Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Films
General information ( v • d • e )
Main project page + talk
 → Discussion archives
Style guidelines talk
Announcements and open tasks talk
 → Articles needing attention talk
 → Nominations for deletion talk
 → New articles talk
 → Requests talk
 → Stubs talk
Resources
Showcase
Film Portal talk
Fiction noticeboard talk



This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II.
Any sections older than 20 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.
Archive
Archives (Index)
1, 2
About archives

Contents

[edit] Adaptation differences

I'm proposing adding a section to Films/Style guidelines to address recommended handling of "differences" between an adaptation and its source work. Under 4. Other article components would be an appropriate spot. Many of these contributions are initially in less-then-desirable condition and often require an inordinate amount of editing effort (on both the article and Talk pages) to rectify or redirect. Based on the mentoring and education efforts by film article editors I've seen in the past year, it's apparent there is a solid consensus on how adaptation differences should be handled in the article. Adding this consensus to the Style Guidelines would save an awful lot of education repetition.

"Differences" contributions range from trivia lists detailing minor, insignificant changes normal to most adaptation processes, to sophisticated descriptions of thematic material. I think most experienced editors agree that only significant differences should be included (no fancruft), and that they should not be in a separate Differences section, but appropriately melded into sections addressing production, adaptation, themes and critical reception. Appropriate sourcing and citing are givens.

Key topics to be addressed:

  1. Trivia: changes must be significant, not just the typical differences that result from adapting a work from one medium to another.
  2. Synthesis: even stating what appears obvious (to some), such as "The novel's story takes place in Portland, Maine, while the film's events occur in Portland, Oregon" is considered original research and this type of analysis must first be done by a reliable source.
  3. Sourcing: editors cannot be the ones to identify the differences; they must be observed and noted by a credible source (which would likely support significance as well)

Interested in reactions: is this worthwhile and is it appropriate?
Jim Dunning | talk 01:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, may not address #'s) I think that clarification over this would be a great idea. These "Differences" sections have permeated a few film articles on Wikipedia. I see two arguments for this -- comparing and contrasting between two primary sources where a secondary source has not done so would produce indiscriminate connections. The problem is that the importance of a difference can be argued every which way, with no actual secondary source to establish the difference. I'd argue that it is a form of synthesis, though there may be some disagreement over it. I think that the way WP:SYN can be interpreted, is that a sub-topic of the article is being originally being argued for inclusion by mentioning differences that do not have real-world basis. It may seem "obvious" to compare the source material and its adaptation, but sometimes the two can be completely different factual presentations while possessing the same themes. This gets too much into the interpretative part with trying to determine importance, so I agree that sourcing and citing (of secondary sources) are absolute givens.
I do have a question, though. At I Am Legend, you opposed the book vs. film comparison link because there was not real-world context in the comparisons and contrasts. I understand this to a degree, but it was still a secondary source making explicit observations about the adaptation process. While I understand that it does not give any insight to what the filmmakers intended, it seemed on the important side to mention that differences were noted. I think we just need to define the threshold a little more clearly, because not all observations of similarities or differences will have an explanation. For example, at Road to Perdition#Writing, there are examples of changes with no specific explanation as to why. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
For I Am Legend it's the threshold: the critic's observations just didn't seem to be all that noteworthy. That's all. More to the point here, I don't think a "difference" should be mentioned just because it's a difference; it should have some relative importance to some aspect of the work.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you opposing the mention of differences no matter where it came from, if it's void of real-world context? What do you think of the paragraphs at the Road to Perdition article? The differences are mentioned as part of the presentation process, even though not all differences are explicitly explained. For example, In the novel, he was also an alcoholic, an element which was removed in the adaptation. This is cited, but there's nothing besides the mention of it being removed. Is something like that inappropriate, then? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The RtP Writing section I found informative and interesting, and I think those differences are presented with real-world context. I took the example you cite to be supportive of the conscious desire to somewhat de-villainize Hanks's character; at least that's the perception I had based on what's written in the article. Out of curiosity I went to the source, which says, "Early script drafts were actually bleaker; not only was there more killing, Sullivan was an alcoholic. 'In the streamlining of the film, those things were lost,' says Self. 'The philosophy was "less is more."'" Based on that, I would consider adding the streamlining impetus to the article so the reader isn't left with my initial take. I didn't see that kind of value-add with the I Am Legend comparison/contrast article.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm confused. It is currently held that novels and films, as published, verifiable material, can serve as a primary sources for plot sections. Therefore, we can state without citations in your hypothetical novel's article that it is set in Portland, ME, while the film's article could state without citations in its plot section that it is set in Portland, OR. Why then, would you say it is wrong to note in the film article that the novel on which it is based is set in a different state? Why is the novel no longer a verifiable, published source? --Melty girl (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
In one case you are simply stating what is happening in the book/film, while in the other case you are intentionally drawing a connection between those two facts. So, in the case of the plot section, it may be important to mention that it takes place in a certain location. But, when you are stepping out of that arena, and are discussing "differences", simply stating that they changed the location--without context as to "why"--boils down to nothing more than indiscriminate information. It has nothing to do with the verifiability of the subjects themselves, and more to do with the indiscriminate nature of simply saying "the book has this, but the movie has this".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict yet again, hah) The issue is more that an editor, without a secondary source, feels compelled to compare and contrast between two primary sources. Each primary source is appropriate in its own right, but pointing out something like in a different state without independent observation can be unnecessary. There's no easy line that can be drawn in such comparisons. I've seen entries that talk about the difference in colors or the presentation of a side character. It's probably "verifiable" in the strictest sense, but does such a difference have any encyclopedic basis if we the editors are the ones creating our own material for this? We need to cite and stand by secondary sources to warrant inclusion -- that makes matters far more indisputable than saying, "I noticed this difference in the film since I read the book before it, and I feel it should be included." The key word is "feel" -- there is no objective basis for providing this connection. I think that's what Jim and I were trying to get at. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me, but I think you're going to have to make this a lot clearer in the guideline. I really don't get it. I can understand from a WP:TRIVIA standpoint that certain information on adaptation differences won't merit inclusion, but I really don't understand why you think it's "creating" material/synthesis to do some fundamental comparisons between a novel and its film adaptation so long as the two things are verifiable and the editors don't also present their own conclusions about themes or motivations behind the differences. Why would a critic have to notice that in the novel there are 10 siblings, but in the film there are only four, or that in a novel the setting was 1960, but in the adaptation it is the present day, or that in the novel, two characters have an ongoing sexual relationship, but in the film they do not, in order for it to bear mention? Aren't these interesting facts about the production process of an adaptation that are accessible to editors from primary sources? Why must a secondary source notice readily apparent facts for us? These aren't quality judgements. To me, it seems like as long as there is a source verifying that a novel was indeed the source material for a film, then those two texts are both valid sources for the film article. I don't yet feel that you've made a clear, strong case for why you cannot look to the basic plot of the novel for information in the film's article when you can for the novel's article. --Melty girl (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, what I took from Jim's proposal, and Erik's iteration, not all information is worth inclusion, regardless of whether a critic noted it or not. If a critic said, "the book takes place in Manhattan while the film takes place in Denver", that doesn't mean it's ok to use. To me, I took away that unless they discuss "why" that occurred, then something as miniscule as a location would be too indiscriminate for inclusion. Just because a secondary source mentions it doesn't mean that it's fine to be included in the article itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
That seems like a WP:TRIVIA argument, which I certainly grasp. But I'm not sure that's what Jim and Erik are saying. They seem to be saying you can't do any comparison that only cites the original novel and the film adaptation, and that you must use a secondary source that explains what's in the novel vs. what's in the film. I'm looking forward to hearing their response to my above questions. --Melty girl (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It comes back to synthesis. The question is, why is the difference being presented in the article? There are many differences that can be discerned between two primary sources. Without limiting such differences to secondary sources, the scope of including differences is simply enormous. Secondary sources should usually be able to explain the differences that arise, and I think we can all agree that the real-world context is appropriate. A mere "Differences" section, though, doesn't convey any encyclopedic value. If we're making specific comparisons between two primary sources on our own, we're trying to add value where there was not any before. Hence the need for secondary sources. If a difference is worth noting, then someone besides the editors will report on it. We can't decide on our own if a change is important to mention or not. I've seen this with topics involving fan bases (Harry Potter comes to mind) that seek to outline every difference they possibly can. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the objective description of the plot (using the fiction work as a primary source) restricted to the Plot section of that work's article? Based on numerous WP discussions, my impression is the answer is "yes", since it is the obvious location where consensus editing and validation of a primary source can and must occur (in fact, since it is in the Plot section, this alerts editors to the need for the validation). Consensus is the reason that this "exception" to citing sources for the Plot works.

Okay, if this is the case, wouldn't this argue that (1) uncited descriptions of the plot are not allowed outside the Plot section, and (2) the only plot of a fiction work that can be described (uncited) in an article is that of the article's subject? I'm feeling like a jail-house lawyer here (and disliking it), but what I'm pointing out is this: since the storyline of Sinclair's Oil! is not the subject of the article There Will Be Blood, then an uncited description of Oil!'s plot in TWBB would not be allowed (again, the technicality is that since Oil!'s description is not where it is expected, there's no signpost saying, "I'm a plot description based on a primary source and I need consensus validation!") The result of this convoluted syllogism is that I can't point out a difference between Oil! and TWBB in TWBB without cites since I can't even describe Oil!'s plot without a ref. So this argues that a secondary source would be required for every referenced "difference".
Jim Dunning | talk 04:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If Jim feels like he's a jailhouse lawyer, it may be because he's arguing to shackle the bricklayers of the jail's walls. As I pointed out in my initial conversation with Jim on the talk page for There Will Be Blood (which is what triggered all of this), my thinking is in line with Meltygirl's. It's taking OR doctrine a step too far to say that merely stating, simply and plainly, the facts of the plot of a novel and the facts of the plot of a film adapted from it constitutes original research. Editor discretion and consensus should play their usual roles in keeping unattributed analysis and cruft accumulation out of comparison sections, this goes without saying. But what Jim is arguing for, that even so much as interweaving two plot summaries in the same section constitutes synthesis, is both needlessly restrictive and is also makes plagiarism a virtual requirement if any such comparison sections could ever be included in articles. I respect what Jim is trying to do here--ensure that sourcing is always paramount in article creation--I just find his interpretation of OR policy to be too "strict constructionist". Such a reading, put in practice, would be a prime cause again and again for invocations of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Robert K S (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, presenting the facts of the plot of a novel and the facts of the plot of a film adapted from it in such a way that differences are clear is fine. Organising information to present it in our own way is what we do all the time.--Patrick (talk) 08:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue is that line of thinking permits anything to be compared. The reason why this discussion was initiated is because editors have the tendency of starting "Differences" sections that are very indiscriminate in nature. There are near-limitless differences that can be discerned between two primary sources, none of which can be said to have encyclopedic value. We present it as if we did based on our own personal arguments, and other editors can argue against its inclusion. It's completely subjective and circuitous when we lack the safety net of secondary sources. You're right, we present information in our own way (as there's no such thing as purely NPOV), but there are far too many differences that can be determined in the analysis of two primary sources. It's junk information, essentially. There is a ton of in-universe detail that can be found in either primary source, and it's rather inappropriate to choose certain ones to bring to the surface of our own accord. A "Differences" section has no encyclopedic value to offer. If there are changes that were explained for the writing process, they can go in the Production section. If there are changes that affect critics' opinions of the film, they can go in the Reception section. The threshold needs to be the use of secondary sources because not only can parties independent of us bring up differences to skip subjective and roundabout arguments for inclusion, there is likely real-world context to establish about these differences. In any case, this is a guideline, so we can ignore all rules if the situation warrants it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
For any information in any article we have to judge whether it is worth mentioning. This applies equally for any difference between two plots.--Patrick (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
So you'd be in support of a "Differences" section in a film article that talks about the differences of a character's middle name or the differences of characters' hair colors or color of attire? :) I think the main argument here is that a "Differences" section is indiscriminate. It provides no inherent encyclopedic value. We should say something like, "Sections based on the differences between a film and its source material are discouraged because the differences can be indiscriminate. Changes perceived as noteworthy by secondary sources should be integrated into another part of the article wherever appropriate. For instance, a filmmaker explaining the inclusion of a new character in the film would go into the Production section. A change that affects a critic's review of the film can be included in the Reception section." Would this be light enough of a basis to be included in the guideline? It doesn't say you can't compare and contrast, just that a section solely focused on that is discouraged. If I recall correctly, I don't believe that any of the Good or Featured Articles have passed with such a section available. Thoughts on that? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not in favor of "Differences" sections at all. But I think what bars them is WP:Trivia sections, not WP:Original research#synthesis. What I am suggesting is that I think significant plot (not thematic) differences in the source novel can be mentioned in "Production" sections, and the novel can be cited as the source of the information. Why on earth would we suddenly unable to read the novel and cite it, as long as we don't draw conclusions about themes or motives? Frankly, this urge for restriction to a secondary source to read the novel for us reminds me just a bit of the recent argument that any plot retelling is original research. It's like you're banning people from mentioning the novel's plot in the film article, yet they can do so in the novel article, and that doesn't make sense. I just don't think it is original research to look up basic plot points in a widely-available novel.
If the difference that editors wax on about is the character's different hair color or middle name, then that's a violation of WP:TRIVIA; if they make a whole section about differences, then that's WP:TRIVIA and bad style in terms of the preferred format of film articles; if they do an original analysis of the thematic differences, then that is synthesis and original research; if they give uncited value judgments about the changes, then that's a WP:POV problem. Basically, I think that your rationale overinterprets and over-tightens WP legislation in a way that isn't logical and isn't needed to combat the problem you're encountering, no matter how annoying it is -- you already have the tools needed to revert this cruft. I would propose instead writing an anti-"Differences" section clause citing primarily WP:TRIVIA and WP:IINFO (indiscriminate), suggesting that only basic plot (not detail) differences merit mention and that these should be woven into the Production section, so that they do not become "Trivia" sections under a different name; I'd also say that interpretation and value judgments are verboten as always, due to WP:Original research and WP:POV.
I think there is a fundamental encyclopedic value in noting some differences in film adaptations, and for plot, that can be done in a basic way by editors referring to the published media in question. Mentioning in a "Production" section that a novel is set in 1960, but the film adaptation is set in the present day is a factual, verifiable and significant fact that need not be told to us by a critic. --Melty girl (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Perhaps the OR argument is a bit strong. I've been bringing it up in the context of differences being a sub-topic. It seems akin to pointing out every instance of a motif throughout a film. Technically, it's verifiable to see the film and note them. However, when all the instances of a motif are presented in a section, there's no explicit interpretation going on. Instead, the interpretation is more implicit in the overall sense, begging for an analytic light to be shone on the compilation of details. Maybe I'm wrong, but such a listing of details ranging from major to minor in its own sub-topic conveys the originally presented impression that differences are worth noting as a compilation in a film article. However, I don't mind the tendency toward citing WP:TRIVIA and WP:IINFO, but my concern is that it may not be enough if a fan wants to come in and outline all what he/she sees are major differences between the source material and its bastardized film adaptation.

I was thinking, though, perhaps we can extend the proposed treatment, mentioning WP:TRIVIA and WP:IINFO, to encapsulate goofs, deleted scenes, and Easter eggs? All these seem to fall under the same roof -- "technically" verifiable, but still compiled uselessly in the scheme of this encyclopedia. Or should we hold off on discussing these until later? :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree that advising against goofs, etc., should be included.
Returning to significance of the material, I support use of sources to demonstrate the noteworthiness of the difference, as well as the value of it to the reader. Take this example that could be in Three Days of the Condor: "Although Three Days of the Condor is based on the novel Six Days of the Condor, the action in the film takes place over three days instead of the six in the novel." Based on obvious, verifiable facts present in the works' titles themselves, this statement could be made. But "duh"! That's like saying the sky is blue. Now this change is significant, but the reader could've noted the difference in days herself (just by looking at the titles), so why mention the obvious. And a high school English teacher would return an essay containing that statement to a student with the question, "What's the significance of the change?" appended. How much better would it be if the article stated, "Screenwriters Semple and Rayfiel compressed the story's timeframe from six to three days for film length constraint concerns, and to allow the introduction of a romantic relationship without distracting too much from the action."? Strongly recommending a source here accomplsihes two things: (1) the Difference's significance is supported because a credible source also noted it, and (2) we can provide the context of the change because a critic provides the analysis a WP editor can't. Thus, the value of the "obvious" Difference is enhanced for our customers.
In No Country for Old Men, a contributor wanted to mention that Llewellyn's encounter with a hitchhiker (in the novel) had been left out of the film. Although this is truly an obvious, empirical Difference between the works, I argued against inclusion for two reasons. One, that no critic or reviewer had seen fit to mention the Difference. Two, that one could argue that all the Coens did was convert the hitchhiker segment into Llewellyn's brief encounter with the poolside woman, retaining the original theme. And this is where not relying on sources would be a problem: I can argue that thematically there is no change between novel and film on this point since the "temptation of Moss" occasion still appears in both works, achieving identical ends, and that the change is merely an adaptation convenience to meet film constraints; however, another editor could validly disagree with my interpretation of the Coens's execution, intent, and the effectiveness of the scenes. Who's to decide? Including a source for the Difference supports the signficance of the change, and there is no question about interpretation of the Difference's impact.
Jim Dunning | talk 18:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subheading for editing ease

I would support the requirement for sourcing wherever the analysis of the significance of a change is mentioned in the article, which is what Jim is arguing for in his most recent post, above (the example from No Country for Old Men). I also agree with Jim in his point about "duh" information being excluded from articles on whatever style bases one prefers. I do not concur with Jim that there is a necessary connection between the two--that every difference between a source work and its adaptation needs to have its significance explained (and therefore sourced). As I posited in our original discussion, it is not original research to say "The main character of There Will Be Blood is oil man Daniel Plainview, while Oil! centers around 'Bunny' Arnold Ross Jr., son of an oil tycoon", and such a statement provides worthwhile information while leaving the analysis of the significance of the change up to the reader. I also agree with Meltygirl that there is plenty of ammunition in WP:TRIVIA and WP:IINFO to combat crufty/trivial "differences" sections without needing to overextend the purview of OR doctrine. Robert K S (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In The Prestige article an editor wanted to point out that a character, Julia Angier, dies early in the film, but in the source novel, the character of the same name lives after suffering a miscarriage. On the surface this seems like a simple comparison, and is possibly significant enough to mention since it involves the death/non-death of a supporting character. Unfortunately, what appears to be a simple, clear-cut statement of fact may lead the reader to a potentially erroneous conclusion. Many could think that the character's death early on significantly changes the effect that character has on subsequent plot development. In reality, the tragedies in both works (death in one, miscarriage in the other) result in the same important plot device: intensifying the rivalry between the magicians. It can be argued that all Christopher Nolan did was compress the multiple rivalry-fostering incidents in the novel into a single, but equally motivating, incident for cinematic reasons. Therefore, result-wise, life and death are analagous, and the net result is not all that significantly different afterall. But seemingly simple comparisons like this, without context (necessarily supported by refs), actually can lead to wrong conclusions. That's why I'd be leery of a bare statement that just informs us that Anderson changed the name and occupation of the main character when he wrote TWBB. Without context, it can lead the reader to a wrong conclusion. Are their personalities different? Do their different starts in life affect the outcomes of the stories? Is Bunny's father alive during the story, and, if so, does his presence compared to the lack of Daniel's father have a significant effect on the story? etc. etc. etc. In fact, there are so many differences between the two works, that mentioning context-less Differences like that can be a disservice to both. Since I didn't read Oil!, I have no idea if Daniel's modest beginnings create a notable divergence to Bunny's wealthy start, but I might understandably assume that while Daniel had to work to gain his fortune and probably Bunny didn't might affect the kind of characters they are -- and I might be wrong.
Jim Dunning | talk 00:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested guideline text

To prompt creative juice flow I'm starting this subsection covering suggested wording for a Differences guideline. Feel free to amend the actual wording, or comment in the Comment area below.
Jim Dunning | talk 16:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


Adaptation differences

When addressing differences between a film adaptation and its source work(s), ideally, text should be placed in the relevant section of the article (such as Production, Themes, or Reception) and include enough background to provide as complete an appreciation of the intent and effect of the change as possible. Merely noting empirical differences between a film and its source without real-world context is generally discouraged. Creating a collection of such differences in a "Differences from" section in articles is especially discouraged. The very nature of fiction adaptation, especially from one medium to another, is expected to result in numerous differences, significant and insignificant, for a variety of reasons. These reasons typically include the creative and presentation constraints or opportunities offered by the visual/auditory nature of film, screenwriter and directorial interpretation of themes, production budget and logistical factors, time compression and expansion considerations, as well as real-world cultural influences.

If a Differences section must exist in the article's early development, it should, in most cases, be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined. Lists of miscellaneous changes can be useful for developing a new article, as they represent an easy way for novice contributors to add information without having to keep article organization or presentation in mind. Difference items should be appropriately merged into other article sections as soon as practicable; most references will fit into standard film sections, such as Production, Adaptation, Themes, and Reception. Changes that convey, intensify, diminish or otherwise alter themes and plot elements from the source work can be especially valuable to the article's usefulness and quality.

Adaptation differences should add value to the article. A difference accompanied by an explanation or analysis of its impact and effectiveness is recommended. Editors, however, must avoid interpreting the meaning and effect, or reasons and motivations for, any differences between source work and the film. Without valid reliable sources to support the analysis, Wikipedia's policy against no original research is violated. Be particularly aware of including unverified synthesis when comparing primary or secondary sources. This can either overstate the significance of a change, or misrepresent the motive behind a change if the passage lacks sufficient context and sources.

Including citations to reliable sources will foster Consensus and minimize the potential for edit wars, limiting inclusion of differences to those that have a reasonable level of significance. This will help prevent a film article from devolving into fancruft lists.

Examples

  • In Children of Men, rather than just noting that the affliction of infertility is switched from males to females during the adaptation of the story from the P. D. James novel, the article presents comprehensive information in the Themes section on director/screenwriter Alfonso Cuarón's reasons behind the change.
  • An early version of The Prestige article included a Differences section. The section eventually disappeared as its content was either removed from the article or melded into the Production, Themes, and Response sections.

[edit] Comments

  • This is good, although it is almost entirely negative. It might be helpful to briefly mention the kinds of things that are acceptable, e.g. sourced descriptions of verifiably significant alterations. It might be helpful to give an example of an article that does this job well. Cop 663 (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I reworded to put a more proactive spin on the guidance and added some examples. Although not a film article, A Canticle for Leibowitz has a Development section that addresses the adaptation of the novel from three short stories. Might be worth adding.
    Jim Dunning | talk 01:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a good start. It's worth noting that at the moment this proposal represents the views and concerns of just one editor. (All proposals have to start somewhere.) I don't see anything flagrantly objectionable in its reading. As Cop points out, above, the elaboration could still use a little more nudging in the "this is what should be done" direction, vs. the "this is what shouldn't be done", although, obviously, the latter is also critical to a substantive guideline. Robert K S (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think listing the relatively few not-recommended approaches is better than putting too many recommended ones: this leaves more flexibility for editors. Listing recommended forms actually limits options more than identifying a similar number of less desirable models.
    Jim Dunning | talk 02:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is a good start. But too long to be included in its current format. The attempt to be thorough is creditable, but has come at the expense of clarity, with too many caveats and qualifications. I mean no offence by this; you've done a bang-up job. But most of your suggested additions are more appropriate to an essay than a Manual of Style. It should be stripped back to cover only the main points. Something along the lines of the following would be sufficient:

    When addressing differences between a film adaptation and its source work(s), text detailing the reasons for a change, its effect upon the production, and the reaction to it should be placed within the section of the article relevant to the information being added (e.g. Production, Themes, or Reception). Noting the differences between a film and its source work(s) without real-world context is discouraged. Creating a section which merely lists the differences is especially discouraged, though it is to be expected that articles in the early stages of development, or about new releases, may contain information which does not easily fit elsewhere. As the article matures, this information should either be moved to the relevant section, or removed entirely. Remember, without valid reliable sources to support any additions, Wikipedia's policy against original research is violated and the information can be deleted.

    This covers the same ground without being too prescriptive, or getting bogged down in the fine detail. All the best, Steve T • C 18:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
though it is to be expected that articles in the early stages of development, or about new releases, may contain information which does not easily fit elsewhere. As the article matures, this information should either be moved to the relevant section, or removed entirely. - This makes it sound as if it is alright to add these sorts of things to the article at certain stages - it would seem more prudent to delete this. The advice on how to deal with pre-existing sections like that should still stand, however. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The length was intentional since I think it's easier to whittle it down rather than the converse. I like your whittling.
Jim Dunning | talk 06:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't want you to think I was being too critical; there's nothing wrong with the actual content of your proposed text, but in addition to the point I already raised, I could foresee a situation in which some editors would use the density of the wording to Wikilawyer around it. Steve T • C 08:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed; that was on my mind too. Lazy bones that I am, I took it almost verbatim from WP:MOSFILM#Trivia, but it could be amended to be a little less permissive:

Creating a section which merely lists the differences is especially discouraged, and while articles in the early stages of development, or about new releases, may contain information which does not easily fit elsewhere, as the article matures, this should either be moved to the relevant section, or removed entirely.

This neither advocates or explicitly disallows the inclusion of these sections, leaving it up to the many other relevant guidelines to point the way. Steve T • C 08:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this the complete, recommended text, then?

Differences between a film adaptation and its source work(s) can be addressed by including text detailing the reasons for a change, its effect upon the production, and the reaction to it. This material should be placed within a relevant section of the article (e.g., Production, Themes, or Reception). Noting the differences between a film and its source work(s) without real-world context is discouraged. Creating a section which merely lists the differences is especially discouraged; while articles in the early stages of development (or about new releases) may contain information which does not easily fit elsewhere, this material should either be moved to the relevant section or removed entirely as the article matures.


Jim Dunning | talk 04:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Text amended at 08:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC) by Steve T • C


  • Support addition of quoted text to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Other article components (though some might argue that it is more of an addendum to Trivia). It gives enough leeway for the information to exist in an article, yet provides the ammunition to argue the strong case for citations, real-world context and its siting within a relevant Production, Themes or Reception section, rather than as an indiscriminate list. All the best, Steve T • C 08:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, although the first sentence is a bit clotted; I found it hard to read. I'd suggest rewriting thus: "When describing differences between a film adaptation and its source work(s), include text that explains the reasons for each change, its effect upon the production, and the reaction to it. This material should be placed within the appropriate section of the article (e.g., Production, Themes, or Reception)." Cop 663 (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Not sure. To my eyes, that subtly alters the balance. It instructs editors to put in "text that explains the reasons for each change, its effect upon the production, and the reaction to it" rather than having that as a strongly implied example of the kinds of things which should be put in. It also opens the door (with the word "include") to an interpretation of the guideline that says these are things which should be put in the article in addition to the cruft. I'll tweak the wording a little, see what shakes loose. Steve T • C 20:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support as I'd like to see what Steve can accomplish with some slight revision. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, I played with this for almost an hour last night and couldn't come up with anything which didn't look rubbish. Very frustrating. This morning? Two minutes. Bah. Anyway, I've moved around the lead sentence a bit in order to retain the intended meaning of the guideline. Ultimately, it didn't work without using the word "include/including", so I've added a "can be" in order to dilute its prescriptiveness. Steve T • C 08:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: this succinctly conveys the gist of the consensus positions when "differences" issues have been at issue over the past year or so.
    Jim Dunning | talk 12:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • How long do you think we should wait, and how many opinions should we wait for, before adding this? Steve T • C 13:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sample suggestion

I am very surprised that I cannot find ready examples of information formatting on the Style guideline page. Seeing as how Wikipedia is vigilant about presentation of data, I would have expected to see many concrete examples that can be imitated even by a novice. I have been looking at film article after film article and find radiant non-conformity. I think if concrete examples are given a prominent position on this project's home page, then editors would have to clean up fewer messes made by newbies.

For example: I have looked at 6 different film pages and found 6 different methodologies used to the list cast and crew. A simple formatted list of any of names on the Style guidelines UNDER cast/crew would allow anyone to immediately SEE what it is supposed to look like. I found the same is true for listing credits. The only truly concrete example I can see for listing credits is for an actor; for a screenwriter there is a wide range of methods being used.

If I am asking for something that has been discussed and decided, I ask you reconsider. If I am asking for something that exists, then perhaps it is NOT in a prominent enough place to be easily found by someone not familiar with the depths of Wikipedia. The more I read wikipedia contributions the more I realize that everyone wants to jump right in and create a page for their favorite actor or tv show but they may not slow down long enough to read the Manual of Style in its entirety beforehand. JMHO EraserGirl (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can draw from the Good Articles and Featured Articles under WikiProject Films. The guideline advocates standardization, but this is not necessarily requisite as we don't want to limit editors. Are you looking for actual examples to be mentioned in the guideline, or links to real-world examples? We can see about doing better with this. Are there any other aspects of the guideline that you think could be more representative? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
at this point i would settle for LINKS embedded in the Guidelines, that point to which featured articles depict certain things properly. I wanted an example of how screen credits are formatted for a screenwriter. I am visual, i need to SEE it. Is it in a table? does it have a leading dot? is the year first or last? where is the notation of writer or adaptor? are teleplays separated from screenplays. But even if you can think of a writer off the top of your head you have to click on several before you find one that is properly formatted. I clicked on 3 that were all formatted differently, before I decided to just use someone who has been fiddled with by a lot of editors. I am using Aaron Sorkin's article as an example for everything.
Ideally it would have been nice to go to the Style Guidelines and SEE what it is supposed to look like and then read the caveats explaining why and what to do when. I really feel strongly about this, since there are so many excited newbies jumping into the deep end, it should be more idiot proofed EraserGirl (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding screenwriters, are you talking about mention of them outside the film infobox? I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say that you found 3 that were formatted differently. If you're talking about screenwriter articles themselves, then you may want to refer to WikiProject Screenwriters. I've only truly worked on Alex Tse, who is a small-time screenwriter. Are there any elements specific to a film article that you think should have visual examples? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hah, I see you already found your way to its talk page. :) As you can tell, that WikiProject doesn't have a large number of editors, so it may be a challenge to have consistent discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Infoboxes aren't part of the discussion, when you can find the proper one THEY actually have standardization. You guys slay me, you say, we don't want to limit editors, but the wiki manual of style goes on for pages and pages and pages, you DO want to uniformity of formatting, you just don't want curb creativity of content. Believe it of not if the stubs & templates were REAL templates, ones that had an empty info box, one or two empty section headers, sections for references, credits, external links already mapped out and waiting to be filled in, you would get a lot better results. MOST people work best when you draw the lines and let them pick the colors.
{info box}
==Biography== 
==Work== 
==Credits== 
{sample table properly formatted}
==References==
==Ext Links==
[Categogry:
Then folks can just worry about what to put in not where. Of course none of those headers are carved in stone, but they do remind people that references ARE important and not as many things will be left partially completed. My discussion is not limited to screenwriters, that's just my forté, but I am finding that all behind the camera personnel get short shrift. EraserGirl (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering that I've started quite a few film articles, a template beyond the film infobox would be a good idea. I'm still not clear, though -- are you talking about articles about films, or articles about screenwriters, too? Here's the format for an article that I usually use:

{{Infobox Film}}

Lead section

==Plot==

==Cast==
*ACTOR as ROLE: Brief description goes here
*ACTOR as ROLE: Brief description goes here
*ACTOR as ROLE: Brief description goes here

==Production==
Background information about the making of the film

==Reception==
===Box office performance===
Release dates, box office statistics, popular reception

===Critical reaction===
What critics thought of the film; ensure a balanced viewpoint

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*{{imdb title|id=XXXXX|title=XXXXX}}
*{{amg title|id=XXXXXX|title=XXXXX}}

[[Category:20XX films]]
[[Category:American films]]
[[Category:English-language films]]

Is that what you're desiring? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes! hallelujah! Now why have you been keeping that all to yourself, Spread the love! share your invention with the world, boy! Why must it be limited to articles about films? I could use one of those for FILM PEOPLE, and of course a different one for cast and one for crew as they have different types of credits. Personally I am not interested in going around creating tons of empty stubs for films to be filled in by someone else later. I tend to start something and then finish it as much as I can. What we call stubs are basically empty place holders. If I HAVE to start a film article it would be ever so much nicer if i got an empty template to fill in. The other day I was separating one article into (book) and (film) and the thought was a little overwhelming, so much cutting and pasting AND formatting. I guess I am just not abstract enough, I like lines to color inside. EraserGirl (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I just clicked on stub page Template:1940s-drama-film-stub and all it gives you is a cute little grey box with the line 'this is a 1940's drama stub' what good is that? And I really doubt anyone uses that particular sort of stub at all anyway. Ideally it should present you with a stub/template like yours that says "here I am fill me in!". EraserGirl (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is what I am using for screenwriters, can you suggest tweakage? Perhaps putting all the work credits as a subheader under a WORKS header?
 {{tl|Infobox Actor}}

 Lead section

 ==Biography==

 ===Sub Sections===

 ===Sub Sections===

 ===Sub Sections===

 ==Novels==
 *''[[work title]]'', ([[year published]])

 ==Nonfiction Books==
 *''[[work title]]'', ([[year published]])

 ==Broadway Credits==
 *''production'', ([[year opened]])

 ==Film credits==
 * ''[[film title]]''  ([[year released]]; writer; producer; uncredited)

 ==References==
 {{tl|Reflist}}

 ==External links==
 *{{imdb name|0000000}}

 {{tl|Persondata}}

 [[Category:American screenwriters]]

Of course I have only really worked heavily on three pages, but the examples I had used didn't have Metadata on them, and I didn't know enough to add it. Subsequently other people have had to come along after me and add it in. Something like this attached to the STUB, even if commented out, would have reminded me of the necessary sections. EraserGirl (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC) EraserGirl (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Critical Reception - the use of review aggregators

I've never been a big fan of using review "aggregators" such as Rotten Tomatoes on film articles in Wikipedia - I don't think it adds an awful lot to an article, and a significant flaw in their usage on Wiki is that they don't necessarily agree with one another due to having varying sources.

On one of the film articles on my watchlist, CJ7, the Rotten Tomatoes scores for the two previous films by the same director/star, Shaolin Soccer and Kung Fu Hustle had been cited (90% and 89% respectively), demonstrating how the new film, CJ7 with its lowly score of 45% hasn't fared anywhere near as well as those earlier films.

On the Metacritic website, the scores for those earlier films are notably lower than Rotten Tomatoes - 68/100 and 78/100 respectively - and their current score for CJ7 is higher, at 55/100. Only this latter figure is currently noted in the article, and not the comparison figures for the earlier films.

So, on Rotten Tomatoes, the gulf in % scores between Shaolin Soccer and CJ7 is a quite sensational 45%. On Metacritic it is a relatively meagre 13%.

If the aggregate scores only differed by a couple of percent, I wouldn't really see a problem with it, but a marked differences like this means there could be selection bias if a user chooses to cite one aggregator over another (I'm not saying that is the case with this particular article). As such, I'm not sure we should be espousing the virtues of using such aggregators within film articles at all, or if we must, then users should be citing the equivalent figures from both (all) major aggregators. Gram123 (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that such websites shouldn't be decisive in determining the critical reception of a film (although they're much easier to add than actually going through individual reviews). I personally think that both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic should be included because I know that they won't always be even. Additionally, they provide an idea of how to balance reviews in the article. We don't quite have a system for that, but obviously we wouldn't add too many positive reviews for something like 10,000 BC. I think the best content to add in the "overall" sense is a revisited perspective of the film years later. At the time of the release, there's a range of opinions floating around. Later on, depending on the film's notoriety, there is sometimes coverage that talks about how it was received in general. For example, for Fight Club (film)#Critical reaction, I wrote, When Fight Club premiered at the Venice International Film Festival, the polarizing film caused a sensation and faced a wide array of opposing opinions from prominent critics. This was based on a citation from 2001, and using Rotten Tomatoes would be unreliable as it rates 80%, hardly polarizing.
Anyway, are you looking for more specific wording in the style guideline? We could possibly tweak the one sentence about RT and Metacritic to mention including both for the sake of balance. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I tend to find they're OK if you explain how the sites calculate their scores. For example:

As of March 10, 2008, review aggregate website Rotten Tomatoes reported that 69% of critics gave the film positive write-ups, based on 181 reviews. At the similar website Metacritic, which assigns a rating out of 100 to each review, the film has received an average score of 65, based on 37 reviews.

That way a reader is given all they need to make their own mind up on the information's usefulness. The Hundredth Idiot (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Good points, and yes, I think that if RT and Metacritic are the two main aggregators (are there more?), then it's worth tweaking the guideline to suggest users use both for a more balanced view.
I just thought of something when reading The Hundredth Idiot's point - it is possible that all 37 of the reviews used by Metacritic are included within RT's 181. If so, this suggests that RT would be the preferred aggregator. On the other hand, if the sources used by Metacritic are fewer because they only use more "reputable" sources then that may be preferred. Hmmm. Perhaps an analysis is required of what each agreggator's sources are. Gram123 (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of using review "aggregators" such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic in Wikipedia film articles either. I prefer to quote reviews from mainstream critics, whose opinions I feel carry more weight than a RT rating of 83%, which basically tells the reader nothing, even if you explain it means 83% of critics gave the film positive write-ups, based on 181 reviews. Who, exactly, are these critics? Vincent Canby and Mick LaSalle, or Big Bob and Joe Schmo?
As far as an analysis of what each agreggator's sources are, Metracritic relies primarily on reviews from mainstream publications, while Rotten Tomatoes relies heavily on websites created by amateur critics. Is it really relevant that "Big Bob" from "MovieLovers.com" liked or disliked a film? I don't think so. MovieMadness (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I looked at how Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes operated some time ago since I had the same doubts. Metacritic is more selective in terms of picking critics for film reviews. Rotten Tomatoes is a little broader, but it definitely does have criteria for a critic to join their listing. They include critics that we would not cite on Wikipedia, but I think that the contemporary ratings at RT have been highly consistent. If you compare award winners to box office duds declared by newspapers, you can definitely see that RT's ratings have matched the level of critical reaction reported elsewhere. In addition, I think RT works well because of normalization -- the larger the sample of reviews there are for a film, the more "normalized" the rating will be. I think this is why Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes don't always correspond -- Metacritic has a lower sample size. I think that ultimately, both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes ratings should be covered in the article. However, it shouldn't stop there. The meat of any Critical reaction section is what widely-circulated critics thought of the film. The combination of everything permits the reader to draw his or her own impression of how the film has been received. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I am very strongly in favor of the use of either aggregator because of the advantages that Erik states above. Using more than one per movie is going a bit overboard as they are necessarily going to be very highly correlated. If it were up to me, the data would be reported as a standard score which e.g. would allow people to easily compare RT to Metacritic. Per WP:NOR, we are allowed to perform the simple arithmetic necessary to do that. However, I doubt that either aggregator publishes the mean and standard deviation of their data, and it might be hard to get it. So the best we can hope for is to ask people to phrase things the way that The Hundredth Idiot shows above. Sadly, most of our articles don't do that. They usually include site-specific jargon (like "fresh" for RT) which likely confuses readers a lot. SBPrakash (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed; published information of that sort would be useful, but as you say, a little hard to come by, so we have to work with what we've got. Though I do disagree that information from only one of the sites is necessary. (Oh, and before I go on, full disclosure: I'm The Hundredth Idiot.) Anyway, to address MovieMadness' point first, Rotten Tomatoes does gauge opinion from mainstream critics as well as some notability-challenged publications of the type he mentions. But as Erik says above, the sheer number of publications they draw from helps to normalise the figure, so most of the time it's not a problem. However, anyone still concerned by this might want to refer to the site's "Cream of the Crop" section. This tallies a smaller number of reviews, from more reputable sources, in order to generate a completely separate score. If this differs enough from wider opinion (I go for about 10%), then this could be included. e.g.:

As of March 14, 2008, review aggregate website Rotten Tomatoes reported that 69% of critics gave the film positive write-ups, based on 181 reviews, with a 54% rating from selected notable critics […]

It is also worth keeping in mind that RT and MC will disagree for reasons not just to do with the notability of their critics or differences in the sample size. It's often about how they generate their scores. As explained above, Rotten Tomatoes decides whether a review is positive or negative, calculating an end score based on this simple binary assessment. Metacritic is equally subjective, but assigns a rating out of 100 to a review. So if a film recieves twelve reviews which are generally unfavourable but not utterly scathing, this might translate to a score of perhaps 41% at MC. RT, however, would declare all these reviews negative and so the film would receive a whopping 0% score. This is a strong argument for including results from both sites, as long as it's not the only information in the Reception section, and as long as each article explains how the scores are generated. That way, in combination with opinions cited to the more notable critics, readers are given all they need to make their own minds up. Steve T • C 09:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a great explanation, Steve; thanks for sharing! This makes me think of 10,000 BC, whose critical reaction has 6% for Rotten Tomatoes and 37 out of 100 for Metacritic. That's a noticeable difference, and it matches with what Steve said. On RT, either reviews are good or bad, so obviously most people didn't give a thumbs up to the film. It's like a pass/fail grade in a college course. Metacritic is more substantial, "grading" with a certain amount of points. I think this difference between the two and the prominence of both supports my opinion that both should be included for the sake of balance. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that results from both review aggregators should be included, but is it a bit much for "each article to explain how the scores are generated"? That seems like it would create a lot of duplicate information. Wouldn't it be enough to use in line links to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic whenever they are mentioned and the explanation for how each one generates its scores to be included only in the articles for those sites? For An Angel (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linking years to films by year articles

I noticed that in the lead paragraphs of some articles and particularly filmographies, there is often a piped link on the year of release to the relevant "films by year" article. For example 1991 may be linked as follows: [[1991 in film|1991]]. Alternatively, foreign films may be linked as follows: [[Hong Kong films of 1991|1991]]. Is there are any sort of agreed standard on these? I imagine the latter is preferable, but then what happens to films that are produced in more than one country (e.g. Three... Extremes)? Gram123 (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Films "based upon a true story"

Many films are based (usually only in part) on a true story, such as The Bank Job, purport to be an essentially accurate retelling of events (though with cinematic elements added), such as Charlie Wilson's War, or are fictional retellings of hisorical events, such as The Other Boleyn Girl. In such cases, I think there is considerable interest in the accuracy of the story presented, and I think it would be helpful if the style guide for such films included a section on their historical accuracy. I've added a "Historicity" section for The Bank Job that shows what I have in mind. (Someone has suggested on the talk page for that article that "historicity" is a poor word choice, which I don't necessarily disagree with. Perhaps "Historical accuracy" or some other term would be better.) Thoughts? This is obviously related to the issue of the accuracy of documentaries, but in the kind of movies I am talking about it normally should be possible to give a reasonable assessment without any original research. John M Baker (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that we could expand the scope to include films that take place in a historical setting. A recent example of this is 300, which has a "Historical accuracy" subsection. I think the key to such sections is to indicate that there must be direct commentary on these films by authoritative sources. We can't read a history book and point out that the film fails to address this. From what I can tell, the more prominent a film is, the more likely that it will attract criticisms about its historical accuracy. (There are many period pieces, but not all of them achieve notoriety like 300 to attract historians.) Any specific details to mention in addition? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem with "Historicity" is that not enough people know what it means. :) I agree that this is a relevant subject for Wikipedia articles, and The Bank Job's example is generally a good one. The guidelines should also allow the freedom of pointing out known inaccuracies, if they are properly documented. I wouldn't want to see them overinflated into nitpicking, but that can be handled the same as the amount of detail in any other area: editors making judgments of what's notable and what isn't. - JasonAQuest (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
When you say "properly documented", Jason, do you mean by secondary sources? I'm just wondering how "obvious" historical inaccuracies like the ones found in 10,000 BC (mammoths building pyramids, heh) should be pointed out. I would support limiting the scope of such accuracies or inaccuracies to what is mentioned by secondary sources, but I don't know if this limitation is favored by everyone. (See Talk:10,000 BC (film) for some dissenting discussion.) Of course, 10,000 BC isn't a "based on a true story" film, but I think that these genres go hand in hand. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that any special standards of documentation or notability are needed. For a film like The Bank Job, any relevant sources are likely to discuss the movie, and of course the kind of discussion that is in the "Historical accuracy" section of the 300 article can only be made by citing to authorities discussing the film. But for something like The Other Boleyn Girl, I would think that a comparison of the film's story to reliable historical accounts would be just fine. I doubt if too many people see 10,000 BC and wonder if it's historically accurate, but a discussion of its historical accuracy would be appropriate in the context of the critical reaction to the movie. John M Baker (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
My issue with permitting a comparison of fiction and reliable historical accounts on one's own can qualify as synthesis. By permitting that kind of comparison, it would be a very subjective discussion to say what should be included and what should not be included. Fiction can take many, many liberties with historical accounts, and I'm not comfortable with the idea of an editor purposely venturing to nitpick all the inaccuracies of a fictional work. I believe that if we are going to look at sources outside of the primary source (the film itself), these secondary sources should be directly relevant to the topic of the film in every regard. An obscure film about a true story may not get that kind of coverage, but I don't think it's our job to compensate that to be on par with films like Braveheart, which definitely should have criticism about its historical accuracy. I would rather that secondary sources speak for themselves instead of trying to determine without any previous comparison what is important for an encyclopedic article. In the instance of 10,000 BC, I placed numerous citations on its talk page that could address the nature of the prehistoric depiction. Most people would probably acknowledge that most of the film is fantastical, but others may be curious about what elements are real. (The film isn't totally apart from prehistory -- just heavily embellished.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I can see that that's a slippery slope. I'm just worried that a flat rule could be applied in an unduly restrictive way. Using The Other Boleyn Girl as my example (sorry, I didn't see Braveheart), I just don't see the harm in citing to a conventional historical source to say that Mary Boleyn is believed to have been a mistress of Henry VIII (as shown in the film), but that historians believe that Mary made no contact with Henry after Anne was sentenced to death (contra what was shown in the film). On the other hand, any sort of assessment of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the film's depiction of Anne's character clearly would be inappropriate, unless cited to a specific discussion of the film. As for the risk of nitpicking, I would be content to let the normal notability standard handle it. John M Baker (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that editorial consensus can handle the question of nitpicking vs. notable. There's probably some critic who minored in Historical Fashion out there who'll go on at length about the inaccuracy of Anne's dress in her third scene in The Other Boleyn Girl, making such analysis WP:V via WP:RS... but if someone cites that, other editors can step in and say "that's trivia". - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget that these films are fictional works of art, not documentaries. Unless it's produced by Oliver Stone, then the work is usually expected to stand on its own. If a secondary source feels compelled to comment on the historicity of the story's events and its effects on the reception or success of the work, then that's appropriate fodder for an article. However, I agree with Erik that for an editor to compare historical events with story events is synthesis, and shouldn't be done. Many producers deem some value in tagging a film with "Based (or inspired) by true events), or, in the case of TV episodes, "Not based on actual events" to the same effect. Their reasons for doing so vary, but rarely invite us to actually compare reality with fantasy.

If the film is a documentary, then a focus on historicity is important. If the film is fiction, then it is usually a minor focus. For Braveheart, I'm not even sure there was much brouhaha about how much compression of real event chronology occurred, so how much attention to differences and similarities would be required? Probably not as much as some of the recent minor controversy 10,000 BC has generated. I'm sure Oliver Stone's JFK would require quite a bit of attention, given Stone's reputation and the resulting controversy. This issue is very similar to that of differences between fictional source and adaptations: "Differences between a film adaptation and its source work(s) (actual History, in this case) can be addressed by including text detailing the reasons for a change, its effect upon the production, and the reaction to it. This material should be placed within a relevant section of the article (e.g., Production, Themes, or Reception)" and cited.
Jim Dunning | talk 02:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a huge gray area between "documentary" and "fiction", which is not always obvious to the casual viewer, so I think it's a little simplistic to say that a film is fiction and that no one expects it to reflect historical fact, nor that they don't accept it as such. To many moviegoers, J. M. Barrie was the charming man who wrote Peter Pan for a dying widow and her four sons (especially Peter) in Finding Neverland. Er... no he wasn't. To say that a moviemaker claiming historical basis for his story doesn't invite comparison on that point seems rather surprising. I'm not saying we should invent the commentary ourselves, but I disagree with the assumption of absolute artistic license you seem to be arguing from. (By the way, a "not based on actual events" tag is applied by a movie's legal counsel, not its auteur; they're two completely different types of claims.) - JasonAQuest (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm only saying that just because a film opens with a "Inspired/Based on actual events" announcement the article shouldn't automatically include a Historicity section. If credible sources take note of similarities/differences between those actual events and the fictional events, then the comments should be included in the Reception section of the article. If a significant number of sources generate enough noteworthy commentary to justify a separate section about the similarities/differences, then that's fine. A consensus of editors should be able to decide which way to go on an article-by-article basis without a Guideline. I would think, however, that most of the "relationship to true events" material would end up in Production (story development) and Reception (critics' and public's reaction to accuracy) sections (unless it's a Stone revisionist flick). By the way, I was just joking about my belief that Law & Order just adds those caveats so people think the story is actually true — I know marketing has nothing to do with it!
Jim Dunning | talk 05:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please start including ratings

Why doesn't Wikipedia tell me if a film was rated G, PG, PG-13, or R? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.153.131.102 (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

A couple of reasons: 1) This is not the American Wikipedia, so American-centric ratings would not be appropriate, and 2) film articles on Wikipedia are meant to provide encyclopedic content, not to instruct viewers about seeing a film. Most, if not all, official websites provide the rating, and websites like Fandango.com on which you can buy tickets would definitely provide the rating information that is desired. I don't think the ratings have a place in film articles unless there is relevant context about the ratings -- for instance, Live Free or Die Hard having a PG-13 rating instead of an R rating like its predecessors. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

1) is a total non-sequitor. American ratings on American films are very appropriate. And last I checked, despite the fact that this was "not the American Wikipedia," there's not a lot of non-American films listed. 2) is also a complete non-sequitor. Ratings are encyclopedic content. It's a piece of the history about a film. As for the official websites, those don't sit around forever and generally speaking aren't available for the movies I'm trying to look up. Fandango? Please be serious. Why do you think I'm looking for information about seeing a current movie? I want historical information about historical movies, and the information I want is the rating. It's at least as encyclopedic as running time, and most of the rest of what is in the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.153.131.102 (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a lot of "non-American films listed"? You just need to know where to look. You'd be surprised how many films you've probably watched and had no idea that they weren't "American films". Here's a list of New Zealand films, Here's a list of British films. The list goes on, I'm just not going to list every country's film listing. Ratings are not "historical information". Historical information denotes some kind of prose content. Saying a film was rated R isn't historical, it's just a simple trivial statement about the film. Now, discussing how an animated film became the first X-rated animated film in history would be an historical statement. As for running time, I'd be happy to see that go. It doesn't help me understand any movie any more than if it wasn't there at all. If you want to know what a movie is rated there are plenty of other websites that are designed for that type of information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
In addition, the MPAA has what seems to be a decent search engine. I tried a few titles from various eras, and it seems pretty well-informed. If you're doing research about American ratings of films, that seems like a better place. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Film name is an X-Award winning film..."

I would like to propose a change to the "lede section" section of this guideline: articles on films should in general refrain from mentioning in the opening sentence that the film has won or was nominated for particular awards. Saying "Titanic is an Academy Award-winning romantic drama directed by X and starring Y" lends the article an unsavoury promotional tone. The awards the film has won or been nominated for may be mentioned elsewhere in the lede (to establish notability, or summarize the article, for example). Thoughts? Skomorokh 17:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree; this discussion has taken place before, see here. Where could a mention go? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, it's already mentioned. Just have to hit editors over the head with it more often. Skomorokh 17:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Themes or Style / Genre

I'm a little surprised that the guidelines here have nothing to say about sections on either themes or style/genre. One would certainly find it hard to imagine an article about a novel that doesn't include this information. Why would the same not be the case for a film article? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, though I think it should be noted that not every single film is going to have this section fulfilled. It doesn't make the film less notable, or less comprehensive than any other film that does have such a thing. Obviously, searching for such things is a given, as you cannot simply say "it doesn't have it" when you never actually looked.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Grand. I was just bold and added "Major themes." I'd have thought that there was room for such a section in most film articles, if not all of them. It would also be nice to encourage editors to discuss style and genre if that is relevant (and I agree that it will not always be so). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hang on, we need to work out a consensus on the manner it should be written. For reference, a link to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines/Archive 1#Themes, influences and interpretations. Themes are great and all, but inclusion in the guidelines would make it sound common. Alientraveller (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, it's grand if a discussion gets going. Your link doesn't take me anywhere, however. (Perhaps you were trying to link to this, though there's no discussion there, just a single plea for discussion.) And yes, as I said, I think that a "Major themes" section should be common. Common enough, at least, that editors should be prompted to consider including it by looking at MOS:FILM. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Themes aren't that common in articles though, partly because editors tend to divide intent and analysis in the production and reception sections. Maybe this would work: "As well as content on development to release timelines, how they created the sets and special effects, editors should consider what the filmmaker intended the film to represent or evoke, and critics' analysis or own interpretations of it." Alientraveller (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
That would be a step forward, I think, though it is a little auteurish, eh? NB that more featured film articles than not do have a "Major themes" section, or something equivalent. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

jbmurray makes a number of important points: for instance, if indeed the majority of FA Film articles have some form of a theme section, it is likely a significant factor in why those articles are considered a worthwhile read. Not surprisingly, WikiProject Novels states that a Major themes section should be the most important content of the article. WikiProject Films should take a similar stance: instead of presenting Themes as a minor or optional section (or not mentioned at all), its importance to a good/excellent article should instead be emphasized. I agree with Bignole that not every film is going to have sufficient source material for editors to mine and include, but this project should make it a goal to develop a Themes section, whether the content is placed in Production, Reception, or Themes. Take a look at the Themes section in E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (which, admittedly does benefit from a "substantial body of criticism"), or Criticism in Halloween which has interesting observations on feminism, misogyny, and even politics. Content such as this raises the quality of the article and augments the subject's connection to the real-world. Not even this project's Reception guideline hints at the possibility of treating a film's themes in an article. We should turn this around 180°.

Such a section of the Guidelines could read:

Themes are unifying or dominant ideas and motifs in a film's elements (such as plot, dialogue, photography, and sound) conveying a position or message about life, society, and human nature. Most themes are implied rather than explicitly stated, regardless of whether their presence is the conscious intent of the producer, writer, or director. Inclusion of a treatment of a film's themes – well-sourced and cited to avoid original research – is encouraged since an article's value to a reader and its real-world context will be enhanced. A separate section is not required if it is more appropriate to place the material in the Production or Reception sections.

We should be encouraging the inclusion of such a section rather than just mentioning its possibility.
Jim Dunning | talk 13:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems pretty well written, understandable, as well as keeps from pushing editors to develop entire sections on just "themes". A film might have some scholarly works written about it, but they could provide only a paragraph of information, which may be best suited for another section. Then again, you could have films like Fight Club (though, I will note that I don't believe Erik, the primary editor for the article, has moved all of the thematic elements from his sandbox into the article yet. You can see what he's found already) that have huge amounts of scholarly works written about them, and in which case a separate section devoted to just that would be more appropriate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
That looks grand. I'll add it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot and real-world context / Guidelines clean-up

Wikipedia:Plot summaries recommends that real-world context be included in Plot descriptions. Should this be added to Films/Style guidelines?

Also, is anyone in support of cleaning up the Guidelines to ensure consistent tone and conciseness? The incremental nature of revision and guidelines evolution has left us with a variety of styles and inconsistent tone (and a few non-sequiturs). It might be worthwhile to do a complete page copy-edit without addressing intent/content.
Jim Dunning | talk 18:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There'd be no harm in someone's going through it (though right now that's something I'll be unable to help with). As for your first question, I'd wait until the relevant discussions have concluded over there before making any changes to this guideline. Steve T • C 19:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New MOS for TV

The television community currently has an MOS guideline under proposal, and would appreciate all comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#MOS proposal in order to have the best possible guide for television related articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)