Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LiteraryMaven (talk | contribs) at 17:12, 26 December 2009 (→‎{{tl|FilmUS}} is a no-no: Added comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Template:WP Film Sidebar

Bold formatting in "Cast" section

In a bold move, I removed the bold formatting from the name of the actor and the role in the "Cast" section. I do this because MOS:BOLD clearly defines the instances where bold formatting should be used, and articles under WikiProject Films should be able to survive without using this formatting. I believe we need to start moving away from this traditional mindset and am considering launching an RfC for outside opinions about "Cast" sections warranting bold formatting or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on it being unnecessary. I'd really like to see us encouraging a move for cast only lists to be incorporated into the plot section rather than continuing to just have a list of who played what. I think cast really only should be separate when a fuller casting section can be part of the production info. Thoughts on this? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We definitely need to rework the sub-guidelines for the "Cast" section. They are a bit old! I thought that the bold formatting might be a good initial issue to address, and I wanted to be bold here to remove it, citing MOS:BOLD. I think we need to be careful with encouraging merging cast members into the plot summaries. First, a lot of articles under WikiProject Films will never be expanded, so a basic cast list should be acceptable when these articles are not being actively developed toward B-Class, GA, or FA status. Merging that way may not be the best solution sometimes, depending on the article. It should be whatever works for the article. Sometimes there's a "Cast" section and a "Casting" subsection, and the names of actors and roles can be moved from the section to the subsection. Maybe one of us can do a fresh write-up? For this particular issue of bold formatting, though, do you agree about the RfC or another consensus-building approach? We should have the mentality of film articles surviving without bold formatting as if we never had that option before. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think, for now, lets try discussion here. If there are not enough views or views are mixed, then an RfC might be good. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree on the arbitrary banning of "Cast" sections. I do agree that in most movies (that is movies "about people"), you may be fine incorporating the cast into the plot, as normally introducing people in a movie only requires mentioning their name and maybe their job or relation to some other character, with their character getting developed by the plot itself. The issue arises with movies in which there's many characters that aren't simply people you can describe in proper depth within the plot without disrupting the narrative of the plot itself. This could be due to the characters coming from pre-established universes —thus bringing relevant background information that doesn't stem from the movie's plot—, or having qualities relevant to the character (eg special abilities) that, while deserving mention, wouldn't be relevant enough plot-wise to be mentioned in the plot summary. Examples of such movies would be X-Men or Transformers to name a few. Also, these movies tend to be very "character oriented", in the sense that characters are very relevant to their audience, sometimes even more so than the (often simplistic) plot itself. In these cases, I'd suggest a layout more akin to that used in cartoons and comics (examples here and here). This layout also makes way for the addition of character-specific pre-production information, frequent in this type of films. This said, common sense should then be excercised in the determination of whether a movie actually does require this layout. --uKER (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. I tend to think of the Cast list as "Cast and Characters" and it with so many editors pushing to keep the Plot Synopsis as short as possible the Cast section provides a suitable place to inlcude a little character background without bloating the Plot. The cast list can also be good place to take note of cameos which are simply inappropriate in the plot section (but could be awkwardly included under a casting subsection of Production details).
I think very few editors do it anyway but I strongly discourage the use of tables for the cast list as they put up a barrier against changing to a prose description and including casting or character details. -- Horkana (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a good idea to eliminate cast lists. It would make just as much sense to eliminate the plot summary and try to include that information in the section on the cast. The summary has one function, the cast list another. Leave well enough alone. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to state that I believe that cast section should stay. It just seems kinda silly to have to scan the plot section in order to find out who was in the movie. ONEder Boy (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is my interpretation but wording in Cast guidelines seems like there is a preference for no separate Cast list at all but that editors might grudgingly include one. That doesn't seem to fit with the consensus of the brief discussion here, perhaps archived discussion were different?
More important to me though is "Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" that really belongs in the plot summary" which I read as perhaps more hostile than intended. Quite a few editors insist on cutting down the Plot summary to the absolute minimum, which very much excludes character description. I suppose the sentence "for credits where the character has not been mentioned in the plot section, a short summary of the importance and role of the character in the film would be necessary" does give me enough wiggle room to work with and get at least a basic short description of who characters are but I would very much like to see the wording clarified to make it seem a little more definitive. Oh and one short sentence saying "use of tables in Cast lists is discouraged" or words to that effect would be great too. -- Horkana (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also some guideline would be good to explain at what point the cast list in the infobox can be shortened to just a relative link to the main section, as See Cast is something I've seen in some of the older bigger articles (specifically the Star Trek films). -- Horkana (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After having an edit reverted I've noticed the Television guidelines conflict with the film guidelines as they specifically recommend the use of Bold for "ACTOR as Character". I think the approach here of not using bold is better but I think it is more important that both guidelines at least remain consistent. -- Horkana (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try this again, since I was auto-blocked for being a sockpuppet (ugh shared IPs). Should bold be used in incidents such as this, when a brief summary is given on the character. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 18:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An incident is an event. Do you mean "instances such as this"? —Codrdan (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.... --Mike Allen talk · contribs 19:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe the WP:TV guidelines are correct, but I do not work enough with TV articles to follow up on a discussion about using bold formatting in them. MOS:BOLD specifies when to use the formatting, and a cast list is not one instance. In the example of 2012 (film), there's even less reason to use bold formatting. Traditionally, we used it to make something stand out in multi-lined bulleted items, but for that particular article, nothing would stand out. It would be a bold wall. Erik (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So this shouldn't be bolded either: A Christmas Carol (2009 film). The reason I bolded them is because I seen a GA article (can't remember which one) with the cast + a summary section bolded, tis why I bolded articles of the same nature. Now I know GA's are not graded by MOS. :-\ --Mike Allen talk · contribs 20:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, film articles can be without bold formatting in cast lists. The formatting can still be seen because the formatting was used traditionally, and there has not really been a movement to purge all formatting. I've tried, but I don't think it's an interesting enough issue for editors to go after the formatting in a real way. Erik (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sequels, Video games, Spin-offs and Tie-ins

The article for Monsters vs. Aliens has a particular messy section labelled "semi-sequels" and I checked here to see if there were any guidelines but there do not seem to be any or even stubs indication intention to have guidelines for the above mentioned sections. Sequels do tend to be presented consistenly enough although some editors insist on using the section title "Prequels" as well. Video games too are usually consistently presented as a top level heading but the reason I mention it is because perhaps it can be be grouped in a section with other spinoffs or merchandising? Suggestions? -- Horkana (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

Currently existing film plot summaries vary widely in style and structure. It would help to have more complete and/or authoritative guidelines for creating new summaries. This page and How to write a plot summary are currently the only sources on Wikipedia that provide suggestions on how to do this. —Codrdan (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actor names

Names of leading actors are usually listed after the first mention of their characters' names. This may be convenient for the reader, but is redundant with the main info box and the Cast section. Should the names of leading actors be listed in the plot summary? If so, what criteria should be used to determine which actors are listed? Should the actor's first name be included, or only the last name? Should the name contain a link? Ways of organizing a plot summary recommends including the name with a link, and mentioning the last name only would be a compromise between convenience and minimizing redundancy. —Codrdan (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they should. The infobox is a summary of the article. If the cast section has nothing but the list of actors or a list with nothing but a repeat of plot summary without actual discussion of casting, it should be removed in favor of having the full name of the actor, appropriately linked, in the plot summary instead. I also tend to still favor the cast names in the plot even if there is a fuller cast section, however, as it is the section before cast, so per the general MoS, that should be where they are first linked and spelled out in full. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a need for the names to be included in the plot section if we already have a cast list. I agree that if it is just a list of actors/roles, then the names could only be mentioned in the plot. However, for the majority of our articles, they are start/stub class articles with only a plot and cast list. For our higher class articles, if the cast section can be expanded to include additional plot details/casting/significant events, then we should just have the names within the list, to help direct readers to view that portion of the article. However, if it's only actors/roles, then it should be removed and the plot's characters have the actors' names. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Including the cast list inline - I should say "in context" - can be very helpful and is in keeping with what people expect from print articles. I find it really helps me to visualise and connect the character name to an actor in a film I have not seen. While I would be tempted to i theory to support your suggestion to have the cast names inline and not have a Cast section "unless ..." In practice I don't think you can craft guideline that wouldn't result in editors deleting all the Cast sections and it being very difficult to add a Cast section at all let alone have time to expand it. On top of that there are editors determined to keep the Plot sections absolutely as short as the guidelines allow them leaving no room whatsoever to mention Cameos in the plot section. (The concensus in the above earlier cast list discussion was very much against Cast sections being removed.)
Some articles such as the Star Trek film avoid some of the redundancy by having the infobox link straight to the cast section, rather than repeating them. I asked above about when to apply this style but got no answer but I suppose any article that can really justify 7 featured actors (maybe The Chumscrubber and other ensemble films) could also use that approach. Given the nature hypertext and the tendency of readers to jump into an article at different points, and Wikipedia having no shortage of space (in theory) I wouldn't worry too much about the redundancy. It is often great to get a brief bit of information about the Cast from the cast section without having the Plot section which carries a much higher risk of plot spoilers. -- Horkana (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus against removing cast sections. Indeed, the general consensus is that they should be removed if they are nothing but a list of actor played X or plot summary, which can go into the plot, per the MoS. The suggestion is what is and should be done in practice. Cameos should only be noted where actually notable and then they can easily be put in the production section. The infobox should generally have the top actors in the film (a good rule of thumb is the headliners from the poster or DVD cover, or the list at the bottom of the same if is not too long). Having just "see below" should be avoided as much as possible as Wikipedia articles in general should not be self-referencing. Plot spoilers are, of course, irrelevant, as Wikipedia is not spoiler free. The cast section is just as likely to have spoilers (case in point, Nimoy being in Star Trek as Spock could be considered a big spoiler by some, as it was clearly intended to be a "twist"). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial summary

How to begin a plot summary recommends beginning a 200–300-word summary of a fairy tale with a single sentence summarizing the entire story. A two-sentence paragraph would occupy the same fraction of a 400–700-word summary. Is there any reason to place the initial summary in the lead section? Should the initial summary include a spoiler of the film's conclusion? —Codrdan (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do initial summaries in the plot sections for film, and How to begin should really be updated as that is not done in almost any media article anymore (redundant and was done initially to address the now non-issue of spoilers). Instead, the lead itself should have a two-sentence summary, and generally it should not include the film's end, but just a general overall summary. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deconstruction

Many existing plot summaries on Wikipedia describe events more or less in the order in which they occur in the film story. However, most feature films contain multiple threads or plotlines, which can be emphasized by discussing events in each subplot separately. Ways of organizing a plot summary passively suggests this, but doesn't actively recommend it. [see below] How much should the story's structure be emphasized as opposed to the chronological order of events? —Codrdan (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be told in the order shown and make sense, it should be told that way. Only in extreme cases, like with Pulp Fiction, should story structure be emphasized over the way it actually plays out on the screen. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it simple. Memento (film) and 500 Days of Summer are both examples where a film with a non-linear narrative has been made as linear as possible. Clarity is key, think about what makes it easiest for readers to understand. Memento (an exceptional story) does go the extra mile and provide the summary again as it was shown but that would be the exception and you'd generally make things linear unless it ends up over complicating things even more. -- Horkana (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't express myself properly. Organizing a plot summary suggests REconstructing the story's chronology to explain event reorderings such as flashbacks, but doesn't mention DEconstructing the chronology to explain threads or subplots. Here are some examples of at least partially independent threads:

  • Generally speaking, almost every Hollywood film contains a love story, no matter what the main topic is.
  • More specifically, People Will Talk is divided 50/50, pretty much exactly, into two threads that have essentially no effect on each other. They have common themes, i.e. the main character and a threat to a character's reputation, but I think a "reasonable, educated person" can verify that the film contains two distinct stories, and I think listing the film's events linearly obscures that fact.
  • Once Upon a Time in the West is divided fairly evenly into a land battle and a mission of vengeance.

[edited] —Codrdan (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Length

Does anybody think that 400-700 words is a bit restrictive for a good plot description? For throwaway straight-to-video or star vehicles with low notability, maybe. But there are many notable films and even less notable films with very nuanced plot structures that are impossible to encapsulate accurately or meaningfully within this limit. Now, even though the guideline makes some cases for a longer description under narrower circumstances, the unintended effect of putting an actual count out there is that it brings out the Wikilawyering. I am not against putting out a count. But I think if we are going to put out a count, we recalibrate the numerics, or we change the language to make it sound clearly more aspirational and less like canon.

As it stands, it seems somebody recently chopped out a reference to 900 words in this guideline without any consensus or debate about it. We need to somehow give numbers less emphasis and sound judgment more emphasis.

Thoughts?

Diegoboten (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. 400-700 is a very well set level with a long consensus behind it. If anything, it is often too permissive as we still struggle with some folks wanting to claim that since it has an upper limit of 700 words, that they can use all 700 words to summarize their favorite film, when 400-500 will do it. It is fully possible to summarize the vast majority of films, including "notable" ones accurately and appropriately within that limit. The reference to 900 words was removed with consensus, per lengthy discussion on the recent updates to this guideline. The numbers need the emphasis. "Sound judgement" on when longer is needed tends to be in the eye of the beholder, and thus far every attempt I've personally seen of someone claiming more than 700 words was needed was refuted and rejected in community discussion showing clearly how and where the plot could be cut. Remember, the summary is not a scene by scene blow, nor even to give every "nuance" of a plot, but a good over view of the major plot points to give the article appropriate context. See also WP:WAF. As a courtesy, I think it would have been appropriate for you to note that you are asking this as a newer editor who wishes to remove the plot tag on A Serious Man, which does not necessitate the changing of the style guide, but discussion, as you've already started. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this is true, then why are so many notable (and non-notable) movies just not following this guideline and why are there so many edit wars specifically around this guideline? One can say "Oh we haven't gotten to them yet" but would a movie such as The Godfather, or Schindlers List be well served by this guideline? One can argue that these are the exceptions that the guideline alludes to, but I actually think that's false comfort. The truth is, these movies survive longer treatment due to countless edit wars and the fact that they are highly regarded and fandom wins the day. But less notable (or highly topical or foreign) films might get the short shrift by some amateur Wikilawyer who pays attention to a hard value and discards the spirit of the guideline. So if we are to include a value such as "400-700" (and heck! Why we're at it, Why not 200-300? Or a tweet?) can we ensure that the language is more of an aspirational guideline and be less of a fodder for wikilawyering?
Edit -- Also on your last point, I had considered it, but figured I didn't want to make this about me. Diegoboten (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quality film articles ARE following this guideline. There are well over 100,000 film articles and maybe 2 dozen editors working on them,. There are over 2,200 articles from various media tagged for plot issues. Yes, there are many film articles that violate this guideline, as well as many other Wikipedia guidelines and policies. That is NOT a valid excuse to try to claim the guideline is somehow invalid or that it should be made useless. People vandalize daily, but we will not remove that as a policy just because of it. And yes, The Godfather and Schindler's List ARE well served by this guideline. Both's plot sections are too long. The Godfather's, and Schindler's List failed its GAN earlier this year because of the same issue. Fandom does not "win the day" in the long run nor is there any call to claim that feature films are somehow getting preferential treatment. Any article of any real quality (GA/FA) will follow the guideline. And 200-300 is the guideline for a television episode and clearly not long enough. Being obtuse is not helping. The language is fully appropriate and does serve the film articles well, when it is properly applied. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can something "violate" a guideline if it's a guideline and not a policy? This is what I mean about people confusing the difference between aspirational guidelines and "law". These are supposed to help people write better by providing guidelines, not thwart people from trying. Write a guideline like a guideline and write a policy like a policy. Diegoboten (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a good many notable film articles are skirting this guideline despite thousands of edits, then what exactly is a valid form of challenge? Suggesting that a guideline somehow creates its own automatic legitimacy is a bit of a tautology, remember all of this is to help guide (emphasis on the word) principled editing, not define what is a principled edit itself. Also, never confuse good faith edits with "vandalism", which is what your argument is conflating, and never consider dissent to something that is NOT a policy to be invalid form of participation. Did it ever occur to you that articles that "violate" (your words) guidelines do so because the guideline may actually be poorly calibrated for the subject matter? We always have the right to revise things to help improve and enlighten towards the underlying principle it serves. A bad policy around a good principle serves no one. Diegoboten (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest problem is that many people haven't learned to write concisely and summarize properly. Most long summaries read like blow-by-blow scene dumps or short-story versions of the film. —Codrdan (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The word limit is fine. It's editors writing too much about films they love that's the problem. Geoff B (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So why exactly is this word limit "fine" if every major film anybody cares about (or say listed in the AFC list of top 100 movies) pretty much ignore this guideline outright? Diegoboten (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you're not going to create genius writers by throwing in a hard limit and marking it with a highlighter. Instead, you're going to bring out the knuckleheads who will jump at any chance to kill what might have been a useful description out of a misguided fealty towards some dim sense that they are there to enforce things. Diegoboten (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about lawyers. 700 words is more than enough for 99.9 percent of the films out there, and no one will complain if you need more for War and Peace or Gone With the Wind. —Codrdan (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) 400 to 700 words is not a hard limit. There is 300 words of flexibility. If you believe that the 700-word cap is a "hard limit", it is Wikipedia's policy to treat fictional works (most films) in an encyclopedic manner. This manner means real-world context, such as reception and themes. For the overwhelming majority of films, the plot summary should be "concise" as the policy says, and the range determined by WikiProject Films covers most films. The WikiProject's guidelines clearly address that there may be exceptions. Films are easy to see, especially the popular ones. It is much more useful to provide real-world context to readers because such context has to be accumulated and presented in a consolidated article. See American Beauty (film) as a growing example that does not worry so much about the plot and more about everything else. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 22:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also wouldn't say that editors are ignoring the guidelines, but probably aren't aware of them. Many plots come along from IPs or new editors after they just saw the film in theaters. Watch any article released in theaters for the first week or two, and the plot length will blossom out of control. Unfortunately, trying to ensure that we have a concise plot for articles is difficult during this period when many new editors edit the article for the first time. As editors become more familiar with editing, they help to improve articles by complying with established guidelines. The best way to help combat long plot lengths is to guide new editors to articles that provide good examples and to seek out our project's guidelines. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Writing plot summaries is easy, as in I can watch any film and write a 2,000 words blow by blow account, and I will be correct. And 'cause summaries don't need to back up what happens this means anyone who has seen a film can write one, it's a lazy contribution. You don't need to meet RS, you don't need to meet V, and you don't need sources; you just watch the film. Problem is that it leads to film articles being about nothing but the plot. Also if you let one subplot in then the next IP user unfamiliar with plot length adds another and another until the article is nothing but plot. Every film I have seen that I have then read about on WP I have shortened the plot of, and on one occasion some other editors actually congratulated me on being able to do it well. For an example of good plot summaries see the articles on the novels of Twilight, the final book summarizes 756 pages into 426 words. Talk of "Wikilawyering" is overblown, referring those unfamiliar with the MOS to stick within 400-700 words is not lawyering anyone, it is simply referring to a consensus amongst editors about how fiction should be summarized. Writing what you've watched on screen is easy, editing it down it the hard part, and most IP editors don't care about that part. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Running-time guideline

Although I think the concerns about Wikilawyering are overblown, it might be reassuring to have guidelines that are both more specific and more flexible, so they apply to as many films as possible. So, how about this: a target length of five to six words per minute of running time, with a maximum of seven for fast-moving films such as cartoons and complex films such as sci-fi and murder mysteries. Slow-moving stories such as Once Upon a Time in the West could be as little as four words per minute. This is basically consistent with the current 400–700 word range, and it's almost as simple, but it accounts for most of the exceptions people have been complaining about, and it provides more information about which end of the range should be favored for individual films. —Codrdan (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how that makes it any clearer. To me, its more confusing, and seems backwards. Why would a fast moving film get more words per minuted than a more complex one? The 400-700 word range has worked extremely well for quite awhile now, and are much more specific and flexible. They are fully applicable to all films, and work well. In the article mentioned above, by simply cutting out the excessive wordiness and redundancy, the plot dropped from over 700 to just under 500, with only one bit (a non-relevant prologue) removed all together. For the rest, pretty much nothing was lost, just cleaned up and tightened up. Novels do not go by word count, the episode list does not go by time, and I don't think doing films by time would be a good change either. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
> I really don't see how that makes it any clearer.
5–6 is a narrower range than 400–700. It clears up uncertainty about whether a long film's summary should be closer to 700 words or one for a shorter film should be closer to 400 words.
> To me, its more confusing
Don't you have a calculator? All you have to do is multiply the running time in minutes by 5 to get the minimum number of words in the summary, and then multiply the running time by 6 to get the maximum.
> Why would a fast moving film get more words per minuted than a more complex one?
I said they both get more space. I suggested seven words per minute.
> The 400-700 word range has worked extremely well
I would have to disagree. Diegoboten has already complained about it, and I don't think 400 words is appropriate for a typical 120-minute film, or 700 words for a typical 70-minute film.
> much more specific and flexible
A range of 400–700 isn't very specific, and its flexibility is based on the editor's whim instead of what's really best for each film.
> They are fully applicable to all films
They're obviously not applicable to long films like Gone With the Wind.
> I don't think doing films by time would be a good change
Well, that seems to be what many of the complaints and exceptions are based on. Thanks for replying. —Codrdan (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too much time is wasted worrying about guidelines for writing the plot summary of a film. The range of 400 to 700 words is the least convoluted of guidelines we can write about the topic. The point of this range is to limit in general the reiteration of the film's plot. The range has been around for quite some time, and we have plenty of Good and Featured Articles complying in this range. Let me blunt: Stop worrying about the plot summary guidelines and focus on contributing real-world context or contributing guidelines to real-world context. That context is what Wikipedia articles about films need the most. I encourage you to worry about that and not the plot. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 17:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Release dates, distributors, and production company

There's a discussion that has started on the talk page of 2012 about what constitutes "country or countries that produced the film" in deciding which countries should be included in the "release dates" field of the infobox. A thread on this page covers this issue well, but doesn't really get in-depth about some "distributor vs. country of production" issues. There's more details available in the 2012 discussion if anyone is curious. If it doesn't reach a consensus, you'll see what I mean when I say that it should be further discussed here. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many actors in Cast section?

How many actors should be listed in the Cast section? There's usually a distinction between actors who are listed in the opening credits vs. those who are not. —Codrdan (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I usually use the rule of thumb of headliners in the infobox, those who actually get mentioned in the plot summary in the cast section (if there is one). Minor roles shouldn't be listed in either. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help thinking your question is asking for reasons to keep the Cast list short. Headliners makes sense of course, but it leaves little room for notable actors in minor roles. I will often create a subsection for Cameos, to make it clearer for editors who like to delete first and don't get why people they don't know might be worth including. Perhaps it would be good to have a separate subsections or even just a full line break between the list of main and additional cast. I'd hate to see inflexible rule that would be used as an excuse to cut down the cast list the bare minimum and leave no room to include even a few of the regular character actors who fill in all the gaps. The rules seem simple when applied to big blockbusters but it all becomes murky on smaller films when the cast is largely unknown. -- Horkana (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, cameos are not notable and certainly should not be highlighted with a subsection, if at all. Wikipedia is not IMDB. If people want a full cast list, there are plenty of places for it. The relevant cast are what needs to be noted in the article. If the roles is not important enough to be mentioned in a well crafted plot summary, it rarely can be justified as belonging in the cast list either. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not much fun really. Other guidelines push for a very short summary, which hardly leaves room to mention any more actors than the even the poster in their plot synopsis. It seems a shame to take such a minimalist approach in a medium with so much space ... I suppose that's the way Wikipedia is going. sigh -- Horkana (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines push for an appropriate summary. I'd guess that if all the major players in a film cannot be noted in the 400-700 word summary, then either they aren't that major after all, or the summary needs reexamining. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good rule of thumb -- one that hasn't been meaningfully criticized -- is to include everyone above the title in the film credits, plus the first three below the title. It's a very practical standard. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would avoid numerical rules if possible. The production studio has already decided who they think is important, and some films have no stars above the title or plots with many important characters. Secondary actors are usually listed in a section that starts with the word "with". I've been including all actors in the opening credits in the Cast section and all actors before the "with" section in the infobox. —Codrdan (talk) 10:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of a reason to avoid a numerical guide. We're looking for a starting point for a guide of our own creation, so why not draw on a verifiable outside source for the sake of simplicity? The article can fill in the rest of the picture if required, no? --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just gave you two reasons. Some stories have up to half a dozen or more important characters, and if there are no big movie stars in the film, there may be no names before the title at all. So your three-names-after-the-title rule could easily cut out as much as half of the cast. A good guideline should use as much information from the film as possible. —Codrdan (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I think we're coming at this from opposite ends. The problem I was aware of was too many names in the infobox. You are concerned about too few. My understanding of the consensus was that we should restrict the names in the box to major players. It's not supposed to "use as much information from the film as possible." Most actors are going to be left out. For a comprehensive list, imdb.com is there. Perhaps you don't agree that's a good policy. I'm comfortable with it, even if only three actors are in the box, as long as it's a guide not a rule. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
> You are concerned about too few.
Please read more carefully. I'm concerned about article quality, and I'm concerned about edit wars and ambiguous guidelines. It would be good to have an accepted way of deciding which minor players should be excluded. Also, using more information doesn't mean including more content. It means basing decisions on the distinctions between actors listed before the title, those just after the title, those in the "with" section, and those only in the end credits. It means tailoring the article to the film instead of trying to force the film into a simple-minded one-size-fits-all formula. Three actors is almost never enough for the Cast section, which is at least half of what this talk section is about, and even in the info box the number of stars in the film can vary widely. —Codrdan (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate the nuance you're bringing to the question. I would suggest that we have common ground in your remark that you want to avoid some edit wars and ambiguity. I hope you will understand that I am trying to reduce the ambiguity by drawing a bright line. It's imperfect, but no guideline will work in all cases anyway. AT+3 usually works pretty well and has the virtue of being sourced. I don't see any harm done if only three actors are in the box sometimes. For Paranormal Activity, three is too many. In the rare case that some actors have large roles despite being far down in the credits (I don't know of one) and someone like you includes them and thirdly someone else objects, well, would it really be so bad? Anyway, there are bigger fish to fry. Thanks again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should mention as well that AT+3 might be the better standard for the infobox instead of the Cast section. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

> some actors have large roles despite being far down in the credits
Just for future reference, I've seen this done for two reasons: In The Parent Trap, Three Smart Girls, and Girls' Dormitory (not porn ;), the lead role is played by a young or newly discovered actress who is listed last, with "introducing" or some other special comment before her name. In The Thornbirds and Wait Until Dark, a prominent, experienced actor (Barbara Stanwyck and Efrem Zimbalist Jr.) playing a secondary role is listed last, along with the name of his or her character. —Codrdan (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The practice of listing a prominent player last with the name of their character used to be widespread. I put that in the category "Common Exceptions." Just for clarity's sake, are you proposing a rule of your own? I'm not sure I see your bright line. This discussion began with the notion that the infobox was the standard for the Cast section. My feeling is the infobox is going to be more restricted than the Cast section by a factor of two. AT+3 for the infobox, noteworthy characters/actors in Cast. And while we're on the subject, I'd be happy to see a section for Characters with a separate listing for Cast. The two get conflated at the drop of a hat. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
> This discussion began with the notion that the infobox was the standard for the Cast section.
No it didn't. Please learn how to read.
> are you proposing a rule of your own? I'm not sure I see your bright line.
My previous post doesn't propose anything. You mentioned major roles being listed later in the credits, so I provided some examples for future use. My earlier posts suggested several places where lines might be drawn. —Codrdan (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another example of unusual credit formatting is If You Could Only Cook. The third character is listed after the word "with", but it's an important role and the actor's credit is on the title screen along with the leads. I guess being on or before the title screen is more important than wording.
Edits:
17:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC): also Red Dust (Raymond & Astor)
02:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC): Pay It Forward has no opening credits at all except the stars.
18:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC): Real Genius: After the first four actors, it says "also starring" instead of "with" before the rest of the cast. Personally, I think they're just trying to make the other actors feel good. I would delete them from the infobox. Then there would be a consistent rule that position in the credits is more important than wording.
—Codrdan (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's an issue that evolving practices are not conducive to regulation. It might be useful to find the quintessential borderline case as a benchmark for comparison. In other words, what's the best case that definitely could go either way? It's probably going to be a role in a large cast movie played by a headliner but that doesn't have much to do. Perhaps Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder if he had been credited. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ensemble casts are definitely worth considering. For examples: National Board of Review Award for Best Cast, Screen Actors Guild cast award, It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, Murder by Death, Clue (film), Playing by Heart, Sin City (film), 200 Cigarettes, Mars Attacks! —Codrdan (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another hard type of case, but what is to be done? --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion about that. One possibility might be to just write "(ensemble cast)" in the "Starring" section of the infobox if there are too many stars, with an upper limit of half a dozen or so. —Codrdan (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So how do we determine what character is a main character or a minor, without hitting original research? Also, after reevaluating how articles have the cast sections; I think the cast should be in the plot and also under a "Casting" H3 section (granted there's sources to warrant the actors to be under a "Casting" section). --Mike Allen talk · contribs 00:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what we're trying to figure out. I'm not sure it's possible without either understanding the story or relying on the production studio's judgement. —Codrdan (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate endings

What is the proposed way of exposing a film's alternate endings? --uKER (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but Clue is an example. —Codrdan (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless its actually note-worthy and given coverage in third-party sources, generally you don't. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should depend on the prominence of the alternate endings. If a film ends very differently on its theatrical run in two territories, then they should be covered in the "Plot" section. (Perhaps in subsections? There's flexibility here.) If the alternate endings for a film only exists as part of special features on the DVD or what-have-you, then it's not as prominent. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 22:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The theatrical run is not the final word. We don't have separate articles for other media, so alternate endings or beginnings need to be covered in the main article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's note-worthy, it will be covered in either a writing section, and editing section, or the release section if a special DVD is being released with that ending. It is not covered in the plot section, because that is reserved for the theatrical run of the film (exception being if an alternative version of the film is released theatrically).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems inadequate for some special cases. Consider Bergman's Fanny and Alexander: 312 mins on television, 188 minutes in the theaters. That's not just something for the editing section, in my view. If memory serves, something similar happened with Scenes from a Marriage. But maybe you're comfortable with special treatment for those situations. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about movies with several versions featuring different endings. Examples that come to mind are The Descent and Paranormal Activity. The thing is that the Paranormal Activity describes the alternate endings in the "Writing" section, which should be about the film's writing process, and is certainly not the place where one would expect to find info on an alternate ending should one go looking for it. --uKER (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it would be. The "alternate ending" isn't part of the original plot. It was either filmed just to have something different, or it was deemed inadequate for the story and replaced by something else. If it was replaced then you're likely to find it in a writing section, because it originated in a script. If it was just something extra, you'd probably find it in a filming section as something that was just tacked on at the end and not part of the original script.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bignole, I think you're a little off here, it seems, in saying that a report on something filmed belongs in a section about writing. That doesn't seem like the right solution exactly. Care to refine your response a little? --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I said was if it was something that was in the original script but scrapped then it's probably better suited for the Writing section. Because you'll have, or should have, the writer's opinion on that ending and possibly why it was scrapped. If it was something filmed additionally, then it should be in the Filming section of the article because it was probably something thrown together by the director or a producer "just to have".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 10:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense but I was under the impression the Paranormal Activity sourced above had been filmed and edited but then not used for the wide release. Carry on. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the organization of Plot

This is the proposal. It's better organized and introduces no new content. Any disinterested objections?

Plot summaries are self-contained sections in film articles. They are appropriate to complement wider coverage about the films' production, reception, themes, and other real-world aspects (see WP:PLOT). Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable. WP:PSTS says, "...a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge... Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary. Exceptions to the rule include upcoming films and "lost" films (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors should use secondary sources.

--Ring Cinema (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason for it and the original properly puts it in context first, IMHO. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Don't fix what's not broken. Please contribute to film articles themselves; there's a lot to be done and can be done, using the guidelines as they are. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 17:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should we make an excuse for the existence of the Plot section as if there's some question whether it belongs? I think not, and don't think it's normal or good practice. Should we group together sentences that cover the same topic? Yes, that's good organization. Should we start with the general statement and proceed to the specifics? I think so. It's an extremely simple improvement and Wikipedia gets better by making incremental improvements like that. There are other problems with the section but this is an extremely simple improvement. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is against you on these guidelines warranting change. You have contributed very little when it comes to film articles. I strongly encourage you to go build up experience in Wikipedia's core activity—editing—before you profess to know how to write guidelines for a WikiProject. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 22:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erik, I knew when I made this suggestion that you would have a hard time accepting any changes, even though it's just about the most obvious improvement in the paragraph's organization. Some might say that says a lot about you, but not me. This is just how it is on Wikipedia. You wrote a paragraph, it wasn't perfect and others come along and offer improvements. That's how it goes here. You have not offered a substantive response to my reasoning, and I assume that means you are unable to think of a good reason not to improve the article's organization. (Neither can I!) In the meantime, the article on Wikiquette is available for rereading if you find the time. Do you need a link to that? Thanks again for all your hard work! --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a need to change it as it is currently written, nor consider the recommended change the "most obvious improvement" to the section. At this point, I'm more concerned about editors actually following the guideline to help improve the thousands of articles that conflict with the guideline. The section doesn't need to be perfect, and it never will be. However, as it currently stands it accurately represents the guidelines accepted through consensus in this project and other areas of Wikipedia. I'd say we should now stick to proposed changes to the plot, such as some of the above discussions in previous sections. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "the section doesn't need to be perfect" I take that as an acknowledgement that it can be improved. I agree. What would you say is the most obvious improvement? At the time Erik's somewhat disorganized draft was accepted, it was mentioned that it would be subject to editing like every other article on Wikipedia in the future. Fortunately, my proposal doesn't alter the content in any way so no issue of accuracy is involved. In fact, improving the organization of the lead paragraph on the Plot section might improve people following the guideline...? There's a chance. Apparently the main argument against editing an article on Wikipedia is that editing should not be done on Wikipedia articles. Is that how Wikipedia works? I'm still looking for someone to say that the current draft is better organized than my revision. I haven't heard that yet, so I'm pretty sure that my rather obvious improvement is in fact better organized. Hearing no objections, I assume at this point there is no doubt about that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nehrams meant to say that we can keep shifting the words around and still achieve the same effect. There is no Featured Guidelines status for which to nominate it, but its meaning suffices for editors of film articles. Speaking of which, there is much work to be done in the mainspace, particularly outside film articles' complementary plot summaries. Please, I encourage you to do some actual editing and quit wasting our time. Erik (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your version is not "better organized" nor does the current version introduce any new content. As Erik said, surely there are better things to do with your time than starting an argument over something so ridiculously minor. If, as you say, your version doesn't change the meaning, then why change it at all? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This section could use more reorganization than just the first paragraph. RC, you're starting your text with formatting instructions. I don't think that's better than starting with a justification for having the summary in the first place. The "right" way to start the section would be to say what a plot summary is before trying to discuss it. Right now, that's the first sentence of the third paragraph: "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events." The second sentence should state the summary's purpose. Also, discussion of the summary's content is buried in paragraphs 2 (complications) and 3 (details and spoilers). That should be consolidated, and the link to HTWAPS should be moved to the end of the section instead of being buried in the middle. —Codrdan (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Film navbox consensus, oh where did it go?

Where is the consensus/discussion that was reached concerning the navboxes for films to not include the directors/writers/cast? I know it exist, somewhere, but can't find it again... Thank you. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 23:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is an example of a navbox in question? Erik (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's referring to the footer navigational boxes for films with multiple articles? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saw (franchise). With the directors/writers/cast, and the current, without. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 00:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if guidelines are set anywhere about these navboxes, but the prevailing argument against names in the navbox is that a person is more than their contributions. If someone wrote for one film in a film franchise and has had a prolific career outside it, then it is excessive to put the navbox in that person's article. While navboxes could be restricted to franchise-specific articles, it may still be too detailed because peoples' articles are not really pertinent to a franchise, having only a paragraph's worth of information or even just a bulleted entry of being credited. Erik (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the actors/directors/writers, should not be included in the template? --Mike Allen talk · contribs 00:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there is a clear consensus on the matter, but I have seen more trimmings of such names than endeavors to add names. Erik (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I read must have been clearly something different.. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 02:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I found what I was looking for: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 3#Actors paddin TV and film navboxes --Mike Allen talk · contribs 05:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-editing guide

Inspired by the fine example set by the MilHist folks, I've thrown together a brief guide on copy-editing and good prose in film articles. The guide can be found here; any comments and suggestions are of course welcome on its talk page. Steve T • C 14:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{FilmUS}} is a no-no

I want to know whose great idea was it to include this in the Infobox Film template: "Link each country to its appropriate film/cinema article if possible."? Apparently that is NOT the way things are supposed to be and someone thought it would be nice to edit in their opinion within a guideline without discussing it and gaining consensus on it. A guideline that I have been following since I've been here. I am just now finding it out when I saw Erik's edit here and questioned him about it here, that it violated WP:EGG and should not be used. The thing about it, that I have used it on numous articles (even today), now I will have to remove it all. What do others think about this, should it be used or not? Also why does a {{tl:FilmUS}}, UK, Canada, Italy, France, etc, etc even exist if it can't be used?? --Mike Allen 00:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, AJCham (talk · contribs) added documentation unilaterally for linking to such articles. Secondly, templates like {{FilmUS}} and {{FilmUK}} were created by an editor who in my opinion was generally against the grain when it came to guidelines established by WikiProject Films. Such templates, whether they should have been created or not, tend to proliferate under the impression that they are okay to proliferate. (This is pretty common with external link templates, too.) I explained to Mike why they are not appropriate, but I think the proliferation is a result of people not really caring to tackle this relatively minor issue. Erik (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, agree that they shouldn't be used, but don't think it is something to war about. I tend to remove them when I see infoboxes that need a good cleaning, but otherwise, it doesn't really bother me. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 00:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit, I kept seeing them added I figured I'd just missed consensus approving such links. If they are against guidelines, I think it would be good if an effort was made to remove and send them to TfD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bovinboy, I am not warring. I came here to get an consensus/answer from the Film project to figure out what to do about it. If it's not allowed, then it would be nice to know, so I won't add them in the future AND remove the ones I did add to save another editor from having to do it. I'm not trying to start a war about it.  :-\ --Mike Allen 00:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think you may have misunderstood me. I wasn't trying to accuse anyone of warring. Sorry! BOVINEBOY2008 :) 00:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for misunderstanding; I just don't want to be misunderstood. :-) So if the templates are removed, will it restore "United States" etc where the template were used? Or will it leave a red link? --Mike Allen 01:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want to pursue deletion of the template itself, if it is deleted, I think someone with an AWB usually goes through where the template is used and replaces it with the proper name. You don't have to take it to TFD, though... you can just do the What links here feature and track down the template where it exists, deprecating its usage. Erik (talk) 01:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I like the template (and the other country ones), otherwise in an infobox you get a pointless link to United States now at least it links to something useful. You could remove a link all together but editors in general like links and/or flags, so they probably will be added again when this template is removed. Garion96 (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It still violates the WP:EGG principle. It looks like the link would take you to United States, but it takes you to Cinema of the United States instead. While it's a more relevant article coming from the film article, it's still unexpected. I haven't really come up with terminology that could allow us to link to cinema articles -- "Nationality" is too vague -- can you think of anything? Linking to just United States is pretty unhelpful anyway. Erik (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what? I still think it's an improvement. Also, so far perhaps there is consensus to remove the template but couldn't you wait a bit more then 3 hours since this discussion started before mass removing the template? Garion96 (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I'm sorry I thought it was pretty clear (non-existent in the guidelines) that it shouldn't be used. --Mike Allen 02:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but it is being used on thousands of articles. That to me warrants a bit more then a mere three hour discussion. Also, it is much more practical to have the template (and it's siblings) deleted by WP:TFD after which a bot will remove all the templates fast instead of slow AWB editing. Garion96 (talk) 11:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I started editing, I was using {{United States}} to indicate the country of origin and I was advised to use United States instead so it would lead to the film industry rather than the country. Then I noticed someone had created {{FilmUS}}, so I started using that. Not only do I not recall any discussion about this being unacceptable, but the new format appears to have been included in hundreds of articles without opposition. I definitely recall a discussion where the consensus was the year of release should be linked in the lead; now it's being delinked, although there hasn't been any new discussion about it. I'm confused - why are the guidelines being changed in a seemingly arbitrary fashion? LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is something that has gotten out of hand based on Ed Fitzgerald (talk · contribs)'s creation of these templates, and it appears that multiple editors have picked up and run with it, despite it violating the WP:EGG principle. This is reflected by AJCham (talk · contribs) adding documentation unilaterally about such matters. No one has stepped in till now because it is such a minor part that people do not care enough to tackle the issue; like Bovineboy2008 said, "I tend to remove them when I see infoboxes that need a good cleaning, but otherwise, it doesn't really bother me." Erik (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not understanding how these are violations the WP:EGG principle. Could you please explain? Thank you! LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film&oldid=334115748"