Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Film Plot References

I have read over WP:FILMPLOT, but it does not mention if the Plot section of a movie article should be referenced. Most movie articles do not include references for the plot section. The better ones read like they came off the back of the DVD container, and others like the editor wrote the plot from memory after seeing the movie. I have now come from the article Snow Prince, which was assessed B-class by WP:Film and is under GAR, but it doesn't have references in the Plot section. What is the position of editors here: Do plot sections of movie articles need references? Boneyard90 (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Generally the Plot section should strictly be reporting what occurs on screen, and as such does not need sourcing. That can change if any interpretation or original research or clarification from TPTB is a desirable addition. Doniago (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

This is covered explicitly in WP:FILMPLOT. Perhaps it is not clear. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to think that the ones that read like the back of a DVD cover are not prevalent, because that stuff is written from the perspective of selling the film. Our plots should be written from the perspective of just summarizing the major events of the film without any bias or titilation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There are ALOT of really bad film articles out there, and alot of lazy writers. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies. I re-read the section. For a concerned editor, it is mildly vague. The section says that the movie as primary source is acceptable, and secondary sources are not necessary. It does not say that "there may be no references in a plot section", which even though the movie itself is a primary source, made me wonder if the movie itself shouldn't be referenced... but I suppose not. Since plot summaries are freely written, this explains why there is such a high degree of variation. Thanks again. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The only reason we wouldn't put a primary reference in the plot section is because the infobox acts as the primary reference template. What you would fill out in a Template:Cite video (or similar) is what you fill out in the infobox. So, it just doesn't get an in-line citation, but technically the citation is on the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think the rationale is that the film is the text that the section summarizes, in the same way that the views of a critic are summarized in the reception section. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"Bulleted" crew lists?

In studying the manual of style, the only references to how to handle crew is found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Cast... where that section concerntrates more on cast and less on crew, and at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Production which more specifically states how to handle the most important artists (cast and crew). I have come across a quite diligent editor improving Cinema of India articles, and I strongly applaud his efforts.[1]

However, I wish to get wider input here about whether or not WP:MOSFILM should be tweaked to more specifically address the use or not of bulleted crew lists. Myself, I think that the more important members of production who are not already part of the infobox template, such as executive producer, project consultant, script doctor, production designer, music director, sound designer, graphics supervisor, casting director, make-up artist, and costume designer (example [2]) should be best treated as sourced and informative prose... and not be simply a bullet list.

Suggested change to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Production is that a sentence be added that states "When including the more important members of production who are not already part of the infobox template, the information should be offered as sourced and informative prose and not as a list".

Again, the editor who used them at Dam 999 is doing some terrific work and I do not wish to discourage him in any way. So I'm hoping that MOSFILM can be tweaked to more specically instruct that lessor major crew may be included as prose and to discourage lessor major crew in less inciteful bullet lists. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You can see something like this in action here. User:Erik is the one that first started using this on selected articles. Since the infobox can not handle all this information, I don't see why we can't add a crew list in the production section. The film's credits is the source for these people, so I don't think a secondary source is needed. —Mike Allen 01:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't use crew "Lists". That's what IMDb is for. I mean, looking at Saw, I have to ask why we have a list that duplicates the infobox with exception to just 3 names? If they are not notable enough to put into prose (more than a list that's in prose form), then let IMDb credit all of them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the 444 bytes of data. —Mike Allen 03:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I also applaud the idea of more behind the camera and it's long overdue. This is an area extremely overlooked and it's a more balanced view of filmmaking to integrate the idea that lead performers are less significant than crew leaders and daily crew members have more skills than supporting actors. It's probably the area where we can most easily improve the articles. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if you're talking about what they are doing exactly, but simply identifying someone is needless. It doesn't hold real value just to put a name in there. That's why we don't include stand-in characters in the cast list. IMDb is more than capable of keeping a comprehensive list of actors and crew.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that having just a crew list is not needed and is not very informative. This should apply to cast lists too. If the names are already in the infobox having a second list in the article body does not seem to be needed when we can have a cast list inside the plot. If we can have more prose explaining what is important about the cast/crew seems to be better. --Peppage^ಠ_ಠ 15:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The infobox doesn't come close to naming every important crew member (or cast member either). I don't think even the art director is there, and that's a very important person. Morever, every film article doesn't need to be a short film course to justify something. The focus on actors and directors ("above the line" people) is fine as a reflection of pop culture, but there the crew's importance is never overstated. A reflection of film culture is also important and I'm certain we can trust page editors to manage this if they know about making movies. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Through consensus and discussion, the infobox template could be expanded. If a behind-the-scenes crewmember is worthy of inclusion, the best way to make a case would be to present sourced prose so as to better inform the reader in context to the production. I am myself quite involved in film and television, and I salute the behind-the-scenes efforts that bring any production together. In my own recognizing that some of these unsung individuals are worthy of note, I have written articles on individuals such as Marilyn Vance... a woman whose work as a costume designer has recived enough recognition to allow her the notability required by Wikipedia for an article. As valuable as crew is to production, for us to best recognize that value we need to provide our readers with contextual content of their contributions. I fully agree that "long overdue" would seem more a call for articles and improved content. But just a list of names? Our readers need context. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't really mean that. There have been discussions over there (about Art Director, for example). That's not my point. The infobox is big enough anyway. However, since we are comfortable simply listing the names of the cast members quite often, so I don't see why the crew is different. People come to an encyclopedia for information. We can use our editorial judgement and we should. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Film articles that are just "listing cast members" are probably also film articles with little to no information and probably no direction. Even our MOS discourages simply listing things like IMDb, as again, IMDb is comprehensive enough for both of us. If the art director is that important, chances are there should be something out there to write about him/her in prose format. If your argument is that we need start listing crew members simply because you believe they are "important" then to me that's not a real reason to start turning ourselves into IMDb. Yes, there are plenty or important Art Directors and Costume Designers, but again without prose their level of importance is regulated to personal judgment. If that's the case, the Best Boy is just as important as the Producer and we should have a list of them as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No, these are not good points. Perhaps it's going to shock you, but the reason we put things in Wikipedia is because of their importance. The other word for that is notability. The crew on a film is important. More important than the cast. By your logic we should not include the cast members, I guess, since most of them aren't written about and other web sites already list them. Clearly this is not the point. I realize that the misunderstanding about the prominent role of the crew extends even to those who edit film articles. It's unfortunate, but there are good sources out there that explain who does what. Once a person becomes familiar with that, there will no longer be any question about including the crew in the film articles. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Just listing out cast members or crew members without any further information is not useful. Unless cited information can be shown as to why these members were important (did they win awards? is there information regarding their views on their input to the film?) then they should not be included. This goes for the infobox as well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It is indisputable that some people (such as art director and production designer) do a more important job than supporting cast members, but ultimately inclusion is based on the proportion of coverage in reliable sources i.e. if a secondary cast member receives more coverage than the art director then that is basically reflected in the structure of the article. This is the problem with lists really, and why we're generally against them, because they don't give equal weighting based on coverage. I'm a huge fan of the Halloween (1978 film) article which simply brings in an actor's name in the plot summary, and has a Casting section which discusses the casting process and is weighted by coverage in reliable sources. It looks much more integrated into the article. Betty Logan (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

No, this is just a double standard. What is overlooked here is that the person's notability in the context of the film is what they did. Cast members are included all the time who have very minor roles and I am sure Andrzejbanas didn't have a tantrum. An actor shows up for a day and does their job and we consider it notable, but the Art Director has to have some extra notability? Hey, if the film is notable enough to have a page, the Art Director is already notable. Obviously, this is ignorance about filmmaking. There's no other explanation. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your blanket summary that editors in this discussion have an "ignorance about filmmaking"... being myself an actor in film and television, I am in no way ignorant of the value of behind-the-scenes contributions. But being valuable does not automatically equate to notability. Your argument that being a crew member for a notable film makes that crew member notable falls afoul of WP:NOTINHERITED. If a crew member has sources discussing his participation in a film, or in some other manner meets the notability criteria of WP:PEOPLE, then by all means add some sourced prose discussing them and that participation. But if the only thing that can be said about a crew mwember is they are listed somewhere as being part of a film's production crew, then they have pretty much not met the criteria. No double standard here at all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

In some cases it can be perceived as a double standard though; there are lots of articles like The Night of the Hunter (film) that just include a basic cast list, and we let it slide for the most part. It's probably something we need to come in on, because if you allow that then why not add a crew list? Any cast list that doesn't include casting info should be pulled in my view. Betty Logan (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The double standard is obvious. Actors are included because they play small roles. Why? Well, clearly it is understood that it is notable that they appeared in a notable film. No particular secondary source is required; the source is the credits and the notability arises instantly. This is not an example of letting something slide. It's perfectly comprehensible to all that playing a speaking role of any size in a famous film merits inclusion in the film's article. That is encyclopedic information. So the new standard is that no actor should be in any article unless there is something written about that actor in, say, an article about the film? And that has to be sourced or the actor is off the page? Yeah, right. --Ring Cinema (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I can accept the utility of a cast list supported by plot and context or critical reception, and anyone can view the film and see the work of the actors and judge their contextual creative efforts as part of the film. But in viewing a film, and despite us "knowing" that a film cannot be made without them, we see only the results of the behind-the-scenes work of production personal. Shall we emulate IMDB then and list everyone that was in any way a part of production? Look at what IMDB lists for Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone past the director, writers, and actors: 8 entries for producer, 4 for casting, 9 for art direction, 22 for make-up, 7 for production management, 17 for second unit director or assistant director, nearly 100 for the art department, 28 for sound department, over 100 for special effects, over 400 for visual effects, 59 for camera and electrical department, etc, etc, etc. Not difficult to see that a bullet list of perhaps 700+ [3] production personel would overwhelm the Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) article. BUT as sometimes such less-than-primary personel can win awards and receive recognition for their efforts, what common sense tells me is that when sources DO speak toward the work of less-than-primary production personel, we can include them as sourced prose. But to open the doors to bare lists of perhaps hundreds of entries?? Where is the line of usefullness to our readers to be drawn? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is the Saw article being used as a battleground? —Mike Allen 12:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If the Saw article continues being a battleground in order to make a point, there will be quite likely be repercussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

My view on this is that, yes, all films have production designers, art directors, set directors, etc. But there are some films (like Saw and its spawns) that are prop-heavy and the most of the same crew works on each one. I thought it would benefit the reader to go through each article and compare. (But this is made easier on the Saw (franchise)#Production article) I did this for Resident Evil: Afterlife, but they are also listed in prose. I look at the crew table as an infobox for the production section. I would like to know where this Saw discussion is going on at.... It is clear the table is not wanted (the GA reviewer for Saw II requested it be removed from that article too). It's not that big of a deal (even though I prefer it to stay), so I removed it. —Mike Allen 23:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the more notable and well-covered the film is, the more likely it is that we might have coverage of some of the behind-the scenes crew suitable for accompanying prose and a list if' the prose is supported by reliable sources. We do not have a hard and fast "rule" about such, but for GA we need ackmowledge that MOS:FILM encourages prose over lists. What brought me here was a crew list inclusion in some lessor-known films where they did not have RS sourcing or accompanying prose, and an assertion there that simply being crew for a notable film was enough... and it's really not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't need another source beyond the film credits, Michael. That is a reliable source. The requirement for secondary sources is not how we judge for cast members -- and I think that's perfectly fine. Complete coverage of a film includes its important crew, just as it includes people in the category of actor who only work one day. I'm sorry, but it is actually absurd to suggest that the Art Director doesn't belong in the article because there wasn't a separate article about them. This is something like saying that the editor of a work of fiction doesn't belong in the article unless someone does a story about how they edited the book; no, they are listed in the book as the editor so full coverage of the novel will include the editor. I see a double standard, so perhaps you can explain your standard. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Cast arguments aside, we are speaking about lists for crew. The example I offered above about the Harry Potter cast underscores the issue that we need some common sense restraint else any such cast list could become unwieldy or ridiculously long. And even with consideration of a crew list, we need consider just what crew members are worth consideration and why. Again, I have no issue with sourced prose about any crewmember, but an insistance that less-than-primary production personal can or must be in a bullet list runs afoul of MOS:FILM. The result being that we are here to discuss possible changes to the film style guidelines, because currently we generally do not have simple lists of crew members unless otherwise supported by sourced prose. We are not IMDB. And in an issue more related to notability than article style, simply being part of a crew is a WP:NOTINHERITED situation. Do you propose a new SNG WP:CREW to deal with such in the same manner as does WP:ACTOR? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, that lists can be too long. Still, we are an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, this issue can be clouded by consideration of articles that receive too little or too much attention. I would point out that when someone wants to know something factual, engines regularly send them to Wikipedia. I believe that is because so many facts are in this place. ("Who invented the transponder?" sends us to an article on Telstar.) The idea that we would leave an actor out of an article simply because we couldn't still find another article on their appearance on the internet -- somewhere else, because of course now Wikipedia is the main source for so many things -- that, to me, is not complete coverage. Sure, we can push our traffic to IMDb, just as we could refer questions on philosophy to the excellent Stanford online philosophical encyclopedia instead of doing our best here.
Okay, so we are an encyclopedia. What is the minimum standard for inclusion of an actor in an article? Editors may differ, which is fine, but it's going to be somewhere around here: a character who speaks, or one with a name, or one who appears in the plot summary. The differences are fine, but I think that's about the right place or the article will be incomplete. Okay, so which members of the crew, in terms of film culture, are in the same constellation? Clearly, there are many and if different articles handle it differently that will be a chance for all of us to see what is good coverage. Thanks for your response. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If I may offer a model that we might use, the major trade magazine for theater owners, Film Journal International, uses a more compact list of core credits that do Variety or The Hollywood Reporter. These presumably are the credits that, in its editorial judgment, are the ones theater owners, who deal with civilian audiences and their expectations, would want to know. They are: Writer, Director, Producer, Executive Producer, Cinematographer, Editor, Composer, Production designer, Casting and Wardrobe. This or some variation would seem a manageable list. I've often wanted to see these things in a list outside the infobox, where footnotes can make infoboxes seem crowded and cluttered. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That is a good list. As a reflection of popular culture, it is a good starting place. Film culture also should be accounted for, and there are probably some good sources out there that reflect expert knowledge of the important people on a film. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That might be a slippery slope and we have most of those already in the infobox. What does another list provide. I realize that these people are important but it would be nice to get some prose going about it which should be possible when it's an important part of the film. Even cast lists don't usually add a lot to articles. --Peppage^ಠ_ಠ 14:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Again the double standard. Why is there a slippery slope on crew but not on cast? Many cast members not in the infobox obviously belong in the article. The same applies to the crew. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The current MOS:FILM was established over many years and through input and consensus created by many editors with interest in standardization of film article format. The MOS tells us that prose is the preferred manner in which to speak about crew, and per MOS, options have been repeated above on how to treat production personel that are not in the infobox. What you call a "slippery slope" exists because our readers can view the film and SEE the the cast in action, and major production personel {director, producer, writer, composer, editor) are the ones most often spoken of in sources in context to a film in a non-trivial fashion. The other less-than-primary production crew are not. With enough examples where they are spoken about more-than-trvially, an argument can be made for their inclusion in the infobox. You're advocating a crew list in contravention of the MOS for film articles. User:Tenebrae offers a decent consideration for a change to the MOS, but until consensus changes and MOS:FILM is changed, we generally do not put crew in lists and instead deal with them as MOS:FILM instructs... as prose. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That is a meaningless distinction. The editor of a book is not seen, not written about, but obviously it is information that belongs in the article on the book. It's just a double standard. Since you are an actor, your bias in favor of actors is not surprising. I might mention anecdotally that I discussed this issue with a friend of mine who wrote for television and, when I said that including the Art Director was a little bit of a hard sell, his response was unprintable. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is not to display credits. If the art director had important information about them then that information would belong/appear in the article. We have articles like Little Miss Sunshine that don't have a cast section and it's great, it's the preferred way. Film articles definitely have a problem with long cast lists, random people get added and it bloats the article. I think when an article starts the editor does not have much to go on and adds the cast list. If you want to make a change to the MOS then I think we should require prose. --Peppage^ಠ_ಠ 05:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

My "bias" is found in my supporting application of MOS:FILM, and not because of anything I do in real life. We might change the applicable style guidelines through consensus, but not through disaparaging the views of another editor. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you were offended, but you asked us to accept your expertise on the basis that you are an actor. Since that fact also weakens your argument in another way, it is not out of bounds to mention the bias. There would be no question of your bias if you took the view that minimized actors' contributions, but you choose to argue for the members of your group. That may not be bias, but it is consistent with bias. Setting that aside, I hope you will agree that we should end the double standard I've pointed out. Sometimes lists are okay for the cast, so sometimes lists must be okay for the crew. Complete coverage of a film includes actors whose contribution might be minor, so complete coverage should also include crew whose contribution might be minor. This is how we can make the film articles better. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

My acknowledging being for many years an actor (no big secret) was in response to your assertion above that editors disagreeing with you were showing "ignorance about filmmaking" when the better assertion is that they were showing an unbiased knowledge about guideline and policy. Despite your insistance that crew members are not treated the same way as actors, I can only reply yet again that per MOS:FILM they are treated the same way... in that MOS:FILM encourages prose over lists for anyone involved in production. And while certainly prose is not always as readily available for crew members as it is for actors, specially for films that pre-date the internet, we use that manual of style for our format. And while we do often see cast lists when such prose is unavailable, for articles that have cast lists when prose IS available, it is prefered that one-by-one over time and through regular editing, those lists be replaced with prose. But we do not create lists just to have lists that do not increase a reader's understanding of the topic... and certainly not to emulate IMDB. See MOS:LIST, WP:LISTPEOPLE, and WP:EMBED. Prose is always the preference... and we make articles better by having prose rather than simple lists, or improving them to add sourced prose. And yet again... until such time as MOS:FILM is modified to encourage lists over prose, we go with prose. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Quite a few straw men there that I will ignore. Instead, let me point out that, although you say that cast and crew are (I assume you mean "should be") treated the same, that is not even the case in your own arguments. I have corrected your double standard at least twice. But maybe we agree that there should be no double standard per policy. Since lists are okay for actors, crew lists are just as acceptable. I am quite sure that cast lists will be around because complete coverage of a film will include its cast. I am not one who believes in the magic of prose in a reference. But that's a discussion for another day. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Writing as a part of Production?

An editor at Talk:Annie Hall is concerned that 'writing' is not a part of 'production', and should therefore be a separate section. He argues that the guidelines show "a shortfall of knowledge of film culture". I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Writing falls under the whole "pre-production" umbrella, which I would contain within a production section. If there's enough information to split the production section into sub-sections then a clearer delineation can be drawn; "Pre-production", "Filming" and "Post-production" being the main steps to detail. GRAPPLE X 21:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, pre-production is not part of production and neither is post-production. This is a good summary. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

While the semantics of "production" as a physical stage of filmmaking versus a generic noun reflecting the creation of a finish product, why not just rename the header to something more all-encompassing? "Creation", "Behind the scenes", etc? More high-level headers, especially in an article which already has so many, can look messy, and as a reader I find the flow from conception to actualisation to read better than breaking these into separate chunks. GRAPPLE X 00:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

We've used "Production" as a term to describe the completion of a film from all stages, not the physical work done in front of a camera. What goes into the production of a film would include the writing of a screenplay. Now, what goes into the principal photography would not include writing but the actual filming of the movie. Both are parts of the overall film production, they are just different stages. So, I think a general heading of "Production" is still accurate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not accurate. This source makes it clear that the entire process is not called 'production'. So does this one, this one, this one, this one, this one ("3. Production... The actual shooting of the movie happens in this stage."), and even this one. Yes, even Cracked.com knows that production is the stage when the movie is actually filmed. So on what basis do you say it's "accurate"? --Ring Cinema (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The page you linked actually calls the entire process "film production", which includes: "from an initial story, idea, or commission, through scriptwriting, casting, shooting, editing, and screening." - Writing is part of that process. We are using "production" as the shortened form of "Film production" because it seems redonkulous to say "Film production" as a header, and then "Production" as a subheader describing just filming. Principal photography is generally labeled as "Filming", which is very straight forward. You're confusing a specific term used within the film world with a general term used outside of the film world. Regardless, "writing" should still be part of the overall section because it is part of the making of the product.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not confused; I'm correct because I know how to use the word. Unfortunately, those who wrote the guidelines didn't. It is, I agree, a bit absurd that the heading "Production" is found under the subheading "Production". The more accurate method would be to eliminate the heading altogether, since there is no reason that the making of the film must be under a master heading. We could simply use the four headings (Development, Pre-, Productin, Post-). Those four areas have sub-areas of their own. And, of course, it has the great advantage of being correct. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It would have the great disadvantage of losing flow and cleanness. I vastly prefer a master heading for the whole process of creating the finish result, it makes narrative sense and is instantly grokked by the reader. If the term "production" (which, having several distinct meanings, is still a correct header for the whole thing) is the issue, then simply term it something else. GRAPPLE X 21:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem practical unless there is a strong feeling about it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

When to post plot

This has probably been answered, but I couldn't actually find mention of this at WP:FILMPLOT: Since the source of a movie plot is the movie itself — a primary source for which WP:PSTS says, "is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" —it would seem to follow that we don't put up movie plots until a film has been commercially released in order for reasonable, educated people to see it for themselves. So if someone has seen a movie at a press screening that the general public cannot see, it would seem to follow logically that the person who attended that screening cannot, under PSTS, post a synopsis. Thoughts? -- Tenebrae (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree. Frankly, I prefer if a plot is sourced to something, just for consistency's sake; it certainly shouldn't be based on something entirely unverifiable. GRAPPLE X 00:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the key fact with sourcing the film itself for the plot, is that after it is released then the source (i.e. the film) is verifiable. Prior to general release the source is not verifiable so shouldn't really be used. The whole point of source verifiability is that there is some sort of mechanism in place that allows you, as the reader, to check the validity of the claim. Sometimes it may be difficult i.e. a film that is playing in just one city in the world but still open to the general public still makes the source technically verifiable, but press screenings are closed off to most people which rules them out. Betty Logan (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Thank you both for your usual thoughtful responses.

One more question, and I'll sit on it for a couple or three days. Given that we're just stating clearly what the guidelines say implicitly, would anyone mind if I add a sentence to WP:FILMPLOT simply saying, "Full plots are not posted in film articles until the movie is released commercially in its home country."

I might be going out on a limb with that last part, but really, with Battleship and The Avengers, to name just two big, high-profile movies, opening overseas before opening in the U.S., do we really want to post the entire plot before home-country filmgoers can see it? We're on no WP:DEADLINE. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "home country" so much as "to the public"; something opening in the UK before the US is still as verifiable as a French or Indian film, for example, that doesn't get distributed in the US at all, after all. GRAPPLE X 03:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to concur with Grapple. I understand your reason but we can't install a guideline that places an extra requirement on verifiability. It would possibly violate WP:SOURCEACCESS, so if someone really pressed the point they would get it overruled at the RS noticeboard. Betty Logan (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"Full plots are not posted in film articles until the movie is released commercially in its home country." See Wikipedia:Spoiler - "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." That's why the spoiler tag was deleted in the first place. I've got Che (part 2) on my Sky+ ready to watch, but I'm not going to insist the plot it removed until I see it. A little bit of self control from the user NOT to go to the article on a film they plan to see. Lugnuts (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between "deleting information," to quote the guideline, and not posting it in the first place. There's also a difference between there being a spoiler for a film already released — that is, a spoiler for a particular individual who hasn't seen a given film — and posting the entire plot of a $100- to $200-million-budget movie before it's released in its home country. I'm not sure we want to invite the wrath of the film industry, who WILL descend on us and, no matter what our rights are, they will tar Wikipedia and Wikipedians as copyright violators. Not saying they're right, but what's the upside of our posting a complete plot early? There's no WP:DEADLINE. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Does it violate IP rights to post a summary of a plot from someone who has seen the film legally? I would like a professional opinion about exactly this matter. I don't think so, but Wikipedia is particular about intellectual property rights. Anyone know whom to ask? --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a really good question. My gut instinct says we'd be within our legal rights (though I've only an informed layman's opinion on that, as a journalist). My gut instinct also tells me, however, that even if we're right, that if we did this for several major movies the press would get wind of it and the film industry would lay what's colloquially called a shitstorm on us. I've seen The Avengers myself already in the US at a press screening, and though I'm itching to write a synopsis, I'm not sure it'd be worth it if it'll help stir up that kind of trouble. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Arrangement of sections

Why is it recommended that the release section be separate from the box office and reception? There is rarely enough information available for release and there is absolutely no reason that a section, whose largest part will probably be home media to be above the box office takings/critical reception. As far as I am aware this section has always been "Release" > Box Office - Critical Reception - Accolades. This works well across multiple articles, including several GA ones and others Full Metal Jacket Captain America: The First Avenger Thor (film) Fast Five, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, The Thing (2011 film), Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Alien vs. Predator (film), The Mummy (1999 film), Transformers (film), Jurassic Park (film), Manhunter (film), Blade Runner. Though they sometimes name the section reception and vice versa. This seems like a much better way of doing it and is implemented successfully here. A similar question for why critical reception should come first since accolades are a subset of critical reception and yet they are divided by the box office subsection. I think the layout should be officially changed to Release > Box Office - Critical Reception - Accolades OR Release > Critical Reception > Box Office > Accolades, but not Release > Home Media AND Reception, so forth. Box Office and critical reception should come under the Release section, there is no explanation for it not doing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Which must come first: Cast or Plot?

I'm reading Ratatouille (film), and I think that Characters must come first before Plot, unless anybody disagrees. Cast/Characters must come first, so it helps readers learn more about characters first before proceeding to plot. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not usually the case. Almost all film FAs have the plot first. Cast/Casting sections shouldn't be mainly about the characters, they should be about the casting process. Characters' roles in the story should be explained in the plot section. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If the cast comes first you have no context, just a list of names. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Very often you can combine the two. --Ktlynch (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

While there will be the occasional article that will have a different order to the sections most articles follow the layout as described here Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Primary content. Those that don't should be switched over. MarnetteD | Talk 15:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of the method used at Witchfinder General (film), which includes the actor's name after the character's name in the plot summary and then covers the casting process in the production section. It's useful to list the actor in the plot so you don't have to scan the article for the actor who played the part, it's a much more organic way to impart information. Betty Logan (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I use that method all the time myself. Some see it as redundant to the cast section, but I don't. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Post Credit Scenes

Should add that "Post Credit Scenes" are not part of the plot and should not be included in the "Plot section" of the article.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. They're set in the fictional events of the film, and just serve as any other epilogue would. GRAPPLE X 21:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a "Main Event" of the film and only add to the myth that film plots need to be scene by scene descriptions of each film.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether they are "main events" of the film is irrelevant. They are story events, and the place to describe those is in the plot section. It's certainly possible to write them in there without turning it into a scene-by-scene description. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Story is not the same thing as "plot".--JOJ ^Hutton 22:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a 700 word limit, if it comes under 700 words I don't know what your complaint is and it is naive to think that the majority of people who view these articles are not interested in key information, and a lot of these stings are being used to telegraph sequels. People want that info. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I ask a question and now I'm "Naive"? Is this personal? Is that an attack of some sort? I asked in good faith and somehow I'm being treated as if I'm suppressing information. Want to redact that? Plot is for "Main Points" of the film. 700 words limit is good, but we don't have to have 700 words in every single film plot.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I said the concept was naive. How you translated that into a personal attack and inferred information suppression is some Back to the Future style time-travel reality warping chicanery. So no, I won't be retracting that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So long as you have a succinct summary within the confines of WP:FILMPLOT, I see no problem including them. Granted some scenes like those in the Marvel Comics films leading up to The Avengers could probably be better discussed from a real-world perspective elsewhere in the article as establishing the sequel piecemeal; but stingers such as those of X-Men: The Last Stand or Napoleon Dynamite, which directly relate to the plot that has gone before, would benefit from a passing mention in a plot summary. GRAPPLE X 22:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

By way of example from a summary standpoint, in The Avengers (2012 film) the post-credits scene of alien dude conferring with Thanos is certainly relevant to the overall story, whereas the second post-credits scene of the heroes sitting around eating shawarma is not. It's about context and relevance; saying "include all" or "exclude all" isn't an appropriate measure. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree that there is context and relevance, but not all Credit Scenes are part of the plot. Many are just jokes that ere inserted to keep people in their seats to watch the credits role. WP:FILMPLOT clearly says "Main Points" of the plot, not a beat by beat synopsis of every single detail of the film, which happens more often than it should.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that trivial post-credits scenes that don't have relevance to the overall story and flow of events need not be included in a plot summary. That said, your original suggestion—banning all mention of post-credits scenes from plot summaries—isn't the right way to handle this. This kind of content dispute has to be handled on an article-by-article basis. A great deal of film articles' plot summaries require revision and tightening up; superfluous post-credits scenes are just one example of overly-detailed summaries. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

And folks, let's keep cool heads please. No sense in getting tempers flared. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess anyone cannot comment on a talk page in good faith without being called "Naive". Very contrary to good talk page discussion. I started a thread at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance to get feedback on the incivility that has transpired here.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there a specific article where you're having trouble with this post-credits scene business? From your contribs I'm guessing it's Brave (2012 film); I haven't seen that movie yet so I don't feel qualified to comment on the plot summary (I'm also planning to see it, so I don't want to read the summary in advance). --IllaZilla (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

There are a few. Usually new films get new fans and new fans become new or ip editors who feel that the specific joke that they liked and the scene that they laughed at, was more important to Wikipedia than it really is and they feel that "people want that info". Its not the job of Wikipedia to add every single detail to the plot sections. They are not scene by scene descriptions of the films. A 90 minute film shouldn't even be approaching 700 words in the film plot, and since you mention it Brave (2012 film) (93 minute film, including credits) currently has 744 words in the "Plot"section. Yes it adds up fast. A film like Brave should be closer to the 400 word threshold. When deciding what to cut out and what to leave in, the post credit scenes that have absolutely nothing to do with the plot should be the very first to go. They shouldn't be left in because someone thought it was a good joke.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you there, and there are certainly a lot of post-credits scenes fitting that description (the shawarma scene is The Avengers is a good example). But there are also a lot of post-credits scenes that are significant to the film's plot its relation to other films (Rise of the Planet of the Apes being a good example). So there's got to be better way of dealing with this than "add[ing] that 'Post Credit Scenes' are not part of the plot and should not be included in the 'Plot section' of the article." I find that, when conflicts arise with newbies and anons, pointing them to WP:FILMPLOT often helps. WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE is also a good guide. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it's hard to keep these plot summaries down to size, especially on new films because the articles get so many fans that don't understand Wikipedia policies and think that because Wikipedia's slogan is: "everyone can edit", doesn't mean that "everyone should edit". I'm not gonna edit war and hit 3RR on that page, it's not worth it. I just thought it would be good to have a specific line in the guideline that dealt with "credit scenes" specifically. How about if we say: Unless relevant to the plot of the film, credit scenes should not be added to the plot summery"?--JOJ ^Hutton 23:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think many post credit sequences are not worth mentioning, but I don't think there should be a flat-out rule against it. The one in Idiocracy isn't really relevant to the plot, the one in POTC: At World's End is very relevant, so these things should be assessed on relevance. Basically I don't see it as a MOS issue, it's something that should be hacked out on the article talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Reception

I'm aware that it's basically impossible for me to write something here that would change the general layout of Reception sections in articles about films. At the very least, it would require me - a non-native English speaker - to put together a solid proposal essay with plenty of arguments, counter-arguments and reliable sources, which I simply do not have enough time to work on. Anyways, in my opinion, Reception sections should put far more emphasis on the public's reception. Like most Wikipedia visitors, I'm just a regular Joe with a regular job. In the Reception sections, I want to read what people like me and my neighbors think of the film. I could not care less about what the so called professionals think. Currently these 'experts' give Act of Valor a 25% score at Rotten Tomatoes,[4] and Haywire an 80% score.[5] I don't care what these folks think! The audience scores paint a different picture (25%->77%, 80%->40%). Almost all Reception sections start with the Critical response and, only if I'm lucky, I get to read about the public's reception at the very end of the Reception sections. In my opinion, these sections should not start with statements about what less than 0,5% of the moviegoers think of the movie. It's fine to mention what these "critics" think, but why can't we start with information about the reception in general. Almost all articles and sections are usually written that way: first the big picture, then the details. Why not start with, for example, CinemaScore survey scores? 'Experts' have all kinds of expectations and interests. Some get paid, may not enjoy their jobs, write stuff just to get a cheque. There's an expert industry. It's a "vast army of fools and they're afforded absolute authority in main stream media", and also on Wikipedia. See the documentary The Trouble with Experts.[6] These "critics" are not experts at judging films, they are experts at giving opinions. They want to be credited for their sophisticated, elite tastes, and show off their jargon. There's no way I will trust these 'experts' over what I think, what my neighbors think, what the public thinks. This is not math. It's all about opinions. I'm not surprised that I enjoyed Act of Valor more than I enjoyed Haywire, because like most people reading Wikipedia, I'm not a "critic", I'm part of the regular "audience". --82.170.113.123 (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, you're not going to get the man-in-the-street view here because of our policy of requiring reliable sources, which generally rules out crowdsourced or user-created content being used as sources. Professional critics are considered experts in their field, and their content will be subject to the editorial policies of their publishers meaning that fact-checking and the like are all performed. That said, we often do link to IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes, which means that you're only a link away from the kind of poll-generated score you're after. GRAPPLE X 19:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Where available, we have included CinemaScore ratings, which are perfectly acceptable per the guideline. The company polls viewers of most films that receive a wide release, yet that's not always reflected in our articles. Perhaps we should be making more of an effort to include them, though placement in the article is down to individual editors' discretion, and not something we should specify. (Interesting to note, by the way, that the original poster isn't far off the trend with these films; Haywire polled a D+ whereas Act of Valour was rated A). All the best, Steve ^T • C 20:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting - hadn't heard of Cinemascore. This should be made more visible in the MOS Reception section. I've subsectioned it for greater visibility.

I actually came here to propose, in MOS, putting representative critic reviews first, before aggregator numbers (some editors insist on emphasizing aggregators first, which is a) lazy and b) PROMO). But I see the structure of the paragraph implies the preferred order. --Lexein (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There is an argument in favor of aggregators: we see less chance for axe-grinding. I don't see the promo aspect, but CinemaScore sounds good, too. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but the aggregators don't agree all that well either, and I have a doubt about their analysis methods, where reviewers don't quantify their ratings (B+, 4/10, 4/5, etc). It's the classic two-clocks problem all over Wikipedia (if you have two clocks, you'll never know what time it is). Note that if an RS cites an aggregator, I would happily cite that RS, since that puts the onus squarely on that source, not us as editors. --Lexein (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Question about errata sections

Is there an agreed format for errata sections or whether the information should be put into the main article? Red Fiona (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should not include trivia sections; the information should be incorporated into other appropriate areas. Doniago (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought that was the case but I thought it was better to check. Red Fiona (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Critical reaction for older films

On the Halloween talk page, a fellow user and I are in a debate regarding the inclusion of a critical reception table. For more details, click on the link, but the gist of where we ended up was how many reviews specifically are required for the sample size of a film need to be defined as "enough" on review aggregating websites. The fellow user argues that the sample sizes are not "enough," "not being a representative sample for detailing critical reception," but I counter-argue that "enough" is somewhat arbitrary and that it's up to readers to assess whether or not there's "enough" when they see the number of reviews next to the score. It all boiled down to this statement: "(Caution: reliable review statistics may not be available for older films. Appraise the sample size in conjunction with other reliable sources, using best judgment to determine consensus.)"

Thoughts? Oh, and if others are interested in providing input to the debate, feel free to add comments. - Enter Movie (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

If sites like Rotten Tomatoes are used for older films' articles, it's really just enough to clarify in the prose that the reviews reflect a modern consensus and not necessarily the contemporary one. 1986's Manhunter should provide an example of this in practice. The sample size isn't really important provided that it's presented in the proper context. GRAPPLE X 04:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree that "sample size is not important". If we are going to cite statistical data then that data should be verifiable (verifiability according to statistics, not our policy on verifiability). To save the reading time, I'm referring to the fact that the data is measuring what it claims to be measuring. If there is a limited number of reviews then one cannot claim any authenticity to the generalized figure being preseted as some "approval rating". More specifically, 15 reviews, no matter how you explain it, cannot be generalized to say that it shows 90% approval from critics. That's false. It shows that 13.5 critics (or 14 if you round up) approved the film, but you cannot say that the overall reception of the film across the states (or globe if you're looking internationall) was at 90%. The sample size is too small and if it grew it would create the potential for substantial deviation from the original figure. The best example is The Dark Knight Rises, which had 23 reviews with an approval rating of 96%. Now, with 200+ reviews the approval rating is at 87% percent. That's a big difference when you look at it, and it shows that sample size is important. We should not be citing statistical data if said data cannot conform to basic statistical rules for significance.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hence why I specifically stated that a sample needs to be presented in context: if a sample of 15 reviews is what's being quoted then it needs be presented as only representing 15 reviews, which clearly informs the reader that it's a relatively narrow pool of opinion. A modern blockbuster like The Dark Knight Rises is going to attract 200+ reviews quite easily and can gain the benefit of a large pool of reviews; older films (which the subject here concerns) are harder to find such a wide range of reviews for, and will by necessity require articles to work with smaller review pools. This shouldn't mean that we can't present the sum of the available reviews, so long as it's clearly stated that the pool used is the size that it is. GRAPPLE X 04:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are we citing samples that small in the first place? How is that not undue weight being placed on this small number of critics? To be clear, I'm not claiming that their opinions are not valid, simply the lumping of them together to form a new assessment that is intended by design to generalize back to critics as a whole and advance an overarching position. I also think that another important part of this is the idea of creating a table that compares all of these small samples as if they somehow actually inform a reader of some valid information regarding the reception of a film. I mean, there is a reason when new films come out we don't instantly include RT and MC until a large enough sample size exists. I don't think we should degrade the integrity of Wikipedia by using data that would otherwise be avoided because of its size simply because "that's all we got". Additionally, if you have to overly explain the situation regarding the figures, I would say that tabular format is probably not your friend.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Samples that small are sometimes all we can hope for; I don't see why we should adopt a "go big or go home" attitude to film reception. If I could cite a 200+ review consensus for something like Nude per l'assassino I would, but with even reaching double figures being genuinely impossible then presenting the small amount of reviews available is then the only solution. I find it hard to believe that would constitute undue weight, the opinion of the only half-dozen reviewers who have touched a film shouldn't be disregarded because there aren't more to go along with them. At no point is the necessarily-small pool of reviews presented as being some all-encompassing consensus of all the world's critics, but stating that "film X has been positively/negatively received by critics" is not disingenuous or misleading if all the available sources, limited though they may be, support that. I think you're advocating the implementation of something that's a luxury for articles rather than a standard; if large amounts of sources and a broad consensus of reviews could be found for every film article we wouldn't need this discussion in the first place. GRAPPLE X 05:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

If that's the size we can get then we should not be using it. Poor data is still poor data even if it's all you have. This isn't about "go big or go home", it's about the use of statistical information and whether it's appropriate for use. If you do not have a large enough sample size then you should not be using the statistics to cite a position, because the statitics are not valid (see Validity (statistics)#Statistical conclusion validity), and using invalid data to support a position is inappropriate. I'm not saying don't use the reviews themselves. I'm saying that we should not be citing statitics that are invalid according to every rule of statistics. Yes, it is misleading to say "film X has been positively/negatively received by critics" if the sample size is small, because that's not accurate. That very statement implies "generalization". That's the point of doing surveys and creating statistics, to collect info from a select group of people to generalize back to the whole because it would be impossible to collect said information from all people. The first rule of gathering information, if you want said information to be valid, is to collect a large enough sample size. What I'm advocating is not using information simply "because it exists" when that information holds no real weight when it comes to the position that it is trying to advance (whether that be positive, negative, or mixed reception, it's still advancing a position of approval among critics). I'm NOT saying a film must have 200 reviews. I get that that is unreasonable. But, I think that it is also unreasonable to say that any number of reviews is "enough" when we're talking about something as small as 20 reviews. There needs to be a true acceptable "minimum". IMO, we should not be citing RT for older films simply because there generally are not enough collected reviews to generalize an opinion on the reception of the film (not a valid opinion). Are those reviews important, yes they are. Is the statistic they create when put together important, no it isn't because the sample size is too small. I would have a serious issue if someont pulled an RT score of 95% approval and based it on 5 reviews for any film, I don't care if it was released in 1975 or 2005, because it advances a position based on a number that is too small to support the claim that it is making. To me, that is the definition of undue weight, because WE are placing value on a figure that is too small to actually provide useful, accurate information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

One option is to put the numbers in the prose when samples are small. ("Of the 15 critics tabulated on RT, 13 approved of the film.") The reader can put that fact in context and it removes the problem of undue weight. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

In general, older films on a singular level haven't (IMO, shouldn't) put RT scores first when it comes to reception. They appear after sources have discussed the history of the film's reception before looking at most modern reception, which is what RT primarily handles. Granted, RT does collect some older reviews. The bigger issue here is not just citing statistical data with small sample sizes (though, your suggestion of removing the statistics and just going meat and bones is interesting), but when we're talking about franchises and there is a push to put in these tables that just collect approval ratings to compare across films. I don't find that you can compare a film that had 25 reviews (modern or old) to a film with 100 reviews and actually claim one was more approved than the other. The sample sizes cannot be generalizes when they are that small and thus it creates undue weight when you use them in that capacity (which is what the original argument started with - putting in a table that collects RT and MC scores for older horror film franchises).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That's why there can be a note above or below the table explaining that the older films may be leaned more towards modern reviews. The reader can put that fact into context as well. This argument all circles back to my two original suggestions that does in fact resolve the issues at hand. - Enter Movie (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't about allowing a reader to see that the older films may have more modern figures, it's about whether or not the comparison should be made in the first place. You should not be comparing a film with 100 reviews to a review that only lists 20 reviews, because you could not possibly argue that the reception for either film was better than the other because the sample size not even remotely close. Even Ring's suggestion would be to remove the percentages, which would in fact make a table comparion small sample sizes unnecessaary because it's built around those percentages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

But then you can say the same about the box office table. Some of the films are old enough to say that accurate box office tracking wasn't available at the time. I could easily say, as you have, "you could not possibly argue that the [revenue] for either film was [higher-grossing] than the other because the [information for some are] not even [available]." However, a simple "A dark grey cell indicates the information is not available for the film" below the table resolves everything, and no one bothers arguing about that. That's because the note puts the information into context, allows the readers to be aware of what they're reading and any misconceptions that may be associated with it. - Enter Movie (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Not the same thing in the least. We may not have precise figures for older films, but we know where they generally were because the studios still reported estimated numbers back then. Again, those figures are also NOT subjective, unlike critical reception. Although we may not know international figures, the comparison of box office among the films is typically based on domestic figures. That we DO have. Again, you're trying to argue that objective information is somehow the same as subjective information. Your example is not valid for this situation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

There is perhaps a mixture of concepts from polling that is making this discussion a bit difficult. It came up above, when BigNole said: "If there is a limited number of reviews then one cannot claim any authenticity to the generalized figure being preseted (sic) as some "approval rating"." That led eventually to the assertion that the numbers for a small sample size are not objective. To my thinking, this is getting something right for the wrong reason. Consider first that BigNole's statement above would be true if RT was doing a survey and their sample size was small. In that case, only polling 15 critics on their opinion of a film would not yield an accurate approval rating. But that is not what they do; they tabulate all the critics for each film. Since it's not a survey, not a poll, the approval rating is perfectly accurate for that group (within the limits of their method for determining "approval" and where 'that group' is the critics for that film.) So there is no mismeasurement because of a small number of critics, no matter the size of the group, and the approval number is just as "objective". It says what it says exactly accurately. Now, there is another question we might consider. Why do we rely on the opinions of the critics more when the number tabulated is larger? That is legitimate and natural, but the reason is something apart from the question of objectivity.

So there is not a problem with sample size if the raw numbers are offered. Instead, it's just a fact that comes from a source. The readers can decide for themselves if the opinion of the critics has some meaning, whether it's 5, 40, or 300. And, in the context of our articles, which normally include RT, it is probably fine to give them the numbers. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

They are not conducting a survey, you're right, but they are collecting data and putting their own interpretation of the reviews. Last I checked, most critics do not base their reviews on a scale of 1-100. So, there is too subjectivity in the rating system. That said, you're right in that the "approval rating" is based solely on those critics they provided. My point is that the implied message is that this gives the impression of how the film was viewed by "Critics". That is not true, as it's the view of THOSE critics. But again, the point is that by samply critics they are intending to send the message that if you pulled from all critics then the general consensus will match their percentage of approval. Clearly, there are more than 200 critics out there, and obviously not every film will receive the same number of critical reviews (or at least, RT will not collect the same number for every film). On an individual basis, your point would be appropriate. But, when it comes to creating a table that is intended to compare how films across a franchise were viewed by critics, it is not right compare films that only had 15 collected reviews with films that had 100 collected reviews, because it will yield a different level of response. The Dark Knight Rises shows how the more reviews you get the more likely your score goes down. So, if we're talking individually then I'm ok with "letting the audience judge for themselves". My issue is when we try and create these big tables for comparison purposes because that is US pushing an agenda to do the comparison, and it's a comparison of figures that are not balanced representations of each other.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"We may not have precise figures for older films, but we know where they generally were because the studios still reported estimated numbers back then. Again, those figures are also NOT subjective, unlike critical reception. Although we may not know international figures, the comparison of box office among the films is typically based on domestic figures."

We may know where they generally were, we may not. But as long as we never have a general estimate of the foreign figures, all is based on speculation. Who's to say Halloween 5 isn't the highest-grossing of the series? And, no, the comparison is not typically all domestic. Foreign figures are included on the table as well, so there's a reason it's there. Box office and critical reception may be different, but the principle of applying their respective tables onto a franchise page for comparison are essentially the same.

"That is not true, as it's the view of THOSE critics. But again, the point is that by samply critics they are intending to send the message that if you pulled from all critics then the general consensus will match their percentage of approval. Clearly, there are more than 200 critics out there..."

- No, they're only intending that message to you. Different people analyze information differently and look at things in different ways (this whole section/argument proves it). The suggestion of putting the number of reviews next to the score and a proper footnote (like the box office table) explaining the modernity of the reviews is so people like you are aware of such things. The score is 33% approval [based on 15 reviews], 14% approval [based on 21 reviews], 21% approval [based on 109 reviews], etc. - Enter Movie (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

BigNole, I don't think RT is using a partial set of data. There is nothing about inferring what all critics think from the set they tabulate. Rather, all the critics on the internet are included and the number is published. There's no error there, no matter the size of the sample. That is objectively the critical reception, expressed in a certain form. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

To EnterMovie, foreign figures are included only because someone wanted them included. If you read the prose information you'll notice that the franchise are only compared based on domestic data which we have. Since we don't have foreign figures, we are not comparing those figures in the prose content. Like I said, they were only added because someone wanted to be a completionist about the box office information. You're right, people do view things from different perspectives. My perspective is from that of someone who analyzes statistics, and understands the rules of statistics. These are statistics.

To Ring, RT is using partial data. I have no doubt that more than 15 critics say Halloween 4, it's merely a matter of RT not having access to those reviews because it was a film released before the site was created and it's a film that has not had repeat viewings from critics of later generations (unlike say the original Halloween). Either way, it's still SUBJECTIVE because they are attaching a percentage to each review and that percentage is based on their interpretation of the reviews. So, the data itself is very subjective from the start and then when you factor in that there is only a small sampling of critics you reduce the validity of the claims. I see statistics, you and EnterMovie apparently do not. What is interesting is that this very page specifically says: "Reliable review statistics may not be available for older films. Appraise the sample size in conjunction with other reliable sources, using best judgment to determine consensus." --- To me, that clearly says that sample size is important. It doesn't say "review statistics may not be available", it says "RELIABLE" ones, and connects that directly with sample size. How is it again that sample size is not relevant then?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I agree that RT has a problem with some films because many of their reviews are not available on the Internet. That point is well taken. However, it's too narrow to say that anything is subjective that isn't simply a restating of the same information in the same form. RT has a method, it's based on Internet reviews (as I mentioned), and it's not a poll. Even box office numbers are based on a method; they don't personally count every penny. So, as far as that goes, RT can claim to be objective because they count every review they can. The percentages RT lists are not like a poll that attempts to project the preference of a large group from sampling a smaller group. It's incorrect to think of it that way, although I'm not sure if you do or you don't. That said, again your point is well taken that sample size matters, and for that reason I think we should be clear when the sample is small. Just to be clear, are you saying, BigNole, that RT is not a reliable source for older films? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying that their method of determine a score for the reviews is subjective because almot no critics use a scale of 1 to 100 to rate a film. That is all RT's scoring. But, in essence they are doing a form of polling by collecting information from critics and turning it into an overall "approval" rating. Remember, critics usually give stars (5 tops, most are out of 4) when they rate a film, maybe a "thumbs up" or two, or no actual rating at all. They don't put a mathematical figure to it. So, if RT is not intending to create a form of "poll" (which, in essence, is about displaying a particular opinion of a select group of individuals and using that to gauge a much larger opinion that they cannot acquire by literal means), then why do they reformulate everything to a single figure and post it as an "approval rating" for the film with marketing descriptions implying that the rating is designed to let you see how "critics view the film" and impact audience's decision to go see the movie? So, from there, I would say that it is their intention to project opinions of critics when they set it up the way that they do. But, let me be clear, I'm not claiming that RT is unreliable, or even that how they score reviews is unreliable (merely subjective). Is RT "polling", if you're being technical then no they are not because they are not literally going out and asking questions (CinemaScore does that), but they do embody the essence of a survey when they collect a select number of critics to pull opinions from. The fact that they set standards to who can provide a review lends even more to this idea of them "selecting", because they don't allow every critic. As far as older films go, I'm not saying that all older films have unreliable figures. I'm saying that there is a good percentage that does based on the limited number of reviews that RT is collecting (or can collect). The key is that RT is creating a figure designed to show a level of "approval". If we're to use such a rating we need to be cognizant of the number of reviews being used because an approval rating based on a limited number of reviews is an unreliable gauge of critical opinion. Otherwise, why did we even put in the MOS that there exists unreliable review statistics for older films because of small sample sizes? Clearly we're talking about RT and MC, because they are the other review sites that we use to gather statistics on critical opinion. Just to clarify that I'm not entirely crazy, that statement has been on this page for years and based on Wikipedia:Review aggregators#Limitations, it seems cear to me that small sample sizes are considered "statistically inaccurate". So, I'm not the only one that views these scores as statistical data.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I, too, have been aware of RT's disclaimers for some time. But, again, there are different purposes in mind. For someone reading RT and wondering if a movie is good, the disclaimer is to remind them that there is some reason for skepticism. We have a different purpose, however, which is to put the facts in front of the eyeballs. On that level, RT seems to serve our purposes rather well. Do we disagree on that? --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that RT is a great source of information, and I find that for most films it's the best way to provide a summary/assessment of how critics are viewing a particular film. That said, it was decided awhile ago, and I think it still holds true today, that sample size is important when you're talking about older films. If you remember the page above (as I'm sure you've seen/read it before), and this MOS, what we say is that older films are victims of their age when it comes to finding statistical data on them, especially with reviews. RT did not exist 30 years ago, and cannot collect information from that point unless someone has been kind enough to put it online for them. I am not a believer in the philosophy of "if it exists then it should be on the page", because not everything that exists is useful, accurate, and/or reliable. Is RT a reliable source? Yes it is. Are all of their statistics reliable? No, they aren't. That has nothing to do with the sites reliability, and everything to do with being able to acquire enough information. So, yes, our purpose is to put "facts in front of the eyeballs". But, you cannot morph the facts to suit your (not you personally) purpose. In this case, it's clear that this MOS and the essay on RT reflect the understanding that RT is trying to provide statistical data on critical reception. Because of that, we have to look at statistical rules. In this case, sample size is an important factor in determining reliable information. That is why our guideline and our essays say that, and discourage using small sample sizes to push a position regarding the critical reception of a film. To me, this is more importantly epitomized when there is the suggestion that we create a table to "compare" the approval ratings across a film franchise where more than half the films were released before 2000 (the identified point to which we start to lose reliability within the approval rating statistics), and were even half of those have even smaller sample sizes than the films that were released closest to the year 2000.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it is hard to get an apples to apples comparison. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, putting the Halloween table aside for moment, what exactly is the number of reviews on RT or MetaCritic for a film to have a large enough sample size to be "statistically accurate?" - Enter Movie (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think WE (as in the Film Project Community) need to determine that. I know what my personal feelings on the matter are, but obviously we need to all figure out "what is enough". I don't have a perfect answer for you. I think we need more than just a couple of people deciding it though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, back to the argument at hand. WP:RTMC says, "Some aggregators, such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, are considered reliable sources, but information from them should be used in proper context and have some limitations." Some of the films on the table may be statistically inaccurate here and there, but as long as there is a footnote, number of reviews, or both to put the information into proper context, readers are aware of that. You say that "they are intending to send the message that if you pulled from all critics then the general consensus will match their percentage of approval," and I don't really care if you're a statistician or not, but that has nothing to do with how one perceives the information he or she sees when they see critical comparisons. Not everyone is a statistician and sees it the way you do, so you can't pull some argument that RT/Metacritics are trying to send such a message. - Enter Movie (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The key part of that statement was "have some limitations". The page outlines the limitations, and makes it clear that small sample sizes create inaccurate information, and last time I checked we're not supposed to be intentionally putting inaccurate information on pages. Unless, I missed that somewhere. So, it sound like your argument is, "ignore the fact that the information is inaccurate and let a reader decide if they like it or not"? That doesn't make sense to me. That's like arguing, "Let's put rumors in biographies and let the reader decide if they're true or not". The sample size issue puts the percentages into question, and thus makes them unusable to a degree. Putting "15 reviews" next to it doesn't change the fact that the percentage should not be used to advance any position, and that is exactly what you're doing when you create a comparison table.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not denying some of the films (parts IV-6) may be inaccurate in terms of statistics; I'm just saying that when a footnote is placed, the readers are aware of the proper context the information on the table is in, just like the footnotes on the box office table. I know you don't patrol every film article, but I see you have edited an article of an old film recently (A Nightmare on Elm Street), and that film has 42 reviews, and if you consider even 40s a low sample size, why didn't you bother removing the RT score on that page? - Enter Movie (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

A distinction needs to be made about the kind of "inaccuracy" a small sample size causes. There is no problem with a small sample size if the number is given. Similarly, there is no problem with quoting one reviewer's words (sample size of one!) instead of another because the reader knows what they are getting. In both cases, something that is a fact is offered for the reader to interpret. That's not a problem. If the guideline gives the impression that small sample sizes have incorrect information, that again is the infection by the polling model of a non-polling case. A small sample is the same thing we always offer when we quote someone and that's not a problem (at least, not prima facie a problem). --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

A footnote for box office information (which is objective data) is one thing. We're saying, "We don't have foreign figures for these older films". Saying, "this is a small sample size and is probably an inaccurate representation of the general consensus for the film" is a completely different thing. If I saw that, then my question would be "why is it here in the first place if it's inaccurate"? When we quote someone that again is not the same as pushing a position. When we quote we're supposed to be providing both sides of an argument (unless it isn't an argument - e.g. where I person was born). That isn't about "sample sizes", because we're (supposedly) providing an equal coverage of both sides when it comes to opinions about a topic. With RT, we're actually quoting their percentage to support a position that a film was well received, not well received, etc. If that position is supported by a limited sample size then it's a position whose validity cannot be verified. You cannot ignore the fact that RT is providing statistical information, and this page and the RTMC page both look at RT as a "statistical review website". So, if you're talking about using those reviews to support a critical reception section, then you have a point. If you're talking about using them to support a comparison of the general consensus regarding the approval of the films by critics, then that's completely different. If the sample sizes are too small, and you're comparing films with large samples to films with next to no reviews, then you're doing a disservice to readers (even if you put the review count next to them) because you're providing inaccurate information knowingly. Again, if it "not a problem" as you both are suggesting, the why is it that the guideline views it as a problem? No one seems to have answered that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Objective or not, it still does not provide an accurate comparison of box office because foreign figures aren't included for certain films. Like I said, we don't know if Halloween 5 didn't make $500 million and is the highest-grossing, so how is that table "accurate" as well? If you can't put these sample size argument munbo-jumbos inaccuracy into context because of the inaccuracy itself, then why is the Halloween franchise page the only one you put effort into excluding? You edited A Nightmare on Elm Street with its small 42-review inaccuracy, but you didn't do anything about that page. Must be some guideline when 90% of articles of films 30 years or older include RT/Metacritic scores. If you want to argue about what inaccurate is in relation to sample size, then there needs to be a specific number, so people won't get confused. How small is "small enough?" - Enter Movie (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's the problem with that argument, we have no source that even says those films were released overseas. There's no source that says it made any money internationally (which is different then saying "we don't know exactly how much it made"). We can compare box office figures for domestic grosses for films because we do have accurate information for those figures. You cannot compare that to critical reviews, because you're trying to use RT and MC to push a position. That position is how well the film was received. If you don't have enough reviews then you cannot argue about approval from critics, because frankly 20 critics can be found in New York alone (probably more). It's not the same thing. You're trying to compare objective data to subjective data that pushes a position. The box office table only shows that, domestically, certain films have performed better. The foreign figures are there just for compeletionists (and I'm happy to remove them if that's what you'd like, because I didn't care for them to begin with). Why does my "editing" have anything to do with not include inaccuracies? I don't police every page I happen to edit, especially not the older films' individual pages because it's a pain in the ass. Removing blatant vandalism, or simply removing false information (like Warner Bros owning that film in 1984, when they did not even own New Line at that time) is not the same as actually cleaning up the page of information that is being used inappropriately. I cleaned up the Halloween franchise page, just like I did to the Friday the 13th (franchise) page. I "police" those pages because they have a standard now. Additionally, if you read what I've said repeatedly, RT and MC on an individual film page does not have the same impact as what you are proposing on the franchise pages. You're wanting to create a table to compare films across a series and how they were received. That's an unfair comparison when 3/4 of the films don't have comparable figures, and half of those have numbers too low to actually be able to generalize critical opinion. What is "too small"? Again, I'll tell you that determining that figure needs to be a consensus made by a much large number of people than just 3. I know what is "small" for me, and I think we've figured out what is "small" (or not) to you. That's irrelevant because it needs to be a community based decision, just like it was a community based decision that decided that small sample sizes create problems when using statistical websites for older (or independent) films. The guideline and the essay make it clear that if it's too small you probably should not be using it to cite "overall" critical approval (not to be confused with using the reviews to develop a reception section). The problem is that the guideline and the essay do not identify a "minimum" and they should. This needs to be a wide discussion to identify such a thing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It's about the PRINCIPLE. And that's that footnotes are placed to put information on the table in proper context. They're the same. If one is not even sure about whether or not the films were released internationally, why was it even allowed in the table in the first place? The reason I pointed out your edits is because they're contradictory. You adamantly support this position of sample size, yet when you edit an article with critical reaction of small sample size, you don't bother doing anything about it. Franchise page, single film page, they're all "inaccurate" by your logic. This table may be "inaccurate," but it would service some people who would like a comparison of the RT/Metacritic ratings, and it would "be used in proper context and have some limitations" by footnote. Again with the too small, small enough, etc., As of right now, I don't see a specific number, or something, that says 40 reviews is too small, but you. - Enter Movie (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, the PRINCIPLE should be to respect when you should use statistical data and when you should NOT use it. There's not "principle" regarding adding inappropriate information to an article simply because. There is no "proper context" when it comes to citing statistics that use limited sample sizes to draw conclusions. You cannot escape that fact. What's the context exactly? Is it, "Hey, these films only had a few reviews, but it's ok to compare them to films that had 10 times the number of reviews sampled?" Um...ok. My edits are not "contradictory" to my stance, I merely don't read the page entirely to clean it up. In addition, if you read my comments (which you must not be doing entirely) you'll see that I made specific comments about individual film pages over a franchise page, as you're talking about something different. So, if you're point is to say that I somehow don't follow my own advice, I can argue the same for you. You believe that you need a source to verify information, yet that same page has countless uncited statements riddled throughout it. I mean,you edited that page, so you should be removing all unsourced information....right? Hi pot, meet kettle. I don't believe in a plan of "who cares if it's inaccurate so long as we tell people that it's inaccurate". That's the most rediculous thing I've ever heard (read). As for sample size, I can just as easily say that it doesn't say that "40 reviews is enough", that's you saying that. So, if you want a consensus on what is "enough", then we need to start sending out requests for comments regarding it as clearly there are only 3 people truly interested enough in this discussion to continue talking about it who apparently monitor this page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I'm using the principle on WP:RTMC, in that information from RT/Metacritic "should be used in proper context and have some limitations." Though that page does not acknowledge the same for box office, one can presume the same principle is applied, or else readers might get confused. Number of reviews shown and footnote, and bam! Readers understand. I have read every one of your comments, but there is still "statistical inaccuracy" because of the lack of sample size, whether on franchise or single film. As for the Russian mafia page, I did source my edits (you should've seen the page before my edits); everything unsourced were by other people editing, which they can do by all means, but as can be seen on the talk page, my interest in the subject has dwindled and I don't police it like you do the Halloween franchise article. Even then, I'm not a frequent page editor, but you, on the other hand, are, and when I see you stumbling upon a page and editing it and putting no effort to enforce your argument upon that other page, it's just, like... WTF?! And I'm not championing for inaccuracy here; it's about the context. The Featured List page List of highest-grossing films, for instance, isn't entirely accurate, but the editors there put great effort into putting the information on the tables into proper context to have the tables (and status) they have now. - Enter Movie (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

First, please stop misrepresenting RTMC. You keep quoting the opening information as if that answers everything. It's acknowledging that there should be context with use, but that there are limitations. The LIMITATIONS sections goes into more detail and makes it clear that small sample sizes create inaccurate information. Inaccurate information should NOT be used in articles if we know that it is inaccurate information. We know that 20 reviews could not possibly give us an accurate scale of critical opinion. Again, you cannot compare financial records to personal opinion. The financial records are not being generalized to an overall opinion like RT's scores are. If the "foreign" box office info bothers you, then remove it. Again, I don't care if it gets removed because it's incomplete and not comparable across the films because of that. I don't know how many times we're going to beat this dead horse, but "context" does not apply when you know the information is inaccurate. If you are knowingly putting inaccurate information on the page, no amount of "context" can or should save it. It's as simple as that. That's like arguing that if the New Yorker publishes an article on Jennifer Aniston and in that article they say "there is a rumor that she is pregnant", that so long as we put that in context (e.g., "It is only rumored that Aniston is pregnant, but she has not confirmed it) that it somehow makes it ok to use in our articles? Because, as you keep pointing out, it's about "context" and "footnotes explaining". Yet, I would imagine based on your edits that I've seen you'd actually say that there is no source actually verifying that she is pregnant, and then you're remove it. At least, that's what your edit history shows. This is the same issue. We have a reliable source, but the source is publishing inaccurate statistics because it does not have enough information to actually verify its conclusion. Telling readers that the information is inaccurate because of the small sample size isn't a "solution", it's just a new problem. My question immediately would be, "why are you giving me inaccurate information knowingly?"  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I keep quoting it because that page is a guideline, as you point out over and over. It says "should be used in proper context and have some limitations." Is putting the number of reviews beside the score not putting it into proper context? Is placing a footnote not explaining its limitations to the readers? And isn't it ironic how an article that's obviously not precisely accurate (highest-grossing films, especially the inflation table) gets Featured List status? RT does not generalize opinion; they give a percentage approval out of X amount of critics. Whoever said the percentage generalizes all critics' opinions? And the information on the table, namely the score, is verifiable: click on the link, and you will see the reviews right there, whether positive or negative, out of the reviews it actually has. - Enter Movie (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Proper context is acknowledging that if a film was released in 1963, chances are all of the reviews in RT are going to be from modern critics. That is context. That's giving a reader "proper context" on the critical approval of the film. If you're intention is to say that "this percentage is not accurate because there are not a large enough sample of reviews", then yes you'd have "context". Simply putting numbers next to numbers does not add context. That said, if that is the context you're trying to add, then again the question is why are you adding information that is not accurate? Um, if you read RTMC, you'll see that it views it as "statistical", which means that the information is being used to generalize to a larger setting that cannot be literally measured in every individual. Here's a very specific, very important, and probably very easy question that I'd like for you to answer: What is the purpose of the RT and MC table when it contains individual ratings for films in a series? - I just want to know what is your purpose for creating such a table. As for the "high grossing films", I'm not sure how you consider that "inaccurate" information, so I'm not even going to entertain that statement. I'm just curious as to the answer to my real question. What's the purpose of the table? What does the information do, and what is it being used for? Very simple.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for the lateness of my reply. I've been very busy recently.

The proper context would be the footnote and the number of reviews next to the score. It gives the reader insight into the percentage approval of such film from X amount of critics, and also lets them know that the reviews are fairly modern and probably doesn't represent critics' opinions from its original release date. I'm not saying that we need something that says the score is statistically inaccurate, because the number of critics that reviewed the film is next to the score, inferring the score is from the sample size of X amount of critics. Anything more is just unnecessarily spoon-feeding the reader; for example, I don't see the box office table explaining, "The above worldwide figure gross may or may not be a proper estimate because it is not known whether certain films listed above were released outside of the US and Canada." Wikipedia doesn't have to spell out every single thing when the obvious is there. If the critic table happen to be about general critical reaction of the film, then yes, it'd be statistically inaccurate; but what I'm proposing is that by putting the number of reviewers next to the score, it eliminates any inaccuracy because the score is based on a certain number of critics, not just critics in general. If RTMC is in the way of this argument about statistics and whatnot, I'd be willing to go over there and further another argument in order to clarify this issue. As for the answer to your question, those review aggregator sites give movie-goers percentage approval scores of a movie they may be interested in watching out of X amount of critics. The purpose of the table, as I've said, is to service the reader into a comparison of the scores of the films, much like the box office table is a comparison of the box office figures. Also, see this good article. - Enter Movie (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Then the question is, "Why does the percentage of approval from 20 (of any small sample size) critics matter?" - It's 20 people (or even 40 people). Why does it matter how many of those "X numbers" approved the film? If you're not trying to generalize to critical reception as a whole (which is exactly how we use those figures for single film articles), then what is the point of the comparison. Even removing the "generalizability" of individual data, you cannot compare a film with 15 reviews to a film with 100 reviews. It's not even remotely close. You're placing undue weight on the limited number of reviews that Rotten Tomatoes has collected on a particular film. Regardless of dates of the reviews, you're comparing unlike data. Again, box office data and critical reception are nowhere near the same thing. You're comparing objective data with subjective, limited figures. I can compare the domestic figures of the films because I have all of that data. As I've said, some people wanted the foreign figures just to be "complete", but if you look at where the franchise is compared to other franchises it's only domestic figures. You cannot compare the score of Film Y that has 15 reviews to the score of Film Z that has 70 reviews, because it's not a fair comparison. No amount of footnotes changes that fact. You cannot say that "Film Y and Film Z had similar approval ratings" because it would be FALSE. If the two films did not have a similar number of reviews collected (I'm talking at least in the same ballpark here), then you cannot make such a claim. By creating that table with such unbalanced figures, it IS making that claim to a reader. Otherwise, you're creating footnotes that just say, "all of this data is unbalanced, inaccurate, and probably not comparable, but we just wanted you to have it...because it exists". The fact that other pages are doing something does not mean that they should. I could argue that this page never had one and went through the same reviews and it was not proposed to have one. So, in the words of Yoda, "Pointing somewhere else, does not an argument make". The fact remains that this community has (and you can see that in how we write up the guidelines) interpreted RT and MC data as something that is meant to be generalized back to overall critical reception, and not simply just an arbitrary percentage of those critics they have.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a good question. You yourself edit The Dark Knight Rises page, and if the number of critics doesn't matter, as you've implied by your question, then what's the point of having "87% approval rating... from 283 critics?" Perhaps to let the reader understand more about the reception. That's my guess. When comparing Film X and Y with similar approval ratings, the number of critics next to the scores lets the reader take the information into account when comparing. That's why it's there. Also, I've taken a look at RMTC again, and it's merely an essay; "[e]ssays are not Wikipedia policies." All this time I thought it was some kind of guideline; no wonder I've seen nobody ever bother enforcing it in other pages. (You're the first and only proponent of it I've seen so far.) The point of mentioning Star Wars wasn't so that "just because that page has it means this should too," but more of a point of reference that several Good Articles have passed with this "statistical inaccurate critical reaction table," and that administrators or article reviewers haven't had problems with it in the past. - Enter Movie (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

My reasoning for the percentages should be clear. I DO believe that the percentage is meant as statistical data to be used to gauge the overal reception of the film from all critics. That's how research is performed. You collect data and then, if it's reliable, you use it to generalize to a greater population that you could not possibly have acquired literally. I believe that 283 critics is more than enough to generalize the approval of the film. I never claimed the essay was anything other than that. If you look at the posts, you'll see that I clearly called it an "essay". The essay is used to further explain the MOS's stance on using RT. As for GA articles, they are passed by every Tom, Dick and Harry that edits. The review process for them is not based on administrators or anything else for that matter. That said, again, just because it's been overlooked on other pages (as many editors do not necessarily pay attention to what guidelines are for specific projects) doesn't mean that it should be allowed. This will always come down to you and me disagreeing over what that "percentage" is supposed to imply, as well as whether or not it's appropriate to compare films with only a handful of reviews to films that have 10 times as many reviews. I don't believe in the "if we just admit it's unbalanced information then it's okay to put it in the article" is the appropriate way to include information. You apparently disagree.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

BigNole, you seem to repeat the same fallacy even after it's pointed out. I thought you might explain why it's not a fallacy or stop repeating it. The fallacy I see repeated is the notion that the sample of reviewers on RT is some kind of poll of all the reviewers in the world. It's not. Rather, all the available reviews are scored. If the sample is small, it's still a score of all the reviews. For whom is it significant that the sample is small? Answer: for someone reading RT who wants to know if the RT score will match their own personal assessment. For them, the reviewers are a sample of all the people in the world and for them the sample is like a poll. However, and this is very important, that is not what we are doing. We are not doing that. We simply want to know what the available reviewers thought, and since all the reviewers are scored, there is no error for that purpose. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not a fallacy. First, it's not "all available reviews", because RT's own site says that they screen reviews to only the ones they consider to be professional. So, they are clearly limiting their own sample sizes to the most "important" ones. What is a fallacy is to say that somehow it's a balanced comparison to look at 20 reviews for Film Y and 70 reviews for Film Z and somehow draw a conclusion that they share similar approval rating. That's a fallacy and that's what you're doing when you create these comparison tables with small sample sizes. What's also a fallacy is twisting my information. I've never said RT "polls" critics. They collect data, then they subjectively interpret that data, and subsequently present it to the public. If it was as simple as "here are 20 reviews and you can see who liked the film and who does", then please explain to me why RT decides to put its own interpretation on the reviews (as reviews don't typically rate films on a 1-100 scale) for readers? If it's as simple as you say it is, then RT wouldn't need to be creating these percentages of approval. Reviews have to be read and interpreted (e.g., Roger Eberts gives a film 2 out of 4 stars, that review needs to be determined to be positive or negative overall). The point of the RT approval rating is to give readers an idea of how the film was received. That there alone means "generalization", not how it was received with these specific critics.From this description: "Rotten Tomatoes, the premier entertainment guide, connects audiences with the best in cinema thru the Tomatometer®, Certified Fresh™ ratings, and the Critical Consensus. Using its unique recommendations engine, Rotten Tomatoes influences millions of moviegoers worldwide." - From this description: "Rotten Tomatoes awards the Certified Fresh accolade to theatrical releases reviewed by 40 or more critics (including 5 Top Critics) with a steady score of 75% or higher on the Tomatometer. A film remains Certified Fresh unless its Tomatometer falls below 70%. Reserved for the best-reviewed films, the Certified Fresh accolade constitutes a seal of approval, synonymous with quality." - This statement alone shows that even RT is intending to generalize their data to the overall opinion of the film, as they set their own standards at "40 or more critics". If they were only interested in presenting the critics for exactly what they were, as you guys are claiming, then why set a standard for a film to be classified as "Fresh"? I mean, by you guys' definition, a film with 14 reviews and a rating of 95% is still "Fresh". Correct?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

("Fresh"? What are you talking about?) So, are you actually trying to claim that RT's method is not reliable? If it is, then no article should use it, since it's unreliable in all cases. And your evidence makes RT seem even more reliable as an unbiased barometer of critical reception (they keep out the cruft! yay!). Just give the numbers and the readers do the rest. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

First, I'll start keeping my comments brief when yours stop being intentionally antagonistic toward editors. :D I don't know how many times I need to correct your comprehension of my words, but I'll do it again. I did not say that RT was unreliable. The links to RT's own pages indicate that 1) They do in fact use their data to convey a generalized opinion of a film; 2) They will not "generalize" said opinion unless there are enough critical responses collected. Thus, you cannot compare films where the critical reception is not generalizable, with films where it is, given that RT IS trying to generalize back to critics as a whole and not simply counting reviews and calling it a day. Again, just because your standards are lacking does not mean that Wikipedia's standards should be. Then again Ring, you always do seem to try and stray from conformity.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

You didn't say "RT is unreliable" but you said that their methodology may not accurately translate reviews into their binary fresh/rotten. So the point stands: RT's method is not reliable, per you. If not reliable, then not reliable on all movies. But you accept their method in most cases, so it must be a good method. (I should say that you would be completely correct if RT was taking a poll. However, it is not a poll because they score every review that is not crufty.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I said their their method was subjective, not unreliable. There is a difference. The fact that their method is subjective means that you cannot treat it like an objective point like say a box office gross. Again, you're misinterpreting "poll" and "statistical data". You don't need to "poll" people to collect data and create a statistic. You don't seem to be commenting on the fact that RT themselves are claiming that they provide "critical consensus" (which means that they are generalizing their data to the overall opinion) and that RT even identifies limits to making any claims on critical consensus of a film. All that points to statistical data that should be treated as such, because even RT is treating it that way.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I would say that sample size is very important, since an RT score is pretty meaningless in respect to a handful of reviews; you could add another review and it could literally swing the score either way 20%. The thing is, there is no "safe" sample size: obviously you converge upon the "true" score with the more samples you have. This sample size calculator may be of some use though. Let me plug in some numbers as an example: Rotten Tomatoes tends to draw from a pool of 300 reviewers for films (I haven't seen many films go over this count, but if they have then you set the population parameter to the size of your review pool); a 95% confidence level suffices for most things, and let's set the interval to 10%, and that gives us a sample size of 73! To put that into context, a film that would score 50% from a pool of 300 reviews, would score between 40%–60% (our 10% margin of error) 95% of the time using 73 reviews. So basically we need 70–75 reviews just to be within 10% of the true score (withing the limit of the whole pool). A sample size of about 20–25 reviews would give us a 20% error margin, and we're looking at over 150 reviews for 5% error margins. So what is an acceptable range to us, and what sample size would that entail?

I would say that we certainly don't want to be more than 20% out, which imposes an absolute minimum of 20–25 reviews). I see lots of films with scores from maybe 30/40 reviews so how useful is the stat for a film with 30/40 reviews? Statistically they don't carry much weight, but we're not that interested in the score per se, we are more interested in the critical spectrum, and 40 reviews may be enough to give us that, even 30 might. For example if a film scores 80%, a 15% error margin (from a 40 sample set) would still keep the critical consensus in the positive range i.e we can still draw the conclusion that the critical reception was positive, so it basically depends what we are actually using the score for. We can't really expect editors to perform statistical analysis though, and at the end of day we aren't handing out the odds on life saving surgery, so I reckon a 25 sample would be a reasonable cut-off limit if we want to retain some statistical credibility. Betty Logan (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not a poll, it's a census. Every review is tabulated. There is no margin of error, which is a concept from polling. Our purpose is to have a barometer of critical reception. If many critics reviewed or only a few, the reception is what it is. When RT has only 15 reviews scored, it's because only 15 reviewers offered their opinion. But, from RT's perspective, that is 100% of the population of reviewers. There are no uncounted reviewers that, if we knew what they said, might tip the numbers. Instead, every reviewer that meets RT criteria has their opinion tabulated. It's not a poll. It is a complete tally of all of the critical reception. That said, I think it is completely sensible to tell the reader how many reviewers are included, just as RT does, for those readers who are interested in predicting their own response to the film. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a poll if you provide a statistical interpretation, which is basically what we use it for, at least implicitly. We include it in our critical reception sections to provide an overview of the critical consensus. RT may not be a complete data set, but the idea behind it is that it's representative of the critical reception in English language media. If there isn't enough data to support that notion then it doesn't really meet our aims in using their scores; ultimately it just becomes 10 out of 15 reviews were positive, and I don't see much point in saying that unless the 15 reviews actually mean something. Betty Logan (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not correct to say that it's representative of critical reception: they count every available (English) review. A poll is where a sample is taken of a larger group, while a census is where all are counted. Margin of error comes into play when sampling is done. RT doesn't sample the critics who review a film to predict what all the critics would say. Instead, they count every reviewer. Now, if you want to say that there is a larger group because not all 400 reviewers' opinions are taken every time, that is not a poll, either, as it is not a random sample. And, again, our purpose is to take the temperature of the critical reception. The critical reception is defined by the critics who review, not by imagining what the critics who didn't might have said. Based on the critics who respond, RT tabulates all, with no margin of error. That works for us because of the use to which we put their numbers. But I agree that we should let the reader know how many reviews RT counted. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Um, I thought we just established that they do NOT count every review. Didn't you just praise that little nugget of information as a show that they weed out the unsavory critics? That alone shows that they don't use everyone. They use any that they can find online, they don't include everyone as there are plenty of local critics that they don't use because they are in print media. The fact remains, RT still uses the ones they collect like a poll and their own website indicates that they do. Interesting, as you said "our purpose is take the temperature of the critical reception". You're implying that we're trying to show what the overall opinion of a film is by looking at this select group of critics. That sounds like statistical data to me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it is completely unlike a poll in every meaningful way. Do they take a random sample of some critics in order to determine what all critics think of the film? Well, no. It's not random and it's not a sample. It's a census of the opinions of critics that aren't cruft. (What is your evidence for the view that some critics are left out? I can't imagine there is a critic in print that isn't published online. Do you have a list of 100 newspapers that have a movie critic but no web site?) --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it's unlike a "random poll". If I go to a college and do a survey, that isn't random because I know the population that I'm getting the information from. I love how you keep hanging onto this notion of "it's not a poll" like someone has actually said that RT is doing a poll. Apparently, you're just not understanding the idea of collecting data (like you do in research studies) and presenting a conclusion that is meant to be generalized to a larger population. You don't have to "poll" anyone for that. I'm I'm studying an intervention with people with Bipolar Disorder, there is no "poll", but I am collecting data and using the results to say how that intervention can be used with the population of people with that disorder. Again, no poll was actually conducted. In this case, RT is collecting critical reviews and developing their own conclusion based on those results (remember, we've talked about the fact that RT interprets these reviews themselves). RT then, admittedly, uses that conclusion to provide readers with an idea of what the overall critical consensus is for a film. That means they are using it to generalize back to the larger critic population (as they don't collect everyone, just ones they have access to AND who meet their criteria). You don't seem to want to acknowledge that RT is even saying they use those figures to develop a "consensus" about a film, and that without 40 reviews they won't put that "consensus" on the film's page. They just leave the raw data as it is, because they recognize that there is a limit to the number of reviews you can use before the margin of error is too large.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, too much work these days. Anyway, from the days I've been gone, I agree most with Betty Logan's suggestion. If anything, this MOS needs to establish how many critics are required for a film's score to be statistically accurate, because if that was clearly stated, we wouldn't be having this back-and-forth, neverending argument. After reading up on RT's and Metacritic's purpose ("it began as a simple idea back in the summer of 1999: a single score could summarize the many entertainment reviews available for a movie"), I concede to the fact that they are trying to generalize critics' opinions. However, like I said before, I still think there needs to be clear number of reviews for a film article to have the Tomatometer/Metacritic scores under their Reception sections, as in a new guideline/policy in the Manual page. Personally, I approve of that site that Betty showed us, and that 15% confidence interval is optimal. RottenTomatoes seems to pool 8,907 critics since its creation (click on each letter and add up all the number of critics), and with the sample size calculator, a film would need at least 42 reviews for it to have a statistically accurate score. With Metacritic and its 473 critics, a film would need at least 39 reviews. I don't know how proposing a new guideline works, but I'd like for this to happen, so no confusion occurs in the future. - Enter Movie (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

We would need to propose updating the wording in the reception section to something like, "there should be a minimum of X reviews...", along with an explanation for why there is a specific minimum. Although my personal number is closer to 60 reviews, I think that 40 (average of the two) is a fair compromise. We can include both Betty's website and MC and RT's own pages (RT specifically says they do not certify films with less than 40 reviews). This would require a separate talkpage discussion to agree on a wording (if we support going that route, and I do).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Plot lengths

WP:FILMPLOT says 400-700 words. One screen is more readable 400-500. Can the maximum be reduced? AnEyeSpy (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd sooner make it two screens, for 800-1000 words. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, I think 700 works. I've yet to find more legitimate cases for longer plots than that than Grady Stiles could count on one hand. GRAPPLE X 22:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean, "one screen"? Do you mean enough text to fill one screen? Because that's going to vary wildly due to a number of factors: standard vs. widescreen monitor, whether or not you have your browser window expanded all the way, whether you keep toolbars open down the side, how large you've set your default text size, etc. 400 to 700 words is just about perfect and works for the vast majority of films. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Leads

WP:FILMLEAD says include "summary of the most important aspects of the film from the article body", but plot sum-up missing from many film leads. Is there a bot to check? AnEyeSpy (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Short answer: no. A bot isn't going to be able to read the text of article leads and understand its context. A bot can make simple fixes, but can't tell if the lead text speaks of the plot or not. Generally the lead should contain a brief (1 o 2 sentences) synopsis of the premise. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposition for Update of Reception

As exhaustively debated on this talk page, I suggest (or more so Betty Logan) that a clear number of reviews needs to be stated instead of the current wording of "(Caution: reliable review statistics may not be available for older films. Appraise the sample size in conjunction with other reliable sources, using best judgment to determine consensus.)" RottenTomatoes and Metacritic use a single score to determine the best possible reception of critics in general with the reviews they have for a particular film, but oftentimes, there may not be enough when taking into account statistics, in that the sample size has to be large enough for the data (or score) to be accurate. Currently, numerous articles have scores from these review aggregating sites that do not accurately reflect what the general population of critics would agree with because the number of reviews (sample size) is not enough. Using this website and summing up the total number of critics on each RottenTomatoes and Metacritic can help determine how many reviews would be necessary in order for a Wikipedia film article to be eligible to list these said scores. RottenTomatoes pools from 8,907 critics, while MetaCritic pools from 473 critics (someone may want to count again, as I may have miscalculated).

I used a confidence interval of 15 and confidence level of 95%. The latter number was chosen because "[m]ost researchers use the 95% confidence level," while the 15 confidence interval was personal preference: if you make it 10, you'd need over 80 reviews on Metacritic, which no film on that site has, and if you make it 20, it's not as accurate "enough" as 15. Of course, this confidence interval can be subject to debate or change, but for this instance, I'm using 15. With that, films would need at least 42 reviews RottenTomatoes and at least 39 reviews on Metacritic for their scores to be statistically accurate [within a 15% margin of error]. - Enter Movie (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

External links

Am I reading MOS:FILM#External_links wrong? Since Wiki is not a collection of links, and since that guideline suggests that ELs be converted to references whenever possible, I have long been in the habit of removing ELs that we are already using as references and have seen other editors who have been around the project much longer than I do the same. Example; if reception section uses Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic's main page for a film as an inline citation I remove them from the ELs. If, however, the Box Office section used a reference from The Numbers that wasn't the films main page but one of its subpages (such as specific weekend gross or overseas totals), I leave The Numbers EL since they go to different places.

Are we doing it wrong? This came up because of the film Looper. Other editors seem to have hashed out what to do on that particular article while I was sleeping but for future clarity I wanted to make sure I understood. Millahnna (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic can be used in two ways. They can be referenced for their aggregate scores, and they can be external links as directories for multiple reviews. It is different from an external link to an interview with a filmmaker, which we want to incorporate into the film article as much as possible. When RT or MC is listed as an EL, it is not crying out to be implemented in the article so its score can be referenced. It's a link that lists numerous reviews for readers outside of whatever limited set we sample in the Wikipedia article. So basically, there are two different purposes as references and external links, and both happen to point to the same URL. I think we do a good job keeping external links in film articles limited, so I find it helpful to have RT and MC highlighted as ELs, lest they be buried among other references that have been fully implemented. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense to me. But it does reiterate the fact that I think there are probably two groups of us doing it in two different ways. Is it possible we should look at clarifying that point in the MOS (leaving such common ELs as ELs, regardless, and perhaps use your interview example as an EL we'd want to merge)? Honestly, I felt the note the other editor involved left me on my talk page came off a little snotty so my hackles are up a bit about it. Millahnna (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This was the original discussion. I think we've had a few discussions related to external links; what I said initially, I feel like I've said elsewhere in the past. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I generally do not include websites in external links sections when they already appear as references. I'm not a fan of external links in general, except to the "official website" of the subject. I generally consider that a good encyclopedia article benefits little from external links, particularly if it is well-sourced. I believe this is consistent with the letter and spirit of WP:EL. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, personally I find it a bit redundant to duplicate the exact same link. However, RT and BOM are among the "core set" of links editors and readers expect to find in the external links section, and its usage is so widespread I think it would be an uphill struggle to reverse the trend: there are simply more productive things to do. That said, I think the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I do think it's a bit excessive to list both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, since there is often a considerable overlap. Same with BOM and The Numbers, and possibly IMDB and some of the other databases. Where there is substantial overlap we only need one of each variety at most. Betty Logan (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are quite different, and both should be listed in the external links section. Film Fan (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken (or something has changed), RT and MC link back and forth to each other. So there's that. Millahnna (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing Metacritic with Flixster. Film Fan (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

May I ask in which ways they are different? Checking the Metacritic page for Looper reveals that the three reviews on the front page (Morgenstern, Berardinelli, Scott) are all indexed at Rotten Tomatoes too. I can't be bothered going through the whole lot, but it looks to me that most of the reviews listed at Metacritic are also listed at RT, which makes Metacritic redundant, unless I'm missing something. Betty Logan (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I would be okay with keeping to just Rotten Tomatoes out of the two websites when it comes to including them as external links. For what it's worth, we can try to draw other editors to this discussion by modifying either template to link here. Kind of like the TfD approach but with no deletion option. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Metacritic links aren't going anywhere. Metacritic lists top critics only, and gives the average score. Rotten Tomatoes includes any and every critic/blogger and gives its primary score in percentages of positive reviews. Film fans use both, not one or the other. Film Fan (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Film Fan on using both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. They are not redundant insofar as their samples are different in size (Metacritic only uses reviews from established professional publications) and the ways they ascertain an overall quantification of a film's critical reception are different (Tomatometer versus Metascore).

In the case of BOM and The Numbers, however, there is substantial overlap because they are both gathering box office data—and since BOM is more established and much more often mentioned by reliable sources, it makes sense to include only an EL to BOM, not BOM and The Numbers. Cliff Smith 18:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Musicals

Is there any guideline or precedent to listing the songs sung in a musical film (ex: The Rock of Ages, Mamma Mia!, etc) in the plot itself? I personally don't think they should be listed except for in the soundtrack section because it takes up room for the plot summary when a plot is only supposed to be 400-700 words. Lady Lotus (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a bad idea because of the space it would take unless the title itself summarizes a plot point. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is one article that still includes them Paint Your Wagon (film) although I think that is a holdover from when the film and stage versions were one article. I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other. On the one hand I can agree with removing them so that they don't clutter up the plot section - especially when a song is sung more than once in a film - but if consensus was to keep them in we could certainly amend the MoS to state that their inclusion does not count against the word limit guidelines. MarnetteD | Talk 19:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys for your input :) Lady Lotus (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The Weight of Chains

Hello everyone!

I'm wondering if you'd be interested in lending your opinion on a certain matter. Some editors of The Weight of Chains (a documentary film) article have suggested that this article should include the sponsors that funded the film, all 100 of them are listed (those who gave over $1,000 are "Sponsors", those who gave under than amount are "Contributors", but all of them are listed under the "Sponsors" tab) on the film's official website. Citing the film production MOS, specifically the part about the need to include information about "securing of financing and producers", some editors want to include the top few sponsors from the website, and mention that other organizations and individuals donated as well.

Now, as far as I know, film production companies are considered the official financiers of the film, and the only production company that produced The Weight of Chains, according to IMDb, is Malagurski Cinema. The way I understand it, production companies are in charge of securing the financing, and they may choose to ask for donations, apply for film funds or seek co-production partners. I don't think donations can be listed on Wikipedia as "financiers" of a film. I don't think anyone can buy a spot on Wikipedia for a thousand or few thousand dollars just because they supported a film. The way I see it, the "financier" can only be "Malagurski Cinema", perhaps with a mention that several organizations and individuals donated towards the production of the film.

The only organization I think it's OK to list in this Wikipedia article as well is the Global Research Centre, which is mentioned in several media sources as being a supporter and sponsor of the film, with Centre's director Michel Chossudovsky being interviewed in the film and the director of the film, Boris Malagurski, emphasizing the support he received from the Centre in a couple of interviews. I've been having a discussion on this matter on The Weight of Chains talk page, so I thought I'd pop up here as well and see what more experienced editors think regarding the matter. Thanks for your time, --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is about the film, not the financiers. It's fine to state that "there were 100 donors who gave over $1000 to be deemed 'Sponsors'", then simply cite the source which lists them. It's not ok to list 100 financial supporters: if I may coin or borrow a phrase: "being listed in Wikipedia is not your fundraising prize." --Lexein (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Cast rewrite

The "Cast" section at MOS:FILM is our oldest section, and two recent discussions at WT:FILM indicate an interest in giving this section a rewrite. Below is my proposed draft consolidating the aspects of the discussions:

Actors and their roles can be presented and discussed in different forms in film articles depending on three key elements: 1) the prominence of the cast in the film, 2) the amount of real-world context for each cast member or the cast as a whole, and 3) the structure of the article. Editors are encouraged to lay out such content in a way that best serves readers for the given topic. If necessary, build toward a consensus. The key elements are discussed in detail:

1. A film's cast may vary in size and in importance. A film may have an ensemble cast, or it may only have a handful of actors. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links (in some cases), etc. If there are numerous cast members worth identifying, there are two recommended options: the names may be listed in two or three columns, or the names may be grouped in prose.
2. The real-world context about actors and their roles may vary by film. Real-world context may be about how the role was written, how the actor came to be cast for the role, and what preparations were necessary for filming. Development of a film article means a basic cast list may evolve into a bulleted list with several sentences devoted to each person. In other cases, a list may be maintained and be accompanied by prose that discusses only a handful of cast members.
3. The structure of the article may also influence form. A basic cast list in a "Cast" section is appropriate for the majority of Stub-class articles. When the article is in an advanced stage of development, information about the cast can be presented in other ways. A "Cast" section may be maintained but with more detailed bulleted entries, or a table or infobox grouping actors and their roles may be placed in the plot summary or in the "Casting" subsection of a "Production" section. Use tables with care due to their complexity; they are most appropriate for developed, stable articles. (Tables are also recommended to display different casts, such as a Japanese-language voice cast and a English-language voice cast in a Japanese animated film.)

If roles are described outside of the plot summary, keep such descriptions concise. Also, per Wikipedia's Manual of Style on boldface, please limit boldface to table headers and captions. Actors and roles should not be bolded.

Please let me know your thoughts. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that is mostly fine, but I think it needs to be explicit that it's a design decision that is largely left to editorial discretion, and perhaps link to a few good examples to provide editors with an idea of what we are aiming for: Fight Club and Alien (film) keep popping up as solid styles. There are probably a few other good ones around too. Betty Logan (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a design decision but what I've been doing and what I think works quite well is listing the billed actors first and foremost and presenting the rest in prose form ala Dredd, where there isn't much if any information available about those characters/cast members. I think it makes it nicely readable and more presentable rather than a long list of names. But it's purely design. EDIT It also allows you to group together certain characters to avoid repetitive descriptions, such as 4 corrupt Judges on that particular article, where in list form each would have a separate description of "a corrupt judge". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Just had a look at what you have done on Dredd, Darkwarriorblake, and very much appreciate your approach to this much needed appraisal. Thank you Erik for raising this strand. Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk) 21:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I quite like that approach DWB, it's very similar to the one used at Witchfinder_General_(film) and avoids the 'naked' look of bare cast lists. Betty Logan (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

While it's preferable to making readers scan over the whole plot section, I still prefer a list to be a list, which means each actor gets their own line, whether bulleted or not. Much easier to quickly assess the information. I have no problem with the look of bare cast lists - they break up the prose. However, we could make longer lists double-columned, as some already are. That would greatly reduce the "bare" look, for those who object to it.

If we're going to point people to good examples, we should use ones that have the actors in their proper billing order. For that reason I would not use Alien (film). While it's quite a good article overall, it's main editor prefers changing cast orders to other styles, like alphabetical or order of appearance - even when the film did not do that. We should encourage people to use the film's billing order. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I rather like Erik's proposal; I agree that tables make sense for displaying different casts, but otherwise I'd go with a bulleted list. Also, I fully agree with Gothicfilm that a cast list should be ordered according to the film's billing order, and I'd support the inclusion of this in the rewritten guideline. That goes for the lead and the infobox, which should include only actors who received star billing, as well as a more-inclusive "Cast" section of bulleted starring roles and smaller roles in prose. Check out Prometheus (film) for what I'm talking about. Cliff Smith 04:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Concur with this well-thought-out proposal. I also like the idea, with bare lists, of having the option to make them two-column; I would include this as an option in the rewritten MOS so as to head off any disputes over this down the road. I'd also stress the WP:INDISCRIMINATE point that we don't need to list every last "Thug #2." --Tenebrae (talk) 08:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

What is the meaning of this: "If roles are described outside of the plot summary, keep such descriptions concise and relevant to real-world context." The plot summary doesn't normally include character descriptions so those go in the Cast section as a rule. Maybe it should say: "Character descriptions should be concise." --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Concise statement about being concise? No way! :) I suppose my thinking is to recommend not providing additional in-universe information unless it relates to out-of-universe information. Let's say we have a concise character description. If we have some real-world context about a specific aspect of the character, then we could have a little extra in-universe detail to serve as background. To make up an example, maybe the character knows martial arts or uses some kind of weapon, and that could be mentioned as a lead-in to explaining how the actor trained for it. Or something to do with the character's background that the actor had to work to convey. I'll rewrite that sentence and include others' recommendations too, though not today. Others are welcome to edit the draft if they want! Erik (talk | contribs) 17:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Cast section should succinctly say who the character is within the context of the film, e.g., "Gertrude, Hamlet's mother". --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Well according to the MOS I think it should be "Gertrude: Hamlet's mother", but yes it should give a quick idea of their role and not, say this edit where the user gives a three film history for certain characters and a rundown of events in that film for the others up to and including their end. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly not. Too often I have to revert people who feel the need to give the plot away in the cast list/section. I look forward to seeing Erik's rewrite, which might make that point clear, and incorporate other recommendations, such as keeping cast lists in the film's billing order. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

(reply to Ring) It might be obvious—it probably should be obvious in a well-written plot summary of Hamlet—that Gertrude is Hamlet's mother; it's pretty integral to the story. I think what Erik is getting at is that we don't need to repeat this in the cast section if the essence of the character is conveyed by the plot summary, and I would concur with that. Betty Logan (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I meant to say that I am fine with a concise primary description. For some films, it may not be needed in a cast list. What I meant by real-world context is that there is a secondary description of the character that is explored by coverage. For example:

• John Doe as Dr. William Smith
• John Doe as Dr. William Smith, a brain surgeon
• John Doe as Dr. William Smith, a brain surgeon who begins suffering hallucinations. For the role, Doe visited mental hospitals and read literature about others' experiences.^[1]

I think that this is probably too nuanced for the guidelines. I'll go with Ring Cinema's concise wording, but we can also talk about when to include any description at all. Seems like descriptions tend to show up in bulleted lists and not normally tables. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

For a good encyclopedia, concise character descriptions are not an extravagance, even if they are somewhat redundant. Important facts can be mentioned more than once. The emphasis in the Cast section on offscreen machinations leans a bit too much fanboy and not enough reference perhaps. I think that for people looking for basic information, we are the primary stop. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be mixed feelings about how complete the cast should be. Many seem to frown on a list, but without a list some characters won't be mentioned, which for a reference is not so good. How does this plan address the issue of completeness? --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

My personal preferences; I can go either way on list vs. plot vs. casting with prose. In general it depends on the article. But there are certain articles where I think having the list is truly ideal and the hypothetical you're describing is basically that scenario. I think it was the Crazies where once we'd finished the plot (first round was basically my work, others tweaked it later) there were several named characters (i.e. not crazie #12 or other extras) that didn't land in the plot summary because of how simple that film is to describe concisely. So the list really needed to be included to get all of the major and supporting characters that had actual named credits mentioned in the article. I know I've seen some other film articles that had a similar situation. Someone upthread noted an example they use where it's "Actor as Character", followed by a paragraph description, followed by a prose list of other supporting actors. THat would seem to address this problem as well. Millahnna (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

New draft

I reworded parts of the draft. Per Betty's recommendation, I made clear that it is up to the editor and also mentioned building toward consensus. I mentioned multiple columns and grouping in prose as options for secondary cast members if it suits the article. I also mentioned billing as one of the rules of thumb for listing actors; I think there needs to be a wide consensus to require using the billing. Per Ring Cinema's recommendation, I made the role description concise. Let me know what you think. I would also like to know if you want to include examples. If so, which examples should we use? I recommend Good and Featured Articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

A table in the plot summary? I don't think so. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

That is based on Betty's recommendation at WT:FILM#Cast in plot. I'm fine with that as one possible approach if it is presentable. I'd prefer a small table preceding the summary over one to the side, since the latter runs the risk of "colliding" with the infobox, especially with "Plot" being the first section in nearly all film articles. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

But a table like that would go in the Cast section, not the plot summary. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Generally I agree, Ring, but sometimes there isn't a "cast" section, and the table in this scenario was specifically proposed as a compromise between a section comprising just a bare list of names and parenthesised actors names in the plot summary; it was basically a midpoint between the two approaches. I would be just as happy having it in the production section though. The main point of contention for me is those cast lists which are just a bare list of names plonked in the middle of an article. It looks pretty unsophisticated in an otherwise well-written article. Generally there isn't a problem on FA and GA articles which have well-writteng cast sections, but in cases where we have just a list of names it would be great if we could make them look more integrated with what is primarily a prose style. Betty Logan (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest for the first paragraph:

The Cast section covers three aspects of the film's fictional people: the characters in the story, the actors who play the roles, and material on real world casting and production. Three key elements may shape the article's presentation: 1) the prominence of the cast in the film, 2) the amount of real-world context for each cast member or the cast as a whole, and 3) the structure of the article. Editors are encouraged to lay out such content in a way that best serves readers for the given topic. As always, build toward a consensus. The key elements are discussed in detail: --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm mostly fine with that wording. What about "Casting" sections, though? And is it ever a possibility that a film article would not have either section, such as with a small cast with all casting details covered in a brief "Production" section? That's why I didn't want to specify a place for details. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

DItto Erik on the wording and the question we might want to clarify. Ring, take a look at the Example Betty used for her table visual aid and you'll understand why she put it in the plot section for that particular instance. It sort of replaces the bulleted cast list in articles that have them and was intended (I believe) as an alternative to the parenthetical cast notations in the plot (which usually work fine but can sometimes be awkward). ALthough, now that you mention it, in articles with a really fleshed out casting section (as opposed to just a bulleted list cast section) such a box might go well there instead. But I'm flexible on this stuff. As long as we get everything we can find in the article and it looks nice (and doesn't read too awkwardly) I'm good. Millahnna (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I am completely on board taking out parenthetical casting in the plot summary, but why wouldn't a cast table be in the Cast section? I mean, just on the level of labeling. But maybe you are right. And yes, Erik, a Casting section would sometimes be just the thing, just as sometimes I think it would be great for, say, American Civil War films to have a Characters section that says who is fictional and who is based on someone real, with a different section that covers the actors and their roles. Perhaps Casting should be encouraged to go in Pre-Production (or whatever), but we are pretty far down the river to go back to that, aren't we? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the idea is that if you have a small casting and a separate cast section, you can add a small table (see Fight Club, i dont think its the kind of table you think it is) to the plot as a reference card, instead of having a section with a handful of names in it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. Fight Club's cast table is excellent, but it's not in the Plot section. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I found Betty's example. She used Halloween for it here. In that case the table landed in the plot section. It looks pretty good on my widescreen monitor but I'm not sure how it will look for other browser monitor configurations. Millahnna (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It works well, but there are going to be issues about completeness, right? I have no idea how it was decided who belongs in the Halloween list. Speaking roles? Characters with names? Listed on the one sheet? Any non-extra? It's probably another discussion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest that the Cast table include no character not mentioned (or named, if we want to be restrictive) in the plot summary? That would do away with the parentheticals and keep a lid on it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that relationship would work as a requirement, but I'm fine with it as a rule of thumb for which actors and roles to list. I assume this still means that if preferred, minor actors and roles (and cameos) can be mentioned after the table? Erik (talk | contribs) 13:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ring Cinema, what rewording do you propose? I'd like to import the draft to the guidelines soon. Will give WT:FILM another notification. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is the chance for a consensus on more at the moment. It's fine as far as it goes. Perhaps the place to mention the cast table in the plot summary is in the section on the summary. Many of these matters are for editors, not guidelines. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that we just had a kerfluffle about this, I'm a bit concerned that there's no reference to the "don't include labels like 'protagonist'" consensus... unless we've decided that we can just blatantly handle it as an OR issue without providing further explicit explanation. Doniago (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Please don't encourage tables. Tables create a barrier to entry, lots of annoying wikisyntax for editors to deal with, and they discourage editors from expanding the cast list into the kind of prose sections that are the end result we are hoping for. Reintroducing tables for the cast section would be a step back to something we deliberately moved away from. For that same reason editors should not delete cast lists, at least not before an article has reached GA status. Without the list as a starting point editors are unlikely to add more information and expand the section into the kind of prose most of us would like to see. I would also be very cautious about putting too much emphasis on presentation instead of content, tables and lists of columns have a bad habit of looking terrible on different devices and screen sizes. -- 109.77.106.153 (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I come here from the aforementioned Dredd article. There, I've started a discussion on the value of the Cast section mentioning "cannon fodder" characters whose name is never mentioned or seen in the film, don't have more than a handful of lines, and do nothing really relevant for the plot. I'm not at all into mentioning filler characters, but what really gets me is that I find it totally meaningless to read "Actor X plays character Y" if you watch the film ten times and see no signs of any character being identified as "character Y". Even if the character has a relevance (be it for its role in the film, or for the actor playing it), in these cases what I'd suggest is giving a realistically useful reference to identify the character, instead of a meaningless name shown only in the credits roll. --uKER (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Characters in Plot Section - First name? Last name? Either?

Someone just revised the Plot section for The Net, replacing references to the main character by her last name with her first name. Is there a consensus as to whether first name or last name is preferred when referring to a character in the plot section of an article? Thanks for your input! Doniago (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I say go with surname. It's more formal and encyclopaedic-sounding, and is consistent with how we treat "real world" names (you wouldn't see an overview of WWII discussing "Adolf" and "Winston"). Obviously there'll be exceptions, a work might not give a character's full name or there may be several characters with the same surname (so Manhunter calls the character Molly Graham "Molly" as "Graham" is already used for the much-more-prevalent Will Graham, for example). But overall I'm wholly in favour of surnames for this kind of thing. Local consensus applies, though, if one exists. GRAPPLE X 16:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Common name used in the film so it is dependent on the film. ALiens for instance, everyone is referred to by their surname bar Newt, so Hicks, Ripley, Apone, Vasquez. Dazed and Confused, they're referred to variously by surname and forename but there is a distinct name used for each of them, so Pink, Pickford, O'Bannion, Wooderson, but also Tony, Sabrina, Melvin and Benny. The plot originally referred to Wooderson as David, a way he isn't referred to during the film and so I was confused as to who it was referring to despite having watched it a number of times. So I think it depends very much on the film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Generally use surname, but this is impossible with films that have several characters of the same family. e.g. Godfather trilogy, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 17:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Abysmally redundant descriptions of films' reception

It's common here in Wikipedia to read that a film had "mixed to negative" reception.
Now, "mixed" is a word that is equivalent with "some good reviews, some bad reviews". Then, there's "mostly negative", which could be defined as "some good, some bad, but mostly on the bad side".

However, there's people that, probably sympathizing with a film, don't like it reading "mostly negative", and change it to "mixed to negative". Now, "mixed to negative" would be somewhat equivalent of saying it had "some good, some bad, but mostly on the bad side, but not too much", which despite being probably well-intended, is awfully redundant.

Now, when I thought that was bad, today I met the next level in this progression, which is what triggered me to write this: in Transformers (film series) someone saw fit to say the films had "generally mixed to negative" reception.
I can't even wrap my head around that. "some good, some bad, but mostly on the bad side, but not always". I mean, really!?

I encourage editors to avoid and fight this, and in particular take it into account when performing article assessments, since it's become far too common. --uKER (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I despise the "x to y" wording, and I always remove it. Phrases like "mixed to positive" are essentially meaningless and almost always an attempt by "fans" to whitewash a less-than-flattering reception of a film. Either the reviews were predominantly positive, predominantly negative, or mixed. I always change it to one of those three. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly my sentiment. --uKER (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

That would be a good addition to WP:RTMC. -- 109.77.106.153 (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I too dislike the "x to y" wording, as it seems to me to be the subjective interpretation of an article's editor as to the significance of a Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic rating. Why say something like "The film received mixed to positive reviews" at all? Why not simply begin a paragraph on critical reception with unsubjective, verifiable information like "The film received a 67% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 55% rating on Metacritics."? Primogen (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Not everybody is familiar with these websites, so it is necessary to explain how they aggregate reviews (and they do it in different ways). There is no need for editors to try to come up with interpretations when they can find a source reporting the critics' consensus. There is a related discussion here. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

@Illazilla - sorry you despise "x to y" wording without, apparently, even asking editor's intentions. It's not whitewashing, except to you. I have used the word "mixed" to refer to internally conflicted review(s), and "polarized reviews" when the opinions are, well, highly polarized. In these cases, the reader should just read the damn reviews, and not bother with the bullshit, snakeoil, review aggregators. Yeah, I despise this slavish, fannish "cite the aggregator" craze (ooooh, they're cited by Fox News!). I hope it fades soon, and their money-grubbing, unaccountable, unreliable math is exposed as the fraud that it is. Don't say it isn't, it is. It's an embarrassment. Aggregators' numbers are demonstrably useless except when the great majority of reviews agree, in which case the aggregator's numbers are redundant. There's no such thing as an "average" score, when so many reviewers don't give a score. --Lexein (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of "Top Critics" scores from Rotten Tomatoes

The issue of whether or not it is appropriate to report "Top Critics" scores from Rotten Tomatoes was raised at Talk:The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. It was widely agreed that they should not. Following that discussion, editor "2nyte" and I have both changed a number of pages to remove the "Top Critics" scores. Editor "DrNegative" has noted that WP:RTMC is an essay without binding authority and so if there is to be a general policy about "Top Critics" scores that it needs to be done here and editor "TheOldJacobite" has objected to several of my edits removing "Top Critics" scores. "DrNegative" wrote that this "needs to be made policy by the films project to have any real weight", so I posted about it at WP:RTMC. There, editor "Erik" suggested bringing it here, so here I am. I am asking for input to settle the matter as to whether or not policy should allow reporting "Top Critics" scores or not. 99.192.91.3 (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Cast in foreign films

Another editor and I disagree on the cast descriptions for L'Atalante. I want them to match what is credited onscreen followed by English translations (as does La Strada), while User:Deoliveirafan insists on English only. There's nothing in WP:MOSFILM that covers this. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Go entirely with the film's actual credits, pipe the links when necessary. No need to translate. If someone uses a screen name we don't list their real name in the credits too (for example, films starring Ida Galli don't list her by that name in the credits, they use Isli Oberon or Evelyn Stewart, so we pipe the link as Evelyn Stewart, rather than something like "Evelyn Stewart (Ida Galli)" or words to that effect). GRAPPLE X 00:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about characters whose names are not given, only descriptions: e.g. "le camelot" versus "the peddler". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Aha. I should probably have checked that out. In that case, I'd avoid an indescriminate cast list—mention the character, with their portraying actor, in the plot summary where there is room to explain who they are, but just skip having an IMDB-style cast list (I'm against these anyway unless they offer something in terms of real-world info, cf. Manhunter, but this time there's an additional reason for losing it). GRAPPLE X 00:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

English translations are original research. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Term limits....just planting seeds and hoping they bear fruit.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

What the heck does that mean? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Box office success/failure

I've posted a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film about the issue of films arbitrarily being called a box office "failure" or "success". I wasn't sure where to start the discussion, so please feel free to direct the discussion here in case this is the preferred location for such a discussion. --89.0.201.94 (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

For other readers this box office question was also posted on WP:TALK and answered there. Short answer WP:NOR. -- 109.77.106.153 (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics

As per the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Use_of_.22Top_Critics.22_scores_from_Rotten_Tomatoes, the general feeling is that Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics are inappropriate for a number of reasons, so here is a draft of the guideline provisions:

Top Critics

There is a consensus against using the "Top Critic" scores at Rotten Tomatoes based on several concerns expressed:

1. "Top Critic" scores are difficult to cite. Rotten Tomatoes operates regional divisions of its website, and unlike the "All Critic" scores which are the same for all regions, the "Top Critic" scores vary between regional editions, dependent on who has been designated a "Top Critic" for that particular area. Readers are automatically directed to the edition for their region, and since the region dependent URLs are masked, readers across the world see different scores for the same citation, leading to confusion that the data is incorrect.
2. Sample sizes for "Top Critics" may not be statistically significant, due to being typically much smaller than the sample size for the "All Critic" scores.
3. "Top Critic" scores are not consistent with the aims of aggregator scores on Wikipedia. The purpose behind using aggregators is to provide readers with an overview of how the film was critically received, and focusing on an exclusive subset of the available criticism may not reflect the prevalent view.
4. "Top Critic" scores may not be notable. The general "All Critic" score is more widely reported than the "Top Critic" score, so is the stat that Rotten Tomatoes is generally notable for.

Betty Logan (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Overall, I like it. I have one small suggestion. The first item is several sentences long, so it might be best to lead with the most key point. An editor who comes to the MOS unfamiliar with the reasons for not using "top critics" scores might think saying that they are "difficult to cite" is a rather minor inconvenience. But the more crucial issue is expressed later in the paragraph with the words "readers across the world see different scores for the same citation". So I would suggest making that the first sentence. I like the other three points as is. Well done! 99.192.78.59 (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with 99.192.78.59's suggestions. Another anonymous editor raised several other issues:

(A) A lot of movies are international co-productions. Taking, for example, the film page that launched this entire discussion, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, that film is listed as a New Zealand, United Kingdom, and United States co-production. So for a film like that there would be no way to settle which version of RT's "Top Critics" to use. Since many films are international co-productions, this would be a frequent problem, and so it is best to avoid it by not using the "Top Critics" scores from anywhere.

(B) Even in cases where there is a clear country of origin for a film, it does not follow that there will be a "Top Critics" list for that country. RT does not have as many different versions as they are countries, so if, for example, there is no "Top Critics" list that is specific to Sweden, then it would not be obvious which "Top Critics" report to use for any Swedish film. So again, this is a problem best avoided by forgoing the "Top Critics" scores altogether.

(C) Even in cases where there is one clear country of origin of a film AND there is a local version of RT's "Top Critics" there, it still is not a good reason to use that score. In the example Fanthrillers gave above for Stargate, the UK version of RT reports only one "Top Critics" review, and that one came from an American critic (Ebert). So using the UK version of RT's "Top Critics" offers no assurance that British critics are being counted at all.

- Fanthrillers (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with and applaud Betty Logan's excellent work, and support her wording with 99.192.78.59's suggestions. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, the "another anonymous editor" that Fanthrillers referred to is the same person who posted above as 99.192.78.59 and is also me. Its a dynamic IP address thing :) I appreciate Fanthrillers mentioning those comments here again, but I don't think they need to be included in the MOS as they are just reasons why the suggestion "just use the version of 'Top Critics' for the country of origin of a film" won't work. Including all that in the MOS might just over-complicate it. 99.192.64.166 (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sound suggestions. As per Tenebrae, I support the Betty/99.192 wording. - SchroCat (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Top Critics (re-draft)

There is a consensus against using the "Top Critic" scores at Rotten Tomatoes based on several concerns:

1. "Top Critic" scores are dependent on the region of the reader, meaning that readers across the world see different scores for the same citation, leading to confusion that the data is incorrect. Readers are automatically redirected to a "local" version of the site based on where they are, and since the region-dependent URLs are masked it makes if difficult to cite a specific set of scores.
2. The selection of which "Top Critics" data set to use also complicates matters due to each "local" version of the site having its own data. There is no reason to select the scores from one country over another, so arbitrarily selecting a data set risks violating WP:NPOV, while listing all the scores would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
3. Sample sizes for "Top Critics" may not be statistically significant, due to being typically much smaller than the sample size for the "All Critic" scores.
4. "Top Critic" scores are inconsistent with the aims of aggregator scores on Wikipedia. The purpose behind using aggregators is to provide readers with an overview of how a film was critically received, and focusing on an exclusive subset of the available criticism may not reflect the prevalent view.
5. "Top Critic" scores may not be notable. The general "All Critic" score is more widely reported than the "Top Critic" score, and is the statistic for which Rotten Tomatoes is generally notable.

I've incorporated the suggestions, so I'll leave this up for a few days, and if nobody requests any alterations I will transfer it to the MOS. Betty Logan (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I made some grammatical tweaks and copy edits. Nothing, I think, that changes content. The diff page will show them.

And again: Beautiful work, Betty. Herding cats is easier than getting Wikipedians to a conclusion! With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I also endorse this write-up per the extensive discussions we've had; it covers all the bases. Look forward to its implementation. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I like it too. Well done, and thanks again. 99.192.73.85 (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've transferred the guideline revisions into MOS:FILM#Reception, since there have been no objections. Betty Logan (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is AllRovi listed?

I've long wondered - Why is AllRovi routinely included in WP film article external links? It doesn't give anything useful not found on IMDb and other, better links like TCM. I never use it, as its credits list is disorganized and often gets credits wrong. The very example on the MoS page gives

• {{allrovi/movie|id=49101|title=The Terminator}} gives
  • The Terminator at AllMovie

If you click its Cast & Crew link, you'll see it lists the Production Manager as the Production Designer. That's ridiculous, and quite unreliable. It also gives relatively unimportant songwriters higher listing than major crew members. People often complain about too many ELs. I propose AllRovi be dropped as redundant and unreliable. For some reason the AFI and BFI are not included. They would be much better. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about this today too. (Was reviewing MOS:FILM.) I put up the template for deletion in 2009 as seen here, but it was kept. I'm not a fan of it as an external link and, like you, do not see the value. At the very least, we can drop it from the guidelines. I'm fine with discouraging its use if there is enough of a consensus for that. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that did create a debate in 2009. I don't have time to read all that, but what I saw does not convince me AllRovi should be kept. It's not at all reliable for credits. IMDb may not be perfect, but its credits are vetted, much better organized, and much more accurate, as you can see with The Terminator example. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If you can find the time, I recommend reviewing the TfD as well as this discussion for deprecation. Both pretty much make points from different angles. We could launch a RfC for editors to weigh in and review the consensus. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Didn't know this had previously generated so much discussion, and yet AllRovi is still routinely listed. I like this title from the same page: Why does this template exist?

I think this might deserve another full discussion, since AllRovi has a hired staff doing inputting and who give their bylines on the site's biographies. As well, as venerable a source as The New York Times licenses its movie database from AllRovi. Every' source makes an occasional mistake — even the BFI, which says director Oley Sassone is the son of Vidal Sassoon, which isn't true. I'm not sure how we could make a case to include the wikia IMDb in ELs and not include a widely used, 23-year-old database inputted and written by a professional staff. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It cannot be overstated how important good organization of credits is. The NYT film database is terribly disorganized, and often has inaccuracies, just like AllRovi. The IMDb has good organization of categories if you look at its combined details or full cast and crew pages. And the AFI and BFI are much more reliable for accurate credit listings. The Sassone bio is not a credit listing (though that is a problem). - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding IMDb, I think it falls under WP:ELMAYBE #4 because it covers so many different elements of a film that would not fit in an encyclopedic format. One aspect that comes to mind is the NewsDesk, which links to relevant news articles. Not to mention that it is an immensely popular website, and I doubt there could ever be a consensus to remove it as an external link. It is basically WikiProject Film's database brother. Getting back to AllRovi, I think that we tend to pile up external links just because we can. For example, some TCM database links are likely more valuable than others in certain articles, but I think they proliferate just because a film has a page in said database. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think if a site offers nothing beyond production credits then it probably doesn't belong as an external link. You can get credit information from the film itself, so a link to credits doesn't really enhance the encyclopedic value of the article. There are many of these types of sites, besides Allrovi you have the AFI and BFI equivalents, TCM, Yahoo movies, they aren't exactly unique. IMDB offers a lot of peripheral information which is useful (although complicated by the fact it is user generated), while TCM sometimes has articles and videos about the film so sometimes qualifies on those terms. I have never come across an Allmovie page that sufficiently adds to the encyclopedic scope of an article; that's not to say there aren't exceptions, but I don't see the point of automatically adding links, so I would have no problem with the template being ditched since it just encourages misuse. Betty Logan (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been working with our silent film articles for a few months and a number of them have links to Allrovi's plot summary for the film. Since many of these films are lost or unavailable for viewing this is possibly the only way to provide such a summary. I don;t know whether that is a reason to keep the links over the arguments to delete them. I just thought I would mention it for those of you who were unaware of the situation. MarnetteD | Talk 23:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

That's useful, and they should be available as references. At the TfD for this template, one of the opposing arguments was that the link could potentially be used as a source at some point. It would be nice to migrate the link itself to the talk page in the process of deprecating the template to address this concern. Maybe a bot is capable of doing that? Erik (talk | contribs) 23:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of how to program bots is nil but I can tell you that the plot summaries always have a v in them as in this one "the-auction-block-v84121" - Whether that can be of any help will be up to those that know what they are doing. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 00:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about bots, so I can't comment on that. In practice, I don't list AllRovi under EL; I've occasionally cited it via The New York Times as a footnote reference for very specific things, so if the decision goes against listing it as an EL, I don't think that would be a big hardship. I'd be very concerned if there were any suggestion not to use it at all as a reference, due to the considerations of my earlier post. Otherwise, I'd agree that we do have plenty of other EL sources already and probably shouldn't add to the clutter. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to using a specific AllRovi page as a ref for info when needed, as MarnetteD mentions above. But usually AllRovi gives no info that can't be easily found elsewhere, so it should not be included as an EL on every film page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The IMDb isn't perfect either and I like to believe the Wikipedia doesn't depend on the IMDb. Besides that I share Tenebrae's opinion. --NordhornerII (talk) _The man from Nordhorn 22:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I set up an RfC regarding AllRovi as an external link. The RfC can be seen on the template talk page here. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

film and other work titles: "shorter than five letters" rule / general capitalization rules discussion over at WT:MoS

People frequenting this talk page, please see this. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Nationality in lead sentence

I would like to expand the lead section sub-guidelines to address the nationality element of the lead sentence better. Right now, MOS:FILM#Lead section says, "Ideally, the nationality of the film should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is ambiguous, clarify the circumstances at a later point in the first paragraph." I would argue that this best applies in a singular sense (e.g., American film, British film, not American-British film) unless such a national co-production is clearly evidenced in prose (as opposed to database entries). Otherwise, when the collaboration is multinational, I think that this normally transcends a need for mentioning nationality off the bat. To cite an example, Blindness (film) is a Canadian-Brazilian-Japanese production. While we list these countries in the film infobox, mention of this collaboration is unnecessarily prominent in the lead sentence, especially without any indication of which country did what. The international background can instead be diffused in the rest of the lead section. I think that mentioning the language, (in the case of Blindness, "English-language film"), is a reasonable alternative to have. The specific change I propose is, "If the nationality of the film is singular and straightforward, it can be characterized as such in the opening sentence. If more than one country is involved in the production, nationality can be de-emphasized by skipping mention in the lead sentence and explaining the roles later in the lead section. In such cases, the film's primary language can serve as an appropriate alternative. For example, 'American-British film' can be replaced by 'English-language film'." That's my initial proposal, and I'm open to re-wording it better. For what it's worth, this discussion was prompted by Inception and this discussion. I am hoping we can head off a few unnecessary skirmishes this way. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we should move away from nationality (which is covered in the infobox anyway) and move towards the identity of the film. First and foremost, The Dark Knight is a Batman film. Skyfall is a James Bond film. Both of these articles drop nationalities from the lede. Something like Caché that was a French-Austrian production is simply identified as a "French language film". Casablanca as an all-American classic is fairly identified as an "American" film. The purpose of the first sentence is to identify the film, and nationality is one way of doing that, but not always the best way. In some cases it just isn't relevant, especially in these multinational franchise productions, and in other cases a film is closely identified with its national film industry. Betty Logan (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting removing the nationality from the lead sentence? I think the nationality works as an identifier when the background is straightforward. Along with the year and the genre(s), it helps set up expectations for what is about to be read. I'm fine with alternate identifiers for franchise films, but they're a drop in the bucket in terms of film count. I think that year/nationality/genre suffices for the majority of films; there are just a few films where the nationality becomes an issue, and I'm hoping to address that here. We can talk about genre too, but I've seen more nationality-related disputes in recent months. Do you have anything in mind regarding the current guidelines or my write-up? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Betty, I believe that Cache is identified as it is because some editors insisted it was an Italian film, too, and I think even Swiss, if memory serves. Clearly you are correct that it is a French-Austrian film, but not by our guidelines. As far as Erik's suggestion, it seems that too much is put on the first sentence currently. Title, medium, genre, nationality, (and for other reasons of basic identification, makers and year all seem de rigueur). First paragraph, okay, these things should be there. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think nationality is essential and shouldn't be omitted. I generally support Erik's proposal, with perhaps one modification. For movies with an awful lot of international co-producers we could focus more on the active production countries (those with companies represented by "producers", as opposed to executives, co-producers etc). The lead section for a massive Europudding could then go: "X is a 2013 English-language film directed by bla bla bla .... Production was led by the German company Y, with co-producers in 16 other countries." There could of course be other circumstances worth mentioning, like main investors. What it comes down to is that the lead should be a good summary of the article body, so we need a bit of flexibility depending on what the production section says. But we also have to keep in mind that the international blockbusters are the anomaly - most movies are small and local, with very easily defined nationalities. Smetanahue (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your opening statement; I believe nationality is really really low on the list of priorities when dealing with a film, especially in cases where pinning it down correctly is a complex and volatile task. 99% of the time I'd rather it was just skipped and we saved ourselves years of collective man-hours of hassle. GRAPPLE X 01:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I find myself somewhat inclined to agree with this. If the nationality of a film is significant in some matter (enough to merit more than a mention in the lead) then it may be worth writing something up on the subject for that particular film, but in many cases it seems to me that editors are adding a nationality simply to include it and without necessarily exercising due dilligence. Does the nationality of Inception really matter with regards to understanding the film, or is it a trivia point which, once added in any capacity, has only resulted in a degree of debate disproportionate to the significance of the matter? Doniago (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this runs counter to the fact that many film institutions define a film's nationality according to other criteria. It is not workable to insist that the production companies define a film's nationality when that view is not shared by national film institutes. The nationalities of other participants are also accounted for in these cases. This matter has been much discussed on previous occasions. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Erik's proposal is generally ok in the singular case i.e. if a Chinese company makes a film in China, and it is universally acknowledged as such there isn't a problem. The idea of film nationality arose out of the concept of localised film-making—more than that, film 'nationality' is defined by the relationship of the film to localised film-producing. Outside of the traditional definition I think there are three basic scenarios: i) satellite productions, such as when an American production is made in another country i.e. Star Wars (an American film produced in Britain); ii) internationally financed 'local' films i.e. Superman & Terminator 2 (British and American productions respectively that were financed by selling advance distribution rights); iii) proper international co-productions i.e. Cache (essentially a co-production between France and Austria according to the film credits—although it received funding as well from German and Italy). This can be made very simple, by just stating that a 'nationality' should only be provided if the authorship can be attributed to a single country. We seem to have nationality discussions every few months, and I think our mistake is that we keep trying to tailor the definition of a nebulous concept to cases where it doesn't really apply, or even matter that much. Betty Logan (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is not in keeping with the industry standards or sources about nationality. For example, to be eligible for the Oscar for foreign films, the Academy rules are that "the submitting country must certify that creative control of the motion picture was largely in the hands of citizens or residents of that country." Notice no mention of the production company. Production company nationality and a film's nationality are only sometimes congruent. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect Ring, I haven't said anywhere that 'nationality' is defined by its "production company", in fact what I did say is that a film's nationality is defined by its relationship to localised film-making, which I think implies more than corporate authorship. Betty Logan (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If I got you wrong, okay, I'm sorry, but the detail you give on Cache is only about funding. With respect, that is not correct as a method to determine nationality. Apparently, AMPAS is not concerned with the source of funds, and that makes sense. A film shot in Paris with a French crew and cast from a French script can't be a German film, or Italian. I can sort of accept that it's Austrian because of the director (and I would guess the crew) but that film is very, very French. The fact that it can be disputed is not an indication that Wikipedia has a good handle on this. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the point I'm making: a national identity is defined by the relationship to localised production, and funding does impact on that relationship, and to what extent depends on the criteria. Some sources obviously (or lazily) consider it more significantly than others when considering its nationality, which is why some attribute German nationality while others don't. We don't have to pin our colors to the mast though inthe lede, but in the cases where there is no dissent between sources and there is no external international participation of any form, then we can call a spade a spade. Betty Logan (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I may agree with you but I'm not sure what you mean. AMPAS doesn't seem to take the view that funding sourcing is tied to national identity, but that it flows from the creative control of the films. I think the reason for that is straightforward: outside investors are not uncommon in the film industry, and those investors are aware of what they are funding. A German doesn't invest in a film shot in Paris with a French cast and script and director in order to make a German film. Rather, the investment is for the creative team to do their thing and produce what they produce. (The contrary, however, is not the case: a director doesn't say, "Hey, I want to make a German film, so we have to raise money from Germans.") Notwithstanding that every rule has its exception, the AMPAS criterion is sensible and promulgated by an international leader in cinema. Now, maybe that is more or less what you are saying, too. I'm not sure. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Not expecting to necessarily get a lot of support for this view, but the fact that we're going back-and-forth about this as much as we are is only increasing my feeling that, objectively speaking, we're turning a molehill into a mountain, and that it might be best to omit nationality unless it's a controversial issue for a particular film, much as we do with the film's rating. In those cases it would merit more than a simple mention in the lead, of course. Just my two cents on the matter. Doniago (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Betty's first post in this section is very sensible. The first sentence should efficiently identify the film by its chief characteristics. Maybe nationality is part of that, maybe not. The guidelines, unfortunately in my view, say "at a minimum", and I'd like that language out. There is plenty of space on the Internet to cover the key points. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we are all pretty much on the same page here. The "at minimum" sentence does not even mention nationality. We can change the "Ideally" nationality-related sentence to say, "If the nationality is singular and straightforward, it can be stated in the lead sentence. If not..." we come up with understandable wording for mentioning different aspects here, like the production companies, filming locations, etc. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Again with the production companies? Again, AMPAS does not mention them in the context of identifying nationality. Neither do they mention the locations of the filming or the setting. They are concerned that individuals who exercised creative control are citizens or residents of the country, and they certainly speak with authority. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about details in the lead section, beyond the first sentence, where we have room to talk about different elements. From what I've seen, some editors use certain elements (like production companies) to argue for a certain nationality for the film in that first sentence. If we skip mentioning nationality in the first sentence and instead cover different angles, like filming in so-and-so country, collaborating with local companies there, we can avoid any fussing. One example that comes to mind are the Lord of the Rings films, where the Weta companies based in New Zealand helped with the production. Do you know what I mean? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If editors use erroneous criteria, the place to bring the prominent sources to their attention is in the guidelines. AMPAS defines a film's nationality by the citizens and residents of the creative personnel. They don't refer to the production companies or the location of the filming as you do. There are many institutions that have considered the meaning of nationality for a film. AMPAS is one. BFI has criteria. There is a 19 point scale used in conjunction with the European Convention on Cinematographic Co-production that is helpful. None of them identify a film's nationality first or foremost on the basis of production company. From my research, I see all referring to important personnel and not all referring to production companies. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Even if the criteria is considered erroneous, it still would not be a bad thing to mention filming locations and production companies in the lead section. Are you saying you don't like the implication that it is somehow connected to nationality? What I am saying is that if people are using such criteria (however erroneous) to define the nationality, by diffusing such details throughout the lead section, we can cover these elements, which can be read however they want. How about we work with an example? For Inception, BFI says the production countries are Great Britain and USA. Skipping nationality in the lead sentence, what should we mention later in the lead section? British film director Christopher Nolan, American studio Warner Bros.? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm also curious about the AMPAS criteria. I'm trying to understand it better myself. I see that AMPAS says for Fellowship of the Ring in the database, "New Line Cinema and Wingnut Films Production; New Line. [New Zealand/U.S.A.]". How should I read this? Where should one look? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be more important to mention key personnel than locations and production, given the content of the sources. For another comparison, take a look at the French method for determining which films are French here. They mention creative personnel, production company, language, locations, equipment, and workers. For their purposes, the production company (10%) is half as important as the language of the film (20%). The British use similar standards in determining what makes a film British. We don't lack for sources so we don't have to make things up. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If I may suggest a rough and ready standard, I would say that if the director's nationality or country of residence, the film's language, and the home country of the principal production company are the same, then there's no question about the film's nationality. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, we are going down the road of setting our own criteria. The reality is that AMPAS (an entirely credible body) may not use production companies as a criteria while another may do (the American Film Institute—another credible body—obviously factor it in in some capacity). There is no right and wrong here, just a weighting of criteria. No source in reality trumps another source, at least by our own rules. However the gist of Erik's original comment as I took it, that if these different sources identify one country and only country then essentially there is no problem with identifying that country. The problems only arise when multiple sources start to identify multiple countries, sometimes different countries. In such cases I would prefer to omit the non-singular cases from the lede, and just cover the different national interests later on in the production section. Betty Logan (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, you are right. We don't have to get into having a standard except in what we say in the guideline. In other words, if we try to guide editors that in some clear cases the country is a useful identifier for the lede, we are giving a standard when we try to express what is clear. In that context, our words might should reflect what sources say on the subject of film nationality. For that purpose I offered my rough and ready tripartite test. Even your standard, Betty, of unanimity among extant sources, leads to problems and strange results. For that reason, a guideline that suggests three nationalities to check based on the standards of major film institutions might be an improvement. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)