Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles		WikiProject Manual of Style
	v • d • e This page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.

WikiProject Films
General information ( v • d • e ) Main project page + talk  → Discussion archives Style guidelines talk  → Naming conventions talk Notability guidelines talk Announcements and open tasks talk  → Article alerts  → Cleanup listing  → New articles talk  → Nominations for deletion talk  → Requests talk Film Portal talk Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization Coordinators talk Participants talk Project banner talk Project category talk
Departments Assessment talk  → B-Class / A-Class  → Instructions Categorization talk Core talk Films based on books talk Future films talk Missing films talk Outreach talk Resources talk Review talk Spotlight talk Topic workshop talk
Task forces General topics Film awards talk Film festivals talk Filmmaking talk Genre Christian films talk War films talk National and regional American cinema talk Argentine cinema talk Australian cinema talk Baltic cinema talk British cinema talk Canadian cinema talk Chinese cinema talk French cinema talk German cinema talk Indian cinema talk Italian cinema talk Japanese cinema talk Korean cinema talk New Zealand cinema talk Nordic cinema talk Persian cinema talk Southeast Asian cinema talk Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk Spanish cinema talk
Templates banner DVD citation infobox plot cleanup stub userbox

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 20 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.

Archives (Index)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Contents 1 Reception section change 2 New layout 3 Nehrams2020's Revert 4 Listing genre's in the lead sentence 5 Uncredited writers 6 Preferred poster image 7 Succession boxes 8 Box office reporting 9 Proposed rewrite of "Plot" 10 Expansion of Infobox

[edit] Reception section change

When did the wording in the critical reception section get changed to "review aggregate websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic should be cited for statistics pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews" - from my understanding, those aggregate numbers are neither mandatory nor particularly useful unless there is little other content for a reception section? At best, this should say "might be useful"-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That's probably my fault. I drafted it after a reasonably inclusive discussion on the section's revamp, but the wording may be unintentionally stronger here than we originally intended. I'd certainly prefer a scholarly article that said "Film X was received well/poorly" over those sites statistics. That said, the critical consensus is important, more so than selective opinions of individual critics, and Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are often very useful (for more recent films); I'd definitely include them even in a critical reception section that already had plenty of content. Would changing the wording to "can be cited" resolve your concern? Steve ^{T • C} 22:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as right now it seems to imply it is required. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I find the edit here and the reference here, with opposition to the Rotten Tomatoes change beginning on the second-to-last vote of the section (vote is "Opposition"). (Note: Specified discussion started after the "consensus" add to the main page). In fact, you were the vote right underneath it... --Raijinili (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I opposed the sentence at all, and didn't realize it was implemented as "should be", making it seem required rather than something that "might" be good to add. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict). I see that there's been some discussion over the sites' usefulness over at Talk:Dragonball Evolution#Reception, and I agree that when used badly ("fresh"/"rotten") they can be next to useless. When used, there should always be an adequate sample size, and the article should always make clear how they calculate their statistics. Ideally, they should only complement a reception section that cites the consensus to several other reliable sources. Two examples of this kind of presentation can be found at Changeling (film)#Reception, or perhaps Hancock (film)#Reception. Steve ^{T • C} 22:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I just don't see how it complements the reception section at all. Saying it has a "freshness" rating of anything requires one to either spend a sentence or two explaining it (which seems to be overly promoting RottenTomatoes above other similar sites), or having it be meaningless to anyone who isn't very familiar with RT's site. Also, how does one explain how they calculate the number, as I still can't understand it myself. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The idea of "fresh" and "rotten" is completely irrelevant. Numbers speak for themselves, we don't need to hold a reader's hand. If a film has a 90% approval rating, then that is what should be said. We don't need to say "that's certified 'fresh'". The same with an approval rating of 20%, or even 55%.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Which brings up the secondary issue of possible undue weight. What makes RottenTomatoes approval rating the "official" one, or the best one. While IMDB is rejected as a reliable source, a repeated question of new users is why is RT's percentage okay but IMDB's is not. At first, I just repeated IMDB is not RS, RT is, but the more I think on it, the more I wonder, what makes RT's "statistic" anymore valid? Now, I know we are supposed to only use the number from the critics, not the users, of RT, but still, I continue scratching my head over what rationale there was behind its originally being declared "good" and how it conforms to guidelines? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your question in comparison to IMDb. IMDb's "ratings" are user ratings (i.e. the rating you or I would give a film). RT's ratings are determined by their employees. It's all on their FAQ page. They explain how they determine if a review is positive or negative, and how they calculate the tomatometer and the average rating. Why is RT's number used? Well, that's because it's the largest aggregate website that we have. It collects more reviews from more critics than just about any other place. It provides us with the best possible look at what the general perception of a film was by critics. If there were other aggregate sites, we'd use them. But RT has been around for over a decade.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

To follow up, online user ratings are flawed from the get-go, since they can be vote stacked (The Dark Knight at #1 of Top 250, really) and experience demographic skew (mostly male in the age range of 18-24). Bona fide polls are better for gauging audience response, and CinemaScore can do this. When it comes to Rotten Tomatoes, there's no collusion because the website doesn't just let anybody in, nor easily. There is not a demographic skew, either. Rotten Tomatoes has been cited in the news a few times... I remember a mid-year article from CNN in 2008 about Ratatouille getting the highest score. Rotten Tomatoes is a good gauge for recent films because there are enough reviews (blockbusters get 200+ reviews easily) and this statistically normalizes the RT score, meaning that if it's at 250 reviews with 45%, getting five more reviews won't budge the percentage much. However, one issue with the website is that its judgment of a review is either/or, which is why we pair RT with Metacritic, which gives a more specific score to each review in a more limited set. Metacritic has gotten recognition, too. There are a few other aggregate websites, but from my brief Googling around, they have not received similar press. Of course, I would discourage use of RT and MC for older films... I had the scores at Fight Club (film) some time ago, but I removed them. This is because the scores cannot be as well-compiled in retrospect. Fight Club has 81% on RT now, but it didn't become a cult film until after the DVD release. During its theatrical release, from what I can tell, critical reception was divided. Do you think any of this needs to be clarified here or on some kind of Rotten Tomatoes essay? —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

[moviereviewintelligence.com] is offering substantial movie review aggregations. It seems the site is serious about having good numbers. I propose we include them in the guides. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why editors don't like imdb. Usually the response is "imdb is made by random internet users".....isn't wikipedia the same thing? And to say that imdb demographic is skewed and rottentomatoes is not is absolutely incorrect. Who are the critics in charged of rottentomatoes? They are usually college educated males.Ricardoread (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a concern about inexperienced viewer opinion and or vote stacking? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you're referring to Ricardoread. IMDb ratings are made up of the opinions of IMDb registered users (you might as well allow Wikipedian's to give their personal opinion because that's what that amounts to). We do not allow Rotten Tomatoes' user ratings either. Their critical ratings are based off of professional critics, not run of the mill internet goers. They even explain how they calculate the percentage of positive and negative responses.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I know what rottentomatoes is (trust me it's my favorite site), but what is so professional about them? Sure they probably have some sort of english or film degree, but the vast majority of people who go to the movie theters don't go through their same education. Therefore, their rating is somewhat biased, since those critics don't represent the entire movie watching population. Don't get me wrong, I do think rottentomatoes is relevant to the reception section in the articles, but also as well as imdb, since it has sort of a different view. Ricardoread (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, why do we have to give the professional critics the right to rate a movie, and not an ordinary user form either imdb or RT?Ricardoread (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You're comparing two completely different reactions, and arguing that they aren't the same....well, they're not supposed to be. The critical reaction is completely different from the audience reaction. We are not measuring critic reaction and saying that this is equivalent to the popularity of the movie. We're talking about how the movie was perceived by the professional community, not the audience. We do not measure "audience reaction" in the sense of using IMDb ratings, because IMDb users are not representative of the audience that saw the movie. They are representative of the people who use IMDb. You can vote on an IMDb poll and never see the movie. We use two things to measure audience reaction: 1) Box office take 2) CinemaScore. The first is rather objective, because if audiences hate a movie they won't go see it. Word of mouth will keep the movie from making any real money. CinemaScore is a poll conducted at various movie theaters, primarily in larger cities, that compiles demographics and asks the moviegoers to rate the movie they just saw on a scale of A+ to F. That is done across the country to get the most accurate representative sample of what audiences think. Since it's done right when these people walk out of the theater, we know they saw the movie. IMDb users and RT users don't have to have watched a movie to cast a vote for it. You also have an issue with vote stacking, with people casting more than one vote for a movie (e.g., The Dark Knight shot up to their #1 Film of all Time list before it was even released worldwide).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New layout

Hello, I revised the guidelines to have a new layout since there was discussion above and elsewhere on WikiProject Films about necessary changes. With the exception of the "Rating" section being added, no content was added to the guidelines this time. The new layout re-sorted topics of an article about an individual film into "primary topics" and "secondary topics", the latter being more specialized. There is also a "Non-prose components" section, though I would like to merge the brunt of the infobox-related content to the documentation at Template:Infobox Film. In addition, the most sparse section is the "Guidelines for related topics" section, which is one of interest to multiple editors since the guidelines have focused too much on individual films. Links are provided to start discussion about filling out these sections; hopefully their presence shows readers that there is help needed. Lastly, there is a "Clean-up" section which clarifies some of the not-so-clear items and in what context they best work (such as ratings needing relevance for inclusion). Please let me know your feedback about this layout. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm slow, but just noticed - why are release and home media now under reception? One really has nothing to do with the other. Would rather see both in the original "Distribution" section above release. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The re-sectioning is not intended to say that this is the way it should be. I think it could be revised, though. In some articles, I've written "Reception" sections with "Critics" and "Box office" subsections. Maybe what we can do here is have a "Critical reception" section and a "Release" section under which "Box office" and "Home media" can fall. ("Box office" could be "Theatrical run", actually, since not all theatrical screenings are related to money, like festival screenings.) Would this be similar to "Distribution"? —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think box office numbers are fine under reception, as it speaks to the films public reception. "Distribution" (also sometimes named as "Release" but I think Distribution works better for including home media) would have theatrical release information in terms of dates (and where possible, number of theaters and run), any notable festival screenings, and home media releases. Except for a few heavily re-released movies, its generally a one-paragraph section. "Reception", generally, is one section as well unless it is seriously long enough (at least 4-5 good sized paragraphs) to justify adding subsections for Awards, Box office, and Critical reception. See White Dog for an example of how I've done this with one film, if it helps clarify? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a case where we can have a variety of layouts, depending on the amount of content for each particular topic. Some films can have pretty thorough sections about their theatrical runs, especially newer ones. Hancock (film) is one such layout since marketing is tied to its release (not so much with "distribution"), and the amount of content about the theatrical run and the home media is enough to separate from content about the critical reception. A couple of other examples are Fight Club (film) and American Beauty (film). (In looking at these, I think my approach tends to be the grouping together of more technical detail, where critics' reviews are more subjective.) With this case, we can be pretty open-ended about it since there are a lot of possibilities. Reviewing the TOC, I am thinking that we could move "Home media" under "Secondary topics" (since for the most part, coverage will be brief). We can keep "Critics" and "Box office" under "Reception" as more staple-type topics, but we should find a place somewhere to say that a variety of layouts are possible. Maybe revise the superlative paragraph at MOS:FILM#Reception to say that depending on the amount of content available, everything could fall under a general section heading or be subsectioned in multiple ways. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Five years later I finally answer. :P I think it needs to be clearer that Release/Distribution can be separate, as it is causing problems where some folks are mistakenly believing that a release section is against the MoS and then try to "correct" (most recently at Dragonball Evolution[1]. For most films, I don't think release/distribution has anything to do with reception, though. A film is released even if it has massive failure at the theaters, and its very rare that a film is not put on DVD even if, again, it bombed. Maybe move/add a release/distribution section under "Secondary topics" noting that sometimes it appropriate under reception, while in other cases, it should be its own brief section. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nehrams2020's Revert

Let's discuss Nehrams2020's revert. I propose the change because tables are clearer for cast sections. This enables people to easily seeandcompare the roles and actors and descriptions and implications in casting.68.148.149.184 (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

We can discuss your proposal, but we're not going to discuss the reversion. It has always been well-established that changes to guidelines need to be proposed on the talk page and found to meet consensus before being enacted. As for the proposal itself, I disagree - tables work against a prose style, which is generally encouraged within the encyclopedia, and the current format is far from unclear. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Prose tends to keep things in a more professional manner. A table can sometimes be alright for articles that have yet to really expand, and probably do not have casting info, but generally not for full fledged articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Your agreementargument that prose is generally encouraged within a encyclopedia is solidly false. A lot of science pages would be sorely disorganized and impossible to messageconvey if we put all data in prose. Concerning short sections such as cast lists, it's easier to look at the information and tell who was in which role, and easier for analysis to determine what the person did etc. etc..68.148.149.184 (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A simple list can display the actors and their roles just as well as a table and without any coding needed on any editor's part. Additionally, list form is better than table form because it can present prose better. Prose in a table cell creates extraneous white space; in a row with three cells (for example, actor, role, and background), a full paragraph about the background makes the cells for the actor and the role pretty empty indeed. This does not mean that tables are useless, though. Some exceptions, I think, include columns of multiple actors, such as at My Neighbor Totoro#Voice cast. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that prose or lists are preferable to a table for cast lists. Further to this, could the IP please stop converting cast sections to tables (as with Suspiria and Dance Flick)? Other editors, myself included, have already had to revert Watchmen and Witchfinder General. The conversions are counterproductive, especially given that this discussion is under way, and the edits are also removing the "Cast" section headings. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Cast headlines are not compulsory.68.148.149.184 (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

But why is prose better than table? Your arguments seem to be based on aesthetics with no scientific papers to back up readability. It is scientifically proven that tables are easier, and faster, to read and more comprehensible than prose. Prose is fine with plot summaries, but with data, they should be put into a table. There is a section that says that cast can be integrated with plot. There is no linguistic problem with that. This is an encyclopedia. You have to give me arguments that exemplify increased ease of readability compared with prose. Your agrument: "Background information about the cast and crew should be provided, ideally as well-written prose." is appropriate, WHEN WRITTEN IN PLOT SUMMARY.68.148.149.184 (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason NOT to use tables when listing cast.68.148.149.184 (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, one good reason is that this guideline directs us to use prose or lists, not tables. Given that it was ostensibly created through a process of consensus, it reflects the opinions of Wikipedia's editors, and should be taken as the preferred method. You may feel differently, and are of course entitled to your own opinion, but you cannot unilaterally rework sections in a manner contrary to the guideline. You need to achieve consensus for such a change first, and there does not appear to be any support for what you propose. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, could we please not request "scientific proof" for opinions, and then turn around and claim said "scientific proof" when we don't actually back that up with evidence? Just a thought. Frankly, Wikipedia is not governed by what other people do. Film pages are structured based on the consensus of the community. In this case, it is the consensus of the film project community that prose is more professional looking, takes up less space, and provides an easier means to present particular information in the article. You seem to disagree, which is perfectly fine, but that doesn't change the consensus. No one has to prove, through "scientific" evidence, that one way is better than another...not even you. It's a subjective call, and one that currently has consensus for a particular format.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There is NO reason to use tables for listing cast. It does not meet any guideline for the appropriate use of a table, and only makes the page more complex for in-experienced editors for no good reason. A tabled format does not add any added value over a list to make it worth the extra code, nor is a format that is likely to encourage editors to expand the cast section beyond a list of who played what (which, if that is all a cast list has, should be noted in the plot). Consensus has agreed with this formatting repeatedly, as shown in this guideline, and in high quality film articles (i.e. FA and GA level ones). Trying to assume good faith here, but when it was pointed out that your edits violated the guidelines, you tried to edit them to suit your personal preferences, which is highly inappropriate. You also seem to be disregarding other Wikipedia style guides regarding header names, disambig pages, etc, without any explanation nor discussion. This is not how Wikipedia works.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

For bony articles like the one's I edited I believe that the table suits them best, AT THE PRESENT TIME. Of course, the articles don't have that much content, and I would like to see the lists removed and integrated into the plot. I see no reason why the tables should not convey more information than just slabs of sentences. Even if this is the state that GA and FAs are in, that means, IN NO WAY, that it is better, or, atrociously, has merit.68.148.149.184 (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I think this is one of the few times in my several years here that my name has been included in the heading, so perhaps I should join in on the discussion. When I first started writing film articles in 2006, I used the tables for the cast lists because I thought that they worked better and it was pretty much the norm for other articles I was using as a model. However, when discussing cast, and the amount of information that is involved, I realized that cast lists better serve their purpose. Indeed, if the cast list is merely "actor" as "character" with no other character description or casting details, then the cast section should be removed and the actors' names simply added after their respective characters in the plot section. I don't see how adding tables "at the present time" would be beneficial if it would just have to be reverted later. I wouldn't say that tables are convoying more information, since there is no addition to the information, but rather than just a change in layout. The only reason I could see for using a table is when including the names of multiple voice actors for an animated film, when different actors are used for foreign releases. I don't understand why you would ask for how science articles use tables, because it seems like you are comparing apples to oranges. The tables in science articles are likely comparing statistics and measurements, where a table format would be beneficial. When an actor's role is being described composed of prose, which can at times be comprehensive, it doesn't need a table format to convey the information presented. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to your comparison of apples and oranges, tables will not be reverted. If we have a lack of information on a movie, a table should stay on the article, in which the article may remain unchanged for years.

The fact of the matter is many movies do not have a plot summary that describes the character's roles sufficiently as to integrate the actors' names into the synopsis. For those cases, we need tables.68.148.149.184 (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, tables will continue to be reverted when they are done as cast lists in film articles. No, a table should not stay in an article just because the article lacks additional information. If it has no plot, then a normal list of the cast is fine. Tables are not "needed". -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing need with format. If you have a problem with reading tables, just say it.68.148.149.184 (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You keeping adding a request for comment of scientists, and although I'm not a scientist, perhaps I can explain how the use of tables in film articles differ from scientific articles. Tables are used for a variety of articles on Wikipedia, for various needs in exhibiting data in a certain way. Film articles obviously differ from scientific articles in many ways, and attempting to state that just because tables are used in a scientific article, then film articles must use it as well, doesn't make sense. Tables are used in various film articles (see James Bond (film series)#Films or Clint Eastwood filmography#Filmography) when it is beneficial for comparing different types of content/data. Instead of stating that you think someone of being unable to read a table (it's highly unlikely that all opposing members here can't read tables :)), it would be best to detail why it would be best to list prose into a table format that can be difficult for new users to format and may not be aesthetically pleasing for large amounts of prose. I like tables as much as the next guy, but we don't need to include them just for the sake of using it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If it was difficult for new users to format tables, then we might as well never use tables at all. The reason we should use tables is that with a table, it lists CLEARLY which Setof data ALL correspond to one category.

For example, if I have a column of Names of Actors, I will put at the top in the ""Heading"", "Actor". This way, it is easy AT A GLANCE to see and COMPARE which actor has which role, when listed NEXT to a heading called "Character".68.148.149.184 (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

We can and still use tables in articles, but there would be no reason to complicate something that can be conveyed simply. The roles are not being compared against each other, the actor is being described with the role s/he is playing. Readers can likely differentiate the difference between the actor and the character based on the naming ("Tim Allen as Buzz Lightyear" or "Clint Eastwood as The Man With No Name"), by the wikilinks to the actors' main articles ("Robert Downey, Jr. as Kirk Lazarus" or "Arnold Schwarzenegger as Ben Richards"), the characters' articles ("Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt" or "Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane Watson"), or even the "as" is a dead giveaway. We are not comparing each role against the other roles (perhaps if an article comparing two franchises or actors who played the same character in a franchise, then a table would be beneficial). However based on these reasons, along with the many mentioned above (and below), I don't see why a table is required to be used. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but the some of the actors names are not bluelinked, or we do not have articles for these actors. Although "as" might seem to be a deadgiveaway, some people have trouble reading, including people's english proficiency who are not as developed as yours. Tables come in most handy in these types of situations were the mathematical language of a table is easier to understand.68.148.149.184 (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

What the IP ignores is the obvious, which is consensus by inertia. If the article is edited in succession by a hundred editors and they all edit the cast section of a film as a chunk of prose after each character name then we can assume all hundred editors agree that they prefer that format. If one editor then changes the format, and is reverted by three separate editors, then they must assume that they are working against consensus. If a change is not made then it is implicit that consensus exists as much as if a change is made and kept. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That is not true.68.148.149.184 (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Tables are largely fine for more complex lists of information such as awards, because of the number of fields that need to be presented is larger. See here for an example. For cast lists, which are largely telling us that an actor played a role, they are discouraged. This is because while young articles will indeed only have a cast section that says "[Actor] as [role]" (see here), as the article develops, the section should be added to, in order to present relevant production information about the casting or characters (e.g. here). Indeed, by the time the section has fully matured, it may even be converted to a full prose section (as here). Starting off with a table works against this evolution, as it discourages the addition of real-world production information, and furthermore may discourage editors less familiar with working with tables. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 09:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, tables do not work against this evolution. It may take a large length of time before the table matures in a prose section, btw, I agree with, so at that stage in time, the cast section should be tablulated.68.148.149.184 (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I missed a ton of fuss over such a small issue. The most pressing issues with tables is that if you wanted to place a column for the development information that commonly comes with character entries in most film articles, then you tend to end up with a severely oversized and visually unappealing column. I also don't really see any practical advantage to a table, especially seeing that sorting is pointless. In any case, I'd recommend to the IP to withdraw the issue. You're beating a dead horse at this point and there's a clear consensus against you. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Tables are ugly, period. 15:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Listing genre's in the lead sentence

I'd like to propose an amendment to the lead section that talks about listing the major genres a film is placed in. I would like to propose this be changed to major "genre" (singular). The reason for this is partly because one genre will often cover multiple subgenres (even when those subgenres would be considered major genres by themselves; i.e. Superhero film generally encompasses Action film). Another reason is that reading something like "Terminator Salvation is a science fiction, action, war, post-apocolyptic, etc... film" is very wordy, clumsy, and distracting to read. We have categories that can list every genre something falls under if necessary, but when reading I don't generally care about the genres to begin with (it isn't really necessary to list it to understand the film, because usually the plot synopsis will indicate what type of film it is), but when I read an article I don't like to be bombarded with half a dozen genres that may or may not be directly related to each other enough that one would actually suffice (see Superhero and Action film example). What is Terminator primarily? It's a science fiction movie. What is Spider-Man? It's a superhero or comic book movie (whatever you want to call it).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I like to see the film defined by genre in the lead, however, I agree with you that this kind addition is over-the-top and unreadable. It also tramples the guideline for an opening sentence -- which should be a simple, concise declarative statement. I see no problem with your proposal. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the wording reads fine as it is. In the case of Terminator Salvation, it is universally seen as a science fiction film. No one is calling it an action film or a war film in the same breath. At the same time, though, there are films that clearly mix genres, such as comedic takes on serious genres -- romantic comedies and science fiction comedies, for example. An issue like Terminator Salvation can be fixed on the spot. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Uncredited writers

Recently, I've come across some issues pertaining to uncredited writers in the infobox. The question is, should we be listing them beside the credited writers? On a personal standpoint, I say "no". My reasoning is that many films often have other writers who tweak the script, or rewrite scenes but do not receive credit from the WGA as a "writer" of the film (i.e. hence the "uncredited" title attached to their name). IMO, uncredited writers should be discussed in prose in a "WRITING" section. To me, this doesn't allow undue weight to be placed on potentially a very small contribution to the script. Granted, there are cases where there is substantial work down to the script (Jonathan Nolan, according to McG, rewrote the entire third act of Terminator Salvation; Ron Kurz wrote 45 original pages, that were filmed, for the 1979 Friday the 13th, but neither was given credit by the WGA for reasons both unknown in Nolan's case and known for Kurz -- he wasn't a member, thus he didn't get credit), but in order to be consistent I would say keep only the credited people in the infobox, and use prose to discuss anyone who worked on the film but was not credited.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm skeptical about the explanation for no credit for Kurz. There's no provision in the WGA contract to exclude a non-union writer from screen credit. As I've mentioned elsewhere, it is possible to write 49% of a script and not receive screen credit. Clearly that's not an encyclopedia standard. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

His own words. You can read Making Friday the 13th: The Legend of Camp Blood, page 31. These are Kurz's words: "As I was writing new scenes or totally revising old ones, Sean and Victor were taking them and putting them in their own draft, under Victor's name. I'm not mad and I don't blame them because Victor was a legitimate member of the WGA and I'd been breaking every Guild rule in the book. Ultimately, of the final 97 page second draft of Victor Miller's script, 45 of those were either brand new scenes that I wrote, or revised earlier scenes. That's the movie business." -- Kurz believes that it was because he was not a member of the Guild was why they did not recognize the 45 pages he wrote. So, either he doesn't understand the rules completely, or you do not understand the rules completely. I personally don't understand the rules completely, so I cannot say which of you is right or wrong. If you have a WGA regulations book from 1979, sweet, then we'd know he just didn't understand the process. Regardless, the point is that we know how much Kurz contributed, because it's been acknowledged straight up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose if we could find an example of a writer getting credit circa 1979 even though they weren't a union member that would count as evidence. Do you agree? --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Most certainly. It would mean they had another reason for not giving Kurz credit that he must not have been aware of.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You said that Kurz didn't receive credit because he wasn't a union member: "Kurz -- he wasn't a member, thus he didn't get credit." So what do you mean "another reason"? Please clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ring Cinema (talk • contribs) 14:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I said he believes that was the reason. If there is an example of someone getting credit, not being a member, and having written almost 50% of the script, then that would mean that Kurz did not get credit because of some other reason that he is not aware of. That reason might be that the WGA doesn't recognize 46% of a script. Or it could mean that Kurz pissed someone off and they just didn't want to give him credit. It could also mean that, based on his comment that Sean and Victor were putting his stuff under Victor's name, that the WGA was not aware that he even wrote 45 pages. There could be any number of reasons for why he didn't get credit, assuming of course that he was wrong in that he didn't get credit for his 45 pages because he wasn't an actual member of the WGA.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really make sense that Kurz -- or anyone for that matter -- didn't get credit solely and simply because they weren't a guild member. It has never been the case that a non-union writer could not get screen credit. It doesn't work that way, even with signatory production companies. However, since he rewrote less than half an original screenplay, he wouldn't be entitled to screen credit. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's less than half in a literal sense, but 46% of the screenplay is beyond significant, that's virtually equivalent to what Miller wrote. You're talking about 45 pages compared to 52, that's only 7 more pages. Unions are funny about protecting their members. Without specific words to the countrary, we cannot say for sure that it wasn't because he was not a member of the Guild.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I can say for sure. That's not how it works. There is no prohibition on a non-union writer getting screen credit. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Two things. How can you say that for sure, and how can you be sure they weren't more strict about certain rules in 1979? I don't know why they didn't give Kurz credit, but I don't think it's a straight 50% contribution with no leeway on the percentage.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that the screen credit overlooked Kurz's significant contribution. I think we agree on that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Slight disagreement. I don't see an overriding reason to do this; I guess there are very few cases where it would lead to unsightly infobox-growth, unlike, say, if we credited every producer. Those writers who are credited on-screen make a good starting point, but why lay down something in the guideline excluding the others? Just treat them on a case-by-case basis; where there is complete certainty (via a reliable secondary source) that a writer contributed a significant portion to the script, he or she can go in the infobox whether the WGA sees fit to give them credit or not. As long as it's a decent contribution, rather than a quick polish. In any event, despite those examples, the WGA probably gets it right most of the time, so it's unlikely to be an issue often. Where the guild sees fit not to credit a significant contributor, the case is almost always going to have some coverage that we can cite (see Leatherheads). Steve ^{T • C} 22:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

But then you get into the battle of "why this guy and not the other". In the case of Terminator, McG says Nolan contributed a lot, but he doesn't say how much the other 3 uncredited writers contributed to the script. If all they did was copyedit, then why include them? Or, why not include them if you include Nolan? It's better to be consistent across the board then flip-flop with each film. It creates misleading info.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to agree with everyone. Mentioning uncredited writers is a good idea primarily because, first of all, it's more accurate than not. The on-screen list of credited writers on many films is unreliable. It is an amusing irony that it's almost de rigeuer to credit on-screen the assistant who bought donuts but it's forbidden to mention the script dcotor who saved the movie. Industry rules forbid contributors from receiving credit in many cases; the matter is political in others; some writers prefer that their punchups go unlisted for career reasons. For a good example of the hijinx involved, consider John Michael Hayes' battle with Alfred Hitchcock for credit on the 1956 remake of The Man Who Knew Too Much. On the other hand, what is the source of good knowledge on this subject? Some standard needs to be at least suggested if not brought to bear. For instance, I would suggest that writers be limited to people who wrote down part of the script for other people to read. 2. Uncredited contributors probably need to be categorized as such at a minimum. But they should not be ignored, as a great deal of film history is tied up in uncredited contributions to the movies. For an excellent example of that, check out the careers of George Stevens or Robert Towne. The story of what they did or didn't get credit for and why might be the more interesting part of their careers. Would it be a good thing to ignore Akira Kurosawa's pre-production and preliminary shooting of the Japanese side of Tora! Tora! Tora!? Seems like that's equivalent to leaving the story incomplete on purpose. True, the familiar sourcing question remains and requires a certain sensitivity. But sources are there and we shouldn't ignore reality for the sake of convenience.--Ring Cinema (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not proposing they be ignored, just not included in the infobox. I think that a lot of the time, people are listed as "Uncredited writers" in news articles, but rarely do you know the extent of their contribution to the script. In Jonathan Nolan's case, we know he contributed the whole 3rd act of Terminator, but the other three writers (based on what I can read) did not really contribut all that much. This is why I think it's better to leave it all in the hands of prose content in a section, than misleadingly suggesting that David Wilson contributed an equal amount as Jonathan Nolan did to the Terminator script.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that this is an issue worth including in the guidelines. Every film has a different situation regarding its writers credited or not, so I don't think it's fair to exclude uncredited writers for the most part. It should be a case-by-case basis and depend on what the article contains about the extent of the uncredited writers' involvement. Bignole, what are the cases you've identified? Perhaps we can assess them to understand where you're coming from. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's not included in the guidelines, to which more general guideline will editors refer when seeking justification for including or not including an uncredited writer in the infobox? --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Right now, the biggest one is the new Terminator movie. It apparently has 4 uncredited writers. It currently says, "The first full screenplay for the film was written by Terminator 3 writers John Brancato and Michael Ferris, who received full screenplay credit. Paul Haggis rewrote Brancato and Ferris's script,[44] and Shawn Ryan made another revision three weeks before filming.[45] Jonathan Nolan also wrote on set, which led to McG characterizing his work on the script as the most important;[43] he chose to contribute to the film after Bale signed on and created Connor's arc of becoming a leader.[46] Anthony E. Zuiker contributed to the script as well.[47] So extensive were the rewrites that Alan Dean Foster decided to rewrite the entire novelization after submitting it to his publisher, because the compiled shooting script was very different from the one he was given beforehand." - How much of "rewrote" is "rewrote" for Haggis and Ryan? Apparently it wasn't enough for the WGA. Did he do simple copyediting and some dialogue sprucing? Was it as significant as Nolan's entire third act contribution? What about Zuiker? "Contributed to the script" is vague. IMO, it does not seem fair to lump all those guys in with Nolan IF they did not contribute as much as he did. Or, we have Robert Towne listed as "Uncredited" on The Godfather, but he only wrote a single scene. If it isn't a significant amount of work (which is why the WGA doesn't credit them in the first place...though I think 1/3 of the movie is significant), then why are we placing undue weight on what is potentially nothing more than copy editors? (P.S. Have to go to my internship, won't be able to respond till tonight).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

As a point of comparison, what would we think about not crediting Tom Cruise for his uncredited appearance in Tropic Thunder? As is, Wikipedia lists him in the infobox, which seems to bow to the facts. And I'm not proposing we "hobgoblin," I'm just trying to offer a different angle on the issue. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

He shouldn't be in the infobox. That is for the stars of the film, not people who have uncredited cameos. That would be like including Arnold Schwarzenegger in the infobox for The Rundown.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Things are just not so clearcut. That's the point of the example. The matter is full of gray zones and so requires gray matter. It doesn't say anywhere that the infobox should reflect the producers' or director's judgment, which would obviously be absurd. Again, what guideline would be relied on in the absence of a new guideline? Since we're an encyclopedia, we should answer the question, "Is this the movie with the Tom Cruise cameo?" not conceal it. Similar considerations apply with writers. If the purpose of the infobox is to give shorthand info on participants, let's take that seriously. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Him being in the infobox says nothing about the film. It says he wasn't credit. The infobox also says "Starring", and Tom Cruise did not "Star" in that film. It doesn't say "Actors". Also, the infobox needs to be succinct and to the point, which is why we don't list every single actor in the film, or every variation of producer that exists, and why we should list every person that touched the script of a movie but didn't get actual credit for doing anything. That kind of stuff, if relevant, should be put into prose so that context can be given, instead of placing undue weight on things that have no overall bearing on the understanding of the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No, there's no necessary connection between the info box and the credits. (Or do you have even some small evidence for that connection?) As you may not be aware, some info in the infobox is not taken directly from the credits. The reason for that is presumably that some important information is not included in the credits. Similarly, the argument about the difference between "stars" and "actors" needs to be made, not asserted. Perhaps it's not widely understood, but the honorific "Starring" is handed out quite generously. It doesn't imply the lead role or a lead role or anything certain beyond an appearance in the film (with some exceptions for the Sleuth-ful). It's just a word that's tossed around for other than denotative reasons. Moreover, there is no space in the infobox for non-starring actors.

Given how liberally Hollywood tosses around the honorific "star" for actors it's certainly true that everyone who contributes to the script is a writing "star" for that film. So that's actually a powerful reason to include uncredited writers in the infobox.

You're trying to invoke "bearing on the understanding of the film" in your argument against including uncredited writers. I think that's going to be a losing argument. For a quick example of the mountain you're climbing, consider which is more significant to the understanding of The Missouri Breaks: (1) Robert Towne was a writer, or (2) United Artists was the film's distributor. Only (2) is in the infobox, but I think it's easy to see that (1) bears more on an understanding of the film. Depends what kind of understanding you're looking for, I guess. But if you want to introduce that standard, there are a lot of changes that need to be made on the infobox. The fact is, the infobox serves a different purpose. It mentions the film's significant participants. For reference purposes. So it should be accurate. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm climbing the uphill battle? You just defined the infobox criteria as "significant participants". Guess what, Cruise may be a significant actor, but he isn't a significant participant in Tropic Thunder. Town is not a significant participate in The Godfather, where he contributed only a single scene to the entire 3 hour long movie. Since only Jonathan Nolan's contributions have been quantified, only he can be said to have significantly contributed to the Terminator script. We cannot assume that just because it says "rewrote" it means they contributed any significant amount of information. "Rewrote" is vague, and can have any number of meanings, because they clearly didn't rewrite the script in the sense that they added anything original, which is why the WGA didn't credit them in the first place.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you saw Tropic Thunder or what you consider significant. You might want to take another look. But you see this is just the point: opinions differ, so we have no choice but to chew it over. 2, The Godfather? Not germane. 3, 'Vague' is not the same as 'equivocal'. Yes, there are different meanings to 'rewrite'. No, that doesn't mean the word is meaningless. 4, WGA determination that a writer doesn't deserve screen credit does not imply that the writer contributed nothing to the script. A writer can contribute 49.9% of a script and get zero screen credit.

These matters demand that we exercise judgment, not legislate in a way that reduces the accuracy of information which should be as truthful as possible. We don't want to substitute the judgment of others who may or may not have made a decision according to the criteria that Wikipedia endorses. And really that's the nub of the issue. Film credits are for one purpose; Wikipedia has another purpose. Film credits have information that we might examine as a veridical source but they may be erroneous or incomplete (frequently intentionally so).

That brings me to your example about Terminator. I want to be clear that I'm not taking a position on who did or didn't do a rewrite. You might have good reason to take the position that only one person was a writer of the script (someone who wrote something that others read as the screenplay). However, I have to take issue with this sentence: "Since only Jonathan Nolan's contributions have been quantified, only he can be said to have significantly contributed to the Terminator script." Now, everyone knows that statement is false -- even you. If one thing is quantified, that doesn't mean a related thing doesn't exist, equals zero, or should be ignored. So I have to conclude that you didn't write exactly what you meant. If you don't mind -- and I mean this respectfully -- would you mind taking another stab at it? I want to know exactly what you're trying to say. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the movie, and his role is more than a cameo but far less than a starring role. He should not be in the infobox. The infobox template even says, "Insert the name(s) of the actor(s) who had major roles in the film." Cruise's character, Les Grousman, steals the movie but only appears in a few actual scenes. His performance merely makes it seem like he was there more. Your point about the 49.9% not getting credit is not really relevant. Read what I wrote a bit more carefully. In regards to Terminator, what I said was vague notions of "rewrote" that are not quantified cannot be automatically assumed to be significant enough to be included.

You keep bringing up "truthful as possible". Wikipedia is not based around truth, but what can be verified. If the only thing we can verify is that someone did a rewrite, but we cannot verify exactly what the rewrite entailed (i.e. was it extensive, or was it just dialogue sprucing), then we should not automatically assume it was greater than it might have been.

As for the Nolan bit, I have no idea what you do not understand by the statement. It's pretty clear cut based on the previous discussions above. McG has stated that Nolan wrote rewrote 1/3 (I'm sure that's an estiamte) of the movie, basically the entire third act. I.E. Nolan's contribution can be quantified, because we know (based on what McG stated, and you can find more of this on the Terminator talk page) a basic proportion of what Nolan did. What we do not know is how much those other uncredited writers contributed with respect to the original screenplay, because McG (as far as I know) has never addressed their contributions like he did with Nolan. So, we cannot quantify (i.e. we cannot attribute a percentage) the contribution of those writers and thus cannot establish a "significance" with them. All we have are sources saying, "X writer rewrote the script after X writer". Um..ok, what does that mean. They rewrote everything, starting from scratch? They just rewrote dialogue? They just rewrote a specific scene? What does rewrite entail for this specific writer, because we cannot assume that Wilson's rewrite carries the same significance as Haggis or Ryan?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Your position as I understand it is that we should ignore some evidence because of uncertainty. But we should substitute evidence that is also uncertain. Sorry, there's no magic fairy dust in the WGA screen credit determinations. They have different goals from Wikipedia and often decide against screen credit for script contributors. You have to offer a positive reason to follow their flawed determinations to the exclusion of all others and you haven't even tried. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No, my position is that in order to be fair, we should not include any in the infobox period because we'd be playing favoritism no matter how we slice it. My position is that those types of roles are better left for prose, where it can be stated that Nolan contributed significantly to the script of Terminator Salvation, while Towne only contributed a single scene to The Godfather. Otherwise we'll cause one of two problems. We'll either place undue weight on the uncredited writers by including any and all of them that get identified, no matter how small a contribution to the film. Or, we'll create an inconsistency across the film pages by picking and choosing which names get included and which ones do not. This is all I'm going to say on the matter, because this is turning into a one-on-one debate, and frankly I'm starting to read levels of contempt in your writing with your constant judging of my efforts/actions/opinions. So, that's my position on what I think should be done (which I stated above before, and it's rather straight forward). I'm not going to argue this any longer, I have better things to do - like sleep. Have a good evening/morning/or whatever the time of day it is for you where you are.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bignole here - stick with the credits in the infobox; make the elaborate and nuanced clarifications in the text. The alternative also smacks of OR - who's going to define what's significant or not? While there may be a limited number of exceptional circumstances where the credits are blatantly wrong (pseudonyms or blacklisting), for the general credited/noncredited angle, the subjective nature and amount of detail, RS, and V required simply starts to become a matter of both OR and a lack of basic understanding of the intentionally simplistic nature of the infobox. This is like arguing about if a co-producer did as much work as a producer, how much of Return of the Jedi George Lucas "really" directed, or how much of Poltergeist Steven Spielberg "really" directed - not relevant for the purposes of a simplistic infobox. That's the entire point of an infobox - to keep things simple, sometimes overly so. Do I want a comprehensive listing of who actually edited each scene in a film? No - just tell me who is credited. Keep the simple credits for the simple infobox, and the expanded situation in the expanded article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The alternative need not be OR. Though my own preference is to treat it on a case-by-case basis, if we're dead set on including anything at all in the guideline, why not simply say something along the lines of:

The infobox should include the writer(s) who receive an on-screen credit. Uncredited writers should only be included if a reliable secondary source indicates the writer contributed a significant portion of the script. Other writers and their contributions should be described in the relevant section of the article body.

While the wording might need to be tightened (primarily the definition "significant" to avoid arguments—perhaps in a footnote?), this resolves Bignole's concern with Terminator: Salvation, it allows leeway without clogging the infobox with every script doctor and his dog, and provides some guidance for the other examples given. Steve ^{T • C} 07:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, there is nothing magical about the screen credit. Those determinations are not made to satisfy the standards of an encyclopedia. Check the article on WGA screen credits ([2]). It's obvious that their standards are not Wikipedia standards. Or, if someone has read that article and can defend it as upholding Wikipedia standards, they should do so. Until that happens, you're not taking your own argument seriously. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This is why my preference is for a case-by-case judgement. We can either have a blanket statement saying accept only WGA-approved writing credits in the infobox, have nothing, or, as with my suggestion above, add certain exceptions where supported by a reliable secondary source. None seem particularly ideal. I suppose it could instead read:

The infobox should include the writer(s) who receive an on-screen credit. Uncredited writers should only be included if a reliable secondary source indicates the writer contributed a significant portion of the script. Credited writers should not be omitted from the infobox unless a reliable secondary source indicates the writer did not contribute. Other writers and their contributions should be described in the relevant section of the article body.

This covers the main two problems with screen credits, though it does get us bogged down in process; the more clauses in a guideline, the more scope there is for arguing over their nuances. If we're to have anything at all, it should probably be more along the lines of my first suggestion. Also, I'm not sure what you're suggesting as an alternative to using on-screen credits as at least a base measure. We need something; many, if not most, films won't receive the kind of press coverage that will allow us to determine the nuances of how it was written, and by whom. On-screen credits, while not ideal in all circumstances, are the only starting point we have. Steve ^{T • C} 12:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal is perfectly respectable but it seems a little bit complicated. "Significance" is in the eye of the beholder (which was the point of the Tom Cruise example above). I'm in favor of no new guideline, although I'm still looking for an answer to this question: if there is no new guideline and there's a question about screenwriting credit in the future, what guideline would obtain? To what guideline would editors appeal? In other words, what is the current guideline? p.s. imdb handles the issue by noting "credited" or "uncredited." --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree for the most part with Steve, although in general I lean towards not including uncredited production staff in the infobox because A) it takes up space, and B) you can't elaborate. For example, in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Nicholas Meyer basically saved the film from failure by agreeing to a last-minute intense rewrite crunch, for which he was uncredited. That's a level of significance probably beyond much of what is being argued about above, but the infobox really doesn't allow us to say (uncredited: Nicholas Meyer who rewrote everything in a week uncredited before he even got the job to direct, yada yada.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The only writers who should be listed in the infobox are the ones who received screen credit. Others who contributed to the script should be mentioned in the production section with proper references. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting opinion. Since the standards for including a writer in the screen credits are very restricted, often mistaken, unreviewable, and never explained, what is the justification for using their flawed standards instead of the usual Wikipedia standard?--Ring Cinema (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Preferred poster image

Currently, the style guidelines say the following regarding what image should be used in a film's infobox: "Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox to serve as an identifying image for the article." This doesn't address which poster should be preferred when there are multiple theatrical posters. Specifically, many American films have both a US theatrical poster and an international poster. I've recently seen minor edit warring occur over this on the Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen page. Is there a preference for such matters that should be added to the style guidelines? I would venture a guess that the country of origin's poster would be preferred, but I haven't seen any guidelines that specifically state one or the other. Teratron (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, international posters are best because this isn't "America Wikipedia", but "English Wikipedia". I personally also try and strive for posters that actually contain information beyond the title (i.e. Paramount Presents, A Michael Bay film, Starring, Written By, etc.), but that's just a personal preference.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed it's not "American Wikipedia". That's neither what I asked nor the reason I'm asking. The question is whether the international poster should be used over the country of origin's poster. Admittedly, this boils down to US vs. international in the majority of cases, simply due to the dominance of the American film industry. But I'm looking for guidance for all films, whether American or not. The guidelines say that ideally we should use the "original theatrical release poster." Absent any other guidance, a strict interpretation of "original theatrical release poster" to me implies the country of origin's poster is preferred. It may very well be that, due to Wikipedia being an international project, the international poster is preferred. If so, I think that should be added to the guidelines. It would be good to have concrete guidance to use when such issues arise. Teratron (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That is what you asked, and I gave you an answer "Ideally, international posters...". You said, "Is there a preference for such matters that should be added to the style guidelines?" Now, if that question wasn't designed to imply, "Which poster is preferred, the country of origin or an international poster?" then maybe you should think about making your questions more concrete and less vague. Obviously, you can extrapolate my response about American vs. International to UK vs. International or any other you like. Chances are, you aren't going to find an international poster for a Korean film. When the guideline says "original theatrical release", it is referring to films that get second releases (whether in their country or origin, or when a popular British film gets released in the US, or when an American film gets a second release...ala Alien or Star Wars). In most cases, international posters are released alongside domestic posters, as such the international is the choice to make. Now, should a film that is released in the UK get an international release 6 months later, equipped with new international posters then I would say keep the original poster that was listed. There is a level of historical preservation that we like to keep. To address your second question, "Should the guideline cover this", yes and no. Maybe we could tweak the wording to be a bit more clear, but there comes a point where we're being a little too specific.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Rereading my first comment, I can see how it could be read as asking about whether to use American posters or not. That was never the intent. I specifically mentioned American films only because they're the ones I know for sure have this issue. I intended it as a specific instance of the issue, not the specific topic of coversation. I mentioned the country of origin later in the comment, but could have made it clearer that was the main intent. Apolgies for any misunderstanding. Regarding instruction creep, like I said, I'm only bringing this up because I have seen a minor edit war occurring over the poster on the Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen page, so it's not addressing a hypothetical problem. A quick glance at other major American films for 2009 shows no consistent approach that I can see. I'm only looking for a statement of which option would be preferred, not something that would be restrictive. Whether it's a significant enough problem to warrant adding instructions, I really can't say. I simply saw a problem, couldn't find appropriate guidance for how to resolve it, and so started the discussion here. Teratron (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) My interpretation of the guideline is that the original theatrical poster would be the one from the original release, which generally tends to be in the country of origin. American vs. international is a poor way to characterize this, since to a non-American, the American poster is an international poster. In brief, Italian films should use the Italian poster (if possible), American films the American poster, Japanese films the Japanese poster, etc. As always, availability is a relevant factor, and failing the ability to secure an image of the original release poster, then ideally one of the English-language release posters should be used. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Girolamo. "film's original theatrical release poster" is fairly clear. It should be the original theatrical poster from its country of release, wherever possible. So even if it has multiple versions, the original should still be the preferred. So in the case of the Transformers film, it should use the American poster because it is an American film. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Succession boxes

There is a discussion going on about succession boxes here at Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Garion96 (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Box office reporting

Box office figures are always subject to change. For that reason, perhaps it would be wise to recommend that box office numbers are dated in the article text, e.g., "$20 million through 2008." --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I entirely follow what you're saying. Typically, they should already read: "As of June 20, 2009, Film X has earned _______".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not included in the guidelines currently and I think it should be. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Too creepish. We instruct people how to lay a page out, we shouldn't be telling them how to write, IMO.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

We consistently tell them which information to include so I'm not sure what you're saying. Please be more clear. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

We say, "Include information on the box office gross", or "Include information on what went into the writing process". What we do not say is, "Write your sentences exactly like this." or "When you find this information, write all of it this way." WP:CREEP is about making instructions overly detailed, and as a result we begin to micromanage film articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's quite obvious I'm not making a proposal about how to write sentences. I'm talking about which information to include in the articles. Let's stick to that. Including BO number terminal dates is a matter of style, just as it's a matter of style to include actor names parenthetically in the Plot section, and it's a matter of style to provide a citation for facts. (Notice how I'm comparing my proposal to something else that's already established and accepted, which no one else has done yet.) Apparently there is agreement on the substance, though, and no one has raised a germane objection to my proposal. I'll move ahead on developing the right language. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the box office figure should be added to the infobox until a film completes its theatrical run. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed rewrite of "Plot"

I propose a rewrite of the "Plot" section in the guidelines for writing film articles, and the draft is quoted below. I rewrote the passage to be less disjointed and to cover a few nuances that I believe are missing in the current revision. Also, I felt that the "900 words" bit felt illogical since nothing was said about between 700 and 900 words. Please share your thoughts on tweaking this draft for implementation within a week or so. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Plot summaries in film articles are appropriate as part of larger coverage about the films' production, reception, themes, and other real-world aspects. Since films are treated as primary sources in their articles, WP:PSTS says, "[Summaries] should only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." Plot summaries should exist as self-contained sections in film articles. Since the film itself is the source, citing the film explicitly is not necessary since the section heading ("Plot", "Plot summary") is self-evident. Exceptions to the rule include upcoming films and "lost" films (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors should use secondary sources. Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. Summaries should not exceed this range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary beyond 700 words cannot be avoided.) Complicated plots may occasionally require clarifications from secondary sources, so cite these sources in the section. If there are differing perspectives of a film's events from secondary sources, describe the events as basically as possible for the plot summary and report interpretations in a more analytical section of the article body. Lastly, events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen, but only reorder the events if the act is not controversial. The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, and technical detail. Per Wikipedia's content disclaimer and guideline on spoilers, all of the film's important events should be outlined without censoring details considered spoilers and without using disclaimers or warnings in the article. In short, Wikipedia contains spoilers; please respect this policy.

On the whole, looks good. I wonder if we might not also include something to the effect that 400 to 700 does not mean carte blance to have all plot summaries be 699 words. Shorter, less complicated films, particularly animated films, rarely need more than 400-500 words, but often times when dealing with such films, people presume the plot is fine just because it is under 700 words. So something about conciseness and avoiding minute detail or the like? Maybe? (also I reformatted the above just a little to make it distinct from replies :D )-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be good to link on your quotes. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest "Lastly, events in the film do not have to be presented in the order in which they appear on screen; however, only reorder the events for the sake of clarity." --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You write: "technical detail about the plot's elements is also discouraged if it requires specialist knowledge." I'm not sure what it refers to. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

He means that sometimes editors will attempt to focus too tightly on technical details that are ultimately irrelevant and only serve to bloat the plot section or cause talk page arguments. For example, describing a scene that features a tank, or a car or a type of computer, an editor might recognise the model and incorporate that into the summary, when 99% of the time it won't matter to the broad stroke coverage we're looking for. And if reliable secondary sources can be found that identify what model was used, this will fit better in the production section or similar ("The filmmakers used a fully-functioning M93A1P1 nuclear reconnaissance vehicle for the scene in which...") Steve ^T • C 21:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say that "future film" plot summaries should typically use secondary sources as well. Is it worth offering any guidance on summaries for short films and/or documentaries? PC78 (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Final paragraph alternative 1: "One best practice for writing plot summaries is to write broadly about the film's major events to avoid both excess detail and unsourced interpretation. Avoid quotations. Avoid technical detail. Per Wikipedia's content disclaimer and guideline on spoilers, all of the film's important events should be outlined without censoring details considered spoilers and without using disclaimers or warnings in the article. In short, Wikipedia contains spoilers; please respect this policy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ring Cinema (talk • contribs) 02:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph alternative 1: "The plot description or plot summary is a separate, self-contained section (designated by ==Plot==) in the larger coverage of the films' production, reception, themes, and other real-world aspects. Since films are treated as primary sources in their articles, "[summaries] should only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." (citation?) Since the film is the source for the plot summary in its article, citing the film explicitly is not necessary since the section heading is self-evident. (Exceptions to the rule may include "lost" films, which should use secondary sources.)" --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback, all! Collectonian, thanks for making my draft stand out more clearly. Regarding word count for plot summaries, what we've had seem to be "eyeball" figures. Should we try to base it more on the length of the film, perhaps by half-hour intervals? I agree that while we have the 400-700 range, the word counts of most plot summaries are closer to 700. Not sure how we can make explicit what an ideal length is? I don't have too much of a problem with 600-700 words if the rest of the article is sufficiently developed. One approach could be a caveat that if there is nothing else in the article, there should not be such a full plot summary.

Ring, you're right about needing to attribute the quote more clearly, though instead of linking the whole passage, I linked its source right before the beginning of the quote. I think that for your "Avoid..." suggestions that more clarity is necessary about why to avoid quotations or technical detail. (Hopefully Steve's explanation clarified the "specialist knowledge" aspect; he said what I planned to say.) I will include, though, some of the original wording indicating that it should be a self-contained section. Let me know what other thoughts you may have!

PC78, I agree about upcoming films and paired it with "lost" films in needing secondary sources with the explanation that they are not available to the public for their plots to be verified.

If anyone else has any additional thoughts, such as stronger criteria for the word count of plot summaries, feel free to share! —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your revision, Erik. The first sentence seems to offer an explanation or excuse for the presence of plot summaries, which is unnecessary. Better to just launch into what is required as the current guidelines do so beautifully; so that's why I suggested it be retained. Thanks.

I don't agree that more clarity is needed about why to avoid quotations, and explaining could actually lead to problems. If a criterion is offered, then editors will try to find exceptions that justify violating the guide. But if we simply say plainly that quotations should be avoided, everyone knows that the default is to leave them out. And I think we are all aware that sometimes a quote is the most efficient way to say what happened.

The problem phrase = "technical details about the plot's elements." A plot element in a film is something like the first act break or the introduction of the antagonist. A technical detail about a plot element would be an observation about, e.g., the late entrance of the protagonist Luke Skywalker in Star Wars IV. I think you mean to refer to other things, but all those other things are included in the phrase "technical details." I understand your laudable interest in limiting the scope of the summary, but perhaps on reflection you will agree that less is more.

It's important that "films' events" be changed to "the film's events." We don't want to imply that a plot summary mulls the place of Amarcord in the career of Fellini and the life of motion pictures, we want to suggest that a good summary tells the major events of the film in question.

For what it's worth, Erik, I think these are good guidelines. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I quote the definition of a primary source in its fullest because it is not clear to everyone that a film cannot be "read into" in its summary. The writing of the summary needs to be basic and agreeable to all, and discussion should instead be focused on the real-world context that revolves around a film. About avoiding quotations, it needs to be reflected how this and other minutiae detail should be avoided to keep to a basic description of the film's storyline. Maybe we can scratch the present wording for quotations and "technical detail" and hammer the purpose home more directly. For example: "The summary should be an overview of the film's events, so avoid minutiae detail like scene-by-scene breakdowns, quotations, and technical intricacies not readily explained to audiences." Admittedly not the best sentence... still mulling over how to say more broadly, "If there's a dispute over whether it's a Walther PPK or not, call it a gun!" Any thoughts? Additionally, I've fixed the "films' events" portion; it was written that way because it said "summaries" earlier. I just rewrote the whole sentence to be singular. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"minutiae detail' is redundant, so just "minutiae" does the job, but I wonder again if you're not getting into too much detail yourself :-). How about "The summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene breakdowns, and technical detail." Does that please you? --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops! I mixed up "minute detail" and "minutiae". I basically replaced the previous passage with what you said (though I called it "scene-by-scene" instead). Works for me. The reason why I want to "explain" the guidelines is that unlike Wikipedia's policies, they are not set in stone. To allow or disallow specific kinds of information in film-related articles warrants explanation of the logic behind the consensus. Hence my desire to go into such minutiae detail. :D —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can always add a Minutiae Detail section to cover everything that didn't fit in the plot summary. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Going back to something that Erik said earlier, I think 600-700 words is a bit of a narrow range, so if we need to tweak the word count then I would prefer 500-700 instead. PC78 (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm unclear on the benefit of raising the minimum. Don't we prefer less as long as it's complete? I think the rule of thumb is something like three to five words for every minute of running time. Most feature films are two hours, so that's 360-600 words, but an epic like Lawrence of Arabia could go up to 1100 words. I think that's sensible. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Basing word count on film length is a bit simplistic, isn't it? It's OK up to a point, but I would expect a plot summary to require more or less words based on the complexities of the plot. PC78 (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

400 to 700 words is fine, in my opinion. While most plot summaries are toward the larger end, it shouldn't mean that we reduce the flexibility of the word count. If someone can write 450 words about a film, it shouldn't be forced to expand into the 500-700 range. We haven't had a problem with the existing range, though there have been comments about the strange outlier of the "900 words" criteria (hence its removal). Also, I think we should only base word count on film length in a larger scope. For example, if a film qualifies as a feature film, we have the 400-700 range. If it is a short film, we should determine a smaller range, obviously... 200 to 400 words? Beyond that, I don't think film length should be a critical criteria. Films vary in comprehension, so editorial discretion within the existing range can be exercised. A film like Lawrence of Arabia can be tolerated by consensus to go beyond the range if it's not possible to write a summary within it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion of Infobox

I've been thinking we should cover more of what to include and what not to include in the infobox. Namely, I've been coming across articles that include every actor from the film in the infobox making it overly long. I think we need some type of guide to say who belongs and who really doesn't. Typically, I like to just follow the film poster, but sometimes they don't actually include anyone.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there three or four different standards to consider? The poster could be a sensible default standard. Beyond that, what do we have?--Ring Cinema (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a level of common sense. If you're talking about a major star in the lead role. The more questionable stuff comes when you have minor stars in roles that are less that starring and more than just cameo. IMO, if the poster lists names I say stick to those and don't worry about the rest. If the poster doesn't have names, then we really need to decide who we determine who is worthy of the box and who gets regulated to just the cast related section, because we cannot have 16 names in the infobox (ala Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen that basically lists every voice actor in the film) because we're bogging down the box with unnecessary info. It also presents a conundrum, given that the box says "Starring", which indicates to me a "starring role" and not just simple a "supporting role".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some guidance is in order and the poster is a great standard. What about this standard -- actors listed above the title in the screen credits? ----Ring Cinema (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Ring Cinema (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree we need some guidance on this. It should just be the "headliners", i.e. those listed on the poster or in the ads for the film, or on the cover of the DVD/VHS. Would also note it should be limited to the original release cast (rather than original language, English dub, other dubs, etc) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Common sense should apply. "Starring" means the stars of the film. The poster or the DVD cover can be one criteria; others are film critics' reviews (which can identify the stars for us). If we want to make any changes, it should be to Template:Infobox film/doc. Another element of this to tackle is how to address ensemble casts. They can stretch out the infobox sometimes, but is this okay if they are recognized as ensemble films, such as the Ocean's Eleven trio? —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This issue about "starring" is not a simple case of clear reference. Hollywood uses the term so extravagantly that it doesn't mean anything. But you make an excellent point, Erik, that there will be exceptions. I think the unusual cases are fine and fun and give flavor and context to the whole. (Another possible standard -- actors listed above the title in the screen credits plus the first three listed below the title.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, there isn't a change to be made at Infobox film. They just say, "the starring roles". I think it's up to the MOS here to help editors identify what a "starring role" is, and also indicate when exceptions to this rule might arise. For instance, Peter Cullen isn't mentioned on any Transformers poster (2007 or 2009 film), but it's hard to argue that Optimus Prime isn't a starring character in the film. "Ensemble" is another thing we may want to define (not in concrete terms, but just so it isn't thrown around just to list every actor in the film). I think, just like how 400-700 is a basic criteria for film plots, the theatrical poster (or DVD, but we have to becareful, because these can be misleading for older films...I don't know how many Jackie Chan movies I bought that said "Starring Jackie Chan" and he really only had a cameo appearance) could be a basic criteria, and then we could elaborate on times when it is appropriate to extend the box beyond the basic names on the poster.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right and I think you just outlined the consensus opinion here. I'm curious what in your mind is a case that is the furthest from black and white clarity that you have in mind. In other words, which is the hardest case for you to decide either way whether or not an actor's name should appear in the infobox? Do you have a good one for discussion cuz I think it would reveal a lot. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can think of one for both sides: where they are on the poster, but only in about 2 minutes of the movie, and one where they are not on the poster, but have a lead role. Neither of these are major, but just examples, and they are the quickest thing I can think of. The Friday the 13th Part 2 poster lists Adrienne King - she played Alice, the final girl, in the original 1980 film - yet she appears and is killed within the first 5 or so minutes of the movie. That's not really a starring role, yet she is on the poster. On the flip side, Ken Kirzinger played Jason in the Freddy vs. Jason film, that's a significant part, yet he is not credited on the poster. Not great examples, but just two quick ones. I'm sure we could probably all think of some more, outside of the horror realm.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but are these 50-50 examples? In other words, do you think that in these two cases they could be in the infobox or else not and there is an equal case on both sides? I'm seeing you saying that King should definitely be out and Kirzinger definitely in. I'd like to consider your idea of a 50-50 case. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the "50/50" question, but yes it's my opinion that King doesn't deserve to be in the infobox even though she's on the poster (she currently is in the infobox), and that Kirzinger should even though he isn't (he IS in the infobox at this time). King gets poster credit (and opening sequence credit), but dies as soon as the film starts. Kirzinger is in the film more than Robert Englund is, yet one doesn't get poster credit (cannot remember if he got opening sequence credit or not). That's just two examples. There are probably others though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The 50/50 case is one that you think is a hard one to decide, not a clear case but the opposite of a clear case; an ambiguous case that takes a lot of thinking, judging, weighing, reflecting; the type of case that in your mind could seriously go either way and you might change your mind about because you can see the strength of both sides of the argument. Got any of those? --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I cannot think of one off the top of my head at this moment.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe one will pop into your head if you don't try to think about it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

A possible film is Valkyrie, which has a lot of fairly major actors and roles besides the obvious one of Cruise as Stauffenberg. The field has grown and shrunk over the months. Carice van Houten, for example, is pretty famous, and she gets some screentime with Cruise, but it's not enough, IMO. At the end of the day, I don't really care 'cause it's such a waste of effort. I try to shrink the field if the number of names feels excessive. Posters may not be ideal since it's promotional, especially of people who are in the film only briefly. (I actually had an experience like Bignole years ago, where I rented a film with Jackie Chan on the cover -- The Prisoner, I think -- and he barely had a role in it.) I recommend looking to reviews, which tend to identify the major players, and mixing that with common sense. Films are so diverse that it's not possible to come up with a clear-cut solution. It's more of a matter of editorial discretion, and all we should do is direct that discretion with our ideas so far. —Erik (talk • contrib) 10:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Erik, I agree that posters and DVD boxes are a problem. Poster credit is usually contractual, though. Box credit changes. Reviews are too many and various. Is there really some kind of problem with "above the title plus three"? Perhaps I'm forgetting an important reason that's no good.

I'll put the same question to you: what would you consider a specific hard case -- a 50/50 case of an actor who maybe should or maybe shouldn't be included in the infobox? Carice van Houten doesn't count cuz you say her screen time is not sufficient. (If she deserves some consideration because of her fame, what's the matter with Jackie Chan?) I think it is easy to overlook that naming the quintessential hard case defines the limit, the border, the boundary. It's not an intellectual exercise. If we can't name a hard case, perhaps we should think a little more about the criteria. By naming a 50/50 case and discussing why or why not we make the criteria obvious. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The only problems with posters like that that I have come across is when the stars' names are in big bold letters on the poster (like, "come see me because I have such and such in a role"), but I don't tend to look at those names. The names I look at are the ones that are at the bottom, with all of the production info. Occasionally there might be a name that probably doesn't belong (Adrienne King....though she isn't even a big name), but I've found that they are generally pretty useful as far as determining who has a real starring role. I don't believe that misrepresentations happen so often that addressing it in the MOS would be a waste of time. If we cannot think of a 50/50 case that's not a problem, we can still work up a model that can be used till someone comes up with a real 50/50 case that they need answered.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, what is the problem with using the actors above the title plus the next three listed in the screen credits? If there's no objection, that should definitely be the standard. If there is an objection, it should be on the table. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Screen credits are not always in order of importance; for example, in Public Enemies, the credits list the characters in order of appearance. And I seem to recall that in The Lord of the Rings the credits were in alphabetical order.Cop 663 (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetical at times, and others they tend to include just about everyone other than the stand-ins. For instances, J.K. Simmons is in the opening credits of the Spider-Man movies, but he really isn't a "starring role". He's an important supporting character, but not one of the "lead roles". I don't think Spider-Man even has credits before the film title. I think we need a basic standard, and then just a generalized "there are exceptions.." point that can cover instances where common sense needs to be applied when determining who should and should not be included.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, a valid objection if they're alphabetical. But that objection does not apply to those above the title. It is by merit and it does not change over time. Still seems like an excellent standard, particularly for those above the title. Any objections to the "above the title" standard? --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If the below the title credits are not alphabetical, then the "above the title + 3" standard works just fine? --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)