Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to support "positive", "mixed", "negative"

I've encountered uses of RT and MC (or just one) to support the quoted terms as part of neutral claims about films' reviews. Since RT requires our interpretation of its scores, I don't believe the scores themselves are sufficient to support the quoted terms–the elements being praised and criticized notwithstanding since the site's critics' consensus often specify these. MT, on the other hand, does not require interpretation since they indicate what the scores mean. That said, I also believe that MT is one source and that its content should be demonstrated as due. I propose adding a version of this clause to the MOS:

Rotten Tomatoes does not specify whether critics' overall perception of a film is positive, mixed, or negative, therefore, it should not be used to support claims about films' general critical reception. Metacritic, which provides brief descriptions of what their scores indicate, may be used when the claim it supports is demonstrated as due.

KyleJoan^talk 13:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that this would be instruction creep that's already covered by Wikipedia:Review aggregators. DonIago (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Except that WP:AGG is just an essay that doesn't have any teeth. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe some of the text from there should be promoted to here, then? DonIago (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's essentially what's being proposed here, except not just copy-pasting wording from the essay.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

What? Rotten Tomatoes does not require any interpretation on our part, and I'm ready to start blocking people who violate WP:NOR. It quite clearly states whether a film is "fresh" or "rotten". Rotten Tomatoes is also much more prominent than Metacritic. This article from Vulture is pretty clear that it is central to the popularity of films despite its limitations and flaws. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

My points about interpretation were specifically regarding scores' relation to "positive", "mixed", "negative" and using RT by itself to support those terms. "Critical reaction to [Ghosts of Girlfriends Past] was negative" on Emma Stone and "[Deep Water] received largely negative reviews" on Ben Affleck, both featured articles, are two of many examples I could provide. Would you consider these instances NOR failures? KyleJoan^talk 04:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

My objection to the RT terminology would be a different one - “fresh” and “rotten” are jargon, related to tomatoes, and familiar to readers who already visit those sites or who edit film articles regularly. But for the casual reader, remembering that WP is used by English-speakers all around the world, quoting the term “certified fresh” in relation to the quality of a film surely needs explanation, and must leave some readers completely mystified. That isn’t good terminology to use in a global encyclopaedia. MapReader (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

KyleJoan, can you link directly to the article section you're referring to in those examples? I'm not seeing it.

Generally, RT can only be used for negative/unfavorable (read "rotten") or positive (read "fresh"). It does not provide ample support for "mixed", and many in the film project have doubted if 59% is truly a negative score. I'm not sure we've ever all agreed on that point, which is why there isn't anything in the MOS, at least not in absolute terms. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Third paragraph, second sentence on Ben Affleck#2020–present: Supporting roles and Air and first paragraph, fourth sentence on Emma Stone#2009–2011: Breakthrough. Is that generalization ("Fresh" = positive, "Rotten" = negative) not an interpretation? And what about "Certified Fresh"? Does it equal "critical acclaim"? KyleJoan^talk 18:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

MOS:FILM doesn't cover articles about actors. I agree those are inappropriate uses of aggregators as sources though. Nardog (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s easy to do a search on the term “certified fresh” and you will see there are tons of them, mostly in film articles. It’s a ridiculous term to put in an encyclopaedia about films. MapReader (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

When RT and MC disagree, we really shouldn't be cherry-picking one over the other, which was done in that Ben Affleck example. At Metacritic, "mixed or average" was reported for that film (link). It would be best to ditch the aggregators in that scenario and rely on other highly-reputable sources instead, with the best being those that publish in printed form (books, magazines, journals, etc). --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

We need to start from the top. When we write an encyclopedic article about a film and how critics received it, we need to approach this correctly. Rotten Tomatoes is first and foremost a commercial service to tell movie fans if a movie is worth watching or not. This does not directly translate into encyclopedic value, especially as reflected by the fact that a movie is only "fresh" (positive) or "rotten" (negative). In this, RT provides zero middle ground. (No bruised tomato, no moldy tomato.) Not to mention that its percentage is just based on the positive-to-negative ratio.

In essence, for encyclopedic value, the main percentage is unreliable for reporting the critical reception. The secondary data points, the rating average (x out of 10) and the critics' consensus (however imperfect), have credible encyclopedic value. Metacritic is a similar commercial service, but its useful data points are upfront -- the metascore (which is similar to RT's rating average) and the five-level prose-label categorization. Its review breakdown (positive/mixed/negative) is also useful to report. It's not cherry-picking if Metacritic's primary determinations are reliable (plus clearly labeled) where Rotten Tomatoes's primary determinations are not. When comparing the two, Metacritic should be selected over Rotten Tomatoes for a prose-label of a film's overall critical reception. Beyond these, coverage about a film's critical reception should take precedent (though subject to WP:POISON considerations). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I tend to be in agreement with all of that, Erik.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

We should not be giving Metacritic undue weight to source "positive", "negative", or "mixed". As noted in the previous discussion about MOS:ACCLAIMED, Metacritic labels anything with a 81+ score as "universal acclaim" and anything with a score below 19 as "overwhelming dislike". If we allow editors to use Metacritic alone as a source for "positive" or "negative", that will encourage editors to start using Metacritic alone as a source for "acclaim" and "panned". InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

So, have a more explicit rule against wording like "acclaimed" or "panned"? That seems more practical than trying to get editors to stop citing Metacritic or RT. And RT's "fresh" or "rotten" false dichotomy is much worse that Metacritic's "overwhelming dislike" to "universal acclaim" range, even if their use of superlative terms is misleading.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Loaded prose-labels are easier to deem inappropriate, as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch's standard for their inclusion is high. Why shouldn't there be a guideline that says RT's statuses shouldn't be translated into these prose-labels and MC's labels must be due for inclusion? KyleJoan^talk 02:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Neither Metacritic nor Rotten Tomatoes should be used for reception summary labels. You can argue that one is more accurate/useful than the other, but in the end, they are both numbers computed using a formula. Using that number to determine what has been positively or negatively received is akin to deciding that an article subject is considered notable as long as they have a certain number of Google News results. We should stick to how publications — written by people (so probably not CNET) — assess the critical reception. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Isn't that already covered by the first paragraph of "Critical reception"? Perhaps we could explicitly exclude aggregators' automatic labels based on numbers, in addition to original syntheses of individual reviews. Is that the sort of thing you're proposing? Nardog (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

That's sort of what I'm proposing, and I say that because my concern has more to do with citing the automatic labels to write something else entirely that no other source denotes (or in RT's case, that the source itself does not denote) than the labels themselves. KyleJoan^talk 10:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Well that boils down to avoiding RT for a "mixed" designation, which is technically the only label that it doesn't inherently support. And generally, using any label that isn't supported by a source is already covered in the opening sentence of that section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe that goes far enough because it doesn't address the inappropriateness of converting "Certified Fresh" into positive reviews, "Fresh" also into positive reviews, "Rotten" into negative reviews. KyleJoan^talk 01:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The conversion is already done by Rotten Tomatoes on their own site, where the Tomatometer is defined as displaying "the percentage of professional critic reviews that are positive for a given film or television show". Reputable reliable sources have also explained the Tomatometer in published articles, such as this one from the LA Times, which states:

Today, moviegoers rely on the Tomatometer, a number that shows what percentage of critics recommend the film. In Tomato-speak, a movie with mostly negative reviews is deemed “rotten” and tagged with a green splat. Movies that are mostly well-reviewed get a “fresh" red tomato.

While we generally prefer RT and MC to be used as complementary sources when affixing a label, who's to say Wikipedia editors are wrong to write that reception was "generally positive" after seeing an RT score of 87% and an MC score of 85? Both ratings, which are considered reliable, are communicating that overall reception was positive. We've covered a couple scenarios where that doesn't work and you need better sourcing, but there are plenty of situations where it does. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

But that example is an improper synthesis because 85 on MC indicates "universal acclaim". We would need to water down that indication to make it compatible with "Certified Fresh" equaling "generally positive" in order to make both RT and MC usable for that claim. KyleJoan^talk 05:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you asserting that "universal acclaim" doesn't fall into the realm of "generally positive"? In any event, as NRP notes below, it's often a bit facetious to use the term "universal acclaim", and likely more accurate to say "generally positive". DonIago (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Whether it's ever appropriate to write "universal acclaim", it suggests a higher or larger degree of phrase than the more-common "generally positive". If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that citing any combination of "Fresh" or "Certified Fresh" and "generally favorable" or "universal acclaim" allows us to neutrally write "generally positive". While I disagree, I understand. KyleJoan^talk 08:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

‘Universal acclaim’ certainly shouldn’t be used within an article, since as a statement it means that every single review has been positive; even were this to be the case, it would be impossible to prove and hence there isn’t going to be a citation. However brilliant a film, there will be someone somewhere who has written a poor review, if only because coming up with a unique angle on something is one way for a critic to get published and win attention. MapReader (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not improper synthesis. Any rating that is 61 or higher on Metacritic is coded in green. According to an explanation published on the site, "green scores" represent "favorable reviews". While green is divided into two categories of "generally favorable" and "universal acclaim", we can choose to ignore any jargon or peacock labels. Both mean positive or favorable to some degree, and therefore both RT and MC agree in that scenario. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

"It's not cherry-picking if Metacritic's primary determinations are reliable...[and] Rotten Tomatoes' primary determinations are not."

It's not like Metacritic is the holy grail when it comes to accuracy. You have to remember that a lot of critic reviews don't even assign a letter grade or star rating to begin with. So Metacritic, just like Rotten Tomatoes, has to rely on some level of subjectivity when assigning a value in these situations. And even when a review does contain a grade or rating, the conversion to binary (RT) or to a numerical value (MC) isn't always perfect. MC's method actually introduces more nuance if you think about it. Converting an opinion into a numerical value (ranging from 0-100) involves a much higher level of precision than RT. The rest of its formula heavily depends on the accuracy of that initial conversion, whereas RT's simple approach only has to deem it more positive than negative or vice-versa, an arguably easier task. MC then processes this conversion a step further by using a weighted average and normalizing scores (i.e. grading on a curve), both of which add additional subjectivity into the mix. One final aspect worth mentioning is the sample of critics. Despite MC's reliance on only top critics, its sample size is significantly smaller for most films.

There are pros and cons to either approach, and I'm not sure you can say with any certainty that one has a more reliable "primary determination" than the other. Both methods spit out a numerical final result, which in turn gets converted back into prose by eager Wikipedia editors. Accuracy and objectivity are lost at each conversion and data-crunching step along the way. What we end up with on Wikipedia is questionable at best, especially in the "mixed" realm.

The solution? We've never really agreed on one, but I don't think picking one metric over another or deeming which aggregator reigns supreme gets us any closer. When it leads to a dispute, I encourage editors to tie claims to a highly-reputable source not named Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Metacritic is very useful, but it's a black box. Nobody understands how it works or how they assign scores – some of which they invent themselves out of thin air. There's also the whole "universal acclaim" thing, which is sometimes downright false. There are occasionally films that have "universal" acclaim and a negative review. Even more so, Rotten Tomatoes is the industry standard. It would be undue weight to put so much emphasis on Metacritic and ignore Rotten Tomatoes. Academic sources would be the best, of course. I think we should be emphasizing their use more and try to discourage the use of junk sources. In too many articles, we cite articles to sources that are one step away from being content mills simply because some super-fan wants a source that says the film got "critical acclaim". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It would be helpful I think if we just dropped the aggregator WP:JARGON completely. Describing a film as "rotten" is misleading if 59% of the reviews are positive, meaning more critics gave the film a positive review than a negative one. It is similarly unhelpful to describe a film as having "universal acclaim" if it score 81%, simply because it means that 1 in 5 critics didn't like it (hardly universal!). The way the aggregators use language to describe these films is not consistent with dictionary usage. As Erik mentions above, the data points have much more value. Betty Logan (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Consider you received a D or F on a test in school. These percentages can still technically be greater than 50%, but that doesn't translate to a positive grade. It's the same concept here. Yes, more than half the reviews are positive at 59%, but it doesn't cross a threshold to be considered positive reception. Having said that, scores that fall in the middling range of 40-60% (the realm defined as "mixed or average" on Metacritic) are probably best left without a label of overall reception on Wikipedia, unless it can be tied to other reputable sources. If RT says 55% and MC says 45, look elsewhere for support of a "mixed" claim; RT's percentage doesn't support such a label, and cherry-picking with MC isn't the best solution. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not making a case that 59% translates to a positive reception, but rather pointing out the statistical fact that if there are more positive then negative reviews then to label a film as "rotten" is misleading i.e. the "rotten" grading is not synonymous with how a typical reader would interpret the term. This is why I think it is better to look beyond Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for sourced commentary describing the critical reception of a film. They tend to use plain English rather than employing these jargonistic categorizations that the aggregators use. Words that are used in a way that do not equate to their general English language definitions are unhelpful at best, and misleading at worst. And can I just say that if you scored 50% and got an "F" then you had some very tough markers at school! Betty Logan (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This is why I think it is better to look beyond Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for sourced commentary describing the critical reception of a film.

I think you and I are beating the same drum for different reasons, and that's OK! When scores are in the middling ranges of 40-60%, we agree on the same premise, though not from a statistical standpoint or reasoning, but because each aggregator treats this range differently with different labels (mixed vs unfavorable/negative). When they disagree, neither aggregator provides the adequate support needed for a "mixed" or "negative" label on Wikipedia; if we choose "negative", MC disagrees, and if we choose "mixed", RT disagrees. We both reach the same conclusion following different paths. I'm fine with that!

And yes, perhaps the "F" range is a little different here in the States (or at least when I was in school many moons ago)! --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

"It would be helpful I think if we just dropped the aggregator WP:JARGON completely." Yes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm completely okay with avoiding using the "universal acclaim" label when it comes to Metacritic. When any reliable source uses that praise, we can reasonably assume they don't mean that it's 100% that way everywhere every single place. We can paraphrase based on consensus, either local or in general. It could be something like "widely praised" or "highly regarded". The problem is that we have no language from RT to paraphrase other than positive or negative. We don't have any degrees of either, or anything in between (mixed, lukewarm, whatever).

To respond to GoneIn60, I agree that MC is not the holy grail, and I know there isn't one. (Is it weird that I sometimes daydream that a reliably-sourced generative AI will ingest all the reviews and give an overview for us? Maybe next year...) MC has a smaller sample size, I agree, but it also helps that we would treat all of these reviews as reliable sources. Not all of RT's reviews would be reliable sources on their own. I also acknowledge that the MC weighting is a black-box approach, and I have seen some films have different overall scores than how the breakdown looks (like the overall score is "mixed or average", yet there are more positive reviews than mixed or negative ones). (However, one internal benefit of MC and its breakdown is that it has helped me balance the WP:PROPORTION of individual reviews.) I don't see a problem of undue weight in using MC. I think of news articles covering science-based topics, and they'll do it in a very light fashion, hence why something like WP:MEDRS exists. We can similarly recognize more (relatively) statistically sound measures.

I think we can recognize here that some aspects of the aggregators are simplistic and that we can work with the best aspects that serve an encyclopedia's long-term coverage of how a film was received. The sentence, "The film got mixed reviews from critics," is more enduring language than "The film got a 65% on Rotten Tomatoes". At the end of the day, we are trying to make these not-directly-designed-for-us tools work for us because it is unthinkable (per WP:SYNTH and amount of grunt work) for us to figure out from individual reviews what the overall trends are. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The "universal acclaimed" categorization on Metacritic is precisely that: a categorization. It is the direct result of the Metascore reaching a certain threshold, not the result of careful consideration of reviews. There is also the matter of WP:WEIGHT to consider: we should use the most frequently utilized descriptor when describing the reception. Betty Logan (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

WP is directed at the wider community of English speakers around the world, not the narrow world of film experts who happen to know that ‘universal acclaim’ is a categorisation and doesn’t actually mean universal acclaim. We shouldn’t be using misleading terminology like that. MapReader (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Very informative and enlightening. Thanking you and your cohorts for the clarity and sober analysis. Gwankoo (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic

@Nyxaros: While your addition of references is appreciated, no, the Metascore alone is not sufficient to support "critical acclaim". Please see the discussion here, as well as the one above. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC) @InfiniteNexus: I've been informed that you "call[ed] my edits out" (MikeAllen's words) for adding multiple reliable sources and an edit summary about Metascore. I would therefore like to remind you that even if a consensus has been reached here, it does not change the fact that Metacritic explicitly states "acclaim" in addition to other references that I added. There shouldn't be any problem and I don't think there is anything unacceptable in my addition, on the contrary I believe my edit improved the page and helped to prevent another edit-war. ภץאคгöร 15:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC) Nyxaros: The consensus within WikiProject Film (see MOS:ACCLAIMED) is to avoid loaded language like "critical acclaim", except in rare situations for films that have been historically documented as such in strong, reputable sources. Online articles like the ones cited toss the term "acclaim" around very loosely without really exploring that in depth. I suggest making your case in the existing talk page discussion at Talk:Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One#Critical acclaim. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC) I disagree. What you wrote suggests that we should only quote sources saying that films like Citizen Kane received "acclaim", which is clearly not true. There are recent films that are described to have received widespread praise and/or "acclaim" by multiple sources. As with everything else, not every source has to explain it in detail. They may or may not give "in depth" information about why and how a film received "acclaim" overall, that seems to me is not liking how reliable sources work and therefore questioning their reliability and validity in some ways, which is also not a valid point of view in my opinion. I still don't see why we should change what the sources explicitly and directly state. ภץאคгöร 07:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC) As MOS:ACCLAIMED makes clear, describing a film as "acclaimed" is "an exceptional claim that must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources". Therefore we would expect such a claim to be sourced to at least a couple of high quality sources. If your only source for describing something as "acclaimed" is Metacritic's jargonistic grading system, this is simply not good enough. Metacritic only counts the number of positive/negative/average reviews, it is not an arbiter of critical consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC) Concur with Betty Logan. There's a bad confusion happening here between "acclaim" as an established media-culture fact, and "acclaim" as a buzzword used by one website in their iffy rating system.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC) As one can see from the diff presented above and my reply, I didn't make a change using only Metacritic. I felt obliged to respond because I was mentioned on this page as if I had done something wrong for adding sources. I don't think it is right that my contribution is mentioned in this way and I think this is a case of nitpicking ("acclaim" can be credited to Metacritic, but the discussion has led to a misunderstanding of my addition). ภץאคгöร 11:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to flag that there is a discussion at MOS:TV here, which both raises the same issues as here, but in relation to television articles, and also challenges the use of "universal acclaim" within articles based on the Metacritic terminology. This may interest editors who contributed here, so pinging @Nyxaros:, @KyleJoan:, @Betty Logan:, @Erik:, @SMcCandlish:, @GoneIn60:, @Doniago:, @InfiniteNexus:, @NinjaRobotPirate: — Preceding unsigned comment added by MapReader (talk • contribs) 07:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Pings don't work if you don't sign your comment. copying pings from above @Nyxaros:, @KyleJoan:, @Betty Logan:, @Erik:, @SMcCandlish:, @GoneIn60:, @Doniago:, @InfiniteNexus:, @NinjaRobotPirate:. Indagate (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus to no longer link "animated" in lead sentences of animated films?

I've noticed lately that a number of articles for animated films, which previously included links to "Animated film" in their lead sentences, no longer do so. Examples include Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Toy Story, Shrek, and Despicable Me. This change seems to have been initiated (do correct me if I'm wrong!) by User:Chompy Ace back in October, with MOS:OL and MOS:SOB cited as justification. Later that same month, the word "animation" was added to the MOS:OL guideline as an example of words to avoid linking. Alongside this change, it seems that the specification of "computer animated" or "stop motion animated" has been excised from such articles as Shrek and Chicken Run.

Have any discussions taken place before or since these changes, regarding whether to link "animated film" in the lead sentences of animated film articles, or whether to specify the method of animation used? If linking to "animated film" is a violation of MOS:OL, I presume this would be on the basis of "animated film" falling under "Everyday words understood by most readers in context". However, the guideline also makes an exception for terms that are "particularly relevant to the context in the article" (hence why we link to genre terms like "comedy film" or "horror film", which most readers would also understand in context). —Matthew  / (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I would continue linking these terms in the leads of the film articles, per "particularly relevant to the context in the article" and standard practice of linking other genre terms in other film articles. The point of the link is not providing a dictionary definition, as if no one understands what "animated film" means; the point is providing the context of animated film history and culture as an easy link from an exemplar of that subject. It's the same reason we link to veterinarian in the lead of a notable verterinarian even though everyone already knows what a veterinarian is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to link as it is a very common term and concept that everyone knows in context. It is also not relevant to the context in the article it generally just is a way of indicating the project isn't live-action. It would be like linking actor in the intro to an actor's article. WP:SOB also generally applies to the series of linked words munged together that look like a single link that don't need to be linked at all so getting rid of links that are not needed breaks that chain in many cases. This is not a word that will generally ever be clicked on by a reader as the meaning is well-understood. Also note that animated and animated film have valid redirects so when they are linked they don't need to be piped per MOS:NOPIPE. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

As stated above, most people would presumably also know what most film genres are in the same context, but we link those as well. I don't see your point regarding MOS:NOPIPE. "Animated" and "animated film" are two distinct topics and articles; in fact, the former is sometimes utilized in an otherwise live-action film. Could you elaborate on what you mean? —Matthew  / (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

We shouldn't be linking the common film genres either. It reduces the effectiveness of having links when too many common things are linked. Links should be added with deliberate consideration of if they will add value by having them. A list of linked common adjectives in an intro is actually detrimental by masking the few that might actually need to be linked due to being uncommon and not well-understood. We generally excise the links for common occupation names in bio intros, no reason no not purge the unnecessary common genres links too. I do think that it improves an article to remove unneeded links and I generally do so with consideration of what adds value and what doesn't when I make the edits to remove or add them.

As for MOS:NOPIPE both Animated and Animated film have valid redirects so shouldn't need to be piped and generally shouldn't be. If the issue is that the redirect goes to the wrong articles, then the fix is to retarget the redirects, not pipe a links that is WP:NOTBROKEN. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand your points on linking medium/genres, but I disagree with your position that they lack value or effectiveness. If I understand your point regarding MOS:NOPIPE, then I disagree with that as well. The term "animated" in the lead sentence of an article about an animated film should link to the more specific "Animated film", not to "Animation". Just as "science fiction" should link to "Science fiction film", "drama" to "Drama (film and television)", etc. —Matthew  / (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

If a piped link goes to the same location as the redirect it shouldn't be piped. Drama film doesn't need to be piped for that reason but I see your point if piping is used when the word film is removed from the displayed term but it is the desired target although I'd use [[Drama film|drama]] in that case so the reason for piping is obvious. As to whether or not a particular link of any sort adds value that is an editorial judgment call particularly with some of the common genres. I just think that a lot of the links are added without any serious consideration with the assumption that linking is better than not and it likely is in edge cases. In a lot of films the list of genres seems excessive and if people stuck to "the primary genre or sub-genre" per MOS:FILMGENRE this would be less of an issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Drama film doesn't need to be piped for that reason but I see your point if piping is used when the word film is removed from the displayed term but it is the desired target [...] This is what I was referring to, yes. So on that we do agree. [...] although I'd use [[Drama film|drama]] in that case so the reason for piping is obvious. This is fine with me as well. I also agree that excessive genres in the lead sentence can be an issue, and it's something that can be particularly prevalent when it comes to animated films that feature elements of many genres.

I personally think that linking to film genres is acceptable. As opposed to, say, linking to the article on "film" itself, or to most occupations. —Matthew  / (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The bulk of films are live-action works of fiction given by actors speaking their lines. Animated films are not this. Musical films are not this. Documentaries are not this. These terms need to be called out as part of the lede to set expectations to the reader. --Masem (t) 04:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It needs to be mentioned as the default is live-action, but linking adds no value other than the emphasis of seeing another blue word in a connected list of linked genre terms. I saw no existing consensus to link the word, it was just a pro-forma practice with no actual need or consideration given to it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a comment regarding consensus: per WP:EDITCON, "Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement. In this way, the encyclopedia gradually improves over time." So this conversation is a good thing! —Matthew  / (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Masem on this one. The default format for film is a live-action work of fiction with relatively little diegetic music (as distinguished from jukebox and musical films). The types of films that do not fall into that format are notable and should be linked. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

They should be noted in the intro. But linking a well-understood word that will never be clicked on by any reader just adds to the clutter of adjacent blue links in the intro. Has as much value as linking the nationality. Linking is not meant to be a form of emphasis. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This is anecdotal, but I'd like to note that I've definitely clicked on "animated" from articles of animated films before. Same with probably every genre as well. Maybe I'm weird though. —Matthew  / (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with others about linking to "animated film". Per MOS:OVERLINK, it is a term that is "particularly relevant to the context in the article" and is thus appropriate, like with film genres. A key component of an article about an animated film would be to discuss how the film's animation was done, and how it looked to critics and audiences. In contrast, if it were something like an article about a politician's campaign in which a commercial that involved some animation was discussed, we wouldn't stress about linking to that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Every descriptive word in the intro section should be relevant to the context of the article, they define the topic. From OL "A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from. Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, ... The well-understood word "animation" isn't particularly relevant. Pick the words to link that add value to the reader and try to avoid MOS:SEAOFBLUE where everything is linked and nothing stands out. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez is continuing to mass-remove links to computer-animated despite a clear absence of consensus to do so. I was about to mass-revert them until I realized they have been doing this for many months now. What's most troubling is that they did not stop despite there being almost no support for their position during this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

There was no follow-on comments to my last comment. I saw no compelling reason in the discussion to ignore the plain reading of MOS:OL and MOS:SOB. I remove links that in my deliberate judgment add no value to understanding. I do not remove all links to computer-animated and deliberately leave them when it makes sense for the link to be there in context, particularly in articles where the animation process is actually discussed. I specifically look for and do remove unnecessary piping when I see it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not an OVERLINK, in any context. And just because people stopped replying to you does not mean they now agree with you and there is consensus for your position. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

This current discussion has not resulted in any changes to any MOS guidelines including this one. MOS:FILMLEAD suggests that process information be covered later in the lead if important. Contents of the lead section should reflect what is in the article. If how a film is animated is important it will be covered in the article and reflected in the lead - a second sentence mention would be the place to put it. That a film is animated is defining, the default for almost all current animated films is using computers to do it. Some animated film articles have a lot of detail about the creation process, most don't. Also this discussion is about film articles, not other articles where a film is referenced. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

"Animated film" or "computer-animated" are not mentioned in any MoS guideline, including OVERLINK and MOS:FILM, so it is left to editors' discretion in interpreting whether these are considered OVERLINKs. Multiple editors have expressed above that they do not believe they are, and your arguments to the contrary were largely met with skepticism. That means there is no consensus to remove these links, let alone on a large scale, and operating against consensus is disruptive. Computer animation is not a ubiquitous concept widely understood by most parts of the world, so it cannot be regarded as an OVERLINK. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Like I said I leave in the link when it makes sense to for the article in question using my editorial discretion for a particular article use case when it adds value. I do remove the unnecessary piping when I see it which is actually what my edits are mostly targeting. I am strictly following the manual of style as written. This discussion is an interesting take on how other editors may make their choices. It is interesting that few of the participants see any problems with the MOS:SEAOFBLUE issues of excessive linking of adjacent descriptive adjectives in an article intro sentence. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Just a comment here that if WP:SEAOFBLUE is the primary concern, then a good workaround is to move "computer-animated" out of the opening sentence into a later portion of the lead. For example, the next sentence that starts with "The film" can instead be changed to "The computer-animated film", or something similar. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Computer animated should be mentioned and linked in the next sentence only if it is covered in the article body itself and shown to be noteworthy for the film. Otherwise the method of production is not worth mentioning in the lead. Most modern animated films use computers as the main animation tool and it is seldom worth mentioning unless it is a pioneer film or they do something innovative for this particular film. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEADREL, not every factual claim in the lead section must appear in the body of the article. "Basic facts" of an article's subject may sometimes only appear in the lead and not receive any coverage in the rest of the article. Genres are a perfect example. They rarely receive coverage outside of the lead. The detail about a film being computer animated may or may not be covered by this guideline, but it's worth mentioning in case you were not aware. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Methods of production are not basic facts, that it is animated is a basic fact but not the tools used to do it or how it was done. Those are the types of details that should be covered in the article and likely a good animated film article will describe the actual software used, maybe hardware used for rendering, and how the film was created if that information is available. \ Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I have emphasized "may or may not" above in case that was missed. The difference between "animated" and "computer animated" is subtle; one could argue subtle enough that the latter is still a basic fact. I do not intend to argue this point. I offered some middle ground, and this is where I plan to exit! -- GoneIn60 (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The difference is non-existent for most modern animated films as computer production is the normal and standard way of creating animated films. Animators using computers can generate any look they wish and produce output that matches any animation style. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, even though genres may be something that is only mentioned in the lead and infobox, it should still be sourced and match how the film is described in the majority of sources. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This goes without saying and is getting off-track. I don't think anyone is arguing that challengeable claims don't require proper backing in sources. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that in the lede sentence, that linking "film", "animated film", "documentary", and similar film types when there is generally two or three genres preceding that is SEAOFBLUE problems, though that should still be a linked term in the infobox. We should presume some basic reader competency of knowing broadly the terms for films. (Hwoever, I still stand that things like "animated film" and the like should remain in the prose even if not linked) Masem (t) 03:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Geraldo, you can keep repeating your arguments that they shouldn't be linked, but so far no one has been convinced. If you continue to remove links anyway, you are willfully ignoring consensus, or the lack thereof. That is disruptive and asking to be reverted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven't made any recent edits related to the topic of this discussion. What I get as a conclusion related to the topic is that linking animated film should be done in the intro to animated film articles if there are no SEAOFBLUE issues where the link could be omitted. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It's important that SEAOFBLUE is a recommendation, not a requirement. Yes, that's the case for all guidelines, but it explicitly says "if possible", not "should". It's a nice-to-have, not should-have. "Computer-animated" and "animated" are modifiers, so it is impossible to separate them from the linked noun that it modifies without sounding awkward. This extends beyond the leads of film articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The only justification given in this discussion for linking "animated" per WP:OL is when it is "particularly relevant to the context in the article". That is arguably why is may be linked in the intro of an animated film article and other articles where the topic of animation is actually under discussion. There is no justification for linking "animated" in other articles particularly when they just reference a film. Readers know what an animated film is, that is common knowledge. Telling readers a film is an animated film when the film is referred to is part of basic identification. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

They may know what an animated film is, but do they know what computer animation is? I don't think they necessarily do. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It is self-defining. Animation done using a computer. People are familiar with both concepts. For the last 20 or so years that is the standard normal expected way that animation is done since we got computers powerful enough to do it. It is appropriate to link in an article where specific hardware and software production techniques are being covered to give background for that level of coverage, a good example is Toy Story, but outside that it adds no value. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Computer animation is not a ubiquitous concept. As you said, it's only been around for 30 years. Animation has been around for 116 years and can therefore can be more comfortably argued as an OVERLINK outside of articles about animated films. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It somewhat depends on the age of the reader. People familiar with animation know recent animated projects use computers as a tool and older ones didn't. Most people won't care how it is done. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. You said it. WP:OVERLINK states: [T]ry to be conscious of your own demographic biases – what is well known in your age group, line of work, or country may be less known in others. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course, but we still need to have some reasonable expectations of readers basic understanding. We don't have to link things less likely to be generally known if it isn't brought up in the first place. There are very few cases where the tools used matter, what matters is the result. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Future

Is there any guidelines about the Future/Legacy section? When it should be named Future and when it should be named Legacy? Redjedi23 (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I would consider these distinct topics. "Future" to me sounds like "Planned sequel(s)". That can be awkward to cover because someone can say they plan to make a sequel, and ten years pass with nothing new, and what do we say exactly at that point?

"Legacy" to me means how the film has been received in retrospect. That kind of commentary can be found in news articles about the film's anniversary, or print books (or chapters) writing about the film historically. The one section I've done in this regard is The Social Network § Post-2010s assessment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Soundtrack track lists in film articles

I started a discussion a month back at WikiProject Film about soundtracks and track listings. Here is what I led with but hoping we can get a consensus for clarification as it is leading to some edit warring.
For film pages, I think it is WP:COAT to create a soundtrack section on the actual film page that includes both information boxes and track listings (just a section of prose that provides an overview and anything of note). I see this similar to why we don't put track listings on musician pages. MOS:FILMMUSIC is a little confusing for me as it says that track listings for prerecorded songs can be made but that film scores cannot. Yes, I understand the difference but still believe track listings and information boxes are COAT as they should be presented in a separate page if they are notable and do not contribute anything of benefit to the film page. I searched and found a few discussions about this but wondering if there is a discussion that found consensus for the "current" MOS or if anyone feels this should be re-visited. I found this discussion which is one of the most recent and seems to lean exactly where I am contending. CNMall41 (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is an example. The track listing and information box do nothing to enhance the page. It also runs into another section which we wouldn't allow should it be an image that doesn't align with the context in which it is placed. And this one which bleeds into four sections. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Nationality of film

Per the MOS, "If the nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), identify it in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section." While I do believe we came up with this consensus a while ago, I rarely see it applied as this information is often rarely discussed with many film productions in either academic or news or even fan related film topics. I can't imagine a film like O' Horten trivializing the user on how it is was a "Norwegian-French-German-Danish" production and listing all those countries in the lead is long, describing a definition of that (if it could be confirmed) would be even longer.

I notice a tendency among users as well to cite production countries based a country being listed as the production country from various databases and film magazines (BFI, AFI, Lumiere, etc.) over finding sources that refer to the film singularity (as per a recently discussion on Mad Max: Fury Road, where sources discussing the films success as an Australian production, limit their discussion as it being Australian over an Australian-American co-production as cited by AFI, BFI, Sight & Sound and others.)

So to the point, should we state we would probably want to focus on more intrinsic relationship with the production companies over casual "best of" lists and topics relevant to more cultural identity? I feel this would be more clear to users as I often see databases being the source for this information. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I think databases are a fair representation of countries being involved, though to the point of false equivalence in prose representation. Most reliably-sourced coverage will be local or regional and may omit what is "obvious" or even irrelevant (compared to studio films), like we won't really see Despicable Me 4 being called an American film even though it patently is. We have to remember that there are many, many films that are of a singular nationality. The challenge is what to do when there are more countries getting involved. Most books and articles about films won't consistently name the film's "nationality" in running text when introducing it; I think it's usually reflected in some table or sidebar (e.g., "Countries: US, France").

For me, the goal of this guideline was for overcoming content disputes about multiple countries, to just to blow past trying to figure out which nationality is predominate for first-sentence mention and spread out mentions in the rest of the lead section. Even so, we still get stuck with content disputes with people who don't want to do that and want some singular cultural-ownership established in the first sentence. I feel like the relevance of that varies across time and production types (e.g., a studio film may tap into international assets and be better known as X studio's film than a film from any one country). I'd rather see x-language instead of nationality in the first sentence, personally. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

EDIT: A good example is 1917 (2019 film) which is at its core a Universal Pictures film rather than a British film or American film or American-British film. Reviewing trade papers' coverage of 1917, "Universal" is mentioned many times where there is no UK or US mention applied to the film itself ("British" is used for the director, and the WWI soldiers' background). Hence my point about national cultural-belonging being irrelevant. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I generally agree with you, but I feel like this isn't want the MOS of saying and what we are saying is what is broadly categorized across thousands of film articles. Is this something we should probably amend in the MOS? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Following the sources is of course our WP-wide standard, which every project has to respect. An issue that often arises, particularly for film and TV and similar pages, is that editors try to ‘argue’ or ‘analyse’ their way to a preferred conclusion, often from the perspective of a fan rather than an expert - not just for nationality, but with genre, acclamation, and other characteristics. So an editor will want to insert (or delete), for example, that a film is an “epic” or a “fantasy”, and will bring to bear aspects of the film or its production and storyline to build an argument that the film is “epic”; this entire exercise being WP:OR and therefore irrelevant. Whether we describe a film as an “epic” depends solely and entirely on whether reliable sources describe it as an epic. It’s the same for nationality: the ownership structure of the production entities, the personalities, and the financing are not relevant considerations, since, to quote from SYNTH, any conclusion in an article must be “explicitly stated by the source”. ‘Explicitly stated’ is unambiguous, and rules out arguing from data or databases about the film.

There are many examples where there has been some cross-country involvement with aspects of the filmmaking and/or financing, but nevertheless the creative control sits wholly or almost entirely within a particular country, and such products are commonly attributed to that country. Where there is a wider or more balanced involvement, films are described as co-productions. For many films this isn’t of course an issue, because their origin is unambiguous. Where there is an issue, it is almost always possible to review reputable media sources, especially from outside the country or countries concerned, to find appropriate citations to support either singular nationality or co-production. MapReader (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what genre has to do with this, as that's not the point of this discussion. Your statement that "the creative control sits wholly or almost entirely within a particular country" is a curious statement. Your broad statement of "following the sources" doesn't really address any questions I'm bringing up either. I'm not sure how WP:SYNTH argues out database or databases about film either. I've addressed this to you and your response was "who knows what criteria they use?" could be applied to anything. Anyone who the most basic reading of them could see that it applies to their production countries. It is extremely normal for these databases to be formatted to short hand terminology to apply what they are saying. If it was speculation that if it just had a "Year" and didn't indicate that it was a copyright year or release, I'd say that would be properly debatable, but I'm scratching my head to possibly figure out what Country could mean otherwise without really reaching for the moon. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

What a peculiar reply? You can’t get clearer than our site wide policy that conclusions edited into an article must be explicitly stated by the source. MapReader (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Nationality is not the same as genre in reliably-sourced coverage. It is rarely outlined in reliable sources, compared to genre. As mentioned, it's due to a provincial scope or its irrelevance to the topic. For example, for Mad Max: Fury Road, it is simply not being called an Australian film in the vast majority of sources. We can't take one nationality-labeling mention and elevate it over all the other lack of nationality-labeling mentions. In contrast, many of the sources writing about the film would write "action", which satisfies due weight for identifying the film's main genre. We really need to move on from this "there must be a nationality established" mentality. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I would agree with Erik. I like how we are applying WP:WEIGHT to things as just listing every potential thing something has been briefly described as is difficult as genre is subjective and seemingly as I try to clean up the genre film articles, there is little consensus to what constitutes some films to be in certain genres.

But back to the point, I'm not sure if this phrasing of this in the MOS is clear as MapReader says, it does make it look like that just referring to a film colloquially by country, its probably applying undue weight (WP:UNDUE). A casual reference to a film that Mulholland Drive appearing on a list of the 100 best American films does not disqualify it from that list, but shouldn't ignore that more technical sources that qualified as a US-French co-production. Its using material like that as a source that isn't the most scholarly that I'm trying to avoid and currently the phrasing in the MOS does not make that clear except the veteran editors. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

There are very many such mentions, in sources across the world. MapReader (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I think there is a strong tendency for overuse of descriptors, e.g., nationality, genres, occupations, etc. in the leads of Wikipedia articles. It's often unweildy and bad writing, and it leads to a lot of original research. For films, I can see why nationalities can be relevant to include, but the problem is that they aren't going to be described in prose as an "American film", for example, in most cases. That's when databases are helpful if this information is going to be forced into the article regardless of its use in sources, especially when there is a dispute over countries. My feeling is that its useful to use the databases and production companies, unless there is a clear preference in reliable sources. If there are many sources using one particular country, and none using another country or combination of other countries, then I think it makes sense in those cases to override the databases. If there is not a clear nationality that is "singularly defined" by reliable sources though, then I think its better to avoid the nationality in the lead sentence. I don't think the policy that different national interests should be covered later in the lead is necessary, though. Sometimes they aren't really that important and should just be covered in the main body. – notwally (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@MapReader:, I'm not sure what you are trying to get at, and I'm trying to give your comments some validity, but I'm not sure what you are saying and if you can't respond to specifics, I have trouble reading this beyond a lot of Whataboutism.

While I agree with @Notwally:. That's a complicated element. Countless productions made in Europe (example -Frnch-Italian, Itlaian-Spanish, etc.) and Asia (Hong Kong and China) are often international co-productions. While specific films like phrases like French comedies or Italian horror are causally used as cultural/groupung terms, the films are technically filed under umbrellas in various film catalogues and databases as multi-country productions. It's rare to find such specifics on how much a film was produced by what production countries (see Blood and Black Lace for example), these types of file.s are colloquially referred to as Italian. I'm not sure if listing both would be confusing for readers, while explaining that distinction in an article without some context or sources backing it up feels like it's just muddying up conceptual waters on the nationality of films. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The bottom line is that - if the suggestion being made is that we should depart from direct sourcing and start determining article content by analysing production companies and the like, that's a matter that would raise issues of site-wide significance, and can't be deal with inside the film project. Direct sourcing is a WP fundamental, per OR and SYNTH. MapReader (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I've re-read what I've said, and I'm not sure where you are getti

ng that I'm against sourcing. (?!) I'll re-iterate that we need to clarify if we are going for specific technical details (i.e: Breathless is a (french-italian production) or more general terms where I'm sure I'll find Breathless more casually described as French. I could easily dump sources here showcasing both, but I'm feeling you are either not really understanding my comments. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Likewise. I am very aware that some film page editors may find the requirement for explicit direct sourcing tiresome, and would rather use their supposed expertise to argue their way toward saying what they prefer about a particular film. But that’s simply not the way that WP works. If anyone wants to argue that a film is a co-production, the only way you can do so in Wikipedia is to establish that the balance of reliable sources describes the film in the same way. MapReader (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "some film page editors" and "the only way you can do so in Wikipedia is to establish the balance of reliable sources". I'm going to suggest reading WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL, and focus discussing the content not on editors. I'm going to only state the issue once that in casual terms, critics, journalists and other sources describe films generically as one countries cinema, while in more technical terms, they are referred to more. It is foolish to pretend both are equally going to approaching a topic in generic terms. So what is the solution? Editors on the Fury Road article seem to focus on databases for more technical info. While it is possible to find sources calling that film outside databases referring to it a co-production (Here is Sydney Morning Herald describing Fury Road as a Austrailian-US production, here is The New York Times doing it as well), so it can be found to find these, but what do we do when terms are brought up more coloquially? Unless there is specific information on why its strictly Australian, I don't think we should use these as the best quality source when they are discussing items more specific to other material (ie: film gross, etc.) Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Once again, it doesn’t matter why sources describe as they do. It matters that they are reliable, authoritative sources, and then we as WP editors simply follow them. WP editors shouldn’t be arguing or analysing their way toward article content: that’s OR. MapReader (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I"m familiar with WP:OR, but per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, "Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source". This is what I'm trying to do with applying a film being referred to coloquially to specifics. So if we have one source that says "Australian film" for Fury Road, and one that refers to it as a "Australian-US" production, what is the course of action? What happens when we have a few of each? This is why I'm trying to clarify what are the "content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources", which ultimately, will come down to our editors. So no, you are wrong MapReader, its not as simple as finding a source and running with it and that is what we have to discuss as editors as what format we take as there is not strong consistent nationality for film standards across the board. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

STICKTOSOURCE and your quoted extract is exactly my point in relation to the AFI infobox, which contains data in a table and doesn’t attempt to describe the film. The question is simply, is a source reliable, and what does it say. If there are mutliple, conflicting, sources then we have to weigh them for number and reliability, but it isn’t up to any editor to dismiss sources using words like ‘colloquial’, which reads to me like IDONTLIKEIT. The original Hollywood Reporter citation is clearly very authoritative and reliable as a media source for film, and not only uses the term specifically, but contains an explanation as to why it does so. You can’t get less colloquial than that. You’re right that, while an article only needs one citation to support a point, if there is a dispute it shouldn’t be resolved without a wider look at sources. But I am not seeing where it js widely described as an “Australian-US co-production” - using those words rather than as data from a table being used in “ways inconsistent with the intention of the source”. MapReader (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

To state the obvious, that a film is "an Australian film" and that it's "an Australian–US production" are not mutually exclusive statements. Only if a source described it as an exclusively Australian film would we need to weigh the reliability of the sources. Nardog (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no dispute that there is some US involvement in the film but, as Hollywood Reporter explains, it is seen as an Australian film because Australians - most notably George Miller, whose creation the whole Mad Max series and genre was - had creative control over it. The question is simply how something is described by the majority of reliable sources; there is no requirement for a word like ‘exclusively”. MapReader (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how "exclusively" and "singularly defined" are significantly different. – notwally (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of WP:OR, that logic has no really follow through. For saying I've just applied rules and made them up, so have you just now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The latter refers to how reliable sources describe the film. Which in the case that gave rise to this discussion, appears quite clear. MapReader (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

‘Singularly defined’ means that the film is commonly defined as originating from one country, as is clear from the example given in brackets immediately following. ‘Exclusively’ sets the higher bar of no foreign involvement, which in modern filmmaking isn’t that common. Hiring in a firm or two from another country doesn’t automatically make a film a co-production, as co-production clearly requires shared control over the production, per our own WP articles on co-production (media) “a co-production is a joint venture…” and on a joint venture “generally characterized by shared ownership, shared returns and risks, and shared governance”. MapReader (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't use Wikipedia as our definition for material per WP:CIRCULAR. MapReader, you have addressed this saying some older editors have been applying their own rules, and since then have been pulling your own rules from the air and ignoring content. I've found sources calling films in question co-productions, and you've only found content referring to a film colloquially. As you have not addressed any of my issues, I'm on the range of calling you on WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. You have been "misrepresents reliable sources, or performs original research.", "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations". You haven't addressed why several sources you listed on a Fury Road article were not stating what you requested or were from dubious sources (IMDb). I want to work with you, but this is becoming more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT each time I read a response. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I see MapReader repeating the same thing over and over again in different words and I have not seen a single editor agree with his comments yet. ภץאคгöร 08:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment – Didn't realize we had two intersecting convos happening simultaneously, so quick recap of what I left at Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road#Australian in lead...
  In an old 2013 discussion, which eventually led to the guidance we have today in MOS:FILMCOUNTRY, the original idea was to allow the nationality when it was both singular and straightforward. As soon as it becomes clear more than one country is involved in the production (whether that's a 50-50 split, 70-30 split, 60-35-5 split, etc.), the water gets muddy, and the suggestion back then was to "de-emphasize" and move beyond nationality and seek an alternative identifier, such as the "film's primary language".
  Perhaps this isn't being stressed enough in our MOS. Even the slightest hint of ambiguity should prompt discussion and/or encourage editors to err on the side of caution by relegating nationality to the article body (or abandoning it altogether). The guidance we have now seems to be limiting us to only 2 options: the opening lead sentence or subsequent paragraphs in the lead section. But really, there are other options on the table. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for chiming in GoneIn60. Yeah, I don't think our previous solution is ideal and even in featured and good articles since, it has not really been applied. That I've brought up else where (i.e: Contempt is a french new wave film) which is certainly is, but it is categorized as French and Italian in the infobox with again as we've said, muddies the conceptual waters. This may be dancing around a topic, but to diffentriate between cultural values, I wonder if labelling the "Country" term in the infobox to "Production country" would help seperate the technical and legal aspects of a nationality of a film, and the more broad cultural studies representation of films from around the world. Don't get me started again on films like O' Horten with its multiple production countries. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Are you wanting to change the guideline's language to be more to the point? If so, how would you rewrite it? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well I'm asking around to see if others feel the same way to see or to sort of rally around ideas. I do think at the state its in, it's not really being practiced and as we've stated above, it's complicated to fit into a source, and the nationality of a film has different meanings to a general audience. I'm leaning towards some sort of re-write, but one thing I do think would help would be labelling the "Country" in the infobox to "Production country" as of now, that seems to be what the predominant strain of citation is. Do you feel it could use a re-write Erik? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  If anything, and I don't think this is my final word, if we could re-word it, it should be more specific if we want to continue in the direction that most film article seem to be leaning towards which is a more dedicated look at country being related to production countries over vague or colloquial usage of country. Interpretations of "French film" are vague and are full of assumptions based on different audiences of what does constitute something to be French. Sure we could just list a bunch of sources that call a film French, but I'm not sure this comes off as clear to readers who would interpret it that way. It's probably more neutral to refer to them as "French productions" or "Italian-Spanish co-productions" to avoid gross misinterpretation.

  I would suggest @Erik: something like "If the nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), identify it in the opening sentence." be replaced with something along the lines of "If the nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film production), identify it in the opening sentence." Perhaps adding context that we should be addressing films technically, and applying more cultural definitions of national cinema as as part of a themes or background section. Not really sure, but its all a bit too vague here and leads to headaches like dealing with the Fury Road article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Referenced filming locations - yay or nay?

Greetings all, just looking to see if I can get some feedback & possible consensus on as to if it is appropriate to include filming (shooting) locations in the movie articles, especially if they are a concise list of iconic or notable parts of the film itself, and if they are referenced. I have seen it both ways - both included and excluded... but I have never seen an effort to exclude it by removal after it had already been a long-established part of the article. That has recently happened here under the claim of it being trivia.

My initial reaction was to revert it on that premise alone - but I went ahead and looked at applicable MOS guidelines and cannot find anything definitive. I also reviewed the archives and found 2 mentions of it previously - with the oldest one simply stating they saw benefit of them being included but that a select number of editors whack them under the premise of it being N/A trivia... essentially the same situation as I have here. There was no further discussion regarding that which I could find. If there is a more pertinent discussion, please feel free to point me to it.

Personally - external websites and fansites have a history of disappearing - as does information such as this, and would require notable effort to track down if it even did still exist - especially with how the major search engines operate these days. I believe that if sufficiently cited that it would be of notable benefit to include them in the definitive reference resource which the WP project is aiming to be.

That being said - I will ask here to see if I can get some feedback prior to taking any further action. Thanks for your time and input. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 21:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

In the specific Heat example you provided, yes in that instance, as it was formatted, I would call that trivia. How I would approach that specific article would be as follows (pending there being reliable sources to back up the location in question - and I'd note I'm iffy on the sources that were used previously): in the "Filming" section I'd add (bolding) All of the shooting was done on location, due to Mann's decision not to use a soundstage, including in downtown Los Angeles and [insert any other locations that may be prominent within the project]. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree with Favre1fan93. Listing everything in a table would probably be overkill. If the film truly had that many filming locations, I feel like that would be a really comprehensive part of the production (difficulty in funding, filming in different locations, financial and artistic reasons for studio shooting and location shooting, etc.) if such backing material can be found on more major productions, but its best represented as prose. As its was represented in that Heat article, I don't try to mention things unless it has context. This seems to be verging on going against MOS:MISC. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The example given is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, so I am ok with its removal. There are many examples I can think of where the location is essentially a character in the film (James Bond locations, Venice in Don't Look Now) or places that had an back-story as to how they came to be selected for the film. In shot, if the article is saying something about the location in the film then it should remain, but if it is just listing locations for the sake of listing locations then it is probably indiscriminate. Betty Logan (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

As a general rule Filming locations are important production information and bad formatting of the example doesn't change that fact that it was properly referenced important factual information about the production. (Heat isn't just any movie, it a specifically Los Angeles crime movie.) I am disappointed that experienced editors would dismiss the inherent encyclopedic value of the underlying content as trivia merely because of the style and formatting. (The article for Heat (1995 film) has received little maintenance as it far exceeded the standard of what was consider good quality in early Wikipedia, and was locked to prevent editing for the longest time.) Deleting the section entirely is not what I would call editing collaboratively to make a better encyclopedia (intentional or not it shows a lack of respect to the work of the all the editors who added and properly sourced that information.) A deleted section is unlikely to see any improvement and it should have been tagged as needing cleanup, and be rephrased into a more coherent paragraph of prose (more tables is that last thing that is needed). The guidelines MOS:FILMPRODUCTION points to production or filming: filming dates and places so the guidelines of this project are already telling you to include filming locations, and even if they were "Trivia" (which they are not) the guideline MOS:TRIVIA itself says "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all." It is wonder this encyclopedia still exists the way people delete so easily. -- 109.79.169.204 (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Vast amounts of material are added to WP every day, against which the few editors that focus on trimming are a drop in the ocean! The notion that any piece of information that can be referenced is proper for inclusion in an article isn’t an uncommon one, but for readability and other reasons it isn’t the way we work - data does need to be notable. Some broad commentary as to where the filming was done is always appropriate, and this might reference a few specific locations if noteworthy buildings were significantly used as locations within the film. But I agree with others above that a table giving the street addresses of individual scenes is not appropriate. MapReader (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Your last two sentences are somewhat contradictory in nature. I will agree that street addresses are probably excessive if the location does not otherwise pass WP:NN, a la something like Nakatomi tower. Ignoring that with regards to the section I brought up, and taking into account your other sentence - the small handful of select filming locations mentioned are indeed specific, noteworthy locations and tie directly in with the most notable - if not iconic - moments of the film. With that in mind - I must agree with the AnonIP that whacking the section outright is probably not in the best interest of the article, nor is it best practice for such material on WP as whole. Destructive edits for this type of researched & referenced content should absolutely be done with far more delicacy and consideration vs. outright section blanking. Instead tagging for & cleaning it up while retaining the locations of notoriety (less street addresses, perhaps) is likely far more appropriate. I will raise that point on the article's talk page for discussion and likely re-add the section after I think about it some more and do some additional research on this type of sitaution. Otherwise - I do look forward to continued discussion & input here. Thank you, everyone. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 06:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but all it needs is a sentence along the lines of “Location filming was done at various locations around Los Angeles, including the Citigroup Center and the airport Hilton.” That’s it. The table with addresses and intricate minutiae from the plot are entirely gratuitous. MapReader (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Keep and rephrase not delete. That's what the guidelines already say. Deleting a whole section is not the same as careful trimming or neat summarizing. There seems to be little disagreement on the substance, merely the style. -- 109.79.160.15 (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Years in film

Current practice, as seen on 2024 in film (but also reflected in the 2013 in film example in this policy), is to list country- and genre-specific lists of films on these pages, and not the extensive list of films themselves (which always wound up Americentric). This year I have been updating older articles such as 1970 in film on these lines to be free of systemic bias. MOS:YEARSINFILM still suggests including the list of films in its first guideline, so I believe this should be updated? We have also done away with genres on these tables on the sublists (see List of American films of 2024), so the fourth guideline is redundant. 2001:8F8:172B:43EC:D520:21F0:EC2A:721 (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I support the suggestion. The lists have out-grown these guidelines. Betty Logan (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's an attempt at a first draft:

• For years in film articles, such as 2013 in film, please follow these guidelines:

1. Articles should list country- and genre-specific lists of films by year, such as List of American films of 2013 and List of horror films of 2013. The detailed listing of films by their earliest release dates should be reserved for these child lists.
2. In child lists, films should be organized by their earliest release date, whether it be at a film festival, a world premiere, a public release, or the release in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings.
3. Include only the director, screenwriter and the main cast, as per the guidance in the starring field of the film infobox.
4. Do not include genre columns, as genre classifications can be subjective.
5. For the deaths section, a person must have two film credits to be added to the list, no more than two of the most important works attributed to the individual, no red links and no re-directing links.
6. The highest-grossing films chart should only include the top 10 films, along with their rank, title, studio, and worldwide gross.

Please feel free to suggest any changes. 2001:8F8:172B:43EC:D520:21F0:EC2A:721 (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I support this first draft. Perhaps Studio should be production companies as not all of the highest grossing films are going to be by major studios depending on the history of film. My heart is not set on this, so I'd like to hear some alternatives. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not opposed to changing studio for production company (or distributor), the guideline essentially remains the same. 2001:8F8:172B:3BED:ED66:45E2:ABFE:E532 (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• It's been a while since anything new has been added to the discussion. Considering the general consensus here has been in favor of this change, I suggest we publish this draft per WP:BOLD, and adjust as needed depending on any new inputs. What does everyone think? 2001:8F8:172B:436C:8561:29BE:D347:F64B (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2024

Based on the general consensus reached in the above discussion, update the guidelines on years in film pages to the following:

• For years in film articles, such as 2013 in film, please follow these guidelines:

1. Articles should list country- and genre-specific lists of films by year, such as List of American films of 2013 and List of horror films of 2013. The detailed listing of films by their earliest release dates should be reserved for these child lists.
2. In child lists, films should be organized by their earliest release date, whether it be at a film festival, a world premiere, a public release, or the release in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings.
3. Include only the director, screenwriter and the main cast, as per the guidance in the starring field of the film infobox.
4. Do not include genre columns, as genre classifications can be subjective.
5. For the deaths section, a person must have two film credits to be added to the list, no more than two of the most important works attributed to the individual, no red links and no re-directing links.
6. The highest-grossing films chart should only include the top 10 films, along with their rank, title, production company, and worldwide gross.

2001:8F8:172B:436C:A50F:23AF:EBC6:3BB7 (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done NotAGenious (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

MOS guidance on short desciptions

There is currently a discussion at WT:FILM centered around short descriptions for film articles and it has evolved into realizing wording should be added to the MOS about acceptable SD practices for film-related articles. In the interest of keeping a centralized discussion, that can be found here. All are welcome to join in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Copyedit of MOS:FILMRATING

MOS:FILMRATING has a sentence in it that says:

Since this is the English-language Wikipedia and not the American Wikipedia, avoid mere identification of ratings issued by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) to counter systemic bias (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias for more information).

I think this is an awkward way to put this, and WP:CSB is not as active as it was when this sentence was written more than a decade ago. I suggest re-writing it this way:

If a film has been issued in multiple countries, avoid mere identification of ratings issued by just one of them (e.g., the US Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)).

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

We should just tie ratings info to the release in country of production, much like release dates. A British film released in the UK doesn't need American rating info, just the British ones for example if ratings are in the infobox. If there is a release section in the article with release info in other countries that would be the appropriate place to include the rating info for that country along with its release date. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that's the approach taken by books. While the article might have a reason to talk about all the different editions, translations, etc., the infobox is about the first edition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the text proposed by WhatamIdoing is fine—the subsequent sentence provides adequate instruction. Ratings are not included in the infobox in any case. I am slightly worried that by tying it in to FILMRELEASE we will encourage the opposite of what we are trying to achieve with this guidance e.g. editors adding MPAA ratings for American films, BBFC ratings for British films etc. I have no issue with including a BBFC censorship row in an article about an American film, and vice versa, provided it supports encyclopedic coverage of the film—something like the infamous Child's Play 3 ban in the UK, after it was implicated in the James Bulger murder. It would be a shame if that information were excised because the controversy related specifically to the UK. Basically what we are aiming for here is global, encyclopedic coverage, rather than indiscriminate coverage which reflects the bias of the editor. Betty Logan (talk) 05:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if adding a "good example" might help. Perhaps a very minimal, but perhaps still acceptable(?), statement might look like "It received an A rating from the Ruritanian system due to violence and an B rating from the Absurdistan system due to political violence"? Most films don't have any sort of controversy over the ratings. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm honestly a little confused as to why this sentence is included in the first place. I thought the primary impetus for including this section was to discourage editors from just saying, "The film received an R rating" or such, without any sourced discussion of said rating. The section already includes that guidance prior to this sentence, so isn't saying to avoid mere identification of ratings redundant at that point? Or are we saying that if it's a foreign film then it would inappropriate to mention the MPAA rating even if there was sourced discussion about said rating without including additional discussion of the rating in other locales (for which there may not even be such discussion to include)? DonIago (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

My impression is that they originally wanted to prevent Americans from adding only the American ratings, especially to non-American films. It is probably not a surprise to, say, Europeans, that the American rating system exists. It appears to be a surprise to many Americans that any other ratings systems exist. For example, I had no idea that there could be a List of films condemned by the Legion of Decency, because I had no idea that they rated films. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Doniago that I think both these sentences (Since this is the English-language Wikipedia and not the American Wikipedia, avoid mere identification of ratings issued by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) to counter systemic bias (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias for more information). Provide global coverage of how different territories rate individual films if substantial coverage exists.) can be folded into the earlier sentences of the paragraph. It's just repeating what is said there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It's possible I wrote this language years ago (like, over a decade), but I think editors at the time were focused on MPAA ratings being added all over the place. I feel like that's a non-issue nowadays, so we can just remove that focus. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

"Internationally co-produced"

Following the longstanding guideline at MOS:FILMLEAD, should not "internationally co-produced" similarly be avoided for opening sentences? Combing through the historical usage of this, it appears Lugnuts normalised it. Certainly not the most pressing issue, but I could not find any previous discussions on the topic. It is another way of saying the nationality is not singular, which the MOS would seem to advise against for openers. Οἶδα (talk) 07:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it's just a means of skirting the issue and shouldn't be encouraged. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)