Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
NA This article has been rated as NA-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot overview, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. We are always looking for new members! Join us today!

The following users are active in maintaining and improving this article. If you have questions regarding verification and sources, they may be able to help: WP:FILMS

Contents 1 Squeeky Clean 2 Alternate versions 3 Mangoe 4 Could you comment? 5 Themes, influences, and interpretations 6 Guidelines on inclusion of red links 7 Soundtrack 8 Cast listings, form a consensus on style.

[edit] Squeeky Clean

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Alternate versions

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

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

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

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

[edit] Mangoe

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

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

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

[edit] Could you comment?

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

[edit] Themes, influences, and interpretations

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

[edit] Guidelines on inclusion of red links

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

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

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

[edit] Soundtrack

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

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

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

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

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

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