important details, I was able to bring the current version down to just 668 words (and it could even be trimmed further from there). Another was Beneath the Planet of the Apes: 1,180 words down to 664 words. Then Across the Universe: a bloated 1,730 words down to 683 words (and still managing to name all the major musical numbers). So yeah, in my opinion if enough critical writing is applied there's no good reason why the majority of film plots can't be summarized in between 400 and 700 words. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been doing the same thing, actually. Hit a bit of a wall with Magnolia. I've never seen the film, and I think reorganizing the summary might allow for some further truncation, but I've brought it up on the talk page for the film and haven't heard back from anyone. I'm not familiar enough with the film to do it without some support. Doniago (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You can make all the excuses you want, Betty, but the guideline is still crude and poorly designed. It has many more exceptions than it should, and it provides very little guidance within the accepted range. A summary for a typical 90-minute romantic comedy doesn't need any more than about 600 words, and one for a 120-minute murder mystery probably needs much more than 500 words. —Coder Dan (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Plot sections should be written to be concise, but concise enough to be able to make the rest of the article - particularly development and reception - make sense to a reader that never has or will see the film.

Memento is a good example that while it could be written in 600 words or less, the structure of the film is very significant to its filming and reception. On the other hand, your general shlock action or romantic comedy film isn't going to need a lot of plot construction. On the other other hand, some films in this may actually merit that need. The goal should be the 600 word average, but when the article starts to become fleshed out and is clear a simple plot summary doesn't fully fit the need, expansion should be appropriate. But I do argue that in such cases, going above 900 -1000 words is likely excessive. --MASEM (t) 01:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

400-700 words is more than enough to summarize a feature length film. There are

I don't think the point is if it is possible to summarize any or all plots in X number of words. Rather, the question is more like, what length plot summary works for the readers or helps Wikipedia accomplish what it wants to do? Clearly, a plot can be summarized in one sentence or extended to 100 pages if that is the assignment. All Wikipedia articles could be cut by 50% and we would make it all shorter. We don't do that because we are trying to provide something useful. So, does the guideline work in a way that helps us produce something useful? I don't see too much on that in this discussion explicitly but I am pretty sure most everyone is trying to produce something useful. MikeAllen: what is the basis for your assertion that readers come to film articles for the plot summary? That would be valuable information if true. Thanks very much! --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The rest of an article is not like the plot summary, though. A fictional work should be covered in an "encyclopedic manner", which to Wikipedia means real-world coverage. A "concise" plot summary is naturally appropriate as part of that. Per

WP:SIZE, readability issues should be considered, but this is rarely the case as most film articles are between being stubs and moderate developments. So this is the only real criteria for the size of non-plot content. I would personally take issue with 15 reviews being sampled in a film article's reception section, but that rarely happens, so we don't have guidelines on that matter. On the other hand, it's common to see plot summaries become bloated, or for trivia sections to be formed and expanded, so there exist guidelines to moderate these kinds of items that get out of control. EDIT: Also, Mike may have the impression of readers coming to the article for the plot summary only because the summary is especially edited above all else. I think it only appears this way because there are many ways a plot summary can be conveyed, and many readers are fresh out of seeing the film. It requires more effort for editors to contribute real-world coverage. Erik (talk | contribs

) 03:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You say you take issue with "15 reviews being sampled in a film article's reception section" and I want to respond to that. The best of the Featured Articles have a reception section that is not just a list of critics but a real depth of analysis backed up by many critics to examine differente aspects of a film from direction to script, cinematography to effects, from costumes to music, whatever the critics repeatedly picked out in reviews. At the most basic level I'd encourage editors to have a balance of postive and negative reviews based on roughly on how well received the film was (so I'd expect a film with mixed reviews like Tron:Legacy to include more criticism than it does now but many anonymous editors tried to delete the one harsh review I added) and the guidelines do already recommend trying to pick notable critics. If we are then a bit less simplistic about it you can actually find a harsh review is more thoughful and insightful about the bits of the film it actually does like despite being negative, and the notability of the words might be more than the notability of particular critics. Which brings me back to a few really good editors who can take a big long list of reviews spread across postive and negative, and across American and whatever other critics seem apporpriate and resynthesize that into a really good review of the different parts of cinema being praised (and when there is a pattern of praise or criticism for the story then the list of who and how many critics who echoed that sentiment is incidental). It's not the kind of writing I find easy and I'm struggling to improve Tron:Legacy at the moment but I hope it will get there eventually and a bit of early sprawl and excessive size can provide the building blocks for a different type of writer to write a more insightful overview. -- Horkana (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess my own original research Ring Cinema. Just watching how film articles are edited for the past year I have come to the conclusion that more emphasis is put on the plot section than any other part of the article. Do you see IPs or new users actively expanding the articles outside of the plot? —Mike Allen 06:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. You may be right but you're not talking about readers, you're talking about editors and inferring from their behavior about general readers. Can we agree that might be a leap? --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If many editors think that plot summaries are not long enough, maybe we should be thinking about the reason. They are not all ignorant, green, or cretins, are they? Maybe they're on to something. What purpose is violated when summaries are "bloated"? If we can't answer that, we don't have a rational basis for deciding what to include or exclude. And I think we miss the mark if we try to explain why they're "appropriate," since then we have to answer what is appropriate about it. It is not obvious why a film article isn't complete without a plot summary. My suspicion is that we find an implicit standard of notability as the basis of our thinking on this. However, I might be wrong. As a point of comparison, what is wrong about a trivia section that is not wrong about a plot summary? Some readers really find trivia fun and amusing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's policies is that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. One of that policy's key points is that there should not be plot-only descriptions of fictional works. It goes on to clarify when plot descriptions are appropriate. They can be provided in concise summary form as part of the work's coverage, such as reception and significance. In my experience, the key point exists because there is a tendency for editors to want to provide as much in-universe information as possible. It's very easy to accomplish that, but Wikipedia does not consider it encyclopedic. Topics like reception and significance make an article about a fictional work encyclopedic. Individual films are just one set of articles where indiscriminate in-universe information is problematic. A lot of articles about fictional elements (like characters or settings) hinge on whether or not there is enough real-world coverage about them. One solution to this is to have

Wikias that can host the in-universe information without the restrictions of Wikipedia's definition of an encyclopedia. There are major ones like Wookieepedia and Lostpedia. A kind of Film Wikia would permit an article about a film that can write 2,000 words about the plot, 500 words for each major character, etc. Is that an approach worth considering? Erik (talk | contribs

) 15:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Opinions differ about what makes an article encyclopedic and there's more than one way to interpret that. In my experience, Wikipedia policy is invoked by editors when it suits them and ignored at other times for reasons they can't well explain. Apparently some editors believe there is too much information about what's in the film included in some film articles, which is a bit like saying there are too many definitions in the dictionary. A good encyclopedia exercises editorial judgment when it decides what will serve its readers and its aims; we should be encyclopedic in that way first. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Our guidelines have evolved over almost 10 years of collaborative editing and consensus-building, and with respect to film articles the clear result of that collaborative process is a trend in favor of concise plot summaries as a balanced portion of the total encyclopedic coverage of films. If we based our guidlines instead on the editing trends of IPs and inexperienced users, we'd have articles consisting of 80% plot summaries and 20% unreferenced trivia sections, not to mention no end of original research, non-free images, and other content that's clearly not what we as Wikipedians have decided is the appropriate content for this encyclopedia. I don't think there's anything constructive to be gained by thinking that we should allow bloated plot summaries just because that's what fly-by editors seem to favor. It's very difficult to judge exactly what readers want from Wikipedia, because they rarely make their desires known, unless they decide to make edits which may give some indication, in which case they become editors. By nature of being Wikipedians and working in WikiProjects like this one, we make communal decisions that shape the encyclopedia. Sometimes consensus among editors such as ourselves may be contrary to what it seems are the desires of one-off or fleeting editors, and may even serve to reverse longstanding trends (for example, very lengthy plot summaries in film articles were once the norm, as were cover images in discography articles and trivia sections in nearly every article), but ultimately it results in a better encyclopedia that seeks to give well-rounded coverage of topics rather than constantly giving way to the fleeting whims of teh internets. Wikipedia isn't IMDb, which allows plot summaries of seemingly unlimited length as well as sections of "fun facts", "trivia and goofs", etc. If that's the kind of content readers want, well then Wikipedia isn't the place to find it and they should mosey over to IMDb. Wikipedia doesn't have to be all things to all people. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"Apparently some editors believe there is too much information about what's in the film included in some film articles, which is a bit like saying there are too many definitions in the dictionary." — Actually no, it's not like that. Keep in mind that these are encyclopedia articles. The inverse implication of your statement is that the article dictionary should be a list of word definitions, rather than an article describing what a dictionary is. Our articles are about films, not just about the content of the film. The content of the film (the plot) should be part of what our encylopedia articles cover, but a reasonable part in comparison to the total coverage. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, IllaZilla, I find your views usually very sensible and don't have a major quarrel with what you've said in this discussion. However, I think you misunderstood my analogy. Dictionary:encylopedia::definitions:articles. You took it to mean something else, I think, and is not my view. Or if you mean that the (false) inverse of what I said negates the validity of my analogy, I'm pretty sure that's not a good inference, since I didn't assert the inverse. It might even count the other way. Are our articles about films? Yes, and the plot summary tells the events of the movie itself. Is there potentially a problem with greenhorns simply recounting the plot of a film and mistaking that for an article? Well, yeah, but that's not really a big deal: either no one edits it, or someone does. If no one edits it, it must be rather trivial to begin with. It's true that Wikipedia has evolved, that's why I think we should keep an open mind. And, again, it seems a little strange for an encyclopedia to claim it's being encyclopedic by excising information that could be shared, just like it would be strange for a dictionary to decide there are just too many senses of a word for their definition word count limit. That would not be a good dictionary. Thanks very much for sharing your views, which seem very reasonable and thoughtful and not really that different from mine. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

@Ring, it may a leap but I have read many forums where users say something like "Oh wait for it [the plot] to be on Wikipedia". I have never seen someone say "Oh check out this film on Wikipedia it's very informative". It's usually always about plot, cast and trivia. —Mike Allen 08:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh sure I agree with your intuition but I'm just saying it's anecdotal. (Why would someone want to see the plot here? We spoil the film. If it is because they want to double check if they remember it right or understood it the first time, then the details matter quite a bit. And we are supposed to be a reference.)--Ring Cinema (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's possible we have evolved beyond the original purpose of the plot summary; the rules governing them seem to be very relaxed compared to other elements of the article, and perhaps they shouldn't be. We are having these problems because editors are getting free reign over what they can include, and the guidelines are possibly setting word counts through the personal preference of a few editors, and perhaps neither of these are in keeping with the Wikipedia approach. Erik argues for the guideline based on an argument of making the articles "encyclopedic", and I think that's the right approach to take but I'm not sure we can easily equate it with a word count. Perhaps the right approach would be to use the plot summaries for notable elements of the plot that we can source from third party sources i.e. what published works such as reviews or Allmovie summaries deem relevant to mention in their summaries of the film, so we essentially source the plot summary from possibly two or three self-contained descriptions rather than transcribe it from a personal viewing. If editors want to transcribe the film's plot, we can provide a "see also" link to plot entries at http://www.wikisummaries.org/Star_Wars:_The_Empire_Strikes_Back, and essentially cover both bases. We can make the film articles completely encyclopedi dependent on thrid party sources, and provide a sister article for in depth plot descriptions at Wikisummaries. Any takers, or am I going off the deep end here? Betty Logan (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting thought. I think the idea currently is that the film is the "text" that we summarize, just as we summarize what's in a book and then note it. To my mind, that is completely coherent, since the article is sourced by the movie. Your suggestion, Betty, would be along the lines of only using a book as a source if there was another source that summarized it before we summarize it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The film itself is a primary source, but Wikipedia tends to favor secondary sources. My suggestion is largely based on this policy here:

WP:PRIMARY. Betty Logan (talk

) 18:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikisummaries is not a

Cite video}}. --IllaZilla (talk

) 18:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I support the use of secondary sources, but I think that for the most part, it will muddle who is citing what. For example, an editor uses a book chapter to cite the plot summary, but others come by and change details based on their viewing of the film. It would only work if the article has a true steward. For example, David Fuchs uses secondary sources in his Featured Articles about Star Trek films, and I can't imagine the details going outside what are in the sources. In practice, the approach will not stop editors from using the films themselves to provide plot detail in most articles. It's too easy to use the film instead. Another thought is that secondary sources like reviews could be used as guidance to summarize the film better. It's ultimately a matter of how conciseness is interpreted. I think that 400-700 words is approximate of the upper limit of what conciseness means. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Conciseness(?) is not the purpose of the summary. Rather, it's a feature that may or may not be valuable for editorial aims. If concise is good, we want to be concise. Otherwise, it's not a value. The discussion here is about if and how much it is good to be concise, so it's circular to assume that it is good to be concise. First you have to show it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Per policy, a plot summary for a fictional work should be concise. If you disagree with that, it needs to be discussed on a policy level. It's not just a feature, but nobody's complaining that if a film is particularly long or complicated, you can go a little further. But for the most part, the plot should be summarized in a concise manner. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

For clarity, I'm presuming you mean "guideline", not policy, since the two are different in terms of priority and I don't recall seeing plot being discussed in this context in terms of any Wikipedia policies. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

To quote the policy "

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Plot summaries." So yes, it is policy that plot summaries be concise. --IllaZilla (talk

) 00:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you prefer, we're discussing how concise is a good thing. Ceteris paribus, the argument is the same. Circular reasoning still makes me dizzy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Concise is a good thing. It allows us to balance our articles in favor of real-world information such as the creation, reception, and significance of films rather than having articles that consist mostly of a blow-by-blow retelling of the plot. The real-world background information is the kind of content one would expect to find in an encyclopedia article about a film, as opposed to a lengthy plot summary. The plot is accessible merely by viewing the film, while the real-world information (background, reception, etc.) is not. Wikipedia seeks to provide and explain the latter. If a reader cares more about an in-depth explanation of the plot as opposed to other information about a film, there are other websites they can visit—such as IMDb or Wikia, which are not encyclopedias—where that kind of content is plentiful. Lengthy plot summaries do not further our mission of providing real-world, encyclopedia-style coverage of films. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Damn, IllaZilla, you are good. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely there ought to be a section in each article saying what films (or TV series, or books) are referenced in the film, and what films or other media reference this one. I'm not even sure what the title of this section should be, given that "references" is used for footnotes and citations. 86.41.41.221 (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Such a section would risk becoming a trivia list which is generally discouraged, although some film articles do have them. A better idea is to integrate "inspirations" into the prose of the production section and "influences" on future films and other media into the reception section, provided you can source the information of course. Betty Logan (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Betty. What you are describing, 86.41.41.221, is basically a

Wikipedia is not a game of pop culture connect-the-dots. --IllaZilla (talk

) 23:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As for the example you mention, something very similar is often seen as "Cultural references". I have managed to include in artilces a Themes section, or if my references were really good put them somewhere under Production (Writing usually) and if all else fails I allow the critics to say in the Critical response section how for example they see the influence of Stanley Kubrick and get my cross references to in that way.

Film review by cross referencing other similar films is a bit trite and lazy but it works. I imagine a well written program could digest reviews and generate adequate quality film articles. But back to the point, the guidelines as they exist at the moment don't encourage what you suggest but if are willing to put in a lot of time and effort you can express the same points you feel are interesting in other ways more acceptable to other wikipedia editors. -- Horkana (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I got the impression from the IP's comment that what they were after was more this sort of thing, which to my eye falls in the realm of

TRIV. --IllaZilla (talk

) 07:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That section is ugly as sin - listomania gone mad - but those films are barely written at all and consist almost entirely of referencing other films and passing it off as parody. It would be doing readers and editors a disservice if we were excessively strict interpretation of the rules be used as an excuse to delete all that good faith effort instead of trying to salvage something from that mess. I guess a case like that I'd push that ugly abomination to the talk page and insist that people go through the many reviews on out there and come up with proper references for at least the main films being referenced which in the case of

Meet The Fockers

- even properly referencing those two is something the article fails to do.

Some of those references are so obviously supported by plot, such as cases where the character name makes the intended reference blindingly obvious and insisting on citations in cases like that would be unnecessary.

It's not that difficult as I said above to cram much the same information into the critical response section. (Seems like Ebert wasn't forced to review it, so moving on to the next critic whose name I remember...) Owen Gleiberman actually managed to say nice things about it in his review: Owen Gleiberman (200602-22). "Date Movie (2006)". Entertainment Weekly. Time Inc. hodgepodge of My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Bridget Jones's Diary, Meet the Fockers, Hitch, and Sleepless in Seattle {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

That article can be improved if anyone actually cares enough to do it, didn't take me all that long to write this comment. Deleting is an easy, improving is hard but that misses the point of Wikipedia, which at its best usually does

gradually improve. -- Horkana (talk

) 13:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, just to clarify: I wasn't advocating a trivia section. Perish the thought! What I mean is, sometimes a film references another film and it's an important element of the film. What I had in mind specifically was that Re-Animator is referenced in American Beauty, when Lester and Ricky are smoking dope outside the real estate bash, and again later when Lester uses it as a code when he wants to buy dope off Ricky. American Beauty, in turn, is referenced in Madagascar when Alex dreams of steaks falling on him like the rose petals in AB, with the AB theme playing. References like these, to my mind, are notable, and hard to work into a "production" or "criticism" section. Date Movie should have a section like this, but in prose, mentioning the most important references as outlined by Horkana above. References in something like The Simpsons, on the other hand, would not be notable, since The Simpsons references everything eventually. 86.44.195.18 (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines mention "review aggregate websites" I'm not convinced this is good grammar. Added to this I've seen editors write "Review aggregate Rotten Tomatoes" entirely dropping the noun explaining it as a website (which amusingly sounds a lot like some kind of slime or mold that gathers on overripe fruit). Depending on how the sentence was phrased Rotten Tomatoes could be described as a Review aggregator and that sounds correct just like a more commonly used phrase Trash collector. We wouldn't say "trash collect group" or "news collect agency" we would say collection group/agency. Sure you can use "aggregate" but I really do not think this is one of those cases, I'd appreciate if the adminstrators changed the wording, the simplest change being to write "review aggregation websites" instead. -- Horkana (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the lack of any comment compared to the usual mass of comments I can only take the silence as agreement. Went ahead and made the change. -- Horkana (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Further to my previous comments I think saying "Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a score of 100% based on reviews from 100 critics" already gives enough context to suggest it is a review aggregation website and the link provides more information for those who want to know more.

If others want to explain that it is either a review aggregator or a review aggregation website I'll leave well enough alone but I hope editors will use one of the two suggested wordings. -- Horkana (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That seems complete with the link. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've had enough of the plague of editors adding Protagonist and Antagonist to every character description they see. Other editors have also removed incidents such as these labelling them "pedantic" and although at first that seems a little harsh I'm in full agreement now. In some cases it gets even more ridiculously pedantic and editors write about secondary and tertiary antagonsists or protagonists, even going so far as to use riduculously pretentious words like tritagonist. It would be far simpler to say "hero" or "villian", and that still fails to consider the anti-hero. (This has happened many times, but the latest incidence of it is at List of Tron characters.)

Fundamentally I think this kind of wording is pretentious, using unencessary big or overcomplicated words is a failure to communicate as writers should speak in a language appropriate to their audience. I expect Wikipedia has many readers who do not have English as a first langauge but it is still poor writing even among native English speakers and smacks of lame attempts by editors to show how clever they are or their ability to use a Thesaurus. Keep it simple.

I'd like to get some consensus among editors to keep on removing this when we see it and also amend the cast/characters part of the guidelines to specifically ask editors not to spell out protagonist/antagonist like this anymore. It only serves to highlight that the plot summary or character description has failed if that kind of pedantic explanation is actually necessary, it almost never is. -- Horkana (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes the best choice of phrasing is dependent on the film. You can use "hero" and "villain" in something like Star Wars or Indiana Jones, but it's a little bit murkier in something like Blade Runner or The Godfather, where perhaps protagonist/antagonist is more suited, and is arguably more encylopedic because it removes the moral judgment that comes with the hero/villain tag. I've never used either set of words, but protagonist/antagonist is a "one size fits all" terminology (that encompasses anti-heroes), so if I had to choose one set of terminology I'd opt for that, but personally I think the terminology is best decided article by article. Betty Logan (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Remove - Unnecessary and pedantic. Also, and here's where I'll get -really- picky, it's OR if sourcing isn't provided. If a reader can't figure this info out from the plot summary then there's a larger issue. Cast section should focus on the actors in any case, not the characters. Doniago (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If there is an OR issue surely it applies to hero/villain as well? Betty Logan (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd tend to say that's the case. I don't see any reason to "label" the characters, especially without sourcing. Doniago (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I am okay with words like protagonist and antagonist being phased out, but I don't find them damnable enough to be blacklisted in the guidelines. While the words can be abused, I agree with Betty that they can be occasionally suitable. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This is misguided. Identification of protagonist and antagonist is basic to a description of a work of fiction. It's not pretentious, it's accurate. Hero and villain frequently don't apply, neither does main character, lead, principal. Only protagonist hits the nail on the head every time. That's why it's there. I don't even agree it needs to be sourced, since it's a word that is either used correctly or incorrectly, like any other word that we want to bring into an article. Of course if there is some question (see No Country for Old Men) then bring it to discussion. One of the great quiet antagonists is the protagonist's husband in Howard's End. Let the editors decide on each article, since our collective wisdom is the strength here. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear on exactly what the problem is. If editors are going through a character or cast list adding "(protagonist)" / "(antagonist)" parentheticals or something like that next to the characters' names, I'd say that's unnecessary. But sometimes it can be pertinent in the prose to mention who the main protagonist and antagonist of a story are, if it fits the sentence structure. For example in the Harry Potter (character) article and List of Harry Potter characters I would expect it to be mentioned that Harry is the chief protagonist of the series. So in List of Tron characters I don't think it's inappropriate to mention that Flynn is the main protagonist of Tron while Saark is an antagonist, or that in Tron: Legacy Sam Flynn is the chief protagonist and CLU is the antagonist.

I don't fully agree that this is original research, either, as it's self-evident from the film and I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to find a source referring to these characters as the hero or villain of the story if such a thing were challenged. Now, in a film article, where we already have a plot summary that describes the roles and actions of the characters, I agree with Doniago that we don't need to label protagonist/antagonist / hero/villain in the cast section. But in a character list article, which doesn't include a plot summary of the film, then it seems like a pertinent thing to mention since we can't assume that readers have seen the film.

I also don't think that we need to start banning the usage of plain English words. "Protagonist" and "antagonist" are, I think, pretty common terms in English for anyone with a basic high school education. This isn't the Simple English Wikipedia; we don't need to dumb things down quite that much. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

My comments were definitely aimed at the Cast section of film articles rather than "list of characters" articles. One could argue that if it shouldn't be difficult to find a source, than there's no reason not to provide one. Conversely, if it is difficult to find a source, perhaps we shouldn't be describing the characters thusly. (smile) I definitely don't support banning the terms entirely, but sentences like "X is the protagonist of the film" in a film article with a well-written plot summary, strike me as utterly pointless, and somewhat POV'y when applied to films such as Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. Doniago (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

There's really not a connection between the quality of the summary and the correct use of 'protagonist'. And the demand to source that particular word is similarly spurious. Like any other word, you can use it right or you can use it wrong. The editors of each article can undoubtedly handle this without any extra help. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

There's English and then there's plain English, there are degrees. Protagonist is a more academic word you might expect in an essay or written English fair enough, but not something you'd expect in much in converstational English. You certainly cannot suggest Tritagonist or Deuteragonist are simple English words, that they are in most cases wikilinked only serves as further evidence of overcomplication. It is unnecessary and redundant to go through the cast list of every article spelling out that the (almost always first listed) character is the "protagonist". This is not something that really needs to be pointed out, proclaiming Ben Stiller as the protagonist of Little Fokkers for example is laughably pretentious, and saying it should be avoided is hardly dumbing down.

The slavish addition of protagonist and antagonist to articles without thinking is it actually necessary to point this out, is only a minor example. Some editors really try to show off their word power in the extreme, but the existence of simple English wikipedia certianly not a license for wiktionary:sesquipedalianism. -- Horkana (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The word "protagonist" is not like "tritagonist" or "deuteragonist" in terms of common use. They relate to each other hierarchically, but "protagonist" is much more widely used than these two. Look at protagonist "true grit", for example. I agree that it can be abused such as being used repeatedly in a cast list, but it has its uses. Could the issue be more about the directly-applied labels, as opposed to "protagonist" being used as a variation or in context, such as the way the True Grit reviews use it? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I would reiterate that, IMO, a well-written plot summary should obviate the need to explicitly state (and possibly infer depending on your perspective) whom the protagonist and antagonist are in the Cast section of a film article, but I'm willing to abide by consensus. It just seems that to me, "X is the protagonist" is a worthless statement. If you've read the plot summary you already know this, and I don't see how that particular sentence improves the quality of the article or one's ability to understand it, beyond someone showing off their vocabulary (says the editor who just used "obviate"). Doniago (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should dumb down Wikipedia by keeping out useful words. Doniago's opinions are fine for him and he can bring them to the articles he edits. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that no consensus has been established yet, I would appreciate it if you didn't marginalize my opinions as you seem to be doing here. My apologies if I have misunderstood you. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I offended you. Everyone is marginalized in exactly the same way. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a ban on particular words. I would like editors to be able to justify themselves when they take an unusual approach. I don't think I've seen any Featured Articles that felt it was necessary to explain in the cast list who the protagonist and antagonist was, but if there are case I'd be interested to evaluate them.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think anyone here is saying the cast list should always include explantions of who is the protagnist and antagonist (such as "Harry Potter is the protagonist of the film" or "Voldermort is the primary antagonist of the film"). And I'm not saying a film article should never use those words. As was pointed in the case of "True Grit" in the context of the Critical response it might be entirely appropriate to use that phrasing. It is in the cast list that it seems particularly clunky and unnecessary.
I wouldn't take how people write on the talk page as representative of how they write in articles, I certainly make more effort to check my spelling and don't write as casualy when writing for articles.
The cast list guidelines already encourage editors to focus on other things and not to say much about the character, the example focuses on the essentials "thuggish assitant" and in that context where editors are expected to be succint and econmical it hope it becomes clearer why I see explaining things like "secondary antagonist" as something that should be discouraged. If I had to write a guideline I'm not quite sure how I'd do it, a bit more consensus here might be enough to do it. -- Horkana (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that 'secondary antagonist' has a good chance of referring to nothing. As usual, there are going to be exceptions. Spiderman seemed to have a double antagonist storyline, didn't it? --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The two strands to the story might be something worth mentioning in the writing or production section, it might also be indirectly expressed in the Plot section. What I'm particularly taking issue with would be if in this example an editor was to change the cast section to say: Spider-man is the protagonist; Sandman is the primary antagonist; Venom is the secondary antagonist; etc.

It might not be my first choice of wording but if the critical response or writing sections were to compare our friendly neighbourhood Spider-man to the heroes (protagonists even) of Greek myths and legends I wouldn't object to that. The short bit of [Spider-Man_3#Cast|description of spider-man] in the cast section is good since it gives context to the comment from Maguire about playing a darker version of the character. Explaining that Spider-man is the protagonist would be especially redundant here since it is already explained that he is a superhero. -- Horkana (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Your thinking here seems sensible to me. Perhaps we're not quite understanding each other and I'm sorry if that's the case. If the objection is to some implicit requirement that the protagonist always go identified qua protagonist, I agree that's excessive, restrictive, narrow, and simple. When the discussion got into banning the word as too smart or sophisticated, well, every other approximation is just a stand-in. 'Protagonist' is irreplaceable in English at the moment. (Thanks for your patience.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it was User:Millahnna who I first noticed cleaning up this kind of thing, I expect a comment at some point. Some examples to make it even clearer what I'm talking about:

• Unstoppable (2010_film) Protagonist Antagonist. The difficult boss is an antagonist to some extent but to overtly label him as such seems to miss the point of this action movie, the potential disaster is what is important.
• Norbit short character descriptions are fine, but explaining that the title character is the protagonist is not particularly helpful.
• The Losers (film). Protagonist, secondary, and antagonist. There is a link to the description of character in the comic book where he is describes as the "second in command" which might actually be worth mentioning.
• Harold_&_Kumar_Escape_from_Guantanamo_Bay [5]
• Alpha_and_Omega_(film)
• Miss March This might be the worst example I've seen just about every "tagonist" you can think of. (Even bad films deserve better Wikipedia articles.)

I'd list more but even digging out these few from my edit list took way longer than I thought. Now that I've pointed it out you all might also notice it more. -- Horkana (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the examples. You and I have a small difference of opinion on this, so I'd say two things: 1) there is nothing wrong in my mind with identifying the protagonist and antagonist, particularly the latter. In fact, I think a pretty strong case can be made that it is our job. We are the researchers and experts, not the reader. The idea that if you want to know who's the main character you should read the whole article and ferret out that information is an abdication of editorial responsibility. Yes, we have to tell people obvious things, and our articles are full of them. That is what we do here. I'd like to hear the rationale for cutting that information. To return to a favorite analogy, it's like a dictionary that doesn't give complete etymologies because if the reader wants more they can trace it back themselves. Well, yeah, sure, readers can figure out all kinds of things if they want to research them, but they have to do a lot of work and they might get it wrong. What's the point of withholding information? We're an encyclopedia! (2) Editors should do the editing. You, Horkana, did the best editing job you could on those articles, and Miss March really needed it. If you and I edit an article, we'll have to come to some understanding about how to handle protagonist and antagonist, and hopefully we'll improve the article that way. If that doesn't work, then Wikipedia doesn't work, cuz that's how Wikipedia works. Thanks a million for your excellent thoughts on this subject. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure we have to tell readers obvious things and give adequate context but but then we have a guideline

WP:OVERLINK where editors decide we've gone to far and are linking things that (at least in context) are a little too obvious

. Similarly I think spelling out antagonist and protagonist for every story ever is a little too obvious.

At the risk of going a little offtopic your description sounds sounds a lot like we should be doing more semantic tagging. If I could tag a character as protagnist or antagonist without it resulting in such ugly state-the-obvious prose I might consider it. In some ways sincerely I appreciate efforts to add greater depth of meaning to Wikipedia, I make significant use of templates and the less I have to do with style formatting (bold/italic/etc) the better, since a template adds meaning then others can consistently add styles later. (I'd love it if Wikipedia actually used date templates everywhere, so that I as a reader could always see dates in my preferred format, date formatting differences are simply not something we are ever all going to agree on. If I could use a template for colour/color and then see the most appropriate one depending on my locale settings that sort of thing would be great too.) I've no problem with adding more underlying semantic information so that a clever computer system could do more with it. Ultimately I'm an inclusionist and I'm happy to format data in ways others can transform into what they want.

We see many cases editors rearranging the list of starring actors in the infobox or inexplicably rearranging the Cast list. Perhaps there is some better way to express the protagonist antagonist details you are interested in presenting? As I said before the changes I've reverted seem out of keeping with the existing guidelines, and precedent of Featured Articles. Counter examples would be interesting. -- Horkana (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Basically I agree with you. The cases where it seems most important to mention protagonist or antagonist are films where it might not otherwise be clear. Howard's End's antagonist is my personal favorite example, since he's married to the protagonist and we maybe don't want to think she'd marry the man who thwarts her and be so oblivious, etc. So by that logic we can most easily dispense with the designation when it is impossible to miss: when it's the headlining star mentioned first who is brought into every sentence of the article one way or another. But what if the star is the antagonist (e.g. Terminator)? The protagonist might not be obvious. These are cases for the editors and I'm fine with that. (Is Wikipedia better if the articles are more alike or more different?) --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)