Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:38, 19 July 2017

Skip to table of contents • Skip to bottom • Start new discussion

Shortcuts WT:FILM WT:FILMS WT:MOVIES

WikiProject Film
General information ( v t e ) Main project page + talk → Discussion archives Style guidelines talk → Multimedia talk → Naming conventions talk → Copy-editing essentials talk Notability guidelines talk Announcements and open tasks talk → Article alerts → Cleanup listing → New articles talk → Nominations for deletion talk → Popular pages → Requests talk Spotlight talk Film portal talk Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization Coordinators talk Participants talk Project banner talk Project category talk
Departments Assessment talk → B-Class → Instructions Categorization talk Core talk Outreach talk Resources talk Review talk Spotlight talk → Spotlight cleanup listing Topic workshop talk
Task forces General topics Film awards talk Film festivals talk Film finance talk Filmmaking talk Silent films talk Genre Animated films talk Christian films talk Comic book films talk Documentary films talk Marvel Cinematic Universe talk Skydance Media talk War films talk Avant-garde and experimental films talk National and regional American cinema talk Argentine cinema talk Australian cinema talk Baltic cinema talk Belgian cinema talk British cinema talk Canadian cinema talk Chinese cinema talk French cinema talk German cinema talk Indian cinema talk Israeli cinema talk Italian cinema talk Japanese cinema talk Korean cinema talk Mexican cinema talk New Zealand cinema talk Nordic cinema talk Pakistani cinema talk Persian cinema talk Southeast Asian cinema talk Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk Spanish cinema talk Uruguayan cinema talk Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates banner DVD citation DVD liner notes citation infobox invite plot cleanup stub userbox

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

Music not included in the soundtrack

Recently, @Supermann: and I had a dispute involving the same section on two articles, Wonder Woman (soundtrack) and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (soundtrack). The crux of the issue is including a section detailing music that is featured (and credited) in the film but not included on the soundtrack. There has been some discussion on my talk page at You have sth against IMDb.com as a RS, too?

In this particular case, the sections (in their current version) are not sourced to secondary sources and seems to be putting together information by comparing film credits and the track listing, which feels to me to be OR. I don't think this is appropriate. Such a section should be sourced to a secondary, reliable source stating that this music used in the film but is absent from the soundtrack. If this sourcing doesn't exist, it seems to me this section cannot exist.

I also question the grounds on which this information is included. Like, if the omission of several songs in the film is commented on by secondary sources for whatever reason, like if it was widely expected to be included on the soundtrack, if critics felt the absence of multiple songs was an oversight, etc., then I could understand putting together a list. But without any information to properly ground and justify the list, I'm not sure it's appropriate. The article is about the soundtrack, rather than the film's score and usage of licensed music. Mentions of licensed music used in the film, which is verifiable and stating it was in the movie isn't OR, is probably best left to the film's main article music section.

At this point, I want to open up the discussion to a wider audience, seeing as myself and Supermann haven't gotten anywhere on my talk page. I also invite Supermann to summarize his rationale to inclusion and defense of the sourcing here. I have also included a neutral notice of this discussion at WikiProject Albums. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH can be added to WP:OR. IMO the info falls into WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It isn't a defining feature of these - or any - films. MarnetteD|Talk 23:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll respond one last time: WP:Ignore all rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermann (talk • contribs) 18:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Supermann: Ignore all rules is not a carte blanche to do anything, and it's also not an explanation or justification or rationale for your edits. Why is your edit an improvement, which by definition should adhere to WP:VERIFY and WP:OR. IAR doesn't circumvent VERIFY and OR. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IAR is not a license for editors to unilaterally do what they want. You need to be able to prove to the community that applying a particular guideline or policy is demonstrably getting in the way of improving Misplaced Pages. In all my years on Misplaced Pages I have only found myself once in a position where I advocated IAR. As for the issue at hand, a reliable source is needed for music in the film but not included on the soundtrack album and IMDB is not acceptable. WP:Citing IMDb is an essay—not a policy or guideline—that was mostly written a decade ago, and these days most editors defer to WP:RS/IMDB. Betty Logan (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Could this be addressed by reframing the situation as "soundtrack releases" (based on information relating to the release) and "additional music" (based on the film credits)? Otherwise I'm inclined to agree with Betty and Ten. DonIago (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

That would require reframing what the primary topic of the article is, and I'm not sure if that idea would be necessarily a good one. Generally, soundtrack articles for films focus on the soundtrack release and leave additional music for the main article, or a "Music of " article (more common for video games, television, and film series rather than an individual film). I'm thinking more broadly. Would it be desirable to set a precedent that this is how spun off soundtrack articles for a single film should be handled? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess the current formatting of the article titles has the potential to create some ambiguity regarding whether it's an article about the music heard in the film, or whether it's an article about music released from the film. Granted this hopefully becomes clear once you view the article, and at that point I'd agree that a section discussing music in the film but not on the soundtrack is probably out of scope. DonIago (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

One of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages is Misplaced Pages has no firm rules: "Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Misplaced Pages requires making exceptions." Soundtrack.net belongs to "a list of sources that have been established as reliable in the field of films per past consensus, except where otherwise noted." Please see WP:WikiProject Film/Resources#Soundtracks and video games. I only updated its current owner. Supermann (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I would like to invite @TFunk: who added Alien: Covenant (soundtrack)#Additional music on his own to give his two cents. Thank you so much for identifying Ancient Flute by Harry Gregson-Williams. Sadly, this piece was not included in the soundtrack. Supermann (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not the source is reliable, while is reassuring, doesn't address whether or not the material should be included in the first place per indiscriminate. Also, worth noting, the soundtrack.net pages don't have the soundtrack listing and the song credits in the same place anyway—I don't know if that counts as SYNTH or not. And, like, using "no firm rules" as a guide for potentially ignoring a forming consensus isn't the spirit of the pillar. That pillar cites IAR, which, as explained, does not mean do carte blache. What songs are credited in the film can be addressed at the music section on the main film article, and the soundtrack article can be left to what the soundtrack is rather than what it isn't. I don't think album scopes cover "what isn't here". ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It has become a trend that when the music section gets too wordy because of the listing of soundtrack, a separate dedicated page is created. I personally don't mind these extra song credits information end up on the main page of the film. It's definitely not WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:SYNTH or whatever charge you put on it. Having this information on wikipedia makes the film page/music section more complete, because WP's own internal pages could help add further background so that it's not just an excessive log or list. In fact, a page of mere soundtrack listing doesn't deserve to be on WP since one could find it elsewhere, say Amazon.com. I have never interpreted IAR as carte blanche because people would misuse it to vandalize. And I don't believe what I did is vandalizing. I just believe after all these discussions, we must compromise. And haven't I compromised enough? Music must not divide us! Supermann (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The music section is wordy doesn't really work when Wonder Woman (2017 film) #Music and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice#Music are as short as they are. Whether or not it make ls a soundtrack article "more complete" is up for debate, does an article really need a section saying what isn't part of the topic? And you're right about "a page of mere soundtrack listing doesn't deserve to be on WP". It needs to meet notability guidelines, an album article needs development and production information, sales, reception, reviews. Listing what isn't on the soundtrack doesn't work toward any of that. You don't have a source saying exactly that. I didn't call your edits vandalism, but you did absolutely interpret IAR as carte blanche, and continue to do so elsewhere, by invoking it constantly whenever a guideline is invoked or consensus starts forming against you.

At any rate, if you are alright with the song credits being moved to the main page, then they ought to be moved there, and removed from the soundtrack pages. What I'm calling OR is the specific line "this is in the movie but not on the soundtrack". So, that sentence ought not to be on the main page either, because it's just as OR there as it is on the soundtrack page. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 12:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

If there aren't any more comments to be had about this topic, I'm going to re-remove the sections from the two articles in a few days, seeing as consensus slightly favors removing them on the basis of OR and INDISCRIMINATE, and attempt to implement them into the main articles, as consensus appears to agree that there is a place there for credited songs. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The sections have been removed from the soundtrack articles (Wonder Woman (soundtrack), BvS (soundtrack)) and implemented onto the main page (Wonder Woman), BvS). ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

As I had said, I really don't mind seeing the info on the main page, but could you please present them in a list/table formatting? It's easier to read. Plus, you should do the same thing to the Alien:_Covenant_(soundtrack)#Additional_music edited by @TFunk: who doesn't seem to care to comment. Only doing this to BvS and Wonder Woman seems a bit discriminatory towards me. Many thanksSupermann (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I had simply forgotten about the Alien: Covenant one. And I personally think it doesn't read difficult as prose, but if it is such an issue, rewrite it yourself or try to see what editors at those pages think about it. I don't much care how it's presented. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sidebar, I do want to reiterate that if editors at the articles think that listing the credits is inappropriate for whatever reasons, sourcing (my moving it to the Wonder Woman article was just reverted on that score), undue weight, whatever, that's a whole different discussion you ought to take up. I'm simply interesting in them not being on the soundtrack pages and suggested the main articles as a compromise. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I removed what you added simply because it's sourced to IMDb, no other reason.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I know. I don't dispute it, nor do I fault you. I'm just trying to name any other potential issues that may come out of the move before they come up. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I actually didn't realize that it was part of this discussion till I saw you recent post. If this stuff is to be added, it needs to be better sourced. We can't use IMDb or other reliable sources to cite songs in a film that weren't on a soundtrack. Not to mention, should we even bother? It seems more like we're getting into minutia of a film by pointing out some song that played for 15 seconds.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

IMDb is not the only source. Soundtrack.net as discussed above was also a source. Of course this stuff ought to be added! Either you don't appreciate the importance of music in a film or I don't know how to describe it. I have undone your deletion. Supermann (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

"Of course this stuff ought to be added!" and "You don't appreciate the importance of music" aren't really rationale for it to stay. An argument would be stronger if there were secondary sources talking about the usage of the songs, much like how on the Alien: Covenant stuff there was an article from the New Yorker in part commenting on the use of Wagner (something something lack of irony something) provided. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

May I ask how many newspaper/magazine do you subscribe? They have downsized their staff because ad revenue has fallen and readers just aren't paying. I'm sure had we had a better environment in journalism these days, we would have had more secondary sources writing about this kind of stuff so that we could cite. Let's not make Misplaced Pages a tertiary source, shall we? Supermann (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I've said this to you before, but... Misplaced Pages by definition is a tertiary source. Hell, that's even mentioned in the policy on the use of tertiary sources, WP:TERTIARY. So, that argument makes zero sense. And as much as I, too, lament the downsizing of newspaper and magazine staff, that's... just how it is. Misplaced Pages is based on secondary sources, and we write things based on how important a secondary source thinks it is. The sad plight of modern journalism doesn't change that. And, well, I never said a secondary source had to be as renown as New Yorker, only that it be a secondary source. That was just the example on hand. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

By that argument, Encyclopedia, Encarta, Encyclopædia Britannica should all have the word "tertiary" on their pages as well. Plus, those 15 seconds are not Sergeant Nick Morton's 15 seconds. In Wonder Woman's case, just take a listen to "Schatzwalzer Op. 4" written by Johann Strauss II and performed by the Berlin String Quartet at https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/strau%C3%9F-waltzes/id420267358. It is sooo beautiful. Not to mention in Batman v Superman --- "Shostakovich: Waltz II (Jazz Suite No. 2)" written by Dmitri Shostakovich performed by the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra available at https://itunes.apple.com/mz/album/jazz-suite-no.2-6.-waltz-ii/id39110201?i=39110296 It is sooo beautiful.Supermann (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

First, soundtrack.net is NOT a reliable source. Doesn't meet it per WP:RS. That said, just because something is in a film doesn't mean that it is important. If you cannot find a way of including it beyond saying "it was there", then that doesn't make a compelling argument for its importance. Existence does not equal noteworthy. Films use songs all the time that doesn't mean that we need to list every single song that was in a film. We're not an indiscriminate collection of information. It seems like you are confusing the beauty of a song with its importance in a film, not to mention (which is separate) its importance in being mention on the film's Wiki page. Here is a basic question: "Is a reader hurt by not knowing that 15 seconds of this song appeared in the film?" There's no context for it, there's no discussion of its importance from a directing standpoint. You are literally just pointing out that it exists. That would be equivalent to pointing out every painting that appeared in Batman v Superman (which we don't do).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:WikiProject Film/Resources#Soundtracks and video games. Soundtrack.net is an RS per consensus. Stop edit-warring! I am not confused by the song's beauty and its importance in the film. You simply have inability to appreciate it. Take this to WP:DRN Supermann (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Help finding someone who can write a plot summary

I recently noticed the plot summary in the article for The Purge: Election Year only covered about the first half of the film. Suspecting a vandal removed the other half, I went to restore the full summary, but saw in the article's edit history that it was the result of an editor rolling back an overly-long plot summary not by editing out unnecessary details to make it more concise per WP:FILMPLOT but by abruptly cutting it off before it reached 700 words. I don't consider myself qualified to rewrite the summary, so I tagged the section with {{More plot}} and explained the problem on the article's talk page to draw attention to the issue. It seems to have only attracted the editor who made the problematic summary, however, who defends it solely on the grounds that it's less than 700 words long.
I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to do this, but I looked at other noticeboards and they all seem to be about answering an editor's questions or resolving inter-user disputes. I just need to find someone who can properly write the summary or edit an earlier one down to a more acceptable length. If there's a better place for that other than the article's talk page, I would appreciate it if someone could point me in the right direction.
LoveWaffle (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

something actually happened in the second half of that film? must have missed it? :) I've seen it, I can probably look at it later and hodgepodge what I remember. --MASEM (t) 00:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The scaling back of the plot was done by Binksternet. While I understand his rationale (it was 1600 words long before he cut it down) I would like to get to the bottom of this. Did Bink deliberately intend to chop off the second half of the plot summary or was this unintentional? There is absolutely no question that the plot needed to be pared down in size, but this shouldn't be attained by just having half a plot summary. Betty Logan (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: We discussed this on the article's talk page. The editor never explicitly states if he deliberately intended to chop off the second half of the summary, but reiterates that he doesn't have a problem with it as it brought the summary down to less than 700 words. The user also reverted an attempt to write a full summary (albeit one that's still ~250 words too long) back to his/her incomplete summary. He also said he hasn't seen the movie and doesn't consider himself capable of writing the summary. I tried explaining the problems with this approach to the editor and described some alternative solutions to the original problem, but he repeatedly falls back on the 700 word limit outlined in WP:FILMPLOT as justification for his edit.
LoveWaffle (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Well the last version that comes in at 950 words is still too long but it is not unreasonably long. There are plenty of film articles on Misplaced Pages with ~1000 word plot summaries and we just tag them with {{Long plot}}. I think this version should be restored with the tag and then readers will at least have a functional plot summary. Betty Logan (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: I tried explaining that to the other editor but he said:

"Looks like you want me to be contrite but I'm not sorry about reverting to an old version which complies with WP:FILMPLOT's length restriction. I would do it again."

Which is when I realized I wasn't getting anywhere in the article's talk page and needed to turn to another place to draw attention to the issue.
LoveWaffle (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I've replied at the Talk page, supporting restoring the 950 version and either tagging or bringing that one into compliance. DonIago (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's the diff of my action to roll back the plot section. I reverted to a version that was written by Kevinhuynh9 on July 1, 2016, but I removed the actors' names per Film Project MOS. Kevinhuynh9 asserted in his edit summary that he "added plot" – he did not say that he added the first half of the plot while leaving off the second half. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Binksternet, you could be excused for the oversight since Kevinhuynh9 didn't give notice in the edit summary that the second half of the plot was left off, so you weren't aware of it. However, now that we are aware of the "plot left off" issue we could focus on correcting it. Huggums537 (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I've attempted a fix, improvements are welcomed (and required because I've never seen the film). We can all think about whether reverting a year old version based on the edit summaries and then leaving whatever turns up after it's been pointed out is best practice going forward or not. Scribolt (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC on table design. Suggestion

Hello, I made an aesthetic improvement to a casting list table and it was quickly reverted. I opened a discussion on the article talk page, but it doesn't seem to be getting any interest. The previous discussion can be found on the article talk page. This is my sandbox with the proposed (less blockish-looking) design, and the current design is on The Matrix (franchise) page. Thanks for your opinions! Huggums537 (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

For others' comparison, see Huggums537's version versus the previous version here. While we don't have any table rules this granular, I am personally used to gray shading to indicate an absence. I see this kind of shading used outside of Misplaced Pages too. Not sure why you oppose it? If there is another table characteristic I am overlooking, let me know. Erik (talk | contrib) 11:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

This was Lordtobi's argument for reverting. I'm also used to the "grayout". However, in this case even the light gray was such a stark contrast that it seemed to make the table look very "blocky" to me. I don't know enough about markup to make the gray any lighter, so I just removed it. I would have no objections to maybe a much lighter shade of gray. I just don't know how to do it myself. Thanks for your input. Huggums537 (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I find it pretty light. The table code says the HTML color is "lightgrey". This shows a list of HTML colors, and I'm not really seeing anything in the gray realm that could be a good in-between. I would rather stick to this version as I don't find it blocky. As a reader it helps me identify one-off roles compared to recurring ones in a series. Erik (talk | contrib) 11:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for taking the time to respond with your opinion. Huggums537 (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I concur that the light gray color is preferable. Without it, it's less standout to the reader. With it, it punctuates the distinction.--Cinemaniac_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 16:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you also for taking time to respond. I'm beginning to see everyone's point about the grey being better than no shading at all. What do you guys think about a color other than grey? Like light steel blue perhaps? I think it flows much better with the other colors of this particular table and still identifies the distinction of the null space effectively. I added another section to my sandbox called "Steel blue cast" so you can see what it looks like. Thank you to Erik for the list of HTML colors. I'm also welcoming input from Lordtobi about the new color design. Thanks everyone. Huggums537 (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I also think the ligh gray is prefereable, though I don't think it's necessary to stick to named colors. Light Gray is #D3D3D3 - I would use #E0E0E0 for a smoother look. Hoverfish Talk 21:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Huggums537: I added a display at the bottom of your sandbox. Hoverfish Talk 21:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Hoverfish! I like your suggestion best of all. It keeps the gray color scheme intact and flows smoothly with the other colors. I think you found the solution that compromises well with everyone. Huggums537 (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment I don't think we should opt for bespoke color schemes on film articles. "Greying" out empty cells in tables is common across Misplaced Pages such as on sport articles. I am sure everyone has a personal preference when it comes to color schemes but as mentioned in another recent dicsussion we should strive for consistency when there isn't a substantive improvement to be made by being different. Betty Logan (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Betty Logan. It seems everyone is in favor of the gray cell shading. However, I found this page on the site that Erik provided, which reveals there are many shades of the gray and Hoverfish proved that any of the shades of gray will work without the naming conventions, if you use the hex codes. I think we've pretty much reached a unanimous decision that the empty cells should stay gray. What I'm not clear on yet is what the thoughts are on Hoverfish's clever gray shading at the bottom of my sandbox under the "Programs lighter gray" section. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: I want to point out one thing which does not pertain to the shade of gray in particular, but rather to the whole "feel" of tables in film articles vs. sports articles (or used in technical specifications). In sports the clearly colored table cells are essential in presenting the information and this goes well beyond Misplaced Pages. It is a style used widely in magazines and TV. But in fims the information is more subtle (except maybe box office). In cast, casting, etc, the aesthetic should not be sport-like IMO, but more refined. A table here is just a visual aid for ordering some information. In most cases this can be a simple list (folded in 2 or 3 columns if too long, or to avoid white space). But in this case we do need a table to make it easier to see who played what role in which movie of a series. I think Huggums537 is right in looking for a more refined look in tables for film articles. Also another issue I want to point out is that in sports, flag icons can be very useful in tables, while in several film award articles where flag icons are used in tables (in spite of discussions I remember that had ended in consensus for not using flag icons) I get this sport-like feel that shouldn't be present in film articles. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 15:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Hoverfish. However, I think it's important to note that I was only trying to refine the look of this one specific table, and not seeking to refine the look of all tables for film articles. I think making sweeping changes across all articles is a rather lofty goal, but I guess this is the unintended result of attempting to make any changes on Misplaced Pages. Also, I wanted to say that the sports article Betty Logan provided is a good example of where the conventional gray cell shading works well for that particular table design. However, as Hoverfish pointed out, the sports table is very different than the film cast table, and while the traditional shading looks good for the sports page, I still think the lighter gray shading Hoverfish proposed works better for the casting table we're talking about. Thank you everyone for your input to the discussion. Huggums537 (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

A different discussion on this page led me to the List of Scream cast members, where I noticed that they used an even darker shade of gray, making it appear even more blocky looking than the table I was trying to improve. Maybe Hoverfish is onto something about saying it is right to look for a more refined look for film casting tables... Huggums537 (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I think a lighter color would work better in that table but there is very little in the way of policy governing the use of colors so these decisions invariably come down to personal preference. Betty Logan (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for your participation. Huggums537 (talk) 07:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Betty Logan, I've noticed that you were right about the personal preference since I've seen a lot of variance in the shading ranging from light to dark. The only constant appears to be the gray, with few exceptions. Huggums537 (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Boilerplate "compared to high grossing horror franchises"

Various horror franchise movie articles have copy-pasted text comparing their box-office performance. (Special:Search/comparing "horror franchises") This dates back to at least 2011 and has been divergently updated since then in various articles. While the box office figures for individual franchises are sourced, giving a definite ranking is not. Better would be a single reference to the boxofficemojo franchises list and cherry-picking the horror franchises; but the cherry-picking might itself constitute OR, and who knows how complete the lower reaches of boxofficemojo's lists are? In any case, placing the boilerplate in each article is intrusive and off-topic. I deleted the particularly egregious instance in Hellraiser (franchise)#Box office. I suggest {{seealso}} List of highest-grossing horror film franchises would be less intrusive, and a single article would be easier to maintain and keep properly referenced. jnestorius 00:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

If you read the original source, that is where they are being compared to. On the Friday the 13th: The Complete History documentary. That's why those are picked over say newer franchises. It's also not "original research" because of that. There is no "interpretation" going on, it's straight fact comparison. Hellraiser was removed though because it's a British film and didn't have the same level of release as the other franchises (so that I support). I also wasn't aware so many other pages started including it. THe list you see on Friday the 13th is the original list that they used. Anyone else was added to those pages much later and I wasn't aware of it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean Bracke's book or Farrands' film? Neither is cited in Friday the 13th (franchise)#Reception. Does whichever source actually say that Friday the 13th is the inflation-adjusted highest-grossing horror franchise in the United States? Boxofficemojo says The Exorcist has $1,213,743,600 compared to Friday the 13th's $816,789,900. jnestorius 15:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Bracke's book uses those films. I can add a cite with a hidden note of the films that are part of the comparison if you'd like. Yes, he actually does provide the inflation amount, but it's obviously dated because it was based on when the book was written. Hence, that is why an inflation index site is used and simple mathematics is not considered OR. The Exorcist isn't part of the list because the Exorcist isn't considered a "slasher film", those films in the list are technically considered that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages article says "the other top-grossing American horror franchises"; you are now saying "slasher" rather than "horror"; and as-of 2006, not 2017. Counting "Psycho" and Hannibal Lecter as slashers is very dubious; this is just one author's opinion. It sounds to me like Bracke is a fan of Friday the 13th and has cherry-picked some data to enable him to say "Friday the 13th ranks top". Overall, it's such a minor and debatable statistic I don't think the article loses anything by simply deleting it. There is no reason why the Friday the 13th article should tell us that Halloween earned more than Saw earned more than Scream. That is what List of highest-grossing horror film franchises is for. jnestorius 11:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I've never said differently. Just because the article has been edited to say just "American horror" doesn't detract from what Bracke was saying. Also, just because you don't think of them as such does not mean that they aren't looked at as such. Even Box Office Mojo classifies Psycho as a "slasher" film. This really seems more like you are the one that doesn't like it, more than anything else. This page has been under multiple reviews and never once has anyone said that the information there is "dubious" or should be removed. The reason "American" is included, is because people kept trying to add "Hellaiser", which isn't a fair comparison given that he was not released widely in the United States. Yes, you could create a page that lists horror film franchise grosses, but that doesn't negate the use of comparison on this page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The "Box office" section on the Hellraiser page has been reinstated by an IP in the meanwhile, but I agree that that section in particular should go. This is WP:SYNTH (the franchises don't appear to have been cherry picked by a reliable source, and it was all compared using "Tom's inflation calculator"), and it also relies on a source that has a known problem with incorrect international B.O. totals. Daß Wölf 22:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

What part exactly is synthesis? Original research explicitly states that basic math is not original research. Bracke already does the comparison, the only difference is the date. The point of the calculator is to update the figures. The inflation calculator is just that, you can use whatever you want. The difference is that Tom's inflation calculator actually explains how the inflation is calculated. As for international, that's irrelevant. It doesn't take that into consideration.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

For comparison, look at the featured list List of James Bond films#Box office and budget, which has aa single sentence sourced to here. jnestorius 09:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but there doesn't need to be a page of "List of Friday the 13th films". There are only 12. Again, if you need it I will go add the page for Bracke's comparison. You cannot argue "cherry picking" for one author, then point to another website that does the same thing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Cast

Should articles have cast lists or not? Most seem to have them to clearly identify cast/character but the folks at Scream (1996 film) seem to disagree. LordAtlas (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that's generally done on a case-by-case basis. I've seen many articles where a cast list is nothing more than "Actor as character", and those are often merged into plot section by way of "Character (Actor)". Scream (1996 film) has a very substantive casting section, so it probably could stand in for a cast section, but I would personally recommend having the article implement like "High school student Casey Becker (Drew Barrymore) receives a flirtatious phone..." But I would recommend bringing it up for local consensus. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that. However, the main couple editors prefer the status quo and believe the page is perfect as it is. LordAtlas (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The cast should be covered in some form, but as you can see at #Presentation_of_cast_lists_in_articles how it is done is up for debate. You can get a fuller explanation at WP:FILMCAST. Either way, by reverting back and forth a GA rated article is becoming destabilised. In such cases it is better to put the article back to the WP:STATUSQUO—whichever version that may be—and start to formulate a consensus on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I think they're wrong. Erik and Betty brought up the point above that films with small casts can be merged into a Casting section. Fine. But a film with a HUGE cast like Scream? Absolutely not. Edit in a cast list and describe each character. (I suspect those editors' main objections are that the list of characters and cast members each have their own pages.)--Cinemaniac_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 23:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

In fact there is probably enough real-world content to implement it like Alien_(film)#Cast, which I personally think is the gold standard for cast lists. Betty Logan (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake:. There you go.LordAtlas (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Well if Betty says it's ok, then it must be ok for everyone everywhere LordAtlas -_- Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

For the record I don't think this is ok. However, I do think the principle cast should be easily identifiable though, regardless of whether that is done through a cast list, a cast infobox or bracketed names in the plot section. Betty Logan (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Then put cast in brackets. The article passed GA in this form, the FA nomination wasn't knocked back for a lack of a cast list, lists are not necessary, they are explicitly frowned upon, and we're not bending over backwards for one user because the cast section is literally just missing bullet points. This is the sticking point, the cast aren't all on separate lines, "I have to read" is the complaint because the actors are linked at least 3 times in the article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@LordAtlas: Read. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

We have discussed above about the cast coming in a right-aligned box or other options, but a film article missing any form of (not huge) listing for the cast is not perfect at all. It is very GA to have all the prose and details, but in the casting section some form of listing should be present as well. Note: The Alien cast is the gold standard indeed. Hoverfish Talk 13:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

For large cast lists, I've split principal cast members (ones that appear in the opening or main closing credits and infobox) from the rest as with the Sharknado sequels. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I acknowledge that the Scream article currently has pretty good coverage of casting, which includes wikilinks to character and cast lists. However, I agree with the other editors that it could be presented in a more organized way, such as the example given with the Alien article or some other form of organized grouping. LordAtlas has the right idea that there should be something resembling a cast list there, and if that something were to look anything like the Alien article, then it would be pretty sweet! Huggums537 (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@LordAtlas:, while I don't begrudge your right to raise a question regarding an article at the related project, if you're going to do so, please make an effort to notify those engaged in the preexisting discussion. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Doniago: he was too busy figuring out how to ping me once he'd heard what he wanted to hear. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Since yesterday evening (Eastern time)? In any case, I would have had no idea this conversation was going on if I hadn't had this page on my watchlist. Apologies for the digression. DonIago (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• As Scream is a franchise, I would suggest looking at similar cases like List of The Fast and the Furious characters and The Fate of the Furious. Note how the film's article has a shortened principal cast with some recurrings / cameos, while the list article has all the details, including a character table. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Scream is not a franchise, it's a film, and the details about the film are not being relegated to a secondary article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not? Then explain why there's List of Scream characters and List of Scream cast members? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Ugh. You're going to waste my time with this? Scream is a film, an individual film, so the information is there. The scream character page is a collective page, but I would not, and you certainly should not be suggesting that if you want information on the character casting in Scream that you should go to a separate article. If you want information on the characters throughout the entire film series, you go to the characters page. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

This is precisely why I pinged you and not @Doniago:. I don't get your problem and I don't even think you get why people object. LordAtlas (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake, it seems you are having trouble accepting the fact that you're the minority voice in this matter. I concur with Betty Logan, the Alien page has the perfect gold standard for a cast list. If we had to compromise, then the article SHOULD at least list the core players (Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, David Arquette, etc.) and describe them briefly. This is the first film in the franchise, so if any article should list its primary characters and provide a brief synopsis, it's the first film of the quadrilogy. Furthermore, as Betty also noted, there's enough real world info to provide the aforementioned synopses. I understand you must've put a lot of effort into the construction of this article. However, it would hardly harm your article to add a cast section WITH character descriptions. (Because a plain cast list = too much white space.) Without a cast section at all, this article feels a bit naked or incomplete.--Cinemaniac_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 23:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I identify this edit by Darkwarriorblake as harassment. Hoverfish Talk 23:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with both the above and below statements.--Cinemaniac_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 00:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Both Scream and Scream 3 need cast lists. LordAtlas (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I just now noticed that Erik put a cast list back in the Scream page with more columns to fill in the white space. It looks pretty good. Maybe Darkwarriorblake would consider reworking the casting section to look more like the example in the Alien article. There's lots of good information to work with in the Scream article to do it and it would allow him to eliminate these other lists that he disagrees with. @Darkwarriorblake: did you see the way they did casting on the Alien article? Do you like it? It's very similar to the work you did on the Prometheus (2012 film) FA... Huggums537 (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

My reverting to Erik's version was done because I see here a clear consensus for having a cast section. Normally the consensus should have been expressed on the talk page of the article, but it started here, and it also happens to connect with the big disussion we had on cast section options a little earlier, and since all concerned editors were aware of the discussion here, I considered it as valid consensus. I do appreciate GA work greatly and would not have touched the article did I believe that this would have put in question its status. Also my revert does not mean I am not open to other options than the list Erik placed there folded in 2 columns. There is the Alien-type list/prose Cast section and there is the right-aligned box with the cast information that can fit in the casting section. What I object to, and I consider it an absolute minus for a film GA, is the absence of any form of listing in the main article (not in the infobox or lead) where the actor/role can be easily seen. Hoverfish Talk 11:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

BTW, the cast in Prometheus (2012 film) is excellent. My compliments to the editors who did it. Hoverfish Talk 14:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree about the consensus being established and the great job that was done on the Prometheus article. It's one of my favorite films. Darkwarriorblake was a primary contributor in bringing it to FA status. Doing the Scream cast in the Prometheus style would likely help elevate the Scream status to FA... Huggums537 (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Even if he has contributed to half of the FA's in Misplaced Pages, he still has to respect consensus and civility. Hoverfish Talk 23:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

It's true that good contributions don't excuse those remarks toward you. They were not appropriate by any means. I think he probably just (wrongly) got a little over-protective of the investment he made into the article. However, that doesn't justify the behaviour in any way. I'm sure it's nothing personal though. That's why I suggested a different approach of maybe working together to build the casting section into something that could be worthy of FA status. I think that's something everyone could agree on, and it would be a positive move forward for the article. Huggums537 (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I checked the Article milestones. In the absence of proper reliable sources some articles better stay GAs than go for FA. My guess is that trying to go FA might jeopardize the GA, unless there's plenty of usefull citable information the article has missed, which I doubt though I haven't checked. Hoverfish Talk 11:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I didn't know about any of that stuff since I really don't know much about GA's/FA's, except to say that FA's have a "star" and "GA's" have a "plus". Haha. I support the cast list being in the article even though it's been rated as a GA for a long time without a cast list because it makes the information easier to find and I don't think it will hurt the GA status having it there. But, I do wonder if certain types of cast lists are usually associated with GA's, and whether they are the typically the same, or different for FA's. Huggums537 (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

In this case it might be a good idea to go the film's talk page, and go through the Peer Review, the Good article nominee and the Featured article candidate, to get a general idea of the process. Hoverfish Talk 22:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions... Huggums537 (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

What does "ensemble cast" mean?

Misplaced Pages uses it in a lot of film articles (I came here from Murder on the Orient Express (2017 film), FWIW), but its use in sources is ambiguous as a lot of sources use it somewhat sloppily to mean "a cast that includes a lot of famous people", but seldom specifies that they don't mean to use it in the more traditional/meaningful/relevant sense. This means that if we want to use it in one sense or the other we essentially have to interpret our sources' intentions and not follow them if it seems likely that they are using it in the sense that we don't want to. (With the Orient Express article, we can probably assume that the source means "cast that includes a lot of famous people" since the author obviously couldn't have seen the film.)

But are we being deliberately ambiguous when we use it? Has this been discussed before? (Post-draft addendum: I did a brief check, and it seems like the last time this was brought up it was by me, in a duo of edits of which I have no memory.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• By the way I'm pretty sure that when I last brought this up I was referring to a problem with lead sections like that of Avengers: Age of Ultron and Captain America: Civil War. The former makes an accurate claim to having an ensemble cast, but then lists said ensemble and includes at least two actors (Hayley Atwell and Idris Elba) who are on screen for less than a minute each and whose characters are literally fever-dream apparitions of more central characters; apparently these actors are listed as part of the "ensemble cast" because of poster-billing, but there is nothing in MOS:FILM to support this -- essentially they are listed because they are in a film whose cast features a lot of famous people, even though the cast also happens to have a lot of players with roughly equal roles. The latter film does not really have an ensemble cast, as it has one clear protagonist (the title character) and maybe one or two other characters (Tony Stark and maybe Bucky Barnes) who have a similar amount of screen-time and a similar degree of importance to the plot, and a large number of secondary characters, many of them played by famous actors. Essentially, one of them is clearly using "ensemble cast" to mean "a lot of famous people", and the other is sloppily combining the two definitions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Ensemble cast. Lugnuts 13:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Umm... yeah? I read an old version of it. I know what the phrase actually means -- did you read my comment and post the above as a joke, or only read the title and assume that that was all I was asking? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I mean read the article as the lead defines it. Lugnuts 13:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I think they are asking how we accurately determine if a specific film has an ensemble cast because sources can sometimes use the term sloppily. That kind of thing happens with discussing reboots, remakes, etc. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Erik: I know my user page is kind of messy, but I identify as male, so you don't need to sweat over pronouns. :P "they" kinda weirds me out, partly because I have PTSD from people claiming I was presenting my opinion as widely accepted consensus. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't have an answer to your question, but I wanted to state that "all-star cast" is a similar term also seen. Oftentimes that overlaps with "ensemble cast". Looks like that is the case with Murder on the Orient Express. Maybe pick whichever one pops up more often in secondary sources? Erik (talk | contrib) 13:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Huh. That thought hadn't occurred to me. It seems to me like "all-star cast" should be the preferred term when we have a cast that includes a lot of famous people, while "ensemble cast" should be reserved for casts that include a large number of players of roughly equal importance. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Probably need to treat it on a case-by-case basis. Do you want to compare results for Murder on the Orient Express in particular? Erik (talk | contrib) 13:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather wait to see the film. I've never read the story, but our description of it seems to imply it has a single clear protagonist, and the (Japanese?) trailer for the film does as well. It's pretty clear that the journalists discussing it have not seen the film (how could they have?), and I'd bet a bunch of them haven't read the story either, so they are either working with press releases or going by the sloppy "the film features X number of famous actors in this or that role, so it has an ensemble cast". I know our uses of it in the two Marvel Cinematic Universe articles I have now linked above probably need to be amended. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – I haven't participated in other discussions about this, but I would support the removal of this term when it is being loosely applied to mean "a lot of famous people". The characters portrayed by so-called famous people should have roughly equal importance within the plot and receive nearly equal screen time (usually) as the other main characters. Otherwise, the term should get yanked. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• "All-star cast" sounds like something from a press release. As far as the main topic, I'm reminded of a quotation from Through the Looking-Glass: "When I use a word, it means what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: You are right about what "all-star cast" sounds like, but is it really worse than using a technical term to mean what it traditionally means in one part of a sentence, then in the following clause using it in a colloquial sense to mean a lot of famous actors? Essentially, "ensemble cast" when used to mean "a lot of famous actors" is no different than "all-star cast", except that the former term also having a different meaning means it "feels" more formal.

As for the Through the Looking-Glass quote: Yeah, but who is "I"? Misplaced Pages? It seems like it's doing the opposite of helping our readers when we jump between two separate meanings of a word mid-sentence (as in the lead of Avengers: Age of Ultron).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

"All-star cast" strikes me as one of those labels that's either 1) so obvious that it's redundant, or 2) a peacock term used to decorate one's favorite film. I can't think of any time I would use it. "Ensemble cast", when it's used in its traditional meaning, doesn't seem to have either of those problems. I don't think it should be redefined as a synonym for "all-star cast", though. Then it just turns into a euphemism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I also think that if Ensemble Cast applies as the article defines the term, it is much preferable than the glam term. If the cast is indeed all famous stars, just say so in prose. It sounds much more encyclopedic and less press release. Hoverfish Talk 02:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I also agree that Ensemble cast is the preferable term since it can be used with other words within the context to effectively project the intended meaning. Also, I see nothing wrong with the lead of Age of Ultron since, by definition, "...the principal actors and performers are assigned roughly equal amounts of importance and screen time...". I think the misunderstanding that has occurred here is the mistaken belief that "ensemble cast" means all the cast members have equal screen time. More specifically, "ensemble cast" means that an entire cast is made up of members whose principal performers share screen time. That is exactly the case in Age of Ultron, so the term is used appropriately. Huggums537 (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

No, if you say "The ensemble cast includes ... Idris Elba and Hayley Atwell" you are using "ensemble cast" as a euphemism for the inappropriate term "all-star cast" -- those two actors have negligible screen time, and are essentially only included in the list because they are famous. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

An ensemble cast includes all of the cast members. Only the principal actors share equal screen time. Huggums537 (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Huggums537: Well, my main problem with inclusion of those two in the lead is that that sentence is an unreadable cloud of links at present. Don't sit here and preted you read all the names in that list to yourself. Cutting any of the title characters would be messy, but (depending on whether one considers War Machine and/or Falcon to be Avengers) that's 10-12 names, but we have 17! And what's the minimum number of "principal actors"? One? Your comment below implies you believe CA3 to have an ensemble cast, and in that movie the actor playing the title character has easily the most screen time, and said character is the clear protagonist within the plot of the film. Even if we pretended Downey Jr. was equally "principal" with Evans (I admit it's been about three months since I watched the film through, so for all I can remember we might not even need to pretend), then would it be an ensemble cast because it has two principal cast members with roughly equal screen time? Regardless, The Empire Strikes Back fits the bill a lot better than CA3, and that article's lead doesn't use the phrase "ensemble cast" because the film is older and the Misplaced Pages article wasn't drafted based on press releases (and "secondary sources" that are working exclusively off press releases) by people who hadn't seen the film. And whatever one thinks about this or that particular film, it is indisputable that a lot of sources use the phrase as a euphemism for "all-star cast", and that sources written before the film has even begun principal photography are not really reliable for the claim that a film has an ensemble cast, as they clearly had not seen the film and didn't have the foggiest idea of relative amounts of screen time and importance. We need to be really careful when mirroring their use of the phrase, since they often don't have rules against peacock words, NPOV and encyclopedic tone. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I can agree with you on two points. One, we should be careful to use the term in the correct way and two, it's not that easy to assume that the principal actors will share roughly equal amounts of screen time in a film that hasn't come out yet, even if that film has already been done before and it was based on a novel. However, I feel that maybe your passion for the issue may have made you overly eager to criticize the Age of Ultron unduly. You have brought some good issues to our attention which need to be given some thought, but I also believe we need to be careful about getting too carried away so we don't detract from good articles. All I can say about the issue you have with the minor roles is to suggest that they be removed if you feel they are not relevant enough to be listed, as opposed to petitioning for the removal of the usage of an industry standard term. Also, it's a desperate attempt to suggest that Empire Strikes Back doesn't use the term, therefore it shouldn't be used. Lastly, you claim that it is indisputable about sources using the term as a euphemism for "all-star cast", but you still have yet to provide us with any examples of this "terrible misuse" involving sources. What you did provide was articles, and I produced satisfactory evidence that the Age of Ultron article did not engage in any alleged misuse of the term. No offense, but all I have is your word that it's "indisputable". Huggums537 (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I want to add that if you look in the "Accolades" subsection of the Age of Ultron article, you will also see that the MTV awards nominated Age of Ultron for an "Ensemble Cast" award. This strongly suggests that "Ensemble cast" is an industry standard term which is correctly applied to this specific movie, as well as others. In fact, according to the source, the term correctly applies to at least five other films since they were also nominated for the same award. Huggums537 (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize you had made three consecutive comments when I responded below. I saw the above after having drafted a response to the comment in which you pinged me, and then incorporated a response to the "And your comment above..." sentence below. I didn't notice your top comment until just now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, I think you made premature edits to Captain America: Civil War since the discussion was not completed here yet. Also, NinjaRobotPirate never said "ensemble cast"=euphemism. So, your only justifications for removing the term (and it's sources) are based on something that was never said and your opinion alone...Huggums537 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is about the general usability of "ensemble cast" to mean "cast that includes a lot of famois people" in combination with its traditional sense. I did not come here specifically to discuss the CACW article (that is what the article talk page is for). And when I asked the question well over a year ago, my interpretation of the problem had essentially received unanimous agreement from between two and five editors above, and BOLD being a thing, it hardly seems appropriate to call my edit "premature". If you think my rationale was based "only" on the term being euphemistic "alone", you misunderstood my rationale. And your above comment about AOU clearly indicates that you have misunderstood the problem: AOU DOES have an ensemble cast in the traditional sense, but the lead of the article says that the ensemble cast includes two very minor cameos whose names appeared on the poster because they are famous people. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

You did the right thing by bringing it up for discussion again. Because, perhaps when you brought it up a year ago, nobody realized that there is actually an award being given in the category of "Ensemble cast", making it an industry standard. Also, you were really the first one to bring up the CACW article for discussion. I only went looking there because you brought it up. I apologize if I misunderstood your rationale according to your edit summaries, which included the term "euphemism" in two separate edits. You can understand how I might come to that conclusion. If the real problem is with the minor cameo roles being listed, then the discussion should be about removing those two roles from the casting list. In my opinion, they should stay because they are still part of the whole ensemble cast even if they are secondary members. Remember, only the primary members are required to share equal space in order for the entire cast to be considered part of an ensemble cast. Huggums537 (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, now that I think about it, I don't really buy into this idea that nobody could know if Murder on the Orient Express has an ensemble cast since it isn't out yet. So, the creators of the film doing interviews with people don't know if it is, and couldn't possibly tell them? The actors don't know, and couldn't tell interviewers? The people who are peddling this film could never have billed it as an ensemble cast to the press? So, there's no possible way anyone could know if the film has an ensemble cast just because the general public hasn't seen it yet? Huggums537 (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

"the creators of the film doing interviews with people" are a biased primary source (what User:NinjaRobotPirate referred to as a press release). No one without a financial interest in selling the film knows whether the biased primary sources mean "cast that includes a lot of famous people" (a sloppy description that doesn't help our readers understand the film but is used for advertising) or the traditional definition of "ensemble cast". This has all already been covered above -- could you read through the discussion that happened before you got here and tell us exactly which parts you don't understand? Because I feel like I'm wasting my time writing the same thing over and over again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, explaining it once is usually good enough to make your point. I haven't followed any of the content disputes, and I don't really know what's going on at specific articles. I usually prefer independent secondary sources (or tertiary sources if the secondary sources disagree), but consensus might be that an interview is good enough in this circumstance. If you guys can't arrive at any consensus for this stuff, it might be time for dispute resolution, such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or an RFC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

DRN doesn't work when there are three or four editors recalcitrantly insisting on the status quo of a particular article regardless of policy and sources, and at any given time only one editor disagreeing. Heck, it usually doesn't work even when there are only two users disagreeing. I usually get tired and give up after a few dozen talk page backs-and-forths, and give up without bringing it to DRN. I don't necessarily think the problem is endemic, and probably doesn't apply to Orient Express (which I would rather wait to deal with), but articles on films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe are a mess. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

To all interested parties: Hijiri 88 has offered a compromise on the article talk page to just unlink the phrase and I have accepted the compromise in order to be done with this dispute. Huggums537 (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Huggums537: You see, this is what I meant: You say "the article talk page" as though other editors are likely to know what you are talking about, but apart from you and (subsequently) me and NinjaRobotPirate, no one was talking about the Civil War article. Until you joined in, this conversation was about the general usability of the phrase in film articles when a lot of sources use it in a different sense than we do. I had made one late addendum to my OP comment that I don't get the impression anyone read that was as much about Age of Ultron and the rest was much more about Murder on the Orient Express. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Nobody cares. Everyone seems to be done. I just want to be done and offered to accept your compromise right here, but you don't seem to want to let it go at that. Huggums537 (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

No, you don't care. You think this is done because for some unexplained reason you think this was about that one article and you think your compromising with me (but not GoneIn60) to get me to shut up means that the general issue of film articles using the term "ensemble cast" as a euphemism for "all-star cast" is gone for good. That said, since you don't seem to be interested in discussing the general problem, and everyone who was was in essential agreement, then I guess we probably are done. You can go off and do whatever it is you want, and once Orient Express comes out those of us who do care can figure out whether the pre-release sources were accurate to the content of the film when compared with those written by people who had actually seen it, and perhaps forge an MOS clarification about how marketing terms (such as "all-star cast") and euphemisms therefor (such as "ensemble cast" as it is used when discussing Civil War and others) should be avoided. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Film categories by country and year

J 1982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has started to create sub-categories for country and year - take a look at Category:Swedish films by year, for example. I think this needs a wider discussion before it goes any further. Note that a similar consensus was recently reached not to make categories for year/genre, and I think this is along the same lines. Thanks. Lugnuts 16:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Those were about genres-year. The articles year-country are based on that we now have similair for topics like novels. Without "2015 American films", those articles might instead just end up in "2015 in American cinema" or even "2015 in the United States". These categories give a good oversight over which films were released in a specific country during a specific year. J 1982 (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

That's why I said similar consensus, as this is along the same lines. Also, please do not remove the main year category, per WP:FILMCAT. Thanks. Lugnuts 16:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The main year category should be there regardless of any year subcategories. We had decided this when we first organized film categorization and it remains one of the basic categorizing rules for films. Main categories for Year, Country, Language and Studio should be present in all film articles, per WP:FILMCAT. I remember two tech oriented persons who had said lots about a system of getting results for a combination of main categories, but I do not think this went anywhere. In any case, it is good to bring this in discussion, preferably in Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film/Categorization, ping some of the main contributors and include the result in the Project page. Note that till I hear some sound arguments, I am neutral, though I suspect that if permitted, such a scheme should be restricted to specific cases or we will get into a chaotic situation. Hoverfish Talk 22:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

You can combine categories using an "incategory" search. Apparently there are nine films that are both in Category:2016 films and Category:Swedish films. Since the year and country categories are not diffused then Category:2016 Swedish films is redundant. The problem is caused by the Category:YYYY in XXXX cinema categories, such as Category:2016 in American cinema. If you are going to have these categories then it makes sense to have Category:2016 American films otherwise all the film articles will end up in Category:2016 in American cinema. Therefore the real question is do we really need Category:2016 in American cinema or will Category:2016 in film suffice? Personally I don't think we need to break down each year by country. The whole category structure is becoming ridiculously convoluted and impossible to search. Betty Logan (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. We have way too many overly specific categories. Part of the problem is that we have several wikignomes who have taken it upon themselves to restructure film categories without getting consensus. @J 1982: you need to get consensus first. Please go back and revert your changes until you have consensus to change the category structure. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@J 1982: "We now have similair for topics like novels" - Was there consensus in novel categorization to create them or did they get created in the same manner as the country-year film categories? In Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Novels#Category hierarchy I read that "main categories" 1.Novels by year, 2. Novels by genre, and 3. Novels by country should be assigned to all novel articles, and in the applicable categories that are mentioned below I see no country-year intersection. Is the project even aware that such a scheme is being created? Hoverfish Talk 04:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: I agree that the problem is caused by the Category:YYYY in XXXX cinema. I see one more problem, beyond editors restructuring big branches without discussing with the relevant project. WP:CAT (including its FAQ subpage) does not state any guidelines to establish that such main project-specific categories should not be diffused. The lead says that "before undertaking any complicated re-categorization of existing categories or mass creation of new categories", one should bring it up with "Categories for discussion" (yet it doesn't suggest bringing it up with the relevant WikiProject), but is there any coordination between "Categories for discussion" and the relevant WikiProjects? Also the rest of the article seems to give a certain laisez-faire with subcategorization. To resolve the problem we should first make sure that the general categorization article and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Categories reflect/include, the line of categorization we use at Films and Novels. Hoverfish Talk 14:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

We do have some basic guidelines at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Film/Categorization#General_categorization but maybe we could expand the instructions so that the four main categories are not diffused. I have become completely disillusioned with the Film project's categorization; over the last couple of years a group of editors without any consensus whatsover have established deep category trees which have rendered them unfit for purpose. It is now impossible to search the categories in any meaningful capacity. Something like Category:2016 American animated films is completely unnecessary IMO; if a 2016 animated American film is in each of the three categories (2016 films, animated films, American films) then editors can do an intersection search for whichever combination they want i.e. 2016 American films, 2016 animated films, animated American films, or even 2016 animated American films. That is simple to do with "flat" categorization, but as it stands now if I want to search through animated American films I have to search through each category at Category:American animated films by decade which in turn has sub-categories. So instead of taking 30 seconds to type in a couple of search terms into a search box I have to plough through dozens if not hundreds of categories. Betty Logan (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: See below, all YYYY American animated films are now Decade American animated films. I hadn't even read your comment, but I found them on my way and applied the same scheme as we have discussed here. Next I will do all other countries of the Country Year films and I will also move deeper in year-country-animation where present. If the tree has been damaged, we can fix it. What we need is a clear consensus. This is why I listed all my findings below. Hoverfish Talk 05:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your comments. Thankfully, there's only a handful of these categories (scroll to the bottom of Category:Films by year). I think it's easier to place the articles back in their parent year categories, leaving these empty, rather than spending time taking the whole lot to CfD. Lugnuts 16:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

To me it seems that if we don't take some deeper action to resolve the year in country cinema (at least), this problem will return soon, possibly accompanied by more problems. Hoverfish Talk 17:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: By "leave them empty" do you also mean strip them from categories and templates? If so can;t they be speedied soon so no one gets the idea they should be populated? Hoverfish Talk 17:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

From the films I have checked that have been switched to the year-country category, I observe that they maintain the year film cat, possibly by means of Template:Film date/doc in the infobox. Hoverfish Talk 17:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, basically return the articles back to the categories they had before this new structure was created. Then those categories will be automatically deleted after five days for being empty. Lugnuts 18:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Here are the novel categories mentioned earlier: 59 Canadian novels by year categories with 488 article up to now , and 36 Swedish novels by year categories with 48 article up to now Hoverfish Talk 18:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Until now I have emptied all subcategories of Category:American films by year. It wasn't "just a handfull" as some of the later years have subcategories of "YYYY American animated films", which I turned to "Decade American animated films". I also made sure all the main categories are present. I have come upon various other questinable categories, which I didn't change because I don't know what the consensus is about them: YYYY television films, YYYY short films, YYYY 3D films, YYYY animated films, YYYY computer-animated films, YYYY direct-to-video films, YYYY horror films, and YYYY anime films. Hoverfish Talk 04:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hoverfish: could you not move the categories around in the list? Some of them were already purposefully sorted per WP:FILMCAT, which I believe makes them easier to work with. Moving categories to the top of the list at random just makes it harder for me to tell which categories are missing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The categories I moved to the top are not at all random. They are the 4 main categories that should be present in every film per WP:FILMCAT. This is even in the Practical instructions of that page. However, since I am not sure which the studio is vs. which the production co., I moved them both up. If this is a problem I can go back and find which one is the studio and let only this at the top. Also in most articles I didn't see any particular order in which the categories were placed, In some they were approximately alphabetical, but in most they were all over. Hoverfish Talk 10:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Actually I see now that studio is not even required to go to the top, This must have changed sometime. My bad, I moved them there thinking I was doing it per WP:FILMCAT but I didn't have to. The page however does say Year, Country, Language at the top and the reason we wrote this was to be able to check if they are there in every article, since there are always so many others. I will not move any more anything if it's a problem. Hoverfish Talk 10:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The way I read it, WP:FILMCAT recommends that categories be grouped together and placed in a certain order. For example, production companies go after the genres, not at the top of the list. So, it would go something like this:

• Category:1990 films
• Category:1990s action films
• Category:American films
• Category:American action films
• Category:French films
• Category:French action films
• Category:English-language films
• Category:Films about death
• Category:20th Century Fox films
• Category:Films directed by David Lynch

This is how it's done on many articles, and one can tell at a glance what's missing. Of course, it becomes a lot more difficult when there are 50 different categories, which is another problem I think we're going to have to solve eventually. Animated films are really bad about this. There are categories for every type of animated film: Category:Animated films about birds, Category:American animated fantasy films, Category:American children's animated films, etc. Pretty much any trivial intersection or trivial aspect has been turned into a category. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've always done this style of category inclusion (years, countries, languages, everything else A-Z) on articles I create and not had an issue with that. I think somewhere on the general article category guideline page there's a note to list them A to Z across all categories, but I don't think it's a rule that must be obeyed. Lugnuts 13:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, even if it's not a rule that must be obeyed, it saves plenty of time and frustration if things are in a convenient order. Right now I am cleaning up my pervious edits and putting back in the suggested order the Studio and Production cats, but I am also keeping the order suggested in WP:FILMCAT#Practical instructions) for the 3 top categories, i.e. Year film, Country film, Language film, and the rest as suggested here above. My reason, apart from the practical instructions, is than in more than half of articles I checked, Language film was missing, possibly because it gets assigned from the language template in the infobox, Country films was missing from many, possibly because of all the country subcats, and in some there was Year films and in others it had been removed. It took me several hours trying to sort it out and this was a very helpful way of making sure everything was there. Hoverfish Talk 14:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I think I picked this up from Lugnuts. I remember when I first ran into him something like five years ago, I thought, "Who is this Lugnuts guy, and why is he always wrong about everything?" Then, I started to grudgingly admit that maybe he was right about a few things. Now I think maybe I was the one who was wrong, and he was right most of the time. It's weird how things like that happen. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hehe. I can be quite stubborn (no, really!), and I've had the same experience of other editors (why are they wrong all the time?!), but over time it all balances out. Lugnuts 07:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, what do you know... I had always looked in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Films/Categorization for ordering categories, but now I see that in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Film#Categories the instructions have been modified by a very minor edit in 2008 and since no one reverted it then, the way indicated by both Lugnuts and NinjaRobotPirate is indeed how it reads. For the sake of consistency, both the MOS and the Films page have to give the same clear pattern. Hoverfish Talk 15:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. I copied the MOS version in the Films categoprization, but removed from both the suggestion of all being in alphabetical order, because the way it was written, multiple countries or languages may all get mixed up with various genres too. Hoverfish Talk 01:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

"Created by" is a writing credit

We have an editor who reverted my removal of a made-up credit claiming WP:STATUSQUO. It looks to me like WP:OR is what should apply here. Other editors may comment at Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Slingshot#"Created by" is a writing credit, not used for this series. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect italics in the title to "List of songs featured in the Pirates of the Caribbean film series"

I have recently been moving certain film series and franchise articles and I noticed when i decided to move this one that it's entire title is in italics, despite the fact that it should really only be the film series name should be. I have no idea how to fix this problem. I tried to add a disply header but it doesn't seem to be working.★Trekker (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Usually when this happens, it's because an infobox is overriding your displaytitle. Most infoboxes have a way to disable this functionality, though you may need to check their documentation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Film categories by genre and year

The following categories have been created although there was a consensus not to do so:

• Category:2010 comedy films (8P) IMO the 8 articles should be moved to Category:2010s comedy films
• Category:1993 crime films‎ (2P) IMO the 2 articles should be moved to Category:1990s crime films

Also, Category:Horror films by year has 58 subcats from 1960 on and they are very populated. Hoverfish Talk 15:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

There was a CFD about this last year: link. Horror films by year had no consensus, but the others were merged. 2010 comedy films is a recreation, and 1993 crime films accidentally wasn't deleted. I tagged them both for speedy deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I see, thank you very much for the CFD link, very useful to know, and thank you for for the tagging of the two categories. Hoverfish Talk 01:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Ivan Reitman's film production companies

It is known that Ivan Reitman is a co-founder of The Montecito Picture Company. Prior to that, Reitman previously owned a now-defunct film production company by the name of Northern Lights Entertainment. Would it be appropriate to add the Northern Lights library in the Montecito article? (please note that I've also addressed this message at the Montecito talk page.) Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Request

Someone please archive this website using Wayback Machine and then place it in the 13 Assassins (2010 film) article; this is ref #11 there. Thanks. Bluesphere 02:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Done, though it was already archived. Sometimes the Wayback Machine doesn't work exactly the way you might expect, especially if it's expecting a different protocol. So, try using "http://www.example.com" instead of "https://www.example.com" if you get an error. If that doesn't make sense, don't worry about it. It's just some quirk I noticed, and it may explain why pages sometimes don't appear to be indexed when they are. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?

Hi, just wonder if there is any template or program in the project to recruit newcomers or new editors to join the project? Bobo.03 (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bobo.03. I'm not aware of a template, as such, but when I see a new(ish) editor starting to work on film articles, I just drop a note on their talkpage linking to this talkpage. Something like "Please check out the Film Project..." etc, etc. Lugnuts 07:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

We have a template here: {{WPFILM Invite}}, though I am not sure if anyone has used it in a long time. WikiProject Film used to be more structured, such as having a routine newsletter. Nowadays, the focus is more on having good guidelines and having an active forum with this talk page. Erik (talk | contrib) 10:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Times keep changing, so one never knows. Obviously the template is for editors that have already shown some interest in film articles. We shouldn't stand at the newcomers' door passing leaflets though. I mean, who can resist joining WPFilm anyways? Hoverfish Talk 14:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

That's really good to know! I feel WPFilm really have a good environment of welcome new editors! I am a PhD student from the University of Minnesota. We are working on a study to help projects identify and recruit new editors. I am not sure if this is something WPFilm would be interested. Here is the meta-page. Bobo.03 (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Clarification in Film categorization

I have done this edit in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Film/Categorization. Please feel free to correct my near native English or non-expert use of terms. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 16:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone aware of any essential diffeence between the use of Template:Non-diffusing parent category and that of Template:All included, apart from the request of the first to place Template:Non-diffusing subcategory in all its subcategories? To my understanding they serve exactly the same purpose. Hoverfish Talk 17:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

List of films considered the best

Just to let project members know, List of films considered the best is up for its annual AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of films considered the best (3rd nomination) (6th nomination technically, just the third under the current name). Betty Logan (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

And the related articles of Films considered the worst (9th nom!) and Televison shows considered the worst are also at AfD too. Lugnuts 07:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Are the Naming Conventions in need of update?

There is currently a discussion to potentially update the Naming Conventions at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (films)#Franchise vs. Film series. DarkKnight2149 01:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The Blair Witch Project

Urgently needing someone who would put this article onto their watchlist and review revisions made in it; sometimes I'm pretty busy and I won't be able to do so. Bluesphere 06:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out for any obvious vandalism. Scribolt (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

That means a lot, Scribolt. I also thank you for streamlining the plot on its 700-word limit. It was me who brought it to Good Article status, but feel free to give it a copy edit in case the prose does not meet its standards. :) Bluesphere 14:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Help establishing notability of film

I came across the article for Butch Mystique in PROD, listed as such because of failing WP:NFILM. I just wondered if anyone here might test whether that's the case or not, as my very preliminary search turned up a few references such as this, which hint that the necessary sources for this do exist.Landscape repton (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Landscape repton, it looks notable. Google Books is a good way to look for sources about a film that is likely to have been studied, as your JSTOR link hinted. See multiple results here. Erik (talk | contrib) 11:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Google Scholar also shows results here. Erik (talk | contrib) 11:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Erik: Thank you for your help!Landscape repton (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about infobox at A Young Man's World

I started the discussion about the infobox used at A Young Man's World. Join in discussion. --George Ho (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Film banner templates with categories disabled has been nominated for discussion

Category:WikiProject Film banner templates with categories disabled, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thief (film)

Can someone reduce this article's plot to its 700-word limit? Bluesphere 14:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I've had a go, further improvements are welcome. Scribolt (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of Star Wars split

There has a discussion about splitting the Star Wars article. The discussion is... a bit all over, but it seems to be meant to be at Talk:Star Wars#Way too big. There has been very few comments regarding the proposal to split, and additional comments would be appreciated. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Depopulated categories still there

I keep patroling the YYYY-Country-films categories (under Category:Films by year) that we depopulated seven days ago. Will they be deleted automatically at some point or do we need to speedy them? Hoverfish Talk 10:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

They should be picked up automatically by a bot that does that sort of thing, but they can always be tagged with {{db-catempty}} to speed it up. Lugnuts 10:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Done (all tagged). Hoverfish Talk 13:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

For the record: All the above mentioned "Year Country film" categories have been assigned the yet-uncreated corresponding category "20th(or)21st-century Country films" and have a {{portal|decade|film|Country cinema}} present. Hoverfish Talk 15:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Once the child categories are deleted, then the parent ones can be tagged too. Lugnuts 18:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Elijah Daniel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elijah Daniel is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Elijah Daniel (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 04:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Film genre in need of improvement

The article has been tagged for refs and OR. I checked, I agree and I have good reasons to believe this article plays a key role in our project. I will try to find some general notable sources. If anyone feels up to it, please give it a shot. Hoverfish Talk 15:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Can we stop mentioning that post-credits scenes are post-credits scenes?

I think, judging on past experience, this'll get shot down, but I'm going to throw it out there just in case.

I'm strict when it comes to plot summaries. I think they should summarise the plot of a work of fiction and no more. That means nothing that describes the film's editing or structure, like "In the film's opening scene...", or "The film cuts to..." etc - these are irrelevant to summarising plot.

On this basis, I think we should avoid mentioning whether scene take place after credits ("In a post-credits scene, Batman wakes up and punches a camel."). If a scene is important enough to be included in the summary, then there's no need to mention whether it occurs before or after the credits. If the scene isn't important - post-credits scenes are often just throwaway gags - then it doesn't need to be mentioned at all. I know there's a lot of nerd interest in knowing what's in post-credits scenes, or if a film has a post-credits scene at all, but satisfying nerd curiosity isn't the purpose of Misplaced Pages plot summaries. Popcornduff (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

They are plot summaries, so we shouldn't be describing specific scenes unless it furthers the understanding of the plot. I think in one of the Final Destination films I vaguely recall the film's survivor getting killed off after the end credits, so obviously something like that is worthy of a mention, but I agree that post-credit scenes generally contribute nothing to the main story so it is not necessary to mention them in such cases. Betty Logan (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

In that case it would be totally appropriate to say "Peter is eaten by the monster", because it's plot-relevant, but IMO unnecessary to say "In a post-credits scene, Peter is eaten by the monster." Popcornduff (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

For my own curiosity, do you have a couple of examples of where this has happened? Thanks. Lugnuts 11:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Superhero movies are great offenders for this; see the Spider-Man: Homecoming, Captain America: Civil War, Guardians of the Galaxy (film) , or Avengers: Age of Ultron pages, for example. Popcornduff (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

We should not ban everything about the film's editing or structure from the plot summary. We are describing the plot from an out-of-universe perspective, so we are hardly beholden to purely the story. How should editors write summarize films that have anything other than a singular and linear narrative? It's unavoidable. I think when it comes to post-credits scenes, it is fine to include if it is part of the narrative, and with "In the post-credits scene" or whatever variation. Actually, looking into it, this is supported by MOS:PLOT's "Plot summaries of individual works" section which says, "Works that incorporate non-linear storytelling elements... may require inclusion of out-of-universe language as to describe how the work is presented to the reader or viewer." It's appropriate, just that it needs to be done in a reasonable manner. The narrative-connection criteria is good enough. For the sillier stuff, not sure... put into a note? Erik (talk | contrib) 11:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

This is where I'd canvas for a change to the MOS, because I think describing editing is never appropriate and never useful. I've been trimming plot summaries for years now and I've never found a moment where I've had to resort to it. Even in the case of a famously non-linear story like Pulp Fiction can be accommodated by just inserting time descriptions when necessary ("Some time earlier" etc), or just writing things in chronological order, or whatever. I don't believe this has ever come at the cost of readability or comprehension. Seriously. If anything, I think it makes summaries far more concise and on-point. Popcornduff (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong with inserting "editing language" when it is appropriate. Indicating that it is a post-credit scene itself I don't have a problem with. I do NOT agree with things like "the screen fades to black" or something like that where you're describing transition shots or something like that. All that said, I do think that most post-credit scenes are just quick references and not relevant to the overall plot. There are plenty of cases where it is, but I think we need to start looking more at these and saying "what does this impact"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

A few comments. In my personal opinion, the summary at Pulp Fiction would have been improved if it had clearly identified it's episodic nature, instead of trying to tell a story from the point of view of its protagonists. I agree that referring to the editing (or out of universe writing) can be jarring but in some cases it's better. Secondly, there are a lot of post credit scenes that shouldn't be mentioned (the guardians of the galaxy is a particularly pointless example) because they're really unremarkable. However, I've not got a particular issue with identifying them explicitly as post credits in general, for the simple reason that I've often come to Misplaced Pages or elsewhere to find out if I missed anything. I know that 'I like it' isn't a very strong argument, but there you go. Scribolt (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I drastically rewrote the Pulp Fiction plot summary some time ago to remove the episode subsections, for the following reasons: 1) The episode headers describe the editing, not the plot. 2) There's a separate section that describes the episodic structure, so why duplicate content? 3) Some of the episodes comprise only short scenes that aren't worthy of mentioning in a summary, so sticking to the episodic structure commits us to summarising stuff we otherwise would omit as per WP:PLOT. 4) Brings the plot length under the recommended wordcount by WP:PLOT. The plot summary doesn't "tell the story from the point of view of its protagonists", I don't know what you mean by that. Popcornduff (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The plot section should summarize the plot, therefore, to the extent that it is possible, we have to spread it out equally through the section. And since we limit the plot to a maximum word-count, mentioning any one scene, just for the sake of mentioning it, is undue weight. This is where I would center my focus. I haven't ever seen any post-credits scene that was essential to the plot, though I have seen some that were unforgettable. Also, as per Erik, I see nothing wrong with including some out-of-universe language, if it is done in a reasonable manner.Hoverfish Talk 15:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you guys provide examples of when writing using out-of-universe is actually necessary? Because I've yet to see one on Misplaced Pages - just describing the events themselves has always been the simpler option. Give me some examples and I'll see if I can't improve them by rewriting it. Popcornduff (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Erik above and would probably oppose a MOS change in that regard. First of all it is always iffy to ban a certain approach in general or completely, because there tend some cases where that approach actually works fine. Secondly I prefer giving individual freedom/leeway in writing plot summaries rather mandating too many details or a style possibly preferred by few editors only.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I think they can be removed if they aren't notable as with Sharknado 2 . But some can be notable as with Ferris Bueller's Day Off where Ferris tells everyone to go home. The Marvel superheroes ones seem to connect them to further upcoming films. And horror monster films usually resurrect the monster who was killed, implying that the franchise isn't over yet. Some films put the epilogue scenes (dramatic reunion x years later) in the post-credits. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, I'm not objecting to mentioning scenes where they're worth mentioning. I'm saying that mentioning whether or not they take place during, before or after the credits is pointless. Popcornduff (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

If a scene in the post-credits suggests that the plot could have been different in some way (worth mentioning), then it should be OK to say where it was. But this is just in theory. I have no idea where such an example might be. Hoverfish Talk 16:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

"If a scene in the post-credits suggests that the plot could have been different in some way (worth mentioning)" What does this mean? Popcornduff (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Like if a post-credit scene suggests there could have been an alternate twist somewhere in the plot or even an alternate ending. Again no examples in mind, though I'm sure I have seen some such scenes in the past. Hoverfish Talk 17:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course we need to keep this mid-credit scene or post-credit scene reference there. Nowadays, people generally leave their chairs once the movie ends. They don't respect the behind-the-scenes folks or the main theme song in the end credits. This reference could at least help them stay in their chairs a bit longer, once they refer to Misplaced Pages and know what to expect if they indeed go see the movie. This reference usually only happens to sci-fi movies, so it's not a lot. I am totally for keeping it! Supermann (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

This is not the purpose of Misplaced Pages plot summaries. Popcornduff (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Popcornduff. First of all, I want to be clear that I don't think Pulp Fiction as it is now to be badly written at all, what you've done is fine. My point was that I personally think retaining the episodic structure of the original film makes it clearer as to what actually happens, rather than the current approach which tries to describe the changing chronology with phrases such as some time earlier. If it's just prose it feels unnatural to suddenly start referring to events of the previous day for no apparent reason. I just wanted to highlight that certainly not everyone feels as though not referring to editing as you call it is beneficial. As to your points. 1. We disagree that referring to the structure of the film is automatically a bad thing, so this is basically it's bad because it's bad. 2 Wherever possible, the plot section should be standalone. I personally wouldn't have had that structural section there or presented like that, it seems more like an analysis section. 3 I can't remember or want to compare old versions with the current version. However, the consequence of your approach here in deciding that the opening section is best placed at the end (so mixing up the chronology of the story and the order in which it's told) means the plot summary doesn't start with the events that are shown first in the film. 4 I wasn't claiming the old version as written was better than the current, rather that I disagree with how you chose to present it. I apologise for the phrase "tell the story from the point of view of its protagonists" this was poorly worded I'm not surprised you didn't understand what I meant. What I was getting at, was that the prose style and the decision not to refer to the film structure at all, made the summary more about what happened to the characters, not summarising the story as it what presented in the film. Hope that clarifies things. (BTW, how would you have handled Memento? Please don't change it, it's already GA as is, but I'd be interested to hear your approach) Scribolt (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand. The perspective is that the credits and post-credits are still technically part of the movie's theatrical release, as it counts towards the runtime, and it's comparable to adding phrases like "prior to the opening credits" or "during the opening credits". But I think the out-of-universe verbiage is okay for notable scenes, and for those superhero films that still present plot, those readers would find it useful. Posting that the closing credits feature outtakes or cute animations summarizing the film is the kind of detail that would not be needed. But whether it can be worded without the actual phrase "in the post-credits scene", yes, that's worth an attempt, like "The survivors leave the town, but later the (monster) sticks its hand out of the grave." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's an example that I've always thought was irrelevant. The Shwarma scene at the end of Avengers. Doesn't lend anything, yet it was deemed that it needed to be put in the plot summary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• WikiProject Film talk pages