Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
NA This article has been rated as NA-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

The following users are actively contributing on this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: WP:FILMS

Contents 1 Squeeky Clean 2 Alternate versions 3 Mangoe 4 Could you comment? 5 Themes, influences, and interpretations 6 Guidelines on inclusion of red links 7 Soundtrack 8 Cast listings, form a consensus on style. 9 Do limited release dates count? 10 Reception 11 Cast 12 Fair use versus ... ? 13 Plot vs Synopsis 14 Infobox 15 Infobox color? 16 Film title (Year film) 17 Wikilinking in synopses 18 See Also 19 IMDB "Poll" results

[edit] Squeeky Clean

I realize I have probably done something bone headed in breaking this style guide out, but on the project page it was getting buried under that huge list of participants. Glad people are into film, but I was finding it hard to get to the guide. In particular, I'm sure significant amounts of the discussion from the project talk page need to at least get linked to in some way from this page. But I'm not sure how to best go about that. Anyone? Isogolem 06:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Good move. As you say, this thing is long enough without being buried inside another article. That said, when I first came to the project page, I was a bit put off because it seems like it was all lists and addenda and no meat, which is apparently the style section that was spun off to make this article. So, you might want to consider some kind of summary of style on the project page. Because keeping track of an active Talk page is like herding cats, there's probably no need for specific links back to the project Talk page from here. Though it's indeed a good idea to keep this section separate, bifurcating the subject does make discussion a bit problematic, as you suggest. — J M Rice 18:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

In terms of the split of was shooting for something like WP:Chem. Obviously, it's not there yet, but maybe shouldn't be exactly like that ever, but edible chunks are good. I'm glad we're agreed on that point.

Summary of style sounds good, but isn't that what this is supposed to be?

And What I meant by "linking back" to discussions on the main page, was should I move disucssions around article style from the main talk page to here (and if so how)? -- Isogolem 07:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate versions

(I'm posting this here because obviously plot/synopsis descriptions are governed by style guidelines.)

With the growing popularity of 'extended DVD editions', are there any guidelines in place for descriptions of alternate versions of a plot? Some articles have a quite elaborate synopsis of the original theatrical release, which may not accurately describe the later (sometimes much longer) DVD edition.

A theatrical edit is governed by concerns different from a DVD edit. Should we consider them to be two different films? --Radioflux 16:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In many pages I've seen, there has been a sub-topic of Plot entitled Alternate version or Alternate ending (could also change alternate to alternative), this seems to work nicely (see Dead Poets' Society). You may also want to take this up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films as they run it. Cbrown1023 20:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mangoe

Just a note that user mangoe has made a major revision of the style guideline with no attempt at discussion to give special exemptions to WikiProjects and RS standards to "documentaries," in order to then justify using the exemptions that he himself created on the "Bowling For Columbine" page. I suggest a revert until we have a consensus. Right now, the addition is incredibly vague and nebulous, for no other reason than to allow Mangoe to cite whatever sources that he wants. For instance, he claims that "Documentaries present a special case, as they present themselves as recounters of fact. Therefore criticism of content ought to be included if it is presented with reasonable documentation and if there is evidence of public awareness of the controversy" strikes me as a complete non-sequitor. What does the fact that documentaries present themselves as "recounters of fact" have to do with presenting controversy? Does that mean that you wouldn't include controversy surrounding non-documentaries (e.g., Clockwork Orange wasn't a documentary, but it does have controversy). "Reasonable documentation" is likewise vague. What constitutes "reasonable"? Are we assuming that current WP:RS standards apply?

The concept of "public awareness" is completely open to interpretation. For instance, Tom Cruise's involvement with scientology was HUGELY controversial and public at the time of Mission Impossible III, yet his involvement with scientology have a single mention doesn't have a single mention. Obviously, MI:III doesn't meet the standard, so what does? Further, how are we defining "controversy"? The word is defined in the dictionary as, "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion." So is one guy shouting that he didn't like a certain movie a real controversy? I don't think so. The claim that "The existence of a public controversy ought to be acknowledged whatever can be said about it" is incredibly vague and can include just about anything. -Schrodinger82 00:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to leave this to the filmic people to discuss. I think the point is self-evident and does not need an elaborate justification. Your accusation is completely dishonest. I was quite open about having edited this article and I do not intend to refer to the edited version in order to defend myself. Mangoe 11:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could you comment?

Talk:Bowling_for_Columbine#Concern_over_original_research ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Themes, influences, and interpretations

Hello. I would like some clarification on sections describing themes, interpretations, and influences. I would also like to discuss whether there is interest in creating a more detailed description of these sections in the style guidelines. Over time, I've noticed that these sections can be used in ambiguous and often misleading ways, as there are no clear standards for their use. For example, I recently began editing a "Themes and influences" section on The Fountain, only to discover to my surprise, that the section was a trivia section with very little underlying threads. After a few edits, I also realized that the "influences" (erroneously merged into themes) section was really a production-related detail. I'm concerned about the use of these sections, as the standards are mostly nonexistent. Take the use of influence or influences in two articles: Blade Runner describes the influence the film has had on popular culture, but 2001: A Space Odyssey describes the influence upon the production. The use of the "interpretations" section appears to be an alternate means of discussing the theme, accurate or not. I'm looking for consensus regarding the standardization of headings and their content. Standardization will have the added bonus of improving thematic and genre-related categorization of film articles whose sections are split off due to length. —Viriditas | Talk 05:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines on inclusion of red links

One thing that would relieve many project members would be to define more specific guidelines on the inclusion of red links for unexisting film articles. Some that are notable and need an article are covered in Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable films. I have collected all red links from the lists of years in films, and started the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of films without article. The list is now being split in decades as we are facing the problem of the hundreds or maybe thousands of films, given as red links in actors' and directors' filmographies and there may be more in other articles too. Yet no one seems to know for sure how the Wikipedia:Red link applies to film titles. In dab pages some users take off the red links from films, following some more general dab guidelines. If I am not mistaken, here is the right place one should find some guidelines. Hoverfish 19:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like this is already covered by WP:RED and WP:DAB, and if not, modifications should be made to those pages. What do you think? —Viriditas | Talk 03:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

In an unrelated discussion, Ling.Nut reminded me of WP:MOS. —Viriditas | Talk 01:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soundtrack

The soundtrack needs to be moved down, perhaps to after the reception section. It really does not need to be directly after the plot. Agree/disagree?--Supernumerary 03:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree, it just appeared there. It should be one of the last things to appear, before refs and links. Gonna boldly move it. Cbrown1023 03:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cast listings, form a consensus on style.

Compare the styles for cast listings on these different featured film articles.

1. Dog_Day_Afternoon#Cast uses a wikitable with column headings Character, Actor/Actress, and Role.
2. Blade_Runner#Cast uses a bulleted list while bolding the names of the actor and and his character. Follows with a short description after each character. This style is also seen here Star_Wars_Episode_IV:_A_New_Hope#Cast and V_for_Vendetta_(film)#Cast.
3. Casablanca_(film)#Cast uses a bulleted list, non-bolding the names, and separating the actors into different classes, top-billed, second-billed, also creditted, and notable uncredited.
4. Sunset_Boulevard_(1950_film)#Casting and Halloween_(film)#Casting do not even have proper cast listings, but instead have the information expressed in paragraph form.

I believe style #2 is the most logical. A table does not look good in this situation. Bolding the names of the actor and characters improves readability, and using paragraph form over list form is just sloppy and difficult to find information. Made of people 18:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

True, but there is a big difference between "Cast" and "Casting". #2 would be my choice for a "Cast list" as well except that I don't particularly like the bold text. "Casting" is a process as surely as other aspects of production such as cinematography or musical scoring, and its discussion in text form is highly relevant IMO. The examples in points 1, 2 and 3 are presenting a basic list in different forms, and I think standardizing them is a good idea. I'd support option #2 (preferably without the bold text). The examples in #4 are somewhat different in what they are attempting to address. Perhaps a "Cast list" as a summary with "Casting" that precedes the text but I don't think it would benefit the articles to replace one with the other. I'll have a go at the Sunset Boulevard article as an example. If it's no good it can easily be reverted. Editors are often encouraged to convert lists into prose where possible. This may be an alternative. Rossrs 08:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do limited release dates count?

We're proceeding with a discussion about determining the release date for films in the WikiProject Films talk page. -- Corsair Armada 00:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reception

I've recently made a few small contributions to the articles for some of my favorite films and I'm wondering about this title Reception which seems intended as what one titles a section concerning reviews, box office receipts, and the like. Just how wedded is the project to calling it that? I'm a little bothered by it simply because Reception seems more related to weddings, or radio broadcasts, than film reviews, criticism, etc. Cryptonymius 00:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have an alternate name that would connote reviews from critics and the public, box office success, publicity, and everything else that reception currently does? Personally, I'm not particularly fond of it, but I cannot think of a better term that incorporates everything that reception does.--Supernumerary 08:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly, there's response... but that sounds a little too unprofesional for an encyclopedia. Response would probably incorporate it... idk... Cbrown1023 22:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've used "reaction". I think it works well enough to cover both positive and negative commentary and all the points described above. It could also lead into a discussion of the longer term impact or subsequent projects it influenced if necessary. Example Sunset Boulevard (1950 film)#Reaction to the film, although in this case the reaction discussed is more immediate/short term. Rossrs 01:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I had thought of Critical Response but I guess that hints too much of nuclear melt-downs, or something. Reaction to the film isn't bad. I keep thinking there must be some industry term or phrase that would do the job and be zippy besides, but I can't guess what it is. Reception in the marketplace? In-release notes? Track Record? Related Content? Theatrical Response? Critiques & Receipts? Cryptonymius 07:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look through some books I have, and see what terminology is used by various writers. It'll be a few days at least, and with a bit of luck, someone will come along with the perfect term in the meantime! :-) Rossrs 14:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the word 'Responses' used a lot. That seems like the best to me. Cop 633 19:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cast

Could someone please explain why bolding the character and actor is the latest rage? I think it's unnecessary and that bolding should be reserved for emphasis. I also see no mention of bolding in the style guide here.--Supernumerary 17:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Got an example? Offhand, I'd say, no bolding ;) as it's less readable; bolding is for isolated terms, or headlines. Some pages (some of the animated films) use tables for cast, which is quite nice. Perhaps we need to just set down a basic style on this page. Can we get a consensus on format? Something I used recently was

bullet [ACTOR] ellipsis [CHARACTER]

which gives us

* Robert Mitchum ... Harry Kilmer

Whaddya think? It's easy to convert from third party sources like IMDb (not that simply copying is permitted, of course). David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 19:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Psst, while we're at it, we don't have any style guidelines for Memorable quotes ... I've added 1-2 using the Memory Alpha format, shall we discuss that here, too? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

Examples:Psycho (1960 film)#Cast, Pulp Fiction, GoldenEye#Cast, Serenity (film)#Cast. Note that Pulp Fiction's cast is no longer bolded because I unbolded it.--Supernumerary 20:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Of these examples, I only liked Psycho (1960 film)#Cast. Why? The name needed to stand out in the paragraph about the character. But the others were just overuse of bolding, IMHO. Thanks for the examples for talking points. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

I can see bolding when you have a paragraph, but what about the rest of the names for Psycho? Should they be in bold as well just to be consistent?--Supernumerary 02:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've always disliked the bolding, but I assumed that it was written into some kind of style guide. I agree that it's unnecessary and should only be used for emphasis. I prefer the Robert Mitchum style example given above. Rossrs 00:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather stick with the "Actor as Character" format simply because it is already in place on so many articles and that "Actor ... Character" is not too different and looks too much like IMDB. Also the "Actor as Character" is easier to understand than two names separated by "...".--Supernumerary 00:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Sorry, I was not clear. I meant to convey that I prefer the Robert Mitchum example because it was without the bold text. Yes, I would prefer "Actor as Character" also. Example : I recently changed Sunset Boulevard (1950 film)#Casting - this shows the format I prefer. Rossrs 01:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you, Super. If [ACTOR] as [CHARACTER] has been used generally, let's put it in the style guideline. If it's already a "norm" (or "practice"), no reason not to put it in writing. ,:) As [Jakob Nielsen put it once, If 80% of the Web are doing it wrong, do it the same way as users will expect that. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 01:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if an alternate to this style guideline would be that which is currently in place at Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film). With such a large cast, it makes sense to break it into categories (I think), and the table seems to sort it much better than if it were in prose. At least until the film is released, is this aceptable? Thanks, Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen that before and really like that layout and the presentation of the information. :) Cbrown1023 21:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I tend to use tables for a film's cast (actor/role) but a recent edit on the Aliens entry [1] replaced the table with the explanation that featured articles don't use tables. If right then it would be wise to avoid tables and go for the "Actor as Character" which is the form described in the style guide, otherwise you'd only have to change it later (if you were goin for FA I suppose). (Emperor 02:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

Well, can we have some more opinions on the table? I don't seen anything visually unappealling about it (personally I think it looks better than the bold-faced text). But would it be awful to state two options for this guideline? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Making character names bold is a general style I've seen around (especially when they are done definition style - usually I'll admit with books so there are no actors) but making actor and role bold does seem odd. I suppose the arguement against tables is the same one against excessive use of lists - if it can be said in prose form then it possibly should. That said usability studies suggest that when used sparingly tables and lists can convey information much more simply and effectively as people don't read the page they scan it and pick out the bits they want. I usually find the table most handy for cast information and the double bolding on the long format isn't helpful (perhaps only bold the character?). (Emperor 05:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

I understand that bolding is the "general style" that's been seen around – that's because it's what it says in this project page. But is there any consensus to allow tables as an alternate option for a cast list? For a really long cast list such as the one at Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film), I have a feeling more people would skip a cast list written in prose than one in a table. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use versus ... ?

Can anyone here give me the short answer on uploading images? I've considered, for example, scanning the cover to such things as DVDs and books just to spice up various articles, where an image seemed needed, and I've tried sorting through the Wiki documention concerning copyrighted material...and at the rate I'm wading through it I may never get to the end of it... Cryptonymius 07:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Just scan the image... put a fair use tag and a fair use rationale on the image page and put it in an article. Cbrown1023 16:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot vs Synopsis

Since we seem to keep having problems with scene-by-scene descriptions of a film's plot, I propose that we change the section heading to "Synopsis" to emphasize that the section should be a brief summary. It's already in use in some film articles, and Wikiproject Books has the similar heading "Plot summary" for fiction books. However, for graphic novels and TV shows "Plot" is used. Thoughts?--Supernumerary 02:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the word "Plot" personally, but I do see good backing to your argument and would not go against the change. It may help new users know that it is a "synopsis", as you said, and not a repeat of the entire movie scene-by-scene or punch-by-punch. Someone could somehow do a round with AWB to change all of this as well. (I'm not sure how that would be done, but it would certainly be consistent.) Cbrown1023 02:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Weirdly, I came here to ask the exact same question. I'm not too bothered about which (although your argument for Synopsis makes sense), but I think consistency should be good. If it is gonna be synopsis, then this page should be changed to reflect that. Trebor 22:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to make the change unless people are aware of it. Perhaps we should do a straw poll at the main project talk page?--Supernumerary 00:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good idea. :) Cbrown1023 00:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

If you are dealing with a film that began from a literary source, like The Dark Knight, where would you list the creators of the characters? Should they be before the writers of the film, or after?  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  21:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they should be in the infobox at all, that should be reserved for the filmmakers. Discuss the origins in the main body only. Does anyone else have a view? Cop 633 00:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If the author of the novel was A and the screenwriter was B, I would put A ([[novel]])<br>B ([[screenplay]]). Make sure to follow the WGA screenwriting credit system too. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would favor adding a line to the infobox "Based on the novel by..." so that the information is showcased and immediately accessible and presented as distinct from the screenplay credit. Cryptonymius 00:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that might involve changing the infobox template. But what I'm really focused on is instances like comics to films, where you can't say "based on JLA #34" or something like that. My question is in regards to something that would read like "Joe Shuster and Jerry Seigel (characters)", because they are the creators of the characters, and no particular work is the basis for the film, just the characters. It's a debate on The Dark Knight film infobox. One user felt they should come first, and another believed they should come after the script writers. I'm asking so that a frame of reference can be attained for future instances.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  02:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering the characters came before the screenplay (unless there's some super whacked out business of screenwriting going on here), I would say that the characters would logically come first. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox color?

Could anybody tell me if there is a way I can add a "color" section on the infobox? I want to add information like black and white, technicolor; tinted color etc. Is that impossible? Please just put your response on my discussion page if you can help.--Dudeman5685 17:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Film title (Year film)

Looking for clarification on this naming convention style guideline: should the year be the year the film was released or the year it was completed? The articles I'm working on are D.E.B.S. (2003 film), D.E.B.S. (2004 film); these titles match their IMDb years, however, from what I can tell the 2003 film made the festival circuit in '04 and the '04 film was released in '05. This doesn't seem to lead to too much conflict within the articles (they're still works in progress anyways), but it does when the films are placed on List pages and sometimes actor's filmographies. Any help ya'll can give on this would be great - thanks! ZueJay (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the problem. These are two separate films, right? (A short film, and then a feature length film?) IMDB quite clearly shows that the '2003 film' began doing the festival circuit in 2003, not 2004.[2] If it helps, our policy is to follow IMDB in treating the film's 'year' as the year of its first screening, not the year of its first wide release. So The 2004 DEBS would still be 2004 because that's the year it premiered at festivals.Cop 633 17:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That's all I wanted to check on. I wanna make sure I've got this correct before I change any articles' placing the film ambiguously in '05 (i.e. they don't say release date, etc.). Simply saying your policy is to follow IMDb film years clears it right up. Thanks. ZueJay (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinking in synopses

Is it appropriate to use wikilinks to other WP articles in plot synopses? For example: "John Doe works in a sweatshop in China and falls in love with Jane Doe" - is this a good thing? I haven't seen many film articles with links in the synopses so I was wondering if it is an appropriate style convention, providing of course that it is not overdone. Ekantik ^talk 02:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See Also

I'm curious, as the "see also" help section didn't really "help", what exactly should/can go here. I mean, how close should things be to fit this section? Is there a guideline for this section of an article?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IMDB "Poll" results

I would like to purpose that use of the IMDB and similiar poll rankings of movies be either discouraged or made not within official policy for film articles. They are little more than fan dictated "my movie is better than your movie" boastings based on flawed polling techniques, as all passive polls are. As bad as rankings generally are, these passive fan polls are worse given to far too much "ballot stuffing" by fans. If someone starts doing a bona fide poll (you know, where they actually go out and get the results), then that would be different. RoyBatty42 20:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Some fellow editors and I believe that the "box office take" is sufficient enough to show what fan response is. I read one article that used the IMDb user reviews, and then even quoted one of the anonymous reviewers about how awesome the movie was.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

How would you guys interpret something like IMDb's Weighted Average Ratings? I don't think it's an invalid point, but I agree that bona fide polls would be more realistic.. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to voting online, you can almost never guarantee that it isn't going to happen, not unless you require proof of identity. I think it's noble that they take measures to reduce it, which I'm sure they do, but even they it's simple an "attempt" to reduce the vote stacking. I think reviews are best left to those that get paid for it, and the box office numbers speak for the fans the like the film. If critics hate a film, and yet it breaks records, obviously they don't speak for what the "fans" truly think.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)