Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 8

Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb
Why does this say not to use Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb "user scores"? The reasons given seem pretty weak. Vote stacking isn't going to effect a score with 100,000+ votes, and 'demographic skew' is a vague concern. The demographic skew will presumably be akin to the demographics of the audience, still giving an accurate representation of the audience reception. Perhaps someone can explain why these popular and notable websites are blocked from use?  Swarm   X 02:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * For the same reason we don't use user reviews from, say, Amazon.com or Last.fm or whatnot. General internet users are not reliable sources with respect to the field of film analysis and criticism. Our aim is to present the reception from film critics, not the reaction of teh internetz. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's more the case that the notability of such data has not been established. Notability is usually established through third-party referencing by other reliable sources, so if the likes of the New York Times and Variety started to include IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes user polls in their articles then you can argue that the notability of such data has been established. Until that happens, who cares what 50,000 IMDB voters think? Betty Logan (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't include them in most cases - there are many facts about films we don't list - but if there was a particular disconnect between critics and viewers* then I'd consider mentioning it but often big takings at the Box Office illustrate that disconnect well enough, but in rare cases you might be justified in using IMDB votes to show that users not only went to see it but actually seemed to like it afterwards. Still you'd want to have a strong argument to make an exception and really only use IMDB to reinforce a point made in other sources.
 * (*Shawshank Redemption is perhaps a film with strong fan appeal where the IMDB rating might have been useful before it became generally accepted as having a very strong following despite not finding much success initially).
 * IMDB do make some effort to prevent vote stacking and avoid new films crowding more established films out of the list but for the reasons others have stated I'd be very wary about using them alone. If a film is on the top 100 list or bottom 100 and has been there a while I might mention that. -- Horkana (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually there is a big difference between polling those that saw the film at the theater and those voting on Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB. That is, we cannot verify that they actually saw the film. What stops me from going to Rotten Tomatoes and voting 100% for The Dark Knight simply because I love Batman and haven't actually seen the film yet? It isn't like they give me a quiz to prove that I saw the film that I'm voting on. Thus, you cannot generalize those "user ratings" back to the moviegoing audience because the system is flawed by nature and cannot verify that that is what they are measuring. Also, even if they did see the film it's limited to those people that frequent those websites, which limits the demographic more. If you want "audience" opinion, then I suggest you use CinemaScore, because they poll the people after they come out of the theater.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The best method is to find a reliable third-party source stating what reception the film received from audiences. Otherwise all you can give at best is a figure, you can't really interpret that figure without bordering on OR claims. Finding a secondary source that gives some critical commentary about audiences' reactions to the film (ie. whether audience reaction matched critics' reactions, and what effect that had on the film's success) would be ideal. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a similar approach to the guidelines for sourcing scientific research. You're not supposed to source a paper presenting experimental results because they're considered primary research, but reference other sources that interpret/analyse/make claims in regards to those results.  The situtation is analogous to this one; there isn't much merit in sourcing raw data unless you put it into some sort of context, which should be carried out by other reliable sources. Betty Logan (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there anyone who interprets audience response beyond citing box office? I don't believe I've seen that, and that is problematic when box office is more a product of advertising budget than reception.
 * (CinemaScore has the same problems as online user ratings, btw, in terms of reliability. Both depend on the respondents' good faith.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone could lie about how they feel about the film, but the difference is that with CinemaScore it's coming from the people in the actual theater and not some blind online study that cannot confirm the people actually saw the film.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I also support the use of CinemaScore. Entertainment Weekly usually publishes the grade that CinemaScore derives from the polling. The problem with user scores from online is that the demographic will be overwhelmingly young men, even for films not oriented toward them. In addition, vote stacking is a real concern when you see The Dark Knight as #2 best film of all time or Transformers ever having a presence in the top 250. In addition to CinemaScore, I think box office performance is a useful gauge. Box office reports analyze the "drop" experienced in a film's second weekend and ensuing weekends, and there is usually commentary about whether or not the film has persisted in popularity. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Box office is a suspect number, too, and one that requires interpretation (what was the drop off from week one to two to ten, etc.? what was the ad budget? which number actually indicates a good reception?). I think we accept that the readers will take the number for what it is: flawed, misleading, limited, narrow, and unreliable for many purposes. On the other hand, it is very noteworthy and interesting that The Dark Knight is thought so highly of by people who cared enough to make their views known. Is there some reason we don't want the readers of that article to know it? One person's vote stacking is another's passionate love. I am sure that the usual procedure for Wikipedia is that interpretation is left to others and by that logic we shouldn't include box office numbers. On the other hand, if we understand that every number cited is subject to interpretation, the objections and differences don't seem significant. I think editors can be trusted as much as the self-selected group that comes here. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There are sufficient data points about a film's box office performance to provide to the reader. There are the overall gross, the number of theaters, the weekend ranking, new records set, etc. There is independent commentary about whether the second-weekend drop was massive or minimal. There are also articles that can identify films as box office flops in retrospect, factoring in their budget. These numbers can be provided for the reader to draw their own conclusions about how audiences received it, especially if there is no CinemaScore grade. It's easier to accomplish than trying to strike a balance in sampling critics' opinions. As for The Dark Knight, the user score is inaccurate because it is not representative of the audiences who went to see the film, only people who saw the film and tend to frequent IMDb enough to vote there. That demographic tends to be young men. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that information is inaccurate. In fact, imdb weights their ratings to avoid problems with ballot stuffing. At least, that's what Wikipedia says. And I'm sure no one knows who votes on which films on imdb, so I wouldn't rely on any fantasy or speculation about it. 2) So-called data points on box office are rarely found in our articles. The usual procedure here would be to allow only sourced interpretations of box office numbers. We don't because we assume our readers have brains and might think skeptically, etc. Similar considerations apply in regard to other numbers. And, seriously, why is it we don't want our readers to know how well Dark Knight did? I'm not clear why that's a secret. I assume it was mentioned above because it's sort of interesting and unexpected. But it was also the result of a process that involved many people acting the same way. Other films can't make that claim, explain it how you will. Notable! --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Each film on IMDb has a user ratings report, and the reports show young men being the most common demographic. I see data points related to box office performance in well-developed articles as well as occasional commentary about them. Are you advocating the data points but not the related commentary? I think that a website like Box Office Mojo is suitable for gauging whether or not a second-weekend drop is major. Also, the article for The Dark Knight demonstrates the popularity of the film through coverage of critical reception and box office performance, especially all the records it set. CinemaScore is included for it as well. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for the heads up on the demographics. I'm not advocating the absence of commentary, I'm pointing out that we include the data frequently with no commentary. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thinking about the demographics on imdb... Once again, the numbers are self-reporting so they face the same objection that BigNole was mentioning. People might say they are something they are not. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Is there anyone who interprets audience response beyond citing box office"? Yes, sometimes the Los Angeles Times mentions that based on audience surveys a film was expected to take in $30 million in their opening weekend, and then the actual figure gives us some close and maybe another article says takings were below expectations.
 * I still reckon the top or bottom 100 on IMDB are worth a mention if used carefully, so long as no other (original research) speculation or conclusions are added with it. Rotten Tomatoes do roundup articles of the worst of the year, I expect IMDB does similar articles about the top and bottom 100 every once in a while, which would be preferable to just the raw list. I would expect an editor to make some effort to justify the use as exceptional on the article Talk page, lets not point blank refuse to ever accept anything from IMDB there are always exceptions.
 * All this talk of vague and unreliable figures reminds me Same as I think we might need to clarify the box office guidelines to strongly warn editors against making any assumptions about a film being a success merely because the claimed box office exceeds the supposed production budget (and I've noticed Box Office Mojo sometimes rounds to the nearest 10 million). When I use box office mojo figures I like it best when there is some commentary from Box Office Mojo, their article that is a review of the weekend. I've disagreed with an editor who insisted on presenting only the figures, to me the figures are actually more likely to be misleading when presented without any context ((see again Hollywood accounting). There are a lot of interesting figures but you have to be very careful about trusting them and avoid drawing any false conclusions about success. -- Horkana (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Betty answered my question at the top very reasonably, and I agree with Horkana that if there is a disconnect between critic scores and viewer scores it's worth considering mentioning it. I also think, per common practice and precedent, IMDb's top 250/bottom 100 are notable enough to mention in articles.  Swarm   X 08:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Box office
While I'm asking about the box office (see previous discussion) I'm concerned about the following wording:


 * If sufficient coverage exists, it is recommended that this information is placed in a "Box office performance" or "Theatrical run" section.

Some editors seem to be taking this wording as advice or a reason to change the section title from "Box office" to "Box office performance". There is no apparent consistency to it. Is this even the real intention of that sentence? I'd much prefer an encyclopedia that consistently used the same section title rather than having subtle unexplained variations in every film article. If that really is the intention I would encourage editors to use an Anchor to give greater consistency and help reduce bitrot. (Theatrical run does seems like it make sense might come into play if the revenues generated from the Home media sales was signficant, but I'd nearly include that information under Home media, which is usually quite a short section. -- Horkana (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe re-word it to say "placed in a separate section, such as 'Box office' or 'Theatrical run'"? It would look more like a suggestion than only one or the other. I'm fine with either "Box office" or "Box office performance", though I prefer the latter a little more since it clarifies what about the box office, which is how the film performed at it. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 02:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Both are fine with me, though I see Horkana's point about film articles being consistent. But should each film article's MOS be a carbon copy of each other?  Or do we use the MOS as a basic guide and then build upon that if we have a lot information on the film?  Like Changeling compared to a basic layout such as Inglourious Basterds. — Mike   Allen   02:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles aren't required to be rigidly consistent. What matters is that everything is presented in the best fashion for each individual article. As such, variations in sections are welcome, although it's understandable if articles on related topics utilize similar layouts. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I deliberately noted that there may be reasons to emphasize theatrical run or home media earnings, and wikipedia guidelines are very rarely strict or without exceptions. Aiming for consistency doesn't mean we have to be rigid or inflexible. As just one example we've gradually settled on labelling the Plot section consistently (although "Synopsis" and "Plot summary" do pop up occasionally) most editors do seem to see the benefit of consistency. If exceptions occur then do point them out, I understand "Box office" doesn't fit quite as well for a direct-to-video release and there may be reasons for other vartionations but I like to be able to link to Article or Article or Article and have a reasonable confidence that if the links are going to be broken that the editor will at least follow the simple rules and explain the exception with an edit summary (or on the Talk page) and ideally provide an anchor to the section heading suggested by the style guidelines. -- Horkana (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Having left the idea to settle in my mind for a while I reread the section and the intent seems clear to me. The existing practice is to present Box office information in a section of its own titled "Box office" or if insufficient coverage exists (just one sentence worth) then it is simply presented as part of the Reception section.

The section still says nothing about how or if direct-to-DVD films should present "box office" information since a different section title might be more appropriate in that circumstance or others as suggested above. -- Horkana (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Success
I see some editors making claims about films being "a success". This seems to be covered by original research that any claims of success need to be left to a reliable source.

Still it might be wise to explain to editors that Box office grosses being in excess of the Production budget does not mean success because of other costs involved, marketing budget etc, and then the even more confusing issues of Hollywood accountancy.

If anyone else thinks something to this effect should be included in the Box office section I will try to draft a suitable wording, otherwise I'll stick to WP:OR and WP:RS. -- Horkana (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * On one hand, hit and flop are not essential reference subjects, perhaps not even encyclopedic. On the other hand, editorial judgment properly accounts for relative importance in the length and breadth of coverage devoted to a subject or article or film. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Plot / Production sections order
Seems to me that film articles would benefit from changing the order of the sections. Plot is too high and Production is too low. The articles would achieve greater gravity by emphasizing the real world aspects and moving the story reality into a later position.

If they were reversed, the order would be Lead | Production | Cast | Themes | Plot | Release | Reception, etc. Themes seems out of order there, but details details.

Anyone else observe the tension between trying to cover the real world aspect of a movie while putting the cinema world first? Or is that just me?

Thanks for your thoughts. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Similar discussion from February 2010 seen here to mine for points and counterpoints. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As stated in last year's discussion that Erik linked to, the plot explains what the film is and production/cast/etc explains how it came to be and there's logic in keeping the "what" before the "how". Film reviews are written in a similar fashion, a brief synopsis is usually followed by production and casting details and tidbits. I don't see the benefit in switching that around. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree w/ Big Bird & Erik. You'd wind up having to explain a lot of plot elements that get introduced in a production section (story, main characters, probably some of the bigger scenes) to give context to the production info, then re-explain them in the plot summary. If you've got the plot first, you don't need to explain the elements twice. For example in Alien (film) the production sections cover a lot about the story elements, set and prop design, creatures, etc. Flip-flopping the plot & production would cause these concepts to be introduced without the reader knowing what they were or what their purpose was, so you'd wind up having to explain them twice. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sequels
I was just checking the guidelines to see what was recommend for articles with a section for Sequels and was surprised to notice there was none. Based on existing articles I'd like to suggested the following:


 * 1) The section heading "Sequels" implying one or more Sequel(s), but omitting the parentheses becuase formatting like that is just ugly as sin (it harms readability).
 * 2) A recommendation to keep the section short, about one paragraph and to create a new article when there is adequate information (properly referenced/verifiable).

I'm not sure where in the WP:MOSFILM guildelines it should be added but it the de facto consensus seems to be to add the section after "Home media". Comments? -- Horkana (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You make a good point! I want to ask for clarification, though. I am assuming that you mean for sequels that are planned but not yet produced? For example, Hancock 2? It might be better to have some kind of "Planned sequel" modifier because talk about a sequel does not equal one. The example I provided is just talk. We should also consider planned sequel coverage at a film series or franchise article, especially if it is more than a paragraph. There are different setups available. There's the first two Iron Man films with talk of a third, but there's no film series article. There's also film series with a new installment planned, like Batman with The Dark Knight Rises detailed at Batman in film. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not entirely sure what you mean. I suppose if a franchise is big enough to merit a "film series" article then it would be better to advise editors to keep the Sequels section very short and direct there instead. -- Horkana (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Any comments? I'd like to get some basic wording included in the guidelines and if there's no significant disagreement with the basic premise - I am trying to codify the existing practice, a de facto guideline - then I'll see about adding a first draft.

I could really do without editors arguing that the section title must be Sequel (singular), the whole nature of film development is inherently so speculative anyhow I'm half surprised no one argued the whole section should be disallowed because of WP:CRYSTAL and the need to avoid speculation. -- Horkana (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If we say nothing about unmade sequels it would suit me fine. To me it smacks of promotional material. For example, someone keeps adding to the Titanic article the planned release of a 3D version, with the date, etc. We can just wait until it happens, right? Then we're never wrong. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In the case of The A-Team, I agree with Ring Cinema. These "I'm interested" details are not particularly pertinent. It would be more worthwhile to report if the studio hired a screenwriter to pen a sequel or even attached a director to the developing project. Maybe the guidelines could be based on actual actions taken, not just talk? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

} So I agree, if we don't dismiss the whole section as too much WP:CRYSTAL we preferably want details from the film makers. An actor expressing interest is a lot more relevant if the director or writer is actually also saying something. Actors being signed to multi-picture contracts is only a little better but still circumstantial.

I don't think any of us are expecting more than a paragraph, I think that kind constraint will help avoid sprawl. If there is enough detail for more than a paragraph and to talk about Cast/Casting then there should be enough to start an upcoming film article, right?

Erik's comment about not putting anything in until it is confirmed is very fitting in terms of what an encyclopedia should do, and it is simple logic, difficult to argue against. Not publishing until we know things for sure is out of step with the kind of things wikipedia already does like upcoming film articles, so I'd be reluctant to be quite so strict. The minimum bar I try to set for myself is not to bother writing about anything that would not be relevant in the to the Production/Developement section of the upcoming film when it does get an article of it's own. -- Horkana (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * While we are on the subject, the "sequel" section on the Speed 2 article is currently under dispute. Details about a potential sequel are currently being added using what I consider to be very questionable sources, but the editor claims they "demonstrate" the interest and shows "what is out there".  There is a discussion at Talk:Speed 2: Cruise Control and a third opinion would be useful if anyone cares to drop in. In view of the Speed 2 issue I am very much in favor of including guidelines to clarify the inclusion of sequel speculation. Betty Logan (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The editor himself called it "most likely a hoax". The sources are not reliable. I'd move the whole section in it's entirity to the Talk page so it would serve as a warning against other editors who might try to add it back, thinking they are making good faith edits. On the talk page I'd ask other editors to remove it if anyone tries to add it back without a good enough source. This is not a case where I think it is worth trying try to report the widespread existence of a known rumour/hoax/meme exists and it does seem like something best left until there is some better evidence.
 * Still the lack of references in other sections bothers me more than the weak references for that section. -- Horkana (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * One possible standard to introduce is about the money. If nothing has been spent on a sequel's production personnel (incl. director and actors, excl. script) then it's just talk and stays out. And the money has to actually change hands; contract signings only matter if money changes hands. Would that be sensible and verifiable? --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Warner spent something like $40 million on aborted Superman sequels before they got around to actually making one, so the money spent isn't always a sign something will be made. We essentially have to balance two guidelines here: WP:CRYSTAL and Notability. Sequel speculation often violates WP:CRYSTAL, so just taking account of this particular policy requires us to be sure the production will go ahead, so based solely on that policy we should probably wait for filming dates to be formally announced.  Once filming dates are announced I see no reason why sequel information cannot be added to the article. However, sometimes the actual production of potential sequels can achieve notability before being greenlit and therefore should be documented, so we need the guideline to allow for such instances (if something is notable we can't overrule policy with our own guidelines). The question of whether such speculation is notable or not will be unique to the film: a good test would be if the same information would be included in the production section of the article if the film is eventually made i.e. notability is not temporary – something that is notable now must be notable a year or two from now. As an example, the casting of The Living Daylights saw Pierce Brosnan cast in the role and then dropped due to scheduling conflicts;  that would be a notable information to include in relation to a future production, but not perhaps the speculation that he was going to be cast in the part. So in summary, the guideline should allow for sequels to be documented once filming dates have been announced and we can be reasonably sure the production is going ahead, but anything beyond that should be limited to information that will still be notable coverage of the production once the film is made. Betty Logan (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So you're saying expenditures are necessary but not sufficient for inclusion, which is what I'm suggesting. (I'm not sure, though, that notability is invariable over time.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah I think given the fact that sometimes money is spent on films and they sometimes don't make the filming stage is something we need to account for. Once films are greenlit they tend to get made. WP:NTEMP seems to be imply that notability is invariable over time (i.e. something that was notable will still be notable, while routine news or announcements do not amount to "notability").  That implies to me that if something is worth covering now it should be worth covering in the production history if the film is made; if something isn't considered notable down the line then it probably isn't notable now.  That's just my interpretation of the policy, but I think it's relevant to this discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The notability guideline applies only to articles: "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence." That said, I somewhat agree with you, but I do not think that the threshold should be the establishment of filming dates. Information about events beforehand can still be verifiable, even if nothing ultimately happens. (In these cases, it may be worth determining a kind of disclaimer, like "The film has yet to be produced".) Pre-filming date events can accumulate as projects in development hell tend to surface from time to time with a new screenwriter or a new director. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't you have some misgivings about including that kind of material here? Well, I'm sure you do to some extent, but the issue is how much, no? Threshold questions like money and scheduled shooting allow the exclusion of trivia. On the other hand, we don't seem to be finding the sufficient conditions, the principle that says, "yes, this should be in." Maybe I'm overlooking something...? Perhaps it would be useful to identify the cases that fall firmly in the gray zone -- cases about which reasonable people could differ -- since that sometimes throws a light on things in a helpful way. My nominee there would be the example already mentioned: Titanic 3-D release. Money has been spent preparing it but it doesn't have a definite opening date. My gut instinct is that it doesn't belong in the article until it's in final form, but maybe I'm an outlier. Does this seem like an item that is in the gray zone to the rest of you or do we differ on that? --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I would find a place to include information on Titanic 3D (as I would have tried to do for the release of Toy Story in 3D) but I do not think a rerelease is a Sequel and I would not include it in this section. I guess most likely I would include it in the Release section.
 * I'm still thinking how best to phrase the ideas that the Sequels section should ~ not be more than one or two paragraphs ~ and try to avoid speculation and original research. -- Horkana (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If I understand correctly, there's only a Sequels section if there is an unmade sequel in the planning stages. Otherwise we simply link to the sequel's article and mention where this film stands in relation to the others, right? And I believe that could fall in the lead section, since it's somewhat "meta." Perhaps the problem would disappear if we eliminated the section for Sequels altogether. If there's something planned, bring it up in another section.

Rotten Tomatoes
I've been reverted by another editor who thinks the Cream of the Crop link is not a different page to the ordinary Rotten Tomatoes page for the same film.


 * 1) I'm not too bothered but what I do care about here is consistency. Many film articles have two links, one for the main Rotten Tomatoes article and another for the selected top critics page. Rotten Tomatoes have changed how their pages are organised and these two seem even less like two seperate links than before. Do we really need more than one link to rotten tomatoes?


 * 1) On a similar note some editors use the wording "Cream of the Crop" (CoC) which they then feel the need to explain by linking - not to the Cream of the Crop numbers but - to the FAQ section that explains that the "Cream of Crop" are top critics selected by Rotten Tomatoes. I can understand editors wanting to link to the CoC numbers but linking to the RT FAQ in every film article seems unnecessary, especially since the "cream of the crop" metaphor could be avoided in favour of writing "selected top critics" or some other clearer wording.

If there is consensus to have just one link for Rotten Tomatoes I'd be fine with that. If there should be more than one link I'd like to get some clarity on what way it should be although I would discourage the habits of some editors as mentioned in point 2. -- Horkana (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I prefer to avoid any mention of "Top Critics" score because of the fact that it varies regionally. As explained in discussions here and here, different RT sites have different "Top Critics" scores. The overall score is obtained through an objective set of criteria based on circulation and website hits whereas the "Top Critics" section is has a slightly different set of criteria that includes a subjective determination by the RT staff in their respective region (US/UK/Australia...). As seen in the latter discussion linked above, when editors from North America accessed the "Top Critics" section, they saw different numbers than editors from the UK and elsewhere. Due to RT site automatically redirecting a reader to a regional site based on IP location, there was no way for North American editors to confirm the information on the UK site and vice versa. For that reason and other reasons described at the "Limitations" section of WP:RTMC, I'm an advocate of excluding that score completely. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur with Big Bird. I personally think that's why Metacritic is useful; it's a kind of "Cream of the Crop". I pair Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic because they're different ways to determine critical consensus. Rotten Tomatoes is like the House of Representatives, while Metacritic is like the Senate. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Until Rotten Tomatoes fix the forced ghettoization of users and provide usable direct linking on their website we should exclude this unverifiable CoC.

I suppose editors could use WebCite to properly verify their version of the page but it is a terrible piece of web design and I wouldn't oppose punative measures.

I expect there is a guideline we're missing about permalinks that recommends the same.

IGN pulls similar crap but at least the regional uk/au/us links can be corrected for. -- Horkana (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I support ommitting CoC scores — I'm not quite sure why we even include them anyway since a broader overview of critical consensus is given by the regular scores. I've seen edit wars between editors who don't realize the scores are regional based.  The US and UK scores can be accessed by proxies based in those countries, but I think a MOS guideline passing a motion to not add CoC scores is the way to go.  The problem isn't so much that the information isn't verifiable in some countries (this incidentally isn't a reason for not including sources: WP:SOURCEACCESS), but that the process of verification can actually result in a different set of data for the reader, so the reference can make the data appear wrong; this is a far greater problem in my view. Betty Logan (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I find any correlation between the CoC and Metacritic interesting. I find the difference between the regular score and the selected critics interesting, I don't think the top critics try as hard to say something nice about what are essentially bad films.
 * Thanks for drawing my attention to WP:SOURCEACCESS it might be useful but I don't think it adequately covers this kind of situation where website deliberately segregates the audience, preventing international readers from seeing the US version if that is what they actually want. (If anything WP:SOURCEACCESS reads like "tough luck if you can't check my source".) -- Horkana (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said, the problem isn't so much the access issue as it is the reference being technically incorrect in some countries for the data it is sourcing. At the moment CoC technically falls foul of WP:V in that they are not adequately referenced because the citations don't differentiate between the possible data sets—the situation is akin to different editions of the same book. Personally I feel they cause a lot of trouble and add very little, but if these scores are going to be included the geolocation for access is going to have be included in the reference to make this clear, otherwise the same problems will keep occurring.  Since "All Critics" and "Top Critics" don't have different urls, technically you should only use one reference for the main page.  I would have a reference for the main page and use note format for each section (All Critics, Top Critics). Betty Logan (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Would it be worth covering at WP:RTMC instead? I reviewed for a place to mention this omission, but it is a bit granular to fit anywhere. We can modify the "Top Critics" bullet under "Limitations" to indicate not to use it. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It should probably be documented there, but we also have WikiProject_Film/Resources. The Resources section is always my first stop for advice on source use. I would stick it on both pages. Betty Logan (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually scratch that; WikiProject_Film/Resources has a direct link to WP:RTMC so just covering it at WP:RTMC should be sufficient. Betty Logan (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Award nominations in lead
Generally should a film's nominations of notable awards be mentioned in the lead paragrapgh or is this space reserved solely for wins?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say it depends how notable it is for the film. If its the films only nomination, then probably, but if they have several, then it would seem inappropriate to single out an award of the many. BOVINEBOY 2008 18:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, it shouldn't be in the first paragraph. That type of information is reserved for the last paragraph.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, unless there is only one paragraph :P BOVINEBOY 2008 18:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I was referring specifically to the first sentence, where it always seems to end up...but yes, unless there is only one paragraph.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Post-credits scenes
Over at WikiProject Comics, we're hoping for some guidance from WP:FILM. Offhand I can't find this information in your style guide, but someone more familiar with the Film Project probably knows the answer: What is your style guideline about where to place the plot of post-credits sequences? Do they go at the end of the "Plot" section, or in a sub-section there, or someplace else? We have them at the end of the plot in Iron Man (film) and X-Men: The Last Stand, but at Iron Man 2 there's some back-and-forth about the best place to put it. As you can see, there's no consistency there. Any advice? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * IMO it should just go at the end of the plot summary, no subsection required. They generally don't take more than a sentence or 2 to explain, so a subsection seems quite unnecessary. The same applies to films that have continuing scenes during the credits. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The plot section is the natural place to put it. To be honest the main reason I wouldn't put it in the Plot section is if I was fighting to get the plot word count down. If you are forced to cut out details from the plot section then a prologue or epilogue is a very easy thing to cut.
 * The plot section is the first place I would put the information but I wouldn't be against repeating the information in another section if there was adequate reason to do so, and to have a chance to adequately explain it, in cases where it is a teaser for another film.
 * In the case of Iron Man 2 there were not enough sources about the Thor film to allow me to write a good subsection about spinoffs/tie-ins (like how I might have been able to mention Nick Fury and the planned Avengers spinoff at the end of Iron Man 1). Having said that those articles could be significantly different from the last time I edited them, I recall long slow efforts to balance the various good faith changes editors kept making to the section. (The need for clear wording (a hammer/warhammer) strict interpretations of WP:EGG (link to Mjolinor or not) and the urge to put a nothing to do with plot link to Thor (film) without falling foul of speculation. -- Horkana (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Home Media misplaced
It seems that the Home Media section belongs under Release instead of Reception. The section explicitly addresses the release of the film into new media without regard to its reception. If the reception of the home media materials are notable, that could be covered in a Home Media subhead of Reception (for example, if the re-edits or commentaries inspire some response, as might have been the case with Blade Runner, Metropolis, or that Orson Welles border film, Touch of Evil, that was re-edited a couple years ago to some acclaim). Any objection? --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No objection here, though I wonder if something should be done about the "Release" section. Details of the film's release and its reception are pretty intertwined. Worth addressing, or should we just move "Home media"? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm a little bit afraid to cover this subject because it's not very interesting. As you say, from time to time we see these two sections conflated. Perhaps it's not too big a deal, though, since 'Reception' seems to explain clearly that it's about what others say about the film. What else can we do? Saying more might say less. 2) Perhaps the section 'Release' needs a subhead called 'Theatrical' or 'Opening' (and then 'Home Media'). There is a question why we don't cover other media like the streaming / cable / internet / network television release (i.e. since we cover home media). The rationale that comes to mind is that the home media release frequently includes supplementary materials and very rarely the edit is different. That does suggest that we make a section for supplementary materials instead of home media; I'm not sufficiently interested in the subject to get into that. 3) The section 'Reception' could have a subhead for 'Home Media' but it seems that could be handled ad hoc. Most re-edits are trivial. 'Release' could have a section called 'Re-edit/Re-release/Alternate ending' (or take your pick) but if we do that then we need a subhead for Plot for 'Re-edits' and it starts to require a PhD in Dullness to read the guidelines. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, we will stick to just moving the section. I've done so. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know who started it but I strongly dislike when editors remove the Reception section heading and stick everythings under ''Release'. It gets worse when they want to label the section Critical reception and not Critical response. Awards is the setion most obviously incongruous when placed under Release but I don't think Critical reponse fits well under it either and I really wish editors would stop doing it.
 * I think some editors object to having a very short Release section, I do not. If you really try you can write things in such a way as to combine the release and the box office which is what some editors seem to do. I see the Box office as providing the an indication of the public response, serving as a counter point to the Critical response, so with that purpose in mind it doens't make sense to me to include it anywhere other than Reception but now that I think about it that assumption and contrast is probably non-obvious to most editors (outside this group here).
 * It makes sense in most cases to include the Marketing and (theatrical) Release information together. There is a certain logic to also including the Home media (release) there too but since the home media release comes much later I much prefer to have that as a top level section further down the article. On the rare occasions where I may have put "Home media" under the release section it has more to do with my being annoyed at people for removing the Reception section and making excuses to regroup things.
 * To avoid the PhD in dullness I'd like if the ordering of headings in WP:MOSFILM gave editors most of what they need to know without needing ot read the small print, see my previous comments about "Box office" and "Box office performance" that was misleading some editors. It would be good to get some consensus on this and keep things a bit more consistent. Either way I'll keep adding anchors everywhere. -- Horkana (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that the Home release section should be under Release. — Mike   Allen   02:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Pop Culture Section
I noticed that the Popular Culture section has nothing in it and needs expansion. Would anyone like to help create/expand it with me? We can begin the section then add and subtract from it as consensus dictates. I have no set agenda on this and would be willing to help with wording. I do, however, have some suggestions in mind, but have no clear style on how to word it as of yet. I think that maybe I can write a short paragraph and then see where it goes from there.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Isn't this just a trivia section under another name?  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but they are so widespread now that it would be difficult to get rid of. This main article already had a section on Popular Culture with a tag that it needed expanding. I just added some information, but I also have an expectation that it will be changed. I just wanted to get the ball rolling.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The section should list references to the film in other media? This is a problem area, right, so the film can't be the primary source. The fact that there's a reference/homage/quotation/ripoff/copy/mention has to come from a reliable source. Even then, I am skeptical that we want to include in our articles every time some critic says that Movie B reminded him of something about Movie A. Perhaps I'm alone in this thinking. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest we emphasise that they should be substantial references in notable other media - in a perhaps doomed effort to head off those endless lists of passing references. For (imaginary) example, the use of the Jaws theme to humorously symbolise menace on one occasion in one episode of an animated TV show isn't worth mentioning. If a whole episode of the show is given over to a parody of the movie and the show is a reasonably important or well-respected one, maybe it is. Barnabypage (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with that whole heartedly. This is great. This is exactly what I hoped would happen. Then, finally we can have a substantial guideline to reference when some random ip decides to add whatever they want.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would be best to delete the guideline and leave it up to individual editors. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I really don't think we should be encouraging "pop culture" sections in any form. It seems directly against WP:TRIV, as well as redundant (films are popular culture, after all). What we really should be doing is encouraging editors to write referenced prose into sections like "impact" or "influence". We're trying to encourage well-written encyclopedia articles, after all, not perpetuate the idea that Wikipedia is some game of pop culture connect-the-dots. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That sounds nice in theory, but its reality is beyond any of our abilities to enforce. Best to come up with a sound policy that can be used to at least control the content. That way at least there can be a semblance of order and continuity. --Jojhutton (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * By coming up with a "sound policy" we are de facto saying that it's OK to start, keep, and add to "pop culture" bullet-lists, which isn't what we want for these articles. We want editors to write well-sourced prose sections, yes? So instead of encouraging pop culture lists, we should state that prose sections are preferred and give a pointer to WP:TRIV. We can still include guidance as to what kind of content is meaningful and relevant vs. what kind is trivial and shouldn't be included, but we should be direct about wanting this content in well-written sections on a film's influence rather than bullet-point "pop culture" sections. The enforcement comes into play if/when the articles are nominated for GA or FA review, or anytime someone with knowledge of the guideline chooses to rewrite one of these sections. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Zilla makes a good point. The guidelines are up to us. Why clutter the articles with marginal material? --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps adding that these sections should be discouraged would help. I don't know. Of course whatever the prevailing consensus is, I will back it up. I should note that we shouldn't just ignore the "problem", but face it with well informed policy driven guidelines that will encourage users to write well sourced prose rather than what is currently happening, which is creating lists of undocumented non-notable facts.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My thinking is more aligned with IllaZilla on this. References to the film in other works are better incorporated into an analysis of the film's cultural impact or influence within its medium.  That's really what we want, not a roll call of trivia, so it's important that the guidelines don't encourage such a list. To use the example above, we don't need to namecheck every film that uses the Jaws theme to parody menace, but it is appropriate to document the use of the theme in this manner, and perhaps note the first and most notable works to use the theme in this way. My view is we should describe what we do want rather than we don't want.  If you legitimise such lists in the guidelines it will encourage proliferation of the style and maybe even resistance to replacing such sections. Betty Logan (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Obvious agreement. Never wanted to encourage these list, but only wanted to control what should be in them, which, I am sorry to say, have become full of irrelevant and lengthy non-notable information.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Similar topic: why do we have a Trivia guideline if we don't want trivia? Do we need a guideline for taglines? Yet we have nothing for Impact or Influence, apart from shoehorning it into Reception which is, after all, shoehorning. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We want prose rather than lists. We want things to be properly referenced. In most cases trivia is badly formatted Production information, but far too many editors prefer to delete rather than even ask for a citation, let alone put in any work to clean up badly written but good faith efforts of other editors.
 * There are films that have undeniable cultural impact. Other films are nothing but pop-culture references and then there are films that reference the style of other films, which is tedious but is actually as notable as the film itself. I think editors are increasingly preventing this kind of information from even being added to articles but there are certainly cases where not only it will happen but it should happen. So lets have some guidelines to help give editors help to curb the worst excesses and more importantly give advice to editors who are willing to try and make something useful of the well intentioned but badly written good faith efforts of many editors. -- Horkana (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's kind of what I'm saying: Instead of a guide that says what to include and what not to include in a pop culture section, we should have a guide that says "we'd rather have properly-referenced prose on a film's cultural impact and inspirations/parodies, so here's how to do that and how to take miscellaneous trivia lists and turn them into something better". --IllaZilla (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Zilla, you are pointing in the right direction. There is not an easy way to define the parameters of "influence," but we should at least have guidelines that provide a partial map. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Would it be worthwhile to focus on guidelines for a proper "Cultural impact" section? If we only have "Popular culture" guidelines, it would be negative in tone throughout. With "Cultural impact" guidelines, we could encourage focusing on secondary sources analyzing the film's legacy with occasional examples of references in popular culture where it may be appropriate. For example, The Matrix's bullet time has been parodied quite a few times, and it may be worth listing a couple (but not all) instances. Do we want to adhere solely to secondary sources, or can we reference primary sources when it seems "obvious"? I ask because a film's continued reputation, especially when it's not historically significant, can be difficult to cover very fully. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cultural impact/influence invites analysis more than "Pop Culture" references do, so while a Wikipedia editor can identify a 2001 rip-off in The Simpsons, it would probably be original research to actually identify ways in which the work has been influential, so I think secondary sources are a necessity if you are putting the emphasis on analysis. Betty Logan 16:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources only or we open Pandora's box, don't you think? "Obvious" is in the eye of the beholder. I think we should remove the Trivia and Popular Culture guidelines, too, except to redirect to the right section. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with secondary sources in most cases, even with your pandoras box example. Yet I have always considered films, and I am not alone in this thinking, to be sources about themsleves, just as long as it can be verified by viewing the material, (ie:watching the movie). The project page tends to agree with this by stateing that a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A film can be used a source for offering a description of a scene, but it isn't a source for the discernable impact or influence of that scene which is what we want to move towards if you want to avoid a list of trivia. I guess the question is, do we really want to document pop culture references without including accompanying analysis? If so, then primary sources are acceptable and sufficient, if not then secondary sources are a requirement. Betty Logan (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There's also a possible WP:SYNTHESIS problem with just using primary sources too; you are using two separate sources to put forward an observation/conclusion about the combined nature of the work that is not explicitly stated by either source. Betty Logan (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The section currently states that secondary sources may be required if additional information is added, beyond what be ascertained from viewing the film, so I agree with you on that.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see where the section mentions secondary sources. Betty is correct, but I think a confusion may be creeping in. I believe Jo's original text envisioned using primary sources only for the purpose of summarizing the plot but the selection as written seemed to allow a broader interpretation. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It did say additional sources, but perhaps it should have read additional secondary sources, which is what I implied the original meaning to be.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you're right, it said that. My bad. But this other problem is still there. Erik is probably right that we could get away with allowing limited primary source referencing unless and until an interpretation is challenged. But we don't have to put that in the guideline. Pragmatically, primary sources will be used occasionally no matter what we say in the guidelines, since policy basically forbids it on anything that could be challenged. So, for the purposes of a guideline it's forbidden. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Any primary source material is against Wikipedia's pillars and should be discouraged. All experience suggests that these sections degenerate into awful lists of mere mentions and allusions in other films. Of course a film's influence is an important part of an article, but it should be a deep and substantive treatment. There's no reason why the sources cannot guide editors, Halloween (1978 film) does this very well. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Year question
Can someone tell me what year a film should be if it was released at a festival in 2010 but released in theatres in 2011. 2010 or 2011 film? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.231.46.68 (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Both. Just explain in the lead section when and how it was released. As for the category you should go with the earliest release, which is the festival. Smetanahue (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to disagree with this, as a film festival showing isn't really a proper release of the film, but more of a preview. This is an argument that comes up from time to time on The Human Centipede (First Sequence) as the film was shown at a few festivals in 2009, but didn't actually get a distributor and a release until 2010. Of course I have no idea if there is an actual solid policy on this, but I tend to think that a one-off screening at a festival is very different to making the film available to the public on a general release. Coolug (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is different, which is why it deserves an explanation. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:AIL
I agree with Betty Logan's revert of the addition of the shortcut WP:AIL. It took ukexpat's edit summary to define it for me, and even so, "Award In Lead" is ambivalent in also applying to actors and filmmakers' articles, which sometimes start with "award-winning". Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't think there is a place non-intuitive shortcuts, and if we allow one then you open the floodgate for fancy acronyms; shortcuts should be more or less guessable. The main "lead" MOS has standard issue shortcuts (WP:LEAD and MOS:LEAD), so using those as the model our shortcuts should really be WP:FILMLEAD and MOS:FILMLEAD which are consistent with the other MOSFILM shortcuts. Betty Logan (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Order of sections
I revised the page's lead section to explain the primary and secondary content since there was some confusion that the way they were ordered was the way they were supposed to be ordered in an article about an individual film. I clarified that there are no guidelines for the ordering of sections. Outside of these guidelines, I think the general consensus is for the "Plot" to go first. I also think that there is expected to be a rough chronological order, like release information coming after production information, but some sections are not necessarily helped by chronology. Where would "Themes" or "Critical analysis" go, for example? I'm not particularly interested in having guidelines about the order of sections, but I wanted to at least clarify that there were not any. Are there any editors who think we should have guidelines on the order? I would argue against them because sub-topical content will vary, and editors should have sections and subsections based on existing coverage. For example, in the guidelines, "Release" is separate from "Box office" as an element, but there is a strong enough relationship between them that the elements could be woven together into one section. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need an actual guideline for the order. I typically list films as "Release" and then subsection "Box office" and "Critical reception", with the space between "Release" and "Box office" used to cover any content that deals directly with the theaters themselves (e.g., record breaking number of theaters). So, my only issue is if people look at this page and say "It needs to be this way because that is the way it is shown at MOSFILMS". I believe your changes put in that there is no guideline on ordering, which would help those instances. To me though, I could never understand how "Themes" is an "expected component" considering that many may have themes, but most films' themes are never covered by critics or scholars. I mean, I find nothing on Leap Year, though watching it I could probably point out a few themes that I see. That was just always weird to me. But, back to the ordering I think it's probably ok to just say "There is no mandated order for the sections of film articles, though it is expected that the plot summary will come first". To me, that is usually the only thing I see out of order. I think the Star Wars articles used put the "Production" section first for some reason.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would guess that where themes are notable they will appear high in the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We could move "Themes" to secondary content. I think it is under primary content because of earlier wishful thinking that we could encourage more academic coverage. Perhaps we could at least suggest that films of great significance (like most of them in WP:FILMCORE) should have a "Themes" section? Or some kind of "Critical analysis" one? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 13:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think "Themes" are important and it needs to be stressed to look for resources on them. I just think that a lot of films don't get that coverage, or it's glossed over in general critical reviews and covered that way. So, I think it needs to be "prioritized" as far as pushing for its inclusion, just not placed in a section considered "mandated" (so to speak).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be lovely, but I don't think it's an indifferent gloss that leaves most articles without good theme sections. Most critics don't cover theme because that tends to involve spoilers. A serious piece of criticism that attempts to take the measure of a film's "thought" is rare and I think our articles reflect the fact that the process of journalism doesn't lend itself to that kind of analysis. Especially since bloggers are right out. (2) Examples make abstract principles clear, so I'd like to suggest that the guidelines offer links to a couple few articles that are different, yet follow them as written.--Ring Cinema (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about academic journals when it came to themes and analysis. For example, for Starship Troopers (film), there is this sub-page of references: Talk:Starship Troopers (film)/references. My experience is that these kinds of sources only appear a few years after the film is released. For example, The Fountain is a very intepretative film from 2006, but I've only started to find academic sources for that film in 2010. So I think I agree with both of you that themes are not well-covered in reviews? The challenge is that academic sources are not a link's click away in many cases, where reviews are. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Along the same lines, sometimes Michael Wood at LRB does something serious about a film that's not too old. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Images and Copyright: "Fair use", critical commentary vs simple illustration
For some time now Wikipedia has taken a somewhat leisurely attitude towards fair use and copyright. This is not to say we do not take it seriously. The project has many articles that contain the intellectual property of a number of studios, individual artists, photographers and performers against bright-line rules and guidelines. As Wikipedia editors we are individually and collectively responsible for their use in each article and on Wikipedia in general. The project MOS seems touch on this but does not seem to have enough emphasis on what is commentary and what is illustrative.

The use of movie posters and other marketing material are not free content and need FULL FAIR USE justification for inclusion in a wiki article...on top of all MOS requirements. What is critical commentary? Is it the mention of the film itself? No...it is not. The subject is the movie poster...NOT the film. To justify the use of any image in a Wikipedia article requires that the image NOT be merely decorative. It must illustrate the prose of the article it is used for. Project Film MOS States:

''Non-free images used in film articles must meet Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. While all ten non-free content criteria must be met, three are the most pertinent to WikiProject Films: (1) No free equivalent, (3) Minimal usage and minimal extent of use, and (8) Significance. The content guidelines also list acceptable uses for non-free images, including two that are most relevant to WikiProject Films. Film and television screen shots are for critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. Promotional material such as posters, programs, billboards, ads are also for critical commentary.''

It is clear from this information that the use of images must meet a standard and that simply uploading a movie poster to illustrate a film article is inappropriate. There must indeed be a discussion or "Critical commentary" of the image itself. Articles of "Project film" appear to be one of the largest contributors to non free content. Therefore, it is my opinion that the manual of style be updated to reflect a far more stringent guideline to discourage the uploading of images against Wikipedia Bright Line rules.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that your view reflects the widespread consensus or reality of Wikipedia. It's widely accepted that our articles should be illustrated in some way, with an image that represents the subject, so that readers can visually identify the topic at hand. Because creative works like films, albums, TV shows, and video games are almost always non-free, it is widely accepted that an item of cover art (or in the case of films, poster art) is acceptable in the infobox because it serves this function. The cover/poster art itself need not be the subject of critical commentary. In fact, WP:NFCI explicitly says this: "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." So as long as the item (in this case, the film) is receiving "critical commentary", then an image of the film's poster in the infobox meets the non-free content criteria. If you have a problem with that, I suggest taking it up at WT:NFC, because you're talking about an issue that affects numerous topics (film, albums, video games, TV shows, books, etc.). But I think you'll find that the longstanding consensus/precedent is that this qualifies as Fair Use. I believe it's been discussed before, numerous times, and always come out that an image of cover art in the infobox meets WP's criteria. Our MoS should reflect this, as WP:NFC is the parent guideline. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What about logos since the user also has an issue with film logos. — Mike  Allen   08:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Logos are subject to a different guideline (WP:LOGO). That said, the use in the American Reunion article seems to be purely as a placeholder, which wouldn't pass scrutiny (you could just wait for the poster to become available). Films don't really have "logos", anyway; they have posters or maybe a stylized title. However, you could make the case that the American Reunion lettering isn't actually copyrightable, since it consists only of simple text and shapes (see Logos). Most simple-text logos fall under that category. You should replace the non-free logo tag on the image with PD-textlogo. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. While I did not intend for you to illustrate how the policy is misinterpreted, you nevertheless did. You have given the policy exactly as written and then gone straight to consensus as a factor it does not control. It is bright-line policy.


 * "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without'' critical commentary)."

''
 * The "item" being the cover art not what's in the package! You don't get to claim Fair Use to illustrate the film article with ANY image from that film unless the image itself is the subject of the prose.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a problem with misuse of guidelines and policy. Not with any use that follows ALL TEN points of a correctly attributed image (for fair use). You don't get to give a new twist to Fair Use law or Wiki's policy. I am not giving MY view. It's both policy and law. We don't get to take what does not belong to us, nor do we take a blind eye to it. Things are changing guys and editors need to know the facts and how they effect Wikipedia and how articles are being reviewed. It is not my intention to lay down the law, but to communicate an obvious issue being swept under the rug by the project as a whole. The most important thing to Wikipedia is the free exchange of information...not the consensus of editors to take a blind eye to policy to benefit the way an online encyclopedia article looks. The information is the top priority. It's the way Wikipedia works. Does consensus decide off line, real world issues? No, it doesn't. Can consensus alter a bright-line rule or copyright law or even how it is interpreted. No, it can't. Can consensus determine interpretation of a guide-line on wiki...yes.....to a limit. Guide lines are not set rules. They merely point you in the right direction. It is the responsibility of the editor to know the rules before uploading an image regardless of use. Failure to follow procedure simply means the item will be deleted.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding logos:
 * First, they are usually non-free images, and so their use must conform to the guidelines for non-free content and, specifically, the non-free content criteria. Second, logos are often registered trademarks and so their use is restricted independently of copyright concerns. Third, there are editorial issues about adhering to a neutral point of view and selecting an appropriate logo and representation.
 * The encyclopedic rationale for including a logo is similar to the rationale for including portraits of a famous actor: most users feel that portraits provide valuable information about the person that is difficult to describe solely with text. Logos should be regarded as portraits for a given entity. Unlike people, however, where it is often possible to take a free photograph of that person, logos are typically protected by copyright and trademark law and so cannot be replaced by a completely free alternative.
 * I don't like the way people try to manipulate around policy and guidelines to keep or upload images. It's unseemly. Our policy is not a game of one-upmanship or who can fool who with what. A logo must meet the same standards as what I am talking about. Misuse of a license tag can garner a deletion as well. Wiki is clear. Images are only needed if the have context in the prose.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I simply think that it would be a massive help to this project and the entire wiki community if the MOS of this project made it clear what are acceptable uses of images and how to, and what to add to a "Fair Use" rationale. The boiler plate is not a rational and editors need to understand that. It is my hope that we can have a more clear and precise explanation of the use of images on the Wikipedia Project for both film and film makers to keep these issues to a minimum and to encourage a better editor and better contributions that take less fight to keep or use. My main concern with posters is the market value of the image for the copy right holder.


 * Effect upon work's value


 * The fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his or her original work. The court not only investigates whether the defendant's specific use of the work has significantly harmed the copyright owner's market, but also whether such uses in general, if widespread, would harm the potential market of the original. The burden of proof here rests not on the defendant for commercial uses, but on the copyright owner for noncommercial uses. See Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios,[16] where the copyright owner, Universal, failed to provide any empirical evidence that the use of Betamax had either reduced their viewership or negatively impacted their business. In the aforementioned Nation case regarding President Ford's memoirs, the Supreme Court labeled this factor "the single most important element of fair use" and it has indeed enjoyed some level of primacy in fair use analyses ever since. Yet the Supreme Court's more recent announcement in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.[17] that "all [four factors] are to be explored, and the results weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright" has helped modulate this emphasis in interpretation.

In evaluating the fourth factor, courts often consider two kinds of harm to the potential market of the original work: First, courts consider whether the use in question acts as a direct market substitute for the original work. In the judgement of the Supreme Court in Acuff-Rose Music they decisively stated that, "when a commercial use amounts to mere duplication of the entirety of the original, it clearly supersedes the object of the original and serves as a market replacement for it, making it likely that cognizable market harm to the original will occur." In one instance, a court ruled that this factor weighed against a defendant who had made unauthorized movie trailers for video retailers, since his trailers acted as direct substitutes for the copyright owner's official trailers.[18] Second, courts also consider whether potential market harm might exist beyond that of direct substitution, such as in the potential existence of a licensing market. This consideration has weighed against commercial copy shops that make copies of articles in course-pack for college students, when a market already existed for the licensing of course-pack copies.[19] Courts recognize that certain kinds of market harm do not oppose fair use, such as when a parody or negative review impairs the market of the original work. Copyright considerations may not shield a work against adverse criticism.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A lot of what you are saying reflects an extremely narrow interpretation of fair use, and one that does not jibe with Wikipedia's guidelines nor with reality. Specifically:
 * You have given the policy exactly as written and then gone straight to consensus as a factor it does not control. It is bright-line policy.
 * I'm not sure what you mean about the relationship between policies and consensus. (1) I didn't cite a policy, I cited WP:NFC which is a guideline. (2) Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are written and enforced through the consensus process; It's the entire model upon which Wikipedia is built. (3) I have no idea what you mean by "bright line policy". What makes a policy "bright line" and what is different about a "bright line policy" from any other policy?
 * The "item" being the cover art not what's in the package! You don't get to claim Fair Use to illustrate the film article with ANY image from that film unless the image itself is the subject of the prose.
 * Excuse me, but the "item" is the film, not the image. That's exactly what WP:NFCI says: "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item". The "item" is the film/album/whatever that the cover art is from, not the art itself. You are twisting the guideline to suit your own narrow interpretation, when in fact the guideline is specifically written to mean the work and not the cover art. Otherwise the guideline would say "Cover art, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of the cover art."
 * You don't get to give a new twist to Fair Use law or Wiki's policy. I am not giving MY view. It's both policy and law.
 * No one is trying to give a "new twist" to anything here: These policies and guidelines have been in place for years, and as far as I know they have not suddenly changed significantly. There are hundreds (possibly more) of featured articles on films/albums/etc. that use cover art in their infoboxes but do not discuss the artwork itself. Clearly Wikipedia's policies in this regard are not as strict as you think they are.
 * Things are changing guys and editors need to know the facts and how they effect Wikipedia and how articles are being reviewed.
 * As I said, I have seen no recent significant change in the policies or guidelines affecting this issue, nor have I seen any shift in Featured Article Reviews indicating that cover art in infoboxes as a form of identification is not allowed; We continue to review and promote articles with non-free cover art in their infoboxes that is not necessarily discussed in the article body. Your personal views on Fair Use do not seem to be indicative of a sea change in Wikipedia.
 * I don't like the way people try to manipulate around policy and guidelines to keep or upload images. It's unseemly. Our policy is not a game of one-upmanship or who can fool who with what. A logo must meet the same standards as what I am talking about. Misuse of a license tag can garner a deletion as well.
 * Again, no one is trying to "manipulate" any policies or guidelines here. The policies and guidelines have been in place for years and in my ~5 years' experience this WikiProject, and others, do a good job of adhering to them. I am certainly not trying to "fool" anyone by stating that the American Reunion "logo" consists only of simple block lettering and thus does not pass the originality threshold to be copyrightable. That is the law, and it's the whole reason that PD-textlogo exists. In fact, the logo ought to be on Commons. It still might be trademarked, but you legally can't copyright simple text. Trademark and copyright are not the same thing.
 * I simply think that it would be a massive help to this project and the entire wiki community if the MOS of this project made it clear what are acceptable uses of images and how to, and what to add to a "Fair Use" rationale. The boiler plate is not a rational and editors need to understand that.
 * The boilerplate fair use rationales such as album cover fur and Film cover fur are, in fact, fair use rationales. That's why they are called that. Wikipedia implemented these because it recognizes that there are certain rationales that carry across entire categories of articles, and that each image does not need a uniquely-worded rationale. If the image in question is only used in the infobox of an article, then no further rationale is necessary beyond the boilerplate (though the template does allow the option of additional rationale beyond the boilerplate, which is helpful to use if the artwork itself is indeed a topic of discussion within the article). The MoS points to both WP:NFCC andWP:NFC, which is where the criteria and language of fair use rationales should be (and are) discussed.
 * As I said earlier, the problems you seem to have with Fair Use application extend beyond the scope of the Films project. They touch on the fundamentals of WP:NFC as it applies to cover art, and have implications far beyond just films (as I mentioned before, this affects albums, video games, books, TV shows, almost every form of media). Therefore the best place to discuss your concerns would be at either WT:NFC or WT:NFCC, not here, though I doubt you'll see the sweeping change you seem to hope for, as this very issue has been discussed in the past multiple times and the consensus (at the policy level) has been that covert art in infoboxes for the purpose of identifying the work in question qualifies as fair use. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I am pretty positive that this has already been discussed more widely in the past. Was there not an RfC? Ah, I found it: Non-free content/Cover art RfC. I'd rather discuss better use of screenshots because Category:Screenshots of films is full of quite a few that do not satisfy the criteria. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 11:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The conclusion of the RFC was this: ''In general, artwork used in infoboxes qualifies under non-free content criteria #8 in that the article and image work together to justify its use. Therefore detailed dicussion of the artwork itself is not necessarily required in the body of the article.''

That is pretty ambiguous but I can accept that the article is the text context itself for the cover art. However the RFC did not determine anything else. It did not cover the boiler plate issue or the market value issue. But I agree screen shots should be discussed as well as this is what spawned the whole subject for me. You see the main issue is all ten points of fair use and the RFC only cleared up one point. That it is the consensus of editors that the body of the article is the prose context needed. It didn't alter the guideline or policy. Many posters cannot be used due to the fact that it takes the market value of licensing that image.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NFCC, there ought to be "respect for commercial opportunities", and it says, "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." One of the sub-criteria is to minimize the extent of use in terms of low resolution. Most images in the infobox are 300 pixels in width. What do you have in mind in terms of respecting commercial opportunities? To use poster images only after a film is released? Or some time after? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I struck out the above because I mistakenly thought "minimal usage" and "minimal extent of use" fell under "Respect for commercial opportunities". So it comes back to the meaning of the commercial-opportunities sentence. Looking at the NFC guidelines, #12 under WP:NFC, it says an unacceptable use is, "A commercial photograph reproduced in high enough resolution to potentially undermine the ability of the copyright holder to profit from the work." (That kind of thinking is why I thought that "minimal extent of use" was related to respecting "commercial opportunities".) It seems that a low resolution is beneficial to that end after all, especially if "the original market role" of a film poster is to be printed as a large piece. Do you have a different approach to respecting commercial opportunities in mind? Like I asked before, something to do with using posters at a certain time at or after the film's release?
 * As for the boilerplate template, I always saw it as a kind of cleanup of poor practices that now outlines how it meets each criteria. Some novice editors will just have a rationale summary like "Illustrates the film". The template at least checks off each and every criteria. The variables are the copyright holders and the sources of the images; I'm not sure if you're arguing that it's bad that there are a set of constants in these images? They're all the same media, so similarities are to be expected. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 13:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Are there examples of copyright holders taking down a movie poster from an infobox? Any known claims that it's not fair use? Any Cease and Desist letters? "It was a fair use, not an infringement, to reproduce Grateful Dead concert posters within a book. Important factors: The Second Circuit focused on the fact that the posters were reduced to thumbnail size and reproduced within the context of a timeline. (Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006).)" --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that WP:NFCC says as one of the rationales, "To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law." I think that's what Amadscientist is getting at when he talks about following the criteria stringently. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you Erik you hit it on the nose exactly! That is why Wikipedia has a ten point rational guideline for Fair use images and not just the 4 points of fair use law.


 * We know that it is the consensus of editors that the article IS the critical commentary for inclusion of the poster in the article. We should discuss how that can be incorporated into the Project MOS criteria for film posters. As for the market value...it's not a straight across the board issue. Is there a market for movie posters that is being replaced by the use of it on the Wikipedia Article? In some cases ...yes. Even the low resolution image of a poster of a newer film is taking market value away by producing the image free. It does hamper the copyright holders ability to profit and benefit from there product. --Amadscientist (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * album cover fur and Film cover fur are not fair use rationales. They are templates and do not have all the required ten points...YOU HAVE TO ADD THEM! That is why wiki states that boiler plates are not the fair use rationale. Boiler plate are nice because they organize the information to be seen and have the titles already on them. But, alone they do not satidfy wiki ploicy and even the 4 points of fair use law.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That is why Wikipedia has a ten point rational guideline for Fair use images and not just the 4 points of fair use law.
 * By "ten point rationale guideline" I assume you mean Non-free use rationale guideline (it is actually only 5 points, with some sub-points). It's not that difficult to meet the components: If you're using a reduced-quality version, state how much of the copyrighted work you're using, and if the image is not replaceable by a free equivalent, then you're 60% there. All you need is to answer the question "What purpose does the image serve in the article?", for which you'll note that the acceptable responses include "box art for the main subject of the article", "as the primary means of visual identification of the subject or topic? (e.g., a corporate logo or the box art of a DVD)", and "illustrate the topic of the article". Film posters meet all of these components.
 * We know that it is the consensus of editors that the article IS the critical commentary for inclusion of the poster in the article. We should discuss how that can be incorporated into the Project MOS criteria for film posters.
 * I don't see what needs to be incorporated that isn't already covered by WP:NFCC and WP:NFC: If the articles is the critical commentary, then all that needs to be met for inclusion is that the article contain critical commentary about the film ("critical commentary" here meaning not just critics' opinions but encyclopedic information about the film ie. production history, casting, box office performance, etc.). The bar isn't set all that high. So if all you've got is an infobox and a plot summary, that isn't enough to justify a non-free image. Maybe we could mention that.
 * Even the low resolution image of a poster of a newer film is taking market value away by producing the image free. It does hamper the copyright holders ability to profit and benefit from there product.
 * I don't see how you can prove this; it's just your opinion. As far as I know we've never had a movie studio contact us and claim that having a low-resolution, small-size version of a film's poster in the infobox of a WP article is somehow taking market value away from them or hampering their profits. You don't exactly see the movie studios suing Wikipedia, or Allmovie, or IMDb, or any of the other kajillion places where their film posters appear online (common sense says that, if anything, this has a positive effect from a marketing stanpoint, since the purpose of a film poster is to promote the film). Not that this affects our approach from a free (libre)-content standpoint, but you have to prove your claim that using low-resolution, small-size images under Fair Use is "taking market value away" and "hampering the copyright holder's ability to profit". Sorry, but I'm not willing to take your word as fact on this.
 * album cover fur and Film cover fur are not fair use rationales. They are templates and do not have all the required ten points...YOU HAVE TO ADD THEM!
 * Provided that you fill in the required fields, then yes these templates are valid fair use rationales. That's why they say right across the top "Non-free media use rationale for x". Of course you've got to fill in the fields to make it valid, but we have boilerplate for that, too. For example, if you put  then you get Purpose of use: Main infobox. The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for. Use for this purpose does not compete with the purposes of the original artwork, namely the artist's providing graphic design services to music concerns and in turn marketing music to the public. That's a perfectly valid rationale and I don't see what the problem is. It doesn't matter that it's boilerplate. Are you saying that users aren't filling these things in properly? 'Cause that's not really something we can fix from this end. The upload form already instructs users to fill in all the required fields, and it even gives you a one-click link to fill in the "infobox" bit for you. I don't see how we can make it easier/clearer for users than that. And yes, they do satisfy Wikipedia's criteria as long as you fill in the (simple) required fields. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Plot summaries probably qualify as commentary because they involve selection of which narrative events to exclude (like the dialogue). Publishing a plot summary does not constitute copyright infringement of a film so under the law it must be a separate creation. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My main problem here is I don't understand what Amadscientist's problem with the boilerplate FURs is. Assuming you fill in the required fields, it should serve as a perfectly valid rationale (after all, that's why they were created). Let me ask by way of an example: Amadscientist, consider this film poster — Do you think the rationale is valid? Why or why not? What do you think could/should be done from a film MoS perspective to improve upon the instructions for constructing a valid fair use rationale?
 * Personally, I could see how it might help to give editors an example such as this and follow it with an example of a filled-in boilerplate. Or perhaps we need to create a boilerplate for film posters like we have for video and album covers, where the upload form would ask you what the purpose was and you could click "infobox" and it would fill it in for you. At first I thought pointing to an exemplar FUR for a film poster would be easy, but as I look around I see they're not all using the same boilerplate for their rationales: Just among a few FA film posters I looked at, some are using Video cover fur, others are just using the generic Non-free use rationale, and still others simply have a text paragraph rather than a template at all. I think it would help tremendously to have a unified boilerplate for infobox film posters, similar to album cover fur. What do you think? --IllaZilla (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I really don't see how you think that film posters being uploaded on Wikipedia is "taking market value away" and "hampering the copyright holder's ability to profit". That's ridiculous.  As soon as a film poster is released it's all over the internet, displayed at the theaters, on buses, billboards, etc.  So how is if it's on Wikipedia it's suddenly "hampering the copyright holder's ability to profit".  Newsflash, this is what film posters are for. "A film poster is a poster used to advertise a film."  One could look at the film's Wikipedia article as a form of "advertising" for unreleased films.  There's been times where directors from independent films has released the film poster under a free license.  Major film studios are not going to sue Wikipedia because we are using a film poster on an article about their film. Since most film posters meet the fair use rationale policy (lower resolution) then it's fair to say we are not doing anything illegal. User:IllaZilla has provided you with all the relevant guidelines and policy.  The film project is not the only project that adds fair use posters or images. Additionally, the American Reunion "logo" is not copyrighted, since it's just letters. It seems that's what has caused your crusade of other fair use images at the film project. — Mike   Allen   00:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:SOAP: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I really think people are using this discussion page to argue the wrong points. I am not on a crusade. As a reviewer it has come to my attention that simple policy and guide lines are not being adhered to. While this has been overlooked in GA nominations and reviews it is simply not what we are supposed to do. Standards have not changed,adherence may have. We can't take a blind eye any longer. Articles should adhere to policy and guide lines. That's all. The arguments that fail are the ones that debate around facts or substitute there on interpretation of what is meant. The only problem with that is...Wikipedia spells it out pretty clearly.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Not all posters take the market use...but newer films and unreleased films, they certainly do. Major works or historically or socially significant films may also have their market use taken by use of certain images including screen shots and film posters. Logos are trade marked not copyrighted. Per Logos

''Many images of logos are used on Wikipedia and long standing consensus is that it is acceptable for Wikipedia to use logos belonging to others for encyclopedic purposes. There are three main concerns with logo use. First, they are usually non-free images, and so their use must conform to the guidelines for non-free content and, specifically, the non-free content criteria. Second, logos are often registered trademarks and so their use is restricted independently of copyright concerns. Third, there are editorial issues about adhering to a neutral point of view and selecting an appropriate logo and representation.'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amadscientist (talk • contribs) 01:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A problem with fair use standards would be signaled by removal of putatively protected material (as we know, anyone can do that) or cease and desist letters. Those are the normal methods for copyright holders to protect their rights. In their absence, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this is fair use or the copyright holders are satisfied with the current state of affairs. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion has nothing to do with whether or not a copyright holder has or is complaining. We dont wait for a complaint to comply with our own rules.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think you're right. The purpose of the policies is to achieve compliance with fair use standards by bringing about practices that comply. The apparent lack of difficulties in this area indicate that our practices are good and our efforts to comply are successful. If there were complaints it would be evidence that our practices have problems with fair use standards and that would be a problem no matter how well we conform to policy or guidelines. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * For non-free content, each image page must include:


 * A copyright tag to claim fair use. Wikipedia's file upload function and wizard each help editors choose an appropriate tag. A list is below. Non-free images that meet Wikipedia's policy but do not fit into any of the categories below should use the tag.
 * A statement describing the source of the media.
 * *A separate "non-free use rationale" for each use in a Wikipedia article. Instructions, guidelines, samples, and templates are available at Non-free use rationale guideline.

 this creates this:

and this  creates this:

These are used along with this  which creates this:

or this 

 which creates this:

The templates themselves expalin that all ten points of fair use for wikipedia MUST be met: 'For copyrighted images to be used on Wikipedia in accordance with the fair use policy, they must meet all'' ten requirements of the Non-free content criteria. This template and others like it allow for a standardized way of providing this information.''' --Amadscientist (talk) 02:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If we're still talking about film posters in infoboxes (it's hard to tell if we were ever on a clear discussion track to begin with), then this is complete nonsense. The use of film posters in infoboxes of articles about films adheres to both policy and guidelines. Do I really have to quote WP:NFCI to you again? It's not been "overlooked" in GA and FA reviews: particularly at the FA level, the reviews that I've been involved with have been quite strict on NFC criteria and yet cover/poster art in infoboxes has been deemed fair use and approved 100% of times in my experience.
 * The business about logos is completely irrelevant because (A) the vast majority of films don't even have logos per se, and even if they did there is not a wide-scale use of them on Wikipedia. I don't even know why you're going on about logos in relation to film articles...the problem simply doesn't exist. (B) The logo that seems to have gotten you in a stir (the American Reunion one) isn't even non-free. It's just block text. It's not copyrightable. Simple text is in the public domain. Again, you're imagining a problem that isn't there.
 * Why are you giving us lectures on templates? We all know how license tags and FUR templates work, thanks. And even if we didn't, the upload form tells you how to do it and what to include. We know you have to fill in the fields with the necessary information (purpose, portion, etc.). Again, the instructions tell you this. We don't need a lecture on templates; it's not germaine to the discussion of whether film posters are being used properly in accordance with fair use. And for god's sake, stop copying/transposing entire templates and policy pages. If you want to link something, just link it. We can all see what the templates produce by looking at the respective template pages (as if we didn't know already). You're lecturing the pros here.
 * You still haven't answered my earlier question: In the case of an image with a proper license tag and a completely filled-out FUR template, like this one, what's the problem? --IllaZilla (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Stop changing my posts. Stop dictating to others how to use this talk page or what they can post, link or add here. It is disruptive behavior that alters my posts and is bad faith editing. I put them here for a reason.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you are talking about IllaZilla, but I know what I am speaking about. I am not lectureing I am answering the comments and concerns of those (including you) are bringing up. You said that there were not ten points to fair use rational and there are. you said the template was enough and it is not.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Erik provided the Rfc about the consensus on Posters in info boxes and that the article is the critical commentary for their use. But the RFC did not contain consensus on any other portion of use of copyrighted images and posters so that is what the discussion I am involved in to see where and how the Project MOS (what this page is for discussing) can be improved to make it more clear on fair use images such as posters and screen shots. I am saying that not all posters are clear from taking market use and that the rationale templates must include or be added with the full ten point fair use rational.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You know what? I'm done. You don't properly indent, you put up walls of copy/pasted policy text and templates that you could easily just link to, you post in the wrong sections—all of which making the conversation disjointed, intimidating, and impossible to follow—and then you berate me for trying to make it legible, which is fully within my rights. I did not remove any information from your comments, I merely linked the policies and templates rather than transposing them entirely. It's not disruptive or bad faith to try to keep the discussion legible. Rather, it's bad form on your part to continually transpose all of these things here, creating a huge mess where your comments are indistinguishable from the walls of text you're copy/pasting, when you could simply link to the pages you refer to. You'll notice most people don't copy/paste the entirety of NFCC every time they refer to it; I can't imagine why you think it's necessary to do so. I can no longer understand what points you're trying to make or even what your central argument is, so unless you're going to get back around to what exactly this has to do with the Manual of Style for film articles, I'm out. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * We all make mistakes and no one is perfect, nor must we be to bring up issues. Changing a talk page should only be done for extreme cases. Not because you think it disjoints the conversation. There are better ways than removing part of a post that is illustrative or make accusations like you have been doing. I encourage you to stay in the discussion but please don't disrupt the page with alterations by REMOVING information. You could have simply fixed indintation and even THAT MUCH pisses off some people.
 * To asnwer ytou question about the Fight Club image....it simply needs the full rationale added. It isn't enough to remove it from the article or delist over it. The simple solution is to add the information.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * IllaZilla disrupted this conversation? Really? Who copy and pastes policy/guideline pages including the shortcuts to that page, to the talk page? :-\ This discussion is going no where and will probably end up in the archives with no other comments. — Mike   Allen   03:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * So there's not really a problem that you can point to, it seems. Both in fact and in theory nothing is amiss. Or is there a case you'd like to bring to our attention? --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Also using a file's talk page is the wrong place for deletion discussions. (See here, here, here, here and probably more) No one is going to see a discussion there unless the file is on their watchlist. You take a file to WP:FFD for such as that. You've been here for 4 years, one would think you would know where to have deletion discussions. PS. Actually when you edit a file talk page there is BIG RED notice at the top that says what the page is NOT for and it lists: "Requesting deletion of the image (check speedy deletion criteria to see if there is a suitable tag to place on the File: page; or failing that go to Files for Deletion)." Just in case you missed that. — Mike   Allen   03:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Actualy sir, the mistake on SOME of those was that they did not qualify for speedy dlete. The template I used requested the talk page commnet and had a note when I did not add one. So you are incorrect about the assertion that I used the talk page incorrectly. Some of those images were deleted.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Attacking me and not discussing improvements to the MOS ( which is what this talk page is for) is not appropriate and you have been here long enough to know that as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Ring Cinema I am not here to point to problems with any specific image. If so, it would be illustrative only. My concern is the MOS and how to refine it to better explain the required process. I am here to discuss the Manuel of Style of Project film and how to better improve it.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah the talk page of the user that uploaded it. Anyway @RingCinema, I just read a comment of yours above this messy discussion that I had missed. You said "Are there examples of copyright holders taking down a movie poster from an infobox?" Um yeah, kind of. A user uploaded a poster (it was posted on the director's website, but apparently was an unofficial poster) to the film Chillerama. The copyright holder sent a DMCA take-down notice to the Wikimedia Foundation. See the discussion here. —<span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike  Allen   04:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope the talk page of the IMAGE. Once I made a small comment the note changed. Now...that was probably the wrong template to begin with since the image did not qualify for Speedy deletion.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Big mistake is to try to "improve" something that works well. Maybe you didn't think of this, but new definitions may lead to unforeseen consequences. Since things are working well, those consequences would be negative. So if the practices are good, that means the policies are good absent a finding of clear error. That someone can imagine something somewhere might not work right someday is not a basis for change. A genuine problem would be evident on multiple pages. You can't point to even three egregious mistakes very easily? That argues strongly that the current MOS is in perfect working order. Thanks for your concern. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Uhm...that was just ridiculous. Do you have a clue how Wikipedia works. And it is NOT working perfectly. This project is responsible for many of Wikipedia's issues. It's clear no one cares so I won't bother this project further with my concerns because it is clear the project doesn't care as long as it "Advertises" you favorite page. I shall remove my articles from the project, and make sure my friends know how wiki film articles work. I will encourage all directors, actors and producers I know, meet or work with in the future to voice their opinion with legal action instead of discussion because talking on the very page devoted to improving the MOS is discouraged. --Amadscientist (talk) 05:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So is that a legal threat? —<span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike  Allen   06:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

To be a legal threat I would have to (A) make the suggestion that I was going to take a legal action. Which I did not, and (B) encouraging my friends and co-workers not to discuss their complaints on Wiki further has nothing to do with Wiki itself.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Amadscientist, you have to put yourself in our shoes here. There has been a great deal of review of film articles over the years. Film articles are also some of the most highly trafficked, and most visitors certainly are not visiting pages to see the poster. Non-free images and their rationales have been accepted in article reviews. Reviewers often request for rationales for images (they're actually pretty nitpicky about that), and the templates that are added, plus a detailed explanation for contextual significance, are granted. In addition, for the market value of film posters, we upload them in a small enough resolution that they fit the infobox. A film can be identified through the poster, but the poster is too thumbnail-like to be readable. If you want, you could make a case for poster images of a smaller width. I think the standard is 300 pixels, and perhaps we can pursue a smaller width.
 * All the aforementioned is why I suggested talking about screenshots instead. The vast majority of editors support the use of the posters and how we have rationales for them. Unlike you, we're not seeing them as a threat to the overall integrity of Wikipedia. Some stub articles don't deserve posters, and that could be a worthwhile task to go through such articles. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 11:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "This project is responsible for many of Wikipedia's issues," AMadScientist says. So, there are specific examples of problems? This is the time to mention them, AMS, since by all appearances our compliance is good and our practices (derived from the policies and guidelines) are compliant. Your accusation of apathy is ill-founded, and seems inspired by your wish that we ask you how high to jump. A nuanced discussion of this issue would include not only the many examples of problem cases but also those that are in the gray zone where reasonable people can differ. But first, please mention the plethora of cases that indicate there are many problems. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Film poster FUR
Focusing on a specific issue, somewhere up above I mentioned that I searched a number of poster images from FA film articles for examples of fair use rationales and found that they were very inconsistent, with some using boilerplates designed for video covers, others using generic fair-use boilerplates, and others not using templated rationales at all. I suggested that we create a template for film poster FURs, since nearly every film article has a poster image in its infobox and it's part of our responsibility to make sure they have consistent, valid FURs. Well, I just came across Film poster fur which is exactly what I had in mind. I suggest adding mention of this to the MoS, in WP:FILMNFI below the mention of non-free images, and making it the standard for these kind of images. My suggestion is to add something like: "Most film articles contain an image of the film's poster in the infobox. This serves to identify the film in the context of critical commentary of the film. This usage is permitted by Wikipedia's non-free image guidelines (the poster serving as cover art for the film). Non-free images of film posters should generally be no more than 300px wide and should be marked with the license tag Non-free poster. Film poster fur should be used to provide a fair use rationale; Remember to fill in all of the required fields or the rationale will be invalid." I've created a specific non-free license tag at User:IllaZilla/Template:Non-free film poster. We could request that a quick link for film poster rationales be added to the main upload form, just like there are for album covers and book/DVD covers. What does everyone think? --IllaZilla (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean Non-free poster? EDIT: Nevermind, I see your sub-page now. Is there a reason to create a separate one from the one I mentioned? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, I'd forgotten about the poster template. I've amended the wording above. Do you think it would be a good idea to add to the MoS? --IllaZilla (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would be fine with it. Don't forget, we have Template:Infobox film too. Maybe we could put it in the template documentation (since we tend to reference that one for infobox-related guidelines)? We can link from WP:FILMNFI to there. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I'm just trying to set a framework for consistency: If editors know about Non-free poster and Film poster fur, and the upload form is adjusted to provide these automatically, then hopefully there won't be so much inconsistency in licensing and rationales amongst film posters. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that there are two or three editors out there who are dedicated to uploading film posters. I think InfamousPrince, Tired time, etc.? Maybe let them know so we can get some consistency going? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * While I would be hesistant against a standardized FUR, I can see the value here, but I strongly recommend that a user can add additional language (but not overwrite what's in there) for a rationale or other aspects. For example, if the poster helps illustrate the characters, that's above and beyond the standard FUR language above, and that would be a smart thing for an uploader to add. I think the Logo FUR template provides a good way to approach this, with required, recommended, and optional fields. --M ASEM (t) 19:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Like most of the boilerplates, Film poster fur contains optional parameters that override or supplement the usual language exactly for the reasons you describe. They're in the syntax, under "override fields". --IllaZilla (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Controversies?
It's been there needing expansion for quite a while now. Anybody know what to do with this section? -- Tærkast (Discuss) 18:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It should probably be based on WP:STRUCTURE. I would especially discourage using "Controversy" in a section heading. WP:STRUCTURE says, "Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." For example, films based on historical events usually have some "controversy" over their accuracy, but it's best to provide a narrative under a neutrally titled "Historical accuracy" section. One section about a film-related controversy is Valkyrie (film), which I think accomplishes a narrative rather than having two subsections that fight against each other. Another albeit smaller example is The Dilemma, which seems to me to be a better section title because any use of "Controversy" would make the sub-topic sound more potent than it really is. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style
Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation: "Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?" It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. N oetica Tea? 00:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Marketing and product placement
I notice that the marketing guidelines mention "product placement" as a part of a film's marketing. It seems to me that product placement is not part of a film's marketing and therefore doesn't belong in that section. Placement is a marketing activity of the product placed, not the film; it's simply shown in the film. Better to me, it belongs in the product's article under marketing. A link to that article would seem to cover it. I would distinguish product placement from merchandising, which is properly a film's marketing activity and belongs in the section. Are there other views on this? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'm not sure if a link to the product's article is enough, though. What about somewhere in the production section? After all, product placement helps cut down on the cost of production. One example I can think of is the second-to-last sentence in Limitless – Production. Since products are still marketing, just of a different sort, we could have a clarifying sentence in the marketing guidelines to cover product placement in the production section. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 11:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, product placement for the purpose of financing a film seems okay to include in the section about raising funds (but let's recognize that's not usually covered in film articles). The other obviously permissible case is under themes or plot where product placement is the subject of the film (see Greatest Movie Ever Sold). Beyond that, if the product placement doesn't merit mention on the product's page, one could argue that it lacks the notability to be on the film's page. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I revised the marketing guidelines to exclude product placement. I don't know how product articles cover their topics, but for film articles, the threshold for inclusion should start with secondary sources discussing product placement. Perhaps the product's strong relationship with the film itself (I'm thinking the kind of vehicles used with Transformers films as one example) could be another criterion. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this is a problem, but it seems like secondary sources seem most inclined to bring up product placement in the context of its excesses. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Box-office sections
There is a big problem about what should or should not be written in box-office sections. I believe it's time to write down specifically what records are needed because some editors keep deleting box-office data from so-called "over-detailed" box-office sections while others believe that some box-office sections should be expanded. This concerns mostly films that performed exceptionally well in markets outside North America, including recent hits like Pirates 4 and Deathly Hallows Part 2. Their "overseas" earnings have surpassed $800 million making it obvious that there are many countries where they broke records. I can't bear thinking about the box-office section of Avatar, where the box office records, either "domestic" or worldwide or for individual markets, are tossed together in no logical sequence. Moreover, some have been overtaken. Arbitrary deletions or additions of box-office data happen continuously. And the problem is that there are no guidelines to help control what is written in a box office section. What do other editors believe? Spinc5 (talk) 8:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the key to presenting a balanced overview is not try to present coverage of every single market, but to represent the perspectives from those markets. The worldwide overview goes without saying, but the other two perspectives are those of the native markets and the non-native markets. A native market would be North America for a US film, and the European Union for a European film, and China, Taiwan, Hong Kong for a Chinese film for example; there should be some depth of coverage given to the performance of a film in its native market (or markets if it is an international production).  As for the non-native markets, I think we should just summarise the box office collectively, although we should list any records the film sets in specific countries.  For example, if an American film sets an opening record in India then we should cover that, but if it doesn't we don't really need to document the figures. I would like to see roughly equal weight given to the worldwide perspective, the native markets perspective, and the non-native perspective.  Obviously weighting does come down to what information is available, but that's the idea approach.  Another point is that the records won't stand for more than a couple of years usually, but that doesn't mean we pull them when they are superseded. I'd like to see the records written in a tense free way i.e. Harry Potter set an opening weekend record of $400 million (or whatever).  That applies while it holds the record, and also once it loses the record.  If this isn't adequate for covering the financial breakdown of the film's performance, I would prefer the sub-article approach.  A sub-article would also allow for DVD sales, TV rights etc. Betty Logan (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, obviously records are being continuously overtaken by newer movies. So should we write only about a film that broke the opening weekend record or should we also mention a film that made the second or third largest opening weekend. I don't think it's so simple. There are so many kinds of records: for exapmle it might make the largest opening for an animated title in a specific country or it might be the highest-grossing animated title in total earnings, it might be the second highest-grossing film of all time in a specific country, it might be third. It might the highest-grossing film of a franchise or of a studio in a specific country. Or the highest-grossing film of the year in a non-native country. There are dozens of records one can can come up with. The problem is that whenever Box Office Mojo or The Hollywood Reporter or Variety or any another website mentions a record, then editors write it down. It might not even be a record. For example they may just write about how much a film grossed in its second and third weekend, during which the film wasn't even in first place nor did it have a small decline. Simultaneously, there may be an impressive record that wasn't mentioned by the media but when searching a bit you can find it at Box Office Mojo or other sites with box-office data. Such records aren't mentioned in Wikipedia in most of occasions.

On the other hand, when a movie has such a big difference in box office earnings from native and non-native territories (like Ice Age 3 or Pirates 4 or even Harry Potter 8) the balance between the worldwide perspective, the native markets perspective and the non-native perspective is difficult to be achieved. A film might not do well in its native countries but it may do exceptionally well in other countries (this is the case for Ice Age 3 and Pirates 4 among top grossers overseas). In addition, I don't know if it sounds good to end up after some years with 30 films that say: "it set an opening weekend record in China" for example. It may be confusing. Spinc5 (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Basically I think it's ok to document any kind of record in any market, since that is notable. The problem is with the level of non-notable financial analysis that keeps seeping into the article. I think you get the balance a lot better than most editors, and I have a lot of sympathy for what you are trying to do with the box office sections, but the level of detail sometimes overwhelms the article. It would be much better if you joined the discussion on the Harry Potter page, since the current issue primarily affects that article.  Betty Logan (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Soundtrack
I provided a preliminary writeup for the "Soundtrack" section as seen here. I attempted to reflect the precedent I have seen in articles and the consensus I have seen in discussions. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it makes sense and I agree with the statements given there. I'd wonder if we should be stronger on dissuading the use of cover images, although I'd stop short of outright forbidding them - but since they only serve to identify something which any images from the parent film will have already identified. GRAPPLE   X  16:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not want to come out too strongly against cover images in the preliminary writeup, but it seems to me that people agree that the cover image is typically a derivative of the film's promotional materials, for example often being similar to the film's poster. We need to limit the number of non-free images in a film article to what is contextually significant, and I think that the poster image is sufficient as cover art being used for identification. An album's cover image does not add anything more, unless there is specific coverage about its imagery. I think that is unlikely for a soundtrack album; stand-alone albums do have coverage about their imagery. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This may come into conflict with WikiProject Albums (it seemed like the last discussion we had, they were for always creating separate articles for soundtracks/scores), but it looks good for WP:FILM since we do indicate to include a summary and not to split off unless it meets the criteria. I would definitely also say to include more details about not including the cover image unless especially notable (of course, I can't think of any examples off the top of my head). Something we may want to consider with the MOSFILM is adding example articles (with previous revisions of course) that meet the guidelines that new editors can click to for examples of what it says in the guidelines (somewhat similar to the limited examples we have at WikiProject Film/Multimedia). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I added the following, "The poster image in the film infobox is sufficient for identification of the topic, and cover images in the film article's album infoboxes is considered extraneous." As for examples, I'm not sure. I was considering Tropic Thunder as an example but it seems like someone created album sub-articles just to be able to use cover images. Would like a more stable example. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I should have been more clear. I suggest that we have example articles for each section listed in the guidelines. For plot, we could link to two or three film example revisions for ideas on what a plot should look like. A few article revisions could be provided for themes, box office, etc. With a few examples for each topic, it will hopefully clear up any confusion over the wording and provide a helpful visual for new editors. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Quick (and probably stupid) question - do all soundtrack albums come under the scope of the Film Project?  Lugnuts  (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. They're also under the purview of the Albums project too. It's like how, say, Batman falls under the Film project, but also under several others. GRAPPLE   X  14:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's a good question. I sampled talk pages of soundtrack articles from Category:Soundtracks by year, and some articles have the WikiProject Film banner and some do not. I'm not sure if we've ever discussed tagging these kinds of articles. Since soundtracks fall under film articles if they are not notable enough on their own, they should be tagged, I think. I just don't think very many editors care about the quality of soundtrack articles, unfortunately. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Use of parenthesis
Is there a consensus regarding the style in which the year of release in the lede sentence on film article should be presented? For example, I see that this style is routinely used on Good or Featured articles:


 * Tropic Thunder is a 2008 American action satire comedy film written, produced, and directed by Ben Stiller, and starring Stiller, Robert Downey, Jr., and Jack Black.

However, a few editors are changing ledes to the one like this below:


 * Waterloo Bridge (1931) is an American drama film directed by James Whale. The screenplay by Benn Levy and Tom Reed is based on the 1930 play of the same title by Robert E. Sherwood.

I'd like to know which is correct/acceptable/whatever or if there is even a consensus on this matter as I think there should be some clarity on the matter so film articles all look the same. I have "fixed" a few only to be reverted by one or two editors repeatedly. Thanks.  Pinkadelica <sup style="color:black;">♣  05:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw someone do this too! I just can't remember where.  I don't understand the sudden change of the format, considering it's been written as "a 2008.." for years now.  Parenthesis just seem too informal for the lead sentence of the article. —<span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike   Allen   05:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the change either, and it seems that only a few people are implementing the parenthesis on older film articles that don't get much traffic. I think it has more to do with a personal preference than actual policy or guideline which is why I'm checking here to get more community input. It is tiresome to change the lede only to go back a few weeks/months later to see it changed back.  Pinkadelica <sup style="color:black;">♣  06:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I see the parens version more on articles that don't seem to have a lot of edits (older films like you said, obscure action flicks, etc.). I have no problem with either version myself and don't see a reason to specify that either/or is preferable.  I do think it's a little weird to change the (I'm guessing) more common "a ####" to the parens specifically but whatever.  This is one of those things where I don't really see the need for all film articles to be the same; I just don't think it matters since the meaning is clear in either case.  But if folks want to pin it down I'm good with that.  Whatevs.  For whatever it's worth, I don't think the year in parens would be regarded as all that informal; it's a pretty common notation style for academic papers and the like. Millahnna (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't mind parentheses used in the article body, like if one film is compared to another, and that other film has the release year after it in parentheses (as a kind of date marker). In the lead sentence, though, it seems odd to have it right after the title and in particular separate from the other descriptors like nationality and genre. I agree with the assessment that such parentheses are seen in articles about older and more obscure films. You may have also seen some strange formatting of cast lists in these wild parts of WikiProject Film, like heavy bolding or italicizing. I would prefer not to use the parentheses, but I don't think it's necessary to specify use in the guidelines. After all, it appears that the quirk gets ironed out when an article gets to good or featured status. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 11:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there are certain editors who are a bugger for doing this. It just looks wrong, so I change it to "X is a 1941 film...", etc.  Lugnuts  (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the parenthesis is an equal option to the alternative. And some variety is preferable. The wording that grates with me is the "[genre] film" construction as above. It's awkward and can be avoided. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is variety preferable in this instance? I was under the impression that formatting for things like paragraphs, etc. should be consistent throughout the project.  Pinkadelica <sup style="color:black;">♣  01:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah you would think a little consistency would play a part in this encyclopedia. —<span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike  Allen   02:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Lead sections should strive to maintain consistency, but variety in the article body is vital to keep prose from sounding stale. I'm not keen on brackets in general, as I think they're quite informal. "Name is a 20X6 surrealist neo-noir film" or "Name, released in 20X6, is a surrealist neo-noir film" are both fine constructions, but beyond that I wouldn't bother with further variation in leads. GRAPPLE   X  02:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If anything I think parenthesis is the more elegant and formal way to not it. Attaching a year and genre to the front of a title is ugly and cumbersome. The MOS on lead already contains sufficient outline for those sections. There's a need for variety both within the article, but also across the encyclopaedia, that allows experimentation. I prefer brackets, but don't think there should be a rule on this either way. Best--Ktlynch (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Consistency is the hobgoblin of a certain type. The cookie cutter approach ignores the strength of Wikipedia: the input of many editors making incremental changes. If we're not prepared to be attentive to that method of improvement, we are undermining the encyclopedia. The authoritarian impulse in this context is badly out of place and should be recognized as against the ethos of Wikipedia. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ring Cinema, what changes do you make on Wikipedia, other than on talk pages? —<span style="solid;background:#5D8AA8; border-radius: 8px; -moz-border-radius: 8px; font-family: Segoe Print"> Mike  Allen   23:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliment, Mike. It's really nice to know that I have been on your radar for so many years. I don't feel the need to toot my own horn about it, though, since, after all, the entirety of our contributions here will someday be overwritten by our successors. But again, thank you for asking. I'm flattered and humbled. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words - absolutely none.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think my contributions matter in some way then I'd suggest you apologize for lying about me. If you don't repeat your lie, I'll assume you recognize that your easily checked error didn't belong here anyway. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not apologizing, as your user contributions cleary state the truth.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You have my sympathy. Your lie is transparently obvious and you lack the common decency to correct yourself. The opinion of a chronic liar matters very little so it would be a mistake to waste time on you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * shows otherwise. The majority of your edits are not in the article space. Hardly a lie.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So in summary, you lied about something that doesn't matter and tried to justify it with an inaccurate restatement of the evidence that actually confirms you lied. Wow. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

On little details like this, there's room for flexibility. But if other editors want to nail down an actual defined format for this, well some of y'all know I do enjoy cleaning up little bits of trivial changes (like the year in film egg links, and the succession infobox fields) so I'll be happy to go along either way and will likely go on one of my random cleanup binges if you do pin it down. I'm rather used to the year without parens but I think it does often make for a clunky sentence (probably because of other factors like genre bloat). I also think Ktlynch makes a good point that the parens are a more formal notation style. So while I don't think we need a rule, if we're going to make one, I lean slightly on the side of the parenthetical. Millahnna (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a consensus/defined style would be beneficial and make things a whole lot more clear for those of us who clean up/work on film articles. As I said, I've changed many ledes only to go back and find them switched backed for no reason. If the use of parenthesis ends up winning out, that's fine, I would just like to know that there is actually one style that should be implemented instead of just having a few folks force their personal preference into articles.  Pinkadelica <sup style="color:black;">♣  05:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the benefit to having one style on a matter like this? If uniformity is the goal, we could have a form for editors instead of guidelines, but I don't see the evidence that this self-appointed group of experts should dictate to editors who are not interested in this forum. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I stated the benefit in my first sentence. I said nothing about this Wikiproject dictating anything. Like it or not, groups of editors do decide on things like style guidelines, so it's not like I was suggesting anything untowards. If you're not interested, so be it, but others are allowed to question why we've being reverted by a few editors over things that are not spelled out in the guideline clearly.  Pinkadelica <sup style="color:black;">♣  08:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I don't understand what you want guidance about. The form of the lede can be handled by the editors on each page and a guideline would be an attempt to short circuit that essential aspect of Wikipedia editing. As it happens, I am interested in this forum but many editors are not, and they are probably better editors, too. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the personal attacks on Ring Cinema are entirely unwarranted and below anyone who works this project. His comment above is a sterling example of his fine contributions: it cogently summarises the strength of Wikipedia's model and I endorse it fully. For those looking for clarity, know that there is not only one, but several accepted styles. Wikipedia has this in common with journalism, publishing and academia. It is standard on other stylistic issues. Usage should be consistent within an article, but not necessarily across several. Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no personal attacks whatsoever. Further, if different styles are acceptable this should be stated in the film guideline. At present there is no example of how the lede should be written which is why I posed the question in the first place.  Pinkadelica <sup style="color:black;">♣  08:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The sneering question and responses concerning his editing history blatantly constituted a personal attack. Concerning your complaint, I cannot speak for those articles since I have not seen the formula of which you speak in article leads, in any case I think it is maladroit there but absolutely correct in every other part of the article. I don't support creating any kind of policy about this. Try and raise it with the editors in question or on the article talk page. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Plot vs. Plot Summary
A discussion of the relative virtues of "Plot" or "Plot Summary" as the preferred section header on film articles...or at least the film articles for the Back to the Future series...is emerging here. Folks may want to take a look and chime in. Doniago (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Worth noting to others that WP:FILMPLOT says, "Plot summaries should exist as self-contained sections ('Plot', 'Plot summary') in film articles." I think the related discussion for that writeup just meant to suggest flexibility, so it does not come off like it must be "Plot" every time. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I prefer "Plot" and agree with Bignole's reasoning at the article talk page; as a section header "Plot summary" seems redundant. I know we sometimes make the exception for "Premise" when all we have is a short synopsis for an unreleased film.  But "Plot summary" is needlessly wordy and "Plot" seems to be the standard (i.e. we use it more than the other).  I know I've changed a lot of Plot section headers to omit the "summary" in my quick clean up passes on film articles so if I've been in the wrong on that I'd like to know.  Millahnna (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither heading is wrong. Both are perfectly understandable. The term "plot summary" is appropriate and has been used in other sources. Both headings' mention in the guidelines just means not to worry so much about which one it should be. If it's "Plot", leave it as is, and vice versa. There are more valuable edits and related discussion to be had on Wikipedia. :) Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 10:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Erik. It's not something I ever do by itself but something I'll grab when I'm doing a light clean on a whole page (killing some overlinking, putting sections in a reasonable order, that sort of thing).  I'll not bother unless we decide to get more specific in the MOS, from here on out.  I have sometimes, however, changed a section titled just "Summary" to the appropriate "Plot".  I guess that probably doesn't really matter either; it's still pretty clear what is going to be there.  But you never know what someone's reading comprehension is like so I like having the word "plot" there for clarity. Millahnna (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Same here. While I appreciate the spirit of allowing either option to be valid, I'm concerned that the end result may be pointless edit warring and an unneeded apparent inconsistency between film articles that may confuse some editors. While it doesn't seem like the type of thing that would or should need immediate enforcement across the project, I wouldn't object if "Plot" was considered the standard heading and editors were encouraged to change it in the course of other edits. Doniago (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with setting the standard at "Plot", if only to prevent pointless arguments and edit wars over something as trivial as this. I see no real benefit from leaving it flexible, as "plot", "plot summary" and "synopsis" are interchangeable. The upside: "Plot" is shorter and takes up less text space. As Erik says - There are more valuable edits and related discussion to be had on Wikipedia. Eliminating this type of pointless discussion by setting a precise standard can only help the project. Shirt waist &#9742;  19:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What I said is referring to people who worry about whether or not the heading is "Plot" or "Plot summary". Either heading is sufficient, as arguments can be made for either one. What is needed is a change in perspective. It is not something to worry about, and that's the message that needs to be conveyed, not one saying, "'Plot' should be written, no other way is allowed." Other headings can have their set of variations too. It's not always "Critical reception", sometimes it's "Critics" (and "Box office") under "Release". We don't need to lock it down this much. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So, are you saying that not locking it down, and thereby allowing lengthy, time-consuming discussions like this one happen again on other film talk pages, is preferable to setting a standard that would prevent them? I think the cost/benefit ratio for setting a "Plot" standard is firmly weighted on the "benefit" side here. Shirt  waist &#9742;  22:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It won't prevent discussions. If an editor goes out and enforces this rule and references a guideline saying so, disagreeing editors will come here and argue that "Plot summary" is a perfectly valid alternative. If you're working on an article, and someone else changes the heading from one thing to another, let it be. The real benefit is that this acceptance can be applied to other minor edits, hence my comment about valuable edits and related discussion. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're preaching to the choir as far as "letting it be", but that's beside the point. The fact that some editors won't let it be is why we're discussing this. One obvious advantage to setting a standard like this is that it will shift inevitable arguments from numerous film articles to this one place where the consensus can be accepted or challenged, which is common here. As it stands now with the undefined standard, arguments are occurring in both places. I see the latter as a detriment, not a benefit. Shirt  waist &#9742;  00:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't accept that "Plot" and "Plot summary" are tautologies, or are at least always perceived as being so. For instance, IMDB makes a distinction between "synopsis" and a "summary"; on there a summary is a brief plot overview of not much more than a paragraph, while a synopsis is a substantial outline of the plot. I would say that here on Wikipedia we generally aim for a synopsis rather than a summary.  Now, we have guidelines that cover the length of the 'plot' section but most editors aren't familiar with them, so we must be careful that editors don't formulate assumptions based on section headings alone.  Using "summary" can imply to the editor that all we want is a short paragraph, whereas we actually want something more substantial. On that basis I think "Plot" is better because it doesn't imply anything to an editor about the form the plot outline should take. Betty Logan (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The template plot has used the term "plot summary" forever. At WP:PLOT, "concise summary" and "plot summaries" are the terms used, and the policy links to the guideline Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, which links to the essay How to write a plot summary. The term is acceptable, just like "Plot" is. Novice editors are not being guided by the section heading on how much to write; they're guided by examples they've seen (good or bad) and by their ability (or inability) to compress information. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My concern is that it makes film articles look a bit weaker when the section heading, which IMO should be clear-cut, isn't consistent between articles. I will grant that for purposes of what they entail, "Plot" or "Plot summary" are essentially identical; I just think it looks messy when x% of articles use one and y% of articles use the other for no apparent reason beyond, "both are acceptable". That being said, ultimately I doubt it makes much of a difference to a casual reader either way, though it clearly can and has led to some possibly unnecessary confusion between editors. Doniago (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Box office revision
Due to a recent discussion at Talk:Real Steel about box office information added to Real Steel, I think it may help to revise the guidelines in the "Box office" section. The guidelines currently mention the kind of box office information to include: "In addition to worldwide box office statistics, this section may detail specific results of opening weekends, results from different English-speaking territories, the number of theatres the film was released into, and audience demographics. Coverage of a notable opening in a country not of the film's origin may be included (e.g., an article on an American film set in China may include discussion of the film's performance in that country)." The way it is written may be unintentionally self-limiting in the sense that it sounds like only these details should be included. In this day and age, there is a lot of box office analysis to be found, with different kinds of observations and milestones reported, so my suggestion is to re-word the guidelines to suggest referencing reliable sources that have assessed a film's box office performance (as opposed to just drawing conclusions from tables), then list examples and make it clear that these examples are not inclusive. That should permit flexibility, but at the same time, what should the upper limit of such coverage be? If one at all? We do not want to be indiscriminate, so is relying on secondary sources' analysis enough? Or can the analysis go too far to report all the details in a Wikipedia article? I personally have a liberal outlook to having such information and am fine with a sub-article of box office detail (from reliably sourced analysis, of course) as I believe has been done a few times for major blockbusters. (The main article would have a summary section of that sub-article with the highlights of the highlights.) Thoughts on the re-wording or certain restrictions? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is having too much information (not my normal context for that phrase) likely to be an issue in this case? It doesn't strike me as the sort of thing that would tend to be problematic. Doniago (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Featured article American Beauty (film) has quite a bit of box office information, especially for other countries. Do you think that's too much? These details were highlighted in the sources' box office analyses and just reported on Wikipedia. I think it's kind of hard to gauge in a broad sense how much is too much. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ohhh, here's a heavier example: Hancock (film). See each footnote to get an idea of the sources (mainly Box Office Mojo, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter) covering box office performance frequently. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There have been a few cases recently where the box office section monopolised the article. In those case separate box-office articles were created and just a summary was included in the main article, and I think the solution has worked reasonably well. The fact is, if a film sets records in many markets that is notable whichever way you look at it, so editors shouldn't be deterred from documenting the information. Betty Logan (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say if the information is simply a tiresome list of, say, opening weekend figures in different markets, or an unnecessary breakdown of week by week gross which could be more succinctly put, then there's a problem, and it's just a case of copy-editing, rather than guideline changes. I'm not really sure we need to amend the guidelines, as they seem to me to read more as a suggested structure rather than as a set of limits. GRAPPLE   X  21:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it depends on how one reads it. To say that one "may" include so-and-so detail can be seen as one "may not" include details not endorsed here. I've done a few writeups here, and I try to be open-ended. (I think I may have contributed to this one too; I don't remember!) If one shouldn't do something, the guidelines will be explicit (such as in the first paragraph about use of "domestic"). Maybe a smaller tweak is more appropriate, such as saying "...include sourced details like specific results..."? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I agree with Grapple &mdash; and there's a larger issue here: Allowing open rein on "record setting" is an invitation to meaningless promotional claims. The marketing and promotion department of every major studio sends out press releases for every major movie touting some "record" or other, most of them meaningless to anyone outside the trade. "Biggest IMAX opening in October" is one good example, as are things I've seen that include "weekend's top comedy for women 18-34."


 * Including the straightforward box-office numbers for pertinent milestones like opening weekend and initial theatrical run makes sense. A plethora of inflated "records," which all soon get dated anyway, serves no meaningful purpose to the general reader. If anywhere, these belong in a list article of "Box office records," where they can be broken down and updated much more readily than by trying to scour thousands of movie articles for "Highest-grossing sports comedy in New Zealand." --Tenebrae (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Tenebrae, do you not consider the trade papers Variety and The Hollywood Reporter reliable sources? Your example of "biggest IMAX opening in October" comes from this secondary source. I don't see a reason to mistrust this source. The sources are reliable, and the tone can be revised to be neutral, so it is a matter of being discriminate. Grapple X is saying that he does not think the details mentioned in the guidelines are the only ones that should be in film articles. What is the wording to be used when we have all these details from sourced analysis? What can we say—"cover the performance within reason"? "Use editorial discretion"? Like I said, I am liberal with such information, but we could discuss an approach to encourage a summary paragraph at the beginning of a "Box office" section, and the reader can choose to dive into more detailed paragraphs or skip to the next section. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe the guidelines could focus on approach rather than what to/not include i.e. the sort of data we'd include for a Hollywood film is probably going to be different to what we would include for an arthouse film. Perhaps we focus too much on raw data, I mean generally this is frowned upon on Wikipedia because raw box office records are akin to primary sources. Diving into a research article and grabbing data probably wouldn't be tolerated on science articles, and a secondary source would be required to interpret the data. Perhaps what we need to do is focus more on financial analysis. Requiring sources to interpret the financial data (rather than just reeling off records) would help temper the bloated sections, because this results directly from Wikipedia editors deciding what is relevant (ending up with indiscriminate data), rather than than relevance being decided by reliable third party sources. The fact that when a billion dollar hit comes along and it triggers lots of little changes on other articles as ranks are adjusted says to me that the sections aren't particularly well written, because they are not being written with a long-term view. Betty Logan (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tenebrae that something like "Weekends top film for transvestite north korean midgets between the age of 5 and 63 who are really into MASH" is not really a notable thing. Biggest opening in October, biggest opening weekend in October, biggest opening day, midnight launch, 5 day weekend, things of that nature to which other films will be compared. Biggest film of 2011 if it is the first and only film of 2011? No. I don't see a problem with lots of detail as long as it is notable and not, as someone else mentioned, a breakdown of every weekend. If, in that weekend it opened in a new market and had a notable performance, then sure, like a late China/Japan opening as some films seem to get. EDIT Also depends on the film. A billion dollar film is probably requiring a larger BO section than say...er...Green Lantern. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Betty and Blake, I think we can all agree on using secondary sources' analyses to make observations about a film's box office performance. What I mean to say is that even with these analyses, the amount of detail can be considered by some to be excessive. For example, Hancock (film) is all based on analyses, and it is a pretty long section. I'm personally fine with that amount of detail but can see a benefit of having a summary paragraph for readers who may not want to read through the whole section. Do you think we should have wording in the guidelines to say to focus on secondary sources' analyses (less constrained than listing examples perceived as the only details one can include), and should we also have wording that somehow says there can be too much analysis? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 11:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just gone to the Hancock link you note, and not to put too fine a point on, I'm appalled. It's an incredibly dense jumble of minutiae that, even if an argument could be made for including all this indiscriminate dump of data, should be given in list or chart form &mdash; in which case all we're doing is duplicating Box Office Mojo.


 * And I'm seeing great inconsistencies in approach, which is what guidelines are supposed to avoid. There's no intrinsic reason, if opening-week box office figures in Russia and Brazil are deemed important, not to have them for every film, not just major Hollywood movies. Arthouse movies have their own hits, just with smaller dollar amounts. Again, how important to the general reader of English-language Wikipedia is a country-by-country breakdown for every film? Unless you're in the trade (in which case you'd readily have other sources than Wikipedia), I'm not sure why that general reader would care about anything other than worldwide box-office total in order to get a reasonable sense of how a movie did commercially.


 * I do see us, at least, as a group, moving away from the idea of just dumping numbers and "records" and adding sourced/quoted analysis, like that very good Chad Hartigan quote at Hancock. It's also becoming clear that if we're talking about what amounts to a significant change in WP:FILM guidelines, that's a bigger thing than a half-dozen of us talking about it here. I'm thinking we need to open this up to the larger Wikipedia community with a posted WP:RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We're probably better off trying to move this forward as a smaller discussion, come up with something substantive and then kick it into the wider arena. If you have 20-30 people in a discussion, it's hard enough just getting them to agree to something, let alone formulate new guidelines. Betty Logan (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Like a steering committee. That makes sense. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In defense of Hancock, there are details throughout that cannot be conveyed in lists or charts. Like Grapple X said, such write-ups can be copy-edited. This Wikipedia being the English-language version does not mean that coverage cannot be global. (Especially considering that this film grossed more outside the United States than in it.) It is easy to provide box office information for the United States (even for foreign-language films imported from elsewhere), but such information is not always so public for other territories. Through these other territories, we can get a sense of how a blockbuster debuts in them. I think it is difficult to surmise what "the general public" wants, so I advocate liberally providing this kind of information. However, I am open to ways to organize it so the highlights (e.g., total box office gross) are at the top of the section and readers can choose whether or not to delve deeper into that specific sub-topic. I think it's unrealistic to try to list what can and cannot be included in such a section. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia (and the rest of the world) lists what can and cannot be include in published material all the time. At the moment, though, the country-by-country breakdown is in vio of WP:FILM guidelines. I'm also not sure how numbers and countries running together in a prose sentence is supposed to be clearer to read than in a chart.


 * And again, why just "blockbusters"? If a country by country breakdown of opening weekend is critical, necessary information, then why shouldn't that be true of any US film released internationally? It's an artificial distinction to say only "blockbusters" (a vague, imprecise word; Halloween and My Big, Fat Greek Weekend did huge business, but no one calls them "blockbuster") are of commercial importance. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think calling the examples a violation of the film guidelines is a bit strong. The string of details that can be included were meant as examples and suggestions. The way these guidelines are written in general, it is clear when it says not to include something or not to write something in a particular way. For example, we encourage box office results from English-language territories in particular because we have readers from these territories, but that does not preclude mentioning other territories if some analysis has highlighted performances in them. If you're asking why US films' articles are not more covered internationally, I think it's because the effort has not been made. It's easy to pull the figures from a film's primary web page at the US-oriented Box Office Mojo, where other figures are in tables or in analysis not quite discoverable (or paywalled, like Variety can be after too many views). For example, My Big Fat Greek Wedding is too old to have any "Related Stories" on Box Office Mojo, and Variety is not showing any results I can see, which may mean one has to use a subscription-only database. I personally think that box office analysis has become prevalent in the past decade (more "Related Stories", for one) and possibly because films get more and more of an international distribution. Some American films are even distributed elsewhere before here. In terms of blockbuster talk, the bigger films are closely scrutinized compared to indie ones, though analysis of indie films do like to mention the gross per theater, whether it's good or bad. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The box office results can go global... but sure things can get too overdetailed to the point of cruft. Saying where the film had the highest numbers (i.e. "five highest-grossing markets" or "surpassed $10 million in said countries"), OK, but from that to listing every country where it set an opening day/weekend record (specially when the ref used can't prove this fact!) or just dumping the BO numbers is too much. I have had somewhat heated arguments on this ever since my work on Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides required shortening a 28 kb section on box office (divided in continental regions!) to a manageable size. Of course some films are successful enough to warrant an article on box office performance - but still, only the first, third and seventh in the highest-grossing films of all time have such a thing. igordebraga ≠ 18:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like for the larger section in On Stranger Tides, quite a few tables of raw data were referenced. I think referencing analysis makes it more manageable. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'm done discussing here for a couple of days. I feel like I've contributed too many KBs' worth of comments. I hope others can share their thoughts, and I encourage making them actionable (i.e., possible rewrite). Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm curious what the opinion is of Fast_Five_(film) in regards to this proposal. As for country breakdowns, I'd agree to listing the first weeks as I believe it gives a good picture of how each country reacts to a film financially, but (its not really possible anyway) following them beyond the first week unless something significant happened, seems over indulgent. If it made $300,000 in Saudi Arabia in week 1, OK, that it made $266,000 in week 3 is not necessary info and provides no real knowledge. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, based on what has already been said in this discussion, I believe most things written in the box-office section of Fast Five are OK, but they should be written in a more brief way. However there are some negative aspects:
 * It is evident that a film opening in April might have a chance of posting the highest opening weekend of a year so far, because most major blockbusters come out during the following months. Therefore, I think that things like: "the highest-grossing film of 2011 to date" are unecessary, because it dosen't actually indicate any record. For example, when The Green Hornet (2011 film) came out, it had posted the highest-grossing opening of 2011 to date, but I don't think that this fact has any significance, since almost all other 2011 movies hadn't yet been released.
 * So I think this chronological presentation should't be included. Paragraph 2, lets say, under Box Office in my opinion should go something like this: "Fast Five overtook Fast & Furious to become the highest-grossing film in the Fast and the Furious franchise worldwide, in North America (both adjusted and inadjusted for infaltion) and overseas (all markets outside North America)" (perhaps the date could be mentioned but not gross-to-date). Everything else about Rio and Pirates 4 and its worldwide rank aren't necessary because now other 2011 films have taken the top spots and because its worldwide rank is already mentioned in paragraph 1. This also happens in Pragraph 2 under "United States and Canada".
 * Also, the comparisons with Thor could be briefer and the excessive detail about second and third weekend (overseas and domestic) could be removed
 * The part about UAE is inaccurate, because the grosses that you mention are the total grosses from all the movies during that weekend (Fast Five on its own is $1.7M and Pirates 4 is $1.9M).
 * The table at the end isn't necessary since it contains info already mentioned in the text
 * also these sentences could be removed: "On May 31, 2011, Fast Five, with a cumulative gross of $350M, was replaced as the highest-grossing film of 2011 internationally by Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides ($472.3M)." and "Fast Five was followed by The Hangover Part II and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides on this basis."


 * In this way, nothing notable will be removed from the article. But the section will become briefer and more comprehensive because unnecessary detail will be removed. Thank you. Spinc5 (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to go back to a point someone made before about second- and third-weekend grosses. It may be a failure of imagination on my part, but I cannot imagine the average moviegoer in St. Louis or Milwaukee or Spokane really caring about anything but the opening weekend, and that only because opening weekends get hyped all over the media, piquing average moviergers' curiosity. But if we absolutely have to have second- and third-weekend grosses, these would be much easier to read in chart form than in prose. Same if we're listing opening weekends in foreign countries (and unless we're setting an arbitrary limit, we're talking around at least two dozen countries per movie release). A laundry list of country (number), country (number), country (number) is hard to read and difficult to digest in prose form, as oppose to a chart or list &mdash; that's graphic design 101.


 * My feeling is that the box-office guidelines as they now exist aren't broke, and don't need fixing: Opening weekend, domestic and worldwide gross, and specific foreign territories only if there's some organic reason ton include them, like for Australia when a U.S. movie has an Australian star.


 * A week-by-week, country-by-country breakdown is overkill, in my opinion.


 * And on a separate note, I wonder if Box Office Mojo would have concerns about Wikipedia coming over the copy-paste posting all that work they do. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just had to revert User:Spinc5's unilateral and disruptive restoration here of the some of the very disputed material we're still discussing on this page. His unilateral reinsertion of that disputed material, which some editors here consider hype-y, promotional, inside-trade fluff, while a discussion about its very appropriateness for Wikipedia is ongoing, seems to me outrageous and in bad faith. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What I don't understand is how can someone shrink a boxoffice section of a specific movie from three paragraphs to five lines, claiming it contains promotional data etc. but on the other hand how come he doens't do that to other movies (like this, this, this and this - among others) which were also written in a similar way (using raw data). Isn't this a non-neutral approach? If this material is hype-y, promotional, inside-trade fluff then I don't see any reason for it existing in any of those articles. And concerning raw data, if it is wrong to combine many charts from Box Office Mojo in order to determine the rank of a movie (for example combine yearly charts to determine all-time rank in a country) then there isn't evidently any other option than just copying and pasting only the records or ranks that are explicitly stated (using our own words). So how can this be inacceptable, as stated here ("And on a separate note, I wonder if Box Office Mojo would have concerns about Wikipedia coming over the copy-paste posting all that work they do.")? What else could we do except of this and except of not mentioning the record at all? Spinc5 (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Other stuff existing does not mean that its presence is warranted. We'll have to deal with these articles that you pointed out. It really is a matter of a difference between being discriminate and indiscriminate. By referencing an analysis, we are reporting an observation that someone else has already made. See WP:PSTS, which says Wikipedia articles need to be based on secondary sources. "They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." So we need to reference the analysis and not the table of raw data. That's the threshold for inclusion. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am coming in in the middle, but am I correct that the only fact under dispute for inclusion involves how quickly Pirates... Chest reached the billion dollar mark? Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's possible that some highlights can be included if it has already been reported by analysis elsewhere. Here, we have some mining of raw data. For example, this sentence: "Moreover, is the highest-grossing Disney film of all time as well as the highest-grossing adventure-period, pirate, swashbuckler and treasure hunt film of all time." Same approach with specific countries, such as the Italian and Swedish mentions. We can get quite indiscriminate with mentioning all these genre and country figures, so the threshold for inclusion is to at least have a highlight reported in an analysis, so we know it's worth noting. Tenebrae thinks the threshold should be lower since there can still be a lot of information, like with the Hancock example, which references a lot of analyses for the box office section. What do you think? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like I'm a little more permissive (but not a lot), because of the following.... We read articles and we summarize them with a listing of the source. That is standard here. So if we read a table and summarize it with a listing of the source, that's about the same thing. But okay if it's double indexed from separate tables as you mention, that is OR. The other point that might matter a little is that if a film's "accomplishment" is that they had, say, the best grosses on a third weekend in October for a comedy this century, that is damning with faint praise. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Section break
If a movie broke many records then it is logical that its box-office section will contain lots of information. So, I don't see why the volume of information is a problem. If it is necessary the volume of information will be big. This doesn't make the article over-detailed, if all the records are notable. Also, I will agree that a single table can be considered a secondary source just like an article, as long as we mention ranks that are directly related to the table (e.g. we can say that a movie is the 20th highest-grossing worldwide if we use an all-time worldwide table, but we can't say that it is the 3rd highest-grossing animated film worldwide, using the same table but using a table that shows the worldwide grosses only of animated films). But on the other hand, when there isn't a lot to say in box-office articles then, many times, the author mentions records that he wouldn't have if other information existed. e.g. here it is mentioned that Kung Fu Panda 2 broke the opening weekend record in Vietnam ($1 million), but here there is nothing said about the opening weekend records that HP7 broke in many Latin American countries. Isn't it more important, though, that HP7 broke the opening weekend record in Colombia ($2.1 million), or that it earned $8.7 million in Spain just because it is a larger number? Of ocurse Box Office Mojo can say whatever it wants in its articles but shouldn't Wikipedia search for the important parts (that may not be so promoted by secondary sources as are other information)? Similarly, if Kung Fu Panda had debuted in 6 other major markets on that weekend (implying it would score higher but maybe not record-breaking grosses) then that record in Vietnam wouldn't have been mentioned. So why can't Wikipedia combine info from many articles and tables of the same source to arrive at a conclusion that is still promoting the same ideas as the source (e.g. Box Office Mojo's basic goal is to present box office data and mention records, so if we combine data from different articles and tables of this source to cite records, what is the problem?) --Spinc5 (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * One of Wikipedia's policies is not to be an indiscriminate collection of information. In particular, it should not be an excessive listing of statistics. For a blockbuster film, we are going to deal with an overabundance of information about its box office performance that could be included in an encyclopedic article. There are ways we can moderate that, one of which is having analyses as the threshold for inclusion. Wikipedia is supposed to be based chiefly on secondary sources; primary sources need to be used with care. A film doing well at the box office can mean a longer section, and there can be the appearance of a non-neutral tone. The point of the threshold is to reference reliable sources that note certain highlights in their analysis. For Dead Man's Chest, for example, we see on Box Office Mojo that it is the top-ranked pirate-genre film. We are referencing a table and piling on the observations that can be made about the film's box office performance. If we cannot back the pirate genre observation with a secondary source, then it should not be treated as a highlight. (After all, it's not like we have pirate genre films out-competing each other every year.) By reporting observations explicitly made elsewhere, we can at least say, "They said it, not us" in regard to significance and neutrality concerns. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Erik. I think he explains a complicated situation clearly and understandably. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Images of cast members in an article about an unreleased film
There has been disagreement at Lincoln (2012 film) and its talk page about including images of its stars, Daniel Day-Lewis and Sally Field plus the historical figures Abraham Lincoln and Mary Todd Lincoln. The images in question are freely licensed. I believe that they add encyclopedic value allowing interested readers to evaluate how similar or different the appearance of the actors compares to the Lincolns. Rusted AutoParts has raised a variety of objections, all of which I've addressed. Yet the editor has continued to remove them each time I add them. I asked Michael Q. Schmidt for an opinion on his talk page. He pretty much agreed with my interpretation and said so on Rusted AutoParts talk page as well. He did recommend further discussion here, so thoughts of other editors would be appreciated.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  21:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Cullen because the current text at Manual of Style/Film is somewhat ambiguous. When speaking about cast images, the section reads "The cast and crew can be photographed at the various premieres of the resulting film as well as any components of production on display," as seeming to instruct how an editor can take his own camera and personally take a piture that he might then upload to the project for free use. It does not address situations where might aleady have free use images. And with my understanding that "can be" does not mean "must be", and based on that guideline's ambiguity, it can be reasonably argued that as these are the only ones free use ones available until filming commences, and they are suitable in adding to a reader"s understanding of the topic being discussed, they should be okay until we have ones more directly related to the film. This is the first time I have been asked about this specific type of usage within a film article, and as the editors have not reached agreement through discussuion the the film's talk page, I suggested they both come here to seek wider input on the intent of that section.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In general, I would say if it's free it's not a serious problem (unless you're flooding images for the sake of having them). Having looked at the images and the reasoning for using them, I do find some potential issues. First, if I'm going to compare Day Lewis to Lincoln, I would probably want a picture where he looks like Lincoln, and not a picture where he's merely scruffy and wearing a hat. That picture of him alone looks significantly different than say this picture and almost made me think they were two different people. If he can look so different from himself, he's most certainly going to look different than a portrait of Lincoln. As for Sally Field, the picture being used is 21 years old. How should a reader compare a picture of Sally Field from 2 decades ago with Mary Todd when Sally Field has certainly aged considerably since then (we're talking the difference between being 45 years old and 65 years old).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice. Sensible consideration of how appropriate a chosen image might not be the best first choice for its intended use. Cullen... any newer ones?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The main focus of the discussion here, in my opinion, ought to be whether there is any general principle that would prevent free images of cast members to be used to illustrate an article about an unreleased movie. I see no basis in policy, guidelines or established consensus for that opinion.  Once the broad question has been discussed, I am more than happy to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these particular photos.


 * As to the specific photos here: We are fortunate enough to have several choices of free images available on Wikimedia Commons of Daniel Day-Lewis.  Most are from 2007 or 2008, so are fairly recent if not brand new.  The one now used in the article is also the one that illustrates the Daniel Day-Lewis biography.  I am open to changing it to another free image of Day-Lewis, and I used another image in an earlier edit.  So editors who think that an image of him should be in the article are also free to suggest a better image.  As for preferring an image where he "looks like Lincoln" as opposed to "a picture where he's merely scruffy and wearing a hat", let me remind Bignole that Abraham Lincoln was very well known for looking scruffy and wearing hats.  His consistently scruffy appearance drove his wife crazy, and many of his friends and associates commented on it in great detail over the course of many years.


 * As for Sally Field, we have only one free image on Commons to work with, although the source image (which includes three people) could be cropped a bit better and less tightly, so that the resolution would be a bit higher. It is a mediocre image at best, and was taken 21 years ago.  However, it is the only free image we have of her, and now illustrates her biography Sally Field.  Ironically, one slight benefit of the image is that she was much closer in age when the photo was taken to Mary Todd Lincoln at the time of the events of the film than she is now.  Field was 43 when that photo was taken and Mary Todd Lincoln was 46 in the first few months of 1865.  Spielberg is bold enough to cast Field as a woman 19 years younger, and Field is bold enough to take the role.  So the make-up artists will strive to make Sally Field look a few years younger than she was when our photo was taken.  In this context, I am willing to accept this photo as useful until we have something better.


 * What I hope to do, if there is a consensus to keep the images, is to crop all the photos so that the heads are roughly the same size. That will make it a bit easier for readers to ponder the actors and the historical figures that they are portraying.  And let me say again that I am completely receptive to changing to better or more current images once those are available.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  04:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * To the first, no there isn't a policy against the use of free images in a film article. To the idea that Abe Lincoln "looked scruffy" and "wore hats", there is a big difference between a random image of Daniel Day-Lewis wearing some fedora and Abe Lincoln wearing a top hat. They aren't the same thing. As for "scruffy", that isn't the picture you have in the article. If you're intention is to create a way for readers to compare the way the actor looks with the president, then you need to find images where you can better make that analysis. For instance, a cleaner shaven Lewis image (like that one I provided above) coupled with this image of Lincoln might be better suited for comparison purposes. If that is not your intention, then you don't need a picture of Lincoln in the first place, because he's a pretty well known president to begin with and his article is riddled with images. If you're going to be doing "comparison" shots, then they need to be side-by-side and not one on top of the other.


 * As for Sally, I don't see anything that says she's going to be wearing make-up to look younger (which again calls into question that ability to use a random image of her for comparison purposes if they're going to put make up on her just to make her look like Mary Todd). So, as I said before there is no rule or policy against the use of a free image in an article. But at the same time, having an image for the sake of an image does not necessarly help an article, especially if the images are not the best representation for the article's subject matter (the Lewis/Lincoln images do not mesh with each other or give any remote ability to accurately compare likenesses). So, go with the consensus on the article talk page (which a discussion should be presented there) as to whether all 4 images are necessary, and/or what images are best to use.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it is ok to have images for comparisons between cast members and their real-life counterparts, but to be honest I don't see the point in using any old photo. The photographs should show the actors "in character", using publicity stills or fair use screen caps, or if possible public domain photos taken on set with the actors filming/in costume (although the fair use criteria would also require the prose to address physical appearance/resemblance). If you slap in any old photo you are not drawing a direct comparison between the real-life person and the depiction of them in the film, which is the underlying purpose of such illustration. Betty Logan (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bignole, The image of Daniel Day-Lewis you linked to is great but is not a free image and can't be used here, so please suggest a free image that you think would be better. The image I chose is not "random" as it is one of a handful of free images we have, and shows him wearing a hat with some beard growth.  As for clean-shaven images, Lincoln was bearded in 1865 and the fine historic image you linked to was taken in 1860 when he was five years younger.  This is a film about the final months of Lincoln's life, and any image of Lincoln we use ought to be from 1864 or 1865.  As for Sally Field, it seems self-evident to me that the filmmakers will try to make her appear younger since she is playing a woman who was 19 years younger than she is now.  Why would they make her look 65?  It is not a "random image" but rather the only free image of her now available.  You seem to have a difficulty looking at the images of Daniel Day-Lewis and Abraham Lincoln, and then of Sally Field and Mary Todd Lincoln, and pondering how well the actors will be able to visually portray the historical figures.  I have no such difficulty, and I find it interesting and informative to look at the photos together.


 * Betty Logan, thank you for your input but there are no photos available yet of the actors "in character", and I will gladly and instantly agree to changing the photos once that type of photo is available. The photos now in the article are not "any old photo" but are selected from the limited range of free photos (one in the case of Sally Field) that we have available to us at this time.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  05:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no difficulty looking at the images, I have difficulty seeing (in this case) where all 4 images are necessary. Has someone commented on Lewis's resemblance to Lincoln, or to Field's to Mary Todd? If so, then I'm sure it would be relevant to a reader. Now, if you're trying to insinuate that there is a resemblance, then that would probably be a bit of original research. If you're not, then it begs to argue why we need all 4 images in the first place. If no reliable source is talking about any visual comparison between the actors and their historical counterparts, then it isn't our place to initiate such conversation. For example, I think there was at least a brief mentioning (by Tom Cruise himself) regarding Cruise's visual resemblance to Von Stauffenberg in Valkyrie (film). Either way, this isn't the page to discuss such things and I have no desire to edit Lincoln, so this needs to be a discussion between the editors that watch that page on that article's discussion page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)