Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film

Film series

It is time to probably re-phrase our MOS:FILMSERIES. Currently, it states " film series article should only be created when the series encompasses at least three films." Generally, as we have with Xfds for articles on series/franchises for Rosemary's Baby and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three Men and a Baby (franchise) have been deleted due to a lack of signifigant coverage. I understand instruction creep is a thing, but just because a film has one or two sequels or spin-offs, or becomes transmedial, suggesting an article should/could be created is probably not appropriate per the last two Xfds. I'm proposing a change from "A film series article should only be created when the series encompasses at least three films. An article for two films is too premature for consolidating details from both. Exceptions may include franchise articles where films are one of several notable and interrelated components (TV series, comics, etc.)." to something like "A film series article should only be created when there is signifigant coverage of the work as a whole." I'd suggest this can pertain to reception to the series or an overview of the work, as currently, so many film franchise and series articles fail WP:SIGCOV and WP:SYNTH. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

MOS:FILMSERIES does not say that if a film series encompasses at least three films, an article must automatically be created. It says an article may only be created if a film series encompasses at least three films. This is a common misreading that we have also seen with WP:NFF (just because a film has started filming does not automatically mean it is notable for an article). Notability, i.e. WP:GNG, is still a required component. So, this wording does not need adjusting. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The proliferation of film series articles (long before even a second film has been released) suggests that something needs to be done. The existing guidelines are frequently being ignored. -- 109.76.130.60 (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

"Received negative reviews but was a box office success..."

Should we update MOS:FILMLEAD to recommend avoiding phrasing such as the above, or perhaps explicitly recommend putting critical and box office performance in separate sentences? Many well-reviewed films do poorly, while many poorly reviewed films do well. Phrasing such as the above implies a causal relationship between reviews and box office performance. A more extreme example would be, "Despite receiving negative reviews, the film performed well at the box office..." which suggests that audiences intentionally ignored the reviews. In some cases I've seen this addressed by converting the "but" to an "and"; I'm not sure that eliminates the suggestion of a relationship, but it at least weakens it. DonIago (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I've seen this throughout articles where people try to say "well Siskel & Ebert gave it a thumbs down, but said a few good things" or the statement you said above. I'm not sure if we should have it in the Manual of Style for films, as it seems to be just a case of MOS:EDITORIAL. Specifically that "editorializing can produce implications that are not supported by the sources. When used to link two statements, words such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second." If spotted in articles, I would just remove them as (I'm going on a hunch) most folks adding this are probably unfamiliar with the MOS:FILM standards, and should be probably be pointed to the rule I mentioned so its not applied anywhere in any article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

400 and 700 words

The WP:FILMPLOT section says "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words." This seems too strict of a wording as I see no reason why a plot summary cannot be shorter than 400 words. I propose this sentence be reworded to the simpler and less constrained,

Plot summaries should be less than 700 words.

Alternatively, if we do want to emphasis the typical length,

Plot summaries should be less than 700 words but are typically more than 400.

I have no strong preference over either form but both I think are more ideal than the current wording. Jason Quinn (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of having a lower limit is to encourage having a meaningful plot summary. The limits are both somewhat arbitrary, but is somewhat set to encourage half a page of A4 to a full page in order to prescribe sufficient detail to summarize the plot. There may be examples where the lower-limit cannot be fulfilled—such as in the case of films that have not been released, or lost films—but those easily fall into the class of exceptions to the guidelines. A typical feature length film should ideally have a meaningful plot summary, which will require a lower-limit of some nature. Betty Logan (talk) 09:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Very short plot summaries can be counterproductive in helping people understand what the praise and criticism in the reception is referencing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Points taken, Betty Logan and NinjaRobotPirate. But my second proposed wording, "Plot summaries should be less than 700 words but are typically more than 400" seems to both encourage longer summaries while not explicitly forbidding shorter ones. Is it not then an improvement to the current wording? Jason Quinn (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I like the second proposal. No need for anyone to attempt to pad a short but adequate plot summary. Meters (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The current wording does not "forbid" plot summaries from being less than 400. This page is a set of guidelines, not policies, so if there is some reason that a plot summary should be less then 400 words then local consensus can confirm the exception. But we should not be suggesting that this should be a common practice as for more films a plot summary less than 400 words means it is inadequate. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand this is a guideline page. But my comment pertains to the wording of the sentence "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words" itself, which does forbid summaries from being less than 400 words. Yes, you can use the "it's only guideline" rationale to override the wording, but I'm a big believer in saying what you mean and meaning what you say. Why burden editors with knowing the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia bureaucracy for them to know that it's okay for less than 400 words when we can just say it directly? Jason Quinn (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The phrase "should be" is not a requirement or a prohibition. I think the current more concise wording is less confusing than the alternative proposal. – notwally (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The suggested word count is a recommendation, not a rule. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

About time to raise this to 800 words, too many good and well-known films need a bit more plot development to present a full summary. Some editors obsess about counting words leading up to 700, let's give users and reverters who take '700' as gospel another 100 words to work with. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you familiar with WP:PLOT? It says, "Wikipedia treats creative works... in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works." Having plot summaries be concise is policy. 700 words is more than enough to accomplish that. If anything, editors should back away from the 700-word threshold and land somewhere in the middle of the range. Describing the primary source at length is less critical for this encyclopedia than using secondary sources. We're supposed to summarize what has been written about the film, not summarize the film itself (or make that the chief focus). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yep. I would be in favour of lowering the wordcount. People become too fixated on summaries. It shouldn't be the focus of a film article. Popcornfud (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Often 700 words (although I don't count them) just isn't enough to tell the story of a well written and plot heavy film. Sometimes little things are actually major plot points. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I've written probably hundreds of plot summaries on Wikipedia and have never struggled to fit them into 700 words, ever. I think if you're struggling you're probably missing the wood for the trees in terms of what's important, or you're not being efficient enough with the prose (see WP:STREAMLINE). Popcornfud (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that summarizing the plot into 800 words is "concise" per policy? Furthermore, the "Plot" section is in service of the other, more critical sections. It does not mean the whole of the film needs to be understood in depth. Think about books, which are much more plot-dense than films. If a film's script is about 100 pages, does that mean a book several times longer should have their Wikipedia article's plot summary also several times longer, like 800 x 4, to be 3,200 words? Absolutely not. The more important content for Wikipedia is coverage from secondary sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning the placement of mid and post-credits scenes

The last time mid and post-credits scenes was discussed, it resulted in this addition to WP:FILMPLOT: The inclusion of mid- and post-credit scenes should be based on the same criteria used to evaluate the relevance of other scenes. I think this was a great addition, because it holds these scenes to the same standard as the rest of the plot.

What continues to bug me is the mentioning of the placement of these scenes. Take this current example from Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film): In a mid-credits scene, [SPOILER REDACTED]. In a post-credits scene, [ANOTHER SPOILER REDACTED]. edit: spoilers removed per request, go to the article if you want to see the actual example.

It seems to me that including the placement is contrary to the purpose of a plot summary on Wikipedia. WP:FILMPLOT also says: The plot summary is an overview of the main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail. Why do we ignore this for post-credits stuff? Whether a scene occurs before, during or after the credits is an editing detail that changes nothing about the events of the plot. We don't encourage people to write things like "In the pre-credits sequence, James Bond..." or "After an interlude, the next scene shows..." Or "In a cold open, Walter White decides..." How is this different?

There's no denying there's demand for this information from the hordes of fans of franchises like Sonic, Marvel and DC. But demand isn't how we decide what goes into Wikipedia articles — that's why we don't include recipes, how-to instructions, or travel tips, all of which are useful and in-demand types of information, but aren't part of Wikipedia's remit. The slavish attention to credits stuff creates a weird exception in Wikipedia standards and prose style, and I think it makes us vulnerable to hype and fancruft. Popcornfud (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Popcornfud do you mind alerting readers that you're spoiling Sonic 3 in your text please? Almost caught me. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is always necessary to state "In a post-credits scene", and I actually pushed to avoid that wording at Avengers: Infinity War since there was a logical place to include the post-credits details earlier in the summary. However, I don't think it is always terrible. It gives context to the reader that the detail is something that is intentionally separate from the rest of the film. We do sometimes say something like "in a flashback" if it helps give context, and if time passes between two scenes we generally call that out. I don't think it makes sense to put a blanket ban on this wording. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think out-of-universe framing needs to be disallowed in general. It's a kind of "real-world perspective" that's appropriate. Sometimes a film's structure is unconventional and warrants such descriptions. If we can summarize the plot in a straightforward way, great. If it has its quirks, and post-credits scenes are its own kind of quirk, then some out-of-universe framing for clarity would help. Like remember that not everyone is a movie buff like most of us here, being very knowledgeable about these scenes and how they tie in elsewhere. If we blend a post-credits scene at the end of a plot summary with the pre-credits ending, it may be confusing to readers who may not have stuck around for the credits (either before in theaters or at home watching on TV). Post-credits scenes can vary in weight and relevance, but they're still "apart" in a can-be-missed way. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm OK with describing out-of-universe stuff in terms of stuff like "in a flashback", where it's the most elegant way of conveying plot information. But "in a flashback" actually contains information about the plot — it tells you that a plot event takes place before another — whereas "in a post-credits scene" doesn't. I'm personally not convinced that we need to optimize for people who may have missed things — films can contain all manner of things people may miss or otherwise not understand. Popcornfud (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not about optimising for "people who may have missed things", it's optimising for people who have not seen the film. That is the whole point of the plot summary. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree — which is why we don't need to worry about confusing readers who may not have stuck around for the credits as Erik suggests. We don't need to optimize for viewers who saw the movie but missed stuff. Popcornfud (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, let's not worry about the readers' experiences. My general point is that post-credits scenes belong in unconventional territory. WP:WAF § Plot summaries of individual works has the third paragraph talking about the inclusion of out-of-universe language for unconventional elements. I don't think mentioning the nature of the post-credits scene needs to be frowned upon by default. I've no idea if mentioning it is more or less suitable for certain films, and when they are skipped over entirely or just reduced to a footnote. I'm saying that in general, it's fine to indicate the nature of such scenes. EDIT: To add on, think about the secondary sources that review the film. From what I recall, if they mention the post-credits scene content, they tend to mention that the content is in a post-credits scene. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it depends a lot on the circumstances for each film. My view is that if a scene in the credits is important enough to include (which often it may not be), then it should usually just be included in the plot, but if it is particularly noteworthy or important to highlight that it is a separate scene during the credits, then that should be allowed. The exception should be including an identifier such as "in a post-credits scene", which seems to be similar to the guidance linked by Erik above. – notwally (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I thought it was unfortunate that the previous strong warnings against including any post credits scenes was watered down to get that wording, because WP:LOCALCONSENSUS allowed so many exceptions already.

I wish more of WP:STREAMLINE was added to the main guidelines. In this case specifically the warning against "Identifying scenes and transitions", because if an editor has to write "In a mid credits scene" they clearly are not treating it just like any other scene. If the information in the post credits scene was actually important the editor should be able to write "Finally, Kaiser Soze appears" or "Meanwhile Godot arrives at the wrong location" or "later ..." etc and describe the scene just the same as any other. Op is right, the post credits scenes are not any different and the guidelines should be tightened and made clearer to not allow so many badly written exceptions. -- 109.76.130.148 (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

How about returning to first principles WP:FILMPLOT says the purpose of the plot section is to "complement wider coverage" etc. If the post credit scene is not required by other parts of the article (preferably more than one) then it does not need to be included in the plot section. e.g. A minor character appearing only in the post credits scene might be enough for that actor to get a mention in the Cast section (and perhaps a footnote) but does not mean the plot section must include the scene. Examples: in The Batman (film) the post credits scene is cleanly but briefly mentioned in the Plot section (without ever saying "in a post credits scene") because of a minor character, whereas a minor character in the Enola Holmes 2 post credits scene (Dr. Watson) is only included in the cast section because it is a tease not a plot point. -- 109.76.130.148 (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The primary issue is how post-credit scenes which are plot-relevant may connect with the larger plot. I think a good example where the credits scene could be explained without explaining it is a credits scene because it ties to the main plot is with Deadpool 2 (right now that plot doesn't). I can't immediately find an example of a completely disjointed, but plot-relevant, credit scene, but that's probably a sign that plot-relevant credit scenes are not going to be that disjointed from the film itself. Thus we should be able to remove the "in a post-credits scene..." language. Masem (t) 01:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

First sentence in lead section

Compulsive Brainstormer, regarding this, the sentence "See WP:LEADSENTENCE for guidance that applies to other elements, such as reputable directors, starring actors, and source material" is supposed to offset the tendency that a lot of editors have to simply name the director upfront every single time. A film could have a director be the most notworthy element, but sometimes a film's starring actors outweigh the director (especially if the latter is more of a hired hand), and sometimes the source material outweighs any one person. (If the weights are relatively close, it would take consensus to sort out the order.) Does that help? I would be fine with a rephrasing of that sentence, but I find it necessary as an offset. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

How about Other elements, such as the director, starring actors, or source material, should be included in the lead sentence only if they are especially noteworthy. I would still move the LEADSENTENCE link to the first mention of the lead sentence. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying there's a better solution, but personally I hate phrases such as "especially noteworthy" because it just lays the groundwork for future arguments over whether the element in question is "especially noteworthy". Never mind that "noteworthy" is perilously close to notable. DonIago (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have a better solution, but this goes to show why the lead section is usually not a good place to start. Getting wrapped up in what the first sentence should say isn't a good way to begin. That's why I tried to add a note that while developing an article, one could mostly ignore the lead section until the body is substantially complete. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's good advice to tell (or suggest to) editors, "Oh, you can just ignore that for the time-being..." regardless of what 'that' is. If we were going to advise editors against overly focusing on the first sentence of the lead, that doesn't seem like advice specific to film articles, so I don't really feel that it would belong here. The Film MOS should discuss things specific to film articles. Unless you feel that advice is specific to film articles? DonIago (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The lead section is supposed to summarize the body. If the article body is not yet developed, it could be counter-productive to spend much time on the lead. I'm not sure this page even makes it sufficiently clear that the lead section is supposed to summarize the body. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the first sentence in the guideline was based on older "nutshell" text at WP:LEAD, and it looks like that text has changed since. I updated this guideline to open with the latest text, "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." Does that work better? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes it does, but perhaps there could still be a note that if one is developing an article, the lead section might not be the best place to start. I suppose this can be done without saying "ignore the lead until everything else is in order". Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That is general advice for how to write the lead of a new article, it is not specific to writing a film article. I would suggest taking that concern to a more appropriate policy or guideline page. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Doniago asked you if you thought this was necessary specifically for film articles. We can't import WP:LEAD here, and I don't even think WP:LEAD says anything about article development that way. It's implied in the fact that the lead section needs to summarize the article body, so the body needs to be written first for the lead to then be appropriate. It's not a WikiProject Film-centric item to have. After using the nutshell from WP:LEAD, the guideline text focuses on elements specific to films. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why your assumption is that the MOS is telling editors to start with the lead section. That so-called section is simply at the top of any given article, so in the MOS, it's at the top of the list of sections under "Primary content". Not to mention that many articles are already developed in some way but may warrant improvement of its lead section.

As for your suggested rewrite, I think it needs to be more encompassing. This is probably too long, but something like, "Additional context, such as the director, source material, or starring actors, may be included in the opening sentence when these elements are prominent in reliable sources and help situate the film for non-specialist readers." Think of disambiguation pages where we explain just a little more than the article title, per WP:DABNOT "to add a little additional information" to an entry. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

We could just use that and drop and help situate the film for non-specialist readers. That doesn't seem essential. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest some further adjustments to clarify what the sentence is trying to get across: Other noteworthy elements that are prominent in reliable sources may be included, but do not overload the first sentence with too many details per WP:LEADSENTENCE. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

How about While it should be kept reasonably succinct, the opening sentence may also include other elements if they are especially prominent in reliable sources. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

That may be opening up arguments about what "reasonably succinct" means. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but is there any chance of also recommending some restrictions on including production companies and distributors in the opening sentence? Seems to me too many film articles start with the likes of <Film name> is a <year> film produced by ABC Productions and DEF Productions and released by XYZ Films. Barry Wom (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree, and that approach alarmingly makes Wikipedia articles sound like press releases, running afoul of WP:PROMO. US franchise films suffer this the most, and I think the same editors tend to work on these articles and open them the same way in the name of standardization. Comic book films especially do (did?) this to the point of not even naming or linking to titular characters until a few sentences in. I'd rather that we write the first sentences to the film itself. (I think way too much about this and cover it in my essay here.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Producers and distributors in lead section

A concern was raised regarding my edits to the Studio Ghibli-related articles on my talk page regarding the removal of information of several producers (including the production companies) and distributors here. Taking this, along with Barry Wom and Erik's comments from the "First sentence in lead section" section, into consideration, what should we do about the producers and distributors? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Some editors feel these should never be included in the lead, or at least not early in the lead, but there isn't a hard and fast rule about what belongs in the lead for all films. If local consensus has determined that those are noteworthy elements to include, you shouldn't be blanket removing them without discussing first. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

My personal preference is that they shouldn't be there. The inclusion of distributors, in particular, is the reason I don't bother editing MCU articles because that inclusion will always bother me. There may be special cases where you mention the producer in context because they had an important role, i.e. "The film began production after producer x spent 6 years gathering funds", but just "x is a film directed by x and written by x, with x serving as a producer and it was distributed by Disney"? Get that outta here. A studio makes sense, again in context to why rather than just "x was the production company." Distributor again, I would use Trading Places as an example, the studio is mentioned but as part of an interesting part of the intro instead of just a name drop. I get mentioning Studio Ghibli since my understand is they're animating it. Looking at the Spirited Away changes, "It was produced by Toshio Suzuki", is just a name drop as he's not mentioned again. I assume he is more involved than other producers, but part of the reason I disagree with including producers is that the credit system for them is widely abused and can be given to pretty much anyone, and modern films can also have 3+ of them so you're just listing names when the infobox is right there. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this. The problem for me is that the production and distribution companies are often only a sentence or two in the body (and sometimes not discussed at all outside of the infobox), and so including them in the lead may seem like undue weight. If they are important or discussed more in depth in the body and this weight is supported by the cited sources, then it would make more sense to include in the lead. Ultimately, for me this is a question of what the sources say and how much weight they put on discussing the production or distribution companies. – notwally (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I feel like film producers, production companies, and distributors should all be separate discussions:

• My first thought is that in any film's box office coverage, the distributor will always be mentioned, and it seems easy enough to simply say that so-and-so distributor released the film in theaters.
• Production companies, if simply named, feel rather shoehorned in. If there is a good "Production" section that can be summarized in the middle part of the lead section, then that would be most suitable.
• Speaking of film producers, NYT had an interesting article about that recently here. I admit I am less sure about this, especially considering the case that producers go up to collect the Best Picture award. Maybe I'd be more keen to name them if the given film has received such awards, but for most films, perhaps it is not worthwhile unless there is similarly a good production-related part of the lead section?

The lead section needs to "stand on its own as a concise overview of the article". With films, there are so many individual and corporate crediting possible, so the lead-section material should focus on what's important. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we're definitely overloading the opening sentence in the majority of articles. Overwhelming readers with too much unimportant information doesn't help them. It's a bit different in mature articles. You can spread the information throughout the lead and include context for why it's important. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

All of this data is usually set out in the infobox; indeed, that’s the purpose of having an infobox in the article. And it will be covered in prose in the relevant sections of the article. It only goes into the lead if the information is particularly notable and significant to the topic, as per WP:LEAD. This will vary by film - sometimes the director is particularly notable, sometimes the lead actors, sometimes the original writer; sometimes a lot of people involved with a film will be particularly prominent, on other occasions none of them are. Hence the quest for a standard approach to apply to all film articles is futile. I’d be surprised however if the distributor very often qualifies. MapReader (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Directors, actors, writers - fine. Distributors, producers, production companies though - nobody cares, and the introduction of them to the lede should really be under exceptional circumstances only. I can see the value in mentioning a single production company if they're primarily associated with a particular genre of film (Studio Ghibli, Walt Disney, Hammer etc.), but that's about it. Barry Wom (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that "nobody cares" about distributors specifically. They are invariably mentioned as part of a film's box office coverage. There is enough due weight from reliable sources that this to me is as basic of a fact as naming the film's director. (In contrast, film producers and production companies aren't as consistently mentioned anywhere like that.) Mainstream films' distributors are usually not just distributors anyway, if they're under one of the major studios. Unless you're talking about films beyond the mainstream? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

What percentage of visitors to a film article would you estimate are seeking to learn which company distributed the film? It's information that belongs in the "Release" section, not the lede. Barry Wom (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not the right way to frame it. We have to follow WP:LEAD, which says in the nutshell, "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." This is covered in detail with MOS:LEADREL. If all of a film's box office coverage invariably names its distributor, establishing clear encyclopedic weight (along with relevant figures), then we would be remiss not to name it. That's what matters, not what we think readers are or are not looking for. Is the claim that we should not even identify blockbuster films' distributors in spite of overwhelming coverage naming them in many reliable sources? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

To give some examples, the Marvel Cinematic Universe articles mention the distributors' involvement (in this case, it's Paramount and Disney) later on in the lead (specifically the second and paragraph). Same with Back to the Future and Conan the Barbarian (1982 film). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, were you asking about distributors at all in the lead section or in the first sentence(s)? I feel like later in the lead section is most appropriate because it is in the context of the release and the resulting box office. To do it any more upfront, outside of context, feels like a press release to me. Overall, for me, the details should be organically introduced. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I was asking about whether we should put the distributors in the first section of the lead, but if not, we can always mention said distributors in a later paragraph of the lead as necessary. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Got it now! Yeah, I think later in the lead section where the film's release and box office is detailed makes the most sense for most cases. There may be some companies have weight in their own right to be mentioned in the first paragraph. Disney and A24 are two instances that come to mind as having more noteworthy context than others, to the point of an audience desire to see their productions because of their name. Streaming services are another interesting case. Like before, we would indicate if a film was direct-to-video. For some Netflix films, it may be that the Netflix element is more noteworthy than anything else. (I'm just thinking out loud at this point...) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Production companies

So, about certain companies involved in film productions (including production committees where multiple companies are involved as in some anime productions like Studio Ghibli films), should the relevant ones be listed in the release or production sections? Also, one of the things we do want to avoid is an exhaustive list of credits which include several production companies involved (for example, 15 or so companies listed as members of the film's production committee), which isn't Wikipedia's purpose, so should we do those on a case-by-case basis? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a hard and fast rule about it. It's like with "Cast" sections where we don't name everyone, but we probably name some actors whose screen time are brief because reliable sources tend to name them in their set of actors. If secondary sources are naming production companies in a set, there is some merit to naming them. Maybe moreso if they're blue-linked topics compared to not. 15 does sound like a lot, though! I recall one time I did this, with Wolf Totem (film) where I just had them in a note. It's less prominent placement, which could be an in-between approach. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Film producers

So, given the previous points raised in the above discussions, which paragraphs in the lead sections should we list film producers (such as Raffaella De Laurentiis in the Conan the Barbarian (1982 film) article) if they are important to said film's production? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the production-based paragraph is fine. The example you mention is a good one in organically naming a producer. I had another thought -- the first paragraph tends to parallel the infobox in naming the director, writers, producers, and stars. That probably has seemed the easiest way to put something in the lead section, and it is a habit that has taken hold. Foundationally, that can be fine, though I think we can have the flexibility to move beyond that, especially if the film has other noteworthy contexts that are more appropriate to highlight (like for a biopic, naming the real-life figure). It's also possible that for some films the writers are not worthwhile to name in the first paragraph either (like if they are numerous and/or lack blue links to indicate notability) and only in the production-based paragraph if it fits. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Individual and professional film critics

Individual critics can also be referenced to detail various aspects of the film. Which individual critics can be referenced for their opinion on a film? Notable ones? Ones that write for notable and reliable sources? Do we care what John Non-Notable Smith, who writes for Not-Notable And Obviously Unreliable Website, thinks of a film? Professional film critics are regarded as reliable sources, although reputable commentators and experts — connected to the film or to topics covered by the film — may also be cited. How is it determined that a person is a "professional" film critic? Geniac (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

If it's a self-published blog, it's undue emphasis to include their views. I also look for evidence of citation spamming and editors citing themselves when I see a niche source being used as if it's prominent. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Ways to tell if someone is a professional film critic include checking whether their reviews are on sites like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, and seeing if they have a history of writing for known/reputable sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

We would follow WP:SOURCEDEF, which says, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." If the publication is reliable, it's usually fair to say that the film critic for it is too. It's hard to imagine a situation where the writer is reliable but the publication is not. As for selecting critics, I think ideally all (or most) of Metacritic's sampled critics are reliable, as well as Rotten Tomatoes's Top Critics (generally, not beyond that, since these get into blog territory). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

To add on, the first sentence you quoted is more about the latter part, detailing "various aspects of the film". For most films, there won't be a good overall critical reception to indicate the overall trends of what critics liked or disliked. So if we are stuck with just "critics liked the film", we can only sample as fairly as possible all the different positive reviews with no particular emphasis on any trend. If the overall critical reception indicates something like the visual effects being impressive, we could sample in part to that, quoting a critic detailing their positive thoughts on the effects. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:LEADSENTENCE

Can anyone help clarify the following sentence: "See WP:LEADSENTENCE for guidance that applies to other elements, such as reputable directors, starring actors, and source material." I ask because there's nothing in the link specifically about films. fgnievinski (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's more referring to WP:LEADSENTENCE for guidance on writing out the sentence. Like does it mean anything for nonspecialist readers to read that a film is by a director, if that director is not notable themselves? Or, don't have to stuff everything in the first sentence. Or if there's one key reason that the topic is notable, put it in the first sentence. I personally get a litle deeper into this in my essay here. I think we're so used to just saying the director and writer(s) in the first sentence, mimicking the infobox, no matter what, but we can introduce the topic better to readers. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)