Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film

Proposed change to "Distribution" and "Reception" sections of guideline

Several editors have expressed an interest in making alterations to the guideline to reflect what seems to be common practise when it comes to shaping the "Reception" and "Release" sections of film articles. The proposed revision below adds more detailed rationales for the recommendations many of us make on a day-to-day basis. If approved, this expansion would replace the existing "Distribution" and "Reception" sections in the guideline:

Release

Provide information on the film's release, expanding upon the information in the infobox where necessary. Do not include information on the film's release in every territory (see above). Include details of notable festival appearances, special screenings and setups (e.g. digital, IMAX), and significant release date changes, with sourced commentary where appropriate. Relevant marketing information can be included in this section, or in a subsection should the coverage warrant it. After the film's release, include the following information:

Theatrical

Provide a summary of the film's commercial performance. Report box office grosses in the film's national currency if possible. If sufficient coverage exists, it is recommended that this information is placed in a "Box office performance" or "Theatrical run" section. In addition to worldwide box office statistics, this section may detail specific results of opening weekends, results from different English-speaking territories, the number of theatres the film was released into, and audience demographics. Coverage of a notable opening in a country not of the film's origin may be included (e.g., an article on an American film set in China may include discussion of the film's performance in that country). Box office statistics can be sourced from dedicated tracking websites such as Box Office Mojo, The Numbers and Box Office Guru, or print publications such as Variety or The Hollywood Reporter. Determine a consensus from objective (retrospective if possible) sources about how a film performed and why.

Home media

If available, provide information on the film's release on home media, such as release dates, revenues, and other appropriate third-party coverage. The section may contain a summary of the extras included with the release, though excessive detail is to be avoided. If supported by filmmaker or third-party analysis, descriptions of deleted scenes included with the release should be placed in the "Production" section; the reason for the footage's removal is the relevant element, not the medium. Include an image of the medium's display case only if it is accompanied by critical commentary.

Critical reception

Reliable sources should be used to determine how the film was received. For films, sources that are regarded as reliable are professional film critics, though notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be quoted. The use of print reviews is encouraged. Commentary should also be sought from reliable sources for critics' general consensus of the film. These will be more reliable in retrospect; closer to the release, review aggregate websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic should be cited for statistics pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews. (Caution: reliable review statistics may not be available for older films. Appraise the sample size in conjunction with other reliable sources, using best judgment to determine consensus.) In order to maintain a neutral point of view, it is recommended to quote a reasonable balance of these reviews. This may not always be possible or desirable (e.g. films that have been almost universally acclaimed or panned), and best judgment should again be used.

It is recommended that reviews are used from the film's country of origin (e.g., Canadian reviews for a Canadian film, Australian reviews for an Australian film), though evaluations from several English-speaking territories are desirable. In the case of films not in the English language, the section should contain quotes translated into English from non-English reviews. For older films, seek reviews both from the period of the film's release and the present in order to determine if a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today. Do not quote comments from members of the general public (e.g. user comments from Amazon.com, the Internet Movie Database or personal blogs), as they are self-published and have no proven expertise or credibility in the field. Polls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner may be used. Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew.

Comments

Please leave your comments and suggestions below, or if you have none, then your indication of support or opposition will do. Thanks! Steve ^{T • C} 19:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support as one of the editors who worked on the draft. Any outside comments about the draft so far would be greatly appreciated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I've watched Steve work this up and I think it's not only a good representation of common practice, but practice that sticks to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - much more coherent and considered than the current guidelines in effect, and all told, not a radical change either. Well done, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I would like to see some recommendations for how to format the reception section. I find people have taken against it when I have blockquote tagged every different quote because they have argued the quotes are too short to qualify (see Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE). However I find doing the following a bit too dense:

The New York Times said "spirally with pink dots and a hedgehog used for batteries, the ending would be improved by a shard of glass detaching the viewer's retina" whilst the Washington Post said "almost too exotic to truly convey what it's like to be a crushed can of soda pop living in Rangoon on 2c a day" whereas The Ilkley Moor Gazetteer described it as "bah, reet swanny and nae bother" whilst... etc.

However, starting each as a new paragraph also can feel a bit robotic and listy.

Which style do people prefer? Are there any exemplary criticism sections people can be directed to as best practice? This is a matter close to my heart because I'm somewhat addicted to monitoring critics responses. --bodnotbod (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Steve has written a couple of sizable reception sections in the past couple of weeks at Hancock and Hellboy II: The Golden Army, so he may have some suggestions on the matter. However, I think we've avoided explaining how to format a reception section because there is not really a right answer. The reviews are opinion pieces, and each one can go into so much detail about different aspects of a film, so interweaving them is always difficult. (Is it more important to include a critic's commentary about the writing or the acting?) It really is a vague field, and I'm not sure if this field could be clarified any further. Maybe some kind of mention saying, "This film is good/bad/average because..."? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've now been to have a look at those. Hmm. This is a thornier issue than it first appears. I know Steve is keen to try to give the 'reception' areas flow by picking out 'direction', 'acting' and other aspects and grouping those together for flow. And whilst that's deeply admirable I can't help but feel it has problems. Two strike me.

One: I feel that those blocks are slightly difficult for other editors to get their fingers into if they wish to add something. But more importantly, two that style is open to abuse. I know Steve is beyond reproach :o) but that sort of broad interpretive style is, well, interpretive. It is ripe for fifteen editors to come along and say they disagree with your summation (and maybe they all disagree amongst themselves too). For that reason, in many ways, I feel a fondness for just slapping down blockquotes all over the place because no one can argue the facts. It's indelicate and clunky but I feel it is a clear cut method that creates no battle grounds. Thoughts? (Today I have added 'reception' sections to Yellow Dog (novel) and The Information (novel) any comments on those? --bodnotbod (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the various approaches are why a specific style can't be recommended. On one hand, summarizing quotes may lose something in translation, while emphasizing quotes may be problematic in terms of copyright infringement. We strive to be neutral, but whenever we summarize a reliable source into a Wikipedia article, we are writing in our own words. I don't think it's possible to be completely objective in writing a reception section; even quoting at length cannot achieve such objectivity. What if you quote a more positive aspect of a negative review, or vice versa? There is a hidden "degree" which we cannot objectively achieve. In my opinion, community consensus is key to reviewing such sections, with greater care applied to those in controversial films' articles. I think that there will always be a battleground, hence the draft's mention of WP:NPOV and striving to use your best judgment. Perhaps an expansion to do would be to request independent review from someone who can compare the reception section to the full reviews themselves and see what could be improved. Peer evaluation seems to be the best possible gauge with these sections. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(after EC)That's a perfectly fair thing to say, Bod, and it was one of the things I was going to bring up in reply to your first post. On the one hand I think the section both scans better and avoids any potential copyright violation by being extensively paraphrased; on the other, we have to watch out not to word it so it sounds as if these are Wikipedia's opinions. While I have paraphrased perhaps more than other editors like to for those sections, I hope you'll find it very carefully worded. It's all about choosing which words or phrases to put in quotes. For example, if we state that

P. Gordon of Kettering Magazine said the stunning music reminded him of Vivian Stanshall's Bonzo years.

...that makes it sound as if the phrase "stunning music" is Wikipedia's opinion of the music Mr Gordon is commenting upon. However, merely adding the quotes throws it back on Peter:

P. Gordon of Kettering Magazine said the "stunning" music reminded him of Vivian Stanshall's Bonzo years.

though I'd prefer to avoid even that level of ambiguity by wording it thus:

P. Gordon of Kettering Magazine called the music "stunning", and said it reminded him of Vivian Stanshall's Bonzo years.

Additionally, while others without your levels of trust might see the unquoted, paraphrased sections as potential areas for interpretation and POV-pushing, as long as the sections are well-cited and someone can actually check these things, that shouldn't be a problem. At the end of the day, we can say "no original research, no original research" until the cows come home, but the whole of Wikipedia is built upon it. Even the best-cited article still relies on editor interpretation of those cites, and on which cites to actually use. Reception sections are especially thorny areas, and none will be perfect. All you can do is try to reflect what the reviewer said the best way you know how. If that's by dropping blockquotes in, I wouldn't worry about it. Someone will eventually come along and either remove it, or (more likely) recast it in original language. Steve ^{T • C} 19:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What you've said there has made me think "ah, I see: in some ways most sections suffer from precisely the problems that a 'reception' section does. We cite, but any citation can be coloured, whether that be about Citizen Kane or trousers or medieval history. I hadn't considered that.

But now, you bugger, you've confronted me with another problem. With the two articles I worked on today I erred on the side of the long quote because I felt this was the best way not to misrepresent the content of what I was referring to. And now you've gorn and thrown in the idea of copyright infringement. Does anyone feel that there are concerns, on that basis, about the quotes in Yellow Dog (novel) and The Information (novel) or do they seem acceptable?

My brother once had a book, which I loved, which had hundreds of films listed and they were all followed almost exclusively by review quotes. It was a compendium of just that. But now I'm thinking perhaps the editor did keep his quotes shorter than mine. Certainly many of those I use (I think) are longer than you would find at Metacritic: but then I don't think Metacritic has the same aims I do. Gah! I don't suppose I'll ever find a cold unimpeachable answer to this question. One hopes for a WP policy that says "up to three sentences may be used". I don't want to swan about in my own merry way just to find, later on, that shitloads lots of my work has been removed for copyvio. --bodnotbod (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, and based purely upon my almost complete lack of legal experience and expertise (despite having a ruddy A-level in law with which to embiggen my CV), I don't think you should worry about the size of the quotes you've used in either of those articles. They're barely a few % of the total text of the cited reviews, and it would take a monumentally strict reading of WP:COPYVIO to justify their removal. Steve ^{T • C} 00:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Jolly good. But please, anyone else advise if they fancy. In the meantime, I'll add my vote to the end. --bodnotbod (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me and makes sense. Gary King (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support as per Gary King. --bodnotbod (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I've now added this in, as it seems uncontroversial enough after six days. Any minor tweaks that may still be required can be done in the usual manner. Thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 15:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Opposition While RottenTomatoes is a reliable source, I am not sure Wikipedia should use it as a citing for EVERY film. Maybe less than 2% of film pages should include it, otherwise it looks like an endorsement of the site. Unless you want to make a box on every page to include different rankings from every site. I'm pretty sure if you researched it, it might be the most linked site on here. Also I'm not sure that it fits into an encyclopedia. 217.194.139.3 (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• You're right, it shouldn't be on every film page. That's because not all films are recent enough for a Rotten Tomatoes' statistic to actually be representative of the view of the film. Those are instances when it shouldn't be used. But, for films released "today", it is one of the best sources to gain a wide view of what critics thought about a film. It, along with Metacritic, are one of the few places that compile an aggregate list of film reviews. There is no such thing as "promoting" a reliable source. If it's a reliable source, then it's a reliable source - end of discussion. You use reliable sources. You don't stop and go "wait, does this source appear on other film pages? well, I don't want to seem like I'm promoting this source so let's find a different one". No, if it's reliable that's all there needs to be. Of course it "fits into an encyclopedia". It's a website that compiles all of the critical reviews (I use "all" loosely, as obviously that would be highly improbable to compile them "all") for a film. We need to know how a film was viewed by the professionals (that's encyclopedic), and this source averages their opinions into a statistic. That being said, I don't think it's the most linked site on Wikipedia. That honor, unfortunately, goes to IMDb.com.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• What do you mean unfortunately? Are you pro-RT and anti-IMDB? Do you work for RT? Your choice of words is VERY queer. Instead of putting 'This film is rated fresh on RT for having 63% of positive reviews [acepted by RT]', which sounds like either an endorsement of their site to be used as a benchmark or standard, use 'The movie opened to [Mostly, Some, Extremely] Positive reviews" and use a footnote to cite RT, MC, or IMDB? 217.194.139.3 (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't work for RT, and I don't structure sentences about RT that way. First, IMDb is user submitted (just like Wikipedia), hence why we don't use IMDb...but oddly still link to it in the external links section. When I use RT, it looks like this (this is one I wrote) - which uses both the general critical rating, the "cream of the crop" (which is the more well known and respected critics), as well as Metacritic to provide an alternative statistic. I also write pricisely as such, a statistic. I don't use words like "overwhelmingly positive" and "certified 'Fresh'"; it's POV, subjective, and completely unnecessary. I let the reader interpret how "positive" ("mostly", "some", and "extremely" are POV, which means we wouldn't be that neutral body we are trying to be) the reviews are based on the statistic that is being sourced. We acknowledge RT in the sentence so that the reader automatically knows where each statistic came from. There is nothing wrong, bias, or endorsing about acknowledging where you got the information. As a matter of fact, it's actually encouraged in research papers. The way you're fighting against RT, it makes me think you are either a disgruntled employee of theirs, or maybe we've blacklisted your own personal aggregate site because you were spamming it on Wikipedia pages. I don't know, I'm just doing a bit of assuming (like you are were with me). So, unless you have a real argument against RT, something that isn't just "by listing their name in the sentence we are endorsing them and that's bad"..because unless we say "Rotten Tomatoes is the best site ever, everyone should check it out", we're not really endorsing them...not even subliminally, then this argument is moot. Otherwise, we must be endorsing an actor when we use their name to cite a quote they gave about something. So, given that this inclusion has been in debate for over a month and the consensus seems to be "overwhelmingly" for support, I move that we go ahead and put it on the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Partially support, but per my comments on the main project talk, I strongly oppose the addition of RT "freshness ratings" and Metacritic statistics as any kind of valuable addition to the critical reception section. Its fairly useless, IMHO, and no better than using IMDB user ratings or Amazon sales ranks. Reception/Reaction should emphasis sales, reviews, etc, not some arbitrary number that even supporters above note is only useful for "some films" with editors basically being left to determine if its accurate or not? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure where you're getting the opinion that the information isn't of use. Certainly, it can be used badly, but if worded appropriately, the information can be of genuine use to the reader. If I do say so myself, see Hancock_(film)#Reception for an example of their being used well. Now, if your contention is that they aren't reliable, that's a different matter, and one we should probably take back to WT:FILM. Steve ^{T • C} 22:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Its my own opinion from a reader stand point. As a film watcher, when I go to such sites to see information about a film, I find those items to be completely useless indicators of the quality of the film, its just an arbitrary number. Actually reviews noting what someone did or did not like about the plot, characters, etc gives me a real idea of how people reacted to the film. For the Hancock example, I'd have to disagree. I find both RT and MC sentences to adds no valuable information to that paragraph, nor does it really support the opening line that the film received mixed reviews. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Critical case commentary

What's up with this? It's long been established that a movie poster or scan of the cover of the case of a home video release can be used to identify the film in an article about the film is acceptable fair use. Having a line excluding the use of a case scan unless critically commenting on the case itself is absurd. No one ever comments on the case design. I propose that the final sentence of this section be struck. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:NFC#Images: Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are being too literal in your translation. Covers of books, video releases, albums, video games, and any number of other such items are used in tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of articles, and their fair use has been upheld multiple times. What that section of NFC is saying is that the item pictured must be critically discussed in the article, not that the cover of the item must be discussed. What that is trying to avoid is use of fair use album covers in articles about the artist, or use of fair use book covers in articles about the author, etc. Does that make sense? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I should also note my disappointment in your edit warring by reverting my removal of your unilateral addition of that sentence I mentioned. We should be discussing it here and coming to a consensus before you go adding such a blatantly restrictive and controversial bit to the guideline. You were out of line adding it in the first place, and you are out of line adding it back without allowing for the discussion to come to a conclusion first. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If the cover is in the infobox of the page, then there generally (and I say that with the idea that rarely do we have cases where the infobox image is challenged...though it has happened) is not a problem. Now, if you just have a picture of the DVD in the home video section, then you MUST have critical commentary on that image. You have ventured away from merely identifying and into meaningless eye candy. The "identifying" criteria is limited to the infobox in most cases, but if when we say that critical commentary is needed for DVD covers, it's for those instances where people are including them in the article body.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Then that sentence needs to be more explicit. It currently states that they can not be used AT ALL, which is incorrect. This is one of my main reasons for objecting to this sentence: because Erik added it without any discussion, and therefore didn't get it right. This is why there needs to be discussion before something like this is changed. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Erik had it right. What he added was to the Home Media Release section. You don't have an infobox in that section, so you wouldn't have free reign to put any ol' image there. The statement, "Include an image of the medium's display case only if it is accompanied by critical commentary about the case itself." is about including images like the DVD cover here, which has critical commentary discussing the box itself. You can't have a DVD cover all willy nilly on the page. If it's not in the infobox then it must have critical commentary. The section Erik added his statement to was for those instances when you would add an image to the body of the article, not to the infobox. That is a different section of this MOS page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and I don't see what the problem is here. This has nothing to do with images used in the infobox, nor does it prohibit the use of DVD/video covers. It merely underlines the fact that copyrighted images need critical commentary, they can't just be used as eye candy. The wording seems perfectly clear, and I don't see any need to discuss the point further. PC78 (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Nihonjoe, first of all, I apologize for being brusque in my revert. In retrospect, we could have engaged in discussion first. Looking at the acceptable use for cover art in the article body, it's asking for critical commentary of that specific item. The large majority of sections covering home media will talk about its special features and its regional differences. If you look at WP:NFCC#Policy, it does not fall under "no free equivalent" because we can convey the contents of the DVD without needing to show its cover. It's also not considered "significant", because it does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. I specified the sentence because I wanted to iron out the accidental loophole in not mentioning that it had to be about the cover itself, even though the link to WP:NFCC says so. The unfortunate issue is that WikiProject Films has not always been in compliance with WP:NFC. There have been some situations in which two parties butted heads, mostly because WP:FILM cited the tradition of always having non-free images in a specific area without anyone addressing them. When it comes to DVD covers, it will unfortunately limit the cover images that can go into a "Home media" section. Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia, so non-free images are discouraged unless they are truly beneficial to articles. As Bignole showed above, there can be a DVD cover with critical commentary about it. If it was this DVD cover, then I couldn't use it at all. I don't think it's impossible to find DVD elements that are actively discussed; for example, Memento uses a screenshot of the unique psychological test. There's also the Evil Dead DVD cover with the mutated "Book of the Dead" wrap (I think) or even the Lord of the Rings extended edition DVDs (which are designed to look like ancient books). There could be more, but I get my DVDs from Netflix and don't handle covers too much. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Bignole, Erik and PC78's reading of this. Erik's amendment to the wording merely clarifies the original intent (merely based upon the wording at WP:NFC#Images), in order to prevent future disagreements such as these. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 12:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the cover for Evil Dead has critical commentary at DVD Talk:

The coolest extra feature on this release is the packaging itself. The disc sits housed in a replica of the Necronomicon Ex Mortis used in the film. Sculpted by Tom Sullivan and containing a few pages inside of his artwork which replicates the art in the prop book itself, this is a very cool and very unique way to package the movie, even if it smells like gasoline. As an added bonus, the eyeball on the right hand side of the book has a sound chip underneath so if you press on it, the book lets out a scream – a very nice touch.

There is also more mention of this cover with Google News Archive Search. It's covers like these that would warrant images. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

May I propose a change in the wording regarding non-free images of home media? I think we should include "or packaging" because in my searching of what exists out there, "packaging" seems to be a more popular term. See Google search results. What do other editors think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks ok, if you make it very clear that in only refers to the home video section. One cover image in the infobox for identification is allowed. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. It needs to be made clear that this is not disallowing cover scans in the infobox. I think this would address my concern completely. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

How about this:

Include an image of the medium's display case in the "Home media" section only if it is accompanied by critical commentary about the case itself.

I've added "or packaging" as a possibility since in my brief research, I found coverage for items like this, which is more than just a "cover". [Nevermind, I was thinking it said "cover" -- "case" should be an appropriate catch-all.] Would this work? FYI, if you look at #Draft, it revises the "Image" subsection of the "Infobox" section and adds a new section about non-free images for the future. You're welcome to weigh in there as well. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Dead link in see also

The link to the meta essay "Ideas on how to write about--and how not to write about--film" appears to be dead. What happened to this?--Filll (talk | wpc) 12:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was deleted. I'll remove the link. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Giro has a copy of it in his user space, apparently. Best ask him about it. PC78 (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind: see User:Girolamo Savonarola/essay. PC78 (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's check if we can move the essay to the project space and perhaps add {{WPFILMS Archive}} to the top. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No plot information in LEAD?

Not even one sentence? Come on. Surely that violates the general MOS.--Filll (talk | wpc) 12:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The section doesn't say that plot information should be left out; it just doesn't mention anything about it. If you notice, WP:FILMPLOT says, "Plot details and actor names already mentioned in the lead or cast sections are repeated here." It does make me think that we should clarify a specific location for identifying the premise. Like if the premise is identified in the lead section, do we really need to do it again for the Plot section? What do you think? We can hash out a draft. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally see no problem with a one or two sentence summary in the LEAD (or even a paragraph in complicated plot situations), and then a reprise of that same information in expanded form in the PLOT section, with more detail, and in different words. I do think that people should be discouraged from just cutting and pasting the text from the LEAD to the PLOT section, or vice versa.--Filll (talk | wpc) 12:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this line of thought. To be honest, I'm not sure if most of my peers, who have done significant work with film articles, really try to lead Plot sections with basic premises. We do identify the premise in the lead section. Perhaps a suggestion to make for writing the premise in the lead section is to look to the official synopsis of the film, if one exists. It doesn't give away a lot, and we can strip it clean of promotional wording ("heart-pounding", "most dangerous mission") to give a pretty neutral overview. Let's have others weigh in and see if we can make that kind of tweak. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Critical case commentary revisited

Based on recent discussion at WT:FILM and at WT:NFC, I would like to adjust the wording found at "Home media" to be a little more open-ended. Currently, the section says:

Include an image of the medium's display case in this section only if it is accompanied by critical commentary about the case's cover or packaging.

I think that this is in error, based on a misreading of #1 at WP:NFC#Images: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)" (emphasis theirs). Basically, this does not mean that there has to be critical commentary about the cover art, but of the item that the cover art represents. However, per #8 of WP:NFCC, there must be significance to the cover art: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." My proposal is to mention this criteria and suggest direct commentary to lock in such cover art. Here is my suggested re-wording:

Include an image of the medium's cover art or packaging only if it meets the criteria at WP:NFCC, including #8 (significance). A significant example is providing the image to illustrate details about the cover art or packaging as reported by secondary sources.

I think that it is fair to say that if there are sources for a medium's cover art and packaging, it's a shoo-in for inclusion. However, solely this specific criteria seems more stringent for inclusion than the policy itself, so it seems best to leave it to editors to determine how #8 of WP:NFCC would apply. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've no objection to this change, but it strikes me that, well, no-one knows what the actual law is on this kind of thing. Can a good précis of US fair use law be found anywhere? I'd be far happier consulting that than WT:NFC, which is often relying upon the interpretation of whichever editors happen to be around that day (with no disrespect intended to those editors). I find it so odd that something that has the potential to cause so much trouble for Wikipedia is outlined in such a vague fashion, rife with weasel wording that has no precedent of use in US law. Steve ^{T • C} 19:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#Rationale says, "To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law." Does that help? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so we're actually more restrictive than fair use laws allow. Excellent. In which case, I take most of that back. Cheers, Steve ^{T • C} 19:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, part of the reason for that is that since case law is always evolving, there is no real way to answer these questions definitively, so the site tends to err well within the established boundaries of precedent. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The potential problem here is that there is an ambiguity if multiple pieces of cover art for the same item are used in the item's article without critical commentary. In other words, while I can easily see that there's no problem with using the home video cover or the poster art (or even the poster art from another country or a different release), using more than one without any critical commentary starts to beg the question if they are all permissible in conjunction with one another. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it's an ambiguity that the style guidelines can address past what's set in policy. The policy doesn't quite explain how to use images when it comes to whole articles, sections, or content-forking. I'm sure that if effort is made, there can be substantial coverage about home media apart from the fictional works they contain. The Criterion Collection is an example of this; we saw messy efforts at the DVD collections put through AFD, but I don't think it's impossible for a DVD article to stand alone. The best we can do is to suggest what seems to be the most solid way of signifying cover art, and if a discussion of perceiving significance in a way besides coverage about the art itself makes its way to WT:FILM, we can address that particular case. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite follow you. (I also made some re-edits to my above comment, so you might want to review that again, too.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If I'm reading you right, I don't think there is any ambiguity: this would seem to be covered by WP:NFCC #3a ("Minimal usage"). In other words, you can't have five film posters in an article if four of them don't tell you anything that one alone wouldn't. PC78 (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was responding to when you mentioned "the question if they are all permissible in conjunction with one another". The film poster could address the background and reception of a film, while soundtrack and home media sections, which can theoretically be notable with enough independent coverage, can be reasonably spun off and have their own cover art as the visual aid in the new article. Does that make sense? :\ I don't know if we're thinking totally different things or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with multiple instances with critical commentary. My point is that the cover art exemption (from specific commentary so long as the item is critically covered) probably has considerably less weight if more than one piece of cover art is used in this manner (ie without any commentary). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

← OK, I've conjured up different wording based on the discussion at WT:FILM and above. It is more based on recognizing that the infobox image (whatever it may be) asserts its significance in identifying the topic in question, and that secondary identifying images cannot be used under this criteria. The secondary images need to have their significance established in other ways, such as critical commentary:

The image in the film article's infobox serves as cover art and identifies the topic. With this significant identification already in place, the inclusion of additional cover art must rationalized with a non-identification purpose. Additions can be used to illustrate secondary sources' coverage of the appearance of cover art and packaging.

May need to tweak the wording, but this seems to be somewhere between the original wording and the initially proposed re-wording. Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about WP:ENGVAR

Alientraveller and I have been discussing a spelling variation issue with respect to WP:ENGVAR and King Kong. The production was in New Zealand, but financed in the US. Some actors are of Australian (Naomi Watts) or British (Andy Serkis) and some are American (Jack Black, Adrian Brody). The director is form New Zealand. The film is set in the US with the exception of the scenes on the boat (German captain) and on the island (unknown islander language).

WP:ENGVAR states that "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." Are the ties more to the production or to the setting and nationality of the characters?

I'd love to have some others weigh in. There are actually arguments on both side that are relevant, hence the confusion. --FilmFan69 (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the cast and crew is relevant to determining the nationality of the topic. I also do not think that where it is filmed is relevant, either. For example, Valkyrie is about German history and is filmed in Germany, but it is essentially an American production. In the case of King Kong, as far as I know, it is best considered an American production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It was filmed and post-produced in New Zealand. The scenes in New York are a minority of the film, most is set on an imaginary island, and a small portion on a boat in presumably international waters. I can't see how this can reasonably be called an American film.-gadfium 21:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I concur with Erik. Good Morning Vietnam was shot in Thailand, but no reasonably-minded person would try and argue that it's a Thai film. Likewise, Top Gun was directed by a Brit (Tony Scott), but it isn't a British film. PC78 (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

To follow up, King Kong is considered either an American production or an American/New Zealand co-production: New York Times,Allmovie. British Film Institute lists these: USA, United Germany, New Zealand. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

King Kong was produced, I believe, by Universal. Universal is an American company; hence, the film is American. PC78 (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Spellings on the official site are American English. Here --FilmFan69 (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the situation, it's difficult to find a definitive answer. I'd advise to simply look to see what the original precedent on the article was and stick with it. It's as arbitrary as any other solution. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That would seem to be British English [Edit: or the New Zealand variant] as I just looked quickly at 4 early versions, spread about 50 revisions apart each time). I did see in one wiki guideline that precedent can be set by how the article evolves though it seems that if it evolved incorrectly then why shouldn't we fix it? --FilmFan69 (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The answer seems self-evident - because the "fix" is causing a trivial edit war. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree because British English is not appropriate for what is essentially an American production. I poked around Variety and The Hollywood Reporter archives for coverage of the film in its development stage, and Universal, an American company, was the key financier and producer in this case. Contracted companies, filming locations (which can be established anywhere by anyone depending on the economic benefits), nationalities of the cast/crew, and nationality of the fictional work seem secondary. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixes should not be avoided just to avoid controversy. If we did that then we'd still have the Earth at the center (centre?) of the Universe. --FilmFan69 (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Geocentrism this ain't. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That was an example. I'm sure you understood my point so the comment was somewhat unnecessary wasn't it? --FilmFan69 (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary - I was trying to emphasize what I thought you missed - that this is far too trivial to get seriously worked up about. But I omitted the most important part of my message, which I'll have to resign myself to leaving here - ;) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I don't see anyone getting worked up, it's a minor debate, but worth talking about. And the rest of us were having a civilized discussion until you came along and called it trivial. So, with all due respect, good riddance Girolamo. We shall omit your point of view from the consensus I suppose. --FilmFan69 (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

My view is King Kong is a film about Americans, even though it is a film made in New Zealand (it wasn't just shot there, everything about the film except its score was down in that country, just as everything about LOTR except its score and a few out of thousands of effects shots were done there too). So I've grown to not mind if someone wants to change it to American spelling for a multi-national film because it is about Americans. Likewise, the LOTR, Narnia, Potter and Bond articles preserve British spelling despite being funded or shot in other countries, and Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Superman and Batman preserve American spelling despite generally being shot in Commonwealth nations. Alientraveller (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to formulate a general rule on this one, but I think when defining the 'nationality' of a film we should prioritise the driving forces behind it - lead producer/production company (not those who only took a financial role), director, maybe screenwriter. Cast and shooting location are barely relevant. However, there are always going to be difficult borderline cases, particularly with modern film. Barnabypage (talk) 10:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that we should consider the nationality of the cast and crew. German director Oliver Hirschbiegel directed the American film The Invasion. Russian/Kazakh director Timur Bekmambetov directed the American film Wanted. German director Roland Emmerich directed the American films Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, and 10,000 BC. And so forth. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternate Versions and Deleted Scenes

Many films have Director's Cuts and Extended Editions that contain extra scenes or altered scenes as compared to the original version. Some also contain additional visual effects. In essence the two versions are different products. And yet Wikipedia often downplays this significance. The infobox sometimes contains a different running time for an alternate version (but often doesn't) and somewhere at the bottom of the article there may be a brief mention of a longer version released on DVD (but there often isn't). If I want to buy a movie I would like to know about the existence of a version that is longer and superior to the one I'm considering to buy. I can only assume that other people want the same.

I propose that the lead section of an film article be required to mention that there is an alternate version, how many minutes longer (or shorter) it is than the original version and whether or not the alternate version has new visual effects. This has already been done in the article The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. I also propose that release dates in the infobox be required to include release dates of alternate versions. This has already been done in the article Alien.

Deleted Scenes are not obscure production trivia. They are valuable and interesting extensions of the movie that often contain new insights into the characters and world of the movie. I propose that we include how many minutes of Deleted Scenes there are, either in the lead section or the infobox.

Do I have any support? Observatorr (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that any deleted scene or "director's cut" information needs to have context to it. If you want information to be presented in an article that discusses deleted scenes or a "director's cut", then that information needs to be accompanied by reasons why the scenes were deleted, and reasons for why the director chose to cut the film this particular way. Without context, it is simply indiscriminate trivia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a stretch to say that the lead section should require the mention of such alternate versions. The significance of such alternate versions should be determined in the article first. For example, I think that there is plentiful coverage for director's cuts like Kingdom of Heaven, but not as much for deleted scenes or an "unrated" version. The release date field in the infobox is for the theatrical release, and it seems unnecessary to add even more dates unless it was a theatrical re-release. Deleted scenes are "obscure production trivia" until signified otherwise. Your opinion that they are "valuable and interesting extensions of the movie" exaggerates their importance. Scenes end up on the cutting room floor for various reasons. Some scenes may have been cut due to time constraints, some scenes may have been cut because they were not seen as important. Like Bignole said, there needs to be context. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a discussion of the content of director's cuts and deleted scenes. All I'm asking for is that the article clearly mentions that they exist and how long they are and whether anything was removed and whether they have new visual effects in the leading section or the infobox.

For example "A Special Edition of Alien 3 was released in 2003. It is 30 minutes longer than the theatrical version but some of the original scenes have been removed".

Or "Star Trek Insurrection has 13 minutes of deleted scenes including an alternate ending."

Just the basics really. I want this to become part of the style so people will include this information in every relevant article. It's for people who may have seen the movie but aren't aware that there are parts of the movie they haven't seen. There are very few places on the internet where one can find such information Observatorr (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Director's cuts seem fine. If you see articles that could mention these cuts in the lead sections, be bold and add them. Other major cuts would work, too. When you talk about deleted scenes, are you talking about those that are restored to the film or those that are sitting around in bonus features? If it's the latter, I'm not sure if it's realistic to count up the minutes of these deleted scenes and act like these were the only scenes left out (they most likely aren't) and tally up the minutes for the "actual" total. I don't think this is really a specification to have for MOS:FILM because the large, large majority of films do not have this kind of treatment. It seems best to use editorial discretion in these cases. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am talking about the deleted scenes in DVD bonus features. The website www.dvdcompare.net often shows how long the total deleted scenes are; also, most DVDs have a Play All Deleted Scenes option so no one will have to do any tallying. Observatorr (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree about the importance of compiling these deleted scenes' times and factoring them into the original runtime. It seems like you are assuming that the studio exhaustively compiled all the existing scenes that were cut out. They could have very well cherry-picked the most interesting scenes for the DVD viewers' leisure. Thus, such a tally would hardly be representative of whatever "true" cut is purported to exist. A director's cut, from what I've seen, is pretty explicitly detailed in its additional length and additional scenes. For mere bonus features, though, I seriously contest the importance of such scenes unless each one of them is signified otherwise. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything about factoring them into the original runtime. And I'm not assuming that the ones on the DVD are the only ones that exist. There are sure to be others gathering dust in some film studio's archive. But the ones on the DVD are the only ones available to watch. I don't know what you mean by "hardly be respresentative of whatever true cut is purported to exist". Could you rephrase that? Would this example be okay now that made it clear that the deleted scenes are the ones on the DVD?

"Star Trek Insurrection has 13 minutes of deleted scenes including an alternate ending in the DVD bonus features."

Even if none my suggestions makes it into the Style Guidelines, would it be okay for me to include this information in film articles without fear of deletion? Observatorr (talk) 06:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine to include in the "Home media" section a summary of the extras included with the release, which would include that information, though excessive detail is to be avoided (such as a blow-by-blow account of each deleted scene without any context, such as why they were excluded—though that might perhaps sit better in the "Production" section). The sentence you propose for the Trek article seems fine, though I would make sure you include a relevant citation and perhaps a summary of the other significant DVD extras. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 06:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I disagree with the lead bit. The lead summarizes the entire article, it doesn't introduce information that isn't found elsewhere. It also should not be a duplication of the information found elsewhere. My fear is that this will cause a degenerate list of things "different" (and we already have a section discussing the problem with "differences" on this MOS page). A reliable source saying the Director's Cut has inserted scenes and taken out scenes is fine. When you start getting into listing every scene added and removed, you need some form of commentary explaining the changes. I only agree with it if it's part of a new release, because I also see this as reason to just list out the DVD special features (i.e. Just like what Observatorr just did with Star Trek). What purposs does it really serve for the article. Amazon.com probably says the same thing, as well as the back of the box. Without the context, it all just seems like we're promoting the special features of a DVD.

I also see this as an issue when the DVD is released multiple times. Should we not make note that being released with a new box art, but the same printed film, does not constitute being noteworthy enough for inclusion in the article. If we're allowing articles to just say, "This DVD had an alternate ending with 13 minutes of deleted footage", then you're going to have to allow every DVD release that adds some new deleted scene to the mix, regardless of how miniscule.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't intend to make a list of all special features for every movie DVD. Just deleted scenes. Production documentaries and featurettes are not as significant as deleted scenes in my opinion although I understand that some people don't believe there's a difference. Observatorr (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think deleted scenes are all that important. For the majority of movies, scenes that are deleted are typically for time reasons and not creative reasons (e.g. ratings board, producing company's opinion), and when they are that's when they should be noted in the article with context provided.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Film years

When it comes to film years, the current practice is to use a piped link as follows: Snatch is a 2000 film. How necessary is it to link 2000 to 2000 in film? I think it's redundant. For music pages, WP:MUSTARD#Internal links recommends against it, but this guideline mentions nothing of it. I'm in favor of standardising articles, so I think this should be mentioned in the guideline. Spellcast (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If this was done, would it make sense to then put a link to 2000 in film in the See Also section instead? Deamon138 (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I would support that. --Closedmouth (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why should every film page have a "See also" section, most of the time will only contain that "2000 in film" type link? We have links at the bottom of the page to categories that say the same thing. Category:2000 in film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not so certain - isn't putting a See Also year link into all 45,000+ articles far more intrusive and impractical? It would seem to me that linking the year within the article is more elegant and less in-your-face. Additionally, a link of that kind probably is too peripheral - even for See also. I wasn't aware of the music page guidelines, but I fail to see why their usage should be setting our style guidelines or vice versa. Standardization within a set of articles makes sense, but across unrelated ones, I'm not as keen on. (At least not for its own sake.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girolamo Savonarola (talk • contribs)

Actually, yeah, when you put it like that it's not such a good idea, haha. I was thinking it might be a nice compromise, but...yeah, it doesn't make much sense :P --Closedmouth (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I was just suggesting putting it into the see also section if it was decided to take it out of the main article. I think a link to "2000 in film" is fine somewhere in an article about a film from 2000. It can be interesting to read about what else happened in the movies that year. Deamon138 (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to respond to the original comment, I agree that the guideline at WP:MUSTARD#Internal links would be good for film articles, or anything else on Wikipedia. Hiding/piping/camouflaging/easter-egging a link is a way of suppressing access rather than enabling it. Lightmouse (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that I should jump in on this since I have added these links to the intros of hundreds of film articles since starting with the project two years ago. I believe the link for the intro in film articles is not a misleading link, but provides a link to information about other films released at the same time as the film including the year's box office figures. It seems relative to include it to direct readers how the film was released in relation to other films and its performance relative to other films. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking from a personal perspective (as I know that easter egg links such as [[2001 in film|2001]] are tolerated/allowed), I'm not a particular fan of this way of doing it either. My preference is to phrase the sentence in such a way that the the link is included, but explicit in which article it points to. For example: "Foo is an American political thriller that was released in 2001 and starred..." Steve ^{T • C} 18:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That example by Steve seems fine to me. It certainly avoids making it look like a date fragment. Perhaps it can be used as a good example. Lightmouse (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, the example in the first post of this subject is entirely suitable too; merely extend the link to cover "film", thus: "Snatch is a 2000 film..." Steve ^{T • C} 19:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's how I've written film articles. Gimmetrow 19:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Even better! Lightmouse (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This is fine with me. Out of interest, what is it that they do in the music articles? Do they link to 2000 in music at all? Deamon138 (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The deprecation of such "year in blah" links in music-related articles is at MUSTARD, as mentioned above. This is part of an ongoing debate about how to stress the importance of smart linking to WPians. The original "scattergun" approach of the undisciplined and profiglate blueing of text when wikis appeared on the Internet has been a hard habit to shake, but we've made considerable progress. The suggestions above on winding the "year in blah" link into wording in which it is explicit rather than hidden behind what appears to be a useless year-link is excellent. May I add to this the observation that a single such link will take the reader to any year in blah link, via that first link. Our readers are more likely to access that set of articles by a single link in the lead, rather than hitting them with a forest of choices throughout an article. This applies particularly to lists, where it has been de rigeur to blue entire columns of single years, the real link concealed within all and the vertical streak of bright blue an undesirable highlighting. Tony (talk) 04:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

ELs

The metacritic template is only useful for series that have been filed under the film section. Some made for television movies and miniseries have a different URL structure. As those articles still generally use the Film MoS, I've created a second template {{tl:Metacritic television}} to handle those specific links. Should the MoS be updated to include this? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Listing of cast members.

There was some dispute (apparently now resolved) about the listing of cast members in The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning. One editor insisted on listing the cast in order of the length of the line of text, as opposed to some more logical order, such as alphabetical, by importance in the film, or chronological by order of appearance. Although this now appears to be resolved, I thought I'd mention it here in the event that project members wish to set a policy on this. Cheers! bd2412 T 06:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I had noticed that when I looked at the article earlier today and just thought it was a coincidence. I'm sure it happens so rarely that it wouldn't be necessary to mention in the guidelines. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images revisited

This past July and August, I initiated discussion to revise the style guidelines' coverage of non-free images in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I was distracted by real life for a little while, and now I'd like to revisit implementing this coverage. The draft is below, and constructive criticism would be greatly appreciated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Draft comments

I'm not seeing anything glaring off to me at the moment, but a little tired so will reread it later. Something I did think of recently while working on some articles, though, is should the guideline emphasis a preference with regards to the covers? I.E. do we prefer the first release cover where there are multiple releases or format releases, or is any VHS/DVD/Blu-Ray cover acceptable? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hope you can reread it with fresher eyes! I think I tried to establish that the original cover was "ideal", but if it was not available, home media covers could be used. If there are a number of choices with either theatrical posters or home media covers, I don't really know a good answer to making the choice. My preference has been to choose the most engaging image, showing as much of the film (characters and whatnot) as possible. A lot of teaser posters don't show much (obviously), so they wouldn't be good ones to choose. Is this something you think should be suggested in the guidelines? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In "Usage", it occurs to me that the criteria listed seem to be overbearing. What would happen if we "small" coded them? To me, doing that makes it known that there is other relevant information after the criteria, and not just a rehash of what's at WP:FUC.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "small" coding? I suppose I imported the wording from these links to make it explicitly clear what the criteria was, so people don't feign ignorance within the boundaries of the style guidelines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I mean, Putting the policy criteria in text like this, so that the other text (basically, this MOS's position on images) will stand out and the section will not look like it was all copied from WP:FUC. My fear is that if it looks like it came from the policy page on fair use criteria, then people will say, "I know what they are" and ignore the rest of the section that happens to deal with image use in the body of the article. Then again, I just previewed that myself and it looks like crap. Maybe, blockquote that information???  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I got that theatrical posters are preferred first, I just wondered if there was a preference between say, the VHS, DVD, etc if there is no poster. Or, for the film I had thought of, with Category 6: Day of Destruction where there are two different DVD covers. I think agree with you, that it should be the "most engaging" or one that best shows aspects of the film, and that something to that effect should be added. For example, if the poster is basically a stylized title, while the DVD cover has the primary characters, go with the DVD cover. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that the latest iteration of the cover would be best as that would be the one a reader would find in a store. Though this may not be ideal when talking about classic films... --FilmFan69 (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)