Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 18

Where to mention spin-offs?
The guideline only mentions that they should mentioned in a later paragraph in the lead, but in what section should such material appear in the article body? --Paul_012 (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Most well-developed articles have a "sequel" section: see Jaws_(film) and Alien_(film) for examples. Betty Logan (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Those Sequel subsections appear under a larger Legacy section, which is warranted for influential films like the examples given, but what about a recent film with a single sequel but nothing else to discuss in terms of legacy? --Paul_012 (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I see some FAs combine them into a "Reception and legacy" section—that's probably an option. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , I would recommend a "Sequel" section at the end of the article body using the main template and a summary of the sequel in a summary style (like what is outlined at WP:SUMMARY). It can be an even shorter summary of the sequel article's own lead section, e.g., one paragraph. That way a reader can get a decent overview of the sequel, and if they really want, they can go to the sequel article for more details. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

To be or not to be a subsection
I recently adjusted the Deadpool 2 page to re-order the sections to be in compliance with MOS on sectioning. As it originally stood (see here), Release had a single subsection for marketing. The only other information in that section was a line about the release date of the film. I separated the two (see here) because of the primary reason that you cannot have single subsections. This is basic MOS for all articles. As such, I separated Marketing by itself (which is in the FILM MOS as a viable option if there is enough information) and moved the single line about the release date to the "Reception", mostly because we don't need an entire section devoted to a single line of date announcement. wanted to know why I made those changes. I explained and pointed to relevant MOS. The current struggle is that Adam believes that a subsection is any information under a section header, and that by default the single line of date anouncement is in fact a "subsection" even though there is no subheading actually dividing it out. Sadly, this is not the definition of a subsection, but Adam truly believes that it is and has reverted the page because they believe that the notion of "no single subsections" doesn't apply because the line of information is a subsection in its own right. I've never seen this argument before. I am pinging Adam so that he knows that this discussion is here, because obviously it being on my talk page has gotten us nowhere. He can describe his rationale for others. Do others actually understand the definition of subsections the same way?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A subsection is just a larger section sub-divided into smaller sections, regardless of how they are formatted. Therefore, it should be impossible to have only one subsection, which is why the MOS specifically states not to have that—it is trying to avoid situations like this:

== Release == === Marketing === Marketing information.


 * That is not a subsection, it is a single section with two headings. That is what the MOS takes issue with. The situation we have here is this:

== Release == General release information. === Marketing === Specific marketing information.


 * This is clearly one big section (release) divided into two smaller areas, or -sections (general release and marketing), with one of those subsections formatted with a subheading because it is about a specific topic within the larger section, and the other not given a subheading because the broader section heading still applies. So you see, there are clearly two distinct subsections within the Release section, but only one subheading. This is not what the MOS is trying to avoid, which is why I am fighting Bignole's change. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As another example, look further up the page at Deadpool 2. There we have this formatting:

== Development == General development information. === Writing === Specific writing information.


 * This is becoming common at many film articles I have been watching as a way of collecting all the relevant information on writing together in an easy to read subsection all its own while still acknowledging that it fits within the development phase of the filmmaking process. By Bignole's logic, this would also be only a single subsection and would have to be changed, but that is just not true. The Development section is one big section about the development of the film, and it is split into two subsections: one details the general development process and fits under the overall development heading, while the other is specifically about the writing taking place during the development process and so has its own specific Writing subheading. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The simply fact that you gave it a subheading makes it a subsection. The other information would be classified as information in a "section", not a "subsection", because there's not an identifier showing it as a subsection. You cannot rewrite definitions to fit your argument. Just because people are ignoring not only the MOS on article structure, but also basic professional structuring of content does not mean that it is right, nor that it should be in practice. Even your new example (which wasn't there originally, only recently added to make a point still is against basic structure. You literally created a single subsection again. We don't put writing under "Development" because development is how a project gets put together, whereas writing is the actual work on the project. That isn't a subsection of "Development" anymore than "Filming" would be.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I created the writing subsection when there was enough content for it, not because of you or this discussion at all (this has always been common practice, not something that I just started doing now to spite you). And the development phase of a film is all the work done before pre-production. If that included writing the script then writing fits within the development section. Again, I'm not making this up now. I've been seeing this happen on Wikipedia for many years. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you,, and have brought this up myself: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 17. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Per my thoughts in the previous discussion that Erik linked (which I'm not going to rehash), I'm of a similar mindset with Adam. I agree with Adam's first example, that that is a situation where a single subheader is not needed. But if you have a substantial amount of content between the level 2 heading and the level 3 heading, I don't see the issue. But also circling back to specifically Marketing section placement, in the example Adam provided, one would reasonable assume in such formatting a "Home media" section will eventually be included as a level 3 header, making all of this mute. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There are two problems here. The first is, even if you want to argue that that type of setup is still a "subsection", the MOS on subsections still indicates that is not appropriate because "very short paragraphs or single sentences do not warrant a subsection". So, regardless it would still violate the MOS for sectioning if you wanted it that way. Here's another way to look at it. Subsections have names, regardless of headers. They are 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2. That's how they are classified. In Adam's prefered setup, the release date would be classified as 1, whereas the marketing would be 1.1. That means the release information is NOT a subsection, it's under the main section. This is why the rule is "if you have an A, you must have a B", it requires the header to be placed above the release section subsectioning it off. But, given that it doesn't justify a subsection, this is why they should be split.

The second is, I hate (and have always hated) the notion of creating a "release section" where you put marketing (not part of release) and home media (something that takes place well after the box office run) in the same section. Not to mention the undue weight of placing home media information ahead of box office and critical reception, as if the basic release of a movie on blu ray is somehow more important than how it performed and was received by critics.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe this will help people: University explanation.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * . Your above point on the importance given to type of media release vs. how it performed and was received by critics, is very important IMO. I should add that browsing through many Start and C class film articles, I feel that too much importance is given to marketing and box office and too little to critical reception and participation in film festivals (with the strong exception of US Academy nomnations and awards). Surely each of us will see it from a different perspective and edit accordingly, but I feel more focus should be given to round-the-world evaluation by critic and participation in festivals, both of which mark the artistic side of the film rather than the commercial. Hoverfish Talk 12:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * that university explanation further highlights how you seem to be missing the point. That is not an explanation of what a subsection is any more than any of the other "explanations" you have provided. It is instead an explanation of a subheading, and how different levels of headings work. I have still seen no proof of your ridiculous claim that a subsection must have a subheading. Also, I would really appreciate it if you stopped pushing your preferred version of an article and left it as the WP:STATUSQUO until the discussion is over. If an IP reverted you while you were discussing something the way you are doing it to me at Deadpool 2 you would not stand for it, and you don't get a special pass because I know you are an experienced and respectable editor. That just makes it worse. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, this discussion rears its head once more. I briefly commented on the previous discussion but quickly realized it had the classic "unstoppable force meets immovable object" conundrum, and that seems to be happening again. I'm still of the opinion that "Release" should consist of a "Theatrical run" section and a "Critical response" section, or something similar to that. I'm a huge proponent of having everything listed chronologically as far as production and release goes, but I'm well aware that isn't the widely held thought. Just wanted to drop my opinion in the hat. Sock  ( tock talk)  15:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would agree that more emphasis should be placed there, but I think that probably falls more in the "it's difficult to find" category than prioritizing information over other.


 * Again, I don't understand how you are missing this basic definition. Ignoring for a second that I think you don't understand what a subsection actually is, and let's just take it from your side. You want to claim that the sentence on release date IS a subsection. By default, you have created a "subheading" (which you don't see a equivalent to a subsection) for Marketing (and in another case "Writing"). Fine. By rule, the fact that you created a subheading requires that a second subheading be created. That's basic rule of writing. It's in the MOS here and it's clearly used outside of Wikipedia. As such, should you create a subheading for the single line of date release, you would in fact still be violating the MOS, which says that such information is too small to warrant such a separation. So, regardless of how you want to define it, the MOS already tells you that it shouldn't be isolated like that.    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, this is what our big disagreement boils down to: you say that there is a rule whereby the creation of a subheading requires a second subheading to also be created. I have never heard of this rule, seen no proof of it being an actual thing from you, and so do not believe it to be true. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

When text is unclear I find it helpful to think about the practicality of what is supposed to be achieved. In this regard, I think Adam is correct in that what it's attempting to avoid is people putting a heading, nothing and then a subheading. If you're writing under the section then create a subheader than it could safely assume that the section already has two subsections and satisfies the requirement. This is done all the time in production sections and it would be ridiculous if the MOS actively prevented this. That said, I seem to recall this topic coming up once before, perhaps the wording should be changed to make it more clear. --Deathawk (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * First, that goes against how writing actually defines subsections (see my link above which points out that if you choose to have a 1.1 level header, you MUST have at least a 1.2). But regardless, I already pointed out that even if you wanted to count that as a subsection (sans subheading), you're still violating the MOS. The MOS clearly states that single sentence or even really short paragraphs should not have a subsection for them as they don't warrant separation.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I literally linked you to a college university's webpage that broke that down for you. It's right there explaining that if you have one you have to have at least a second.


 * There's something interesting about the counter arguments really boiling down to, "we do it this way on other pages" and "I like it this way". No matter how you currently slice it, it violates an MOS in some capacity. If you understand the rules of writing, having a 1.1 header requires a 1.2, that's basic rules of writing. That's in the MOS as well. So, if you want to argue that the single piece of "The film came out on this date" is still a "subsection", and you actually make "marketing" a subsection WITH a subheading, then you MUST create a subheading for the other. But, to do that would then violate the MOS on the grounds that subsections are not meant for single sentences or short paragraphs. It says so on the page. So, even if you don't give it a subheading and pretend as though it's still a subsection, you're still violating the MOS.


 * What doesn't violate the MOS? Well, interestingly enough, separating the marketing out on its own (which is explicitly stated as a viable option on the FILMMOS) and moving the line of release date to the Reception section as a lead-in (not a real subsection, but even if you wanted to pretend that, you have 2 other subsections so you'd still be fine calling it that erroneously). Then all MOS are met. Right now, the argument against that puts the page in violation of basic writing and structure MOS.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * All the links you have provided say is how subheadings are formatted in terms of a heirarchy, which is important for people new to professional writing or Wikipedia. Nothing you have provided actually states what you claim, which is that one subsection with a subheading another. The fact that you can't see that indicates to me that you have just misunderstood something for a long time and are now being blinded by confirmation bias. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You redefining something doesn't make it confirmation bias on my side. My understanding of subsections follows actual writing rules. But, since you want to claim ignorance on links, I'll share it again. Here you go. Whether you want to argue that your little line of information represents a subsection or not, it's irrelevant in the endgame. As you can see, you HAVE given Marketing (as well as Writing) a sublevel heading. In this case, Marketing would be 5.1 (if you had it your way). Well, per basic rules of writing, the fact that there is a 5.1 requires that there be at least a 5.2. You don't have a 5.2. Thus, you're violating the MOS for structuring of the article. You can argue that the release date sentence is a subsection, but the fact remains that it isn't "5.1" or "5.2", it is technically 5.0. Now, should you make it 5.1, you'd then violate the MOS on the fact that single sentences should not be subsectioned off, as they are not enough information to warrant sectioning in such a way. Like I've said repeatedly, and I'm confounded as to how you are not recognizing this (unless you're just being obstinate), no matter how you slice it the page would be in violation of the MOS rules of article structuring.    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not seeing any "rules" that should be followed. A random PDF stating something as a fact does not make it so—do you have reliable sources that prove some sort of general consensus in the writing community? Because, believe it or not, I do know how to write and I simply have never come across this rule before. Perhaps I would be more willing to accept this if it wasn't so non-sensical. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if you are being blatantly obstinate or if you actually believe what you're saying. Your argument now is that a "random PDF" from a university isn't sufficient? The fact that it's a PDF is irrelevant. You want a reliable source, so when did something from an educational institute become unreliable? I've provided you multiple pieces of evidence and in the end your entire argument centers around "I don't believe that definition, so I'm not following it"? Are you being serious right now? Even your own examples at the top support the notion that a "subsection" is defined by having a "subheading". The MOS clearly shows this and NO WHERE will you find in the MOS that the information under a "Section" header is classified as "subsection information" when there isn't a subheading to go with it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also worth repeating the sources I shared in the related thread:
 * Modern Language Association: "Balance: No internal heading level should have only one instance. For example, if you have one level 1 heading, you need to have a second level 1 heading."
 * APA Style: "For subsections, we recommend that if you are going to have them at all, you should aim for at least two."
 * Maybe time for an RFC? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely time for an RFC. Sock   ( tock talk)  16:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If we are having an RFC, can we make sure we discuss both of the examples I gave above? It would be good to get thoughts on how to re-format both from editors who think they should not be as they are (especially since any consensus to change is going to affect a lot of articles). - adamstom97 (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, just a note that per a separate discussion that Bignole decided to start over at WP:ACCESS there is accessibility issues with having a single subheading, just in case that comes up in this RFC that we are apparently having. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw the question at WT:ACCESS, and I can confirm that there is absolutely no accessibility problem with having a single ===Level 3=== subsection underneath a ==Level 2== heading.
 * I've also dredged up what the Chicago Manual of Style has to say on the subject, and it does not support the belief that a single subsection is bad writing style. In fact, it names three examples of situations in which that would be warranted.  It's section 1.56 in the 17th edition, if anyone else wants to have a look.
 * Finally, since you feel the need for additional opinions, I'll leave a note at WT:MOS about this. The main Manual of Style page is the best place to get views on bad writing.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Except, the CMOS says that the general rule of thumb is if you have 1 then you should have at least 2. The fact that it identifies special circumstances for having just 1 does not negate the fact that it clearly says before that the best practice is having at least 2. It's in your own exert that you pulled.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The references provided by Bignole and Erik clearly show that this isn't some random, mislead tendency on the part of a few editors, nor is it a case of being "blinded by confirmation bias". These are reputable academic sources making the same case. As for the CMOS, I found this ( click the answer link on the page ), and I rather like the explanation given. I think the takeaway is that, as a general rule, each section and subsection level should have at least two instances. There are always exceptions, of course. As Favre1fan93 and that CMOS link describe, a section with only one subsection can occasionally make sense in a given situation. Therefore, I suggest when there's a disagreement, the burden lies on the editor(s) who wish to invoke the exception rather than on the editor(s) who are supporting the general rule. My 2¢ anyway... --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine if a point can be made for an exception, but the case in this argument (I would assert) is that it isn't about an exception to the rule but that basically it should just be status quo ("because that's how other articles do it"). In this case, it doesn't make sense to me that an exception would be made for a fleshed out marketing section to be made a subsection under a single line of information as the main section header. Exceptions to make would be a fully developed section, where there is additional information that relates, but is more specific and yet doesn't make sense to live on its own. In those situations, I would still almost argue that you could probably find a title for the previous information most of the time and avoid having to have an exception.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with you in this situation. There shouldn't only be one or two sentences below the level 2 heading ("Release") before inserting a single level 3 heading ("Marketing"). Proper article structure should trump layout recommendations within MOS:FILM when there's a conflict. However, I'm not in favor of a hard-and-fast rule either. The MOS should advise in favor of the general practice realizing that exceptions do occasionally exist. The situation at Deadpool 2 does not qualify as an exception in my book. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The CMOS Q&A page seems to argue against the reasons given here. It says, in part, "especially at the B level or lower, a single subhead in a given section might turn out to make sense—especially if it corresponds to subheads of the same level in other sections within the same work".  Or, to translate that into into wiki jargon, "a single ===Level 3 subsection=== might turn out to make sense".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You have to look at the context in which that statement is made. In the preceding sentences, it's clarified that a single subhead should generally have "a second, complementary subhead". The term subhead is referring to a subsection beneath a chapter or part, so a B level or lower. What you've quoted is under the context of an exception to the general rule, which fits in with the opinion I shared above. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - I think what that's referring to is when there is a similar theme in subheadings across sections and thus having a single subheading (subsection) in some instances makes sense when it's in line with the rest of the page. As a general rule though, that's rarely the case (especially not in film where we don't have similarly titled subsections across the board). Even if that did happen, the argument of "marketing" by itself under "Release" wouldn't make sense in that exception rule anyway. There are multiple things at work. A general practice based on writing rules, and identifying appropriate exceptions to that writing rules (as it would apply to film articles). CMOS, as well as other styles, are clear that the general rule is multiple subsections/subheaders (yes, to those that argue differently, a subheader defines the existence of a subsection). There are exceptions, but that isn't the case with Deadpool 2, nor more articles that single subsections tend to happen with. Most could easily be fixed by creating a second subheader, but instances like DP2 where there isn't really information to support a "release" section wouldn't fit that notion.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we're all agreeing on the major points:
 * CMOS plainly and repeatedly states that there are multiple exceptions to the "divide into multiple parts" logic (which is called out in that Q&A as being a matter of "logic" rather than a mandatory rule, so the actual "rule" is "do what's logical for your content"), and
 * those multiple exceptions are concentrated in ===Level 3 headers===.
 * (Bignole, if you take "the encyclopedia", rather than "the individual article" as the work, then it makes sense to think about this in terms of similarly titled subsections across similar articles, rather than within articles.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There are 3 listed exceptions, and don't really apply to what's happening here. It almost seems like you're arguing that the "rule" isn't even a rule because the exceptions are so numerous that the "exception" is really having more than one subsection.
 * As for the encyclopedia as a whole, again, I don't see where these exceptions are going to be so frequent that you would still not find more viable solutions to just having a single subsection. Even when you did, the basis for this argument (Deadpool 2's page) doesn't meet any of the exception examples for why you would do that.
 * I think there's a difference between saying "The basic rule of thumb is that if you have at least 2 subsections if you section of content under a level 3 header. There may be exceptions to this guide, and would be looked at on a case by case basis." -- over saying "Structure the article how you want, because there's not writing rule that is 100% going to apply".
 * Yes, the CMOS gives you exceptions (every writing rule has an exception to it), but we still follow the basic rule when exceptions are not applicable. Exceptions are not applicable simply because "I prefer it this way or other articles do it" type of argument. There are exceptions to how we title articles, but you don't see people jumping immediately to the exceptions on how to title the page? Well....you do, but we generally end up putting them where they should be. The reason you identify the basic rule is for consistency among articles. Exceptions should be just that, exceptions. If they were happening all the time, then they wouldn't be exceptions they would just be the way.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We may agree on the secondary point that exceptions exist, but we still seem far apart on what the main takeaways are or what the "actual rule" should be. The academic sources provided in this thread are clearly demonstrating a preference of enforcing at least two instances of each level header, whether that's level 2, level 3, and so on. Going back to the CMOS Q&A, for example, it states, "break it only when you can cite a superior logic". That's rather strong language that, to me, indicates the rule shouldn't or isn't likely to be broken often. The main point I think we should stop avoiding is how to handle situations where editors disagree on what qualifies as an exception. I propose that the burden of gaining consensus falls on the editor(s) claiming that an exception exists, since by all measures in these sources, the exceptions are not the general rule. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel that the argument I gave originally, for both the specific marketing example and the breaking up of any section that has a lot of content on one specific thing within it, was supported by "superior logic", and would be willing to argue that at any article that someone challenged it on. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Without getting into the weeds on that one issue, the high-level overview here is that the onus would be on you in that situation to obtain consensus when challenged. I think that's reasonable. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But since this is common practice and any decision will likely apply to many different articles, would it not make sense to come up with a more specific guideline or suggestion here rather than having the same discussion for every instance? My biggest issue with the consensus that you guys seem to be forming is that it is saying that something cannot be done without providing a logical alternative. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There are two different scopes at play here. For Wikipedia as a whole, there should be a standard approach or interpretation that can be applied when there are disagreements. That's what I've spent most of my time here discussing. But you have a point that within a particular WikiProject, such as WP:FILM, common practices and/or existing guidelines may present a unique challenge that other areas of Wikipedia may not encounter. So the question is, what exactly are you saying is the "common practice" that needs attention within WP:FILM? Short 1-3 sentence sections really shouldn't exist (especially at level 2), and I think that's part of the reason Bignole made the changes he did, ultimately eliminating the Release section altogether. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

If a section has a whole lot of content about one specific thing mixed in with lots of other stuff, and an editor splits the specific content into a dedicated subsection, then that is going to create a section with a single subsection. Several examples of this can be seen at Production of Avengers: Infinity War and the untitled Avengers sequel. This is not a film specific issue, it is a general writing issue. If we are not allowed to do what we have done there, then what do you suggest we do instead? That is what I am asking. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That has been my point from the start, that this isn't a film specific issue but a writing issue that seems to be rampant across all articles (but since I live my life in film and TV, that's where I see it and address it). Although I think there is a hard rule of "never", I would say that we probably should be more explicit in acknowledging the CMOS basic rule for sectioning, only because it is such an issue across the board. Then we acknowledge that there may be times when that rule needs to be broken, with examples of when it has needed to be and it was the best option to do so.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Bump
Since there was no final decision made on this, and no one was interested in offering helpful suggestions for alternative approaches to this problem, I went ahead and restored the Deadpool 2 "Writing" section to the WP:STATUSQUO. then promptly reverted me, so I'm hoping that means they are actually ready to be helpful now and make a suggestion? Considering subsections like this "Writing" one continue to be used in almost every article I edit, are encouraged in most GA reviews I have been involved in, are not specifically banned in any regulations of guidelines, do not pose any accessibility issues, and in general improve the organisation and clarity of complex sections, I think it is fair to say that just removing them without trying to offer a viable alternative is bordering on disruptive editing. Just to be clear, I do not believe it is appropriate to elevate a subtopic to the same level as its parent for the sole reason of avoiding single subsections, which is what Bignole is currently doing. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I just returned from a long, much-needed vacation, otherwise I would have commented earlier. Like I mentioned before, I don't think this is something that should "never" be allowed. In situations when you have a lengthy section, half of which could be classified in its own subsection (such as the example given, placing "Writing" under "Developement"), I would first encourage editors to find a way to split it into two subsections. So instead of just "Writing", perhaps have "Early discussions" and "Scripting", or maybe "Early drafts" and "Final revisions". If it is deemed by consensus that splitting it beyond just "Writing" isn't feasible or preferred, then having just a single "Writing" section is probably better than not splitting it at all, especially when you have the backing of uninvolved editors participating in a GA review. I would just stress that the desire should be to avoid that situation when possible. After reading the "Development" section, it doesn't seem like an unreasonable request to find a way to further divide the long section into two subsections. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But in general, the break down is going to be "Development" > "Writing" & "Everything else". Those are the cases where the practice is to just use the overall heading rather than come up with a silly, unnatural subheading for the sake of having two subheadings. If there was always an easy second subheading, then there probably would have been no need for this discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't argue with that. If an honest attempt or consideration has been made to have two subheadings, and the consensus doesn't feel it's possible or necessary, then by all means stick with just one subheading. This discussion may have been more about raising awareness rather than trying to enforce a rule that in the grand scheme of things is quite minor. There are a lot better uses of this time IMHO. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be supportive of making a note of this somewhere, encouraging editors to come up with multiple subheadings to avoid having just one but noting that it is fine if only having one is the best alternative. That way we can have something to point to, and will be able to get rid of any unnecessary instances of single subsections. As long as we aren't trying to force in multiple subheadings where it doesn't make sense to, I will be happy. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support that as well, but since this is a site-wide issue, I imagine some kind of consensus would need to form at WT:MOS before moving forward. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will leave this here for a bit to see if we get any more responses, and if not then I will take it over there and see what we can get done. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

First, single subsections as clearly outlined from CMOS are for special circumstances. You're arguing that having a writing subsection that is by itself is not a special case, but "status quo". That, by definition, is no longer special. Regardless, what I restored was the notion that Writing exists independent of the "Development" because the development section is really about concept creation, not actual work being done. There's no actual rule that puts writing as an automatic subsection under "development". You trying to say that somehow making writing its own subsection, instead of a subsection under a subsection, somehow is no longer helpful for organization makes no sense whatsoever. But that's a separate argument. That said, even if it was, you were creating another single subsection that does NOT meet the criteria set forth by the CMOS as one of the exceptions to the rule of creating subsections.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What we are suggesting here is that the criteria is wrong, or at least that it is being interpreted wrong, given how good examples of single subsections appear to be much more common than just special cases. As for this specific issue, whether you think writing is independent of development or not is irrelevant. The article uses the standard structure of following the four phases of filmmaking, and you deciding to change that without consensus (and edit warring to keep it your way rather than the STATUSQUO until discussion can take place) is not on. You don't just change a set style in an article arbitrarily. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The interpretation? There isn't an interpretation, the CMOS is pretty clear. The rule is no single subsections, with exception given to sections that meet the criteria the CMOS lays out. Just because people have ignored this rule, no matter for how long, doesn't make the rule wrong. It also doesn't make your examples "good examples", just examples you've tried to argue your point with. The reality is, almost every one of your examples to justify a single subsection could be re-adjusted to fit the rule without ever upsetting the flow of the article. "STATUSQUO", you keeping using that but first that's an essay, not a policy or a guideline. Second, you're arguing that STATUSQUO for some film articles that have ignored a basic organizational rule that has been on Wikipedia since it started following Chicago Style article structure. Just because you chose to ignore that doesn't make it right. You're attempted to reinterpret the definition of subsections and section headers, and once that no longer worked you've decided that it's just a matter of status quo of articles.


 * Explain to me exactly how separating out "Writing" upsets the flow of the article?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I personally don't see an issue with separating out "Writing", especially if it's an acceptable compromise that would move us past this discussion. However, a couple points you made grabbed my attention.First, WP:STATUSQUO is just an essay, but it accurately describes how articles are restored during a content dispute. It has to do with the way WP:EDITCONSENSUS works. If a change to an article survives for a lengthy amount of time, it is assumed to have consensus. A bold edit to an article that is reverted should result in a discussion or some other form of dispute resolution, leaving the original consensus in place until a new consensus is formed. This process is basically what the STATUSQUO section of that essay is describing. We shouldn't discount that advice simply because it's located in an essay; the advice is heavily rooted in policy. Second, there are a variety of style guides out there, not just the CMOS, and Wikipedia's MOS is not held hostage to any particular one of those. While I tend to agree the advice in the CMOS in this situation should be taken into consideration, ultimately it needs to be accepted and added in some form to Wikipedia's MOS before we can expect editors to heed that advice. Maybe you were already aware of all this, but I felt compelled to address it based on your last response.The first order of business should be to add clarification to our house style guide that aims to alleviate any confusion about the general rule (and I have a feeling that will be another long, drawn-out discussion on how to phrase it). --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * More to the point, MoS is already heavily based on CMoS and New Hart's Rules. If there's something in either that's not in MoS, it's intentional: either MoS doesn't need a rule about it – we're trying to keep it short, while CMoS and NHR aim to be totally comprehensive of every imaginable English-language style question – or MoS needs a different rule that better matches this project's and audience's needs. MoS's sectioning practices have nothing to do with CMoS 's; the rationales are different. CMoS is geared toward structuring print material efficiently and leanly, with a highly compact table of contents and outline, following academic publishing norms.  MOS:LAYOUT is about expediently getting readers to the material they are looking for via a hyperlinked table of contents and incoming sectional links from other articles and subtopical redirects.  They're just very different organizational models.  "Because CMoS says so" is not a rationale on Wikipedia (well, it can be a partial one in a discussion at an MoS talk page, taken with what other major style guides say, but it's not a rationale for changing any particular article.)  PS: The usual solution to a section with one subsection, in any case were we think that's unwieldy, is to organize the material into more subsections and have an introductory sentence above all of them.  Where this doesn't work, having a single subsection isn't a, it's just a style that some people don't like – especially academics who closely follow CMoS in their professional writing.  But WP is not their academic journal.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't go as far as saying it's always intentional, as obviously there will be proposals from time to time that weren't previously considered. However, I think you and I agree for the most part that something we want to follow from an external style guide needs to go through the proper channels before being adopted on Wikipedia, and the main WT:MOS talk page is the place to make that happen. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, but by 2018 there are precious few things we're adding, because we're already covering what we need to cover. Most of the MoS changes these days are minor clarifications.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The article, like the majority of film articles I have seen, is structured following the standard filmmaking phases (development, pre-production, filming, and post-production). Writing, chronologically, took place during the development of the film and so fits within that section. However, it is a big section and to make it easier for readers it makes sense to section that off in its own subsection. This kept the original structure, improved readability, did not break any hard rules such as accessibility guidelines, and was in line with standard practice across all of Wikipedia. The only problem with it is this arbitrary idea that we can't have single subsections. It's just ridiculous. Why should we bend over backwards to avoid something that is only a problem because of some obscure "rule" that does not actually improve anything? Can you give a good reason, beyond the fact that it says to do this in a manual of style, that we should not have the subsection as is currently done in many articles? If this was not in the manual of style, what argument would you make to have it added to it? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * That's not true about our MOS and the CMOS. We have an MOS on sectioning and it follows the CMOS. EVERYTHING follows the CMOS when it comes to how articles are layed out, thand that includes sectioning. So, yes it is important to note that. The FILM MOS doesn't get the rewrite the overall guides and article structure simply because they don't like it. If an article is not meeting the MOS guides, then yes it should be fixed. The MOS guides for article structuring, as well as several other facets within Wikipedia (e.g., in-line citations, punctuation within quotation marks, etc.) are dictated by the CMOS. Just because you were taught differently, understand differently, or just plain don't like it doesn't change the fact that those of the real life MOS criteria that we follow on this non-print encyclopedia.


 * By your definition of phases, "writing" would be part of "pre-production" not "development". Development is usually reserved for discussions about how the concept of the film came to be, or the acquisition of rights, and other things that have nothing to do with literal work being done on the film. "pre-production" is all the work being done before filming takes place. That would be casting, writing, and probably some location scouting. So, if you were actually sectioning things off the way you say, you'd have "Development", "Pre-production", "Filming" and "Post-Production" as your section headers, with "writing" falling under the pre-production section.


 * Also, it's not an "arbitrary" rule. We've provided links to multiple places that explain why you don't have single subsections. Just because you don't like the rule doesn't make it arbitrary. It's a rule that exist. What's interesting is that I'm not arguing that "Writing" (or any other section) should just be merged back into the primary header. I'm agreeing that it should be separated. I'm merely stating that it should be on its own for two reasons: 1) Writing takes place after development of a film project. 2) Even if you had a situation where they are completely linked, you are creating a single subsection and instead of violating a basic rule of article structure (sorry SMcCandlish, but not being a paper Wikipedia doesn't dictate article structure it dictates that notion of not limiting ourselves in coverage--which is stated in the link you provided]) you can simply separate it out on its own (still part of the same primary header of "Production"). Then, it doesn't break any CMOS rules, and it's still in the same position it was for reading and flow. My change meets CMOS rules, still gives you separation for clarity and flow and organization, and sets the article up to be cleaner. You lose nothing with my change. Exactly why are you arguing against this change and the rule again then?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you get the idea that the "MOS on sectioning ... follows the CMOS" and "EVERYTHING follows the CMOS when it comes to how articles are layed out". We have sections and other layout concerns that do not appear in any other publication in the world (other than post-WP copycats and mirrors).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Bignole, I didn't call it arbitrary because I don't like it, I called it arbitrary because I have seen no proof to the contrary. "Because the CMOS says so" is not an explanation. I don't care the rule comes from, I asked you  it exists. If you can come up with a decent reason other than it being an established practice it would greatly help your case, because at the moment it just sounds like you don't like it based on some random "rule" that you believe everyone should follow. P.S. Writing takes place whenever it takes place, with some screenplays completed long before filming begins and others still be changed after the filming phase is completed; if the writing took place before actual pre-production began (specific preparations for the beginning of filming such as location scouting, set design and creation, some casting, etc.) then it should absolutely be a subsection of Development. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - "We have sections and other layout concerns that do not appear in any other publication" -- Which are?    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's ironic that you would claim that I'm standing behind "I don't like it", when that's what you're doing. Instead of arguing as to why "Writing" needs to be a sub-sub section (on its own) instead of an independent subsection (in the same location mind you), you're saying I need to prove why that rule even exists and is important. That's not my job. I don't need to explain why their rules exist, anymore so than I need to explain to you why we don't put unsourced information in articles, you only need to know that we follow the CMOS when it comes to writing articles. That includes punctuation, sectioning, etc. Do we have sections that exist that other publications don't, sure we do, but the layout is based on real world manual of styles. Because at the end of the day, this is an encyclopedia, not a Wikia.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:RTFM >;-). Start with, say, MOS:LAYOUT, especially MOS:LAYOUT ff. (it's all about information architecture unique to WP); then proceed to MOS:LEAD, a central concern of which is how different a WP lead is from the kinds of "lede" used in other writing like journalism; then try MOS:INFOBOX, which is wholly WP-specific; and I could go on. It's weird to me that this combative back-and-forth is happening when the question we're supposed to be looking at ("Writing" as a subsection or not) is obviously going to vary on a case-by-case basis.  You seem to be taking a heavily proceduralist approach ("rules"-based thinking) when that approach will not work here.  In any given case, the writing may be production information, especially if substantial rewriting occurred during filming; there are films that have mostly been written during production.  More often it's pre-production.  Sometimes it can have significant post-production aspects, as when an ending is changed based on negative test-audience feedback, or when a later re-release makes substantial changes.   it seems most commonsensical to group this stuff for readers under a "Production" banner with various sections as-needed on a case-by-case basis.  We shouldn't be trying to imply there should always/never be a writing section, that it should always/never be under production, that there should always/never be a pre-production subsection, etc.  We can probably give general advice about what's typical, but impress upon readers of the guideline that article layout stuff is apt to vary as the context requires and as information is available from the RS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I appreciate why you did it, but please don't interject responses into comments like that, it could end up with two separate conversations vying for space within the same discussion and also the whole part of timing in the responses. As for your examples, those are not concerns and ultimately, they are still affected by the CMOS. Yes, the CMOS nor any other MOS for writing discusses the idea of "leads" and "infoboxes" and other such things unique to Wikipedia. That does NOT negative the fact that when writing we following the CMOS for basic article layout. Having sections within articles that are a-typical of any other publication doesn't negate how we would treat the typical sections, nor does it negative basic rules of writing. You're trying to put to exceptional case as an argument for not following a basic writing rule. That doesn't fly with me. It's certainly not a combative argument. Whether writing should be under develop, on its own, or whatever doesn't change the fact that there is a basic rule of article structure (no single subsections, with specific exception) that we following. This isn't an argument unique to the film pages, this is across the board. Do many articles fail to follow this, yes, but they also fail to follow a lot of guidelines and policies simply because people don't know any better and no one cleans it up when they come across it. That does not mean we should ignore said rules just because of ignorance of those rules on a small, medium, or large scale.


 * That said, I do agree with you on the basic principle that we shouldn't be dictating specific article section headers, and explain that there may be times when certain elements of a film's overall development/production could happen at different times (e.g., writing taking place before development, vice versa, casting before writing, etc.) and that it should be based on the chronology of that film (not the listed order of this MOS). Regardless, it doesn't change the writing rule for single subsections.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Then please separate posts better as you post them. WP:REFACTOR is a valid approach to preventing cross-talk. "That doesn't fly with me. It's certainly not a combative argument."  I think we're done here, when it comes to that whole subtopic; I don't have time for sport argument.  I'm glad we at least agree that the guidelines on sections aren't Holy Writ. That's progress on something substantive. But it doesn't square with your immediate to return to approaching the matter as "rules".  Guidelines are not rules, they're guidelines. Even our policies often barely qualify as rules, due to WP:IAR; only legal policies imposed on us by WP:OFFICE are effectively immune to IAR.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, guidelines are not rules, but the "RULES OF WRITING" are just that. They have specific exceptions. We following the rules of writing as it comes from CMOS. We always have. Just because some people want to ignore how to structure sections (which are defined by CMOS, and thus our "guidelines that aren't rules" don't have less weight in this area just because they are "guidelines" and not "policy") does not mean that we should "Ignore all rules" in those cases. IAR is when you're talking about how a rule, procedure, guideline, policy, etc. being followed is in somehow hurting the article because you cannot improve it. I'm finding it hard to believe that following the basic rules of writing when it comes to article structure would EVER hurt an article from being improved. In fact, following the rules of writing would in essence be what is improving the article, given that our goal for articles is to be of a "professionally standard" --- which is exactly what I've been saying needs to be done by following said "rules" that you seem to think shouldn't exist (even though they do, in real world application and on Wikipedia) for no reason other than you all say so.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's Victorian-era prescriptivism, rejected by linguistics for generations. And "We following" not the rules of CMoS, at all. We follow our own style guide, which takes CMoS into account and rejects parts of it.  Please stop playing WP:IDHT and proof by assertion games.  You can say "WP follows rules of writing from CMoS" 100,000 more times and will be 0% more true when you're done than when you started.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but are you trying to claim that we don't follow it when it comes to section headers (the basis for this argument) because we do. People ignoring it, doesn't mean that we don't follow up.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We follow MOS:LAYOUT. You've already been informed of this multiple times. This needs to stop.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have explained why the writing section should be a sub-section of development - the article, as with all the film articles that I work on, follows the structure of the four phases of filmmaking. That is not something that every film article has to do, but when that choice has been made and persisted for so long an editor can't just arbitrarily change it like you did. That is a pretty basic one in terms of etiquette and style here. What we don't do is follow rules just because they are rules, and if you can't explain why we must avoid single subsections other than because that's just what we do, then I don't see why we should have to ignore explainable guidelines and logic to follow it. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, the onus isn't on me to explain why a rule exists. Do I need to explain to you why Verifiability and Reliable Source requirements exist just for you to follow them? No. You keep talking about the "4 phases of film production", except there are technically 5 phases (because you're pulling from Filmmaking), and yet I don't see you clamoring to put distribution under "Production". Your argument only suits you when it's what you want. Technically, the article follows the same stages, it just separates writing and filming as distinctive titles over "Development", "pre-production", "production", "post production", and "distributation". You've selectively used certain headers from the "stages of production", but not all, and some of them are not as accurate as they could be. You have "Pre-production", but that's really just a casting section, because that's all you have there. You even have casting information under "Development", where it shouldn't be simply because no one has bothered to clean up the page from when it was first created and treated like an events catalog.
 * That's beside the point, because the reality is you want me to provide you with an explanation for why a rule exists in writing....Except...you don't really want an explanation. They have already been provided above as to why the rule exists in writing. It's been provided for CMOS, AMA, and MLA above...yet you still don't accept that it's a rule. EVERY SINGLE MOS has this as a rule, but you don't think it is or understand why it is. You've chosen not to want to accept them. I suspect that I could have 100 people tell you why that rule is that rule and you would come up with some naïve loophole to justify why they didn't do a good enough job explaining the rule to you.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Trying to stay objective here...While it is true a general rule exists and should typically be taken into consideration, I think the overall impact that it has is relatively small compared to other guidelines we already have in our MoS. I understand the opposing viewpoint that when this writing rule isn't followed, the article doesn't suffer, except to those that perhaps follow that rule often in other walks of life (to whom the violation sticks out like a sore thumb). I think it's a fair argument to make that most readers on Wikipedia wouldn't notice any problems when they come across a single subsection. In fact, most readers probably wouldn't even notice the difference between a level 3 and a level 4 subsection (which is at the heart of this discussion). The font of a level 4 is only slightly smaller and barely noticeable. I honestly don't notice sometimes.In summary, I think the case for making an addition to the MoS has been stated well, but it's just not gaining any traction. Because the impact of this appears to be relatively low, it's probably not worth the time to discuss any further, and certainly not here. I would strongly recommend that anyone with a continued interest to begin a new discussion at WT:MOS, where an adequate consensus would be needed in the end. Plus it might solicit opinions from other uninvolved editors. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We can take it over there, but to fair on your point of the readers, they likely wouldn't notice where punctuation is placed within quotation marks, the fact that we have a trivia section (beyond the notion that they would love that idea), or more minor things like whether or not text is sandwiched between visual aids (i.e. an image on both the right and left side of prose). Yet, we have guidelines that are based on writing rules for those things, and those things would hold up any review of an article as less than professionally written and structured. So, to me the notion that readers wouldn't pay any mind to it doesn't detract from the importance of it being professionally written and organized.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And those guidelines are guidelines (MOS:LQ, MOS:TRIVIA, MOS:IMAGES, and for the current topic MOS:LAYOUT). They have nothing to do with your desire to impose "rules" from an external style book like The Chicago Manual of Style. We're going to keep coming back to this fact until you absorb it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The examples you're giving aren't quite at the same level. I see punctuation corrections being made all the time, even within quotes, because the rules surrounding those are much more commonplace. We learn those at an early age and continue to abide by them throughout our lifetime. The rule being discussed here is much more obscure. I didn't even know it existed until I came across this discussion. As for sandwiched text, that actually has a direct impact on readability, especially on certain devices. The relatively unknown guideline we're discussing does not. I see the point you're trying to make, but we need to realize there are varying degrees of importance. All I'm saying is that this one in particular is very low in comparison to what already exists in the MoS. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps more to the point, WP actually has a quotation-marks rule to use logical quotation, adopted from technical writing for its precision; we do not actually use the conventions taught in grammar and secondary schools (fairly consistent in North America, and radically inconsistent in British and Commonwealth usage – there are at least a dozen different approaches). Similarly, we follow linguistics style when providing glosses (short definitions), as in "Spanish perro, 'dog, which isn't what school children are taught either. WP's approach was not just copied from The Chicago Manual of Style, or The AP Stylebook, or New Hart's Rules, or whatever.  That's true of most of MoS; it's determined by consensus (includin comparison of lots of sources and their rationales) on a style-point-by-style-point basis.  This is a major hole in the "we must never use single subsection because some book I like said so" reasoning, another being that such a "rule" wouldn't match actual, normal practice here, and it would be "reader-hateful", making it markedly more difficult to find the desired information by burying it in a long section that would be better-organized with subsection heading in many cases. Another factor is WP:There is no deadline; the fact that there's just one subsection right now doesn't mean there will only be one tomorrow, and we may well need more in any particular section for completeness.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The MOS:LQ guideline, for the most part, appears to coincide with what I was taught in school anyway (I'm in the U.S.). Either that, or my recollection isn't as good as it once was! --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Really?! I've never heard of it being taught in US schools (below the level of technical writing/CS, linguistics, and philosophy classes as the university level, I mean).  When/where, if my ask, just out of curiosity?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, let's just say many moons ago! But after taking a closer look at that section, I'm thinking I might be mistaken. When I glossed over it before, I didn't catch that it recommends placing the comma outside when breaking up a quote. The other punctuation recommendations seem to ring bells, but that one about commas isn't the same from what I recall. So yeah, nevermind! Moot point anyway, right? Don't make me dig the old grammar book from college out of the attic! ;-) --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Another arbitrary break
If you can't explain the reasoning behind a rule or tell us what problem it solves, then why should we be forced to follow it over other, more logical avenues? Just because something has been done before does not mean it should always be done. You don't have to justify WP:V or WP:RS because they are logical rules that solve actual problems, while this 'no single subsections' rule is apparently only a rule just 'cause, and solves the problem of not much of anything. And no, I am not basing article structures on the Filmmaking page, I am following this very MOS which lists four distinct phases with which we can structure a production section. I am not making this up, unlike the CMOS apparently does. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You're actually arguing that because I personally don't know the philosophy behind writing rules that it somehow negates the reality of that rule? This isn't just CMOS, it's AMA, MLA, all of them. This is across the board. Sorry I didn't study the history of writing rules in college. Does it make any difference to you that Wikipedia actually has help guide that specifically points out that you need 2 subsections (at least)? You probably wouldn't. I doubt you'd appreciate Someone from Berkley also pointing out that it's bad form to have a single subsection.


 * What's interesting to me is that you've changed your argument as we've gone on. Initially, you tried to argue that the 2 subsection rule was met because the fact that creating 1 subsection automatically made the top part (under the section 2 heading) a subsection without a subheading. That was proven inaccurate not just from the Wikipedia section editors but from various sources that were provided. Then it switched to the idea that you've never heard of said rule before and thus it doesn't exist. Regardless of your knowledge, it was proven that said rule does exist. Now, your argument is that I have to supply the reasoning behind why the rule exists for you to entertain the notion of said rule. There will never be able to please you, because at the end of the day it comes down to "I don't like the rule" for you.


 * To Gone and SMcCandlish, you say the difference is that we have actually guidelines on Wikipedia for the other stuff and nothing here about sectioning. I go back to the Help page for Wikipedia I linked to that shows it has been on Wikipedia for some time. Yes, it's not a specific guideline, but clearly it's identified in our help guides, as it's based on a book designed to teach people how to edit Wikipedia. I cannot imagine that we would be publishing an entire book in our Help pages, based on editing Wikipedia and telling people not to actively edit the page, unless we intended for people to actually use it as a guide. Either way, they also quote the same rule from CMOS, MLA, and AMA regarding subsections.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with changing your mind about something, that is the whole point of discussions like this. However, I haven't really changed my mind about anything in this specific situation. I still stand by my claim at the start that there were two separate subsections even if one of them didn't have a subheading. However, that whole discussion brought up a separate isue about why the subsections had to be defended at all. They were perfectly fine, and you only thought it needed to be changed based on some arbitrary rule rather than an actual problem such as with accessibility.


 * Since there is apparently no actual reason for this rule to exist, I suggest it be removed from Wikipedia or at least be re-worded to be a general style suggestion based on common practice outside of Wikipedia rather than a hard-and-fast rule (as was suggested earlier in the discussion). If you can come up with a good reason why this must be strictly followed for the good of all Wikipedia articles, then you can put forward that case during this new discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm going to remain neutral for now. While I think there's ample support in reputable, academic sources, there's no guarantee it's a good fit for Wikipedia. Initially, it seemed like a reasonable guideline for editors to follow (we would add some general advice to the MoS, but avoid making it a bright line, hard-and-fast rule). But as I thought about it more and listened to the comments here, the more it seems like a rule a publisher might follow in the organization of a finished product. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is a constant work in progress. Articles are never truly finished. I don't feel strongly either way at this point, but I'd be curious to see what some fresh blood has to say on the subject at WT:MOS. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll add that Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Formatting and illustrating articles/Article sections and tables of contents is just some 3-editor, unmaintained essay, which is out of step with the actual style guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Gone, I would say that it's more than just a publisher's rule, given that it's part of basic rules of writing for everyone from middle school to college. We write an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia's require professional organization and this rule applies to that. We're not talking about a novel here, but a professional document. The rule wouldn't apply to someone writing a book on a topic, because you simply have chapters separating things. It's specific to professional writings, which is what we are. So, I would say it's rather relevant and I would argue that there should be good reason not to follow a basic rule of writing a professional document in those exceptional case. The argument that "articles are never truly finished" isn't a position of "ignore writing rules" either. That just means that they can adapt as time goes out. That would indicate that a subsection that becomes a section because there is no other information to divert appropriately may, one day, be merged back under another section and become a subsection alongside other subsections. For example, with Deadpool 2, your argument should really be implying that today the "Writing" section is own its own, but tomorrow there may be more information under "Development" that there is now 2 subsections worth of information and thus writing gets replaced back under that header with another subsection beside it (e.g., "Film rights").


 * SMCCandlish, yes it only maintained by 3 people but that has more to do with the fact that they don't want people editing out rules that they don't like, or rules that they don't understand why they exist. THat's why all changes go through a request before they are added in. What part is "out of step with the actual style guideline"?

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Adam, yes you're allowed to change your mind. Except in this discussion, you haven't gone "Oh, that makes sense but I see a new problem". You've changed your mind every time your argument is debunked. That's not really changing your mind, that's just trying to argue the same point from a new angle. Again, the fact that someone doesn't supply the philosophy behind a rule is NOT a reason to ignore it as inconsequential. What's common practice does not make something "right". It was common practice to put in spoiler templates and have trivia sections, but we got rid of those because it wasn't professional to have. What's a reason you need to have to include this rule? Here's a basic one. Not having a single subsection (excusing those exceptional cases) makes a document more professional in its presentation and organization of information. Wikipedia strives to have professionally written documents. MLA, AMA, and CMOS (and any other you can think of) all indicate that a well written document, that adheres to writing guides, does NOT have single subsections. Before you say it, yes we do use CMOS as a reference point (see here where you actually say that it's what influences our MOSs and contain details not specifically spelled out in our MOS).    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Briefly, something recommended by some style guides, yet not found in others, is not a "basic rule of writing", it's an opinion. It's not one that WP has adopted by consensus.  How is the long-named page out of step with MOS?  Well,  in stating a rule against single subsections when neither the main MoS nor MOS:LAYOUT say any such thing at all. I'm not going to review the entire page for more error of this sort, since there's no evidence a non-trivial number of readers use them. At some point they'll just be tagged .  Just the fact that the reasoning for this pseudo-rule at the page in question is because it's what secondary school teachers recommend for student paper is so out-of-band it's hard to believe anyone actually wrote that. I'm simply going to remove that section as a direct contradiction of MoS and actual site-wide practice. If you want MoS to have a rule about this, open an RfC about it at WT:MOS. Back to the main point: this "rule" is one that some style guides recommend for finished documents. No WP articles are finished documents. We have good reasons for single subsections, including reader ease of use in the ToC, and indicating that the material present should be expanded. E.g., if a section on the geographical distribution of something has a brief general intro then two paragraphs of info about the topic in the US, this implies that it's a US-centric subject; if it has a subsection for the US this implies that we need to find and include information more broadly in new subsections. This is exactly how the bulk of such sections have evolved. Doing things as you want to do them would actually break an important WP editorial process. When Emerson wrote "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", this is the sort of thing he was talking about: dogmatism, suppression of distinction, refusal to adapt, inability to change ones mind about something contextually. If you've arrived at Wikipedia to enforce an alleged off-site rule just because you think it is one and without any regard to whether it is actually helpful at this particular project, you are making a mistake. I don't know how many times this can be explained to you in different wording until it sinks in, but it really needs to.


 * Which style guidelines do you not find this in? It's clearly in MLA, AMA, and CMOS, the three most prominent English language writing guides. What ones is this rule not part of? It seems more to me that since your particular teachers were not teaching you this rule you have a hard time believing that it even exist, even when there is countless resources to the contrary. This notion that the book on editing Wikipedia is out of touch simply because it includes things not noted in the MOS guidelines is ignorant at best. The MOS's clearly state on their own page that they do not cover EVERYTHING, and they leave the nuances of certain rules to other external guidelines. Again, you shouldn't be starting with single subsections under the guise that "one day the page will develop further and we'll have this covered with another subsection". That's a poor excuse for unprofessional writing. If we waited for everything to happen that we have no control over whether it did happen, all of our pages would look like shit. You keep saying that you keep trying to explain it to me in different ways, except the only argument that anyone has come up with from the counter side is "we just don't like to follow that rule because we weren't taught it". You actually haven't come up with a reason for why you shouldn't follow that rule, yet I've pointed out that following it keeps the pages in line with professionalism (which is what we strive for) and as far as a TOC argument goes, it's much cleaner (and still just as easy to navigate) as a section than a single subsection.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP is not written by the rules of other style guidelines. I'm going to keep repeating this until you get it. MoS absolutely does not say "leave the nuances of certain rules to other external guidelines"; it says nothing like that anywhere. Repeat:  CMoS, MLA, MLA, etc., are for finished documents, and no article on WP is finished.  They are  in editable work-in-progress state, and we use single subsections for reasons, also already explained to you.  Another repeat: You are wasting everyone's time with this circular WP:IDHT stuff; if you think you have a case, go open an RfC at WT:MOS to impose a "no single subsections" rule.  I have no idea WTF you are talking about with this "we weren't taught it", "your particular teacher were not teaching you" nonsense. That's a bullshitty ad hominem attack on everyone who doesn't agree with you as uneducated, and it needs to stop.  You have no idea what anyone's background here is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You and Adam have both said that you were not aware of said rule in writing (even though it was shown to exist). By default, that either means you were not taught it or you weren't paying attention. I assumed the former and not the latter, given that the latter is more direct accusation regarding your intellect. Indicating that you weren't taught something is by no means a personal attack against you, merely an observation based on what you have all indicated. It is what it is. Also, I would imagine that falsely threatening me with sanctions doesn't win any awards either.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I said no such thing. You're seeing what you want to see, blind to what you find disagreeable, and imagining that which you want to see but which isn't present. E.g., ""we just don't like to follow that rule because we weren't taught it" bears no resemblance to anything anyone has said here; you're WP:GASLIGHTING and engaging in straw man. When people disagree with your assertion that a recommendation from CMoS is a "rule" that must be imposed on WP, you are doing them a wrong when you imply they just don't know what you know and had poor schooling.  Ds/alert is an information notice, not a threat. It's also required by ArbCom to be delivered to anyone in an WP:AC/DS-covered topic area whose edits indicate a lack of awareness of the DS, if they have not already received such a notice within the last year. If, like me, you think this is bureaucratic nonsense that increases rather than defuses tension, tell them so at WT:ARBCOM as I have many times. (I also tried to get DS removed from MoS, to no avail at all ).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC) Update: Better yet, get your !vote in at Village pump (proposals).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

This is just going in circles. I have started a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style in the hope that we can get some more thoughts from the wider community and hopefully a definitive answer on whether a change needs to be made here. It would be good if we could stick to talking over there from now on, rather than continuing this discussion and talking about it in two places at once. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Having looked over the discussions, I don't feel that any evidence has been presented of the value of insisting on having at least two subsections every time. There are no subsections in wiki-markup, only subheaders, so what value is there in requiring at least two subheadings? Headings are there to help us organise articles, and to help readers find the information that they are interested in. I can see many situations where having a single subheading makes organisational sense. For example, an actor best know for a single role: we may wish to have a section on their career where we discuss their roles in general but add a subheading to anchor the text where we discuss their most famous role in more detail. We can't insist that if actors have a famous role, they have have to have a second famous role. Why would we have to deviate from a natural layout to satisfy some external rule that does nothing for our readers? The same considerations would apply anywhere we have multiple examples of a general topic and only one outstanding example that deserves its own subsection: a composer best know for a single work; a military commander most famous for one battle; an invention most well known for a single application; and so on. When we develop articles so that their sections become too large, we may split off one sufficiently notable section into a separate article - we don't insist that if we split off one subsection, we have to split off at least two. It would be just as nonsensical as demanding that at least two subsections have to exist, for no demonstrably useful purpose. --RexxS (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Having looked over the discussions, I don't feel that any evidence has been presented of the value of insisting on having at least two subsections every time. There are no subsections in wiki-markup, only subheaders, so what value is there in requiring at least two subheadings? Headings are there to help us organise articles, and to help readers find the information that they are interested in. I can see many situations where having a single subheading makes organisational sense. For example, an actor best know for a single role: we may wish to have a section on their career where we discuss their roles in general but add a subheading to anchor the text where we discuss their most famous role in more detail. We can't insist that if actors have a famous role, they have have to have a second famous role. Why would we have to deviate from a natural layout to satisfy some external rule that does nothing for our readers? The same considerations would apply anywhere we have multiple examples of a general topic and only one outstanding example that deserves its own subsection: a composer best know for a single work; a military commander most famous for one battle; an invention most well known for a single application; and so on. When we develop articles so that their sections become too large, we may split off one sufficiently notable section into a separate article - we don't insist that if we split off one subsection, we have to split off at least two. It would be just as nonsensical as demanding that at least two subsections have to exist, for no demonstrably useful purpose. --RexxS (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC notice
This is just a notice to those watching this page and who were involved in this discussion previously that I have started an RfC on the topic, which can be found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Hopefully this will close the matter so we can move on (the issue at the article where this all began has been on hold for months now). - adamstom97 (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Plot summaries being added prior to film's release
I was curious about this as I couldn't find anything in the MoS pertaining to it, but I was wondering what the consensus is on adding full plot summaries to films that have not been released to audiences yet? The occasion where this could potentially occur is in the event of screenplays being published online, advance screenings, etc.; the only problem I could foresee with a screenplay is that the theatrical release may differ to varying degrees, but so long as it is corrected upon the release of the film, is there harm in this? Curious about opinions on whether or not this would violate any guidelines. --Drown Soda (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would agree that it may be problematic if it's based on a screenplay rather than the film itself, and would also just seem a bit rude to me though I don't know how much weight that is going to hold here. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think a plot summary (other than a basic sourced outline) should be added until the film is available to the public in some form in some part of the world. It is basically a WP:Verifiability issue: if the film has not been released in some manner somewhere then the plot is not verifiable, at least not in a way where the film itself counts as a primary source. This means anything we say about the plot requires a citation just like any other claim in the article. Screenplays don't really cut it IMO because they can go through several revisions and even then the film can come out differently in editing. Betty Logan (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Films get released at different times in different territories. I'm totally fine with plot summaries being added once a film has had any public release, I think WP:SPOILER and the fact that Wikipedia is not censored applies once something is public and verifiable. (WP:VERIFY seems strict but still allow editors to get away with a lot. There was another guideline, I can't quite remember the name of, but even though you might not have a copy of a book to verify the citations that wasn't an excuse to exclude the information. Similarly with paywalled journals, or journals you could only access through libraries. Just because it might be difficult for some people to verify doesn't mean it cannot be included.)
 * The plot of a film based on a book might seem obvious but as Betty has said thing can change by the time the film reaches the screen, so in cases like that'd I'd agree it isn't a good idea to add the plot. If a film has been leaked it would probably also not be acceptable for similar reasons as a workprint cut could be quite different from the final cut.
 * I'd be okay with seeing a plot summary for a film that has been shown at a festival but not yet received a wide released, but others might want to insist on waiting until a wide release (this has happened before). -- 109.78.247.34 (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Accolades
I edited the article Singin' in the Rain to use the recommended section heading "Accolades" but an editor has argued that because "accolades" is too inclusive word, and would include all positive reviews of the film "awards and honors" is precise and clear

I don't see any special case here, I see no good reason not to use Accolades, it is about as good or bad as it is in any other article. The guidelines WP:MOSFILM give no suggestion that there might be exceptions, and what I vaguely remember of past discussions was that the term is supposed to be broad inclusive (and despite the claims made by that editor an inclusive title doesn't mean the actual article must include everything). There also wasn't any indication that there was some kind of special local consensus. There was no indication that this was anything other than an old article that hadn't yet been improved to follow the guidelines to be more consistent with other film articles either.

I don't think there is any good reason to make exceptions for article such as Singin' in the Rain or others but if there are good reasons then please make them clear and update the guidelines accordingly. -- 109.78.247.34 (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It's possible to interpret "accolades" to mean positive reviews. But "Critical reception" sections are practically a staple of Wikipedia's film articles, so I find the possibility of confusion low. Regardless, though, "Awards and honors" seems to me an acceptable alternative. I can't recall if there was ever a reason not to do that other than to be more concise, but we don't have to present everything the exact same way. Our energy is better spent elsewhere (as I sometimes have to tell myself when it comes to certain disputes). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that there isn't really a problem with either approach, and that there is no need to change it for change's sake. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

If the guidelines aren't good enough to use unless there is an exceptional local consensus then why even bother? If there was some exception it might be different but no exception or local consensus has been shown. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should be consistent. The guidelines should at least be good enough to use in most cases, with the onus being to prove a special exception. If a good faith edit to follow the guidelines isn't acceptable in most cases then the guidelines are useless. -- 109.78.247.34 (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Most article used to use the section heading "Awards and honors", there were arguments to change the section heading and the consensus decided Accolades was better. Wikipedia is so damned old, it is difficult enough to remember the rules let alone the ancient arguments people made to decide them. -- 109.78.247.34 (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Plot summaries which mention elements that were only added in prequels/sequels/spinoffs
I've run across a case in which a plot summary contained an element that was only added in a sequel. Can you edit the guide to disallow such summaries? -Cardace (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to update the guidelines for this since it is an infrequent issue. In a way, it is already there, in the sense that we want to simply describe what happened in the film itself. Anything extra needs to be considered with care. This is something extra, and not applicable for the plot summary. Though I could see a real-world section that mentions Cobra Kai as a continuation from The Karate Kid Part III, including this particular detail, set apart from the plot summary itself. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's already "The plot section describes the events of the original general release", and this is clearly not one of those events. --tronvillain (talk)
 * The only type of case where I can see doing this would be if there was a implied point of finality in the first movie that is somewhat contradicted by the second as to make sure the first movie's plot doesn't say that finality with an absolute statement. Eg: the villain of a film appears to fall to his death at the conclusion of the first film, but we find out in the second that they managed to survive the fall, then the first film's plot should be written "The villain appears to fall to his death." rather than "The villain falls to his death." The Karate Kid case above is not within that case area. --M asem (t) 13:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Categories: Films about foo
So I'm not usually one to mess with categories much, but I recently stumbled across a couple that seemed like a bit of stretch. Films in the Shrek franchise all belonged to the categories "" and "". As mentioned in a recent discussion above, the presence of "about" should mean that "foo" needs to be a primary or defining aspect of the film in question. I get that Donkey and Dragon are characters in the film, but does that mean these categories apply? If I were some random editor perusing categories and clicked into "Films about donkeys", I would have expected to see films that significantly cover the mammal or species as a whole, not films that just so happen to feature a jackass as one of its main characters.Perhaps I'm missing something, but my first inclination was to remove them, so I did. Bringing this up here since myself (and a couple others) were reverted by a single editor adamantly defending their presence. Pinging involved editors so they're aware:, ,. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see additional opinions on this, but my inclination is to agree that the Shrek films aren't about donkeys or dragons. Ogres perhaps. DonIago (talk) 04:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you mean Scottish ogres :-) MarnetteD&#124;Talk 06:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * But of course; how culturally insensitive of me. I look forward to my imminent trouting. DonIago (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is well-meaning wikignomes have gone overboard with the categories in film articles. Many of the categories in film articles are no longer defining characteristics. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a wikignome with a long term case of edit countitis I know how this can happen. Unfortunately, and all too often, WP:CATDEF is ignored when an editor gets their teeth into creating and adding these categories. I agree that they should be used sparingly and only when the are a defining feature of a film. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 06:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Shrek is definitely not about Donkeys. Surprisingly enough though no "about fantasy characters" or "about fictional characters". --Gonnym (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that gets back to the original discussion linked above that considers "about" vs "featuring". The film isn't about fantasy or fictional characters, but you could say it features them. A more proper designation would be "Fantasy characters in film" or "Fictional characters in film", though the latter is extremely broad and wouldn't be very useful since it would contain most films ever made. The Shrek categories were a silly example, of course, but the main takeaway for me was understanding if the term "about" should be allowed to have a loose interpretation to mean "featuring". Sounds like the consensus disagrees with that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the Shrek example is a good test-case as any. If we strictly talk about what the heart of the movie is, then its a comedy film, a love story and a buddy film. If we look at other defining characteristics of it, then fantasy characters are the most prominent. The current 3 "about" categories still listed Category:Films about curses, Category:Films about shapeshifting and Category:Animated films about animals are even less "about" it. Regarding a category such as "Fantasy characters in film" to me personally that sounds like a category I'd attach to a character article (Shrek (character)) as the subject is the fantasy character and not the film, for a film acticle it should be "films ". --Gonnym (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, yes, I would agree with that line of reasoning. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems reasonable, though the category description should state that to minimize confusion. Sadly, frequently categories are created without even minimal descriptive text being provided. DonIago (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I think therefore perhaps the names of such categories should be changed so the apparent wording is less confusing to some. PS the three listed categories above can be attributed as being important to Shrek, after all Fiona is cursed throughout the film and can change her shape at night. --Autumnleaves646 (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Striking off commentary by confirmed sockpuppet. -The Gnome (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Can" implies through intent or force of will. In this particular case, Fiona had no choice. So that would be a misapplication again of that particular category. -- McDoob  AU93  12:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We (or at least I) have been opening CfDs to rename categories such as "foo in film" and "films featuring foo" to use the term "about", in hopes of providing increased clarity. MOS:FILM was also updated with this guidance, though we can't compel anyone to read it unfortunately. DonIago (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the term "about" is an improvement, especially if the goal is to encourage categories that cover defining characteristics and avoid trivial categorizations per WP:CATDEF and WP:CATDD. We don't need more categories; we need better ones. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The films have now been added to Category:Dragons in popular culture. I feel this is circumventing the spirit of this discussion, though "Popular culture about dragons" doesn't seem like it would be an improved category name. "Media about dragons" may be an option? DonIago (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat my previous comment. In my opinion, a category like this should be placed in a character article and not in a film article. Shrek is not a dragon, it's a film, while List of Shrek characters is a dragon. So adding that category to a film article makes as much sense as adding Category:2001 films to a character article. --Gonnym (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support this change in principle, though it currently appears that the category is not being utilized in this manner. The category currently lacks any description to indicate its intended usage. DonIago (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that this editor appears to be misinterpreting how to apply these categories. With or without a description, it should be clear that only articles with the main topic Dragon would have any chance of being associated. Shrek is first and foremost a film. If the character Dragon had its own article, then it could be applied there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about this. I read the category name as Category:[Portrayal of] dragons in popular culture. If we restricted ourselves only to dragon articles, IMO they should then go to Category:Fictional dragons.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  00:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The emphasis here is that dragons are not a "defining characteristic" of the films in question, and per WP:CATDEF, we should only be applying categories that are. Otherwise, we'd end up with silly associations like "Swamps in popular culture", "Films about castles", "Films featuring pitchforks", etc. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a better name for "Category:[Portrayal of] dragons in popular culture" be "Category:Films about dragons"? And this brings us right back to the issue that GoneIn60 raised above. As an aside, in my view the categories should follow an easy check to see if they fit a film article and this should work in most (all?) cases. Ask "Is a ". If it forms a question you can answer "yes" to it works, if it doesn't, it probably shouldn't be attached. So back to the Shrek example "Is Shrek a 2001 film(s)"? yes. "Is Shrek an American buddy film(s)?" yes. "Is Shrek a Best Animated Feature Annie Award winner(s)"? yes. "Is Shrek a Film(s) about curses?" yes (regardless if this is the defining characteristic, which is a different issue). "Is Shrek a Dragon(s) in popular culture?" no, Shrek is a film, however, "Is Shrek a Film(s) about dragons?" here you can answer yes, which is why I see the first belonging to a Dragon character article and the second to a film about a dragon. --Gonnym (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from here, but I don't think you can assume other editors are going to take that approach, and I don't think it's unreasonable for editors to (mistakenly or otherwise) assume that "Foo in popular culture" is a category that can reasonably be applied to films that feature (but aren't necessarily about) foo. The category name is ambiguous; moreso if there's no description for the category indicating its intended usage. I imagine there isn't a guideline anywhere stipulating how such categories are intended to be used either. I suppose if I had my way "Foo in popular culture" categories would be renamed for clarity much as I've been doing with "Foo in film". DonIago (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Seeing that you remain adamant on keeping this pop culture category (diff), an explanation is in order. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have left one, good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autumnleaves646 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You left a personal attack, that's what you did. Apparently this will need to go to ANI. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently he is a sock puppet and was just blocked indefinitely. --Gonnym (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I should have seen it coming and avoided feeding. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed MoS change: actors' names (not) in plot sections
Arising from a brief discussion on the Wikiproject talk page, I propose that we add to the end of the paragraph in the Plot section, which currently finishes "..avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail" the following wording, which is the same as that currently agreed within WP:MOSTV: ", as well as any information that belongs in other sections, such as actors' names." MapReader (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Aligns film and TV articles, avoids clutter and duplication, improves readability of the storyline summary MapReader (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would oppose this and actually head the opposite direction. In my humble opinion, this is where an exception can be quite reasonably made in Wikipedia about "repeating" information. As a user, I routinely look for the actors playing the parts described in the plot. Without every actor's name in parenthesis, I'm simply going back and forth between "Plot" and "Cast;" not very user-friendly this. A single mention of the actor's name when the character is first introduced in the plot seems to me simple and helpful. -The Gnome (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @Gnome: the Lead section is usually just above, the cast section is just below, and there is generally an infobox off to the right. It is not as if you have to look far to find the leading actors' names? MapReader (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a question of finding the names of the actors who play in the film, be they leading actors or not, but a  question of reading the plot and putting actor  to character. As I said, the alternative for the user is going back and forth between "Plot" and "Cast." That seems the user-friendly approach. -The Gnome (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That depends on the user. Maybe the user is reading the plot section to get a clear summary of the storyline without distraction from bracketed interruptions every time a new character is mentioned? MapReader (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Putting actor to character is what the cast section is for.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And what about those articles that don't have separate 'Cast' sections (both in WP:FILM and WP:TV)? There are an unfortunate number of these, esp. because the WP:GA/WP:FA process seems to operate in such a way as to favor "prose-heavy" (and thus "anti-list") article results... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The formatting doesn't matter as long as the information is present. There are no GAs or FAs on films or TV shows that are missing the cast details. It'll also appear in the infobox when one is present.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Why would one-off information in brackets be a "distraction"? Why look at it only negatively? Why ignore the evidently additional information provided by identifying within the plot context the actor behind the role? -The Gnome (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Alternatively, I would support removing the restriction from the TV guideline should consensus turn against the idea; these need to be closely in sync.  After we stabilize this material, we should probably consider either merging as much common wording as possible and using transclusions to keep them identical, or actually merging the pages into a WP:Manual of Style/Film and television. There's been way too much WP:POLICYFORKing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't have a preference either way, but I'm in support of SMcCandlish phase 2 suggestion. --Gonnym (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as per nom. Keep sections focused on what they're supposed to cover; seems like common sense to me. I'd also support expanding the wording to cover editing, as that also tends to creep into plot summaries: "as well as any information that belongs in other sections, such as actors' names or editing details." Popcornduff (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support In most cases it is unlikely that more than 2–3 names will be familiar to a general readership so including cast names in the plot summary offers very little gain. I don't have strong views on this (I don't add cast names to a plot summaries nor do I remove them if they are already there) but this issue just seems to rumble on so it's probably time to take a definite stance and either explicitly permit it or discourage it. Betty Logan (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Greetings. I do not find this a constructive assumption to make for this purpose. It can't be right to assume that, in the use of Wikipedia, "in most cases it is unlikely that more than 2–3 names will be familiar to a general readership." -The Gnome (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well there is certainly no evidence to the contrary so it would appear that cast names are being added on the basis of an assumption of familiarity. Generally we only add something to Wikipedia if we can be reasonably sure it will be of use or relevant to a good chunk of readers. Betty Logan (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think if everyone recognized 2-3 familiar names out of, say, 8-10, they would already have a noticeable improvement in reading comprehension, and obviously warrant keeping the other names, as obviously not everyone recognizes the same 2-3 actors. I would argue that being able to visualise an actor/actress's appearance while reading is a much bigger gain than the waste of skipping two words in parentheses.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  02:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as per nomination. I see no reason that the MOS:TV tidbit wouldn't apply to MOS:FILM. QueerFilmNerd  talk 17:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per . There is zero need to ban actors' names from plot summaries. I don't feel that summaries must or must not have names, but I can see reasons to have them, such as facilitating smoother reading, especially when lead sections almost never connect actors with their roles outside of franchise films. It is not unusual for secondary sources to include names in their plot write-ups. Of course, I get that such names can be distracting (when there are too many, anyway). The point is, Wikipedia doesn't need to be "saved" from the presence of actors' names in plot summaries. I've seen numerous edit warring situations where editors think they are doing God's work removing the names, and this will just formalize the enforcement ability of that aesthetic preference. I suggest instead applying a form of MOS:RETAIN -- if the article has been with or without names for a long time, then leave it as it is. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is worth taking a look at something like Casablanca (film) and Citizen Kane and asking yourself how much benefit would it really bring you if we added the cast names to the plot summaries. Outside of Welles and Joseph Cotten it would leave me none the wiser on Citizen Kane. I do a little better on Casablanca, but in fairness you probably have to be pretty old or a film buff to know more than two or three. And how would you fare on Indian or Chinese films? Familiarity depends on many varying factors, mainly language, age, your tastes in film and how many you watch. It seems to be a completely subjective exercise determining how familiar the cast will be to a general readership. For the record the AFI don't bother including them either (see ). Generally I think we can only be sure of their usefulness if the article does not have a cast list. Betty Logan (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Casablanca and Citizen Kane don't have actor names in plot, and aren't required to under current rules. Let's focus on the articles that will be impacted. On that matter, different articles have different audiences on Wikipedia. E.g. who looks up Snake in the Eagle's Shadow without being familiar with Jackie Chan at the very least?  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  02:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If they already know he's the start, they don't need to see his name in the plot section. It'll already be in the lead, the cast section and (if present) the infobox, anyway. If he just made a cameo and isn't in the lead, he may not need to be in the cast section; i.e., there's no argument either way for putting him the plot section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Betty Logan, a user will more often look for lesser roles than for leading ones! More people are expected to know who played the two leading roles in, say, Casablanca than who played the police captain or Bergman's husband in the movie. The situation is the opposite of your take: We come to Wikipedia precisely because we do not know everything about this or that subject, e.g. about a film. We might know the protagonists but not much else; and something may bring us here to look for more details, e.g. we learn that the actress playing the house servant won for that part the first Oscar awarded to an African American entertainer. Identifying actors within the plot is encyclopaedic information and user-friendly. I'm frankly mystified by objections to that; why would we place a very narrow interpretation of general guidelines above usefulness and content improvement? -The Gnome (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This is only useful for short films and ones where there isn't a going to be a section for cast or characters. In the television episode summary they sometimes use this format to indicate when a prominent guest star appears, otherwise they use the Guest starring: line afterwards.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - while I can see it being potentially helpful to some people (though it seems pretty marginal compared with glancing at a cast section), it really does break up the prose to have actors names in brackets behind character names in plot summaries (that would especially be the case if it ballooned out of control, like doing it for all the characters in a plot summary with a lot of characters). --tronvillain (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - as has been discussed numerous times all over Wikipedia, which led to the clarification for MOS:TV, the plot section is for the plot. Actors are not part of the plot. Actors should not be mentioned. Also, allowing it just opens the door for a whole lot of non-plot stuff to be added. Best to keep it strictly for the actual summary. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it's example of something that's in a MOS(TV) that has nowhere near "overwhelming consensus" (many of us in WP:TV are against, but we don't have the "consensus" to remove it, either, so it pestiferously stays...), and is in fact roundly ignored because it's a "bad rule" that makes no sense. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * How does it not make sense? Plot is for plot, that's about as straightforward as it gets. Also, a further comment from me: if there is no cast section but there are actor names in the plot then that sounds like the information is unsourced, or only has the (assumed) primary source of the credits. I am against supporting unsourced cast additions, and would expect editors to put in the work to find third-party sources for each cast name added to the plot. At that point, you have created a cast list and jumbled it up throughout a plot summary, so there is no reason why that shouldn't be pulled out to form an actual readable list at that point. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Over at WP:How to write a plot summary with the diffs around, claimed consensus was already there to remove cast names in plot summaries as long as there's a dedicated cast section  , as per this archived discussion at the project page. We're getting conflicting advise here now. --M asem  (t) 00:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'd rather disregard pretty design in favour of usefulness. Actor names in plot help the reader visualise the film without breaking up concentration by scrolling. Isn't that the whole point of having a plot section in the first place?! If we absolutely need to get rid of something, I would rather ban cast lists. They attract vandalism and cameos, leading to edit wars, and they indeed are something you can tell people to just look up on IMDb.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  01:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, basically, as per Daß Wölf and The Gnome. While not every film plot summary needs these (many don't), some benefit from this, especially long plot summaries with manifold characters. I find this another example where people are trying to use the MOS to create problems where there aren't any... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, while I personally prefer to keep the cast out of plot and just build a separate cast listing, I believe there are many good reasons to list actors in plot sections—especially when all that can be created for a cast list is just a bare bones "X as Y". I generally find it dubious the claim that adding two to four words bracketed is a distraction. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  02:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Plot summaries are for plot. We already have sections for cast that are well-established in their use. If it is necessary to list the cast in the plot, then an RFC should be held on each separate page or case to determine if it is required and if there's support for it. --  Alex TW 02:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - per Popcornduff. Unless the actor/actress’s name is relevant to the plot, it doesn’t belong there. Sergecross73   msg me  03:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To also bring a point from the VG project (if we are talking standardization), the VG project rarely focuses on the cast, unless the cast has gained interest and in which case we generally have a separate development or character section, almost never as part of the plot. --M asem (t) 03:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per The Gnome, Daß Wölf, IJBall, et al. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 03:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per other's arguments. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per The Gnome; this is one case where usefulness trumps elegance. Phediuk (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I see no good reason to block the mentioning of actors in brackets behind the character name in plot descriptions. That's a fairly common approach in general, whivh imho works well in WP as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We can probably draw a line under this now, as this non-RFC discussion isn't going to resolve the matter one way or the other. I didn't expect a small tweak to bring film into line with tv, on a matter that to me (being from the "plot is for plot" school) didn't seem controversial, to attract such strong opposition.  Whilst there are, so far, slightly more supporting editors, there are significant numbers and clear arguments on both sides, and I don't see a clear enough basis in WP-wide policy to enable someone to rule one way or the other. If someone wants to take it to RFC, be my guest; otherwise the somewhat messy status quo in film is probably where we are stuck. MapReader (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's allow this discussion to stay open for a fortnight. Nothing bad can come out of a hasty close. It's high summer season anyway and lots of people are on vacation. (I should be too! ) The Gnome (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I put an RfC tag on it anyway, I'm pretty sure before MapReader posted that. And there is no requirement anywhere than a consensus discussion be an RfC, anyway. RfCs were introduced to solicit opinions and analysis, and to draw attention to discussions; they aren't a replacement for discussions, nor The Official WP Voting Booth.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Late in the game, but Strong oppose. Actors' names helps keep plot summaries grounded in terms of the actual constructed scenes, rather than allow editors to run away with accounts of the fiction itself.Zythe (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is also really beneficial for readers, who usually will have a visual recognition of a character, that is they recognize the face rather then the name of the role and the face is tied to the actor.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a great point that Kmhkmh makes, and which I so far have ignored. Yes, putting face to character in a direct manner also helps to recognize and recollect. Most informative. -The Gnome (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Do it one, when the character/actor is first mentioned, but not every time afterwards. The film starts with Princess Leia (Fisher) being chased down by Darth Vader (Prowse)… not …and the Vader (Prowse) tells Leia (Fisher) that if Leia (Fisher) doesn't tell him (Prowse) where the enemy base is, Vader (Prowse) will beat Leia (Fisher) personally.Thanks,L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  11:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course! That's just basic writing style :) Zythe (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's why I find the proposition a bit odd.Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  15:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to disagree, but the proposition is not 'odd'. As tv editors have agreed for their MoS, the list of characters and actors belongs in the cast section, and a summary of the storyline belongs in the plot section. MapReader (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fine for TV, but this is a film where the cast will not change. It is more helpful to readers to have the last name of the cast mentioned the first time their character appears in the Plot. It's like MOS:OVERLINK, which does not mandate that a link onyl appear once an article, or require once a section, but allows flexibility to make the reader's life easier. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  19:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * How about having a short summary of each character's storyline in the Cast section? When readers are looking at the cast list they are sure to want to know what happens to each of them in the film, and it is very inconvenient having to keep scrolling up to the Plot section just above? ;) MapReader (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean like this?  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  18:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe like half of that; it goes on and on a bit too much, especially for anyone that read the plot summary. It's the right idea but poorly executed.
 * Comment: As I stated above, if there is a content dispute on a specific article about including actors' names in the plot summary or not, then we should follow the spirit of MOS:RETAIN in keeping the status quo. There could be a discussion about including such names based on the nature of the film, but clearly there is no consensus to include or exclude such names across all articles. Neither approach is outright detrimental. I hope no editor will make adding/removing names part of their going-around cleanup since the above difference in opinion shows that such cleanup is likely in vain. More permanent contributions and improvements can be made in other ways. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My SOP, for better or worse, has been that if I'm doing plot cleanup per WP:FILMPLOT, then if there's a Cast section, I'll remove cast names from the Plot section in the interest of tightening it up. I don't typically pay much attention to Plot sections otherwise, so I wouldn't tend to touch them just to do ten seconds worth of copy-editing. I tend to agree that trying to come up with a blanket guideline appears to be creating more problems than it might solve. Perhaps it is best left to local consensus. DonIago (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * But that will equate to "left to perennial, angry editwarring at a zillion articles for the next decade" and we'll be right back to drafting a normalized standard that treats plot and cast information consistently. This is really a general editing matter: don't redundantly browbeat the reader with the same information.  It really doesn't even make any sense to do something like "Smith (Jackson) and Jones (Cheng) are two lovers on the run from the mobster McNeish (O'Neill) ..." before the cast section explains who on earth Jackson, Cheng, and O'Neill are.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @Doniago, I have to agree with with what SMcCandlish said. There really should not be a difference between film A and film B when describing the plot section. If its decided that its helpful for the readers for one film, why would it not be helpful for the readers for other films (and the other way as well)? Too many times instead of deciding the end result is not deciding which does not improve Wikipedia but just lets issue languish in an eternal state of local consensus owning of articles. That said, I see valid points for both sides and from checking FA film articles, it seems both are equally represented (in the 30ish articles I checked), so I don't have a stong preference. --Gonnym (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's really such a prevalent issue that we "need" a global standard, but while I didn't say so in my comment, I do favor one. That being said, I'm inclined to Support not including actors' names in the Plot summary if there's a separate Cast section. As has been said above, especially for top-billed cast, it seems ridiculously redundant, to me, to include them in the lead, the Plot and the Cast sections. A well-maintained Plot section will not be overly-lengthy in any case, so it's hard for me to give much credence to concerns about reader convenience. DonIago (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need for such a detailed standard for the plot section either and I don't share the obsession with detailed standardisations that some editors have. They often provide an at best marginal improvement for readers while at the same time potentially aggravating and driving away content contributors. Imho the net benefit for readers is then rather a negative than a positive.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That really drives the point home. I notice that a lot of editors here don't bother leaving a decent edit summary when reverting an IP, who is often breaking an opaque rule, such as 400-700 words for plot summary (most popular film summaries are already at 690 words or thereabouts), or MOS:OVERLINK, and is left scratching their head as for why they were reverted. One of the reasons why I registered an account in the first place was to prevent getting reverted for no reason (as it appeared to me then). As we don't seem to be making much progress at this problem, more standardisations are just going to lead to more WP:BITEs. In the case of plot summary length, one can make the argument that this compromise is better than the alternative of having unending plot transcripts, but IMO the main effect of this is going to be driving IPs away.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  02:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that speak more to editor conduct though? Certainly if I'm reverting an edtior for violating WP:FILMPLOT I say so, and I'm not sure why any other editor can't do the same thing; it takes all of ten seconds or less. Personally I'm inclined to AGF if someone reverts a reversion in a case where the original reverting editor didn't even do the courtesy of leaving a clear explanation. Also, unexplained deletion of content is a warnable offense, though perhaps not done nearly as widely as it could be. DonIago (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a conduct matter. It's like saying "there should be no traffic laws because of the  problems like 'driving while black (the laws aren't problem, the racist cops are the problem).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * More a case of bad (traffic) laws than bad police, but of course bad (traffic) laws will embolden bad policing as well in doubt.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: Actors' names in the Plot summary section are redundant if there is already a Cast section. Plus, they add to the word count, which is a pain when it comes to the WP:Film plot limit issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's a character article, however, that's different. We don't include cast sections in character articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with not including the actor names when the word count of the summaries is excessive. Also when there are more than a handful of actors to acknowledge. If you're going through Ocean's Eleven, you don't need parentheses for each of the 11 characters. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd support excluding them from the count. Even in something like Ocean's Eleven it wouldn't be more than two dozen words, which are, either way, more important than the "ands" and "ors" they ordinarily displace.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  17:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose primarily because I've seen plenty of instances where putting actors in parentheses in the plot section is used to usurp a cast section at all (see Barbarella (film), which I reviewed for GA). I'm not saying this needs to be a requirement, but I think cast sections can be pretty redundant in the case of a small cast (like A Quiet Place (film), in my opinion). Sock   ( tock talk)  15:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This suggestions makes absolutely perfect sense... As long as the reader has already seen the film in question. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I generally only read the plot section of films I haven't seen before. When reading a cast section, I'm using the analytical part of my brain: sorting and collating information. But when reading the plot section, I'm picturing the plot in my mind. Having the actor's names right there allows me to put faces on those characters without breaking stride. It makes reading the plot section easier and more engrossing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The wording proposed is simply far, far too open-ended and problematic; additions to policy language should always be specific and direct enough that the added language at least heads off more arguments than it starts. In this case "information that belongs in other sections" is so vague and prone to subjective interpretation, that it is likely to serve more as an excuse for people to not WP:DROPTHESTICK, rather than a concrete uniform default approach that can be easily recognized to guide local consensus by presenting the broader community consensus--i.e. the worst kind of policy language.


 * And even if we narrowed the guidance to the language of the parenthetical actors names (which seems to be the actual main thrust of the proposal), I'd still have to say weak oppose as to that. I don't use the term often, but this feels like paradigmatic rule cruft.  I get the impulse towards having a standard, consistent approach across articles of a type, but I can't say as that it is necessary to every feature of an article without a compelling reason for the instance in question.  Here, I can't say that I feel comfortable judging whether the names are or are not appropriate to a synopsis section, and I haven't seen any particularly strong empirical argument thus far that would come close to definitively settling that question--nor indeed to establish beyond a doubt that the answer to the question could not fluctuate from article to article.  So I don't see why not to leave it open to editorial discretion and local consensus at individual articles. Snow let's rap 05:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Not every article needs a character list and not every article needs characters/actors in the plot .... it should be done on a case-by-case basis, Anyway oppose per The Gnome, Daß Wölf, IJBall, MPants, Snow Rise et al. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Partial Support Support for actors named, it should not be in the plot section - it disrupts the in-universe voice used to write fiction plot summaries. But I agree with Snow Rise that "information that belongs in other sections" is too vague to be added to MOS.  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 04:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: I find it obtrusive to include actors' names in parentheses within plot summaries, especially if there is already a separate Cast section. The cast members and their role title(s) obviously need to be stated somewhere in the article—either in the plot (in parentheses), or in a separate Cast section in which the performers are individually listed—but between the two, my preferences has always been the separate section with a list of the actors. There seems to be a lot of dispute over this and many FA articles do not have a separate Cast section (such as the Mulholland Drive article, where there is instead a character section detailing the main characters). In the case of the Mulholland Drive article, for example, I find it really problematic as the format prioritizes the central actors/characters in the film and results in performers who have smaller roles going umentioned. This is especially true of a film with a large cast. In my opinion, if the actor is credited and have a character name (i.e. not "Man #1), they should be mentioned, if only by name & credit. --Drown Soda (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per pretty much what Erik said. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The order of sections, specifically Marketing and below
This seems to be something that was sort of discussed before, so I'm starting it fresh here because I think we need to revisit this. As a basic argument, I am going to say that (with exception to the plot and cast list, which provide context for the rest of the article), everything from Production through Home Media, Merchandise, etc.) should be laid out based on basic chronological order of events. They should also be grouped within where they happen (or separated accordingly). For example, now matter how you want to divide or subdivide, Production would include "Development", "Writing", "Casting", "Filming", "Post-production" (could be editing, reshoots, etc.), and then "Music". These are all part of making the actual film. To me, they should be kept together in some capacity, at least in synchronization.

Then, there should be marketing for a film, followed by the actual released, then box office/critical reception. Following that, home media and merchandising. There could be other, supplemental sections (themes, etc.) that pop in front of some of these later ones, but for the most part merchandising and home media release are some of the least important things we discuss and I've seen them mentioned above critical reception of the actual film.

I get that a lot of pages are doing it a different way. I'm curious as to why we continue to do that, beyond the reason of "so many pages are affected already", because we can fix that over time.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Well first of all, I think the order of the sections should take significance into account as well (meaning how important the subtopic is to the film), and not just the chronology of events. Secondly, I'm not sure a defined order is all that necessary. The advice currently at MOS:FILM is to "see WikiProject Film's Good Articles and Featured Articles for examples of appropriate layouts". I think that's solid advice and avoids the slippery slope of defining exactly what each section should be called or where it should be placed, as this will undoubtedly change over time. If anything, this MoS advice should be repeated (and possibly elaborated upon) in the "Primary content" subsection and not just in the MoS lead. I didn't notice it at first with it just being in the lead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there's a difference between pointing out that a typical layout should follow a certain order and explaining that there may be times when certain topics are in a different order because of significance, but a general layout is going to follow the same pattern. I cannot see when, when you have a marketing section, that it would ever come AFTER the release information on the film. That would be like arguing that if the special effects information was so significantly important on a film we would somehow put it first on the page. Is there some example you're thinking of where that's not the case (not specifically about Marketing, but a subtopic)? Additionally, if layouts should change then eventually the GA and FA articles would need to be adjusted. That doesn't save the MOS for being more specific, because you can look at articles that are FA from 10 years ago and realize that things have changed a lot since then and those pages had to be adjusted accordingly. You wouldn't continue to point to them as justification for not changing.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of a rough chronological flow as it relates to the timeline of events related to the film, namely production and release (meaning that marketing should fall in between). This flow has been disrupted when marketing content comes after actual release content in a release-based section. Marketing content can stand alone in its own section before a release-based section, or it should be the first subsection in a release-based section, followed by other subsections. I don't really mind a home media subsection being at the end of such a release section, though, even if a critical reception section comes after. In addition, there are probably sub-topics that can "transcend" the timeline (e.g., themes, general analysis), like how American Beauty (1999 film) and Tender Mercies handles it. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a fair point, but I would hope that since those lists are sortable by date that editors would apply common sense and look at more recent articles. As for your question on what example I may have been thinking of, I didn't have one. I was just speaking in general terms. Perhaps we can retain the advice to look at GA and FA articles but also add a suggested order as well. Interested to hear what others think. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In regard to Erik's comments, I have typically followed the outline used at Prometheus (a featured article promoted in 2013), where "Marketing" exists as a standalone section before the "Release" section and "Critical reception" is under "Release". This allows the "Home media" subsection to come after "Critical reception" and "Accolades". If this is incorrect now or outdated, then perhaps having something in the MoS would be helpful after all. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming Bignole wants home media content after critical reception content. I don't think that is needed. It's impossible to achieve a perfect chronological flow since there can be parallel and distinct events (box office and critical reception), hence my support for a "rough" chronological flow. Most home media sections/subsections should not be that long, anyway; if it is, there is too much puffery, or it is actually relatively important. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In that specific example, if we recommend placing "Critical reception" as a subsection under "Release", then "Home media" can always be placed afterwards, since it's in the same level 2 section. Where you run into issues is when "Critical reception" is created as a standalone level 2 and listed after the "Release" section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters that much if home video content comes before or after the reception section. Gone with the Wind (film), for example, uses thematic ordering with the "release" section covering the different windows (theatrical/TV/video) coming before the "reception" section. It's had such a long shelf-life that a thematic ordering is a much cleaner structure. I think it is important though for the ordering of article sections to have some "internal logic" though. With regards to marketing I agree that if it is a standalone section it should come before the "release" section, and if it is developed as part of the "release" section then it should ideally follow some kind of rough chronological order with the marketing content coming before the theatrical content. Betty Logan (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If we are talking about logical ordering and structure, then having two different release sections would not be that. Neither is saying the reception to the film is part of it being released. The broad outline should be Plot, Cast, Production, Release, Reception, and Sequels (if applicable). Whether Marketing comes between Production and Release or is in the Release section is something that I feel could go either way, since it is something done by the studio as part of their release strategy but also chronologically happens before the actual release. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Broadly concur. I think I'd put marketing at the tail end of Production (i.e., after Post-production, if present). If it were put in Release, it would either precede and occlude the actual main subject of that section, or it would be confusingly out of chrono order.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

- I actually follow more of what your logic was, historically. When I have written ones in the past, I've kept Marketing as its own beast, and to me B.O. and Reception are part of the release of the film. So, I had historically put the lead in information for Release as the actual release items (e.g., record breaking theaters, releases overseas, etc.), and then had subsections for B.O. and Reception under that. To me, home media can either be lumped in with the regular release information when it's just a couple of quick sentences, or if it needs a subsection then it can fall under reception (or be its own section under everything).

Now, if marketing was folded into "release", I would say that it should either be the first subsection (if we're putting B.O. and Reception under), or built into the lead-in information before any subsections. For example, It might be a section of "Release" that starts with content about marketing, followed by any relevant (non-trivial) release information, then the first subsection of say B.O., followed by the sub of Reception. My personal issue with the current set I see many times is that we have "Release", followed by theatrical information like theater count, global dates, then home media release, then marketing. The probably to me is that the marketing for films is what establishes the everything else. If we see plot information as context for the rest of the real world content (that's why it comes first), the Marketing should be considered context for the release/reception information.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Box office is clearly part of Release; it's the direct, immediate, short-term consequence of the release. Critical reception is its own major topic – it's why the work is notable – and should not be under another section. From an RS perspective, reception is the entire meat of the article, and it's among the most-sought information, and it's something that can develop over years, even many decades. Home media is part of release; it's release in another format, and has nothing to do with critical reception.  Even movies that are savaged by critics and general public response still go to DVD/Blu-ray; it's the only way the studio is likely to make up for an expensive flop. Home release post-dates box office, nearly always, for a theatrical release; for a direct-to-video (what do we call that now? direct-to-disc?), home/online release  release, and home/online sales take the place of box office. Yes, marketing should come before release, since it's the end of the production process and what makes a release feasible. Theaters will not pick up your movie if no one knows about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be against any suggestion that marketing should be part of a production section. Marketing is completely independent from the actual creation of a film. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Either marketing exists in its own section between production and release, or it is placed at the beginning of the release section. I don't think production is a good fit. I understand the point SMcCandlish is trying to make about when marketing occurs, but it is more closely tied to the early stages of release than it is to the actual film production, at least in my mind. Take that for what it's worth, lol. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur with Adam and GoneIn60 about marketing. I do agree with SMcCandlish's stance about critical reception since while it does mostly form upon a film's release, that is incidental. A film can be reviewed "right away" or even much later. I would not really press that hard to separate critical reception content out of a release section, though. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think Marketing has any place in Production. To me, it should almost always exist independently, unless there's a reason to fold it under Release. As for reception, I understand the argument, but I would challenge a bit on the notion that the reception of a film is what makes it notable. That's not always the case, and probably not the case in most film articles. There are way more films produced than receive significant coverage from reviewers. Yeah, the big Hollywood ventures do, but there's so many smaller ones that don't. It's important, but the notability of the film can come from a combination of his reception by critics and its reception by viewers (e.g., box office).


 * I agree that home media is also a release status of the film, but when I read "Release" on a film page I'm instinctively thinking that it's referring to the major theatrical release (because it's followed by box office and critical review). To me, home media is an ancillary release that most of the time is actually irrelevant to Wikipedia (because we're basically just asking as announcement that it exists on DVD, not that its DVD release is somehow significant (as you've pointed out...every film gets it). I would say that in the least we are probably creating subsections for "home media" too frequently, when we really shouldn't be (i.e., when it's basically just a section that says when a film is being released on DVD and a couple of points of the features). I think, if it's part of "Release", most of the time it should just be folded into the lead-in information if there are subsections, not divided out to be a couple of sentences of information.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, if there's nothing overly significant about the home media release – meaning there's just a few sentences or less – why not just merge it into the beginning of the release section before the first subsection? I wouldn't be particularly keen on having that in chronological order with the rest of the section if it's too small to have in its own subsection. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of placement in the section having home release not be under release somewhere is going to be severely confusing for a lot of readers.  We should probably also look at what MOS:TV is doing.  Whatever reasoning we're applying here, and that they've applied over there, it needs to be reconciled so that the layout advice doesn't end up contradictory; in an RfC below we already have a problem of that sort, and I bet there are more of them to fix.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Re "Either marketing exists in its own section between production and release, or it is placed at the beginning of the release section": The first works for me. The second, as I said much earlier, would be a poor idea because it would bury the actual release material – the subject of the section – under a pile of marketing material.   While I'm thinking of the production in the business sense, with marketing as obviously a part of that process, I don't have any problem with the idea of others conceiving of the production as a work by "the creatives" or as a tightly defined phase, and marketing being outside of it, it's own phase.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * In short, I honestly cannot think of why Marketing would ever really be part of "Release", unless people are putting it there because the information is so sparse and they don't want a section for a few sentences. To me, that's structurally still better than a few sentences as a subsection, because that just looks like you're splitting for the sake of it, and not because there's a need. I typically see Marketing as its own phase because it typically involves people outside of the actual production. Sometimes directors get involved, but there are for more times they get annoyed with what is shown in a trailer, or billboards, etc. because it reveals something they wanted hidden and they don't typically have control over that. To me, "Marketing" as its own section serves as a bridge between production and release sections.


 * With regard to home-media, I don't know that people would get confused if it wasn't under "Release". Again, I would argue that most people view "release" from a theatrical sense, not a home media sense. I think the comparison to MOSTV is a little more difficult, because they don't put "Ratings" under release, the same way that we put Box Office under release at times. You could have "release" as its own section, no subsections, and just prose out the theatrical (relevant) content with the home media stuff. In most cases, unless you're breaking records, you're only going to have a few sentences on the actual release theatrically of a film (and on DVD for that matter). Then have a "Response/Reception" section that has "Box Office", "Critical review", and "Accolades" together. ??   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't have any RS basis for the idea behind this "most people view 'release' from a theatrical sense" idea. It's just subject editorial assumption. People use home (especially online) viewing more now than ever before, and the movie-house industry has been in a crisis because fewer and fewer people ill go to theaters except for bombastic productions that seem like they need the big screen for the full experience. I am arguing to "just prose out the theatrical ... content with [also] the home media stuff", because it's all about releases.  Some films even get multiple theatrical releases (e.g. Star Wars) and we should also cover that in the same section.  If it's a long article we might also re- it briefly where it needs to be mentioned chronologically.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

You're right, it would take a poll of readers to actually ascertain how they view the terms, either way, it seems that you and I are on the same page when it comes to how Marketing should be handled, and ultimately how home media should be handled (as part of the larger prose under "release" and not a separate subsection...if I'm reading you correctly). I'm curious if others feel the same way?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In general, I would not be opposed to a push toward separate "Marketing" sections, and release sections divided into "Theatrical" and "Home media", for example. I am definitely against combining release information with reception or having multiple release sections. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think they need to be divided into "theatrical" and "home", because then you're talking about 2 subsections that basically have 2 or 3 sentences of information in most cases, which wouldn't justify splitting.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not really something that needs to be discussed here. Whether that split is justified or not will depend on the specific content. As long as we aren't suggesting having a release section, then reception content, and then another release section. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, but I also wouldn't set it up as an implied suggestion of organization (which is what has happened on this page already and why I started this discussion in the first place). There has been a lot of indirectly implied organization of information. If you have a few sentences of a small paragraph, per the MOS on sectioning that shouldn't be divided into a subsection. What I can see happening is an indirectly implied suggestion to do so, then having to argue with people needlessly that information needs to just be merged into a single subsection because there isn't much there, then a whole new discussion here about how we need to be clearer that those topics shouldn't be divided unless there is enough information to support the division.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So we should be saying that the release section is for theatrical and home media release information, with a note to be especially wary of splitting them into subsections as they often don't have enough information to justify that? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Basically. I think we can point out that the majority of film articles do not contain enough unique information on the basic theatrical release and home media release of a film to justify separating them into distinct sections. I think even when you have a lot of theatrical release information, we typically still only have a couple of sentences of home media stuff. You don't need a subsection (or section) for a couple of sentences that says a film is out on BluRay and has special features.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's weird to me that anyone's even fighting on this. Even in cases of quite complicated home-media release info, e.g. Brazil (1985 film), Star Wars (film), and Blade Runner, it all in the "Release" section (albeit in subsections thereof in those cases, which would not normally be needed).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Just coming back to this because I think we all got busy and side-tracked a bit. Just trying to figure out where we stand. It largely seems like there is some agreement over "Marketing" placement in the article, and think some things that could be further discussed and tighter wording figured out for the other stuff. Right?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should adjust the wording for marketing to match what appears to be the consensus on that, and perhaps tighten-up some wording for release info. Do you have any suggestions for specific changes ? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Right now it reads: "Details may be contained in a "Release" section, a "Marketing" subsection within it, or a stand-alone "Marketing" section, depending on the amount of coverage available." --- It would appear that we're all (or at least mostly all) in agreement that we should probably remove the part that says "contained in 'Release'". Did we ever come up with examples of when we might find it under another section? I think I could imagine under "production" where the marketing information is possibly directly impacting production....maybe in a kickstarter type of situation?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So perhaps something along the lines of Details may be contained in a "Marketing" section, or within another appropriate section of the article such as "Production", depending on the type and amount of content available? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm good with that adjustment, but I would like an example article to link to as a good representation of when you might see that. Wouldn't you?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any off the top of my head that I know of, hopefully someone else that is watching has one we could use. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't have an issue with the content being in the Release section when it's a little bit of material. I mean, look at the current state of the Star Wars: The Last Jedi article. Should we really split that content away from "Release" and create two different sections? I also think that it makes more sense for marketing content to go in a Release section than in a Production section. I'd also prefer to leave this to case-by-case matters, like we do for some other things. I'll leave this to consensus, but I hope that editors don't go around treating the guideline like a policy and insisting that marketing material can never be an aspect of "Release." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Star Wars: The Force Awakens also currently has its Marketing section as part of its Release section, and it's fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything in SW:TFA's marketing information that makes me think it should be under "Release" (as opposed to being a standalone section before it). What makes marketing related to release of the film? It typically happens well before the release (frequently still during a film's production---sometimes just post production). Just looking at The Last Jedi, I see a few issues. Video games and home media have nothing to do with Marketing, yet they are subsections of Marketing as if they are directly connected. I think the general consensus is that Marketing should most often be separated and there may be a handful of times where you might find it somewhere else. That shouldn't be simply because of the length of content. That should be directly related to how marketing is related to that parent topic.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * While I think "Marketing" can belong under "Release", my issue with it here is that we have four non-subsection paragraphs above the subsections. It seems like such paragraphs should be summarizing the subsections below it, yet there is no connection between these paragraphs and the subsequent content. (To draw a comparison, a large "Production" section could theoretically have a paragraph summarizing the detailed subsections that follow it.) So these four paragraphs should have their own subsection heading, otherwise it looks like lazy shoehorning of the sub-topics. Marketing content after release content continues to violate the general chronological flow of the article body. "Here is how the film was made, here is how it was released, oh yeah, let's go back and talk about the marketing of it real quick..." Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Bignole, the Marketing section in the Force Awakens article can obviously and validly be its own section (it's detailed enough), but I don't see that it should be its own section. To me, either is fine. I get what you mean about marketing happening well before the release, but I don't see that this means we should be strict about not having marketing material in the Release section, especially since marketing may become heavier during the release of the film. As for the Last Jedi article, I agree that home media material should not be a part of the Marketing section. I'll fix that if no one else does. Also, the "Video games" subheading should be removed. But how are video games not part of marketing? It's common for Wikipedia to have video game material in the Marketing section. Another example of video game material in the Marketing section is the current state of the Avatar (2009 film) article. The Marketing section of that article is also a standalone. And in The Dark Knight (film), there is one sentence about a tie-in video game. Do we consider tie-in video games more related to marketing? As for the general consensus, I understand that statement for this discussion, but it's not the general consensus if we look at a variety of film articles. If the marketing material only equates to a sentence or two, or an otherwise small paragraph, it is better to incorporate that material into an existing section than give it its own section.


 * Erik, I agree with having marketing content come before "Release" if it's not a part of the "Release" section. As for the four paragraphs before the subsections in the Force Awakens article, I don't see the issue. The initial, non-subsection content in a section is not always a summary of the content below it. We can see this in examples given at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. I know that some editors prefer that initial content to be a summary, but, again, it's not always the case that it is. Maybe not even mostly.


 * Also, higher above, editors were against putting marketing material in the Production section. Is consensus here now for that? Adamstom.97 was one of the editors against it, but his latest proposed wording is for it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Flyer, the point of subsections is that they divide out a more specific topic within the main topic. Writing, Filming, Special Effects are more specific points of Production. Marketing is more often than not an independent topic from Release. Marketing is the action that impacts release. When you put it under Release, you're indicating that Release is the overall topic and marketing is a more specific aspect. Marketing begins well before release. There are few exceptions where Marketing is ratcheted up after the release of a film. I'm not talking about trailers and tv spots that just highlight reviews. That's standard practice and we don't just document every time a new trailer is released. I'm talking about when they spend another million dollars on billboards or partnerships to help push a film even further. Outside of trailers though, most (I'd easily say 98%) films don't get much more marketing push. They let word of mouth do its job. That's why marketing inside another section should be an exception, not common practice (like it is now).

As for video games...I wouldn't say they are marketing. Most video games don't come out with the films, they come out after. They are merchandising items. Marketing does not make you money directly. It's an indirect earner as it impacts the profit after the fact. Video games are direct revenue earners and have no bearing on the films themselves, are very rarely are they used as a coincider for marketing of a film.

As Erik was pointing out, in typical writing practice when you start dividing content into subsections (which is why there is usually a "no single subsection rule" in writing), the content before the first subsection is typically a brief summary of what you're about to read. Not always, this isn't a hard rule of doing that, but generally that's what you find. It's not 4 paragraphs long, because that would indicate that the information there likely is another specific topic that deserves a subheading. See Jason Voorhees. The first divided area has a summary, the next one doesn't have anything. Neither have a flesh out subsection that doesn't have a header for it, which it what it looks like in TFA article.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Bignole, I understand your arguments; don't get me wrong. I always like seeing what you have to state on matters such as these. But if you are stating that marketing should never be a part of "Release," I disagree. Erik also stated that he wouldn't say that marketing should never be a part of "Release." If you are saying that marketing usually should not be a part of "Release," I still disagree. I just do not see an issue with the content being there. And I cannot see that putting it in the Production section is usually best. I'm not stating that "Marketing" should never be its own section. If there's enough material for a solid Marketing section, then, yeah, why not just have it be its own section? I get that. But when it's just a little bit of material? I think it usually should not be its own section, for the same reasons that, per MOS:Paragraphs, we think twice about giving a little bit of material its own subsection.


 * As for video games, it is standard on Wikipedia thus far to put video game material in the Marketing section. I don't see an issue with that or why we should change it.


 * As for a summary before subsectioning, you know that I'm aware of the Jason Voorhees article you wrote. But I patrol. And when I patrol, I see a lot of our articles on a daily basis. A summary before subsectioning is not what I usually see when patrolling, even in some good or featured articles. I sometimes see it and it is common, but I can't say it's standard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * To address the summary bit first, I pointed out that even the Jason article does and does not include it. The point wasn't that you have to have a summary, the point was that when you're dividing content you wouldn't have multiple subsections lead with information that itself should be subheaded (but isn't). When you have content under the main heading, but before a subheading, it's insinuating it's a brief summary of what you're about to read (like was done in the Jason article). When it's not it looks confusing because it is really just more specific information that should have its own subheading.


 * With regard to marketing, I didn't say "never". I believe that marketing, the vast majority of the time, should be on its own. There may be times when it could be relevant under "production" (to me, that's more like a kickstarter type film...ala Super Troopers 2), or times when it might be relevant under "Release" (e.g., where marketing is focused more on after a film is released, let indi films that have already been out and are pushing more on post-release award season, not selling the film). It should not default to being under "release" because it's chronologically before the release of a film in most situations, and what happens with Marketing affects the release of the film (not the other way around).    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Adamstom.97, regarding this, how about this? You were originally against suggesting the "Production" section. So were others above. Are you for it now? I still don't see the "Production" section as a good fit. And I don't see how the "Reception" section is a good fit since marketing is usually not about reception. It happens before reception is even a factor. But I'm more for the "Production" section than the "Reception" section in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I included "Production" because that was part of the suggested wording, not because I think people should do it. And "Reception" was a mistake. I like your version better anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I know that people will find "within another appropriate section of the article" vague, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2018
Uses of "U.S." in the Box office section should be replaced with "US" so as to remain consistent and (ironically) to conform to the MOS itself. Thanks, 142.160.89.97 (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * MOS:US says either "US" or "U.S." is acceptable? Just needs to be consistent. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The trouble here, however, is that it isn't consistent as it stands. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  ♪♫Al  ucard   16♫♪  12:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The existing consensus is codified at MOS:US. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * MOS:US clearly states, "either US or U.S. may be used". Changing from one to the other is unnecessary. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, as you can see in the above discussion with Erik, we have already established that it provides that either may be used. The guideline does not, however, allow both to be used alongside one another in most cases. The issue here is the internal inconsistency. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The MOS only applies to article content 142.160.89.97, not to policy write-ups and guidelines. Betty Logan (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Naturally, but undoubtedly we would want the MOS to be in conformity with itself insofar as it is sensible (recognizing, of course, that there may be instances where it makes to use different styles as a manual of style is a rather different type of work than an encyclopedia article). 142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: This edit request still hasn't achieved a consensus until this request has achieved a consensus please do not reactivate it until a consensus in favor of making this edit is reached on the matter. For the record I agree with the reasons given by,  and .  ♪♫Al  ucard   16♫♪  05:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Is that to suggest that 's comments aren't in accord with my own? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 07:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Is there an example of "US" on this page? Because if we were doing both "US" and "U.S.", then I understand changing it so only one approach is used. I only see "U.S.", I think. I do not see "US" (though it's tricky since these letters are part of many words). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's in the same section ("Box office"). 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I see it and changed it from US to U.S. (simply because U.S. was the more common use). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes wording
I have started a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators that would affect pages under this MOS, regarding the application of WP:ASOF to RT scores in articles. Thoughts from those watching this talk page would be most welcome. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Anthology
I know it is an anthology but the plot length of Love Actually is ridiculous, far in excess of a thousand words. I tried tagging the plot section as too long but I was unilaterally reverted. I can understand some flexibility on 400-700 words is allowed for complicated plots but any plot section longer than 1000 words is not making a proper effort to summarize. There are no Talk page discussion to suggest there was a local consensus or that this is anything other than massive plot bloat trying to disguise itself using subheadings. Please fix the bloat. -- 109.76.131.195 (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would recommend starting a discussing at the article's Talk page first, and raising the issue here if that is unsuccessful. DonIago (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * When a film has a highly unconventional structure with several different story strands we shouldn't be trying to impose a 400–700 word limit on it. WP:FILMPLOT allows for exceptions and from what I know of the film (I haven't seen it for the record) the exemption could and perhaps should be invoked in this case. However, the summary as it stands does seem slightly indulgent. The first couple (Billy Mack and Joe) are described in under 100 words, so maybe we should aim for that for each couple. David and Natalie come in at 250 words and I doubt that much detail is truly necessary. Betty Logan (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * My word count excluding section subheadings and actor names, and excluded the epilogue was still well in excess of 1000 words. I don't quibble articles that drift into the 700-800 word range but when a plot section is that long and someone acts like the rules don't apply to them it makes me wonder do the rules apply to anthologies? If there are other anthologies or epics or incredibly long movies that have exceptionally long plot sections that are still considered acceptable I'd be interested to see them but I don't that is the case here.
 * I was going to mention Memento (film) and Pulp Fiction but the guidelines already mention those complex films which ended up with a very brief plot summary and but more detail than usual in other sections of the article such as Story structure or character descriptions. The Fountain seems to be another case of an article with a separate section to describe story structure. I will concede that The Ballad of Buster Scruggs does have a very long plot section at the moment, but I haven't seen the film yet, so I wont comment in more detail on that one.
 * Perhaps I'm missing a tag that provides a better way to say an article needs to be restructured instead of simply saying that the plot section is too long? (and contains too many things that aren't plot) -- 109.76.139.209 (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I tagged the article again as having a plot section that was too long. I made a small edit to move non plot information (background development information about a character) out of the plot section. Again this was summarily reverted, without any explanation. I've started a discussion on the Talk page. -- 109.76.146.164 (talk) 01:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Top ten lists
WP:FILMCRITICLIST states: "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus." Does this mean that, if there is no discussion that reached the consensus to include such a list on the Talk page of an article, one could - no, should ("Do not...") - remove "Top ten lists" sections from articles per WP:FILMCRITICLIST? Because then a lot of articles c/should be trimmed... --77.173.90.33 (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, these need to be trimmed. I don't know if it's a huge priority for anyone, and we probably need to trim to a tipping point where editors stop proliferating these lists. We had guidelines to avoid trivia sections while there were many trivia sections out there, and now we don't really have any (at least in the articles I've seen). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's disappointing to read. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry! If you want to find past discussions, you can search for "top ten" in the archives search box at the top right of this page. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A removal could be probably done with AWB. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the apparent consensus that such sections should generally not be included, removal might be useful, despite this not being a "huge priority for anyone", to prevent editors from assuming such content would be a welcome addition to Wikipedia given prolific use of such sections. One way editors learn is via imitation (cute monkey). --77.173.90.33 (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what happened with trivia sections (and taglines) in the past; they proliferated because of imitation, then editors actively removed these. These elements are more on the egregious side, where the justification for removal of top-ten lists is indiscriminate content (and not horrendously indiscriminate either), so it isn't as serious of a faux pas. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 03:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC on using the "As of" template, or some similar wording indicating that the score may have changed over time, for review aggregators
Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators. A permalink for it is seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Review_aggregators&oldid=879885194#RfC:_Should_the_%22As_of%22_template,_or_some_similar_wording_indicating_that_the_score_may_have_changed_over_time,_be_used_for_review_aggregators_in_articles? here]. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)