Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film

Nationality of film

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Referenced filming locations - yay or nay?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Years in film

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

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

Here's an attempt at a first draft:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2024

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

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

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

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

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

MOS guidance on short desciptions

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

Copyedit of MOS:FILMRATING

MOS:FILMRATING has a sentence in it that says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(For readers and anyone looking at old archive pages this topic was raised elsewhere before specific wording changes were proposed.) The indiscriminate spamming of American ratings and systemic bias was only part of those discussion, IIRC the eventual conclusion was that ratings were subjective and in general not interesting or noteworthy. (European films not being bothered by nudity or American films not noticing gun violence was a frequent trope from writers looking to fill pages, someone somewhere would mention it but it was trivial and rarely received significant coverage that necessitated being mentioned in an encyclopedia.) It wasn't about highlighting only one source of ratings it was that in most cases there was no good reason to mention ratings at all. Only in rare cases where a film was banned or recut that there were any secondary sources actually discussing the rating (or rare cases where a film prompted ratings system changes e.g. Gremlins, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom). Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia not TV Guide, and MOS:FILMRATING covers this well as in most cases there is still no good reason to mention the ratings unless "there is substantial coverage from reliable sources". Removing the mention of WP:CSB is one thing, but ratings should not be included at all so please do not change the wording to suggest otherwise. -- 109.76.198.63 (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The pertinent section already includes the text, " In film articles, avoid indiscriminate identification of ratings and instead focus on ratings for which there is substantial coverage from reliable sources.", and I don't think anybody is talking about modifying or removing that text. DonIago (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The parent post specifically proposed changing the wording to "If a film has been issued in multiple countries, avoid mere identification of ratings issued by just one of them" and that change of emphasis seems to encourage adding of multiple ratings, which some editors might choose to read selectively instead of paying attention to the sentiment of the whole paragraph, that is do not include ratings at all and only include ratings if and when there is substantial coverage. I agree that the parenthetical about WP:CSB could be safely removed, but I urge caution when it comes to any further modification of the text that might be perceived to allow more broad exceptions. (WP:VGSCOPE Video game articles are a mess of trivia and even they don't include ratings either unless it "is the subject of independent commentary".) In general there is no need for an encyclopedia article to include ratings. -- 109.76.198.63 (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Since nobody seems to think that mentioning Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias is necessary, I've removed that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the text (now that WP:CSB is no longer mentioned), I think that whole sentence could be removed with no harm:

−

Ratings given to individual films by [[motion picture rating system]]s will vary by territories in accordance to their cultures and their types of governance. In film articles, avoid [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE|indiscriminate]] identification of ratings and instead focus on ratings for which there is substantial coverage from reliable sources. Coverage of ratings can include how a film is produced to target specific audiences, the late editing of a film to acquire a specific rating, or controversy over whether or not a film's rating was appropriately assigned. Since this is the English-language Wikipedia and not the American Wikipedia, avoid mere identification of ratings issued by the [[Motion Picture Association of America]] (MPAA). Provide global coverage of how different territories rate individual films if substantial coverage exists. Retrospective coverage is also welcomed to evaluate how films were rated in their time period, such as the 1969 film ''[[Midnight Cowboy]]'' being X-rated initially by the MPAA. Rating coverage generally belongs in the "Release" section, though coverage can be elsewhere. For instance, the "Production" section can detail the filmmakers' goal to achieve a specific rating in making the film, or a stand-alone section can cover controversy surrounding a rating if enough detail exists.

+

Ratings given to individual films by [[motion picture rating system]]s will vary by territories in accordance to their cultures and their types of governance. In film articles, avoid [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE|indiscriminate]] identification of ratings and instead focus on ratings for which there is substantial coverage from reliable sources. Coverage of ratings can include how a film is produced to target specific audiences, the late editing of a film to acquire a specific rating, or controversy over whether or not a film's rating was appropriately assigned. Provide global coverage of how different territories rate individual films if substantial coverage exists. Retrospective coverage is also welcomed to evaluate how films were rated in their time period, such as the 1969 film ''[[Midnight Cowboy]]'' being X-rated initially by the MPAA. Rating coverage generally belongs in the "Release" section, though coverage can be elsewhere. For instance, the "Production" section can detail the filmmakers' goal to achieve a specific rating in making the film, or a stand-alone section can cover controversy surrounding a rating if enough detail exists.

The existing sentence after it already encourages a global focus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

First thank you.

Secondly, on closer inspection I notice the section is out of step with more recent policy against creating Controversy sections and I would recommend that the text "or a stand-alone section can cover controversy surrounding a rating if enough detail exists." also be deleted, or rephrased to expressly warn editors against creating a "Controversy" section. -- 109.76.198.63 (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the intention was to encourage a ==Rating== section in such cases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

What would you suggest as alternate phrasing? DonIago (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The indent level of the comment from DonIago implies the question was aimed at me but logically it seems more likely it was for the other editor and their suggestion of a "Rating" subsection. Either way my recommendation was and still is to the delete the text I quoted and highlighted above, because fitting the information into the Release or Production sections already seems like the best general advice and the very rare cases where there is enough for a whole subsection will probably be decided on a case by case basis anyway. -- 109.76.199.27 (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

No, my comment was for you since you also suggested rephrasing the text as an alternative to removing it. I have no issues with the creation of a "Rating" section if there's sufficient text to justify the existence of such a section, which you seem to agree with; we just seem to disagree as to whether there's any point to mentioning it. Since the text already specifies if enough detail exists, I don't see how that's at odds with what you seem to be advocating for, though I suppose it's possible that disputes might ensue over what constitutes enough detail; then again, I think the number of articles where ratings even come up is relatively small. DonIago (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

"Internationally co-produced"

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

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

While I agree, the nationality of films, especially in the present day for non-Hollywood productions is often complex and the nationality of a film often seems to have very little weight for several products. Half the time, films are identified with this in an article, with no discussion of how it fits the mold of an American film, or a French-Italian co-production, or something like Turbo Kid, a Canadian-New Zealand co-production. What do you propose @Οἶδα:? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Depends. Most international co-productions I see are between 2-4 countries. Of course exceptions could be made for more complex cases. However, a good example would be Nymphomaniac (film), which writes the following at the end of the first paragraph: "Nymphomaniac was an international co-production of Denmark, Belgium, France, and Germany." This discussion was specifically in relation to first sentences, not later uses of "internationally co-produced". For a more complex case such as The Man Who Sold His Skin, you could mention later in the lead that it is an internationally co-production without exhaustively covering each national interest and instead leaving that in the body of the article. Οἶδα (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

MOS:FILMLEAD already states to "If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section." That being said, even Nymphomaniac doesn't have a source for its claim. As MOS:INTRO states "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article, in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." I think I did an okay job of this in Blood and Black Lace. As I don't think being a production of two to any large amount is going to mean much to the average viewer without context, I think it would be best to include this information in the prose if it can be discussed with some relevant detail. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of what is stated at MOS:FILMLEAD, as it is what started this discussion. And I was not intending to using the Nymphomaniac article as being representative of requisite sourcing but rather the language/placement as being preferable and conforming to the guideline. The issue I had was with the immediate sentence of articles reading ""internationally co-produced". Again, not a serious issue, but still something I believe should be discouraged given the guideline. Your article of Blood and Black Lace is a consummate example as it explores the nature and magnitude of its multi-nationality. Unfortunately most of these articles do not include such details and a "internationally co-produced" opener does not communicate anything more and, as you alluded to, is potentially undue weight without context. Οἶδα (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, its a shame that these kind of specific details are not thoroughly more available, even from more technical databases. Do get back to your point, I do think we should probably drop that term as its vague and only sounds like something that we don't really see used in regular film discussion. I'd say feel comfortable in dropping the term if seen. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

"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)