Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film

Mixed to positive/negative reception (again) & what RT scores really mean

Howdy everyone; long time no see to those who remember me and nice to meet you to those who don't. I've recently run into an IP editor who is determined to fight over the usage of "mixed-to-negative" in reference to a film's reception (they want to, I think it sounds meaningless). The editor is also basing their entire determination of this on the scores at RT, a common mistake for newer editors (one I made myself when I was new to the project 11 kajillion years ago). For that reason I was wondering if there is any way we can mention this in the MOS, specifically. In one instance the related text is in the lead of an article so it's not as easy to polish out as it is in a proper reception section where we can just skip straight to the scores and reviews.

I'm of the opinion that part of the reason this sort of thing keeps getting added is because we haven't specifically addressed it, despite a longstanding consensus here to remove it, for reasons most of us are probably familiar with. I feel like addressing the mixed-to-whatever problem would be easy enough to explain. It's trying to explain why an RT score of 30% doesn't necessarily mean "generally negative" that I'm unsure of; I understand it but can't articulate it. Would anyone be open to us adding, at the very least, a short sentence in the MOS about the mixed thing? Millahnna (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd support adding it, this discussion has been had before so might as well deal with it long term. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been around en masse, so to speak, in a long time but I've been involved in several of those discussions. It's getting tiresome trying to explain it. I'm just worried any attempt to address my second question regarding the scores might get too wordy with instruction creep. Millahnna (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I think, for a start, it's already understood, at least among experienced editors as I don't actually read the MOS, that we should only be using sourced terms. So if someone says "positive reception" we can use that, but we shouldn't ever be interpreting scores. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

If almost all reviews are positive or negative then I think it is fine to say that, but if things are more mixed it has become standard (in my experience) to just summarise the key pros and cons from the different reviews. I think it would be good to say something along those lines in the MOS. I also think it is worth having a proper explanation of the RT scores somewhere, perhaps there is a more appropriate place for that which we could link to from here? - adamstom97 (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem I'm having in the specific situation I'm in right now (and maybe this part would be better discussed at the main project page) is that this isn't even in the reception section; it's the bit in the lead summarizing reception. So we aren't even getting into the individual reviews. In an actual reception section, as you say, it's fairly easy to edit out any reference to mixed/positive/negative and just go straight to the aggregate scores and reviews. I thought about removing the sentence entirely from the lead but that doesn't seem like the best choice given what the lead is supposed to be. Millahnna (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I remember you! We started around the same time (circa, 2010). I just came back a couple of months ago myself. Not much has changed. Lol.

I would agree something should be added in MOS:FILMCRITICS to address this constant "mixed to [ ]" verbiage. We need to use secondary sources to describe a film with overall "positive", "mixed", or "negative" reception. With that and constant genre switcheroos, it seems to be the most common conflicts editors have. Maybe we are to somewhat blame for readers' distorted view of reception scores, since we do add RT and MC in the lead sentence of the reception section, and have for years. Mike Allen 19:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not so bad in the reception section since we go on to be more specific with the actual scores and reviews. It's when it's summarized in the lead where it gets tricky for me. We don't always summarize reception in the lead, though we should, but when we do it's often to brief to really edit around the interpretative statements. Millahnna (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, Rotten Tomatoes uses a binary system that only recognizes the existence of positive or negative reviews. Metacritic is an interesting case because it gives both a score (out of 100) and text descriptor, ranging from "overwhelming dislike" to "universal acclaim". "Universal acclaim" in particular is hyperbolic and demonstrably untrue in some cases, which is why I get irritable when use Metacritic in wikivoice without following WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The other thing that tends to make me irritable is when people decide they're going to ignore what the aggregators say and just invent something themselves, such as "mixed to negative". That's pure synthesis. The problem, then, becomes how you deal with a "mixed" result in Metacritic and a "rotten" rating on Rotten Tomatoes. WP:VG/MIXED is relevant. What I often do is just quote whatever the sources say and let them speak for themselves. Other editors then typically come around and remove it because they think it sounds terrible. Yes, it does sound terrible to say "the film received mixed reviews on Metacritic and negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, and The New York Times said it polarized critics". But cherry picking sources is not a good solution, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

That dovetails a bit with my personal bugbear, which is someone wants to quote the entire critic summary from Rotten Tomatoes verbatim and use that as the summation of critical consensus. But I think you should be able to find, in the example above, more sources than just the NYT who call it mixed.

As for the "mixed-to-X" thing, I get why it comes up. RT and Metacritic's scores aren't a box and whisker plot and so don't really tell you how divergent opinions were about a film, and in what direction. At the same time, they don't tell you that so we shouldn't include it, and it's clunky phrasing (given that we've already said opinions were mixed, and the definition of "mixed to positive" versus "mixed to negative" is even more opaque. So I'd support a short explanation getting added to the manual of style to explain why not to use it so that if necessary people can just get wikilinked and be done with it (adding in a bit about not over privileging outlets might also be justified.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no such thing as 'mixed to negative'. Something is either mixed, or it isn't mixed, one or the other. --SubSeven (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. It drives me bonkers as it's completely meaningless. WHich is why I would like to address it in the MOS. Millahnna (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Aside from the obvious problems with interpreting sources, as discussed above, "mixed to negative" or "mixed to positive" is a contradiction in terms. Popcornfud (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

It is because "mixed" is being conflated with "average". Something can be "average to positive" (although still mealy-mouthed and I wouldn't advocate for such phrasing) and in that case it is "mixed". "Mixed to positive" is semantically meaningless. Betty Logan (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see this implemented in MOS:FILMCRITICS, was the discussion halted? There seems to be a consensus here. I support clarifying that "mixed-to-positive/negative" isn't acceptable language for critical receptions. It should recommend that if both aggregators report a generally positive reception (i.e., MC stating generally positive and RT's percentage being majority positive), that may be used as the reception summary in the lead. But if there's a discrepancy, then quote what secondary sources say the overall reception is. If there are contradictory summaries given by RS's, note that in the article. Lapadite (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The long standing consensus from many discussions was don't do that. The above discussion has reiterated that. Here's one such discussion from the archives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_48#Mixed_to_positive_%2F_Mixed_to_negative I see no reason to believe there is any change in the consensus (or the basics of good writing). -- 109.77.196.204 (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Plot summary?

Hello. I have a general question regarding the plot summaries for feature films. When a film has been released in its native country, such as the first part of Sailor Moon Cosmos in Japan, should we consider changing the section name to "Plot" and expand it if it's needed? Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe so. I always thought all film articles did that once a film is released. Armegon (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Once a film or any work has reached a point where it has been should to a general public audience, such that multiple people unconnected with the film can verify its plot, a plot summary can be written. Thus generally means a theatrical showing including sneak leajs. Masem (t) 23:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

There were occasional problems with people simply making a fake film plot summary, which lead to understandable concerns about verification WP:V, but also the lack of common access to a source WP:SOURCEACCESS doesn't mean it cannot be used in an encyclopedia. So you can add the plot, and editors can challenge you to verify it if seems contentious or dubious.

Even relatively recently a film may have a week or two delay between the US or UK release date and some editors will complain about the plot section being added before their local release, but in that case WP:SPOILERS apply and the information should be included when it is available. -- 109.77.196.204 (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Critical acclaim

Propose adding the following wording to MOS:FILMCRITICS:

Describing a film as being "critically acclaimed" is a loaded phrase and exceptional claim that requires the backing of an exceptional number of highly reputable sources, demonstrating near-unanimity in sources' assessment. Editors must not merely synthesize or extrapolate sources or review aggregators. Metacritic classifies all films with a score of 81 or above as having "universal acclaim", so it alone cannot be used to support this claim.

From time to time, editors have tried adding "critically acclaimed" to articles without adequate sourcing, often leading to edit-wars and drawn-out talk page debates. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

What qualifies as an "exceptional number"? Wouldn't it be simpler to say that due weight about any acclaim must be demonstrated (i.e., "critical acclaim" must be a more common description in sources than the standard "positive reviews")? KyleJoan^talk 17:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This proposed wording just paves the way for arguments over what counts as an "exceptional number". DonIago (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Guys, that part was taken directly from WP:EXCEPTIONAL, I didn't make it up. As for how many exactly, I don't think we should be specifying a number (CREEP), but Barbie (film)#Critical response and The Dark Knight#Critical response have good examples. As for "due weight", "critical acclaim" must be a more common description in sources than the standard "positive reviews" is the definition of SYNTH and OR. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:EXCEPTIONAL states "multiple" sources, not an "exceptional number", so that can be seen as a departure that adds uncertainty. The primary focus of EXCEPTIONAL is that high-quality sources (often more than one) are needed for exceptional claims. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

While I agree with the sentiments reflected in that statement above, adding a paragraph to an already long-in-the-tooth MOS:FILM is a bit much. If we can trim that down to one sentence, the proposal would be more appealing. Consider dropping statements that are already covered in existing guidelines, and realize that the caution against synthesizing sources has been already been called out several times: Lead section, Historical and scientific accuracies, and the opening sentence of MOS:FILMCRITICS. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Even worse, sometimes you come across the phrase “universal acclaim” in articles, reflecting the metacritic usage. Yet in plain English this means that every single review has acclaimed the film, which is both most unlikely and almost impossible to establish by referencing. MC’s own use (effectively a mis-use of the word “universal”, given the 80% threshold) of the term is bad enough, but it shouldn’t be appearing here as an encyclopedic descriptor. MapReader (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree. This would be a term worth searching for, and replacing instances of it that appear in Wikipedia's own voice rather being than directly quoted and attributed as MC's categorization of the film.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, if we were to make a list of all the phrases to watch, that would be really long: critically acclaimed, widespread critical acclaim, was a box-office bomb, was a box-office failure, widely praised, regarded as one of the greatest _____ films of all time ... InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It would not be hurtful at all to add that short list as illustrative examples.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

If you scroll up, you can see there was opposition to anything longer than a sentence. But if you insist, you can add an efn. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, here is an abbreviated one-sentence version:

Describing a film as being "critically acclaimed" is a loaded phrase and exceptional claim that must be attributed to multiple highly reputable sources.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

That actually seems pretty reasonable to me. What we have here is a WP:NPOV and MOS:TONE problem that is fairly frequently occurring in film articles, despite the existence of that policy and guideline. So some specific guidance about not using such wording willy-nilly with regard to films seems pertinent.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Not to change the scope, but can we throw in "box-office bomb" and perhaps "box-office failure" (as I just had an editor claim the two are synonyms) as well?

Which is to say, I think this wording could work. DonIago (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

That can be arranged; "critically panned" and "one of the greatest [genre] films of all time" also come up from time to time, so perhaps Describing a film with superlatives such as "critical acclaimed" or "box-office bomb"... InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Yep.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I could support a statement like that. However, I would caution against "box-office bomb" being lumped in without further discussion. We have articles here and here on the topic, so it's a relative term that shouldn't necessarily be shunned in favor of a synonym (although synonyms are perfectly acceptable). Perhaps one of the main editors of that realm, Betty Logan, can weigh in. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind, not sure what I was thinking. We aren't shunning, just advising that exceptional sources are needed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

 Added to FILMLEAD, see MOS:ACCLAIMED / WP:ACCLAIMED / MOS:ACCLAIM / WP:ACCLAIM. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not desirable to create "WP:" shortcuts that match new "MOS:" ones. The entire point of the "MOS:" pseudo-namespace is to stop taking up all mnemonic/sensible shortcuts for MoS sections.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I also wonder whether the shortcuts are a bit ambiguous in this case, as the changes apply specifically to film articles, which isn't clear from the shortcut names. I might be making something out of nothing here though. DonIago (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the shortcuts are in line with other shortcuts on Wikipedia; most editors don't bother to check whether a shortcut's "correct" prefix is WP or MOS. As for the ambiguity comment, if there are any other places "WP:ACCLAIMED" could possibly refer to, we can create a hatnote if necessary. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Completely missing the point. MoS has a lot of historical "WP:" shortcuts because it was sucking up all the available "good" ones. A cork was put in that by creating the "MOS:" pseudo-namespace, and you're pulling the cork back out. It has nothing to do with whether "WP:{{var:SOMETHING}}" might be meaningful to someone as an MoS shortcut, or whether we could do the additional work of creating a bunch of disambiguatory hatnotes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Nice work, but since this applies to overall film reception regardless of where it appears in the article, should we consider moving this new statement to MOS:FILMCRITICS? It could be moved to its own paragraph (2nd paragraph in the section), combining it with the statement about weasel words, so that it reads:

Avoid weasel words. If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly. Describing a film with superlatives such as "critically acclaimed" or "box-office bomb" is loaded language and an exceptional claim that must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources.

Another benefit of the move is that MOS:ACCLAIMED would be able to point to its own paragraph. Not absolutely necessary, but just a thought considering MOS:FILMLEAD has an abundance of shortcuts already. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Would not be opposed to that idea. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good to me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Separation of Cast from Character Biography

This has been discussed before but I believe it should be considered again. I think providing a simple "Actor as Character" section would benefit those looking for basic actor information on a film. Speaking from personal experience, simply wanting to know who is in a film, skipping past all other sections, has spoiled films. Yes, those of us who have encountered this problem could look for it elsewhere, but that would promote the idea to visit other sites for other info as well. The information as listed could be preserved with a different heading and a simple Cast "Actor as Character" section added. 24.170.127.153 (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Tend to agree with this, and it's already commonplace in our film and TV and theatrical-production artiles to have a list of character-to-actor correspondences in its own section (which people can get directly to via the ToC). Wouldn't be much to standardize this. I think the wording problem we have is here: "The structure of the article may also influence form [of cast information]. A basic cast list in a "Cast" section is appropriate for the majority of Stub-class articles. When the article is in an advanced stage of development, information about the cast can be presented in other ways. ... or a table or infobox grouping actors and their roles may be placed in the plot summary ...." First, a cast list in its own section is appropriate for more than just stubs; and second, there is no reason to put a cast list/table/box inside the plot section where the work will be "spoiled" easily for many readers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that the pitch here isn't a separate cast section, but a proposal for a cast section that lists only credits, then all further elaboration about the role or character goes into a further separate section. Essentially, a "Cast" and a "Characters" section where the former is "Actor as character" and the latter is "Character is details" if there are any further details to be had. Which, I don't really personally see reason to do. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Your understanding of my proposal was correct. As I must assume you've never personally encountered a problem with the current format, I understand your dismissal of the idea. All I can say is that I have encountered the issue numerous times over the last 13 years. Rather than showing a simple cast list, some articles will provide info such as, "Actor as Character, secretly the main antagonist."

Look at the cast section for Batman Begins. I personally question if all of the backstory info provided, both about actor and about character, is really appropriate for a cast list. 24.170.127.153 (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why it's necessarily inappropriate; the information describes the role. Please see WP:SPOILER. That guideline largely concerns itself with deleting spoilers from articles, but the underlying principles it describes regarding completeness apply here as well. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I question the appropriateness due to the fact that a cast list is simply a list of which actor is performing which character. The additional information is a mishmash of character biography, actor information, and production notes.

As for the guideline, I was first made aware of this guideline back in 2010 after making a character-spoiler edit thinking it was mean-spirited vandalism. The guideline does not suggest spoilers need remain in every section of an article. Obviously if someone reads the plot, reader beware. I still see no reason for those looking for an actor/character name to be made aware of plot points in this particular section. There is no reason guidelines cannot be amended.

I only make this suggestion, not to be difficult, but as a way to better serve people visiting Wikipedia rather than bow to the idea of "it's always been done this way." 24.170.127.153 (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Do note, at least in your Batman Begins example, it is not a "Cast list" section, but just titled "Cast", which in turn would serve as a good location to put information about an actor and their characters, that wouldn't necessarily fit in any other part of the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

But WP:SPOILER does apply to the whole article. I have been spoiled by Wikipedia cast sections before and every time it has been my fault for checking it, not the article's fault. The only place I generally think we should try not to include spoilers is in the lead section, where they would be unnecessary and it would be hard not to read them if they're sitting right at the top of the article, but even then, if necessary, spoilers may still be included. —El Millo (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

On the specific case of Batman Begins, you can see why, for example, we must include the spoiler that Henri Ducard is actually Ra's al Ghul, as it's integral to the plot section to talk about what character Liam Neeson's actually playing. I'll also add that I personally don't generally see unnecessary spoilers included in Cast sections, or in any other sections for that matter. —El Millo (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It appears obvious that my suggestion is an unpopular one. Batman Begins was more an example of extraneous information than as an example of spoilers. But @El Millo mentions the plot section. There would be no need to hide the twist of Neeson's character in the plot section while still maintaining a cast listing of "Neeson as Ducard" and "Watanabe as Ra's al Ghul."

Again, most replies seem to dismiss the idea, but I still ask those reading to keep in the back of your minds the idea of separate "Cast List" and "Characters and Casting" sections.

Thanks for reading. 24.170.127.153 (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with you entirely. There's a tiny little camp of questionable editors who love injecting terrible spoilers and then defending it as permitted by "the rules". I had a big fight with someone over this when it came to a Walking Dead episode a couple of years ago. It's not a really frequent problem, but it's still a real one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

But no, because that is being intentionally misleading in order not to reveal info, which is exactly what WP:SPOILER is about. If a spoiler is truly unnecessary, as SMcCandlish said above, then of course we'll remove it, because spoiling for no reason is just mean, but the fact that Liam Neeson is playing Ra's al Ghul and that Watanabe is not is crucial information about the film and about the cast, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia meant to inform about the film, not be coy about its details. Most developed film articles already display the main cast both in the lead section and in the infobox, of course not including who they are playing, so if someone just wants to know who acts in the film and not get spoiled they can look at that. However, readers actively avoiding spoilers should avoid Wikipedia articles entirely, as some information is so important about a film yet a spoiler at the same time that it even will be included in the infobox, such as is the case for Spider-Man: No Way Home with previously-unannounced actors. —El Millo (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Late comment but the Batman Begins article is an example of Cast section with an abundance of information that "may be placed in the plot summary or in the "Casting" subsection of a "Production" section" and doing that might address some of your concerns. Also the guideline WP:SPOILER warns against deleting or omitting information but WP:UNDUE and relevance still applies, and the information does not need to be repeated all over the place. Revelations about characters such as Darth Vader or Kaiser Soze would usually belong only in the plot section of a film article (but the character article for Darth Vader is unavoidably front-loaded with information that readers might not want to know until later), and there would need to be specific good reasons to include or repeat such details elsewhere (and MOS:FILMCAST says "All names should be referred to as credited" and as Kaiser Soze is not listed in the film credits so he generally should not be listed in the cast section.) It can sometimes help to order details chronologically, it is simply better writing in many cases. For example if a character begins a film with one name and ends with another, then the later name can be put near the end of the character description rather than right at the start. -- 109.77.196.25 (talk) 04:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to support "positive", "mixed", "negative"

I've encountered uses of RT and MC (or just one) to support the quoted terms as part of neutral claims about films' reviews. Since RT requires our interpretation of its scores, I don't believe the scores themselves are sufficient to support the quoted terms–the elements being praised and criticized notwithstanding since the site's critics' consensus often specify these. MT, on the other hand, does not require interpretation since they indicate what the scores mean. That said, I also believe that MT is one source and that its content should be demonstrated as due. I propose adding a version of this clause to the MOS:

Rotten Tomatoes does not specify whether critics' overall perception of a film is positive, mixed, or negative, therefore, it should not be used to support claims about films' general critical reception. Metacritic, which provides brief descriptions of what their scores indicate, may be used when the claim it supports is demonstrated as due.

KyleJoan^talk 13:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that this would be instruction creep that's already covered by Wikipedia:Review aggregators. DonIago (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Except that WP:AGG is just an essay that doesn't have any teeth. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe some of the text from there should be promoted to here, then? DonIago (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

What? Rotten Tomatoes does not require any interpretation on our part, and I'm ready to start blocking people who violate WP:NOR. It quite clearly states whether a film is "fresh" or "rotten". Rotten Tomatoes is also much more prominent than Metacritic. This article from Vulture is pretty clear that it is central to the popularity of films despite its limitations and flaws. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

My points about interpretation were specifically regarding scores' relation to "positive", "mixed", "negative" and using RT by itself to support those terms. "Critical reaction to [Ghosts of Girlfriends Past] was negative" on Emma Stone and "[Deep Water] received largely negative reviews" on Ben Affleck, both featured articles, are two of many examples I could provide. Would you consider these instances NOR failures? KyleJoan^talk 04:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

My objection to the RT terminology would be a different one - “fresh” and “rotten” are jargon, related to tomatoes, and familiar to readers who already visit those sites or who edit film articles regularly. But for the casual reader, remembering that WP is used by English-speakers all around the world, quoting the term “certified fresh” in relation to the quality of a film surely needs explanation, and must leave some readers completely mystified. That isn’t good terminology to use in a global encyclopaedia. MapReader (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

KyleJoan, can you link directly to the article section you're referring to in those examples? I'm not seeing it.

Generally, RT can only be used for negative/unfavorable (read "rotten") or positive (read "fresh"). It does not provide ample support for "mixed", and many in the film project have doubted if 59% is truly a negative score. I'm not sure we've ever all agreed on that point, which is why there isn't anything in the MOS, at least not in absolute terms. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Third paragraph, second sentence on Ben Affleck#2020–present: Supporting roles and Air and first paragraph, fourth sentence on Emma Stone#2009–2011: Breakthrough. Is that generalization ("Fresh" = positive, "Rotten" = negative) not an interpretation? And what about "Certified Fresh"? Does it equal "critical acclaim"? KyleJoan^talk 18:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

MOS:FILM doesn't cover articles about actors. I agree those are inappropriate uses of aggregators as sources though. Nardog (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s easy to do a search on the term “certified fresh” and you will see there are tons of them, mostly in film articles. It’s a ridiculous term to put in an encyclopaedia about films. MapReader (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

When RT and MC disagree, we really shouldn't be cherry-picking one over the other, which was done in that Ben Affleck example. At Metacritic, "mixed or average" was reported for that film (link). It would be best to ditch the aggregators in that scenario and rely on other highly-reputable sources instead, with the best being those that publish in printed form (books, magazines, journals, etc). --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

We need to start from the top. When we write an encyclopedic article about a film and how critics received it, we need to approach this correctly. Rotten Tomatoes is first and foremost a commercial service to tell movie fans if a movie is worth watching or not. This does not directly translate into encyclopedic value, especially as reflected by the fact that a movie is only "fresh" (positive) or "rotten" (negative). In this, RT provides zero middle ground. (No bruised tomato, no moldy tomato.) Not to mention that its percentage is just based on the positive-to-negative ratio.

In essence, for encyclopedic value, the main percentage is unreliable for reporting the critical reception. The secondary data points, the rating average (x out of 10) and the critics' consensus (however imperfect), have credible encyclopedic value. Metacritic is a similar commercial service, but its useful data points are upfront -- the metascore (which is similar to RT's rating average) and the five-level prose-label categorization. Its review breakdown (positive/mixed/negative) is also useful to report. It's not cherry-picking if Metacritic's primary determinations are reliable (plus clearly labeled) where Rotten Tomatoes's primary determinations are not. When comparing the two, Metacritic should be selected over Rotten Tomatoes for a prose-label of a film's overall critical reception. Beyond these, coverage about a film's critical reception should take precedent (though subject to WP:POISON considerations). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I tend to be in agreement with all of that, Erik.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

We should not be giving Metacritic undue weight to source "positive", "negative", or "mixed". As noted in the previous discussion about MOS:ACCLAIMED, Metacritic labels anything with a 81+ score as "universal acclaim" and anything with a score below 19 as "overwhelming dislike". If we allow editors to use Metacritic alone as a source for "positive" or "negative", that will encourage editors to start using Metacritic alone as a source for "acclaim" and "panned". InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

So, have a more explicit rule against wording like "acclaimed" or "panned"? That seems more practical than trying to get editors to stop citing Metacritic or RT. And RT's "fresh" or "rotten" false dichotomy is much worse that Metacritic's "overwhelming dislike" to "universal acclaim" range, even if their use of superlative terms is misleading.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Loaded prose-labels are easier to deem inappropriate, as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch's standard for their inclusion is high. Why shouldn't there be a guideline that says RT's statuses shouldn't be translated into these prose-labels and MC's labels must be due for inclusion? KyleJoan^talk 02:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Neither Metacritic nor Rotten Tomatoes should be used for reception summary labels. You can argue that one is more accurate/useful than the other, but in the end, they are both numbers computed using a formula. Using that number to determine what has been positively or negatively received is akin to deciding that an article subject is considered notable as long as they have a certain number of Google News results. We should stick to how publications — written by people (so probably not CNET) — assess the critical reception. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Isn't that already covered by the first paragraph of "Critical reception"? Perhaps we could explicitly exclude aggregators' automatic labels based on numbers, in addition to original syntheses of individual reviews. Is that the sort of thing you're proposing? Nardog (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

That's sort of what I'm proposing, and I say that because my concern has more to do with citing the automatic labels to write something else entirely that no other source denotes (or in RT's case, that the source itself does not denote) than the labels themselves. KyleJoan^talk 10:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Well that boils down to avoiding RT for a "mixed" designation, which is technically the only label that it doesn't inherently support. And generally, using any label that isn't supported by a source is already covered in the opening sentence of that section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe that goes far enough because it doesn't address the inappropriateness of converting "Certified Fresh" into positive reviews, "Fresh" also into positive reviews, "Rotten" into negative reviews. KyleJoan^talk 01:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The conversion is already done by Rotten Tomatoes on their own site, where the Tomatometer is defined as displaying "the percentage of professional critic reviews that are positive for a given film or television show". Reputable reliable sources have also explained the Tomatometer in published articles, such as this one from the LA Times, which states:

Today, moviegoers rely on the Tomatometer, a number that shows what percentage of critics recommend the film. In Tomato-speak, a movie with mostly negative reviews is deemed “rotten” and tagged with a green splat. Movies that are mostly well-reviewed get a “fresh" red tomato.

While we generally prefer RT and MC to be used as complementary sources when affixing a label, who's to say Wikipedia editors are wrong to write that reception was "generally positive" after seeing an RT score of 87% and an MC score of 85? Both ratings, which are considered reliable, are communicating that overall reception was positive. We've covered a couple scenarios where that doesn't work and you need better sourcing, but there are plenty of situations where it does. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

But that example is an improper synthesis because 85 on MC indicates "universal acclaim". We would need to water down that indication to make it compatible with "Certified Fresh" equaling "generally positive" in order to make both RT and MC usable for that claim. KyleJoan^talk 05:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you asserting that "universal acclaim" doesn't fall into the realm of "generally positive"? In any event, as NRP notes below, it's often a bit facetious to use the term "universal acclaim", and likely more accurate to say "generally positive". DonIago (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Whether it's ever appropriate to write "universal acclaim", it suggests a higher or larger degree of phrase than the more-common "generally positive". If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that citing any combination of "Fresh" or "Certified Fresh" and "generally favorable" or "universal acclaim" allows us to neutrally write "generally positive". While I disagree, I understand. KyleJoan^talk 08:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

‘Universal acclaim’ certainly shouldn’t be used within an article, since as a statement it means that every single review has been positive; even were this to be the case, it would be impossible to prove and hence there isn’t going to be a citation. However brilliant a film, there will be someone somewhere who has written a poor review, if only because coming up with a unique angle on something is one way for a critic to get published and win attention. MapReader (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not improper synthesis. Any rating that is 61 or higher on Metacritic is coded in green. According to an explanation published on the site, "green scores" represent "favorable reviews". While green is divided into two categories of "generally favorable" and "universal acclaim", we can choose to ignore any jargon or peacock labels. Both mean positive or favorable to some degree, and therefore both RT and MC agree in that scenario. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

"It's not cherry-picking if Metacritic's primary determinations are reliable...[and] Rotten Tomatoes' primary determinations are not."

It's not like Metacritic is the holy grail when it comes to accuracy. You have to remember that a lot of critic reviews don't even assign a letter grade or star rating to begin with. So Metacritic, just like Rotten Tomatoes, has to rely on some level of subjectivity when assigning a value in these situations. And even when a review does contain a grade or rating, the conversion to binary (RT) or to a numerical value (MC) isn't always perfect. MC's method actually introduces more nuance if you think about it. Converting an opinion into a numerical value (ranging from 0-100) involves a much higher level of precision than RT. The rest of its formula heavily depends on the accuracy of that initial conversion, whereas RT's simple approach only has to deem it more positive than negative or vice-versa, an arguably easier task. MC then processes this conversion a step further by using a weighted average and normalizing scores (i.e. grading on a curve), both of which add additional subjectivity into the mix. One final aspect worth mentioning is the sample of critics. Despite MC's reliance on only top critics, its sample size is significantly smaller for most films.

There are pros and cons to either approach, and I'm not sure you can say with any certainty that one has a more reliable "primary determination" than the other. Both methods spit out a numerical final result, which in turn gets converted back into prose by eager Wikipedia editors. Accuracy and objectivity are lost at each conversion and data-crunching step along the way. What we end up with on Wikipedia is questionable at best, especially in the "mixed" realm.

The solution? We've never really agreed on one, but I don't think picking one metric over another or deeming which aggregator reigns supreme gets us any closer. When it leads to a dispute, I encourage editors to tie claims to a highly-reputable source not named Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Metacritic is very useful, but it's a black box. Nobody understands how it works or how they assign scores – some of which they invent themselves out of thin air. There's also the whole "universal acclaim" thing, which is sometimes downright false. There are occasionally films that have "universal" acclaim and a negative review. Even more so, Rotten Tomatoes is the industry standard. It would be undue weight to put so much emphasis on Metacritic and ignore Rotten Tomatoes. Academic sources would be the best, of course. I think we should be emphasizing their use more and try to discourage the use of junk sources. In too many articles, we cite articles to sources that are one step away from being content mills simply because some super-fan wants a source that says the film got "critical acclaim". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It would be helpful I think if we just dropped the aggregator WP:JARGON completely. Describing a film as "rotten" is misleading if 59% of the reviews are positive, meaning more critics gave the film a positive review than a negative one. It is similarly unhelpful to describe a film as having "universal acclaim" if it score 81%, simply because it means that 1 in 5 critics didn't like it (hardly universal!). The way the aggregators use language to describe these films is not consistent with dictionary usage. As Erik mentions above, the data points have much more value. Betty Logan (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Consider you received a D or F on a test in school. These percentages can still technically be greater than 50%, but that doesn't translate to a positive grade. It's the same concept here. Yes, more than half the reviews are positive at 59%, but it doesn't cross a threshold to be considered positive reception. Having said that, scores that fall in the middling range of 40-60% (the realm defined as "mixed or average" on Metacritic) are probably best left without a label of overall reception on Wikipedia, unless it can be tied to other reputable sources. If RT says 55% and MC says 45, look elsewhere for support of a "mixed" claim; RT's percentage doesn't support such a label, and cherry-picking with MC isn't the best solution. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not making a case that 59% translates to a positive reception, but rather pointing out the statistical fact that if there are more positive then negative reviews then to label a film as "rotten" is misleading i.e. the "rotten" grading is not synonymous with how a typical reader would interpret the term. This is why I think it is better to look beyond Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for sourced commentary describing the critical reception of a film. They tend to use plain English rather than employing these jargonistic categorizations that the aggregators use. Words that are used in a way that do not equate to their general English language definitions are unhelpful at best, and misleading at worst. And can I just say that if you scored 50% and got an "F" then you had some very tough markers at school! Betty Logan (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This is why I think it is better to look beyond Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for sourced commentary describing the critical reception of a film.

I think you and I are beating the same drum for different reasons, and that's OK! When scores are in the middling ranges of 40-60%, we agree on the same premise, though not from a statistical standpoint or reasoning, but because each aggregator treats this range differently with different labels (mixed vs unfavorable/negative). When they disagree, neither aggregator provides the adequate support needed for a "mixed" or "negative" label on Wikipedia; if we choose "negative", MC disagrees, and if we choose "mixed", RT disagrees. We both reach the same conclusion following different paths. I'm fine with that!

And yes, perhaps the "F" range is a little different here in the States (or at least when I was in school many moons ago)! --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

"It would be helpful I think if we just dropped the aggregator WP:JARGON completely." Yes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm completely okay with avoiding using the "universal acclaim" label when it comes to Metacritic. When any reliable source uses that praise, we can reasonably assume they don't mean that it's 100% that way everywhere every single place. We can paraphrase based on consensus, either local or in general. It could be something like "widely praised" or "highly regarded". The problem is that we have no language from RT to paraphrase other than positive or negative. We don't have any degrees of either, or anything in between (mixed, lukewarm, whatever).

To respond to GoneIn60, I agree that MC is not the holy grail, and I know there isn't one. (Is it weird that I sometimes daydream that a reliably-sourced generative AI will ingest all the reviews and give an overview for us? Maybe next year...) MC has a smaller sample size, I agree, but it also helps that we would treat all of these reviews as reliable sources. Not all of RT's reviews would be reliable sources on their own. I also acknowledge that the MC weighting is a black-box approach, and I have seen some films have different overall scores than how the breakdown looks (like the overall score is "mixed or average", yet there are more positive reviews than mixed or negative ones). (However, one internal benefit of MC and its breakdown is that it has helped me balance the WP:PROPORTION of individual reviews.) I don't see a problem of undue weight in using MC. I think of news articles covering science-based topics, and they'll do it in a very light fashion, hence why something like WP:MEDRS exists. We can similarly recognize more (relatively) statistically sound measures.

I think we can recognize here that some aspects of the aggregators are simplistic and that we can work with the best aspects that serve an encyclopedia's long-term coverage of how a film was received. The sentence, "The film got mixed reviews from critics," is more enduring language than "The film got a 65% on Rotten Tomatoes". At the end of the day, we are trying to make these not-directly-designed-for-us tools work for us because it is unthinkable (per WP:SYNTH and amount of grunt work) for us to figure out from individual reviews what the overall trends are. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The "universal acclaimed" categorization on Metacritic is precisely that: a categorization. It is the direct result of the Metascore reaching a certain threshold, not the result of careful consideration of reviews. There is also the matter of WP:WEIGHT to consider: we should use the most frequently utilized descriptor when describing the reception. Betty Logan (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

WP is directed at the wider community of English speakers around the world, not the narrow world of film experts who happen to know that ‘universal acclaim’ is a categorisation and doesn’t actually mean universal acclaim. We shouldn’t be using misleading terminology like that. MapReader (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Very informative and enlightening. Thanking you and your cohorts for the clarity and sober analysis. Gwankoo (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic

@Nyxaros: While your addition of references is appreciated, no, the Metascore alone is not sufficient to support "critical acclaim". Please see the discussion here, as well as the one above. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC) @InfiniteNexus: I've been informed that you "call[ed] my edits out" (MikeAllen's words) for adding multiple reliable sources and an edit summary about Metascore. I would therefore like to remind you that even if a consensus has been reached here, it does not change the fact that Metacritic explicitly states "acclaim" in addition to other references that I added. There shouldn't be any problem and I don't think there is anything unacceptable in my addition, on the contrary I believe my edit improved the page and helped to prevent another edit-war. ภץאคгöร 15:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC) Nyxaros: The consensus within WikiProject Film (see MOS:ACCLAIMED) is to avoid loaded language like "critical acclaim", except in rare situations for films that have been historically documented as such in strong, reputable sources. Online articles like the ones cited toss the term "acclaim" around very loosely without really exploring that in depth. I suggest making your case in the existing talk page discussion at Talk:Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One#Critical acclaim. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC) I disagree. What you wrote suggests that we should only quote sources saying that films like Citizen Kane received "acclaim", which is clearly not true. There are recent films that are described to have received widespread praise and/or "acclaim" by multiple sources. As with everything else, not every source has to explain it in detail. They may or may not give "in depth" information about why and how a film received "acclaim" overall, that seems to me is not liking how reliable sources work and therefore questioning their reliability and validity in some ways, which is also not a valid point of view in my opinion. I still don't see why we should change what the sources explicitly and directly state. ภץאคгöร 07:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC) As MOS:ACCLAIMED makes clear, describing a film as "acclaimed" is "an exceptional claim that must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources". Therefore we would expect such a claim to be sourced to at least a couple of high quality sources. If your only source for describing something as "acclaimed" is Metacritic's jargonistic grading system, this is simply not good enough. Metacritic only counts the number of positive/negative/average reviews, it is not an arbiter of critical consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC) As one can see from the diff presented above and my reply, I didn't make a change using only Metacritic. I felt obliged to respond because I was mentioned on this page as if I had done something wrong for adding sources. I don't think it is right that my contribution is mentioned in this way and I think this is a case of nitpicking ("acclaim" can be credited to Metacritic, but the discussion has led to a misunderstanding of my addition). ภץאคгöร 11:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

"Mos:FILMAUDIENCE" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mos:FILMAUDIENCE has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 11 § Mos:FILMAUDIENCE until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Considering how determined user are to add Rotten Tomatoes audience scores it is very helpful to have a redirect like this in addition to WP:UGC. It is also consistent with MOS:TVAUDIENCE. -- 109.77.196.25 (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It's solely about capitalization. MOS:FILMAUDIENCE still exists and is not up for deletion. Nardog (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Weird that case sensitivy is even a thing, but okay. So long as one version exists. -- 109.77.198.106 (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It's "a thing" in this case because "MOS:" is not an actual namespace (or namespace alias) like "WP:" and "WT:"; MOS:FILMAUDIENCE is actually "lives" in mainspace and is a cross-namespace redirect. Our mainspace is case sensitive so that, e.g., "ABCD" and "Abcd" can be separate articles, one on an acronym and one on a non-acronym word/name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Including actor names in plot

Most film articles make no mention of who plays what character. Including actor names when describing a film's plot is common in English-language newspapers, magazines, film reviews etc. I'm not sure why the guideline does not allow for actor names, and I propose that this guideline be changed. Fredlesaltique (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't because the cast section should exist separately, making listing them in the plot redundant. Most film articles have a separate section underneath the plot, for example: Casablanca (film)#Cast, Gangs of New York#Cast, The Handmaiden#Cast. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The reason the community consensus settled on not including actors' names in plot summaries is that it can get messy. The plot summary is far more detailed than what shows up in secondary sources, and it tends to name more characters than these sources would. So that means you could have a character named toward the end of a summary, and wind up naming the actor too. I think it's more appropriate to do this in the lead section because that tends to name the starring actors and has a high-level synopsis of the plot summary. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The plot section is a summary of the key events depicted on screen; within the plot the actors are in character and what matters to the plot is their portrayed character, not who the actor is. The information for the credited cast is listed in a separate section, commonly the section immediately following, providing an encyclopaedic reference for anyone seeking that information. Breaking up the plot section with actors’ names in brackets every time a new character is mentioned would therefore be both duplication, potential confusion as Erik says, and a distraction for the reader from what the plot section is there to do. MapReader (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with all of the above. This has been rehashed many times, and consensus has not changed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, so it does not have to mimic newspaper movie review habits. Our information is more sectionally presented.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Fully concur. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT

The last sentence of the first paragraph says

Do not include actors' names in the plot summary, as it is redundant to the "Cast" section.

But, it's not uncommon for people to do this. When a rule is commonly ignored, and since rules are supposed to mainly codify good practice, that's a good indication that it's a bad rule. As this one is, because there's no good reason for following it.

Because, the reason given for not including the names in the Plot section is that it is redundant to the Cast section. But having two ways to do things, including learning info, is fine. That's why you can copy-and-paste with Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V or by selecting Copy and Paste from a dropdown menu. Nobody is like "Well, let's disable Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V cos it's redundant to the dropdown menu." We don't usually say "Get rid of the picture, the thing is already described well enough in the text". People have different learning methods, so redundancy here is good pedagogy and also good human factors design. We don't want to make both the round readers and the square readers go thru the square hole.

Not only that, but the Cast section sometimes only lists the names of the cast members, not the role they play. And the list in the infobox, if there is one, never does. So in that case there's no way to know who played what. This is information that many readers are going to want. And even if the actor-character info is given in the Cast section has to go down to the Cast section and then back up to the plot narrative. For each character. This breaks up smooth flow of the reading.

I removed the sentence, as I think the case for doing so is strong enugh. If you disagree, fine, roll it back and let's talk. Herostratus (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Readers should not have to search through the plot summary to find who is playing what characters, that information should be clearly presented in a cast section. And if it is in a cast section then also having it in the plot summary would indeed be redundant. We have pushed to keep non-plot information out of the plot summary in other ways as well, so this is also an extension of that. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

What kind of non-plot info? Herostratus (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

As plot summaries already tend to face issues with being overly long (I've spent a fair amount of my time on Wiki trying to cut back overly long summaries), I don't think we should remove a guideline that discourages editors from making summaries even longer by including non-essential detail that in all likelihood is presented elsewhere in the article (and typically right below the plot summary). DonIago (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with both adamstom97 and Donlago, having cast names in the Plot summary is redundant, breaks the flow of the plot, and makes summaries longer than they need to be. In addition, have an actor's name following the character name in the plot is more of a thing for a magazine or newspaper article where there isn't already a cast section. Do we really want to stop being an "encyclopedia" and become more of an informal, amateurish publication? DonaldD23 talk to me 03:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep the cast names out of the plot section. The reason that the media are seen doing it is because they don't have a dedicated cast list like we do. Binksternet (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

OK. Thank you all for responding. But, with one exception, I don't find these points compelling at all. I agree that plots are often too long, but as far as the actual amount of text added to a long plot, it's going to be way less than 1%. However, adding this tiny percent is not the same as interrupting the flow of text. That's a reasonable point and I'll discuss it below. And nobody's suggesting that the cast section be removed.

I key point I want to get across is that' redundant is good. It's not like "redundant" is an argument against the change. It's an argument for the change. I gave some examples above. People have different ways of processing information. If you can't fill in the blank in this sentence, you're not making a useful argument: "It's redundant, and this redundancy is a net negative for the typical reader's experience because ____________." (Redundant is not always good, I'm talking about here.)

The one point made that was reasonable (to my mind) is that adding in the names of the players is going to interrupt the flow of text. It is! I'm confident that this is not enough to balance the positives tho . This is hard to prove either way but there are probably some ways to think about that. I suspect a RfC might be required here to really dig into all thiw. Herostratus (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not you agree with the opinions that have been expressed, to suggest that an RfC 'might be required' when thus far you're the only voice advocating for including cast names in the plot summaries (or at least, not providing guidance that they not be included), strikes me as bordering on WP:IDHT. Disregarding arguments because you don't personally find them compelling isn't how WP:CONSENSUS works. If and when other editors chime in supporting your perspective, I'll be more inclined to believe that an RfC may be necessary. DonIago (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The blank in Herostratus's sentence is easily filled in with "repetitive, distracting, counter to the purpose of the section as a summary of the plot not of the production, irrelevant to the plot being summarized", and several other things. The idea "redundancy is good" is only true in very specific contexts, and "the wording of probably back-to-back sections" is not one of them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Largoplazzo reverted removal of the guideline material ('Do not include actors' names in the plot summary, as it is redundant to the "Cast" section.'). I agree with the reversion. There is clearly not a consensus to remove that guidance.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

With regards to the statment above, "the Cast section sometimes only lists the names of the cast members, not the role they play." Why not just update the cast section to list the names of the actors and the role they play instead of adding them in the plot section? This would follow current guidelines/manual of style, and this discussion would be moot. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. If a Cast section only has the names of the actors without even the name of the character they play, then that section is incomplete and not fulfilling its purpose even in its more basic form. That would be no metric to change the guidelines on another section. —El Millo (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Or it could be an unreleased film that has not had the character names revealed and no plot is yet available.

Adding cast names into the plot section was kind of standard over 10 years ago, but we've long moved away from that and I think it works out best (for the reasons mentioned above).

@Herostratus

But, it's not uncommon for people to do this.

It's not common either. Mike Allen 21:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

And that's never a rational reason to change MoS anyway. E.g., it's extremely common for people to over-capitalize things that are not proper names just to "big-note" them, as a form of emphasis, but that is simply a reason to clean up after them, not to delete MOS:SIGCAPS, MOS:DOCTCAPS, and a dozen other MoS sections against over-capitalization. The bare facts are that mutiple styles of writing exist, and we cannot depend upon editors reading and absorbing all of MoS. (It does not exist to prevent editors, especially new ones, from doing something we'd prefer they didn't; it exists as a guideline for cleanup copyediting and, when necessary, for resolution of disputes about style questions. No incoming editor is required to read and absorbe the full contents of any of our guidelines and policies before editing, only to comply with the bare basics of the WP:CCPOL, which we point out to them quickly with templates like {{Welcome}}.) There are multiple styles of capitalization, and there are multiple styles of writing about movies, but WP only intends to have one style of each, after we get done cleaning up material written by editors who have not yet absorbed our style. "I can find material on WP that doesn't obey the rule" does not in any way means that the rule is faulty. Indeed, if material here never diverged from the rule, then we would have no need of an MoS line item about it in the first place. E.g., we don't have a rule that multi-word names of people and places are spelled with spaces in them, because no one actually goes around writing MichaelJackson and UnitedKingdom or Michael-Jackson and United-Kingdom.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

To take another tack (I don't think I've seen this here yet): The section is called "Plot". That Spider-Man was admitted to the Avengers is part of the plot of Avengers: Infinity War. That Spider-Man was played by Tom Holland is not part of the plot and is irrelevant to it. (The casting may be relevant to the plot on occasion, as when Julia Roberts' character masqueraded, in Ocean's 12, as Julia Roberts.) Largoplazo (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The guideline should not be removed. The purpose of the Plot section is to summarize the narrative; the purpose of the Cast section is to list the performers. This is the same reason we don't put section links in the infobox (because that is the purpose of the table of contents) or references in the lead (because that is the purpose of the article body). InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Superlatives

Nyxaros, in your recent edit, the text you added is redundant. The reason is because the statement already says, "Describing a film with superlatives ... must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources".

Your edit now changes that to, "Describing a film with superlatives ... must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources that include these superlatives". Completely unnecessary and redundant. When you attribute a claim to high-quality sources, then of course these sources must include that claim. No need to restate that again.

Also you said something in your edit summary about a recent edit war over the term "multiple" being the reason. However, what you added had nothing to do with that. Furthermore, we shouldn't be going back and forth in a policy or guideline page. As soon as you're reverted, you are expected to take it to talk. I did you the courtesy this time, but for future reference, please don't argue your case in an edit summary, especially in this namespace. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it's redundant and should be reverted. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Read the edit summaries of the previous editors. I added it because one of the editors wrote a sentence about reviews being used for the exceptional claims. I don't think it is the best description either, but the wording seems to cause some misinterpretation. ภץאคгöร 18:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I have read them, but I fail to see how your change addresses that. The concern discussed was about changing the term from "multiple" to "many". What you added doesn't address that in any way, shape, or form. It also doesn't change the concern about "reviews" being used as high-quality sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Then you have not read them through. Additionally, majority of the reviews do not include statements like "this film I'm about to review is critically acclaimed". That's why the issue also becomes WP:SYNTH. ภץאคгöร 20:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It's understandable if the wording could use improvement, but the redundancy isn't an improvement. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

You can improve. ภץאคгöร 20:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The root problem here is WP:EXCEPTIONAL using the word "multiple", so I've raised an issue with this at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#EXCEPTIONAL tweak to close wikilawyering loophole.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The issue I've raised in this discussion is the redundant addition of "that include these superlatives". It has yet to be explained why this is necessary redundancy and how it ties into the other dispute regarding multiple vs many. As for the other dispute, it's worth further discussion, so great that you've got the ball rolling at WT:V. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't realize that was still under discussion after multiple objections. I'll add mine: it is definitely not a necessary redundancy. WP:Policy writing is hard, but it's not that hard. If we say that "Describing ... with superlatives ... must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources" it necessarily means that the superlatives are found in those sources. There is no other reasonable interpretation, and no one else seems to be confused about this. The real problem is people thinking that if two rando reviewers say something is the GoAT and most sources think it's trash that this is a green-light to describe it as the GoAT because "multiple" sources said so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

"The real problem is people thinking that if two rando reviewers say something is the GoAT and most sources think it's trash..."

A claim must generally satisfy due weight, whether it is EXCEPTIONAL or not. That's one of the first bars of inclusion for any content. Once that bar is satisfied, there is another bar that comes into play for exceptional claims. In addition to being prevalent in lower-quality sources, it must also have the support of multiple high-quality sources. That's how I've always understood it; perhaps the discussion you've started will shed additional light. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about the function of {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} and similar Metacritic template

There is currently a discussion at {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}} in regards to listing it as a substonly template that may interest editors of this WikiProject. The discussion can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose has an RfC

Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Synopsis for concert films

I would like to check with editors if MOS:FILMPLOT guidelines (e.g. summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words.) apply to concert films. This is noting that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film states that Generally, A plot section (called synopsis for documentaries) should usually appear immediately following the lead section, although a film's specific context may warrant otherwise. Thank you. starship.paint (RUN) 03:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

In the case of concert films, the synopsis is not really a plot summary and would be closer to a pre-release premise for a film. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

What would "pre-release" have to do with it? Anyway, these don't usually have synopses (they're categorically a case of "a film's specific context may warrant otherwise"), but background information on the event and the A/V production, and a track list, and reviews/reaction/impact stuff. See, e.g., The Song Remains the Same (film). Most such articles don't seem to have a synopsis, though Stop Making Sense does. I'm not sure it's the best way to approach such a work, though maybe others disagree. Dunno if we could achieve enough consensus to have specific guideline wording about this genre.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

"Pre-release" as in the short blurb we use before the film is released and a full plot summary is available. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I understoodd that part, I just don't see what this has to do with a concert film in particular versus some other sort of documentary work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Would a track listing not suffice, showing what songs played? It could be prefaced by a short paragraph about the venue and the performers and the aesthetic. Also don't know if any comments before/during/after would typically happen, that could just be captured in that paragraph too? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Kinda what I was thinking. The Song Remains the Same (film) is written how I would expect this to be handled, while Stop Making Sense seems to go too far.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking that a synopsis section would/should provide a brief overview of the concert being performed, the structure of the film, etc. I guess this wouldn't only apply to concert films, but all documentary films. Summer of Soul does this well; Michael Jackson's This Is It goes a bit too far. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Ridiculous length of of plot summaries in Wikipedia articles

Hello, I am noticing more and more Wikipedia articles have plot sections which are so ridiculously long and detailed as to make the article unwieldy and difficult to read, thereby making the page user-unfriendly. Additionally, they give away every little detail, potentially ruining the film for someone who came to Wikipedia to get a general idea of a film before deciding whether to see it.

Can there please be a rule that each article needs to have a brief summary of the film, let's say one to two paragraphs in length, three short paragraphs at the most? As it is, I myself frequently find myself clicking on the link to the film's IMDb page in order to read a very brief description, and this makes Wikipedia redundant.

This self-induldent, almost thesis-length plot descriptions used to be a rarity, but it now seems like they're becoming the majority, and it's incredibly frustrating from a Wikipedia reader's perspective. 49.184.187.19 (talk) 49.184.187.19 (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a guideline on this project page, at MOS:FILMPLOT: "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words." Largoplazo (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I would support a tightening of that guideline and cap them at maybe 400 words. I don't think that would be popular with editors but it would keep the focus on the right thing. Plot summaries so often become a distraction. Popcornfud (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea, but as an editor who spends a fair amount of time trimming overly long plot summaries, I'd find it fairly challenging to comply with a guideline that necessitated reducing existing summaries to such a drastic degree. DonIago (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that is still overly long, and there are so many that are a lot longer than that, making it an ordeal to read an article, including having to scroll a long time just to get back to the top.

If these are the official lengths, then is there a way to get rid of the plot sections that go beyond this already very generous length? 49.183.144.127 (talk) 49.183.144.127 (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The length is something addressed, but we do have a guideline that says that we do not care about hiding WP:SPOILERS, as long as the work has been released in a public manner. Film summaries should be concise but they also should be comprehensive and should include major reveals that are essential to the plot. Masem (t) 13:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

To add on, WP:FILMPLOT is based on policy at WP:NOTPLOT, that there should be "concise summaries of these works". This is under the policy of Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information, and to avoid summary-only descriptions of works. I read WP:NOTPLOT to mean that a concise summary should only exist to complement the rest of the article body. (It is purely incidental that some people will go to these articles just to read the plot, and that is not the purpose of Wikipedia at all.) So if we had a Stub-class film article, we shouldn't even have 400 words of plot detail if there is barely anything else. The goal of the plot is to give a reader an idea of the work so they can comprehend the rest of the article.

On another note, try using ChatGPT to summarize a plot summary that's too long and review it to see if it still holds up. WP:LLM seems to indicate that this is fine to do. The review part is a critical step to avoid hallucinatory detail. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest that it's not possible to be both concise and comprehensive, and that it's not a summary at all if it must "include major reveals that are essential to the plot"... But if this is what is acceptable in a "Plot", then I would like to suggest that articles should have a very short, concise "Plot Summary" in addition to the annoyingly long, detailed "Plot Description" section?

I think having a short plot summary in addition to the detailed Plot description would be a good solution. Can this become an official Wikipedia policy? 49.183.144.127 (talk) 49.183.144.127 (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)