Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Proposed wording for a new production section

Should the production section writeup in the manual of style be changed to insert new proposed text --Deathawk (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed version:

A production section should not be an indiscriminate list of news and trivia associated with the making of a film, but should instead focus on how the film was developed. The section should be limited to events that impacted the production, not merely day-to-day business operations.

Although announcements to the public can be noteworthy, production sections should primarily cover events from a production standpoint. For example, dates of when plot elements, settings were added should not be included; instead, include how the noteworthy elements of the production came about.

Details about casting should concentrate on how actors were found and/or what creative choices they added to the production, over simply a listing of dates they signed on. When dates are included. context should be provided to explain how this fits in to the overall production story. It is usually inappropriate to list casting dates for every actor involved

Readability should be given high priority. Avoid sentences with repetitive phrasing. Present information in a clear and logical manner. While there are occasions when exact dates are useful, editors should apply caution when using them, in most cases simplay adding the month and year will suffice.

A production section should provide a clear and readable story of how the film was developed, setting out the key events that affected its production, without detailing all of the day-to-day operations or listing every piece of associated news and trivia. Try to maintain a production standpoint, referring to public announcements only when these were particularly noteworthy or revealing about the production process. Focus on information about how plot elements or settings were decided and realised, rather than simply listing out their dates. Add detail about how the actors were found and what creative choices were made during casting, only including the casting date (month and year is normally sufficient) where it is notably relevant to the overall production story This version will be updated occasionally as such the timestamp attached to it, is not accurate. --Deathawk (talk) 07:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

PS: This RFC previously used an incomplete draft version, as such the discussion may make reference to a "Copyedited version" that was supplied by @SMcCandlish:, this is now the only version I'm using. My old version can be found here. --Deathawk (talk) 07:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

PSS: This revision is now changed to one provided by @MapReader:, which is the non struck through one, I know this is confusing and I'll be putting up another RFC shortly but I want to put this info out there so we can all critique it. --Deathawk (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Background Info:

Over the past couple of years or so Wikipedia has gotten sloppy on making good production sections. Often times they consist of people reporting every little thing they can find from sites such as The Hollywood Reporter to Variety, even if these has very little encyclopedic value or is of any interest to the readers. Often these come attached in simple sentences that, for lack of a better term, we at Wikipedia refer to as Proseline. The results in sections that are at best poorly done. and at worst difficult to even decipher. Over the years I've chatted with various editors who hang around and edit film articles and the consensus seems to largely agree with me, even if we could not come to a consensus of how to fix it. Looking at the Manual of Style for film, I noted that there was no detailed information about how to write a production section, so the above is my proposal for one. --Deathawk (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support the version above, as of the 08:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC) timestamp (the "re-copyedited version", I guess). I think it accurately reflects the lengthy consensus discussions above and below, and concisely gets at the central issues raised.

Collapse-boxing my previous !votes, about previous drafts.

Oppose, as no longer reflective of the consensus discussions on this page. Support the copyedited version now given above. I think this accurately reflects the lengthy consensus discussions above, and concisely gets at the central issues raised. [The text has been changed again in key ways that make me no longer able to support it; see below.]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  08:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC) PS: I removed my copyediting commentary about the original, since it's been replaced. 08:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC); updated  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  07:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Copyedited version looks Ok to me MapReader (talk) 05:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
• Pedantic point but can we replace "impacted" with "affected"? Using "impact" as a verb is journalese - "affect" is the simple, plain verb. Popcornduff (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

  Good catch.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

  This suggestion is not integrated into the draft at this point, but it's a trivial enough copyediting change it discussed below.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

OPPOSE: Everyone has a right to know about a lot of things on filming operations. If we make these changes, it could severely limit the things that everyone will want to know, such as filming locations, when certain actors joined the filming set and provides sources that will confirm all this information. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Ok,so one thing, I didn't catch in @SMcCandlish: version was the change to the Exact date part of it, which now reads "Exact dates are usually not needed, except for the most significant production milestones and any unusual events that attracted coverage in reliable sources.}}" That's actually fairly different from what I had in my draft version, which was "Exact dates, are usually not needed unless there is a significance to it. the "it" in my version is referring to the date itself, rather than an event that falls on the date. With everyone's permission I would like to change that particular passage back. What I'm trying to avoid is people overusing exact dates, which I fear the draft as it stands now, somewhat encourages.

I'll have to strike my support if we go that route. This guideline, which verges on a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, a WP:PROJPAGE, cannot contradict policy; noteworthy and relevant facts with reliable sources are permissible in all articles (i.e., they survive the WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE test), and when they are events they are generally dated for context or they don't make much sense to the reader. E.g., the death of Vic Morrow while filming the Twilight Zone movie was a big-news event, strongly affected the production, and should have a date in the article on the film, otherwise it will be unclear when it happened in the production timeline.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I see what you're saying and, yeah the Twilight Zone is a good example of when an exact date is necessary, but I worry that the current proposed wording, leaves too much room for interpretation. For instance, would casting a director count as a "Significant production mile stone" would casting the lead be a "Significant production milestone" in that the case we're back to using exact dates indiscriminately. Is there any way we could word it better? --Deathawk (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Already covered by "For example, dates of when plot elements, settings, or casting choices were revealed should not be included". The flip side of "writing policy is hard" is "well-written policy is airtight". People like me from an actual off-WP policy analysis background treat this kind of material as a flowchart. and Gedankenexperiment with it, with every example type we can think of, identifying every loophole anyone's likely to find. It might be feasible to narrow the wording of "the most significant production milestones", but I'm not sure how. I'm also assuming good faith that it's generally going to be interpreted as intended and that people trying to WP:GAME it to include dated trivia will be rare and will get reverted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess what I'm worried about though is that the wording is not airtight though, the draft specifically mentions that we include information that "impacted production" so, even though we don't permit most announcements via this, we still have to deal with things such as directors coming on board on big films and when leads joined and that sort of thing. The current wording suggest that exact dates would be appropriate for those things, when in reality they're not. --Deathawk (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

A way to approach this might be to identify that the only exacting dates that should be included, assuming the typical course of a film's production, is the period of filming and it's premiere dates. Approximate dates (read: Month, Year) are fine for nearly all other aspects (when writing started, when casting started, when post-production occurred) if there is nothing unusual about a film's making, and even in considering the casting aspects, rote announcements should not be dated. The only time more date detail seems to be necessary is when there is a notable external event or non-normal event that a fixing a date within the production section should be necessitated. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

One thing I think we might want to consider is talking about how to talk about casting sections. I wasn't really going to say anything about it and bring it up later, but if we're stuck on current language of the draft, it may be worth revisiting. I kind of want to include language that discourages editors from going down the billing block and listing every date someone signed up, I proposed above that only a couple of the leads should be listed which we couldn't really come to a consensus on. I propose something like "while it is ok to list when certain actors signed on, restraint should be employed to make sure that listing do not get excessive. Much more emphasis should be given to how an actor came to a part and/or what creative decisions they chose to make" I'm going to ping @TriiipleThreat: who raised issues with my last attempt to cover this topic. --Deathawk (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment: What is different about this proposal compared to what you stated in the #List of points to cover section above, where I and others opposed? And why shouldn't we include "dates of when plot elements, settings, or casting choices were revealed"? Why do you want us to state "should not" instead of having more lenient wording, as is common for guidelines? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion surrounding the proposal died out, around the time I created the first "Draft" section. I waited around two weeks for anyone to voice any objections and even pinged people, although nothing ever came of this. I incorporated the issues that came up in the discussion into my draft, which eventually was finalized by SMcCandlish. The feedback I got, that was reacted strongly too, was the inclusion "Do this, don't do this" attitude. This version of the draft does not not incorporate such language, instead telling the overall goal, and then giving people leeway. You're right though, a ban on the casting info was included, that I did not notice, I have now deleted that wording, and I would ask that @SMcCandlish: or others include a proposal to change the language to make it less "black or white".

As for your other concern regarding when plot elements or setting were revealed. This is to keep the production section focused on production and not turn into a mere preview of what the film will turn out to be. For the most part these elements tend to be dated very quickly. For instance,a year from now it won't matter that "In July 2017 it was revealed that X will take place in Y field". If you were to read that in 2018 it would make you wonder why it was included at all. Furthermore it's not, at any point serving an encyclopedic purpose. That's not to say that you can't write about why this setting was chosen, and in fact the wording does encourage you to do so. --Deathawk (talk) 04:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem, in my mind, is that everything is dated, whether it's important or not. It's a real problem that exists in many articles. The sections become difficult to read because the content is buried under so much useless information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the WP:Dated concern. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Removal of "or casting choices were revealed" makes the draft no longer reflect the concerns in the prior discussions that led to this draft, and also makes Deathawk's new concern raised in this thread (which was addressed by that wording) a concern again. I.e., it effectively sabotages the entire thing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  10:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

While there was a consensus among a few editors (You, me and I think another person) it ran into problems when we went to get a broader consensus as can be seen by the responses by Triiiplethreat and Flyer22 in this thread, as such it was left out of the resulting draft I proposed up there. That said I think should address it. The problem I see is that the blanket ban is to broad I proposed wording above that would state: ""while it is ok to list when certain actors signed on, restraint should be employed to make sure that listing do not get excessive. Much more emphasis should be given to how an actor came to a part and/or what creative decisions they chose to make" @TriiipleThreat: @Flyer22 Reborn: would you be ok with this wording? --Deathawk (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I would change "For example, dates of when plot elements, settings were added should not be included; instead, include how the noteworthy elements of the production came about" to "For example, dates of when plot elements, settings were revealed should be avoid; instead focus on how and when the noteworthy elements of the production came about." Again we're not advocating the removal of all dates but any dates should reflect the events of production, not when they were revealed to the public. Also I preferred the previous wording "Exact dates, are usually not needed unless there is a significance to it" over "Exact dates are usually not needed, except for the most significant production milestones and any unusual events that attracted coverage in reliable sources", which is less specific and allows for more editorial discretion. As for casting sections, I understand what you are trying to achieve but this would probably be better handled on the local level as the significance of supporting characters and cameos greatly very from film to film. I don't think there is a one-size fits all solution.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this, yeah, I could support that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't. The casting dates stuff is key to the entire proposal, since it's mostly what triggered the discussion to begin with, and was the central concern about bad production sections for many of us.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I wouldn't mind if we tightened up my wording a bit, so that it's somewhere between the two extremes. I think there are definitely some casting decisions when a date is notable, although editors are often guilty of going to the extreme end of this. I also realize that from experience such a ban would likely not survive a vote, leaving us back to square one. However, yeah if you have any ideas for wordings that take into account both ends of it. I'd love to hear it. --Deathawk (talk) 08:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this has train-wrecked, and should be reproposed in a few months after people have had time to mull it over.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with SMcC. Film and TV articles in particular seem to suffer from editors who think every tiny detail is automatically relevant, correspondingly reducing readability and accessibility for the general user. The dates on which particular actors were cast for a film or series is cruft, pure and simple, and only of any interest if one part was filled particularly early, or one proved difficult to cast and was decided very late. Otherwise it adds nothing except words to an article about how a film was produced. MapReader (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd be lying if I said I didn't agree with you both in some way, in fact, in most ways probably. I do think excessive cast listings in a lot of articles are ridiculous. However I do worry about what we'd be removing from existing articles especially when they don't have a specific casting section. For instance the search for Spiderman in the new Spiderman movie is pretty important, and the date that goes along with that I feel is an important part of that. I'm really searching for a happy medium between the two extremes, and if anyone has any suggestions I'd love to hear them. @Flyer22 Reborn: you mentioned something about "more lenient wording" what do you propose? --Deathawk (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we do need some sort of restraint, otherwise we might end up with utterly insignificant "information" as to when and why Joe Blow was chosen to be best boy/dolly grip instead of John Q. Public. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

MapReader, how are "the dates on which particular actors were cast for a film or series" cruft? Should readers not know that Emilia Clarke was cast as Daenerys Targaryen in 2010? Are we stating that it's something we should read in the character and actress articles? If we look at the Game of Thrones article, there are dates regarding when conception, development and production began. It also includes when the first and second drafts of the pilot script were submitted. I see no problem with any of that. I find none of it trivial. And that is a television show article. I don't see why film articles, which will likely have less dates to cover, should be any different. The Casting section of the Game of Thrones article only includes one date, however.

Deathawk, all I am stating is that I am wary of "should not" wording for the guideline. I have no proposal, but I might suggest something here or there. If it's something like mentioning the publications or minor details that are not at all needed, I obviously agree that this has very little encyclopedic value and is of little to no interest to readers. Mention of a publication, for example, should only be included if needed. I suggest "strongly discouraged" wording for the guideline in cases of excess. If you look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Citing sources, we do use "do not" wording for some things considered excessive, and we state "The text of the article should not needlessly duplicate the names, dates, titles, and other information about the source that you list in the citation." Similarly, WP:In-text attribution states, "It is preferable not to clutter articles with information best left to the references. Interested readers can click on the ref to find out the publishing journal. [...] Simple facts such as this can have inline citations to reliable sources as an aid to the reader, but normally the text itself is best left as a plain statement without in-text attribution." On side note: There is no need to ping me to this page since it is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

We have standards in WP that stop well short of accepting that every tiny piece of information about a film is relevant for inclusion in the article. For casting, I suggest that any dates need to be pertinent to some story about the production. For example, as I said, if a particular actor was cast first and the rest of the cast assembled around them, or if one role was filled at the last minute. Otherwise my point was that it is simply trivial to think that the particular casting dates for each role is of any significance MapReader (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok so after hearing some concerns here is what I could come up with "Details about casting should concentrate on how actors were found and/or what creative choices they added to the production, over simply a listing of dates they signed on. When dates are included. context should be provided context in order to explain how this fits in to the overall production story. It is usually inappropriate to list casting dates for every actor involved"

Would that suit everyone? --Deathawk (talk) 04:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Other than typo (repeat of "context"), it seems fine, but what I did in the earlier copyediting run was way more concise on this point. I would suggest restoring that, then adding any necessary clarification/exception to it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  05:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking at your draft, I feel almost that it was too concise, and it read like a blanket ban on all casting dates. I removed it after I got a complaint that seemed to also be concerned about this. Since we all can agree that castingcrufft is a big part about why we're here, I feel it should be thoroughly expanded so we're crystal clear on the methodology. --Deathawk (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I would kind of like to bring in @BattleshipMan: to this conversation, He and I, around a year or two got into a disagreement over casting sections. So I would like to possibly hear his input in the matter. --Deathawk (talk) 06:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Casting sections are there for reasons. It tells you when they joined the movie and there, at times, tells you who replaced some actors who originally joined that particular movie. That's among the reasons why we need them. As for the production sections, sourcing is an issue. When there are at times when some sources can be deemed unreliable to Wikipedia standards, but that it tells you some things about the production of the movies that you never hear from other sources. We do need to work on the wording of them also. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really clear from your writeu.if your for the proposed wording or against. If not do you have any ideas for improvement? --Deathawk (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm bringing in @Darkwarriorblake: to this conversation. I want to hear his input on this matter also. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok so I added the proposed text on casting to the page, since we're concentrating on it so much, I feel it would be disingenuous to not included it for newcomers to the discussion. --Deathawk (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I've tried reading through all this text so I think I understand the issue but I may be wrong so forgive me. First I don't think most dates should be exact, it should be "in October 2017" not "on October 22, 2017", unless several notable things happen in the same month and hte dates are relevant, i.e. something else happened like a scandal or something notable that caused casting to be changed in hours or over a very extended period of time. Dates of casting can also be interesting, for example on The Shawshank Redemption my research revealed that William Sadler was approached to star in the film like 3 years before production began. But this is a rare example. Typical casting, especially for less blockbuster films probably isn't notable and certainly wouldn't need dating unless a singular role had a lot of casting issues where people were cast and dropped out for instance. I hope this is an actually appropriate answer to what is being asked. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, for production settings like filming locations. It should be "in early October 2017 to late November 2017, filming took place in whatever location". Pre-production should state on who the writers are, who's been cast in the movie, which essential crew members like directors & producers joined the set and anything essential to the pre-production. How in wording should be discussed further. The wording in post-production sections that involves visual-effects and such should be discussed also. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that the coverage should depend on the film, for instance if you get Zach Snyder for tentpole blockbuster, than yeah that should be included, but for your average middle of the road flick, where you've got a writer on board, I don't think that's necessary, and is kind of what left us here. That's why it's worded "The section should be limited to events that impacted the production, not merely day-to-day business operations." because for one movie casting a character, or finding financing may be significant but for others it would be unneeded and trivial, and if we describe that in detail it could cause production sections to get lopsided. --Deathawk (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

But everyone has a right to know about production stuff and filming locations in a lot of films. Filming locations in the majority of the films are just trivial to many, but many news information have where the movie was being filmed in lot of films these days and everyone would want to know about that. Also when actors have joined the film is also necessary information that people want to know about from various sources. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

We aren't Variety, or The Hollywood Reporter though , putting when a random celebrity joined into a movie, just because they did serves no encyclopedic purpose, and as has been discussed, muddles up the article and makes it hard to read for everyone else. WP:NotNews actually outlinses this very well Per that policy For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. --Deathawk (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Deathawk: Look at Changeling, which is a featured article. Look at the production section and see for yourself. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan:I think you and I may be talking about different things, because skimming over the production section everything seems noteworthy and everything accomplishes the "production story". The Writers are mentioned because there is significant context to put something in there about the writing, the distribution is discussed similarly because there are things to discuss. What I'm talking about is that often production sections are created with "X joined on Y date, XXX company joined on YY date." and you go through it, and there isn't anything you can expand on. My text is against the latter not the former. --Deathawk (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok so I think we may be ready to vote. I redid the exact dates statement which now reads "While there are occasions when exact dates are useful, editors should apply caution when using them, in most cases simply suplyingthe month and year will suffice." I think this is better than giving a list of exceptions as I don't think we could all agree on, what the exceptions themselves were. If possible I would like to get voting going again. --Deathawk (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Everyone, listen up. Anyone who hasn't read this matter should read this and make a decision in the voting sub-section. Anyone who has read this should read it again and make a decision in the voting sub-section below. We need to invite everyone who does film articles and such. So use the ping template with the user's name to get them in this discussion, like with the reply to template. Write SUPPORT: and OPPOSE: and state your opinion after that. If undecided, write COMMENT: to state what you see on the issues about this matter are. Let's get voting. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: Three points. One, you can't make anybody do anything - this is a volunteer project - if they choose not to take sides, that's their business. Two, We don't need a "voting" section below, when there is already a "survey" section above. Three, {{ping}} and {{reply to}} are identical: one is a redirect to the other. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I honestly think your being a bit too harsh here. He meant it as a way of rallying users, not as a command (at least that's how I read it). I would state though, that the proposed text, should now speak for itself. If you're interested in Wikipedia beurocracy, then go ahead read the whole discussion, but I don't it's mandatory reading. I just don't want to turn people off of voting because of the wall of text. --Deathawk (talk) 10:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant as a way to rally users to make a decision on this matter in anyway I know how. Whatever you agree with it or not, we need to solve this issue with all the help we can get. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

There are some other copyedits to make, e.g. replacing "and/or" with "or", and "in order to" with "to", but they don't affect the meaning.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I changed the "To" the "and/or" I think needs to be there as I don't want people interpreting it as an either/or situation. Although like I said below I'm not going to put a fight about it, if others are strongly opposed to it. --Deathawk (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

"And/or" is virtually never needed except in constructions where it is vital to stress "A, B, or both A and B at once", e.g. in statutory language or in a software functional specification. "Or" does not imply "either/or"; an "either A or B" construction does that. Otherwise, virtually every "or" in policy and guideline pages (and similar writing throughout English) would be "and/or" at nearly every occurrence, but people do not in fact write that way.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion "Impacted" carries a bit more weight than "affected". My main concern here is that as it currently sits, the wording causes editors to think more about what to add. However if is truly a sticking point, I can change it. --Deathawk (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

"Impact" as a verb is journalese and advised against by the style guide of the Guardian, for example. It ain't plain English. Other editors might disagree. Popcornduff (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not a sticking point for me. I ack Popcornduff's position and agreed at first, but impact as a verb has become fairly regular English, since at least the 1980s. I'm also skeptical that a valid approach is declaring it journalese then using a journalism style guide – which MoS is not based on – against it. Dictionaries do not treat it as substandard [1][2][3][4][5], though some think the transitive form is chiefly American. It's more important that we retain the emphatic nature of the point than split hairs about prescriptive grammar notions. There may be some other word or phrase we could use ("strongly affected"?). Just "affected" by itself is weak, vague, and subject to easy WP:GAMING ("production was delayed for 2 hours, and that's an 'effect'").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The Guardian tries to avoid journalese. See this piece from one of the style guide editors: https://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2014/jan/10/mind-your-language-amid

I think your feeling that "impact" has a different meaning to "affect", and especially your suggestion that "impact" is more precise, is dubious. It seems reasonable to me to call production being delayed for 2 hours an impact. If emphasis is important then "significantly affected" would be clear, plain English, and presumably uncontroversial. Regardless, this is probably a debate for another time. Popcornduff (talk) 10:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

"Significantly affected" would work fine.

On the side matters: As for "impact", I didn't say anything at all about it being more "precise". It simply conveys a more emphatic sense; that which impacts something else is generally thought to have "made a dent" or "left its mark" in a palpable way; it's a figurative not literal usage (though a literal one exists, referring to compression; one of the dictionary sources illustrates this with an example about trampled soil). I decline to argue any further about the implications or acceptance level of impact. Your position that it's somehow substandard has been disproven, and various dictionaries do not treat it as merely synonymous with affected. If citing all of the leading online dictionaries back-to-back has no [ahem] impact on your perception of the matter, then probably nothing will. Two people, arguing past each other, one from a modern linguistic description perspective about actual usage patterns, and one from a Victorian-style prescriptive grammar standpoint about technicalities and how things "should" be, is just not a productive use of time. And it really doesn't have anything to do with MOS:FILM's purpose (or WT:MOSFILM's). I took at face value initially that impact as a verb might be considered substandard, but the evidence is strongly against that position when it's examined.

I beg to differ about The Guardian; they're the no. 1 source in British/Commonwealth English for style quirks that are found almost exclusively in journalism. They may be avoiding some aspects of journalese, especially headlinese (thought it still happens: "'He was happy' Trump calls for death penalty over New York attack" borders on gibberish). However, they wallow in many of the "sins" of news style that are especially unencyclopedic, and have introduced new ones. It's part of their branding, exactly as conservatism or "preservatism" of mid-20th-century English shibboleths is a hallmark of The New York Times and The New Yorker, and integration of Internet and other techie jargon and online writing style into journalistic prose is a marketing mechanism of Wired. Numerous news (broadly defined) publishers have an explicit practice of trying to set themselves apart from the competition by using divergent style to appeal to specific audiences. This mutual inconsistency and non-neutral pandering effect (and practices that veer wildly from neologistic to farcically obsolete) is one of many reasons we don't turn to them for style guidance, except in the rare case that they're near unanimous on something, and academic style guides do not address that matter (as was the case with MOS:IDENTITY, though some of the academic guides, which have much slower publication schedules, are finally catching up, and happily are in agreement with journo style guides on how to write about transgender people).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  11:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with SMcCandlish. "Impact" is plain English where I come from. I also see no reason why we should be following any procedures from The Guardian here. However, I also think "Significantly affected" sound like a good alternative. Huggums537 (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth about impact being more precise. But you said "affect" was vague, suggesting, to me, that you think "impact" is less vague.

As for the other stuff - I'd be happy to continue this discussion somewhere else, but if everyone else loves "impact", I can live with it. I've said my piece. Popcornduff (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. I was being [wait for it] imprecise. I didn't really mean that the word "affect" was inherently vague, but rather that its interpretation in this context would be, and maybe "vague" wasn't even the right word, more like "wishy-washy". I was dwelling on potential for system-gaming and wikilawyering, which is something I do any time we're working with guideline material, since not considering that angle very frequently leads to problems from that direction. It's another WP:Writing policy is hard consideration. Sorry if I came off as testy; I think I was in a gruff mood due to extraneous concerns (irritating situation of a freeloader my housemate has had around in here for 2 months).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  12:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It is becoming difficult to see what specific text we are being asked to support, or otherwise. Regarding the drafts above, I would make the point that it is better for an MOS to set out, as clearly as possible, the aspirations it expects editors to try and achieve, with any "do nots" contained within the text as warnings. An MOS that is forced to lead off with the specifics of what is not being sought is, in my view, a weak piece of guidance. MapReader (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

That's also a fair point. I'd be willing to help redraft in that direction (it's probably mostly a matter of shuffling the material around). I've already suggested in user talk that this RfC is a dead stick (for attempting to get a consensus to add something to the guideline – it has been quite helpful for getting input, which is what RfCs were originally for). It would be better to wrap this up (maybe by removing the RfC tag, and continuing to redraft here), then do a new RfC with a new draft that leads with "do" and follows with "don't", after we think it's a version that will garner support, and have that new RfC widely "advertised", e.g. at WP:VPPOL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  14:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

My chief concern with this, is that we're at a point with production sections where we do need to tell people what not to do. I don't really even think it's being bossy. It's just editors literally do not know what to include and what not to include. Thus I don't really want to create a draft that tiptoes around the issues that we have. Although I'd be willing to look at a draft version by @SMcCandlish:, but I remain skeptical that such an issue could fully resolve our problem. In the meantime I did take the RFC out, as I agree it's best to start again, after we've settled everything. --Deathawk (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but the idea appears to be to lead with the "do" then follow with the "don't" – not to delete the "don't. Most of MoS is written that way (and parts that are not get changed to be written that way); it's served us well.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 

Exactly. My point wasn't that we shouldn't include some "do nots" where they are important and relevant. My point is that leading off with "don't do this..." exposes a failure to set out a clear positive vision of what the section should ideally achieve. The latter is also the better approach for motivating editors, rather than immediately diving into a list of undesirable actions. Active voice is better than passive.

As SMc has already said, mostly we just need to re-order what we have, perhaps something like this: A production section should provide a clear and readable story of how the film was developed, setting out the key events that affected its production, without detailing all of the day-to-day operations or listing every piece of associated news and trivia. Try to maintain a production standpoint, referring to public announcements only when these were particularly noteworthy or revealing about the production process. Focus on information about how plot elements or settings were decided and realised, rather than simply listing out their dates. Add detail about how the actors were found and what creative choices were made during casting, only including the casting date (month and year is normally sufficient) where it is notably relevant to the overall production story. MapReader (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Right-o.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm also good with that. I'll give it a couple days so that if anyone strongly objects to it, they can make their voices heard, and then I'll open a new RFC. --Deathawk (talk) 09:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I like some of the current draft of the production section ideas and it should be less trivial. Key events like what happened on set and such should be like that. Information on how the plot elements and setting should be encyclopedic as possible as stated above. What I think we should do in the casting part is only allow on how the actors were found, who has joined the film and what casting changes were made to replace the ones who were originally cast in the film, among other things that are essential to the production. We also need to figure how to work on production of filming locations while provide sources that are reliable enough because in a A Good Day to Die Hard, it was filmed in Budapest which served as a stand-in for Moscow. In the 2016 film version of Pete's Dragon, it was filmed in New Zealand town which is used as a fictional Northeastern U.S. town. That's among of the production things we should talk about. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: What specific issues with the locations do you think should be addressed? Is there a problem with how we are reporting it? Is it not being reported? --Deathawk (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

And "what casting changes were made to replace the ones who were originally cast in the film" is almost always trivia. It's not if someone died or was fired in mid-production and a stand-in replaced them, or the entire production was restarted, at least with regard to scenes with that actor. Otherwise, it's no different at all from something like "When Tolkien was writing his Middle-earth stories, 'Gandalf' was originally going to be the name of one of the Dwarves". It's "What if ... ?" trivia, and we just don't care. We'd only care if the production were announced with a particular actor, this changed, and bunch of RS wrote about the change, in depth.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Rereading what Mapreader wrote I really don't think the section on casting needs any significant revision. This seems like an argument over when and if casting changes are notable but the wording to the proposed version,"Add detail about how the actors were found and what creative choices were made during casting, only including the casting date (month and year is normally sufficient) where it is notably relevant to the overall production story" adequately, I feel, addresses the notability issue. We've explained what we want, and our striving for, so let the editors hash out whether the cast changes our appropriate for inclusion. --Deathawk (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I get it here. I like the current draft for the production section. What I'm concerned about is how do we address when certain joined the particular film. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it specifically needs to be addressed, because editors will just kinda add these things naturally. --Deathawk (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I want to add my support for the current suggested redraft of this as of my timestamp. However, i also want it to be clear that production tabs are difficult to flesh out in most cases because such thourough details of production are left out of the press unless awards consideration or something similar is in the works. Thusly, the only way to get a satisfying tab, length wise, is to stretch what we do get to know - which may not be much but in most cases, it has to do. In my opinion, if listing dates is all that can be done in the case of minimal press, then it is all that should be done. However, if more can be done, then more should be done. Trim the thicker pieces of meat and fluff some of the thinner ones. I think that is something that should be considered. Just my thoughts. One last thing, as far as dates are concerned. I think filming times should be exact. Casting should be more general. For example, the film commenced principal production on October 3, 2017 and Brad Pitt joined the cast in late September 2017. TheMovieGuy (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2017‎ (UTC)

@TheMovieGuy: We can still manage this information without overstuffing it with dates though. For most big movies it still possible to come up with a production section that reads well,even before promotion begins. We recently both collaborated on The Happytime Murders article and I feel we got that looking good without needing to fill it up with excessive details. For smaller movies where there is nothing to report, there is nothing saying that we have to stretch out facts in order to fill it out. \--Deathawk (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm in an agreement with TheMovieGuy regarding the filming dates should be exact and the casting should be more general. I think it makes the wording in production sections somewhat more encyclopedic. For example, Gerard Butler joined the cast in early September 2017. Bryce Dallas Howard joined in late September 2017. The film commenced production on October 4, 2017. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Considering that this will affect film articles, and that there is a lack of substantial support for the proposed changes, and that the RfC isn't even active anymore, I'm not sure that I can agree to go ahead with any changes. Not only are there barely any general film editors on board, there are barely any outside editors supporting whatever proposed wording. This discussion has floundered with things being thrown against the wall here and there.

And, again, no need to ping me to this page. It's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I took out the RFC because I'm planning on making a new RFC in a couple days that will, I think be easier to read. I think there is, at least in this discussion, support for Mapreader version of the text, and right now what we're doing is just making sure that we're all on the same page so next time the RFC comes up, we don't have to get into these long drawn out discussions. --Deathawk (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

That is kind of a general concern. Not a lot of editors might support the proposed wording. This discussion is also been going on for so long. We don't even know how to resolve this. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok question, if I opened up a new discussion thread and RFC, like in an hour or so. We're all cool with Mapreader's proposed text right? --Deathawk (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

More or less. I would change first "story" to "narrative" and second "story" to "history". WP doesn't write stories, that's what fiction writers and journalists do. Other than that, it seems good to me. PS: There's no need to say the time stamp shown is inaccurate; just replace the timestamp after revision.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  14:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Or, better yet, add something like Revised: ~~~~~ at the end, and leave the original timestamp.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  15:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair points. I am quite happy for the RfC to run with SMcC's improvements, if no-one objects? MapReader (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Superhero genre

An issue that comes up with just about every superhero film is that there are some who want to give it a more specific genre in the lead (such as wanting to label Captain America: The Winter Soldier a thriller or Deadpool a comedy). Because it was decided at some point that only the primary genre should be listed as such in the lead, this practice is frowned upon around these superhero articles. I bring this up because there is currently a disagreement regarding the short film No Good Deed, which is about Deadpool. I have listed it as a superhero short, but another user believes it is primarily a comedy. I was hoping for some additional opinions on this matter. Thanks, adamstom97 (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Deadpool is not a comedy. Having jokes doesn't make something primarily a comedy. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Please be reasonable; there's having jokes, and being filled with jokes. The latter is what clearly makes a film comedic. By your logic, a WWII theme in Saving Private Ryan doesn't make it a war film. Also, to add onto OP's point, there's superhero short, and there's superhero comedy short (which is what was advocated). The terms aren't mutually exclusive. Whether something should only be labelled "superhero" ought to be done on a case-by-case basis. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:FILMLEAD is pretty clear on the matter that only the primary genre or sub-genre should be listed in the lead (lest we end up with users attempting to add a laundry list of genres). So yes, "superhero" would be the correct usage, because I don't believe we should view "superhero [insert other genre here]" as a "sub genre". In this case, comedy can of course be mentioned elsewhere in the article, but the genre should still be superhero. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I have not seen any of the aforementioned films so I cannot comment on the applicability of the labels, but it is reasonable to also state the type of film (i.e. animated/silent/short etc) in the lead along with the primary genre so I don't see a problem with describing No Good Deed as a superhero short film, if that is indeed what it is. Betty Logan (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

What do most of the critics think of the short? Do they consider it a superhero comedy or just a superhero short? The plot sentence written doesn't seem like it's developed to be funny. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I think everyone sort of agrees that it is a silly little short that plays into the character's signature humour, just as the films do. The way I see it is that it definitely has major comedic elements, but that is because it is about Deadpool who brings those elements. So it is a comedy because it is a superhero short, which would make superhero the primary genre. To elaborate on one of my previous examples, Captain America: The Winter Soldier is widely considered to be a political thriller, but those elements come from the fact that Captain America is an inherently political character. So in that case, again, the specific genre happens because of the superhero elements and thus superhero is still the primary genre. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd leave No Good Deed as a "superhero short". Some of the online reviews call it a teaser, [6] [7] [8] short film [9] but I don't see comedy plastered all over it like Spy Hard or Spy (2015 film) would be for spy fiction. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Late to the party, But I wouldn't regard a "short film" as a genre but rather a medium.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I was trying to use short film as a genre, the issue was more the "superhero" part and whether it should be "superhero comedy". - adamstom97 (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I am a little concerned that folks are too narrowly construing the guideline as a suicide pact. The bit about genre is meant as a guide, not a rule. Its meant to prevent editors stuffing a half-dozen genres into a film that may only peripherally cover one or two.

Currently, there is an article, The New Mutants where it is a horror film that uses the superhero genre as a base. There are actually more refernces noting it as a horror film than as a superhero film (which is odd in and of itself).

The point is, this appears to serve as an example which tests that guideline's hard and festness. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I personally do not feel that this example is any different from the other ones we have discussed here. It is clearly a superhero film that they have decided to make and present as a horror film, and all the reliable sources coming out since the trailer was released talk about taking the superhero genre in a horror direction, or putting a horror spin on the X-Men franchise. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Because Adam forgot to mention it (oops?), I will point out that we are at odds on this genre issue at the aforementioned article. I think that as long as we aren't adding a shopping list of genres, listing the ones a film(/series/etc.) strongly belongs in is encyclopedic. As I said, interpreting a guideline as the law is stupid and nonconstructive, imo. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Uhhh ... you are the one who brought the discussion here...

Anyway, the problem of a special exemption from the existing guideline here (rather than the problem of multiple genres in general, which I haven't really put much thought into) is that we are indeed trying stop huge lists of genres, and if we start saying specific articles don't have to follow that, then what will be stopping others arguing about including multiple genres at other articles? And for what? It's not like the article absolutely needs to list both in the first sequence. If the film is introduced upfront as a superhero film, and then horror is focused on for the rest of the article, then that gives about an accurate representation of the film's status as you are going to get. It's not like there is an actual genre of films out there that is "superhero horror" films, that is still two separate things that should probably be discussed separately. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Not all comic book film adaptations are of the superhero genre, such as Riverdale, which is based on the Archie Comics. That would mean comicbook is the primary genre, while superhero/horror would actually be the subgenres. I took a look at your disagreement over at The New Mutants. Are there any sources to classify The New Mutants as a comicbook-horror? This sounds much better to me than the very weird looking superhero-horror. Also, these arguments that WP:FILMLEAD should be misinterpreted as, "only one genre allowed" are inaccurate. From WP:FILMLEAD: "At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements:...". The implied meaning of "at minimum" here is that the sentence should, at the very least, include all of the elements, but could include more. This implication is further substantiated by the very next sentence, "For other applicable elements to add...". Also, the arguments that the horror element is already discussed in the body, therefore is not needed in the lead, are not supported by WP:FILMLEAD. The guideline clearly supports the opposite. From WP:FILMLEAD: "...provide a summary of the most important aspects of the film from the article body.", "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." If there are roughly equal amounts of sources classifying The New Mutants as Superhero and/or horror, then it's unreasonable for us to make someone do OR/SYN to tally up the votes to see which one it should be because we don't think it should be more than one, or just because superhero-horror looks stupid since we've never seen anything like it before. Similarly, we can't call it a superhero ourselves just because we think it fits better. If the sources have enough weight to justify labelling it one or the other, then we have to be fair and respect the spirit of the guideline rather than the letter of the law, even though we may disagree. I think superhero-horror sounds just as ridiculous as the next person, but we can't judge by our personal opinions or preferences if there are valid sources involved that dispute our preferences. Huggums537 (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources are referring to it as a superhero movie that is styled or presented as a horror film. And no one is suggesting that the lead not mention horror at all, just that it not be included in the first sentence since that would go against what our standard practice is (as far as my experience has shown me). - adamstom97 (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It's entirely normal to list more than one genre when something is of a "crossover" nature, e.g. a comedy superhero film (see Mystery Men), or a sci-fi horror movie (see Alien (film)). We just don't want people stacking up a long list of genres of which the film has minor elements. I.e., yes, the guideline is not a "suicide pact" and per WP:LAYWER, WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:POLICY, and many other pages is to be interpreted in the spirit in which it's intended, not by niggling over exact wording.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that those who argue we need to keep the list of genres from "getting out of control", are absolutely correct, but there are plenty of other ways to support that argument such as WP:NOT, or WP:CRUFT. However, WP:FILMLEAD is not one of the ways to support that argument, and this contribution is hardly a case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, or any other breach of getting "out of control", especially if there are sources to back it up. One problem is the awful tendency of editors to project fear about "what will happen if we allow this" onto other editor's contributions without objectively evaluating just the contribution itself. They wrongly focus on the projection of fears when they should be focusing on the contribution instead. Let me abate everyone's fears. What will stop others from creating huge genre lists? Lots and lots of things will stop it: WP:OTHERCONTENT, lack of sourcing, and we already mentioned NOT, CRUFT, and INDISCRIMINATE, just to name a few. So, there are tons of ways to stop people from creating a huge list of genres. This should not even be an issue, and the contribution itself doesn't violate any of these. In fact, as SMcCandlish pointed out, it's not uncommon to have double genres listed. However, I am confused about the sourcing because Adamstom.97 claims sources refer to it as a superhero, while Jack Sebastian claims there are more sources that refer to it as a horror. This is a messy situation because I'm supposed to assume good faith on both parts. Ultimately, I'd have to say that I support a duel genre listing provided the sources support it as well. Although, I sincerely hope that the sources don't support it since superhero-horror is just unsettling to me, but hey, what's unsettling to me might be exciting to other folks. Huggums537 (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with both Huggums and SMcCandlish here. I think most of the ported concern was that horror was being removed due to an incorrect interpretation of both what is supposed to contain as well as a largely unjustified concern over multiple genres might degenerate into. I agree with Huggums that there are several bulwarks in place to prevent CrazyCruft™ from being slipped into the article. So, no worries there, unless someone is married to shoehorning an unnecessary genre into the article (usually without any RS).

And if there was any concern as to if my argument was about which genre should be listed as primary, those fears are displaced. The Lede is an overview of the article. The fact that there are abundant sources noting that the film is a horror film that also deals with superheroes should be enough proof to warrant inclusion in the article. If there are sources in the article, then it is in the Lede. Period.

Leastly, to forestall any future arguments that the film should be classified as 'supernatural horror' (as per films like Carrie (2013 film), [[The Craft (film)]), the clear argument against such was that the source material was drawn from the comics. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

While I do support including more than one genre if there is sourcing to back it up, I could find no evidence whatsoever of your claims that Carrie (2013 film) and The Craft (film) had any source material that were drawn from the comics. This causes you to lose a certain amount of credibility with your arguments, and makes me want to choose Adamstom.97's interpretation of the sources over yours. You really should have chosen better arguments, especially since I'm already of the mindset that superhero-horror sounds kind of like CrazyCruft™ anyway... Huggums537 (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Striking previous comment. I obviously misunderstood the meaning of Jack Sebastian's last comment. Apologize for any confusion... Huggums537 (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I took the liberty of actually looking at the existing sources within the article, and it looks to me like it is very obvious it was the intention of the creators to make The New Mutants a comic book horror flick. They even said as much. Yes, there are a minority of sources that call it a superhero movie, but the majority refer to it as a horror. Much to my relief, I found that at least four of the existing sources also refer to it as a comic book movie: [10] , [11] , [12] , [13]. I suggest we change the existing genre from superhero-horror to comicbook-horror, or something along the lines of comic adaptation-horror. Maybe even horror-comic book adaptation would work. This is much easier on the eyes and probably more appropriate since it doesn't look like there are going to be any "superheroes" saving the day in this movie. No costumes? Just a bunch of kids locked in a "haunted asylum" with powers they are only just beginning to understand? That doesn't sound like any superhero movie I've ever heard of, and if it's not a recipe for a horror flick then I don't know what is. The comics themselves might have been superhero related, but the film is most definitely a departure from that theme. Huggums537 (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

If people do think that we should not be calling this a superhero film, then is there any reason to go back and change other articles? Deadpool, for example? Do we still think that is a superhero film, or is it a comedy? As far as I can tell, the main criteria we have had for calling these "superhero films" is that they are based on superhero comic books. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the most recent source for New Mutants that we have (in the post-production section of the article) still describes it as a horror movie within the superhero genre, which is what I always intended to get across with my wording. I'm not trying to say that it isn't a horror movie, just that it primarily comes under the superhero genre. I am also opposed to some sort of "superhero-horror" or "horror-comic" hybrid title, as those indicate that there is such thing as the "superhero-horror" genre, which I do not believe there is. How about an alternative wording proposal that we can apply to other films if we feel it is apporpriate: The New Mutants is an upcoming American horror film in the superhero genre, based on the... I think that accurately reflects what the sources are saying. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I like where your proposed wording is going since it takes into account both representations of the horror, and superhero aspects of the sources. As far as No good Deed goes, it could be listed as many things; Superhero, comedy, short film, even fan film. Of course, only two of those labels can actually be considered genres. So, I like your idea for an appropriate alternative wording that can be applied to other films like No Good Deed, or Deadpool. Deadpool is pretty funny, which set it apart from all the rest of the superhero films that had been coming out. So, I think there should be some wording to reflect the comedy aspect of it, provided the sources support comedy being a genre of the film. Huggums537 (talk) 10:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I also like Adam's wording. I think this would work for the Halloween film articles, which list them all as slasher films. Maybe say "Halloween (whichever film) is an American horror film in the slasher genre"? Foodles42 (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds practical. "Horror" is over-broad as a genre per se; includes everything from zombie flicks and serial killer stuff, to ghosts and creepy aliens.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I think I'll implement my wording, and then assume that no other article needs to change unless someone else takes issue with how they currently are (and then further discussion can take place). - adamstom97 (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that wording works out well, and is more clear for the reader. Good job. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

List of years in film criteria

Today an editor added dozens of films to List of years in film, causing a cluttered mess. I tried to clean it up and got accused of disruptive editing. It's high time we developed a set criteria for films to be included on that page. I've proposed setting a limit of eight films per year and not including sequels unless they are deemed significant (e.g. The Godfather Part II (won Academy Award for Best Picture) and Terminator 2 (for its groundbreaking effects) can be included, but not Iron Man 2 or Shrek 2). -24.18.128.102 (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not even sure that the page should exists in the way that it does. Right now it seems that it's a random listing of movies from each year (at least in the last few decades) without any attempt to create any sort of criteria for inclusion. There is little need for that on Wikipedia. It should be a page talking about significant events in the history of cinema using films only when they are part of an event. --Deathawk (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Or something. Just not pointless duplication of categories in list form.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

And surely, whatever the decided criteria, there should be some text heading explaining what it is we see in see in these lists. "Each year is annotated with the significant events as a reference point" is almost meaningless. Hoverfish Talk 10:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The completely arbitrary listing of films needs to be scrapped. It serves no purpose. Betty Logan (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is an archived previous disussion on this issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film/Archive_11#Years_in_film Hoverfish Talk 15:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Flop, hit, blockbuster

Proposal: Can we add something in the MOS about how to deal with hyperbolic words like flop, hit, blockbuster, etc.? Comes up a lot, especially in Indian film articles. "The film was declared as all-time blockbuster status!" But even in our western film articles people seem to like to editorialize. Don't think we need much, just something to the effect of "As the encyclopedia strives to maintain a netural point of view, please avoid hyperbolic terms like 'flop', 'hit', 'blockbuster', etc. in your prose", assuming that's actually the attitude the community holds. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It's just a matter of translation, the American equivalent being "met with widespread critical acclaim"..... ;) MapReader (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK would apply here in requiring "facts and attribution". Facts would be something like laying out the numbers. Attribution would be something like, "So-and-so periodical said the film was a flop/hit." There should probably be less or minimal focus on such labels if there is very little coverage in the first place to warrant the label. Like if one source makes the flop/hit claim, but no one else really assessed it in any particular way, perhaps it is not an encyclopedic detail to have. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Concur with Erik. These are peacock terms at best, and non-encyclopedic tone by any measure. Unless there is extremely good, specific reason to include such terms, such as in a historical context with quote attribution, I agree these are to be avoided. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

We usually WP:Pipelink to the Box office bomb article, like we do at the Fantastic Four (2015 film) article, but we state things like "commercial failure." We avoid use of "bomb," "flop" and similar for the visible text. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

To all above, thank you for your responses. What I'm getting at, is that the community should be clear about this by adding something brief to the MOS. This is an issue that plagues film articles, and since this is suppose to be the bible for how film articles are written, I think it belongs in the holy tome. Might be worth addressing "overwhelming" and "universal critical response" too. I'm happy to add the language. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I would be fine with adding something about avoiding "bomb," "flop," "hit" and similar to the guideline. When it comes to summary statements (and I'm excluding "bomb," "flop," and "hit" from that), however, I am cautious about adding wording to the guideline on it since editors have disagreed on summary statement matters time and again. For example, as made clear in this discussion, we currently use "overwhelmingly" for the Star Wars: The Force Awakens article (and we do that per the sources). And for whatever film article any question, we don't use "universal acclaim" unless using WP:In-text attribution for Metacritic's "universal acclaim" designation. And we don't use "acclaimed" or "critically acclaimed" unless well-supported, as is the case for Schindler's List. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Attribution of country/ies in Lead section: was WP:FILMLEAD changed?

Can articles still include that a film is, for example, a British-American, or Japanese-Italian, or French-German, etc., film in the lead section? Was a decision made that this is no longer relevant or appropriate? WP:FILMLEAD says

"If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), it should be identified in the opening sentence."

What if there is no source that specifically says "This American production....", or variation of same, but there are numerous sources that identify the producers, their companies, and source of financing? I ask because a GA article (co-produced by companies from two different countries) had the attribution deleted from the section and "WP:FILMLEDE" was the summary provided by the editor, but I don't see a mention in MOS about excluding this information in the lead. Thanks! Pyxis Solitary talk 05:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

FILMLEAD says "If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section.", but I still think it should be ok to do double descriptive nationalities if the sources support it. The MOS seems to contradict RS policy in this respect and I think policy should take priority. Also, the FILMLEAD section confusingly links to an MOS section about how foreign language film articles should be titled in order to "guide us" on how languages should be presented within articles. This whole area of the MOS is totally misleading and misguides editors into thinking that the MOS guidelines for how and why foreign language film articles should be titled also somehow applies to the way we source language content to introduce it into the article. In short, it's absurd BS, and needs to be drastically corrected. It was a huge oversight to have allowed this to be implemented to the manual to begin with. (Maybe I over-reacted a little) Huggums537 (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe this was added to deter original research. For instance, it is not unusual for films to have some foreign investment or involvement and then foreign countries to be listed under "production countries" in databases and catalogs. One of the best examples I can think of is big Hollywood films produced through German tax shelters to qualify for EU subsidies. For example, Terminator 3 which was ostensibly an American production that exploited German law by selling the copyright to a German tax shelter, and as such Germany now counts as a "Production country", but is the German involvement a defining part of its identity? The closest that film got to Germany was Schwarzenegger's Austrian accent! Sometimes films are genuine co-productions: since the late 70s the James Bond films are 50 percent owned by British based Eon and 50 percent owned by MGM, so are genuine co-productions. In these examples I would have no issue with Terminator 3 being called "American" and post-1970s Bond films being called "British-American", but that is largely down to my own original research and other editors may draw to different conclusions, which is why the MOS takes the position it does. If you can actually find a source that explicitly describes a film as an "Country X / Country Y" film—as opposed to just listing countries—then that changes the equation somewhat. Betty Logan (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

By the same token there are editors who will add "American" into the nationality of a film simply because it has an American distributor. Distribution is a management and marketing activity and doesn't change the nationality of the product.MapReader (talk) 07:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the article I "mentioned" (it's Carol), I've read many sources that include background about the British funding, the British producers that advocated bringing the (American) novel to screen, and American company that joined in co-producing the film after funding was procured. I have not seen a source that went out of its way to say it's a "British-American production", yet there are many sources where it's an obvious fact by virtue of coverage. Pyxis Solitary talk 08:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The itch had to be scratched. I found these sources from 2015 that mention "British-American":

• “As a British/American production it is very fitting that Carol will premiere as the BFI London Film Festival’s American Express Gala.
• The upcoming British-American film “Carol”, staring Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara, just took home the top prize for Best International Film Adaptation of a Novel at the Frankfurt Book Fair, the publishing industries largest trade fair.

So ... does this satisfy the WP:FILMLEAD guideline about identifying nationality and reliable sources? Pyxis Solitary talk 11:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how reliable LGBT Germany is but in the BFI source the film's producer refers to the film as a "British-American production". That seems pretty compelling to me, and ultimately WP:V trumps a project guideline. Ultimately all MOS guidelines are created to tackle a perceived problem, and in this case the problem was original research. If you have a reliable source quoting the producer making an explicit statement about the nationality of the film then there isn't an OR problem. I wonder what Erik makes of this? Betty Logan (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The BFI source is included in the article as reference # 93 in the Release section. The LGBTGermany.com source is based on the Variety article Todd Haynes’ ‘Carol’ Wins Frankfurt Book Fair Prize for Adaptation. Pyxis Solitary talk 12:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I was consistently on the side that if a film like Carol or, as I mentioned in some old talk page discussion, Baby Driver or Alien, was an international co-production, then it should be referred to as such in the opening sentence. The closest I've gotten to changing my mind on it, aside from becoming slightly less jaded, is the clutter that arises when a film is something like a "French-German-Italian-Soviet-Japanese-Australian" production. I hadn't previously considered the merits of including two countries in the opening sentence if they were heavily supported as such by outside sources, as the wording in the MOS seems so set in stone. But if we're to make an exception, that exception should be worded clearly. –Matthew - (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The guideline exists because country pairings (or rather, groupings) imply false equivalence for the reader that tend to be production-related. Like with Betty's example, to call Terminator an American-German film makes it seem like there are fairly equal contributions, not just in terms of production, but in terms of cultural value. (In other words, readers would be confused from the onset what was "German" about Terminator.) It makes more sense to talk about the film being "a X-Y-Z production" later in the lead section because it allows for explaining what was involved in the production (which is generally less of a priority to most readers). In the case of Carol, to call it an American-British film upfront is misleading, especially considering the story. It seems more accurate to call it an American-British production later in the lead section and explain in the same breath how that worked. To say "American-British" in the opening sentence and not to give context right away (since the following sentences tend to talk about the director, stars, premise, etc) is a degree of vagueness that's not needed. For what it's worth, Darkwarriorblake has suggested doing away with nationality in the opening sentence, especially considering that there are more and more collaborations between countries nowadays than before. A suggestion I'm not completely opposed to. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

No nationalities allowed? No thanks. I oppose that suggestion real quick. I do agree the Terminator example would be ridiculous, especially since there are no sources to say it specifically. However, Pyxis Solitary is providing us with sources that specifically name it with the country pairing. Our personal views on how readers "might possibly" misinterpret reliably sourced content should have nothing to do with it's inclusion. I also agree with Betty's example about the Bond films being described as British-American even if we only summarize the sources saying so as opposed to them specifically saying so as in the examples Pyxis gave us. In addition, I'm glad Betty brought into this discussion the very editor who boldly made the change to the manual because I think another evaluation should take place in order to consider the fact that we are pitting our fears of what "might possibly be misread" against the reality of reliable sourcing. So, for example, this fear based segment: "If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film)" should be replaced with something based more in the reality of reliable sourcing, like: "If the film's nationality is defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film)" or this fear based statement: "If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section. could be replaced with something more rationally based such as: "Multiple national interests should be covered later in the lead section." As it currently stands, the MOS seems to indicate a fear based guidance of, "only single nationalities allowed" which is in conflict to the freedom provided us by RS policies. We need to make a reassessment of that guidance. Huggums537 (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't a "bold" alteration by Erik; I haven't re-read the discussion but I doubt he overstated the consensus in his edit. The problem we had was when a database simply listed countries and then editors drew "false equivalence" between those countries, and this guideline was specifically concocted to remedy that problem. I think we can probably all agree that the guideline is generally good advice in such cases. I guess the question here is whether it should extend to cases where reliable sources themselves draw equivalence, either through laying out the facts or by using specific language. Betty Logan (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To clarify, the suggestion would exclude nationality only from the opening sentence, not from the lead section as a whole. Furthermore, it is not as simple as saying that we have reliable sources identifying multiple nationalities. Are you saying you would want to take all the nationalities mentioned in a given film's reliably sourced database listing and group them in the very first sentence of running prose as if each nationality played a fairly equal role? Databases don't make that distinction, and it would be undue weight to present it as such in the opening sentence. If you're talking about reliably sourced prose, that could theoretically work better than databases. Regardless, such groupings are often suffixed with "production" rather than "film". Also, regarding Carol, I do not see Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Los Angeles Times, nor The New York Times ever calling Carol "British-American" (or vice versa) in running prose. To throw another example into the mix, Midnight in Paris, despite the French setting, is an American-Spanish production. It is not clear to layperson readers why we would open with saying, "Midnight in Paris is an American-Spanish film..." Hence the guideline says to provide such details in the right context. For that article, it is done at the beginning of the second paragraph. Do you really believe that's not a better solution? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Variety review states "U.K." and "Karlsen/Woolley/Number 9 Flms/Killer Films production" -- ignoring that Killer Films is a U.S. company; The Hollywood Reporter review states "Karlsen/Woolley/Number 9 Films, Killer Films"; Los Angeles Times review doesn't include any production credits; The New York Times review also excludes production credits.
Is Radio Poland's "British-American co-production 'Carol' won the top prize at the 23rd Camerimage festival over the weekend...." good enough?
However, you forget the most important source of all: the producer of the film. Elizabeth Karlsen (Number 9 Films), who procured the funding to produce the film, said it was "a British/American production" (UK premiere). Who is the more legitimate reliable source? A critic or the producer herself? Pyxis Solitary talk 04:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Betty does make a very relevant point about how "reliable sources themselves draw equivalence" and how they contrast to the problematic "database sources" that could possibly be synthesized into "false equivalence" or improperly stacked multiple nationalities. I guess I could live with the fact that excluding the nationality would only apply to the lead. However, I foresee that as being a failure as well since it would not solve our problem, but only move it to a different area. Suppose we say, "no nationalities in the opening sentence, discuss them later in the lead". That's all well and good, but now you still have the same problem in the lead with loads of nationalities based on false equivalence. What's next? No nationalities in the lead, and then no nationalities in articles? If we follow this line of thinking to it's logical conclusion, we see that it ultimately only succeeds in limiting the freedom of the people who are doing it right because of the ones who aren't. So, yes I'm talking about reliably sourced prose because it would theoretically work much better as you mentioned earlier. Also, I'm wondering if the offer in your edit summary to "feel free to polish" still stands since the general consensus of the edit is still standing as well. If so, I would like to propose my above changes to polish up the edit since I believe that my proposed changes continue to maintain the intended effect, but avoid the misunderstanding that could occur where someone might think it's meaning is: "only single nationalities allowed". If not, then perhaps we can discuss some kind of modification that takes into account the reliable sources that draw equivalence in the running prose themselves. Huggums537 (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It would be better if we always required authoritative citation for the nationality, rather than allow editors to fight it out based on the nationalities of the myriad organisations that input to the film. If critics are reporting a film as being from Country X, then that is what we should run with, and the fact that some Wikipedian has spotted that the catering firm came from another country (exaggerating to make the point), or whatever, should be dismissed as OR. We have too many editors trying to stake national 'claims' to films and not enough reporting of what reviewers and industry expert sources are saying. MapReader (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Follow the sources, and what they say, not the editors who want to synthesise OR based on their own conclusions. I think my proposal is in line with this ideal, and I feel like Pyxis's suggestion is as well. Huggums537 (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

"If critics are reporting a film as being from Country X, then that is what we should run with". All well and good, but what do you do if a film is produced by studios from two different countries and reviews you're depending on as reliable sources fail to provide this detail (as in the Variety article I cited that only mentions the "U.K." country half of production) -- yet all the production background history you find about the film confirms that it's a dual-nation production? When do we allow our intelligence to take the wheel? Pyxis Solitary talk 08:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The obvious response is to ask, if every authoritative source reports and reviews a film without needing to specify its nationality, why would we need to do so in WP? The whole ethos of WP is cataloguing stuff that has already been authoritatively reported, not doing our own research or making our own conclusions. Besides, in your eventuality, the nationality of the writer, director, producer and various production companies can all be specified as usual in the article (or in linked articles), supported by citation where necessary. Films don't have passports, nor does every company involved in its production imprint its nationality onto it. Whereas, where a film is reviewed as a British, American, Italian film, or whatever, WP should be able to say that without some editor persistently reverting on grounds that some of the finance came from another country. MapReader (talk) 09:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

If all you consider reliable is reports and reviews and they don't mention the nationality, then by all means do it your way when you edit an article. If, however, a report and/or review mentions the nationality, then you follow MOS and include it in the article. If a report and/or review only ascribes one nationality when there are actually two (as in the example I provided of Variety, which provides the two production company names but fails to include the nationality of the non-British company in the production and crew credits), then it's a disservice to the article to exclude the nationality of the second production company. However, if the producer is the source of the dual-nation attribution ... you take it as gospel. An oversight by any reviewer or publication does not trump the words of the producer. Pyxis Solitary talk 10:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment A lot of the above discussion seems to miss the point that, per WP:LEDECITE, potentially controversial content (for example content over which at least one RS appears to be in disagreement) should not be in the lead unless it is also discussed (usually in more detail) in the body. This makes citation of reliable sources in the lead itself redundant. A citation in the opening sentence attached to the nationality of a film looks ugly, is normally counter-policy, and is a dead giveaway to readers that this or that has been discussed to death by Wikipedians despite not being a significant issue. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The guideline specifically states that "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". So while we generally like to avoid redundantly citing in the lead, it is sometimes necessary, as in a situation involving confusion over the nationality of a film. Editors reverting back and forth would be a clear indication that a citation is needed. It is only redundant when the cited material is non-controversial. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I get what you're saying though. You would think the nationality of a film isn't controversial, and placing a citation next to it would seem to unnecessarily imply that it is. I understand the concern, but I'm not sure having one there is all that harmful. Handle it on a case-by-case basis and only put one there when needed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

While I appreciate your responding in a civil fashion (how long has it been since I could expect that kind of treatment on an MOS talk subpage?), you unfortunately seem to have misunderstood my point. Yes, it is a concern that when a piece of content is not controversial, citing it (especially if nothing else is cited) in the lead gives the impression that it is, but the main point is that in situations where it is controversial (as it appears to be here), it should not be in the lead at all unless it is also in the body. And if it is cited in the body then a lead citation would be "redundant" in that it would be cited elsewhere in the article. When I say a cite is "redundant", I don't mean it is useless to readers; I just mean that it's not necessary to readers who are willing to read the whole article or who know how to use Ctrl+F (or equivalent). Honestly I think LEDECITE is a bit self-contradictory on this point (readers who are too lazy to read past the first four paragraphs of our article are not dilligently looking for sources to double-check the information we give them in said paragraphs) and probably needs to be revised, but that's another matter.

All that said, I must apologize for apparently having misquoted the guideline. The relevant text I meant to refer to was not in LEDECITE, but in the top section (the "lead"?) as Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. (Ironically enough, on a brief scan I couldn't find the exact portion of the body of that page that was being summarized by that.笑) If the nationality of a film is a source of controversy and the various RSes we have consulted give different and mutually untenable claims, then it is not a "basic fact" and should be discussed in the body. If that is done then inclusion in the lead, in whatever form and with whatever citations, is a secondary concern AFAIAC.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: We'll Always Have ... Footnote. There's more than one way to skin that cat. Pyxis Solitary talk 08:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

↑→ ADDENDUM TO MY POST: Before this train is derailed any further ... The nationality of the film is not controversial. There is no controversy involved. My inquiry — the reason why I posted this section — was simply to find out if a change had been made to MOS:FILM > LEAD regarding inclusion of a film's nationality in the lead section (had it been debated and consensus reached?). An editor deleted the dual-nationality of the film (British-American), gave "WP:FILMLEDE" as the reason for deleting the attribution, and I did not find anywhere in MOS where this deletion was supported. Perhaps WP:FILMLEDE / WP:FILMLEAD needs to be rephrased so that it's not so readily used to justify the deletion of national attributions. [And please keep in mind that it's a dual-nation production, it is not a multi-national production involving three, four, five, or six countries. It is a production established as a British-American production by the producer and by the nationalities of the two independent production companies (one is British, founded and based in London, UK; one is American, founded and based in New York City, US).] Pyxis Solitary talk 08:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Pyxis, you said you had a source (the Variety article) that described the film as British and listed four production companies, the fourth of which you say is American. To be clear, it is WP:OR to second-guess a source based on something like that. Maybe they meant to refer to an identically-named UK-based subsidiary; maybe the company was not actually involved in the production but requires accredition due to obscure contractual details; maybe Variety inadvertently listed a US distributor as a production company: all of these happen frequently, and all are safer assumptions than the one you appear to be making as they are in line with NOR. (And no, I don't want you to explain to me how any or all of the above assumptions are wrong in this case. That would completely miss the point. I wish I didn't feel the need to clarify this in advance, but I do.) If you want to contradict a reliable source on a claim like that, you need another reliable source that directly contradicts it.

The reason I wrote it appears to be [controversial] here is that I was assuming you actually had a reliable source that did contradict the Variety article. If it is not controversial, then a source verifying it should be readily available; the only source I see here is one that specifically contradicts it.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

(a) "Variety review states "U.K." and "Karlsen/Woolley/Number 9 Flms/Killer Films production" -- ignoring that Killer Films is a U.S. company;"
(b) "... the producer of the film. Elizabeth Karlsen (Number 9 Films), who procured the funding to produce the film, said it was "a British/American production" (UK premiere)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film&diff=next&oldid=812272713 Pyxis Solitary talk 10:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, so what's the problem? When you have a source explicitly calling it a British/American film, picking out a source that doesn't and repeatedly talking about how it is wrong (which makes it really look like you are engaging in OR) is pointless, isn't it? Yes, FILMLEDE does support MattheHoobin's edit as currently worded; that much is obvious. If you and/or Matthew agree that a bi-national production like Carol should be an exception, then invoke WP:IAR: MOSFILM is not a core policy; it's a subpage of a guideline that was crafted without care for the majority of articles it technically covers and has massive problems far beyond the one you are talking about. If you find people keep coming along and reverting; include a WP:COMMENT along the lines of <!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THIS WITHOUT CONSENSUS; it was decided that this article's lead sentence should be an exception to that particular clause WP:FILMLEAD. -->. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

To all interested parties: I am dropping the stick on my proposal due to the fact that another editor with whom I have had past distasteful disagreements has entered the discussion and I am unable to continue the proposal with the good faith that the other editor will not try to undermine my efforts. Therefore, to keep in good faith, I'm avoiding a situation that might put me in bad faith. Pyxis, you still have my full support to include dual nationalities in the article, and I will continue in that discussion. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Public apology: In hindsight, I realize the bulk of my announcement might not be in good faith since I didn't even give the other editor an opportunity to show what kind of faith they have. Therefore, I'm striking the portions related to faith, but keeping the parts related to dropping the proposal because 1) The informal way I set it forth didn't attract any attention, and 2) It's a problem I can live without. Anyway, it's not easy to get over old wounds, but you do the best you can. To the other editor: I hope you find the postings unoffensive, but if not, then I hope you accept this apology as fair recompense for my mistake. Huggums537 (talk) 09:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Your apology would sound more sincere if you didn't accuse me in the same breath of having "wounded" you. My recollection of our past interactions has you following me around to a bunch of articles (even after I had repeatedly asked you to stop), lecturing me about copyright policy (even after a very esteemed member of the Project told you I was right), trawling through my talk page for old edits you can revert, posting sarcastic attacks against me on talk pages, and repeatedly misrepresenting what I and others had written (even after it was pointed out to you). And all of that was without provocation of any kind, let alone "wounds". I'm willing to drop the stick at this point, which is why I didn't reply to the first comment you posted about me above, but if you are going to "apologize" for writing things like that you should refrain from writing effectively the same thing again in the apology. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so I see my good faith was misplaced since your very first reaction was to play on my own words and try to undermine my efforts, just as I predicted you would. Everyone can plainly see you are holding a shipload of grudges and I think anyone would agree I made a fair assessment that old wounds are indeed not that easy to get over. Besides, you ought to know apologies are even more sincere when they come from someone who is willing to admit that even though they have been hurt, they have also made mistakes. Huggums537 (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Just a reminder here that because the MOS is under discretionary sanctions, I can topic ban anyone I want from this talk page, whenever I want. Keep that in mind when you post here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the administrative advisory. Your courtesy is appreciated. Huggums537 (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Please, future posts in this thread ONLY about the nationality of films. MapReader (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely, I agree. At this point, there is nothing I would like more than to let bygones be bygones and continue with the discussion about nationalities. Huggums537 (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Not only have it remain an on-point discussion about the inclusion of film nationalities ... but also remain a neutral discussion (my excluding the name of the editor that made the edit which motivated me to ask my question was not an oversight.) Pyxis Solitary talk 00:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding nationality in the first sentence, I think it is worth asking ourselves what details we include and why. The simplest details to have are the name of the film and that it is a film. We most often include the year next, but this is not necessarily because anything requires having it in the opening sentence. It is our cultural preference to put it in a chronological context right away. We also do this for biographies, though not cities and towns (in terms of their founding, that is). The film's year is typically simple enough to state, though there can be occasional conflicts about what constitutes the earliest year. Nationality comes next to tell readers, what part of the world a film comes from, and this is not especially required by anything above MOS:FILM. It's simply another reference point that is often useful, but it does not hold very well when it comes to two or more countries being involved. Heck, it may not hold well even if we have "one" country (per reliable sources) yet it seems to be set in another and has that country's language and was produced in that country. Unfortunately, film nationality is more tied to financing, so in seemingly conflicting cases, the nationality label can confound nonspecialists. Biographical articles permit nationality based on context, and we should do that based on films too. That was the point of the guideline here, if the nationality is straightforward enough, share it. If it isn't, spread out the details in the right context later in the lead section. I think this is supported by MOS:BEGIN and MOS:FIRST. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I think it should be treated as a given that the current guideline is meant to discourage situations of "German-French-Italian-Portuguese-Romanian-Uzbekistani" appearing before the word "film" in the opening sentence, and should not be interpreted as preventing "British-American", or (worse) encouraging "compromises" where a source could be found that says "British" and so using that. I don't know if amending the wording of MOS would help or hinder the situation, though, since I think most editors would interpret Carol and other dual-nationality films as an IAR case while providing vaguer wording in MOS might lead to messes down the line.

I also think that, although this may be a mere side-effect, the current wording (singularly defined by reliable sources as opposed to not plurarily defined by reliable sources) provides us with critical leeway in cases like Audition (1999 film) not to describe what are essentially mono-national films as though they were dual-national just because some foreign company contributed a small portion of the funding for the film; lots of good sources describe the films as mono-national, so it shouldn't matter that some less careful sources describe it as though "Japanese-Korean" and "Korean-Japanese" were synonymous and as though both of them meant something different for understanding the film, its content and its cultural background from "Japanese" in that particular context. Several editions of 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die were my constant companion in my teens and provided me with countless hours of entertaining reading, but intercultural nuance and details like these were never that book's strong point.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The bottom line is that, in the lead, readers want to know, where applicable, from what part of the world a film comes from. They don't want to see a list of all the countries involved with production and distribution - the infobox usually makes this clear in any case. Victoria & Abdul is a case in point - a story about a British Queen written by a British writer with a British director, four British producers, a mostly British cast, set and filmed almost entirely in Britain. Yet we have editors seeking to make it British/American because one of the distributors, who put up some of the money, is based in the U.S. MapReader (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't find much of a distinction between two or more than two, other than a longer label. Once we slip out of a singular label, we are no longer specific about the so-called part of the world and need more context. It takes reading the the rest of the lead section to establish that context. Hence the guideline's language to delay mention until it can be framed in proper context, e.g., being a x-y production (distinct from being a x-y film) and the particulars of that if available. (Sometimes US studios involve non-US production companies, for example.)

As for the side effect, I do agree with your assessment that some sources aren't precise about the matter, especially because some retrospective sources look at films more as cultural products than as financial products. A book about "great" American or British films may not recognize other contributions. It could be that Carol will be retrospectively recognized as a "great" American film despite the British behind-the-scenes role. That's why these debates happen... what does the nationality "mean" to a reader? One approach I've tried is to put in the film's main language instead of the nationality since that can be more indicative of the film's cultural background. For example, Amour (film) is a French-German-Austrian production, but it is entirely in French. To me, it makes more sense here to use the language than the nationality. Also, Blindness (film) is a Brazilian-Canadian-Japanese production, but it is in the English language. (I changed it, again, to say "English-language" instead of "Brazilian-Canadian".) I think at the end of the day, we should worry less about requiring nationality in the first sentence as if readers stop reading after that and talk more about a generally appropriate order of noteworthy elements in the first paragraph. For example, for Carol (film), I think Blanchett and Mara should be mentioned earlier than the source material because their roles were covered more than the book itself and puts the film in better context for readers. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Suggestion Everything User:Erik has said above makes a lot of sense, but I'm wondering what people think about more explicitly enshrining film nationality is more tied to financing, so in seemingly conflicting cases, the nationality label can confound nonspecialists, the film's main language instead of the nationality since that can be more indicative of the film's cultural background and Biographical articles permit nationality based on context, and we should do that [for articles on] films too (I amended this as Erik apparently mistyped "based on films too"; I hope I'm not misinterpreting what was meant) in the guideline itself than they already are?

It makes sense that for "binational" films that actually come from one country but received a portion of their funding from another we should avoid listing their "binational" status in the opening sentence as it would not be helpful to understanding the context and could actually be misleading. Currently, the wording of the guideline looks like it is meant solely to avoid clutter in the opening sentence, but Erik's point (a point I independently recognized and somewhat more clumsily elaborated in my Audition comment) seems actually more important than the "no clutter" argument (which is universally recognized and can be implemented on a case-by-case basis using WP:COMMONSENSE).

I don't know or much care how this would relate to Carol, mind you.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I certainly agree that making a film bi-national based solely on a portion of the financing makes no sense. If I have a stack of money and pay some Italians to write and produce a film by Italians and in Italian, then it's an Italian film, in the same way that the nationality of the publishing firm that provides an author's advance doesn't change the nationality of a piece of literature, or who commissions a painting, or now owns it in a museum, doesn't change the nationality of the work of art. The first of Erik's tqs appears to conflict with his later suggestion, and needs amending imo MapReader (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding comparing film articles to biographical articles, I suppose I was thinking of MOS:BIO#Context which actually talks about the opening paragraph, not the first sentence. I meant to bring it up to indicate that the motivation to mention nationality depends on context, rather than we have to put some kind of nationality upfront. I was trying to compare film articles to other sets of articles to see how other topics may have handled nationality. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm a little skeptical we should consider financing the root of film "nationality", for our audience, even if someone in a film-industry specialist publication might approach it that way. At least not when the funding doesn't also involved production control to some degree. Several reasons:
  1. Our readers are not likely to interpret the matter this way.
  2. In an era of multinational corporations that buy and sell each other on a near-daily basis, it's a distinction that's increasingly illusory.
  3. Various bodies provide partial funding for all sorts of films and we generally have no idea at all to what extent. If Pathé provided a US$10,000 grant because one scene was filmed in Paris and provided some short-term local jobs, is that sufficient? If a bunch of desert scenes were shot in New Mexico for an otherwise all-French film, just to take advantage of tax incentives for filming in that US state, is that sufficient to call it a French and American film? I would think not. That said, it's unclear how to determine a film's "nationality" if that's even a sensible concept. We use it a lot, but this may be a mistake. It may make sense to say a film was produced by Italian company FooBar, and first released in Italy. I dunno. Just thinking out loud here. I guess this has implications for categorization, too.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  13:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

+1 Great post SMc. Nail -> Head. Good luck with your election. MapReader (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Is there oxygen left for the simplicity of a dual-nation co-production? The complicated and outrageous production may suck the air out of the room and become the shiniest object, but I gave an example of a film that has just two nationalities (not three or six, or whatever.) A British company provided the financing for development, and a British producer secured the financing for production. After two directors withdrew from the project, one British and the other Irish, an American producer ran the project by an American director she had previously collaborated with, the American director joined the project, and the American producer's production company followed. This is the background in a nutshell. (1) British and (1) American. Two nationalities. There are no myriad organizations, multinational corporations, tax incentive imbroglios, etc., etc., etc. Should WP:LEAD be rephrased to state in no uncertain words that it's okay to include more than one nationality when the detail is supported by a source? (A press release? Press kit? British Film Institute? American Film Institute? A reviewer that wasn't asleep at the wheel?) Yes? No? I mean ... what the heck! Pyxis Solitary talk 17:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

  I'm confused. Are you still wanting to call it a "British-American film" in the first sentence or wanting to at least identify the collaboration as a British-American production somewhere in the opening paragraph? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It is a British-American film (not American-British as you have previously referred to it). In regards to this film, it's in the bones of its production. "British-American" was deleted from the lead completely. Per MOS, I re-inserted it, now it appears in the second paragraph. I think it's an important feature that should appear in the first paragraph. Pyxis Solitary talk 23:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, how are you determining the order? I said "British-American" in my recent comment and am honestly not paying attention to the order here. I think it is fine to mention it in the opening paragraph as a British-American production. I was saying that the first sentence should only mention a singular nationality because the context is not needed, whereas with more than one nationality, context is needed. First sentence, we're busy rolling out a variety of identifiers. After that, we have breathing room for context. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Simple. The producer that procured funding for development of the project is British (Tessa Ross). The company she was Head of Film is British broadcaster Channel 4 and she was in charge of its Film 4 and Film4 Productions divisions. The producer who acquired the rights to the novel from the author's estate is British (Elizabeth Karlsen). The company involved in securing the financing for the production, her company, is British (Number 9 Films). Her co-producer and production company co-owner is British (Stephen Woolley). The distribution and marketing company that handled pre-sales was British (HanWay Films). The company that handled post-production equity was British (Goldcrest Films). Until 2013 it was a British project, then the Irish director (John Crowley) departed due to a timing conflict. During a conversation with an American producer friend (Christine Vachon), Karlsen mentioned the departure of Crowley and Vachon told her about how a new film that was to be directed by an American director (Todd Haynes) had been scrapped (Vachon has frequently collaborated with Haynes). They agreed to give him a try and he received the screenplay. Haynes signed on and Vachon became a co-producer with her American company (Killer Films). But of course, the most reliable factor in determining the order comes from Elizabeth Karlsen who, in a press release for its UK premiere on 14 October 2015, described it as a British-American production (it was released in the US the following month on November 20, 2015). Leaving co-nationality out of the opening sentence of a film article is reasonable. It's gladdening to hear that we both agree it should be mentioned in the first paragraph. Pyxis Solitary talk 03:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment: See? I told you where the line of thinking would inevitably end when going from no opening sentence would lead to no opening paragraph, would lead to no second paragraph, would lead to no mention in articles period... and it already happened down that path just by accident. In fact, it had to be pointed out because the manual needs to be updated. Huggums537 (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

National Film Registry (NFR) in film article leads

At Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#National Film Registry material in the lead? (a permalink here), there is an editor (Fireflyfanboy) insisting that we must include National Film Registry (NFR) material in the lead of the Titanic (1997 film) article and in the lead of other film articles because, well, many or most films selected for preservation by NFR include this in the lead of their articles. Doniago argued, "I think this boils down to 'is a film being added to the NFR such a distinction that it merits being noted in the lead'? Personally, I have no idea, but it might be worth considering that this is, obviously, a United States-specific honor, so there might be some grounds for saying it's a bit of bias." Erik argued, "The NFR passage should definitely be mentioned in the article body if it is to go in the lead section at all. If other articles do not include it in the body, they need to be fixed. As for whether or not to mention in the lead section the selection for preservation (here or in general), I don't have a strong preference. I do see it plopped into the lead section a lot, but that does not necessarily mean it is a good practice. We should look at WP:LEAD and determine how the preservation matter fits the criteria for important information, especially since it is generally apart from the overview, production, and reception." Erik also argued that including NFR material in the lead is similar to including Oscar material in the lead in that the NFR passage can count as part of "a summary of its most important contents", "cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article" (though more applicable for fleshed-out articles), and "summarize the most important points."

I argued that I don't see this as the same as a film winning an Oscar. It is but a single sentence covered lower, and is not something that is necessary for the lead. A film's Oscar reception should be in the lead. My main issue with the content in the lead of the Titanic (1997 film) is that it currently sticks out like a sore thumb (it has its own paragraph) and repeats the lone sentence lower in the article. I could shorten it in the lead and combine it with the third paragraph, which is where it was before, but that paragraph is about the film upon its release and re-release. Of course, I could remove "Upon its release" and format the paragraph in some other way. But this still does not address whether or not NFR material should automatically go in the lead of our film articles. According to Fireflyfanboy, it is standard to include this in the lead. Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like to state that, for the record, there seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding about the importance of the National Film Registry. Unlike User:Flyer22 Reborn I have done many edits of movie titles on the NFR, and if I ever encountered an article of a film included on the Registry that DIDN'T include its Registry status on the intro paragraph, I have forgotten it.

What User:Flyer22 Reborn has failed to mention in these arguments is the obvious answer to the question of is "a film being added to the NFR such a distinction that it merits being noted in the lead?" That answer is a resounding yes. The National Film Registry is the only federal governmental recognition of film in the United States. It is one of the only laws of the United States that governs film at all, and studios (and also George Lucas) face penalties if they don't surrender film copies to the Library of Congress (which only comes up in cases of... George Lucas). Films must be at least 10 years old, and graded on their "aesthetic, historical and/or cultural" value. No other award body does that, and no other entity picks movies specifically for the purpose of long term preservation. Only 25 movies get in a year from the entirety of American film history (which spans 100+ years), and these can include narrative features, documentaries, animated movies, shorts, and many other different types of films. The National Film Registry is arguably the most prestigious film award, at least in regard to American film, because unlike the Oscars, which are contemporary and come from an independent, non-governmental entity, The National Film Registry comes from the US Government exclusively and is only awarded to films that have stood the test of time, not simply what present consensus is in any given year. Movie reels are transferred for preservation in the Library's bunker in Culpeper (which I have been to). This isn't merely a critics award, or some minor recognition. Only 725 movies have been selected... ever. That's the equivalent of the all the Hollywood movies that came out in a single year for about the past 30 years. If movies as acclaimed, famous, and influential as Star Wars or The Wizard of Oz can have it mentioned in its lead (and have it be a pretty significant part of the lead's text, BTW), I think that's a pretty significant indicator. And those were two just off the top of my head. The actual article of the National Film Registry list is a featured list, meaning the consensus about the way Registry titles have traditionally been treated is significant enough to be featured as being one of the best on this site. It would be the equivalent of not mentioning that someone had won a Presidential Medal of Freedom in the lead of an article.

As a major cinephile and as a Wikipedia editor, I have a lot more experience with the National Film Registry and a much deeper understanding of what it is, which includes the prestige multiple major publications/websites/entities, including Wikipedia, award it. I understand this policy about including it the leads of films listed to be standard because, as someone who has seen the articles of a good chunk of Registry titles, it is, if not universally applied, than almost-universally applied to all Registry titles, not just because of the way the articles are organized, but it is considered that prestigious an honor. Today's announcement was covered by multiple publications, the way an Oscars would be. But unlike an Oscars, where one can talk about the contents of a show or a host or a surprise win or a surprise snub or mishap, the only news is about this honor specifically, and that is due only to its prestige and overall importance. The US government is vowing, under law, to preserve these films for time immortal.

To argue against the inclusion of this in the respective leads of NFR titles, as User:Flyer22 Reborn seemed to be doing, was personally offensive to me as someone who has devoted so much time and energy to both studying and making edits on behalf of the Registry. That was the reason I was so shocked and acted so negatively, and for that apologize. But I was dumbfounded that someone would argue that this was not some crucial thing worth mentioning in the intro paragraph. I know that the responsible admin will agree with me, and keep this policy in place. The NFR is, if not as big as an Oscar win, bigger, (again, have to stress: the US government is vowing, under law, to preserve these films for time immortal) and deserves inclusion in the lead for most (but if there's a case for not mentioning it in a lead, I have yet to hear it) films included on the Registry. If this was not the case, as a major cinephile who understands the importance and prestige of being included on the Registry, I would find myself questioning the value of Wikipedia as it relates to film, which would lead me to disengaging from editing and reading Wikipedia in the future. Fireflyfanboy (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Fireflyfanboy that the NFR is an exceptionally important film award that should be included in the lead of articles about movies that are on that registry, for the reasons stated by that editor. And I happen to be an administrator, but must hasten to say that administrators do not adjudicate content disputes. So take my opinion as that of just another editor. I do advise Fireflyfanboy to avoid personalizing the matter. No one should be shocked, dumbfounded or offended when another editor expresses a different good faith opinion. Calm discussion of content disputes is essential to building this encyclopedia. Musing about quitting the project over such a matter is not really productive, Fireflyfanboy. Participation is entirely voluntary but I for one certainly hope that you will continue editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, it is much appreciated. I am very attached to NFR and all related topics (which is why I mentioned my visit to Culpeper), but I hope I have made my points well and articulately enough that User:Flyer22 Reborn understands why this was such a personal thing for me.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the content is exceptionally important enough to include in the lead and I support it being there. However, I oppose any change to the MOS that says we MUST put it there. I also feel that the particular argument against it's inclusion; "it sticks out like a sore thumb", is just a cosmetic issue that borders on simply being Wikipedia:I DON'T LIKE IT and we should focus on arguments of more substance since cosmetic issues could be ironed out later and should be no determining factor for inclusion if bigger issues (like sourcing) aren't a problem. Huggums537 (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Huggums537, see the arguments on the article's talk page by me, Doniago, Erik, and Betty Logan (who also mentioned the "sore thumb" aspect while supporting inclusion of the material in the lead). It is not simply about aesthetics, and aesthetics only became a part of the equation when the text was given its very own paragraph in the lead, which is WP:Undue. It is about NFR material being plopped into the leads of our film articles without it being covered lower first (see Erik's quote above), and insisting that this information must go in the lead. It's also about presenting it well. We are supposed to have well-presented leads, and things are not supposed to stick out like a sore thumb in them. If they do, then there's very likely an issue with the lead. Above, I did offer suggestions for making the text fit better in the lead. It should definitely be combined with the third paragraph of the lead in some way and the quote (along with "on the 20th anniversary of its release") should be removed. I also noted on the talk page that I like the idea of the material being in the lead. It's the logic that was given by Fireflyfanboy and Fireflyfanboy's formatting that I took issue with. His argument was essentially "all the film articles do this, so this one must as well." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Please do not put words in my mouth, User:Flyer22 Reborn. I would frame my argument as "all the film articles do this BECAUSE IT IS THAT PRESTIGIOUS, and to suggest otherwise is not only wrong, but inflammatory." I have voiced my support for better integrating the NFR status into the lead for Titanic (1997 film), and formatting it in a way that makes it stick out less. But that was not what was discussed. As much as User:Flyer22 Reborn would like to say it was about the way I formatted it specifically, as someone who ALSO participated in the discussion, the issue seems to be, at least in my mind, about an ignorance about the NFR, what it is and what it does on the part of User:Flyer22 Reborn. This, along with their abrasive behavior, majorly contributed to this conflict occurring in the first place. Despite the claim "did offer suggestions for making the text fit better in the lead," (which if it was made, seemed to be a small detail in a bigger argument) that was not the impression I got. It seemed to be more about User:Flyer22 Reborn being against the NFR honor's general inclusion in the lead, as well as questioning the value of the NFR itself.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

No words were put in your mouth. The discussion is right there for all to see when it comes to your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments and dismissive attitude regarding discussion and collaboration. The discussion is also there for all to see that you were the abrasive and defensive one. And you are still being abrasive and defensive. This is not about being ignorant to the NFR. It's about you editing Wikipedia based on what is pleasing or offensive to you. There is no "did offer suggestions for making the text fit better in the lead" claim. It's right there above in the second paragraph of my initial post. And if I was against the material being in the lead, I would not have stated on the article's talk page that I like the idea of the material being in the lead. Also, do stop pinging me here. This page is on my watchlist. And pinging an editor multiple times in one post is fruitless anyway; one ping is all it takes for one post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

You said that my argument was essentially "all the film articles do this, so this one must as well." This is inaccurate, and I encourage you to read my long defense of NFR inclusion in leads in order to more fully grasp what my point was. And while "suggestions for making the text fit better in the lead" might have been said at one point or another, that was a minor point in a much bigger argument that questioned including it at all.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Not inaccurate at all. Look at the arguments you made on that talk page. Your "long defense of NFR inclusion" did not come until later, and even that is mostly about about personal feelings. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I think "it depends". First, any film in the NFR should clearly be documented in its reception or legacy section in the body. But where it is important to put into the lede seems like a case by case, dependent on what other merits the film has had. For Titanic, the NFR pales compared to its commercial performance and critical response so there it is noise. In something like Die Hard (which also got in the NFR in the last batch), it didn't have the same type of clear success but has gained a legacy over time, and highlighting the NFR seems perfectly appropriate for that lede. (Though I would omit the "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" part - that's implicit with being in the NFR. --Masem (t) 15:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

But couldn't it be argued that NFR inclusion is a testament to Titanic's long-term appeal and legacy, as well? If you say one can have it mentioned and the other can't for reasons that are completely subjective, that strikes me as majorly inconsistent. Fireflyfanboy (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

You don't need it for Titanic - it is clear from everything else. The consistency should be achieved in two places: mentioned in the body under reception or legacy, and through category inclusion. And yes, it is subjective, but that's how most of what we pick and chose for the lede is determined by. --Masem (t) 15:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Masem, thanks for analyzing the matter. As for leads, I like to think that what I put in the lead of our articles is usually about being objective rather than subjective...because I am following what WP:Lead states. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It's still being objective about what goes into the lede, but recognize the lede can't contain every award and recognition got. Titanic got a zillion awards and pieces of recognition and the NFR pales compare to Academy Awards and impressive box office numbers.

The other aspect could simply be that the language that Fireflyfanboy added for this is excessively bulky for a lede. In 2017, the film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". is a lot of excess text for the lede. Whereas The film is included in the National Film Registry. is very lightweight but still gets the point (a reader unfamiliar for NFR can check the blue-link), and could be combined with other lede sentences. --Masem (t) 16:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've made similar arguments (as far as the Oscar aspect and trimming/placement of the text goes). I'm certainly not of the mindset that the lead should include all of the film's awards/every recognition it got. And to be fair, Fireflyfanboy was not arguing that either. I want to note that I do understand what editors have argued about the importance of the NFR. I was simply questioning its need to be in the lead, especially if not covered lower first. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I would definitely agree that Fireflyfanboy would be helping all such film articles by at least duplicating the text (including source) added in the lede down into the Reception or Legacy section, and adding Category:United States National Film Registry films to the article. What then to do with the lede becomes a bit easier to discuss. --Masem (t) 16:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Fireflyfanboy, you might give a little credit where credit is due since Flyer22 did in fact offer to collaborate on correcting the "cosmetic issue". To be perfectly fair, Flyer also indicated liking the idea of having the information in the lead. It might not seem like a significant part of the discussion to you right now since you were put on the defensive about something you are passionate about, but if you take the time to see that you are getting some support and that even the people who seem like they are "against you" are being as reasonable as they can, then maybe you would find it easier to find some common ground. I must apologize for my earlier comment because it may have misled you to think the discussion was "all about inclusion" and this was only a result of my own oversight of these "minor parts of the discussion". I also think you have a pretty great point that people mischaracterizing arguments as simply being nothing more than "OTHER STUFF EXISTS" is usually just the easy old Wikipedia way to dismiss someone elses valid arguments. So, good on you for providing a legitimate response to that tired old shortcut. The cosmetic issue only serves to complicate matters and should be ironed out later since there are a myriad of ways to correct cosmetic issues. The simple matter of determining if this should be in the lead or not should involve little more than deciding if it is warranted. Like I said, once you have determined it is warranted, you can discuss the cosmetics of it till the cows come home. Also, the idea that it shouldn't be included because there are already numerous awards is poppycock. According to NPOV, all points of view should be represented fairly, and NFR is clearly a unique point of view separate from all those other awards. To lump it in with all the rest of the awards is merely an artful way of dodging that policy. Huggums537 (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a very fair way of looking at it. I appreciate your comment.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Huggums537, Masem wasn't arguing that it "shouldn't be included because there are already numerous awards." He was arguing that we can't include all awards and recognition in the lead and that what we place in the lead should be a matter of WP:Due (which is a part of the WP:Neutral policy). That policy is clear that we don't always represent all viewpoints and that representing fairly is based on the weight of whatever piece in question. Again, I questioned whether the NFR content should be in the lead, but I don't oppose it being there. I'll make some tweaks to it and leave it at that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I understood Masem's argument. It just seems to me that this entry is perfectly due since per the first sentence of WP:Due: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." I think this qualifies as a significant viewpoint published by a highly reliable source with the prominence of it being proportional to the common group of popular awards mentioned elsewhere in the lead. You have to admit that you even said yourself that, "I argued that I don't see this as the same as a film winning an Oscar". I think that's a fair case for establishing this as a different viewpoint with enough prominent significance to be deserving of a small mention in the lead among the common group of popular awards. The tweaks some editors are proposing to take out the quotations seems like a fair compromise since that would give a little less prominence to this proportionately less popular, but definitely not less significant viewpoint and it would likely solve some of the cosmetic concerns as well. Huggums537 (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Is NFR an award, though? I don't consider this an award, but I do know that it's an important recognition; so we agree on that. When I first saw it placed in the lead, I did like the idea, but the fan part of me is often suppressed by my Wikipedian mindset and I moved it down because it was not yet covered lower in the article. Later, it was given its own paragraph, which was WP:Undue. As for awards in general, the only awards we have in the lead are the Oscar awards. As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I know that it can be used dismissively, but the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS page also notes that it can be used validly. I've used it validly a number of times. On the talk page, we were initially being given a poor WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Anyway, it's been resolved now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

To try to get more to what I'm thinking, let's take an example like Citizen Kane, Gone with the Wind (film) or Casablanca (film), all which are films in the NFR. What's key is that with time, we know these films are clearly recognized as important works of American cinema, they have a long-lived legacy, of which being recognized for inclusion in the NFR is a blip contributed to that legacy. Properly written ledes for these wouldn't be trying to outline all the way these films have legacy, leaving that to the body, and so trying to push in the NFR part would seem out of place. But these films have the test of time behind them to justify that.

Now if we go to films like Die Hard or Airplane! or A Christmas Story, which have some legacy, but not yet the extent that we have with the first three examples, it's not readily clear what their legacy is, but cementing that is their inclusion in the NFR, so calling that out in the lede is important.

Then you have films like Titanic and The Matrix where they don't have the "legacy" yet either, but have a metric ton of awards and other recognition, to prove out why they were important films. This is the iffy ground, as for example, The Matrix spawned all the sequels, so clearly it has critical and financial legacy that fills out the lede, where the NFR mention may be noise against that. Titanic had all its awards and $1b success, but not much else outside that, so maybe mention of NFR makes sense.

Basically, while the NFR is a very important marker, it's not as equal to other recognition that comes from a film's legacy and accolades. It's similar to the AFI 100 lists in that sense. Where there is a lot of legacy to summarize in the lede, the NFR mention may seem redundant. On the other hand, there are cases where mentioning the NFR clearly establishes a legacy that is otherwise difficult to prove out. I would think that while articles are in progress, it makes sense to include the NFC mention in the lede, but as time goes on and editors improve the articles, dropping the NFR if it not necessary is also fine. (Obviously, still mentioned in the body and categorized, that's fine). --Masem (t) 21:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I mostly see what you are saying. You are making some valid points about balance. However, it kinda feels like there is this implication that "it's not as equal to other recognition" could somehow mean it should be left out in certain cases. I vehemently disagree with this idea. "It's not as equal to" simply means it shouldn't have an "equal to" share of coverage as the rest. Since when does "not as equal to" become "zero coverage" whether it be in the lead or anywhere else in the article? Especially when we are talking about a very prominently notable and reliably sourced recognition? Why does the fact that it's in the lead somehow exempt from this POLICY? By your own logic, nothing at all should be mentioned in the lede about films that have long legacies because each individual mention would merely be a "blip" of a contribution compared to their long legacy. This line of thinking only leads to the removal of every little "blip" you find in legacy film ledes until we are left with nothing in the lede. I'm beginning to fear that's what editors want around here... Huggums537 (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe there's another way to think about this. With Citizen Kane and those films, there is clearly more than enough legacy to go around, people have talked at lengths about it. A legacy summary in the lede is 100% appropriate and necessary, but because there are so many voices here, calling out one or two by name (including the NFR or the AFI) sees disproportionate and odd. Whereas you go to Die Hard and those, and one can struggle to find legacy information; because there's so few voices at this point, now calling out the NFR/AFI doesn't seem at all disproportionate.

This might also reflect on how important (or lack of importance, to a degree) the NFR is compared to the Academy Awards. "Everyone" knows getting an Oscar is the highest recognition for a film, whereas getting into the NFR is not necessarily of the same calibre. A film that wins a truckload of Oscars and other awards, I'm still going to highlight the Oscar awards because of that. But to do the same for NFR when there are many other possible awards or the like that we know its impossible to list them all further seems wrong. --Masem (t) 22:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a lot of discussion going on, which is great, but at this stage I can only offer one viewpoint: To answer a question above (which might already have been answered), the National Film Registry is not an award, but an induction, similar to a hall of fame. Films are inducted into the registry, which each year names 25 inductees. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I stated that I don't consider it an award. The question was asked more so out of politeness. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

"but because there are so many voices here, calling out one or two by name (including the NFR or the AFI) [seems] disproportionate and odd." This is exactly how it's supposed to be. If there numerous Oscars mentioned but only one NFR mention this might look disproportionate in appearance, but it is proportionally mentioned as far as fair NPOV representation goes since NFR ISN'T an award like the others. It represents a minority view with a single mention while the Oscars represent a majority view with proportionally greater mentions. It is simply paradoxical that it has the effect of looking disproportional in appearance when reading the article. The "odd disproportional" appearance should not be confused with the NPOV concept of being proportionally represented. Huggums537 (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not about NPOV in that sense, at least. NPOV would be not including the NFR induction in the body, for example.

If the lede is to be a concise summary of the article, you have to pick highlights among the film's reception and legacy to include - this is not just awards or NFC, but could be academic or critical retrospective, etc. The NFR inclusion is definitely a highlight to consider, but given one is only likely going to include about 3-4 such highlights overall (for appropriate lede length), at some point the NFR induction is not going to be as much of a highlight as other facets, particularly if those other highlights clearly demonstrate the film's legacy. I fall back to the Citizen Kane example as it would just feel odd to include the NFR in the lede over everything else that one could say about its legacy. It's not wrong to include, but from a purpose of a lede, it doesn't feel necessary for Citizen Kane. But I would come back to emphasize that part of why it would feel weird is the verboseness of the current text being added; if it was noted as briefly as possible, maybe it wouldn't stick out. --Masem (t) 00:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

That seems fairly reasonable to me. Huggums537 (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

We've worded it briefly in the lead of the Titanic (1997 film) article. But, Masem, I'm not fully clear on how you are defining "legacy." I mean, you stated that The Matrix doesn't have the "legacy" yet either, but the Legacy section in the The Matrix article shows otherwise. So it seems you are stating that it doesn't have the legacy of a film like Citizen Kane or Casablanca (the old-timers). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I saw what was done at Titanic (1997 film) article and I agree with the end result. However, I am disappointed that we may have succeeded in alienating Fireflyfanboy. Mostly because I feel partially responsible for pouring gasoline on that fire even though I did attempt some damage control afterwards. I think it would be a mighty fine gesture of good faith if someone were to reach out in an effort to make ammends there. It could make a world of difference... Huggums537 (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you inflamed the situation. I apologized to him on my talk page for having used some inflammatory language, but I think it's best that someone else reaches out to him on his talk page for encouragement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I see that now. You may have a point. It may be best to let sleeping dogs lie. Huggums537 (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

RFC for changing the production section guidelines. 2

There is a clear consensus to add the proposed text to the production section guidelines. The text was added to the guideline here.

Editors recommended expanding the guideline to discuss what should be avoided for the production section. This can be discussed in further discussions.

Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the manual of style add the following text to the production section guidelines:

A production section should provide a clear and readable narrative of how the film was developed, setting out the key events that affected its production, without detailing all of the day-to-day operations or listing every piece of associated news and trivia. Try to maintain a production standpoint, referring to public announcements only when these were particularly noteworthy or revealing about the production process. Focus on information about how plot elements or settings were decided and realised, rather than simply listing out their dates. Add detail about how the actors were found and what creative choices were made during casting, only including the casting date (month and year is normally sufficient) where it is notably relevant to the overall production history.

--Deathawk (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thia RFC was attempted a couple weeks ago, but it became apparent quickly that the draft I composed was not finished. Subsequently the discussion about the various ideas in it got so large that it became unreadable. This was the final draft version we came up with written by @MapReader: with some final wording changes proposed by @SMcCandlish:.

Background Info: Over the past couple of years or so Wikipedia has gotten sloppy on making good production sections. Often times they consist of people reporting every little thing they can find from sites such as The Hollywood Reporter to Variety, even if these has very little encyclopedic value or is of any interest to the readers. Often these come attached in simple sentences that, for lack of a better term, we at Wikipedia refer to as Proseline. The results in sections that are at best poorly done. and at worst difficult to even decipher. Over the years I've chatted with various editors who hang around and edit film articles and the consensus seems to largely agree with me, even if we could not come to a consensus of how to fix it. Looking at the Manual of Style for film, I noted that there was no detailed information about how to write a production section, so this is a proposal for one. --Deathawk (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. I was good to go with an earlier draft as correctly representing the large consensus discussion above, but this rewrite to state affirmatively what the Dos are before the Don'ts is the best approach for guideline material. We clearly need this in the guideline, because editors show confusion about what does and does not belong in the "Production" section and why, and our articles are thus wildly inconsistent, often with random unencyclopedic production trivia. This should help not only curtail cruft, but encourage the addition of the kind of encyclopedic material that is often lacking, and a more encyclopedic approach to writing and organizing it. In short, this is great advice, rather than a bunch of arbitrary "rules"; this is the correct way to deal with broad "style" questions that are encyclopedia-writing technique matters that evolve from editorial experience, rather than grammar or punctuation nit-picks we look up in off-WP style guides.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support MapReader (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support proper guidance on including details. Minor qualm as mentioned in discussion below, but not one to oppose this inclusion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. This should make production sections easier to read. We shouldn't bury the most useful content under a paragraph of proseline sourced to press releases. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support: It's a pretty good guidance for the production sections in film articles. It makes thing a little more encyclopedic. Some minor issues as I mentioned in the discussion below, but not to oppose this inclusion. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Looks extremely reasonable. Crufty production sections are definitely unwanted. Alsee (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support reasonable guidance that provides a clear idea of what an ideal section would include. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support It's good solid advice without being too prescriptive.. Let's give it a go and take it from there. Betty Logan (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support Seems like sensible advice. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support I kinda wish the proposal included more negatives ("don't write the sections based exclusively on primary sources such as press releases and interviews") and specifics ("don't include quotarions from cast members about their interpretations of their characters role in the story, etc. as this is not relevant to discussion of "production"), as the proposed wording is just as likely to be "misinterpreted" by the same people who have always been "misinterpreting" this, but it's definitely a step in the right direction. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support: It's come a long way and I think it's just about ready to roll... Huggums537 (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support But would also like to see mention that such sections should avoid including social media posts on production (read: Twitter) unless third-party RSes have taken note of that, or its otherwise necessary to complete a "production" picture (eg helping to fill a chronological gap that is needed for logical clarity). --MASEM (t) 16:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Excellent discussion all around. This is a solid paragraph, and tweaks for improvement can always be made. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm generally fine with this wording but find it a little incomplete. The entire last sentence is devoted to casting. Nothing that needs to be said about writing, development, pre-production, production design, filming locations, cinematography, post-production, editing, or visual effects? Are we just highlighting casting because it is the more "abused" sub-category of the set? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I tried to capture the meaning of the earlier version - which you guys had been knocking around already - with more positive presentation and succinct phrasing. The casting sentence picks up the above concern about the tendency here to add trivia such as many casting dates. The areas you list are of course all part of production, but maybe not subject to this problem to the same extent? Or maybe your point is that some editors need prompting as to what 'production' comprises - I guess we could insert your list in brackets somewhere, for example after "developed" in the first line - as a form of definition (or a new opening sentence "production comprises...."). My general preference however is only to expand text where there is a demonstrated need, or identified problem to resolve? Otherwise there is a risk editors might see it as an egg sucking lesson? MapReader (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Stuff can also be massaged later. It's often better to get a simple proposal through then "perfect" it over time, especially after observing its effect for a few weeks or months.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  14:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I had wanted to point out that the devotion to casting seems without context. Maybe at least briefly state why the focus? E.g., something like, "In particular, due to historical indiscriminate compilation of casting information, make sure to..." Only thinking out loud here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

We almost never do that in guidelines, as it makes them long, commingles advice with arguments, and it inspires "I disagree!" disputation on an item-by-item basis. The talk page and its archives are where the consensus and rationales go. Learned this the hard way at MOS:LIFE, MOS:IDENTITY, etc. If we need to reduce verbiage about casting and/or insert some about another production aspect, it's something we can do as we progress, but the big, earlier RfC indicates why not to copyedit much during the proposal process or the whole thing train-wrecks.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  17:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. Probably should work on some casting wording issues with that proposal. Like for example: Gerard Butler and Bryce Dallas Howard joined the cast in early September 2017 with some sources without making things difficult for it. Colin Farrell Joined the cast in mid September 2017, but was replaced by Karl Urban in late September 2017. The filming commenced principal production in October 3rd, 2017. Other than that, I like the proposal of this matter. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

As we've discussed earlier the casting section is broadly worded to encompass for multiple types of films. Not all films need that level of detail, and including instructions, such as what your proposing could cause some film's productions sections to get unwieldy. --Deathawk (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to comment on this earlier and forgot. We have no need to include details like that unless there's something particularly specially about these casting choices and changes, and multiple, independent reliable sources treated them in-depth. Initial casting choices do not pan out in lots and lots of cases, and including something like Colin Farrell being replaced almost immediately is probably trivia, unless there was some kind of huge controversy about it. No one really cares when someone joined the cast, unless this had a major effect on the production schedule or whatever.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  03:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't satisfy me. We do need casting details for a reason. It tells the readers when they joined the set and who's been replaced with some reliable sources to confirm that. We just need to work on the wording of it to make it more encyclopedic. That's what I should point out. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

This guideline isn't saying that you can't list when a few key members joined, just that the whole thing needs context.What we're trying to avoid is a scenario where editors go down the entire cast list and provide dates for when each member joined, I think the production section for The Lego Batman Movie, has at least eight such listings which is just insane. We're trying to prevent something like that. --Deathawk (talk) 05:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The dates that people joined the set are really trivial boring information unless they tell the reader something about the film. It's interesting if one actor were cast first as the core around whom the rest of the cast was chosen, or if someone dropped out at the last minute, or if one role was difficult to find the right actor for, or had to be cast multiple times. Otherwise it's just a list of random dates that clutters up the article. MapReader (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep. "It tells the readers when they joined the set and who's been replaced" isn't something we ever need to do unless there was something unusual about it. BattleshipMan, think about this in the context of the "content forest" instead of the "I love writing about movies" tree: We do not provide information like this at articles about universities, companies, etc., except when there's a lot of in-depth source coverage, not just some passing mentions (e.g.: a CEO of a major corporation resigns and its stock plummets; a professor without tenure is fired for something "politically incorrect" she said, and the Internet goes nuts about it; a player is traded/transferred from one national-level team in a major sport to another and there's public outcry about it, etc. If it doesn't rise to that level, it might still be contextually relevant on the individual's article, but it's not at the article on the production/company/university/team.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  12:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not disagree with the ideals behind the proposal, but I'm not sure this addition will prevent "Proseline". In my experience, these little bits get added as they happen by well-meaning editors who want to keep an article up-to-date and complete. It's often hard to know how important a production announcement is when it's made. The issue here is a lack of follow-through by those same editors (or other interested parties) to improve the section after production ends. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The ideal is that the editors loyal to an article come back and do a wholesale copyedit, as you say, once the flood of edits that always follow release, reviews and revelations about the film's production settle down. This is what has happened, for example, on Dunkirk. Our aspiration is that the MOS helps shape and give direction to this process. MapReader (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

And if proseline continues to be a problem we can address it in more detail later. It's not practical to expect a guideline revision like this to address ever issue editors can think of. Baby steps!  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  03:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't expect a guideline to address every issue, but I do expect it to address the issue it's meant to address. One of the repeated examples is a long list of dates for when cast members join. If an article is being developed prior to release, then adding new cast members keeps it up-to-date and useful. These long lists are not typically added by one editor at one time - they're built incrementally as the information comes available. Omitting a new one makes it look incomplete, but re-writing the paragraph takes more effort. That effort is what's needed to fixe the issue raised here. I'm fine with adding the proposed text as a guide for editors who wish to put in that effort (and to point to when editors object to the removal of referenced material), but I don't expect it to prevent any proseline. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

This is actually adressed in the text (and was put there for that very reason) "Add detail about how the actors were found and what creative choices were made during casting, 'only including the casting date (month and year is normally sufficient) where it is notably relevant to the overall production history. This clearly states and alludes to the fact that we don't want a list of when everybody was cast. --Deathawk (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Not all actors. Just the ones that are essential for the movie and such, like lead actors and major supporting actors. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri 88: Re: 'I kinda wish the proposal included more negatives ("don't write the sections based exclusively on primary sources such as press releases and interviews") and specifics ("don't include quotarions from cast members about their interpretations of their characters role in the story, etc. as this is not relevant to discussion of "production")' – We can always expand it later to address problems that still crop up. Better to do it step-wise, especially since the first of these is already covered by WP:RS and WP:PSTS, and latter by common sense and by WP:NOT#INDICRIMINATE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  00:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, at least in theory. I would love if pointing to WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE worked to prevent instances of the latter as much as it probably should, though. In my experience this is the same problem with that "film reviews are secondary sources, period" mess -- a whole bunch of editors of entertainment articles don't accept the policy unless the MOS page explicitly interprets the policy in the context covered by the MOS for them, hence the "on the same page" in my response to MapReader below. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

and as per the discussion, it isn't helpful to dump a load of "don't do this, don't do that's" on people without saying what it is that we are actually looking for! There is nothing wrong with warning people away from significant bad editing where we can be clear about the type of edits that seriously damage an article, but a good MOS should emphasis the positive and trust editors to make sensible judgements imo MapReader (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

MapReader, I'm not sure how much experience you have in this area, but you'd be surprised (I was) at how difficult it is for a lot of (or for most?) Wikipedians to interpret "keep the development section to encyclopedic discussion of the delevopment of the film" without being told, on the same page, exactly what kind of things this means they should not do. Yes, this is more a glass-half-empty vs. glass-half-full interpretive difference related to how much trust we can put in our editors, but it feels like an important one to me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Same goes for Masem's 'would also like to see mention that such sections should avoid including social media posts on production (read: Twitter) unless third-party RSes have taken note of that, or its otherwise necessary to complete a "production" picture'. I.e., we can deal with these issues later if the currently proposed clarification proves insufficient. The main complaint about MoS in general is "too many nit-picky rules", so we should not add nit-picks unless proven necessary. Let's give the forthcoming clarification time to do its job, then improve it as necessary later. WP:THEREISNODEADLINE. We can also do what I suggested early on, and work up a more generalized do/don't list for MOS:FICT. Then the separate MoS pages on film, TV, novels, comics, yadda yadda, need not get into details other than as they specifically pertain to the medium in question.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

As I see it, the proper level of detail depends on the importance of the film, both commercially and artistically. Really important films of historic importance typically have their production history covered in very great detail by independent scholars, as well as by fans, and our coverage can to some degree reflect it-- I'm thinking for example of Casablanca, where the dialog and plot were revised & improvised from day to day --with considerable disagreement between the stars. (other good examples are The African Queen, and Jaws Routine films are another matter. Fancoverage can blend into more serious coverage , of course, and that doesn;t mean fan sources are useless, jsut that they do not really set the parameters of how much detail is worthwhile . DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion about cleaning up production sections over at Wikifilm

Now that my previous RFC passed regarding production sections passed, we should discuss how to go forward with cleanup. I started a discussion, over on Wikiproject: Film, you can view the discussion here. Thanks --Deathawk (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I might stop by to take a look. I'm busy fighting a false sock puppet report that's been filed against me right now... Huggums537 (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

PostTrak

I boldly added PostTrak to the "Audience response" section alongside CinemaScore as seen here. Tenebrae is welcome to disagree with its inclusion and revert on that basis, but there is no basis for having to discuss every single edit made to the MOS. Tenebrae, do you actually have a problem with including PostTrak or not? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I've never even heard of it, so perhaps editors should discuss it. I know you made the edit in good faith, and I would point out that unilaterally adding another company to the MOS is not a minor "every single edit" — it represents a major decision that will apply to thousands of pages. For something so significant, I would suggest calling an RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't really think an RfC is necessary. We can have a discussion, sure. Google News shows that PostTrak's poll results are being used by multiple reliable sources as seen here. PostTrak and/or CinemaScore can be used for audience response. Both is ideal where possible. Any qualms about that? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Deadline.com mentions both in the same breath here and here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I see it is used by various outlets. And we do use two film-critic aggregators, so it would not be unheard of two use two audience-score services. But just as editors have found it more useful to use Box Office Mojo where possible rather than By the Numbers since the former has much more consistent industry use, making for apples-to-apples comparisons, it's worth discussing with more WikiProject Film editors than just you and me as to pros and cons. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I notified WT:FILM of this discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no issue in including PostTrak in the MOS, though while I was aware of it, I am not very aware of how reliable sources report on the data, or how frequently it gets used in discussing movie releases. Conversely, I know that the CinemaScore of a film is virtually always reported on, at least in its first weekend of release. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I, too, have no issue with using it. I would suggest we clarify whether we expect both to be used, a ls Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, or to prefer the more-established Cinemascore and use PostTrak when Cinemascore is unavailable, s la Box Office Mojo and By the Numbers. My concern is consistent apples-to-apples comparisons with industry mainstream. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I think both where available works. For what it's worth, with CinemaScore, the website allows you to look up the main grade for a film (though not any further detail). I assume that periodicals referencing CinemaScore are able to get more detailed statistics. I find CinemaScore/PostTrak to be like Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic in measuring opinions (in other words, subjectivity), unlike Box Office Mojo and The Numbers, for which we're trying to pursue an objective number and need the best possible estimate. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with using both. I don't think it's an accurate comparison to use BOM and BytheNumbers, because they are both reporting objective data. That's why we pick one over the other. This is subjective generalized data, so more independent, reliable sources would be warranted.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Good argument. I'm convinced. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to change "CinemaScore" to "CinemaScore and PostTrak (include both if available)". Any qualms about that? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Works for me, at least!--Tenebrae (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I've added this wording. To reinforce the use further, this highlights CinemaScore and PostTrak being more reliable than user scores (which have apparently been manipulated for The Last Jedi). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Word count of plot summaries

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Word count

At issue is lengthy summaries of TV movie plots, but that actually MOS:FILM scope. These two guidelines (and their largely WP:FILM and WP:TV wikiproject watchlisters) should come to a uniform consensus on this and avoid a WP:POLICYFORK.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  13:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:POLICYFORK is an essay, and the length of plot for films can be different than TV shows, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which is a policy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I think my feeling is "no reason that each project can't make its own determination on this (possibly using the other project for inspiration)". I'm not sure I see the benefits of joining the projects at the hip in this regard, unless other editors feel that would provide a significant benefit. DonIago (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

However, there should be some sense of cohension of these, around conciseness. One project should not get to say "2000 word plot summaries for 90 minutes of media" while another say "no more than 700". It should also be remembered that these plot lengths are meant to be guidance, not absolute rules - the goal is to get editors to think about conciseness, how to ditch non-essential scenes, reorder events, etc. to get the core story across without any extraneous details. A film plot at 710 words that appears to meet all that should not be tagged for longplot just because its 10 words over. (Unfortunately I see a lot of that when I scan through some articles at the relevant tagged category). --Masem (t) 14:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

If it's a made for TV movie, then it falls under the film project, regardless of where it airs. It isn't a TV show. That said, we're talking about the difference between the FILM project allowing for 700 words and the TV project that allows for 500 words for a single program. I imagine more people will be signing the TV movies up for the film project.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Masem's point on tagging, I agree that there is no reason to tag a plot summary for being a little over length. Sometimes the summary needs to be a little over the standard length, and some word counters report differently.

Anyway, since TechNyanners was recently adding a lot of plot information at the Star Wars: The Force Awakens article, and was being reverted by Rfl0216, who would stress "summaries should be 400-700 words," perhaps they want to weigh in on of this. Oknazevad too, since he at one point helped return a more filled out, but non-bloated plot summary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

All I did was go back and restore the version of the plot summary that was there before TechNyanners pushed it to over 900 words. If anyone is going to quibble about 10 words over 700, they're obviously stuck on the letter of the guideline, an annoying practice we tabletop RPG players call "rules lawyering". But going over by 200+? Yeah, that's no bueno.

As for whether WP:TV and WP:FILM need to coordinate, the question is why? The only actual overlap for the two projects is TV film, where a consensus already exists to follow WP:FILM guidelines. Other than that they are different media with different guidelines for a reason, namely that TV programs can be of many different lengths and have many different structures even if the same length, also the narrative assumption isn't necessarily valid. If some specials' summaries are long, that should be addressed at the article. We don't need the WP:CREEP. oknazevad (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Like Oknazebad, all I did was revert TechNyanners' addition that pushed the plot to over 900 words. I'm perfectly happy with the word count of WP:FILMPLOT as it stands now, with a little wiggle room give or take 10 words, and if made for TV movies fall under the film project, then it makes sense to me for those articles to follow the present guideline. Rfl0216 (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)