Talk:Female (1933 film)

Cast
Can you point me to the part of MoS that says that italics shouldn't be used for roles, to help differentiate them from actor's names? I can't seem to find it. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  06:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The format is specified as "ACTOR as CHARACTER", and the example given is "Robert Russell as John Stearne" (bolding used when there is extensive following text.) Also, if you check other film articles, very few of them italicize the character names, so to be consistent, it's better to follow the example of the 99%, rather than the 1%. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As I thought, there is no proscription against it. The example in the MoS is just that, an example, not Holy Writ to be followed slavishly.  That being the case, I'm going to restore the italice, which I believe make it easier to read the list, and is a device frequently used (although not necessarily on Wikipedia) to make cast listing more functional for the reader.  Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  08:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, if you have a reason for not using italics which isn't simply reference to a (non-existant) clause in the MoS, anything to do with functionality or ease of use or visual design, I'm all ears. I don't have some special jones for italics, I'm just trying to help make the page more functional for the reader. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  08:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So it doesn't matter to you that FA-class articles like Casablanca, Psycho, The Godfather etc., and all of the top 20 AFI greatest films that have a cast section do not use italics? That only a tiny minority of editors feel it is an enhancement? That a little consistency in format is good? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Putting aside for the moment the fact that this article is a stub, and not a candidate to be a Featured Article, that other articles have reached FA status without italics in the cast list doesn't logically tell us anything at all about whether they would have reached FA status with italics in the cast list, although I concede that it may indeed be likely that people who review articles for FA status may be overattached to their perception of what the MoS says about formatting, even though it actually doesn't say it (or even imply it, for that matter). As for your second point, if italics in cast lists are routinely or systematically deleted without giving people a chance to see them and get used to them, as it seems may be the situation, then it hardly seems unusual that "only a tiny minority of editors" think they help - if that's indeed the case. Sure, I agree that a certain amount of consistency in presentation is a good thing, but I hardly think that the reader is going to come across this article after reading other film articles and be thrown for a loop by the use of italics in the cast list. It truly is a minor variation that most people won't even consciously be aware of, even though it does help to make the list easier to read. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  10:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "...it may...be likely that people...may be overattached..."? That's pretty weak. Frankly, if you have to resort to remote psychoanalysis, there's not much point in continuing this. You've made up your mind, come hell or high water. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not true at all. I can be easily swayed, but only by a argument which has something to do with countering my underlying contention, which is that the italics make the list easier to read.  Use of the Argument from Authority, in whatever guise it's couched in, don't carry much weight for me, whereas an argument regarding functionality does. "Remote psychoanalysis" has nothing whatsoever to do with it, making an article that's easy to use does. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  15:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have posted this to WP:Third Opinion. Also note that I removed italics from My Man Godfrey, citing WP:MOS, which was reverted without a refutation. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt this opinion will be taken at face value considering the past disagreements between Ed and I, but I don't see much of an improvement with italics. It doesn't necessarily make the article easier to read, since contrast is already provided by the linked actor names. It seems redundant, really.
 * However, I can understand the logic behind the italics. Italic font is used to contrast words, and would help to differentiate between actors and their characters. But it seems to me that the precedent set by other, larger articles indicates that italics are unnecessary. --clpo13(talk) 20:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of your opinions - we've had differences, but I've never had the idea that you automatically take the opposite stance from me for the sake of it. That's not just WP:AGF, I've just never seen any indication of that from you. That said, clearly I disagree that the italics don't help, and especially that there's any precedential value to what happens in other articles.  It really depends on what information is being presented.  For instance, I've done a lot of work on The Godfather, and keep a close watch on it, but I've never changed or tried to change the character names to italics there, because there's more information being presented and the way it's formatted is perfectly readable and functions well for the user.  I don't think that "one size fits all" is true, one has to make the choices which work best for the specific situation. For instance, when I recently converted the cast list on Duck Soup from a table to a list, I used both bold and italics for the character name, because of the descriptions which followed after - the added distinctiveness was needed to help the character name stand out.  But because that works well, doesn't mean I would necessarily advocate that all character names need to be bold and italicized, although I probably wouldn't object to it of someone else decided it was a better presentation. I take as a given that we are here to provide the user of the encyclopedia good information, well presented, and that, while consistency and uniformity certainly have their value when they make it easier for the user to know what to expect, rigid conformity is not useful because it prevents an evaluation from being made under the specific circumstances of what works best.  And, as I've said in many places at many times, it's important to remember that the MoS is not dogma, it's a guideline.  An example of good usage in the MoS isn't a marching order for strictly enforcing that example no matter what the situation -- if that's what the MoS intended, it would say something like "All cast lists must follow this example," which, of course, it does not. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  20:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Italics are not used this way in other published works, so why should Wikipedia be different? No well-known styleguides recommend italics for characters. Using italics this way makes us look like a bunch of undereducated amateurs. And if you want to differentiate clearly the characters from the actors, the word "as" already does this perfectly well. Cop 663 (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Many publications use a series of dots to connect an actor's name to the character played, but this doesn't work well on Wikipedia (see this versus this), and it would be wrong to use it here simply because others do. In any event, there is no "standard" way of presenting cast lists, each site does what work best in its particular circumstance. IMDB tabs them into a column preceded by some dots, TCM puts them under the actor name in parentheses and AllMovie Gude uses a dash followed by the character name in italics (please note).  I work in the theatre, and if I grab a handful of programs from my files, I can find a half-dozen different styles of presenting a cast list. What will make us look like "amateurs" is if we don't present the information we have to impart in the best possible way, nothing else.  Italics helps to visually differentiate between two classes of information presented on a single line, and is useful for that reason. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  22:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Meh. I think "as" does the job just fine, but that's just me. This discussion really belongs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines; I would recommend raising the issue there since only fans of screwball comedy will notice this discussion and you'll get better feedback. Or perhaps Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting). Cop 663 (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the edit wars associated with this discussion spanning various articles makes this issue a candidate for Lamest edit wars, and is in competition with the previous italicization war over at What would Jesus do?. I would prefer if Ed would stop italicizing until this issue is resolved on WP:MOSFILMS. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 00:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to suggest that the couple of reversions over a couple of articles is a pretty darn lame definition of an "editwar", especially since discussion about it started up almost immediately! :) If there's a meta-discussion about it somewhere, I'll be glad to participate in it, and the status quo of articles (in whatever form they're in) can be kept in place while that discussion is ongoing. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  01:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ummm .... Is there a discussion somewhere? I don't see it - can someone point the way?  Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  04:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * By my estimate, about 95% of the films have the cast in list form without italics or just with as in italics, another 5% use tables, and whatever is left over has the characters' names italicized. That's a pretty solid consensus. I agree with Cop 663 and Viriditas that if Ed Fitzgerald wants the guidelines changed, he should bring it up for discussion in the proper Wikiproject Films forum and not try changing it single-handedly, especially since it's not even the second choice. (I also admit that this is a bit lame, though I'm sure there are disputes out there that are much sillier...somewhere.) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * From what Viriditas wrote, I was under the impression that there was a discusion about this subject already going on, in which I would have been glad to participate, but that does not seem to be the case. Instead, I guess what I'm being told is that I have to bring it up -- but, in fact, since the MoS clearly doesn't disallow using italics, I see no reason why I should raise the issue at all.  There's no particlar reason to change the guidelines, because the guidelines don't say what you seem to believe they do. The use of italics is perfectly reasonable, functions well for the user, and is not in any way, shape, or form proscribed, so I don't really see any reason not to format cast list as I find most appropriate. I think perhaps the fundamental philosophical difference here is that I believe that what is not explicitly forbidden is permitted, while you folks seems to believe that what is not explicitly permitted is forbidden - and that the "guidelines" are, in fact, explicit requirements to hew totally and completely to a specific format.  I don't think it's reasonable to read the guidelines and come away with that sense of what they are intended to be. My apologies for lameness, but further problems can easily be avoided if editors are given just a little bit of leeway to format in a way that best serves the material, and aren't forced to hew to a party line about something as trivial as this.  If the whole thing's all that silly, then why not just let it go?  After all, who the heck am I harming? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  07:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I saw a request at WP:3O. I agree with Clarityfiend's 07:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC), though I don't know of any MOS that says we should do so. However, WP:MOS says that we shouldn't put these things in italics, and I agree with that. To Ed, I understand your frustration that there is no specific statement either way, however I suggest you respect the consensus on 99% of film articles, including (I think all) film featured articles. Besides...it's not really that big a deal is it :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The status quo is not a true indication of "consensus", because people are going around re-editing things on the basis that the MoS says there is one and only one format to be used, and that's not the case. The Argument from Authority carries a lot of weight with most people, who will knuckle under if you tell them that the "rules" don't allow what they're doing.  Well, in point of fact, the "rules" are only guidelines, and those guidelines don't say what they're being represented as saying.  Is it any wonder that under that kind of pressure the party line is predominant?  Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  17:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as no one supports Ed's use of italics, I have removed them here and in My Man Godfrey. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For those interested, I offered Clarityfiend a "live and let live" compromise, where basically I wouldn't try to enforce my preferred formatting on existing articles but would continue to use it (when I thought it was appropriate) on articles I created from scratch or where I added a cast section to an article that didn't have one, but I was rejected. You can see that exchange on my talk page and, a little more fully, on his tlak page. I'm sorry that Clarityfiend couldn't see his way clear to work together, but I've nevertheless decided to uphold my end of the proposed compromise anyway.  I also offer, again, to discuss this in a more general forum, rather than here on the talk page of an obscure article, but I don't feel it's my responsible to begin that discussion, since what I'm doing is clearly allowable according to the MoS, and it's Clarityfiend who needs some kind of more restrictive interpretation of it. I feel somewhat depressed and discouraged by this outcome, since I've seen that Clarityfiend generally does good work of film articles, and it's rather disheartening to find myself at loggerheads with another editor who does quality work. I won't be back here to respond to any comments left here, since, as part of my proferred compromise, I promised I would unwatch this page after I restored Clarityfiend's formatting.  I am, of course, available on my talk page for those wishing to express their opinions. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  01:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)