Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

Plot before production?

I notice that of all the featured film articles, about half have the plot section before the production section, such as Sunset Boulevard, and the other half have the production section first (the Star Wars films). These style guidelines seem rather vague as to which order the sections should go in, but I think it should be consistent for all film articles. Personally, I prefer the plot section first for a more logical flow, but what does anyone else think? Green451 23:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I used to be ambivalent about this issue, but I think people generally prefer for it to be at the beginning of an article. Since plot summaries are supposed to assist real-world context, the Plot section at the beginning sets the stage for the real-world information that follows -- Production, Reception, et cetera. I don't think it needs to be mentioned in the guideline, though... the guideline should be flexible enough that a different order may be necessary (though I can't think of any immediate examples). It's a more inherent trend to follow, I believe. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you need the plot section first because it's often difficult to describe the production without referring to the plot. Also that's how people experience films: most people watch them for the story before they want to learn about how it was made. Cop 663 00:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I also agree that Plot should come before the other sections. It additionally benefits any possible spoiler complaints that may occur by users reading details about the plot that are mentioned before the Plot section. Girolamo Savonarola 00:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

What does everyone think about implementing this rough layout in the guideline, then? It could be as simple as saying after the first sentence of WP:MOSFILMS#Article body, "The Plot section should generally proceed other sections of the film article." Saying something like "generally" would give it some ambiguity in case the order needs to be changed for whatever reason. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. It keeps it flexible for special situations.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this as well, although I think we should use a stronger term than "generally", to emphasize that the order should only change in exceptional circumstances. Green451 17:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
How about "customarily"? Or too broad still? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Works for me! Green451 02:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think that the production section should go first - it helps establish that the article is in an out-of-universe perspective, whereas the plot section going first foregrounds the aspects of the article that are most-often irritating fanservice. Phil Sandifer 17:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Images

I expanded the instructions for images somewhat to help explain some of the fair use requirements and have included several example non-free images (in links of course) that editors can reference to. I've also seen other projects reducing their images to be 300px or below in one of the dimensions, and have included that as well. Over the last few weeks I've been reducing oversized images as I come across them, so hopefully some information here will help prevent other large images from being uploaded in the future. Feel free to edit the things I added if you think it can be better worded or add other example images that meet the criteria. --Nehrams2020 23:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the purpose of Image:Evanark.jpg needs to be explained in the image description better, something like the text at Image:Sunshine spacesuit.jpg. Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, I'll modify it now. I'll also include that image under example images. Is the 300px or below requirement reasonable to you? --Nehrams2020 23:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. I've re-uploaded the Sunshine spacesuit image to be 300px at its longest dimension. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking we should organize a drive or just develop a subpage within the project that lists all of the oversized images and/or ones that have already been reduced that need the old oversized image to be deleted. Normally, you would have to reduce the image, add the reduced tag to it, wait seven days for an administrator to delete the old version, and then they have to remove the reduced tag. With our own page within the project, once we have educated the members, they can fix their own images or images they run across and then list the images on the subpage for one of the project's administrators to delete the old versions. I think it would be easier and less time consuming, and help ensure that the images that come through have proper sources, copyrights, licenses, and FURs. Do you think this is something feasible down the line? --Nehrams2020 00:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Citing critics who use spoiler warnings at the beginning of Plot sections

In the Plot section of the this guideline, it says:

Now provide a more comprehensive plot summary. As this is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement, you should include plot twists and a description of the ending. For guidelines on using (and not using) spoiler tags, see WP:SPOILER. The events of the film do not have to be described in the order in which they appear on screen, however; see Pulp Fiction for an example of this. Spoilers should not under any circumstances be deleted, as it directly contradicts the Wikipedia-wide content disclaimer. There are also other unacceptable alternatives which have been proposed in the past. In short, Wikipedia contains spoilers; please respect this policy.

The {{spoiler}} template was deleted recently so any mention of spoiler tags should perhaps be removed from this guideline. After Template:Spoiler was deleted, the spoiler guideline was rewritten and I wondered about some wording in this guideline.

The Plot section of the style guide also says "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the film itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the film. An exception to this rule may be films containing plot details that are unclear or open to interpretation, in which case the different interpretations should be sourced to be reliable sources."

I am wondering if it is considered acceptable to cite film critics who use spoiler warnings in their reviews and mention these critics at the beginning of plot summaries. The idea that certain information may spoil a film for people who haven't seen it yet is open to interpretation and this guideline says "different interpretations should be sourced to be reliable sources." (I think the "be" in that sentence seems out of place by the way). I admit that placing such an interpretation before others in a plot summary may be biased, but I think such an interpretation could really only be placed before in-depth plot details.

For an example, I can point to the article on the film Million Dollar Baby (this revision specifically). I propose that the following be added to the Plot section of this guideline:

If one or more film critics (whose reviews are published in reliable sources) have included a spoiler warning in their review of a film, it is acceptable to mention this interpretation at the beginning of a plot summary and attribute it.

I would appreciate some input about this from editors involved with WikiProject Films. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the MOS should be updated to remove the line "For guidelines on using (and not using) spoiler tags, see WP:SPOILER." However, I disagree with the suggestion that critics reviews be used to get around the deletion of the tag, or to try to apply it to spoilers. Wikipedia is not a spoiler free zone and there is no need to mention that a plot section will contain spoilers. Collectonian (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Citations from critics are not to "get around" the deletion of the tag. Spoiler tags had no citations 99.9% of the time. I realize that Wikipedia contains spoilers, but interpretations of films should cite secondary sources. --Pixelface (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how a critic using a spoiler warning in their review has anything to do with different interpretations of a film. They could simply be being curtious to readers who may not have seen the film. As for critic interpretations in general, I think that needs to come in its own section, later. I think that section in the MOS is a little off to begin with. You generally cannot "interpret" the plot to a film in many ways. You can interprete themes, symbolisms, and other subjective topics, but a plot is basically the objective information about the film. When you start drifting into interpretations, you're straying from basic plot information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 08:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The policy on no original research says "Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses" and this guideline says "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the film itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the film. An exception to this rule may be films containing plot details that are unclear or open to interpretation, in which case the different interpretations should be sourced to reliable sources." A film critic who uses a spoiler warning in their review of a film has made the interpretation that foreknowledge of certain plot details will affect the first viewing of a film. I know that many film critics use spoiler warnings as a courtesy, but it stems from the interpretation that the viewer should be supervised by the film, not the critic. Many other critics do not share that interpretation. I think critics can and do interpret the plots of films differently. WP:NOT#INFO says articles on fictional works should offer sourced analysis. I suppose the interpretation that a plot description should be preceded by a spoiler warning could go in a Critical reception section, but I think such an interpretation is directly related to the plot and is more appropriate when placed before a plot summary. --Pixelface (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Good point about updating the MOS for the deletion of the spoiler tag. But I can't go with you for the second part of your proposal. I know that some people wish we could have some spoiler protection, but that's at odds with WP's purpose. Film critics specifically write for audiences who haven't seen films, in order to give recommendations on what to see or not to see. Our goal as an encyclopedia is completely different. Spoilers are desirable here, and new readers learn that quickly. You might just as well propose that if reliable publications publish reviews that don't include details about the ending of films, neither should the plot sections of those articles here. I'm sorry, but your logic just doesn't make much sense to me. --Melty girl (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Citing published sources that use spoiler warnings is not about "spoiler protection", it's about fairly representing verifiable interpretations of films. Does our goal as an encyclopedia include citing reliable sources? I personally feel that plot summaries should cite secondary sources to avoid original research issues and to follow our policy on verifiability, but that is another topic I suppose. I think articles should be written from sources. If one or more reliable sources makes the interpretation that plot details should be preceded by a spoiler warning, we should cite them and attribute those interpretations to them and place it before the plot summary. --Pixelface (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the three comments above not from Pixelface. Now, as a matter of courtesy only I attempt to keep any spoiler information within the plot section of an article (except where it might inform critical commentary elsewhere), and perhaps editors can be encouraged to adhere to that where possible, but anything else is going against the aims of this place, which is after all an encyclopedia and not a film website à la IGN and the excellent AV Club. Shall we nevertheless reword the guideline in accordance with the changes to WP:SPOILER? Best regards, Steve T • C 08:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not think citing reliable sources goes against the aims of Wikipedia. Do you agree that Wikipedia articles that contain interpretive claims should attribute those claims to a reliable source? --Pixelface (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
A spoiler is not part of the plot. If a critic finds something in a movie funny or it reminds them of their childhood that doesn't mean it belongs in the plot. If they think something might spoil the movie that's still their opinion and it doesn't belong in the plot section. I don't see your logic, Pixelface.
As long as the spoiler tag mention here is being cleaned up, Pulp Fiction's plot has been revamped so that it follows the film's structure, meaning it no longer works as an example of writing an linear plot form an non-linear movie. Also, there's nothing wrong with referring to reviews when writing a plot—in fact, I think it should be encouraged—but if there are multiple reviews that all relay the same information as in the film no one review needs to be cited. The same way we don't cite the distance of the earth from the sun in the sun article, because it can be easily confirmed by anybody. Still, there are many abstract movies where citations may be in order. This would be rare in the grand scheme of things and almost non-existent in terms of Hollywood movies but I'd like to keep that part for more surreal and sometimes just badly made films where it might require an expert just to spell out the bare facts. Doctor Sunshine talk 11:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Pixel, what film has a plot that requires various interpretations? Interpretation requires subjective material, anything subjective is probably not plot information but "underlying themes". We'd put that in a "themes" section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Plot summaries do not forbid subjective material. Any subjective material must be attributed to a reliable source. And I don't think plot summaries are as objective as you think. Unless something is explicitly stated in the dialog, some degree of subjectivity is involved when describing the plot. Million Dollar Baby is one film with different interpretations. Michael Medved interpreted the film one way and "spoiled" the film. Roger Ebert interpreted the film in another way and gave an explicit spoiler warning. A spoiler warning is not a theme. Any reliable source that uses a spoiler warning before describing the plot should be cited before the plot summary in an article to keep it in context. --Pixelface (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My issue with this is more with the decontextualized nature of the spoiler information than anything else. A single hanging sentence about critics who used spoiler warnings just doesn't add to the plot section in any real sense. Now if the plot section were to be re-written to weave in out-of-universe information regularly (as with, say The Daleks) I could see spoiler warnings having some place in the section. But putting them at the start of the section is arbitrary and artificial. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If a reliable source uses a spoiler warning before describing the plot, any reference to that spoiler warning should precede the plot summary in the article. Placing it anywhere else in the article takes it out of context. --Pixelface (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
See, I don't even think you need a tag there, because by nature any fictional topic article will have spoilers in just about every section. If you're talking about the writing of a film, you'll spoil something most likely when writers talk about key scenes that had intended symbolisms. Spoilers are a part of the page, and pages would be cluttered with "don't read this if you haven't seen the film" tags all over the place. If someone's coming to read a film article and they haven't watched the movie yet, I feel that's their tough luck if they get spoiled. I was recently spoiled over at Smallville (season 7), because I missed the most recent episode, but was still trying to maintain the page from vandalism. It comes with the territory whether you're editing, or simply reading. If you know an article is going to have plot information in, and you haven't watched,read, listened to that topic yet, then do yourself a favor and go do that before you read the Wiki article. At least, that's how I see it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The {{spoiler}} tag was deleted so you don't have to worry about "tags all over the place." If a reliable source uses a spoiler warning, your personal opinion about spoiler warnings is irrelevant. If you think it's tough luck if a reader gets spoiled, that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. But you cannot say a reliable source ceases to be reliable because they use a spoiler warning. This is about citations. Not opinions. Readers who have already seen a film really don't even need to read the plot summary. I already know to avoid Plot sections if I don't want to read plot summaries. But I am not the only reader of Wikipedia. --Pixelface (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
A reliable source using a "spoiler warning" makes no difference on Wikipedia though. They are doing that for the benefit of their readers, we do not. Simple as that. Their spoiler warning is not what we are after, it's their interpretation of the film. How they decide to write up their reviews is solely up to them, and has no bearing on how we write up our plot sections.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Do we cite secondary sources for the benefit of our readers? Do we cite interpretations in film articles? Are secondary sources forbidden from plot sections? --Pixelface (talk) 05:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
You are missing the part about us not reporting the fact that a review has spoilers or that the review is shielding the reader from spoilers. For every reviewer you find that has a spoiler warning, I bet I can find one that doesn't. It's a courtesy the reviewer chooses to give, which has nothing to do with the film itself. Plain and simple. If you want to cite a plot, be my guest. But you cannot justify a spoiler warning for a plot section by saying "well he warned the reader". That's his/her style of writing, which has no bearing on Wiki articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
A spoiler warning is an interpretation of a film. You said "For every reviewer you find that has a spoiler warning, I bet I can find one that doesn't." Fine. This guideline should state that. We shouldn't give undue weight to one particular interpretation, we should represent views as fairly as we can. It should be decided on an article-by-article basis. I'll find reliable secondary sources that use spoiler warnings and you find reliable secondary sources that reveal spoilers. If a reliable source presents one interpretation of a film, that doesn't make a reliable source that presents another interpretation of a film invalid. If a reliable source publishes a spoiler warning, a statement in an article that mentions that interpretation and cites that reliable source is valid. Citations in reliable sources has everything to do with Wikipedia articles. We wouldn't be warning readers. We'd be mentioning a verifiable interpretation of a film. --Pixelface (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly about tags. What I meant was that the statement "many critics found X to be significant enough that they used a spoiler warning for it" could conceivably be of value somewhere in a plot section. But not if it is serving as a coded spoiler warning - only if it is serving as contextualized information. A good test for this is whether the information could go in the article with either "Many critics found X to be significant enough that they used a spoiler warning for it" and "Many critics used spoiler warnings before discussing X." If the latter formulation is necessary, it's probably not serving as contextual information. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Any reliable sources that use spoiler warnings before a plot description should be cited before the plot summary in an article. To mention it elsewhere would be to take that interpretation out of context. It's not a "coded spoiler warning", this is about citations and context. --Pixelface (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I can't say that I favor spoiler alerts just because a reviewer says, "Skip the following paragraph, it has spoilers!" What if we come across a reviewer who is just too nice and doesn't want to spoil Romeo & Juliet for readers? Who would be considered authoritative in declaring a part of the film to be spoiler-ish? What if a person considers oneself spoiled when details of the film's first act are revealed? It seems to me to be an all-or-none decision, and considering the constant subjective nature of what constitutes a spoiler for the readership and what doesn't, Wikipedia is better off without making that call to judgment. Additionally, I'm not sure if reliable sources are applicable in this manner: WP:RS#Why reliable sources? says nothing about assisting in the implementation of non-content material like spoiler coding. I understand that Wikipedia has had spoilers for so long, and quite frankly, it shouldn't have started out that way. There's too many ways in which spoiler alerts may or may not be applicable. Some readers may want to read a certain portion of the plot summary, perhaps past the point where the alert is provided, perhaps before that point. Wikipedia isn't meant to reflect what future or recently released films would be good for the readers to watch; these are encyclopedic articles about the films that are intended to provide knowledge about the film for the long run. Plot summaries are only supposed to exist to complement such sections, so they should not be treated as primary aspects of film articles. Wikipedia has too long been the source of what-the-film's-about and cool-film-trivia instead of real, long-lasting encyclopedic materials about films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
"Who would be considered authoritative in declaring a part of the film to be spoiler-ish?" This is already covered by the guideline on reliable sources. Basically, a blog that uses a spoiler warning is not valid because blogs are not considered reliable sources. Self-published sources are also not generally considered reliable sources. If a professional critic uses a spoiler warning, that is citable. I realize the subjective nature of what constitutes a spoiler, that is why editors opinions should not come into play. Any interpretations should be attributed to reliable sources that make those interpretations. Spoiler warnings are interpretations of films. And "spoiler coding" is irrelevant because the {{spoiler}} tag was deleted. If the articles are meant to provide information about the film for the long run, any spoiler warnings that appear in reliable sources should be mentioned before the plot summary. You said, "Wikipedia isn't meant to reflect what future or recently released films would be good for the readers to watch; these are encyclopedic articles about the films that are intended to provide knowledge about the film for the long run." Then perhaps no film articles should contain plot summaries if the film is currently in theaters or on DVD. And spoiler warnings that appear in reliable sources, being interpretations of films, are "long-lasting encyclopedic materials about films." --Pixelface (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Wiki is not censored, so removing a plot summary for a film in theaters is not an option. It's part of the article one way or another. If the film isn't in theaters then it's on DVD. Just because someone didn't see it when it first came out doesn't mean they will see it on DVD right away either. Readers take that risk when they come here to read film articles. They should be clued in to the big "Plot" that is in plain sight when reading the article. If they haven't seen the film, it's quite easy to skip over it, as you said you do yourself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
In that case, why not move the plot section down so that more important sections get more prominence? Starting film articles with plot does suggest that they are the most important section. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Moving the plot section is irrelevant to this discussion. If you want to move the Plot section, fine. But my question was about citing secondary sources in the Plot section. --Pixelface (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I would be completely receptive to that. It does seem to declare a certain sense of importance to put the plot on top of everything else. Of course, the argument can be made, "This is the topic of the article, it should go first." Not to mention that a lot of film articles will have a hefty plot summary and very little production information to precede it. However, this approach can be more in line with WP:PLOT, treating such sections as more complementary. Perhaps a separate discussion on such matters is warranted? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I am very interested in the possibility of moving the plot section down in our MOS. It would be a lot of work to implement, but I think it's a good idea on many levels. --Melty girl (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I dislike the idea of moving the plot done: it is the fictional context for the rest of the article. Alientraveller (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Another item to add: Some reviewers mention upcoming spoilers because they are interweaving their take of the film with the story of the film itself. (Some do a good job, some don't.) Here on Wikipedia, we make a very clear distinction between plot details and critical reaction, so this should not be a concern. Perhaps more useful discussion could be had about how to discuss spoiler-ish elements outside of the Plot section? I've generally done my best to be implicitly vague, especially with an article like Fight Club (film). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Secondary sources are not forbidden from plot summaries. Any interpretations should be attributed to reliable sources that make those interpretations. If a reliable source uses a spoiler warning before a certain plot detail, it should appear in the article before that plot detail to keep that interpretation in context. --Pixelface (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
That makes no sense. You're saying we should have plots that go: "John comes into the office--USA Today's Mike Smith put a spoiler warning up here--and revealed himself to be Mary's long lost brother"?? Why would you write like that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't write like that. I would write like this. --Pixelface (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention that it's still an interpretation. For example, I recall reading Roger Ebert saying, "You should go into this film cold" for Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, but other reviews give plenty of information up front. Should we be liberal or conservative in our approach? Why is it not acceptable to treat the premise of a film, either in the lead section or in a section preceding the full Plot section? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
So attribute that remark to Roger Ebert and cite him. And I think a Premise section is fine too. --Pixelface (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Break

If I'm reading this correctly (and it took far too much time to do that), the proposal is to include spoiler warnings before plot details if some reputable media (pop) critic has done the same? A number of contributors have already pointed out that the media critic is writing for a different audience and purpose than is the WP film article editor. The media critic is participating in the marketing of the film, WP is not. WP is more akin to the writer of film (or literary) criticism, minus the original research. Can anyone imagine a writer of film criticism constantly warning readers that a crucial plot element is about to be revealed? Media film critics rarely reveal plot elements that may injure the viewing experience; this most often occurs when the critic believes the film is fatally flawed and feels she/he must include a plot detail to justify her/his opinion/analysis. If that's the case, then mention of the critic's unusual action may be suitable to the article's Response section, certainly not the Plot section.

I guess I'm struggling with understanding the rationale behind the suggestion.
Jim Dunning | talk 20:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The policy on verifiability says nothing about a source's purpose or a source's audience. And neither does the guideline on reliable sources. The intended audience is irrelevant. You said "The media critic is participating in the marketing of the film, WP is not." Really? When a film critic gives a film "1 star" they are "participating in the marketing of a film"? When a Wikipedia article includes a promotional poster, it is not participating in the marketing of a film? Any concerns you have about marketing is already covered by what Wikipedia is not, specifically, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. An interpretation of a film that holds that certain information is best discovered on your own has nothing to do with marketing, it has to do with this found at no original research policy page: "Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses", and it has to do with this found at the policy of what Wikipedia is not: "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot." This guideline MOS:FILM#Reception says "you should analyse how the film was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known film reviewers." Indeed, a plot summary without critical commentary would likely not qualify as fair use. My suggestion is that interpretations are perfectly acceptable in Plot sections if those interpretations are attributed to reliable sources. If you want to cite a writer of film criticism, go ahead. I won't stop you. But don't stop me if I want to cite a reliable source with a different interpretation. The interpretation that a film is best discovered on your own is not really suitable to a Response or Reception section. --Pixelface (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
My feeling is that the proposal is illogical and unworkable, and it seems that most editors here don't agree with it. Still, I think we also aren't sure precisely how the proposer envisions it working in practice. I would suggest that the last chance for this proposal is to post an example plot section here. --Melty girl (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Citing reliable sources for interpretation is illogical? Here is an example of what I am talking about. --Pixelface (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
What Pixelface has tried for No Country for Old Men: this and this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that is completely and utterly absurd. I'm not even opposed to spoiler warnings myself. But this is not the way to do it. Roger Ebert's decisions about what is and is not a spoiler count as indiscriminate information. This makes the article look like it was written by a 9 year old. For shame. Cop 663 (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
No, if you'll kindly read WP:NOT#INFO it says "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot." An interpretation of a film by Roger Ebert is sourced analysis. Citing interpretations by reliable sources is absurd? This guideline MOS:FILM#Reception says "you should analyse how the film was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known film reviewers." And what if I was 9 years old? Wikipedia lets anyone edit. --Pixelface (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so harsh... while I oppose his goal, such examples are probably not final. I imagine if there had been consensus regarding this, there'd be more collaboration in terms of presenting such spoiler alerts to make it look fitting in Wikipedia articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Erik: we shouldn't be harsh. Many excellent ideas are initially unpopular. Who knows: in three years spoiler tags may be back in vogue in WP.
Jim Dunning | talk 21:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I looked and it just appears to be an end-around to insert spoiler warnings into Plot. I'm guessing that Pixelface is arguing that spoiler tags should be used in WP if a critic did same. Sorry: no way! (Have to chuckle, though: I found myself reading the Plot section to see what Pixelface has done and suddenly realized I was about to read the ending and I'm not seeing the movie till next weekend! lol)
Jim Dunning | talk 21:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Just an "end-around"? Mentioning that a notable film critic gave a spoiler warning is not a spoiler warning, it's citing an interpretation of a film that has been published in a reliable source. I am not arguing that spoiler tags should be used in Wikipedia if a critic did. There is no spoiler tag. I'm saying that plot summaries should offer sourced analysis per WP:NOT#PLOT and that's what this is — sourced analysis. --Pixelface (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Ha! That's funny, so did I! And, sorry, didn't mean to be quite so harsh, but ... that is what I think. :S Cop 663 (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Erik, thank you for the concrete example. Unequivocably, I must say no to adding a critic's admonishment to a plot section in the way that was done with Ebert for No Country. This methodology makes far less sense than a general spoiler warning, though that's what it seems to be serving as. You could similarly add "Richard Roeper gave away the ending to this movie in his review, when he said..." and it wouldn't be any more relevant to the plot section, which merely needs to relate the plot and should eschew critical response and interpretations. The film itself is the media source for the plot section, and we don't need critics to babysit us there. Telling the reader that a critic used a spoiler warning is not analysis. --Melty girl (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm coming into this discussion late and having been offline for way too long, but without having read most of the above comments (...getting headaches reminiscent of old spoiler policy discussions...), the newly-resolved encyclopedia-wide spoiler policy is clear, simple, and unambiguous. This does not deserve so much discussion, and especially not here at the project level, which has no superseding "jurisdiction" with regards to the matter. If we wish to discuss section ordering or use of primary vs. secondary sources for particular matters, there are other sections above for precisely those topics. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not a policy and it's not resolved. --Pixelface 23:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Descriptive plot summaries and primary sources

There has been a debate on Talk:Million Dollar Baby about whether the film can be used as a primary source in writing a descriptive plot summery of the film so long as the summery does not make any analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. One editor is suggesting that because there are no reliable secondary sources cited in the plot summery, it is entirely original research, and we cannot trust that the editor who wrote the summery actually saw the film. He even went so far as to remove the citation to the movie that I placed from the plot summery because I didn't write the summery. Your comments are welcomed. --Farix (Talk) 21:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation is not needed for plot summaries, which are inherently cited as the topic itself. All editors have a certain way of writing any source, primary or secondary, and reviews by other editors need to ensure that the presentation of the information is neutral. It's not original research to write about the plot of a film in a descriptive manner. It'd be original research to make assumptions about any details that are not clearly identified. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
"Citation is not needed for plot summaries, which are inherently cited as the topic itself." That contradicts the guideline on reliable sources which says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If the description of the film has not been previously published, it's original research. It's doesn't matter if the description is accurate, the criteria for inclusion in articles is verifiability, not truth. A reader has to be able to see that the description has been previously published. --Pixelface 21:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. This has been brought up a lot recently, I'm going to assume by the same few editors, just on different pages. If I paraphrase a review by Roger Ebert, the paraphrase itself could contain original research. The only way to know if by viewing the source. In the case of films, the source would be the film itself. I've read plenty of reviews from critics who gotten things wrong in the film they were reviewing. That's most likely because they are writing these reviews hours, sometimes days after they've viewed the film, and have probably forgotten specifics. Original research can be created from any time of source when you are paraphrasing. You cannot say, "well, the review would have a url to view", because there are plenty of sources out there that come from books. We don't outlaw book sources, which would require having a physical copy to verify the information. This is just the issue with public editing, we have to assume good faith with their edits. If you find descrepencies then you should correct them. If something seems off, but you cannot verify it yourself, then I would bring it up on the talk page of the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
With books, you can cite an ISBN and page numbers so readers can easily find the information that supports the material in an article. Films don't have page numbers or a international identification scheme. On Wikipedia, "verifiable" does not mean "a reader could rent the DVD and watch the film and verify the article if they want to." It means "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." A reliable third-party source. --Pixelface 22:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Um, psst, but if you don't have a book then you have to go check it out or buy it in order to "verify" it. Secondly, there is a "minutes" section in the cite video template, in case you didn't know. If you wanted to, if you were that anal, you could theoretically cite the exact time any given even occurs in a film with that template. It's a little over board, but possible. Please show me the rule that says primary sources are not allowed. I don't think you will, because it doesn't exist. So long as the source is reliable, and what's more reliable than the film itself? I can think of plenty of reviews I've read where they actually got details of the film wrong. Secondly, unless you copy word for word what a reviewer stated, there's the possibility of "original research" when you paraphrase his/her plot description. Another thing, the verifiability page reads:"This page in a nutshell: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." - To pull specifically, "reliable, published source". The general overview of verifiability does not say they have to be third-party. What it says later is that the article should rely more on third-party sources, but is not restricted to those. Please read WP:NOR, specifically that part on primary sources. I won't quote the whole section for you, because I'm sure you're Wiki-savy enough to find it. But I will pull one thing for you: "only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." -- If you find a plot summary making "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims," then obviously it is not complying with WP:NOR. But if the plot IS following the requirements of using a primary source, then there's nothing to be said.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Amazon.com and Google Books let people search inside books for free. But even if a book itself is cited, articles need to be written from third-party sources per the guideline on reliable sources. Even if I accept that the film is a reliable source, the person writing the plot summary is not. That is why we must cite previously published information. If it's unpublished, it's original research. There is talk to merge the guideline on reliable sources into the policy on verifiability. And the primary/secondary/tertiary sources section of the policy on no original research is currently disputed. Original research does refer to "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" but it also refers to "unpublished facts." Films are not published. Films are not reliable sources in and of themselves. If they were, no film article would ever need references. --Pixelface 22:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
No, they let you search selected pages. If someone used the actual book, you're less likely to be able to view the pages they used on Google Books. Where exactly does it say "no primary sources"? Please show me. Just because something is contested does not mean you ignore it for the time being. People have contested many of our policies, but we follow them until consensus changes them. Regardless, a film IS a published source. Do not confuse that fact, films ARE indeed published information. What do they do with films when they are finished making them? They copy them and release them to the public. What do they do with books when they are done writing them? Wait...that's right, they copy them and release them to the public. Read publishing - "Publishing includes the stages of the development, acquisition, copyediting, graphic design, production – printing (and its electronic equivalents), and marketing and distribution of newspapers, magazines, books, literary works, musical works, software and other works dealing with information, including the electronic media." War and Peace is a published source, just like War and Peace (film) is a published source. Also, there is only so much you can get from a film before you have to find secondary sources. DVD commentary IS a reliable source, and is used for citing production information about a film. Just because you don't like the idea that you have to go watch the film to make sure the plot summary is correct doesn't change the fact that the film verifies itself, so long as there are no subjective claims made about the events that take place. I think you are misunderstanding what WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR are saying.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This has been discussed quite a few times, I believe. The movie is the primarily source and it is a reliable source. Any editor can watch the movie and see if something is incorrect. Unfortunately, that particularly editor is well know for her fighting virulently against movie articles having spoilers (latest discussion attempt), who refuses to listen to the entire rest of the Film project or any other editors. With the deletion of spoiler template all together and being told in that discussion that no, she can't go around saying "Ebert called this a spoiler", I guess this is her new method of trying to get rid of spoilers, by trying to proclaim the whole section is OR and get rid of the plot section all together. *sigh* Unfortunately, I don't know that, other than being unwilling to yield to consensus, I don't know if she's done anything bannable. Either way you are correct that the film is an appropriate primary source, same as tv episodes are the primarily source for the episode lists.
The only thing I do agree with is there is no need for a citation, per the MOS, because the film itself is the implicit and explicit source. :) Collectonian (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
If the film was a reliable source, trivia sections would not get called original research. I would like input from WikiProject Films, but the style guide for films appears to contradict the the guideline on reliable sources that says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." You talk about television episodes being the primary source, but TTN is redirecting them en-masse when they lack reliable sources. I don't think there's such a thing as an implicit citation. We have to cite who said it and where it was previously published. --Pixelface 22:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Um, please do not confuse the requirements for notability with the requirements of sourcing. TTN is redirecting articles because they do not assert their notability. Reciting a plot, even with 12 secondary sources, is not asserting notability. Also, trivia sections are simply unencyclopedic. They aren't removed because of not having reliable sources (even though some make some outlandish claims), they are mainly removed because Wiki isn't a trivia house. If the information is citable, then it should be incorporated as prose, into a legitimate section of the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
What Bignole said. Individual character and episode articles do NOT meet notability requirements and should not be created unless real world notability can be asserted. Hence the redirect, to either the main article or to an appropriate list of article that is a subsection of the main. (which I'm also part of the massive effort to clean up). The lists of frequently do get tagged for lacking cites, which is easily done using the film or show (most people just don't make the effort). The list of episodes, being a subsection of the article, are generally considered appropriate, and can include some real world info (like DVD releases, availability online, etc. Individual episode articles are what is not notable and no appropriate. But that argument is already well covered in the TV project and is completely unrelated here. No one is saying Plots should be broken out into their own articles (which would swiftly get merged back or AfDed).
There is a difference between being uncitable (no source), and no one wanting to take the time to source the entire thing (using the primary source: the film). We could go through through and put a citation tag on every last sentence pointing to the minutes, or even just put a single citation on the plot header for the movie. However, consensus is that in the case of film plots, the citation itself IS implicit and that adding a citation tag to say "this plot comes from the movie this article is about" is NOT required (and frankly, would look just plain silly). By your reasoning, the very first line of every film article would have to include a citation to prove the film even exists, because the primary source of its existance is...the film!
As for your argument that the plot is OR, not according to the WP:NOR. Specifically, from WP:PSTS, "to the extent that an article or particular part of an article relies on a primary source, that part of the article should: only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source." Film = primary source, plot summary = descriptive claim about the information (content) of the film. So no, giving a plot summary that describes what happens in the film is not OR.
FYI: You ARE getting input from WikiProject Films, but it seems like you don't like what we're telling you. Collectonian 23:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
In response to Bignole, Television episodes are not reliable sources in and of themselves. And neither are films. Why should an editor have to cite trivia if the fictional work is the implicit primary source? --Pixelface 22:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:IINFO: "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." There are many, many observations one could make about any topic, fictional or not, but that does not mean it should be included. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You are lumping all trivia together, don't do that. Saying, "John Doe said, Friday the 13th is the best horror movie ever." is citable by the television show, because you can watch the show and find out if he said it or not. What you cannot do is cite the show when you write, "John Doe's expression of F13 as the best horror film ever made it clear that the director of that show loved F13". --That's not basic information, it's an interpretation of the event, and interpretations require secondary sources. Sorry, but you cannot lump everything in together and say "that's wrong".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems very disruptive for Pixelface to have started this strange policy argument at the talk page for a single film article. S/he should be encouraged to discuss it here or on a broader WP policy talk page rather than being allowed to disrupt a single article. But the bottom line: film is media, and of course it is a valid source, just like a novel would be a valid source for its WP article. --Melty girl (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The talk page for a film article is for discussing how to improve the article. I don't think I was being disruptive and I don't think I've made a "strange" argument. I've read Wikipedia's three core policies. The policy on verifiability says "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." The policy on no original research] says the term original research refers to "unpublished facts." and "Facts must be backed by citations to reliable sources that contain these facts." The policy on no original research] also says "Compliance with our Verifiability Policy and our cite sources guideline is the best way to ensure that you do not violate our NOR policy. In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article; the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent these sources and the views they reflect accurately." The policy on neutral point of view says "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." All three core policies mention reliable sources. The guideline on reliable sources says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." A film is not a third-party source. --Pixelface 22:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
After reviewing the sources cited in "support" of the so-called "spoiler debate" in the film article, I think that there is no debate, and it's not really about spoilers. Whether to reveal a plot twist (or that there even a twist) in a review is an issue that certainly occurs. At first blush this film could be grouped with other works like The Sixth Sense and The Crying Game where giving away the ending could ruin the viewing experience. Million Dollar Baby, however, gets into this issue not so much about the ending being a surprise or twist (it wasn't for many), but because the mercy killing is a hot-button and carries a lot of emotional/ethical weight with it. More specifically, many who felt strongly about this element of the story had difficulty discussing the issue without giving away the ending (okay: they found it impossible). Focusing on a "spoiler debate" in the article, however, distracts and detracts from the more notable issue of the euthanasia theme and the accompanying discussion.
Consequently, the issue shouldn't be about when reviewers use spoilers, but how the euthanasia theme was addressed by reviewers and other writers. There isn't much of a spoiler use "debate" in this instance. Instead, the material should be rolled into a themes treatment.
Jim Dunning | talk 15:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding of the phrase Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It doesn't mean that articles cannot have any primary or tertiary sources whatsoever (as policy makes clear) - it states that on the whole, articles need grounding from neutral and trusted sources. Well-developed articles, such as our FAs, have a minority of content within the Plot section - the vast majority which discusses the subject is secondary sources. That does not preclude the usage of primary sources where appropriate, which is no different than how one would summarize a novel, a play, or an opera. I would be concerned if articles were generally void of third-party sources, but there's a difference between the entirety of a developed article, and a particular section. It is also worth bearing in mind that the needs of articles on fictional subjects differ from those of non-fictional ones; were it not the case, there would be considerably less guidelines, policies, and MOS pages, including this one. Girolamo Savonarola 12:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Even more so, the use of secondary sources is more important when a potentially "controversial" claim is made (for films, this can be even statements such as "Film such-and-such was the highest grossing film in the summer of 2006"), a primary source can be used to help support, but cannot solely support the statement. But for "non-controversial" aspects of films such as plots, as long as one is not introducing original research, primary sources are fine, if even necessary at all. --MASEM 14:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Debunking

Pixelface earns an A+ for stubornness and forum-shopping, having pushed the identical idea on multiple talk pages, always with staunch opposition. All through it, Pixelface has been unwilling to acknowledge the obvious flaws in the proposal or to respond to the objections of many other editors.

Wikipedia likely has tens of thousands—perhaps hundreds of thousands—of articles on fictional works. Most contain a plot summary, in nearly all cases "sourced" from the works themselves. If Pixelface is correct, then virtually all of those plot summaries violate WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. In many cases, I suspect that this "problem" cannot be rectified — that is, one would struggle to find a secondary source meeting that describes the entire plot and is "reliable" as Pixelface defines the term.

Several questions immediately arise:

  • If these plot summaries do indeed violate WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR, why hasn't it been noticed before now? The practice is rampant and widespread; no regular participant can fail to notice the it. How have these violations endured for so long?
  • What about the authors of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR? These are bedrock policies, and their history can easily be researched. Did anyone say, "Aha! Finally we can get those atrocious unsourced plot summaries out of Wikipedia." Some of the early contributors to those policies must still be with the project. Why aren't they speaking up when policies they help to write are so blatantly violated in all of our fiction articles?
  • What about the Wikipedia readers (which includes all of us)? Is there anyone saying, "You know, the problem with this encyclopedia is that it contains plot summaries that were written by — gosh, almighty! — reading the book or watching the film, and then...you know, summarizing it!!! How awful!"

In summary, if Pixelface's interpretation is correct, the consequences are absurd. And an absurd interpretation is surely the wrong interpretation. Marc Shepherd 17:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

While I have disagreed with Pixelface about how plot summaries should be written and cited, I'll play the Devil's Advocate here. I don't think it's quite fair to say that because plot summaries are inherently sourced on a widespread basis means that it's OK. There are a lot of fictional topics out there that are in explicit violation of WP:FICTION and WP:NOT#PLOT -- fans that are involved with these articles will defend them as steadfastly as we have plot summaries. I understand Pixelface's arguments but do not believe that they warrant the upheaval of the plot summaries per the arguments you and I and others have put forth. However, comments like "Pixelface earns an A+ for stubbornness and forum-shopping" are not appropriate. I know you disagree with him vehemently, so do the rest of us, but the stances are clear and the consensus has been reflected. There's no need for vitriol. I hope that Pixelface realizes that there is abundantly clear opposition from others, but I don't think that criticism of the editor is appropriate. We all have our perspectives, which sometimes puts us in the minority. Maybe in the future we will have another discussion about plot summaries with a different approach -- it happened with non-free images, after all. It's clear that it is not considered a major issue at this stage, and Pixelface's arguments may shine some light on a future matter. In the meantime, I would suggest that all of us indulge in some hearty editing for the betterment of Wikipedia. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Erik, but when an editor continues to make the identical points on multiple pages, without attempting to find compromise with experienced editors, I do call that stubbornness and forum-shopping.
The issue, of course, is not merely that the practice is widespread, but that it has endured across a wide spectrum of articles without, as far as I can tell, any significant opposition to date. See, for instance, Cymbeline, a 400-year-old Shakespeare play with a plot summary sourced from the work itself – clearly not a case of fan fiction. This situation markedly differs from the uploading of non-free images that are rapidly tagged the instant they appear, and swiftly removed unless the justification is compelling. Marc Shepherd 19:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand, and I agree with you, Marc. Just remember that the criteria for non-free images were lenient than they are now. I'm not saying for sure that it could happen to plot summaries, but both copyrighted images and reiterations of copyrighted works fall under fair use. A topic like Cymbeline wouldn't suffer that fate, of course, but there is a lot of attention on articles of contemporary media, especially TV shows, from what I can tell. I've worked with future films, and there have been instances of editors wanting to list very intricate details about the film. We limit that, obviously, but I'm sure that how we limited non-free images in the past would be perceived as lenient. Things can change, most of all this dynamic encyclopedia. In any case, I do not truly believe there is much more that can be said about the issue at hand; arguments on both sides have become circuitous without any kind of budging. In the meantime, I think we can contribute a bit more on the mainspace than we do on these talk pages. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a question for all editors who have been discussing this: Are plot summaries that appear on the Internet Movie Database considered reliable sources? --Pixelface 21:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

We wouldn't cite IMDb to begin with, but if that's where you read the plot summary, I'd trust their judgement just as much as anyone else's that comes here and writes up a plot. Though, you need to use common sense in what you take from their plots, because they may not be written in a purely declarative way, and my entertain its own original research.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Plot summaries on IMDb are created exactly the same way as Wikipedia: they're contributed by anonymous editors. The difference is they can't be changed after they're submitted. Cop 663 23:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The films themselves are far more reliable sources than IMDb summaries, and they're published media. Why would you want to cite IMDb plot sections here? What's the drive behind your question? --Melty girl 23:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I would not, Pixelface. Firstly, because while it may be similar to Wikipedia in that it is user-submitted, it is not then user-editable. Secondly, it is not uncommon for film entries at the imdb to have two or more plot summaries listed, and these will sometimes give conflicting information. It has therefore, in my eyes at least, proven itself less than reliable for this type of information. As for the wider point, once a film is released, it becomes its own source for the summary, no different to a video interview with the director being used as a cite in the production section, no different to a DVD commentary being used for the same, no different from my opening a book up and paraphrasing for an article even. As long as the summary is written with as little interpretation as possible (e.g. "Butch hears a toilet flush; Vincent Vega exits the bathroom and Butch shoots him dead"), history has shown that there are few problems beyond a failure to adhere to the general guidelines. After all, even WP:CITE says that attribution is only required "for...material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." Now, when there are problems with the method (e.g. "how do we know Butch hears the flush, eh?"), the routes open to us are, yes, find a citation for it if necessary. But also to look for a consensus; other people will have seen the film. The offending passage may even be removed if it has little impact ("Vincent Vega exits the bathroom and Butch shoots him dead.") You may not find this ideal, and you have presented arguments against using the film as the primary source, but the proof is in the pudding and, for the most part, it has worked thus far on Wikipedia. Minor difficulties may emerge from time to time, but they're rare and usually only a few moments thought away from resolution, and are certainly rarer than the more common edit wars which occur on Wikipedia involving conflicting citations from two or more ostensibly-reliable sources. Best regards, Steve T • C 00:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Plot summaries on the Internet Movie Database that are written by people that watched a film can be considered self published. Plot summaries on Wikipedia written by people that watched a film can also be considered self published. Editors cannot cite themselves. If plot summaries on the Internet Movie Database are not reliable sources, I don't see how plot summaries written by editors can be considered reliable. If it's deteramined that plot summaries on the Internet Movie Database are reliable sources, they can be cited in order to give Plot sections inline citatons and follow the guideline on reliable sources which says articles should be written from third-party sources. It appears that plot summaries on IMDB are not editable[1] but plot synopses on IMDB are editable[2]. --Pixelface (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I intend no offence with this, but I'm not sure you grasp what I mean. When we write plot summaries, we are not citing ourselves, we're citing the film. Would you consider my citing a video interview with the director, DVD commentary or any other non-print source as citing ourselves? I wouldn't, and they're exactly the same kind of thing as observing plot events on-screen and relaying them in an article. Now, if you do consider those as such, then fair enough; you would be arguing for a massive change in the encylopedia which I suspect would not be accepted, but I wish you luck with that. Best regards, Steve T • C 08:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
If a plot summary has no citation, you are not citing the film. And I don't think citing the entire film is acceptable. Which version of the film are you citing? If you cite a director's commentary on a DVD, you're pointing to another person who said something. If you summarized the film on your blog, that would not be an acceptable source. So how does publishing it on Wikipedia become acceptable? --Pixelface (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Because on Wikipedia, other editors can verify the accuracy of the synopsis by consulting the film and correcting the synopsis if necessary as per WP:CONSENSUS. This is not the case with blogs and IMDB summaries, which could be inaccurate but are unalterable. Cop 663 (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
By Pixelface's definition, if I read a plot summary by Roger Ebert, and cite it, I am simply self-publishing, because I am reading his words and then relaying them in an article. If editors cannot be trusted to watch a film and describe what happens in it, they equally cannot be trusted to read Roger Ebert's words and describe accurately what he says. This way lies madness, Pixelface... Cop 663 (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Citations are provided for Roger Ebert's words so readers can verify what was said, and that it was previously published by a reliable source. Quotes can be provided. The reference is freely available online. If a plot summary contains no citation, a reader has no clue whether the information is accurate or pure nonsense. Editors are not reliable sources. --Pixelface (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem with Pixelface's approach goes far deeper than that. Except in very limited cases, every valid editorial contribution to Wikipedia requires that editors summarize their sources. This means that, at every step, editors are deciding what facts to present, in what order, in what format, and in what words. If editors cannot do that, then we have no encyclopedia. Marc Shepherd (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, summarize their sources with inline citations. If you can't point to where it was previously published, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. --Pixelface (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Just like Ebert's words, the words and visuals of the film are available to anyone who wishes to view them. The above statement, however, is premised upon online sources and would therefore seem to argue that offline sources are unacceptable references in WP. Since "a reader has no clue whether the information is accurate or pure nonsense" for offline sources as well (since they are not "freely available online"), is Pixelface arguing that they are no longer credible sources? Again, the point others are making is that every source, whether explicitly cited or not, comes to WP through the lens of the editor, but is tempered and vetted by CONSENSUS.
Jim Dunning | talk 07:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Pixelface, the fact is that you've attempted to "shop" your interpretation of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR on multiple talk pages, and met with overwhelming opposition everywhere. Your interpretation is clearly contrary to established practice, and seasoned editors clearly disagree, no matter where or how you attempt to make the point.

It's not as if the rest of us think WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR are unimportant. Indeed, since most editors recognize these principles as both valid and vital. It's highly unlikely that the practice you oppose would have flourished and endured — as it clearly has — if core principles were being violated.

Your options at this point are:

  • Keep repeating yourself. Realistically, arguments that have been unpersuasive before will probably continue to be unpersuasive, unless you can bring new arguments to the table, but you're free to keep trying.
  • Accept the consensus, and find a more productive way to contribute.
  • Find another online project that's edited the way you believe this one ought to be. Marc Shepherd (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Re-ordering sections

There was a brief conversation about this a few weeks ago, and there seemed some enthusiasm for the idea - what would people think of moving the plot summary sections further down in articles? I figure that a very short synopsis of the plot belongs in the leads of articles (Star Wars is the story of Luke Skywalker's attempt to stop the villainous Darth Vader and the galactic empire. White Chicks chronicles the attempt of two African-American police officers to go undercover as white women) and that this provides sufficient context to talk about the things that are most important in our articles - real-world information about production, critical reception, etc. Plot sections are, ultimately, appendices that provide context for the important information. They are not the primary focus of articles, and putting them first is, in that regard, misleading. Phil Sandifer 20:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen, there are two arguments. One is that the Plot section should be at the top of the article because it seems fair to precede background information about the topic with a description of the topic itself. The other argument is that plot summaries are only complementary to the real-world context of the film, so they should not be placed so highly. Obviously, Phil, you've reflected the latter argument. It's a matter of considering if that overrides the front-and-center attention of the fictional topic's description. I could go either way, and I know there's been a few Featured Articles that place the plot summary "deeper" into the article. Perhaps we should discuss the pros and cons for each argument? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you've summarized the two sides. And I agree - some plot context is often needed for other sections. But I do think that, for the most part, little should be needed that can't be put into the article lead. You shouldn't need a blow by blow - you should need a basic sense of what sort of film this is. The rest can be introduced contextually - i.e. "Writer came up with the film's twist ending when he..." or "for the film's climactic naval battle, twenty boats were..." Constructs like that provide enough context to follow, and let someone know that they'll want to go down to the plot section if they need more context than that. Phil Sandifer 20:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
A follow-up thought: an inherent reason why the Plot section is placed on the top so often is that in Stub-class and Start-class articles, there is usually only the Plot section and perhaps a Trivia section (yech). It's easy for editors that pass through to describe the film or Easter eggs in the film rather than taking the time to research. Perhaps it would be a good move to deepen the plot summary as an indication that the article is mature. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
We could fix this situation by simply declaring that plot sections should not be the first section written, and reduce articles that are just plot sections to their lead sections alone. Essentially, "no plot summary until you have real world context first." I'd support that guideline strongly. Phil Sandifer 20:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think that the Plot should come first, so as to provide the necessary context for the rest of the article. Discussing particular production problems related to the plot makes little sense if one hasn't already read the plot section, for example. Being as the article is about a fictional work, it would seem to make sense to discuss the work first before bringing up its effects and reaction in the real-world. Girolamo Savonarola 21:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Phil's proposal almost sounds punitive: "Children, no dessert till you've finished your vegetables."
No one disputes that a well-rounded encyclopedia article about a film should, among other things, summarize the plot. It so happens that a plot summary is fairly easy to produce, so naturally, it is often among the first things written. Real-world context is harder to come by, and isn't even that meaningful until a film builds up a track record. If Wikipedia had existed when Citizen Kane came out, its real-world context then would be a lot different than it is today, but the plot has always been the same.
In an encyclopedia written by volunteers, some articles will be incomplete for a very long time. I have seen articles that were stub-class or start-class for years, then suddenly there's a flurry of activity, and they become GA or FA. Content begets content: the more you have, the more people will want to add. It helps no one to artificially suppress the plot summary until the rest of the article gets written, which could take months or years to happen.
In terms of the section order, it might be worth looking at a few of the FA-Class film articles, and asking yourself if restructuring would make these articles better. Marc Shepherd 21:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Night of the Living Dead, Cannibal Holocaust, and Triumph of the Will would be improved. But I'm a Cheerleader, Casino Royale (2006 film), and The Boondock Saints would not be harmed. Those are the six I quickly surveyed. Phil Sandifer 22:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Why would they be improved? Cop 663 02:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
In the case of the first three, because so much of what is interesting about the films has nothing to do with the details of the plot - you really just need to know the basic outlines: zombies attack, there are cannibals, and we like Nazis. In the case of the other three the plots are, for a variety of reasons, somewhat more important - But I'm a Cheerleader is a film where much hinges on the ending, and Casino Royale is interesting in comparison with the book and previous film. Boondock Saints is actually probably closer to Night of the Living Dead - not a movie where the plot is one of the most interesting things about it. But, notably, I don't think that even for articles where the plot is more important it harms the article to move the plot section down. Phil Sandifer 14:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I haven't checked the articles you cite; I'm happy to take your word for it that these articles would be improved. While accepting the point, however, I still don't think it should be a matter of policy to dictate this; if a variation is required, it should be left up to individual editors and article caretakers to decide on a case-by-case basis. Best regards, Steve T • C 14:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Right now, though, the style manual clearly flags the plot section as an early section. And so right now it's not left up to individual caretakers. Phil Sandifer 15:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
What I mean, is generally-speaking, plot sections are better placed at the top, giving the aforementioned fictional context, but that there will always be individual circumstances in which it is prudent to ignore all rules; if for no other reason than to introduce a bit of variation now and again. Best regards, Steve T • C 15:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you find me an article where a thorough plot synopsis is necessary to provide context for later sections? Phil Sandifer 16:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I like having plot sections at the top because they act as a fictional context for the rest of the article. There's also fair use requirements: the plot can easily go bare if it's near the infobox and its poster/DVD cover, but the belly of the article can have all those critical commentary images with the real world context. Alientraveller 10:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand the context argument, but most of the articles, and particularly the Good/FA articles I've looked at don't seem to benefit from the plot section going first. Or, at least, the later setions do not pick up on the specific details offered by the plot section, making the plot section a bit of a digression. Phil Sandifer 15:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Titanic (1997 film) is one example: see the section on 'editing', in particular (it's badly-written but that's not the issue). Ran (film) is another example, where many of the production and adaptation details require an understanding of the plot in some detail.Cop 663 19:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
OK - but the editing section could also be retitled "Change to the ending" and moved away from the other production material, from which it has a noticeably different tone. Ran is a messier case, but Ran is also a messier article, and I honestly find it, in some ways, to be an example of why this change would be good - far too much of that article is focused on the character list, and the later sections are very poorly written - even with the plot summary I have trouble following the article. Which is one of the benefits of actively de-emphasizing plot summaries - it's a very strong way to actively de-emphasize in-universe material. Phil Sandifer 19:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah - I didn't notice the character list, which is a recent addition with a cleanup tag (and should really be deleted as superfluous - maybe I'll do that right now!) What do you thing about Ran (film) apart from that horrid section? Cop 663 19:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, good. A much stronger article now. Though I think most of it would still be perfectly clear if the plot section went immediately before themes - and in some ways clearer, since the background and Lear stuff really add a new dimension to the plot and makes it read in a much stronger context. Phil Sandifer 21:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Phil, what's your opinion about Fight Club (film)? I attempted to deepen the plot, which seemed to look OK, though another editor reverted me. I'm on the fence here 'cause I can see arguments from both sides. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Fight Club seems like a tricky one to me, since a lot of stuff hinges on the ending. That said, revealing the ending in the lead would make a lot of sense to me, as it's one of the most fundamental aspects of the story. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
There's really no need to reveal a film's ending in the lead of an article in my opinion. Is that real-world information? --Pixelface (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Try arguing the other way around: what value is there in placing other sections ahead of Plot? Certainly Themes and Reception are dependent upon knowledge of the story, so should follow it. Production often references the Cast, so, in most cases, should go after. That would leave Plot vs Cast for first place, and either one suits me.
Jim Dunning | talk 19:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think we need to distinguish between plot and premise. Certainly themes, reception, etc. depend on an idea of the premise of the story. But that's different from a detailed plot summary. And in most cases, I don't think themes and reception depend on more than the basic outline of what's going on - something that should be covered in the lead section. Phil Sandifer 19:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is the problem we're trying to solve? Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to come up with a formatting-based way to emphasize what film articles are - something that helps us make clear to anyone who looks at the article that the article is not primarily for in-universe trivia, "in popular culture" sections, etc. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
How would placing in-universe information in the lead (revealing the ending in the lead) do that? I think the trivia guideline already addresses the issues of in-universe trivia, and it contains a link to an essay about in popular culture sections. --Pixelface (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you're trying to mandate this in the hopes that it will somehow improve the quality of the articles by discouraging cruftiness. The problem is that it won't - the average cruft-editor doesn't read the guidelines, and the problem largely is a function of undeveloped articles mainly at Stub and Start level. In that sense, it's inevitable until a serious editor rolls around to clean up. Reordering the sections does not (in my view) make sense on its own, nor will it serve as a prophylaxis against bad editing. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
My god, imagine the energy that would be expended on altering every single film article in Wikipedia to reorder the sections. Imagine the endless fights that would ensue as editors resist the change. And all that expense of energy will not make any of the articles better. What would make them better is (a) deleting the cruft on sight, and (b) actually adding some good content to these articles. That's where the energy should be directed IMO. Anything else is procrastination. Cop 663 (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Plot" --> "Plot summary"

It seems to me that one of the problems we have with drive-by additions of spoiler warnings to the Plot sections of articles is that the readers don't actually expect it to contain details of the plot. This may seem silly; indeed, it does to me. After all, what else is the section going to contain? Still, there is some small ambiguity with the one-word section title. Someone may read it expecting an analysis, perhaps. Or, at a stretch, an exploration of the themes of the film. It may do some good, and be more accurate a description, were we to recommend titling such sections Plot summary instead. I'm not saying I'd endorse this particularly (truth be told, I'm rather ambivalent), but I'd like to gauge opinion on the matter. Best regards, Steve T • C (formerly [[User:Liquidfinale|Liquidfinale]

==]) 11:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally think it's unlikely that the two can be confused. If anything, "Plot summary" seems too short-sounding, on the level of a synopsis or even a premise. "Plot" is more full-sounding; it doesn't mince words about its scope within the limits of WP:MOSFILM. Really, though, I've seen them used interchangeably and am not sure if there is a need to lock it into one specific titling. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
To me, plot summary = synopsis, a very short summary of the title. That's usually how I've seen it used in film articles as well. Plot, however, is the one usually found with the full plot section. Collectonian (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that they're essentially interchangeable - all our articles are supposed to summarize, but they're also supposed to contain the plot from start to finish. (But not in its entire blow-by-blow.) There's no essential difference in the meaning when viewed literally, and I don't see how dictating a change of heading title will actually result in different behaviors. At the end of the day, overzealous "fanboy" behavior will occur either way; it's best to simply keep our policies clear and as well-circulated as possible, so that any editor following up knows to revert. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; as I say, I was just looking to gauge opinion, as the MOS currently dictates "Plot" solely and I'd be willing to bet good money that each one of us has said something like "as per MOSFILM" (or words to that effect) in an edit summary at one time or another. I'm just looking for ways to head off potential spoiler debates on individual article talk pages now that the {{spoiler}} tag has waved goodbye; they're a waste of everyone's time. All the best, Steve T • C 21:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The best way to head off spoiler arguments is the content disclaimer. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Film Noir italics

Hey film fanatics! This may be an esoteric question, but here goes: I edit a whole lot of film noir articles and I want to discusss the following: Should the use of the term "film noir" in articles be in italics? Is it film noir in italics, or NOT? Since it is a foreign word, I use italics. And, this is especially true of other terms like noir and neo-noir. I'd like some feedback please, especially from some of the seasoned wikepedians. I bet the issue may have come up in the past. Thanks. ♦ Luigibob ♦ "Talk to Luigi!" 21:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on MOS guidelines on the matter, I would say that it's a sufficiently recognizable term in common English usage. Therefore, no italics. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "award-winning" in the lead section

A gentleman named JediLofty is removing the words "award-winning" and "Academy Award nominated" from the lead sections of film articles on the grounds that they are "POV" and that MOS:FILM says you should not mention such things in the lead. I feel that (a) it's not POV, it's a demonstrable fact, and (b) the MOS may not say you should but it doesn't say you shouldn't either. It does say you should mention any "notable facts"; I would have thought winning awards was notable. What do people think? Cop 663 (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If the film has won awards that are covered in the article, then mentioning that in the lead is appropriate per WP:LEAD. The lead should summarize the article, that that is part of the summary. Collectonian (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that these words should be excluded because first, "award-winning" can mean anything from the Oscars and BAFTAs to online critics circle awards. Thus, the prominence can be exaggerated. It can be easily reflected later in the lead section what it won, rather than making a sweeping generalization. In addition, "Academy Award nominated" in the lead not only applies the same way, but also is an issue of systemic bias, assuming that the Oscars are bar none the defining awards for a film, where there are awards like BAFTAs, Golden Globes, SAG awards, et cetera. For example, Transformers could start off as "an award-winning, Academy Award nominated film", where it won the MTV award for most anticipated summer film and was nominated for special effects. The first sentence should usually describe the general background of the film and be consistent across the board, and awards should be part of the release portion of the lead section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. There's a place for it, but not before you actually describe what the film is. Otherwise, sentences would be all over the place. Not to mention a film's gross speaks far more than the biased Oscars. Alientraveller (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
On a side note, I just want to say that since the Oscars purport to reward artistic achievement, not financial success, the gross doesn't really substitute for awards; they're two different issues. We're writing about both art and commerce here. --Melty girl (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This is a tough one. However, I tend to agree with Cop 663 on this. As he says, "it's a demonstrable fact." However, I can see the other side, especially if the film garners few awards. But some films garner so many awards (like some of the world films I edit) that the phrase almost demands its inclusion in the lead. Luigibob (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but there's a wide range of accolades. I've seen Superman Returns start off as "an Academy Award-nominated film", and with no context, that's a bit of exaggeration with awards covering so many aspects. It seems better to provide the general background of the film at the beginning, and to mention the awards later on. After all, the lead section is meant to serve as a concise overview of the article. There's no hurry to bring up the fact it won multiple awards from the get-go. As the lead section is absorbed by the reader, that understanding will be substantiated anyway. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Per consensus here, I have added it to the manual. [3] Alientraveller (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest rewriting the Lead section guideline to fix grammar and clarity issues —

The lLead section of an article serves as a quick introduction to the film. The very first paragraph should cover the basics, such as the film's release year, alternate titles, genre(s), setting, country, stars, and director (and possibly writer, if significant in some cases). One or two of the most notable, verifiable facts about the film, such as "At the time of its release, it was the most expensive film ever made", could also be included. The phrase "award-winning" in the first sentence of the lead is not recommended: it provides little context to the reader; and the latter later parts of the lLead should instead detail the major awards won or those for which it was nominated for.

The second paragraph should be a brief look at the film's impact: critic and reviewer reactions, whether or not it was a commercial success, mention of sequels or remakes, as well as its lasting influence or significant impact outside the world of film.

Changes are indicated in italics and strikethroughs.
Jim Dunning | talk 18:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Jim, I already made some adjustments to the original version -- you might want to look at it ahead and go ahead and copyedit the new version. --Melty girl (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the suggestion that terms like "award nominated" or "award-winning" should be deprecated from the lead. In the case of films that attract major awards such as Palm D'Or, Oscar, BAFTA, the fact that a film wins such an award should probably be in the very first sentence. Nominations for Oscars are conventionally held to be accolades in themselves, representing recognition by the movie-maker's peers. Some caution should be used in the case of films that pick up nominations for such things as music, set direction, costume and the like, where these are not major aspects of the film. --Tony Sidaway 18:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Being nominated an Oscar for Best Visual Effects is not the same thing as being nominated an Oscar for Best Picture. Therefore, to start out with "Transformers is an Oscar-nominated action film..." conveys totally the wrong impression. I've seen it done with other articles, and it really seems like artificial inflation of the films' reputations. I really don't see the problem with keeping such wording out in the first sentence and be able to detail nominations and wins more specifically later on in the lead section. The range of awards that a film could win is too enormous to be succinctly presented in the first sentence. Not to mention, this would be a slant toward the importance of award wins. While I'd favor award wins over box office performance, it seems academically biased to prefer the term "award-winning" over "box office blockbuster". These are details that can be easily fleshed out in the fullness of the lead section without sounding exaggerated. It seems far easier to flow from the indisputable it-is-what-it-is (release year, country, director, writer, stars) sentence to the nuances of its reception. Theoretically, the lead section is a concise overview of the article, so we shouldn't worry that the scale of a film's impact is lost when we don't mention it in the first sentence. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Tony, the phrase in question is not recommended against for the lead, just the first sentence of the lead. And Alientraveller's new phrase does just what you suggest: asks for specifics about major awards. --Melty girl (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
My point is that we shouldn't really bother with specifics in most cases. For instance in my opinion it's perfectly okay to refer to Superman as an Oscar-winning movie, because its special effects, which were revolutionary at the time and crucial to the success of the film, won the film a special achievement award. At the moment the lead of that movie completely fails even to mention that it won an Oscar at all, and even fails to mention the three nominations. In the context of a special effects-heavy film, two of those three noiminations (Sound, Film Editing) are particularly significant, and the omission from the lead of any mention of the Oscar nomination of John Williams for Original Score seems very, very odd to me. --Tony Sidaway 20:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Superman is oddly void of any mention of award wins in its lead section -- that didn't get discovered during the GA assessment. However, why wouldn't we be able to say that Superman won for its technical achievements later in the lead section with an example or two, then explain it all thoroughly in the appropriate section of the article? Superman's achievements were not artistic in the classical sense, so the generic term "award-winning" seems unnecessarily broad. It's not much more to specify the kinds of awards a film won, where the "award-winning" adjective seems equivalent to a sentence, "This film won many awards" without any clear understanding. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It's much more informative to actually say in the lead that "Superman's special effects were widely considered to be revolutionary and won the film a special achievement Academy Award," than to append "Oscar award-winning" in the first sentence. There are so many awards, and for so many things, that "award-winning" is rather meaningless. Something like your example, however, if briefly spelled out, is exactly what is needed to give real context to the impact of a given film. --Melty girl (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It was Alientraveller's very sensible policing of the Transformers (film) article that prompted my initial foray into the deletion of comments in the lead referring to "award-winning", "Oscar-nominated" et al. It does slant the article right from the start. I'm not saying that the awards and nominations shouldn't appear at all, far from it, I just don't think they belong as the fourth or fifth words of the article! Yes, they've won awards but in the same way that the Charles Manson article doesn't start out with "Charles Manson was a psychotic mass-murderer..." film articles shouldn't start out with their awards (whether they be Oscars or Razzies!) -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 17:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JediLofty and Melty girl. For a start, the phrase "award winning" is so vague as to be useless, not merely in the lede of a movie article, but anywhere in any article. It ought to be excluded under WP:PEACOCK. (If you want to comment, I've just now proposed that here: Wikipedia talk:Avoid peacock terms#"Award-winning".) As regards the more specific question of, say, Oscars, I have no problem mentioning them in the lede. If it's a prestigious category, or one which reflects an important aspect of the movie, it can be mentioned in in the opening paragraph. But it should never be in the opening sentence. For one thing, that attaches too much importance to the Academy Awards (and a fortiori other awards). We all know how capricious and unscientific any film award is: is Marisa Tomei a better actor than Peter O'Toole? Is Scent of a Woman Al Pacino's best performance? Naive Oscar-based judgments would say so. Probably no film is made specifically in order to win an Oscar, although some productions are influenced by that consideration. This is really a general Wikipedia:Lead section point: the first sentence should state what a thing is; the rest of the opening para states why it is noteworthy; the rest of the introduction summarises the article. Most articles about people or films that have won Oscars devote comparatively little of the main text to the awards; the intro should reflect the same priorities. I think the sentence:

The phrase "award-winning" in the first sentence of the lead is not recommended

should be strengthened to:

Awards won, or nominations received for awards, should not be mentioned in the first sentence of the lead

jnestorius(talk) 00:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Scenes

I propose a new section describing Deleted Scenes. This section would come just after the Plot section. There is almost no information about deleted scenes anywhere on the internet with the exception of Memory Alpha, Wookieepedia, Battlestar Wiki and a few other sites. Deleted Scenes may be short, but they should be covered on Wikipedia just like all other forms of media. I've already started a Deleted Scenes section on the Serenity (film) page. I didn't know there were style guidelines when I wrote it, but now that I do, I suppose I should ask for permission to continue. Will this become a new standard and if so, should I change anything? Does anyone else want to help in the task of adding Deleted Scenes sections to various movie pages? Is this the right talk page to post this suggestion? Observatorr (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think any important deleted scenes should be covered in the production details, with verified sources discussing why they were deleted. Otherwise, they are pretty much trivia and don't need to be listed or included. Collectonian (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Collectonian; detailing deleted scenes, unless they are relevant in the sense of real-world context, would not add encyclopedic value. It would be useful, sure, but it's rather indiscriminate information if it's only in-universe. I would think that some DVDs have deleted scenes with director's commentary over it. Some of these would be acceptable, but if it's something like, "We had to take out 30 seconds' worth," it wouldn't be very relevant. If it was a scene that was controversial or intended to reflect a relationship between characters that didn't make it to the final cut, that'd be more relevant. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot word limit clarification

The guidelines say that the plot summary should be 400-700 words long and should only exceed 900 words if the plot is very complicated. So for a plot that is not very complicated, is the limit 700 words or 900 words? I'm in a dispute with some people on the Talk:Serenity (film) page about how detailed the plot summary should be. Observatorr (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In general, 700, unless there is some demonstrable need to exceed that because of complicated plots or extra long film. Collectonian (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Complicated plots, from what I've seen, would generally apply to films whose scenes may not be sequential. Some art and experimental films may be difficult to convey descriptively (without interpretation). I would not consider Serenity a complicated film; only enough information needs to be conveyed to get the gist of the film. A line has to be drawn somewhere, hence the word count. Most details should be saved for actually viewing the film itself. Try to consider that the Plot section is the least important section in a Wikipedia article; it only exists to complement everything else about the film that has real-world context, such as production and reception. The section's only meant to give a general understanding of what happens in the film. If there are specific scenes that need to be detailed and have some real-world context to it, they can be explained in the other sections. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Disclaimer: I'm one of the parties involved in trying to get a lower word count in that article's plot section. Having said that, I think the guideline on this could use some clarification, as it presents a loose limit of 400-700 words, before jumping in with an "actually, the limit is around 900 words" - which some editors interpret as giving them permission to squeeze everything they can into 900 words, even if it's not strictly needed. I suggest a rewording of the section to clearly indicate that 700 words is the preferred upper limit, with 900 words in exceptional circumstances (such as a very complicated plot). The case also needs to be argued a little more clearly that the plot section of a film article is merely there to provide context to the real-world content of the rest of the article, and I also suggest presenting one or two good example ways in which the word count can be reduced, such as the one I presented on the Serenity talk page, replacing:

One day inside an Alliance research facility, as psychic River Tam is being crudely experimented on, one of the Alliance scientists briefs a stoic Alliance officer about Tam's limitless potential as a human weapon. The officer abruptly dispatches the scientists and frees River, revealing himself as Simon Tam, a former doctor and River's elder brother.

with:

As Alliance scientists experiment on River Tam, hoping to harness her psychic abilities as a weapon, she is rescued by her brother, Simon.

In this example, nothing at all is lost of a reader's potential understanding of either the film or the article; all which needs to be said is that he's her brother and he rescues her (his being a doctor is referenced later in the article). The exact method of the rescue is completely irrelevant. All the best, Steve T • C 08:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with you - as a rule of thumb, we're not looking for a blow-by-blow account, but rather a quick summary of the most salient plot developments. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be very helpful if Erik's comments were incorporated into the style guidelines. --Melty girl (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Future film for films that have already premiered at a film festival

I've been adding a number of articles for films that were screened at this year's Sundance Film Festival, and have debated with myself about putting Template:Future film at the top of each one. What exactly is our definition of "future film"? All of the films listed at List of films at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival have technically premiered at this point, but most won't see a wide release for a number of months, if ever. Do we want to set the standard as any film that has not yet had a public screening/premiere, or keep the de facto standard as it stands of putting the template at the top of a film's article until it has opened to the widest expected audience? —A 06:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that {{Future film}} should be placed in articles of films that have appeared at the Sundance Film Festival. I think that the threshold should be a limited release, since that usually brings in more critical opinions and some revenue. Film festivals, from what I've seen, are ways to shop films for distribution. For example, I've worked on Hamlet 2 and Choke (film), and both of these were purchased for distribution. Of course, there's not quite the clearest of thresholds for such releases, but I think that most (American) films start getting significant attention by their limited release. There Will Be Blood was getting tremendous coverage after its limited release, not getting a wide release until later. That's how I've seen it, but others' opinions are welcome. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd go for that; leave it on throughout production, only removing the template once the film has a limited release, festivals not counting. Steve T • C 16:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Well the problem with this is that, even for films shown at Sundance, not every film will get a wide release. One can infer that film X or film Y got a great reception and will get a commercial release; but I've seen a number of films at Sundance that I still cannot get on DVD. The other point is that of film "completeness"; many films are not changed between screening at Sundance and a limited or wide release. I still think better guidelines should be hammered out by the community as to when to include the template and when to omit it. I guess my biggest beef is with the wording of the template: "This article or section contains information about one or more scheduled or expected films." I'll use the film Choke that Erik mentioned. The film is no longer scheduled or expected, it is a film at this point. My input would be to use 'Future Film' only for films that have not had any public premieres and have a second template to the effect of "This article or section contains information about one or more films that are not yet widely distributed." with similar subtext to the Future Film template. Thoughts? —A 22:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that A makes a lot of sense here. I would add that films seem to take the year of their first public showings, not their first limited release. It is strange in 2008 to call a 2007 film a future film, when it's been shown to the public at ten film festivals in 2007, just because it hasn't been released beyond festivals. 2007 is not the future. Festivals might be a micro release, but they're a release nonetheless, hence the naming of films by the original year they were shown to the public, even if that's not the year of a more general release. It's likewise strange to call a film that's garnered a few published reviews, thanks to festival showings, a future film. --Melty girl (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Steve, Erik, anyone else? Any more thoughts on this matter? —A 21:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that only films that haven't completed production (still filming or in editing) should be considered future films. Premieres shouldn't have anything to do with it because sometimes it could be years from when it's completed until it gets any kind of release. See State's Evidence. For An Angel (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Earnings - not in the guideline

Am I blind, or does this guideline offer nothing about where and how to discuss financial success? I've put it in Reception before, but is that where it should go? --Melty girl (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The relevant part of the guideline indicates that it should be within the reception section and, in general, this seems to work OK. Should the reception section become too large, such as a very detailed examination of the critical response to the film, it's usually a good idea to add two sub-headings in the form of Critical reception and Box office. I agree, this could be elaborated upon in the guideline. All the best, Steve T • C 08:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I was blind! Thanks, Steve. --Melty girl (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A thought to all -- while the guidelines are purposely flexible, perhaps we can put together an essay either elaborating on points in the guidelines (such as why no user ratings) or suggesting how to handle controversial topics, like Valkyrie (film)#German response? We could discuss different formats in different details and have tips on how to write more concise Plot sections or search out information. I have a subpage at User:Erik/Film article guidelines with a few examples, but I haven't really developed it lately. This discussion made me think of it, so I wanted to know others' thoughts. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think essays are helpful on a secondary level, but I'd be more interested to see experienced WikiProject Films editors beefing up the guideline with style rules that specifically speak to issues that come up often, with more examples, and with more clarifying details. I bet there are many non-controversial things that informal consensus exists on which could be added and which editors could come to consensus to, that, if added, would influence users and improve film pages more directly and consistently than an essay would. I think if experienced editors like Erik were to brainstorm about things that have come up recently or come up often but that the guideline doesn't speak to, a good list could be generated. Or maybe a brainstorm isn't necessary; perhaps topics could simply be plucked from this project's talk pages and their archives, one by one. --Melty girl (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Cast lists

When I started writing for Wikipedia I first looked at dozens of articles to use as a guideline. In the majority of them I found the cast listed as ACTOR ..... CHARACTER, so I have followed that format. Another editor has been changing this to ACTOR as CHARACTER in some of my articles, citing WikiProject Films/Style guidelines as his reason for doing so.

Isn't this format rather archaic? It reminds me of the many 1930s films that opened with a montage of its cast members, identifying each with his/her name as the character he/she portrayed. IMDb uses the ACTOR ..... CHARACTER format, which seems more contemporary to me.

Actually, I'm not sure if this issue is worth debating. Why not let either format be used? MovieMadness (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the best reason that "as" should be included is that Wikipedia ultimately favors prose. With ellipses, it would affect the initial prose of a bulleted entry in a Cast section. For example, "John Wayne as John Doe, a retired rancher who wants to be left alone." If we replace "as" with "...", we disrupt the flow. I would not mind the usage of "..." in the simplest of cast lists, but we try to encourage prose about the actors and their roles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I wonder why some articles list the cast members in a box, such as here [4]. I find this format to be not only non-encyclopedic but very unattractive as well. MovieMadness (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Using a wikitable to list actors and their roles was pretty standard a couple of years ago, but I believe the consensus has evolved to using simple lists instead. Two reasons for this, from what I can tell -- you don't have to worry about coding, and it is easy to add prose about a role, which MOSFILM encourages. If you're willing to be bold, you can convert the wikitable into the simple list. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

One more question, if you'll please indulge me . . . re: adding prose about a role in a cast list, shouldn't a well-written plot synopsis sufficiently defining the characters make this unnecessary? I try to identify key players as well as possible in the summary without making it overlong. Thanks again for your feedback, Erik! MovieMadness (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I'm happy to help you! :) You're right, the Plot section should be able to define the characters of a film. The Cast section is a more appropriate place for providing the real-world context of either the actor or the role. For example, we can bring together information to explain how filmmakers came up with the role, what kind of casting process they went through for the role, and how the chosen actor approached his or her role. For example, at Sunshine (2007 film)#Characters, the only true in-universe detail is a brief description of the character ("the navigator", "the physicist", etc.) to serve as a quick clarification or as a brief reminder. We try to write sections so they are as stand-alone as possible, so we don't have to go back and forth between sections to understand some context. Obviously, the entire article is better read as a whole, but the stand-alone nature allows flexibility with the sections, such as moving them around or just jumping into reading a specific section without worrying about the others. Hope that explanation helps! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Please allow me to raise a slightly different issue. The guidelines suggest background information about the cast and crew should be provided, ideally as well-written prose, and cites Halloween as an example, because the article describes the casting and staffing decisions made, as well as discussing the reasons behind some of the cast decisions, the thoughts of the actors themselves about their roles, and some brief explorations of their careers before and after the film. While I feel the casting and staffing decisions made and the reasons behind some of the cast decisions are appropriate inclusions (under "Production notes" and separate from a cast list), in an article about the film, shouldn't the thoughts of the actors about their roles and explorations of their careers before and after the film be limited to the articles about the actors? If we explore an actor's career in every article about one of his films, we'll be duplicating the information in possibly dozens of articles rather than just the one about him or herself, where it logically belongs, won't we? MovieMadness (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you. I think that Halloween may be a Featured Article very much in need of a review, considering that its casting information comes from web pages like this, which don't seem immediately credible. Maybe we can look at other Featured Articles for a better example, though many articles have different ways of present casting information. I would suggest something like Sunshine (2007 film)#Characters (though that one may need some re-structuring) since I think that only the relevant history is reflected. We don't necessarily need to know about an actor's background unless it directly pertains to his or her involvement with the specific film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Following up on MovieMadness's declaration on Talk:Finding Neverland that the guideline here is "outdated": Is casting information in paragraph form not acceptable? I happen to think that much of the information he repeatedly deleted [5] (in favor of a list) is worthwhile. (Yes, I know that some of it needs cites; I didn't add it all myself, and I'm looking for those.) I specifically developed it as prose on the recommendation of this style guideline, so if the guideline is no longer supported, it really ought to be fixed. - JasonAQuest (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't think it's outdated, I like organising casting information in a manner where each actor can have his/her own entry with specific information. Alientraveller (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not the information included at [6] is worthwhile is a matter of opinion. Since much of it is unsubstantiated by reliable references, isn't it better to remove it in favor of a clear, concise, and undisputed list of cast members? If and when some of these comments can be referenced properly, I personally would prefer to see them added to "Production notes" and let a cast list remain intact, the way it appears on-screen or in a program. That's just my opinion. Thanks for letting me express it. MovieMadness (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You don't think the lead of the article should include information about why it's notable (what the movie is about, who the stars are, whether it's won any awards)? Because that's part of what you reverted in your haste to mold the article to your preferences. Whether any individual piece of casting information is worthwhile is of course subject to debate, but I don't think it's a good idea to throw it all out just to replace it with an unadorned cast list like on IMDB; Wikipedia can and should do better. - JasonAQuest (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I did an extensive amount of work on Rosemary's Baby today. In the "Production notes" section, I included a lot of information about the casting process, but I also added a cast list. This is an example of what I proposed above - incorporating casting details into a "Production notes" section but including a cast list as well. Any thoughts about this? MovieMadness (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

JasonAQuest, I'm curious and hope you don't mind my asking why this issue is concerning you as much as it is. You rarely edit film articles, and your interest in Finding Neverland seems to be related solely to your obvious passion for anything related to Peter Pan and not prompted by a specific interest in film articles overall. Am I correct in thinking if I had made similar edits to any other article you would not have taken notice of them nor engaged in a discussion about them? I assure you I mean no offense by asking you this and hope you don't misconstrue it as criticism, because that's not my intention. Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. My concern comes from finding that an article within my scholarly interests (Barrie), which I've tried to develop in keeping with the guidelines for the medium it happens to be in, had an entire section of information removed from it under the nonsensical rationale that it didn't comply with those guidelines. I was prompted to bring it up for discussion here because my attempt to discuss it on the article's Talk page received no response, my effort to restore the information was clumsily reverted in a way that also gutted the lead, my well-explained edit to restore the info was summarily reverted with the uncivil description "reverting illogical edits", and you seemed to have taken it upon yourself to deprecate the existing style guidelines in favor of imposing your own preferences, regardless. So you are correct in guessing that I've taken a concern about this because your shenanigans happened to step on my toes. There's also the simple practical matter that I can't fix that article until I know for sure what the consensus format is/is going to be, and that you're going to abide by it. I hope you do take this as criticism, because it is. - JasonAQuest (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should reevaluate how to handle casting information. First of all, I think we need to acknowledge that there will always be some sort of redundancy of information on Wikipedia. However, I think we can separate information in two ways -- in summary form, and in detailed form. Articles that are most relevant to the available information should get the details. Here's an example: John Doe is cast into the film Courage because of his performance in Pride. There is a story behind this casting process, about how John Doe and the director met and were able to connect based on the director's script for Pride. Now, on John Doe's Wikipedia article, it can be simply said that he was cast into Courage because of his performance in Pride. If one clicks on the link to the article about Courage, the more detailed background about the casting would be available. This is more pertinent to the film and not the actor himself. Therefor, I think it seems fair to say that actors' articles should summarize transitions from film to film, and at each film article, it can be detailed how the actor obtained that role. I have to agree that it drifts away from the topic of the film itself when talking about an actor's future path at the film article.

I also think that there is persistent interest in identifying the major roles of a film. While identifying all the roles could be done in prose form or bullet form, it seems more appropriate to use the bullet form because sentences would usually be disjointed in prose form. Perhaps if it is more than one person who continues from one film to another film, like with Finding Neverland and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, a summarized sentence can be provided explaining that several actors from this film were cast into this next one. With a wiki-link, it can be described in more detail at the new article about the carried-over performances. Any thoughts about that? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Your example of John Doe and the fictional film Courage supports what I was trying to express earlier, perhaps not clearly enough, about limiting film articles to facts pertinent to the film and not sidetracking into various cast member's careers prior to and following the film.
As I mentioned above as part of an earlier discussion, I feel a well-written plot synopsis should sufficiently define the characters, making a separate section unnececessary. If the plot synopsis for Rosemary's Baby, for example, describes Roman and Minnie Castevet as Rosemary's intrusive neighbors who eventually are revealed to be members of a Satanic cult, isn't that enough? MovieMadness (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that it may depend on the film and the size of its cast. What I notice is that contemporary films will very often have interviews with individual cast members, as opposed to cast members of older films. For a film like Rosemary's Baby, it's unlikely that there will be specific information about each actor and role. At Fight Club (film), I didn't include a cast list because there's really only three major roles -- Brad Pitt, Edward Norton, and Helena Bonham Carter. For a film like Sunshine (2007 film), it's a pretty different story. It may depend on the film itself and the information available about it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, with Rosemary's Baby I was able to add considerable info about the casting process, which is discussed at length on the DVD. I think we're discovering a lot of details about older films thanks to director's commentaries and/or "making of" featurettes on the DVD releases.
In response to your comment "a summarized sentence can be provided explaining that several actors from this film were cast into this next one," was the casting of several actors from Courage in Pride intentional or coincidental? If it's coincidental, I think mentioning it borders on trivia. In my opinion, more pertinent and worthy of mention, for example, is why an actor who created a role in a film was not cast in the same role in the sequel. If the reason is known and can be referenced properly, it should be included. Again, I think these details could be included in a "Production notes" section that does not usurp a cast list. I think both can exist within an article. MovieMadness (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I definitely meant intentional. I agree that just mentioning an actor's previous film without any relevance to the current film is trivial. When you talk about an actor not returning to the same role for the sequel, where do you intend for the content to belong? The original film article, the sequel film article, or both? Also, I was wondering what you thought the difference between "Production notes" and "Production" was. "Production notes" seems a little disjointed to me, and I try to weave the content together for the sake of flow. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The reason I raised the issue of "intentional" vs. "coincidental" is because lately I've come across quite a few film articles that include the information that JANE DOE, MARY SMITH, and GLADYS GLIMSCHLITZ also appeared in Bitter Grapes together, although that's not why they were cast in the film discussed in that article. With large casts, you frequently have actors whose credits overlap, and to me, that's trivia not worth mentioning, especially if there are numerous instances of it.
When I talk about an actor not returning to the same role for the sequel, I intend for the content to be included in the sequel film article only (JOHN DOE was cast because JIM SMITH, who originated the role, wasn't available, or demanded too high a salary, or didn't want to play the same role, whatever the reason might be. As for the difference between "Production notes" and "Production" is concerned, there is none. I personally think "Production notes" sounds better! :) MovieMadness (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Information such as "Actor's performance in This Film led Director to cast him for That One" seems at least as relevant to This Film as That One; it doesn't really say anything about That One except that he's in it, but it tells you something about his acting in This One. - JasonAQuest (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)