Talk:Female (1933 film)

Film Stub‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:Filmimage

Cast

Can you point me to the part of MoS that says that italics shouldn't be used for roles, to help differentiate them from actor's names? I can't seem to find it. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The format is specified as "ACTOR as CHARACTER", and the example given is "Robert Russell as John Stearne" (bolding used when there is extensive following text.) Also, if you check other film articles, very few of them italicize the character names, so to be consistent, it's better to follow the example of the 99%, rather than the 1%. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I thought, there is no proscription against it. The example in the MoS is just that, an example, not Holy Writ to be followed slavishly. That being the case, I'm going to restore the italice, which I believe make it easier to read the list, and is a device frequently used (although not necessarily on Wikipedia) to make cast listing more functional for the reader. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, if you have a reason for not using italics which isn't simply reference to a (non-existant) clause in the MoS, anything to do with functionality or ease of use or visual design, I'm all ears. I don't have some special jones for italics, I'm just trying to help make the page more functional for the reader. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it doesn't matter to you that FA-class articles like Casablanca, Psycho, The Godfather etc., and all of the top 20 AFI greatest films that have a cast section do not use italics? That only a tiny minority of editors feel it is an enhancement? That a little consistency in format is good? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside for the moment the fact that this article is a stub, and not a candidate to be a Featured Article, that other articles have reached FA status without italics in the cast list doesn't logically tell us anything at all about whether they would have reached FA status with italics in the cast list, although I concede that it may indeed be likely that people who review articles for FA status may be overattached to their perception of what the MoS says about formatting, even though it actually doesn't say it (or even imply it, for that matter).

As for your second point, if italics in cast lists are routinely or systematically deleted without giving people a chance to see them and get used to them, as it seems may be the situation, then it hardly seems unusual that "only a tiny minority of editors"^{[citation needed]} think they help - if that's indeed the case.

Sure, I agree that a certain amount of consistency in presentation is a good thing, but I hardly think that the reader is going to come across this article after reading other film articles and be thrown for a loop by the use of italics in the cast list. It truly is a minor variation that most people won't even consciously be aware of, even though it does help to make the list easier to read. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 10:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...it may...be likely that people...may be overattached..."? That's pretty weak. Frankly, if you have to resort to remote psychoanalysis, there's not much point in continuing this. You've made up your mind, come hell or high water. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not true at all. I can be easily swayed, but only by a argument which has something to do with countering my underlying contention, which is that the italics make the list easier to read. Use of the Argument from Authority, in whatever guise it's couched in, don't carry much weight for me, whereas an argument regarding functionality does. "Remote psychoanalysis" has nothing whatsoever to do with it, making an article that's easy to use does. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 15:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted this to WP:Third Opinion. Also note that I removed italics from My Man Godfrey, citing WP:MOS#Italics, which was reverted without a refutation. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this opinion will be taken at face value considering the past disagreements between Ed and I, but I don't see much of an improvement with italics. It doesn't necessarily make the article easier to read, since contrast is already provided by the linked actor names. It seems redundant, really.

However, I can understand the logic behind the italics. Italic font is used to contrast words, and would help to differentiate between actors and their characters. But it seems to me that the precedent set by other, larger articles indicates that italics are unnecessary. --clpo13_(talk) 20:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of your opinions - we've had differences, but I've never had the idea that you automatically take the opposite stance from me for the sake of it. That's not just WP:AGF, I've just never seen any indication of that from you.

That said, clearly I disagree that the italics don't help, and especially that there's any precedential value to what happens in other articles. It really depends on what information is being presented. For instance, I've done a lot of work on The Godfather, and keep a close watch on it, but I've never changed or tried to change the character names to italics there, because there's more information being presented and the way it's formatted is perfectly readable and functions well for the user. I don't think that "one size fits all" is true, one has to make the choices which work best for the specific situation. For instance, when I recently converted the cast list on Duck Soup from a table to a list, I used both bold and italics for the character name, because of the descriptions which followed after - the added distinctiveness was needed to help the character name stand out. But because that works well, doesn't mean I would necessarily advocate that all character names need to be bold and italicized, although I probably wouldn't object to it of someone else decided it was a better presentation.

I take as a given that we are here to provide the user of the encyclopedia good information, well presented, and that, while consistency and uniformity certainly have their value when they make it easier for the user to know what to expect, rigid conformity is not useful because it prevents an evaluation from being made under the specific circumstances of what works best. And, as I've said in many places at many times, it's important to remember that the MoS is not dogma, it's a guideline. An example of good usage in the MoS isn't a marching order for strictly enforcing that example no matter what the situation -- if that's what the MoS intended, it would say something like "All cast lists must follow this example," which, of course, it does not. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italics are not used this way in other published works, so why should Wikipedia be different? No well-known styleguides recommend italics for characters. Using italics this way makes us look like a bunch of undereducated amateurs. And if you want to differentiate clearly the characters from the actors, the word "as" already does this perfectly well. Cop 663 (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]