Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film

This should be revised to explain how to properly describe a release and a premiere

I'm noticing odd patterns in film articles all over Wikipedia. It looks like several editors actively working on film articles don't follow the popular entertainment press or the trade press very closely and don't understand how to write about films.

Certain editors are writing "the film had its premiere on [date]" or "the film had a limited release on [date]." That's just weird and wrong. People who actually write for a living (and pay attention to good grammar because it's their job) write "the film premiered on [date]" or "the film opened in limited release on [date]." I'm going to start thinking about where to put this information into this part of the MoS. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you think it's wrong just for films, or in general (including television, theatre, etc.)? El Millo (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

And yet another discussion about sources in the plot section

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#MOS:PLOTSOURCE and WP:PRIMARY. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That section was archived, so I'll respond here: The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations is really great and really needs to stay that way. The second we require our normal sourcing for plot summaries, the quality of the encyclopedia will drop dramatically. Why? Because retelling the plot, the whole plot, and nothing but the plot is something no reliable source does (except in special circumstances; some works get the attention of retroperspectives or study guides etc). The ability for an editor to simply write down, in their own words, what they have just seen or read, and have that stay on the page (assuming other editors recognize the plot of course), is something I consider one of Wikipedia's greatest values to the public. There simply is nowhere else to find a complete summary of a work that doesn't cut off the ending and does not shy away from revealing twists just to sell more copies. Thx CapnZapp (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

What we could and should do, however, is better enforce Plot sections to be complete. Lots of times editors paraphrase (or simply copy) the sales blurb for the movie or book, but that's a "plot synopsis" at best, and commercial baseness at worst. A section entitled Plot should reveal the whole film, including every (major) spoiler. But that's a discussion for another time... CapnZapp (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

You probably already know this (so I say it for anyone else reading more than you) but if you see an incomplete plot section you can always tag it with Template:More plot {{more plot}} -- 109.77.197.79 (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

MPAA Ratings

I'm just asking for clarification to see if I read WP:FILMRATING correctly. Confirmations of MPAA ratings, like this, can't be added at all? I felt it was notable to add it to cover all aspects of the film's release, including when the film was given its rating classification. It's an American production, so I felt it was appropriate to restrict the rating to the film's country of origin. Armegon (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ratings are only to be added when particularly relevant. El Millo (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wouldn't say that they can't be added at all. It's more about including ratings if there is something noteworthy about the rating beyond merely announcing that one was determined. The guideline exists because while this is the English Wikipedia, there has been a US-centric slant to reporting the ratings, which were also determined to be indiscriminate until indicated otherwise. Examples of MPAA ratings having background context would be Panic Room#Theatrical run and Hancock (film)#Marketing. Otherwise, like marketing, if it's just a standard announcement, it isn't considered noteworthy. Other examples of rating coverage would be if a film was going to be potentially R versus PG-13 (or the same kind of contention in other countries). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, in the case of confirmations, I think they should only be sourceable if complementing content. Like with my Panic Room example, Fincher's refusal to do PG-13 references a book's page, but it didn't actually state that it was an R rating, so I referenced the MPA's website for that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Some people, such as Clive Barker, have had public disagreements with the MPAA. Barker's work pushes boundaries, and he has been outspoken in his criticism of censorship attempts. Catherine Breillat, David Cronenberg, and Ruggero Deodato are several others that one could probably write a well-sourced paragraph about. Film ratings are not forbidden; they just have to say something worthwhile beyond reporting the rating itself. An example would a controversy over the rating. Social issue films sometimes end up with a restrictive rating because they don't pull their punches, and the press will occasionally highlight this issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The section on film releases should be expanded to explain how to properly discuss a film premiere

One thing that has been irritating me for about two years is that a few editors (such as User:Cinemacriterion) who generally make decent edits to film articles in most other contexts don't know how to properly describe a film premiere.

After the film is released, they have a really bad habit of writing "It had its premiere..."

If you look at the way professionals write in Entertainment Weekly (for the general public) or The Hollywood Reporter (a trade publication for entertainment professionals), that phrasing is very rare because it sounds so amateurish. The traditional usages are to write that "the film's premiere was held..." or "the film's world premiere took place..." or "the film premiered..." or "the film's premiere on [date]" or "[director name] premiered [his/her] film on [date] in [location]."

Any objections before I expand the section on film releases to deal with this? --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it warrants updating MOS:FILM. I agree that it's simply bad writing, but it should be corrected on sight. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar: you've already started a discussion about this on #This should be revised to explain how to properly describe a release and a premiere, a section slightly above this one. As soon as you said what you said, I started looking for sources that used the phrasing you considered amateurish and found some decent amount of use of it, especially in The New York Times, but hardly referring to films, instead referring mostly to theater plays. That drove me to ask you: Do you think [the wording is] wrong just for films, or in general (including television, theatre, etc.)?, a question you haven't answered. El Millo (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I completely forgot I already raised the question on this talk page in a slightly different form about a month ago. I've been concentrating on rewriting the article on product liability. Thank you for the reminder.

I did not see your response until now. I do not have an opinion about that usage in the theatre context because I rarely pay attention to theatre reviews. But it is definitely inappropriate for films, as well as television (since thanks to HBO, Amazon, and Netflix, season premieres have become as elaborate as film premieres). --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar: Hello! I just want to make clear, I don't mean to irritate you and like to update articles to keep them updated and relevant to what is going on with such film or television show, and have always just gone by it "It premiered at.... or It also screened at..." or "It was released on..." I don't mean to do it to make articles look bad and or make them look "amateurish". I will based on your suggestion begin to use "The film premiered on" or "The film's world premiere was held at" etc. Cinemacriterion (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Dispute about production crew credits

I and User:Armegon are having a dispute re. Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film). We don't include secondary crew such as production designer, costume designer, casting director, etc., which is borne out by pretty much every film article (with the exception of a few that have snuck through), but Armegon is not convinced. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm citing WP:OTHER here. Just cuz some articles follow similar patterns, doesn't mean it has precedential value. There is no rule/guideline forbidding the inclusion of production credits in the article body. It's been there since the article's inception and there has been no dispute on the talk page since then. The production credits are notable for citing the additional parties who were essential in making the film that the infobox doesn't cover. Also, the production credits are brief and small enough that it doesn't becoming far too stretched or distracting. Armegon (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Some? Almost all is more like it. This isn't IMDb, and the casting director of Godzilla, for example, has received zero notice (at least not for this film). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, if you can show me a rule/guideline that forbids the inclusion of production credits in the body, I would remove it myself. Armegon (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

They shouldn't be included unless there's something notable to say about those aspects of the film in particular. El Millo (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no guideline against including crew credits. If anything, it is appropriate to have a "Crew" section. Think of it this way -- the film infobox's "Starring" parameter is rarely all-defining; it is more often a shorter version of the "Cast" section. The infobox's multiple crew credits aren't all-defining either, so there can be a "Crew" section or some kind of crew list within the article body itself. However, I do lean more toward such crew lists if there is a good number of blue-linked names to allow further navigation. And it helps to have a rule of thumb to list additional crew members to have a cutoff somewhere (like we would try to have with cast lists). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so they should be people notable enough to have their own article, or there has to be something notable about their specific work in the film. El Millo (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind, those with notable contributions won't always have an article, and those with little to no contributions may have an article. I cited and used the press release as a rule of thumb. If these people were notable enough to be named in press releases then they were notable enough to be listed in the production credit subsection. Armegon (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I know, that's why I said or. In the case someone might want to create a "Crew" section with a list format similar to a Cast section, I think they shouldn't do so unless at least most of the crew are blue-linked. Those whose work on the specific film has been covered by reliable sources to the point of notability, whether blue-linked or not, can –and probably should– be mentioned in the Production section of the article. El Millo (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Erik and Armegon, you have it backwards. There is a listing of both "primary" and "secondary content" in the MOS. Nothing about production crew credits (or even mentions) anywhere, not even in the Production section. Very, very, very rarely are they noticed by the media, and this isn't one of those exceptions. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

What I was referring to was, if there's significant coverage on say, the sound design, or the production design, of a film, then the sound designer and the production designer, respectively, should be mentioned along with the relevant information. That would most likely be included within the Production section. El Millo (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend: you're misinterpreting those listings. You even said it yourself "Nothing about production crew credits (or even mentions) anywhere," so it clearly doesn't forbid anyone from adding them either. Like Erik and I illustrated, there is no rule/guideline forbidding the inclusion of production crews/credits and you have failed to prove otherwise. As for what Facu-el Millo stated, I'm all for revising the subsection to only include relevant credits. We can do without most of the executive producers, save Yoshimitso Banno. Armegon (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The MOS isn't going to cover everything. There's nothing about "Political commentary" or "Social commentary" either, but that doesn't mean such sections are not allowed to exist. When it comes to including crew credits, there's nothing inherently detrimental in doing that in general. The caution to take is where to draw the line in listing names so it does not get indiscriminate, just like with cast lists. Remember that the infobox does not have any parameters for some crew roles that win awards, so a crew list in the article body is a way to be more comprehensive. Of course crew roles could also be discussed in running prose, but that does not mean embedded lists are disallowed. After all, we often list cast members and sometimes have running prose on each bullet, and sometimes we have both the list and the prose in separate parts of the section. Overall, the flexibility of listing additional crew members should be permissible. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"Political" or "social commentary" presumably have sources. Crews almost always don't. The fact that not even the most famous and scrutinized films have crew credit listings should have clued you in. So why should something like Godzilla be a trendsetter? When someone like Edith Head does something out of the ordinary, as in Vertigo (film)#Costume design, then they can and should be mentioned individually, but crews as a whole shouldn't.

It's not explicitly banned is a pretty lame argument. Nobody's told me not to juggle chain saws on a unicycle either. Doesn't mean it's a good idea. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a far more lamer excuse. Just because you don't think it's a good idea doesn't mean it should be disqualified. It violates WP:JDL. If you wanna juggle chainsaws, that's 100% on you. No one's forcing you. You claim crews don't always have sources. If lack of sources are the issue then there really is no problem. The crew lists on the Godzilla articles are supported by more than one reliable source. If notability is an issue, then editors can discuss in talk pages which filmmakers made the most essential contributions to merit acknowledgement. Armegon (talk) 05:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

How essential their contributions were is not to be determined by editors in talk pages, it is to be determined by the wealth of coverage of their work by reliable sources. When it comes to this article in particular, production designer Scott Chambliss, visual effects supervisor Guillaume Rocheron, and effects and creature designer Tom Woodruff Jr. are mentioned in prose, as their work in this film is of particular relevance, whereas costume designer Louise Mingenbach isn't mentioned in prose, because her work wasn't of particular relevance in comparison to other films. In most films, as in this one, these differences in relevance will be quite obvious, as production design and visual effects are core to the depiction of Godzilla and other monsters, while costume design is mostly just regular clothes for the human characters. As for the executive producers, they are usually mentioned if quoted in the Production section or something like that, but rarely or ever have I seen EPs be mentioned just for the sake of mentioning them, like a director, a producer, or a screenwriter is mentioned. In this case, only one executive producer is noteworthy, Yoshimitsu Banno, given that the film is dedicated to him due to his demise. El Millo (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Is Adjusting for Inflation Original Research?

I have some concerns regarding box office inflation for the Box office section of the Godzilla '54 article. Most of the edits and sources cited seem to walk a razor's edge of being Synthesis since none of them outright confirm that the film would've earned this or that after inflation, etc. The sources redirect to a page that requires the reader to do the math on their own. I have very little knowledge when it comes to calculating and sourcing inflation for a film article. Hence why I brought the matter here. It could be nothing but I want to make sure if there's any encyclopedic wrongdoing here. Armegon (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, adjusting for inflation is original research.24.50.181.111 (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Inflation adjustment is acceptable under WP:CALC (Wikipedia even has a variety of inflation templates at {{Inflation}}). However, I would say the calculations at the Godzilla article constitute original research. What the editor of that section appears to do is tot up the number of admissions (fair enough) and then invents an equivalent modern day gross at today's prices (original research). This is not inflation adjustment! The reason this is a bad idea is that admissions can sometimes be charged at different prices (evening/matinee performances, children discounts and 3D and roadshow surcharges) and you lose that link using this methodology. Betty Logan (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Another problem is that it's guess work. Boxoffice sites tend to adjust for inflation by using ticket prices but that only works when you're dealing with domestic grosses. It's almost impossible to figure it out internationally since prices vary from country to country. Furthermore even Boxofficemojo (or IMDB) states it isn't an exact science.

https://help.imdb.com/article/imdbpro/industry-research/box-office-mojo-by-imdbpro-faq/GCWTV4MQKGWRAUAP#inflation as it states

Adjusting for ticket price inflation is not an exact science and should be used for a general idea of what a movie might have made if released in a different year, assuming it sold the same number of tickets.

Since these figures are based on average ticket prices they cannot take into effect other factors that may affect a movie's overall popularity and success. Such factors include but are not limited to: increases or decreases in the population, the total number of movies in the marketplace at a given time, economic conditions that may help or hurt the entertainment industry as a whole (e.g. wars or depressions), the relative price of a movie ticket to other commodities in a given year, competition with other related media such as the invention and advancements of television, home entertainment, streaming media, etc. Overall, this method best compares "apples to apples" when examining the history of box office earnings.

That's why to me it's original research.24.50.181.111 (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows simple mathematical calculations under WP:CALC, which would normally include the inflation of monetary figures. If a reliable source supplies a different figure, by all means use that one. Binksternet (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I cannot see how this calculation would come under CALC, which refers to simple calculations where there is consensus that the result is obvious. The mere fact of this discussion establishes that this ain’t necessarily so. MapReader (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. You can state an obvious assertion using the {{Inflation}} template, such as:

Y – "Film X grossed $100 million in 1980, equivalent to $369.8 million in 2023"

But you can't apply a formula or method on that result without citing a source that supports it. So this wouldn't fly:

N – "Film X grossed $100 million in 1980, equivalent to $369.8 million in 2023 ($520 million when adjusted for ticket price inflation)"

That's my take anyway. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Concur with User:GoneIn60. It's easy to do a quick calculation to adjust for inflation based on the U.S. Consumer Price Index. But when you start adjusting specifically on ticket prices, it's such a mess because there are too many variables that go into those prices and the various strengths of those variables have fluctuated like crazy over the decades and they also vary depending upon geography. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Year of A Quiet Place Part II

There's a discussion at Talk:A Quiet Place Part II#2020 or 2021? that may be of interest to watchers of this page. El Millo (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

What Constitutes as a re-release?

I have another issue from the Godzilla '54 article I'd like to address. Last month, there was an issue regarding what constitutes as a "re-release" for a film, see here. In 1955, the '54 Japanese cut of the film was screened in theaters found only in Japanese neighborhoods in the U.S., not nationwide. In 1982, the Japanese cut was screened in film festivals in New York and Chicago, again not nationwide. It wasn't until 2004 when the Japanese cut received a nationwide, albeit limited, theatrical release in the U.S. This is where the confusion arises. Would the 2004 release be considered a re-release? The 2004 release is often considered to be the Japanese cut's debut in the U.S., see here, here, and see the 2004 trailer here. Armegon (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I think if you get caught up in the semantics then it invariably comes down to a point of view, and that is difficult to resolve on Wikipedia. I think there is a simple test you can apply though: if the grosses generated by the new cut/edit are aggregated into the lifetime box-office total for the film then sources would appear to regard the film as a re-release. For example, the Star Wars special editions are technically regarded as re-releases despite the new footage. There is nothing to prevent you adding context to the release if you feel it would benefit the reader. Betty Logan (talk) 05:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems that Box Office Mojo regards the 2004 release as the original U.S. release for the Japanese cut and the 2014 release as a re-release, see here. Armegon (talk) 06:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

executive producers

Is it appropriate to add executive producers to film articles? A user is very keen to add Ron Howard as a producer of Vibes (film). I removed him from the infobox Producer field since the src showed he was an executive producer. The user then added him to the article's Production section [1] but has not answered my question of why we should mention Howard and not the co-producer or either of the associate producers. Meters (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

They shouldn't be added unless it's particularly notable for some reason. They can be mentioned for actions or things they said, as part of the production section for example. But mentioning it for the sake of doing it doesn't seem right. El Millo (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

User has now answered... "Because he's really really famous. If the only way to let the world know the truth about Ron Howard's association with Vibes is to also include the other people's names, then I will happily add them in. " pretty much sums it up. Meters (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run - 2020 or 2021?

I'm more familiar with TV articles rather than movie articles, so thought I'd ask here- especially with how crazy the release of this movie is.

Similarly to the discussion linked above for A Quiet Place Part II, I'm wondering what the new SpongeBob movie should be listed as- 2020 or 2021?... The film is definitely primarily a U.S. film, but the film released in theaters in Canada on August 14, and will release in the U.S. next year (premium VOD and CBS All Access). I know at WP:FILMYEAR it says, "List films by their earliest release date, whether it be at a film festival, a world premiere, a public release, or the release in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings."- but would we still be going by the earliest release (Canada) or the country that produced it (U.S.)? And which year should be listed in actors' filmography tables?... Magitroopa (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It this case the Canadian release counts as the first public release i.e. 2020. Betty Logan (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic in Reception sections

(I looked back three years in the archives; while RT/MC were discussed, as far as I could see it was only technical matters).

It's time to put an end to the way RT and MC is taking over our Reception sections. Movie after movie having nothing else but the cookie-cutter phrasings from RT and MC. We're close to the stage where we could build a bot that writes those Reception sections for us, automatically harvesting RT and MC for updated data.

Can't you see how useless that is? I understand our current situation is a compromise, avoiding tough discussions on which sources to include in order to summarize a movie's reception. I understand we are where we are because editors have concluded that relying on the characterizations of RP/MC is the only way to avoid fighting. In other words, we have given up Wikipedia's mission, at least for movie Reception sections!

Repeating RT percentages and MC phrases makes the Reception sections so damn useless. Our articles already link directly to both sites, why spend all this effort mechanically parroting the info on their sites. (And don't get me started on the number of edits to obsessively update our articles each and every time a percentage changes by 0.1...) And the information "we" provide? "The reception of this movie was "87%". Huh? Just about the only use for this is to avoid us editors having to reach a consensus! And the wordings on MC - such as "generally favorable reviews" or "mixed or average reviews"? Deliberately worded to avoid controversy, I say. Engineered to avoid angering film companies. It's so washed-out, fence-sitting and "safe". We're better than that, people!

Can we please have a discussion on how we get back to building encyclopedic value, by having human-curated selections of critics, ideally with poignant quotes, also selected by humans. Can we please get back to Wikipedia clearly telling readers which movies were loved by critics, and which ones were savaged by them! The articles are to be written by us editors. The selection of critics (and how that summarizes a film's reception) is to be made by us editors.

I suggest, at the very least, we specify in our policy that a Reception section should always be considered incomplete when relying solely on Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. (Editors should always be strongly encouraged to write Reception sections that rely on human-curated critic sections first, and only using the MC/RT summaries last.)

Thank you for reading, CapnZapp (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're ranting about, but film receptions are based on what reliable sources say. If you want to post your own personal analysis of whether a film was beloved or hated, you can start a blog. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with RT and MC per se, but I have a problem with the cookie-cutter wording that a handful of editors perpetuate. They find it the "best" wording and perpetuate it everywhere. I've had to deal with numerous overwrites and find it a violation of WP:OWN on a wide scale.

However, I disagree that we use them "to avoid fighting". We simply cannot define the overall critical reception based on individual reviews. That overall reception can be reflected at minimum through RT and MC. I do think the wording can be woven in better. I've introduced sections with detailed commentary per MOS:FILM#Critical response, and the cookie-cutter editors move RT and MC wording first because that's what they do. I find it a failure to comprehend that not all readers are going to be neck-deep in film-related knowledge, so the cookie-cutter wording assumes specialist knowledge and is not particularly enduring wording either, compared to something more direct like, "Critics panned the film due to the weak character development." RT and MC can be used as starting points -- I use MC's distribution to sample reviews accordingly, for example.

However, I don't think anyone thinks that such sections are complete when it's only RT and MC, though. It's harder work to sample critics, especially when some can make many relevant points throughout, so it's easier to just plug in RT and MC. The overarching problem is that the cookie-cutter editors have the time and energy to do this low-level work and constantly make rounds to update numbers and restore "their" language if they see it's different. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The advantage of RT/MC is in providing some actual data on the balance of reviews of a film. It seems fruitless to try and reinvent this wheel? The key to a good reception section is then to illustrate this with a carefully chosen set of quotations from a balanced and varied set of reviews, to bring out the key aspects that critics liked and disliked. There are some well written such sections about that can serve as models. While the OP is right that beginning every reception section with an RT extract is somewhat repetitive, it is at least better than beginning every such section with “This film received widespread critical acclaim” (a few editors seem to spend much of their time mechanically pasting this in everywhere), which is both repetitive and formulaic and used so often that it conveys little useful information. MapReader (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Aggregators sure have their shortcomings, and I think they are overused. They don't serve non-English films well (a small number of American/British reviews for a Chinese film is simply not representative), and they are next to useless for classic films (especially if critical opinion has evolved over time). However, for a recent English-language release they generally serve their purpose. I think a lot of the backlash generally comes from this insistence of shoving them into every film article. Does a Rotten Tomato score really contribute anything to our coverage of how Citizen Kane was received? Aggregators have their place but they need to be used more judiciously IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Review aggregators have value for obvious reasons and excluding them would be ridiculous. Toa Nidhiki05 17:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent my proposal, User:Toa Nidhiki05. I did not suggest we exclude them. I suggest we encourage editors not to settle for Reception sections with only aggregated content. CapnZapp (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

As for the "I don't think anyone thinks that such sections are complete when it's only RT and MC" comment - not sure how that helps. Lots of Film articles have only MC/RT content. There is nothing in our MOS to suggest this isn't perfectly adequate. That's what I'm disagreeing with. We should make your sentiment more clear, User:Erik - that is, we should go from not saying anything to saying something. CapnZapp (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

"objective" data on film reviews is way overrated, User:MapReader. CapnZapp (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

We know Lots of Film articles have only MC/RT content, but I doubt anyone thinks that a Critical response section with just that is good enough. It wouldn't hurt to include in the MoS, but I don't know if there's a need for it. El Millo (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

That's the question. Personally, I get agitated whenever I see such a reception section. It feels degrading as a Wikipedia contributor to have what is essentially auto-generated content as our only offering. Are we a quality encyclopedia, or are we essentially no better than the dozens of copycat sites that just "lift" info from elsewhere and then present the regurgitated content as its own? (Yes, I know we're serious about attribution, but still) CapnZapp (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Personally I want us to be able to simply delete Reception sections with only "empty calories" (assuming we link to RT/MC which we often do). Readers interested in aggregate scores can and should go to aggregate sites! Wikipedia should not be merely a convenient one-stop collection of the content created by others Having RT/MC data as a complement to manually curated quotes and summaries from individually selected film critics is absolutely fine, but in my opinion should never be accepted as a substitute. And the only way to not settle for mediocrity is to encourage (not force, but allow) users to simply delete the section, since this hopefully gets them to instead add a manually selected quote instead.

But I realize y'all might not be with me on that point, and so my actual proposal remains the above (=add words to encourage editors not to settle for Reception sections with only aggregated content) CapnZapp (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

While the info from review aggregators isn't nearly enough on its own, it's still better than not having a reception section at all. It's still better than nothing, and they are a good place to find actual reviews to develop the section properly. El Millo (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I would like to argue that this function is best served by our MC/RT links, and that... no, having our editors regurgitate what MC/RT say just to save the reader the trip to the actual sites is not what we should be doing. There's something highly dysfunctional about the continuous activity to manually mirror RT scores and MC categorization! (If anything that work should be handled by a template that updates automatically! The fact those sites might object to us mechanically skimming their data should tell us something...!) CapnZapp (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Nevertheless, let's not get bogged down in the "better than nothing" discussion. I'm making a proposal here and saying "better than nothing" is actually not an answer to that :-) Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, some of the editors can help by starting to avoid writing On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of X, with an average rating of Y. The website's critical consensus reads, "Z". There's also Template:Film and game ratings: we can show the aggregate and review scores instead of mentioning all of them in text. Just like we do with games. nyxærös 10:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea. CapnZapp (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

No that's a terrible idea, prose is always better than tables. Readers expect to read the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores on wikipedia and not be pushed off to an external link. By the way I can't access rotten tomatoes at all on my ipad2 due to outdated browser and there will be many readers with the same problem. Having a standardised review summary from RT and/or Metacritic is preferable to having personal opinions disguised as original research. This happens in a lot of Indian film articles where there are no reviews on rotten tomatoes and the film is declared as critically acclaimed on the back of one review that gave it three stars out of five. It is also simpler and easier to have a standardised reception section that begins with the meta data and then gives representative summaries of individual reviews. If you plan to empty reception sections you are in for a lot of edit warring. This is a problem that does not exist, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Atlantic306. El Millo (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

A better solution to that would be to outlaw the words ‘critically acclaimed’ from all WP film articles as being essentially meaningless padding ;) MapReader (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Finally, someone that comes to the defense of the current practice. Yes, User:Atlantic306, the notion that Having a standardised review summary from RT and/or Metacritic is preferable to having personal opinions disguised as original research is exactly what I am getting at. It is deeply problematic on several fronts. By the far the most important point is why would we ever want to wrench away editorial control away from our editors? That erodes the core of what Wikipedia is! The related notion, the view that contributions are "personal opinions disguised as original research", must be discussed, and possibly at a higher level than here. Wikipedia cannot and will not survive if this notion becomes entrenched. Or rather, contributions are always at some level personal opinion, only that the summarized personal opinions of many editors are called "quality consensus" and is why Wikipedia is a top-10 www site. But I disgress...

The other issues pale in the comparison. That is questions such as "why do we manually do the work a computer program could do better?" Something's wrong when our site ask its users to mechanically construct thousands and thousands of copies of sentences such as On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 96% based on 349 reviews, with an average rating of 8.98/10. and On Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out based on reviews, the film has a weighted average score of 96 out of 100, based on 49 critics, indicating "universal acclaim" (sauce) and then obsessively - and manually - update them, in some cases daily, and most disturbingly, present this first, as if it is more valuable than our own human-curated content. It is not. It is not objective raw data generously provided for free to everybody by the United Nations. These sites are owned by the movie industry (CBS and NBC Warner respectively), and their content is carefully calibrated to avoid deterring movie-goers (for economically important movies). Aggregated data is fine as a complement to an otherwise quality Reception section, but should never be accepted as a substitute for content created and delivered by Wikipedia itself.

Thank you for providing the counterpoint this discussion needed, Atlantic306. Opinions welcome.

PS. Please remember that at under no circumstances do I suggest we should ban RT or MC from our site. My suggestion remains have the MoS encourage editors not to settle for Reception sections with only aggregated content. DS. CapnZapp (talk) 09:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, five days later. Here are the responses so far as far as I can see.

NinjaRobotPirate: "I'm not sure exactly what you're ranting about". I will go ahead and assume you will have informed yourself by now, and take your lack of continued participation as not-an-objection.

MapReader: If I squint your response can be seen as weak support. Feel free to correct me otherwise.

Erik: you never seem to oppose my suggestion. Am I correct in this?

Betty Logan: again, thanks, but no direct yea or nay reply.

Toa Nidhiki05: "Review aggregators have value for obvious reasons and excluding them would be ridiculous." Not what's under discussion.

El Millo: "It wouldn't hurt to include in the MoS, but I don't know if there's a need for it." I'd say that's non-committal.

nyxærös: while you made a suggestion of your own, you didn't respond to mine.

Atlantic306: if you were responding to my suggestion, as opposed to things I didn't suggest, I missed it.

@NinjaRobotPirate, MapReader, Erik, Betty Logan, Toa Nidhiki05, Facu-el Millo, Nyxaros, and Atlantic306:: If there's nothing more, I'll go ahead and implement soonish. CapnZapp (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

No, there is absolutely no consensus for you to implement anything. If you do, I'll revert it. Your conspriacy theory about review sites being rigged to favor movies is frankly ludicrous and discredits your entire argument. Toa Nidhiki05 19:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Toa Nidhiki05. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Yup. El Millo (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

To [[User:Toa Nidhiki05}} (and friends): So far you have made two replies (to my knowledge): Review aggregators have value for obvious reasons and excluding them would be ridiculous, and the immediately above. Neither addresses the issue and neither says anything regarding my suggestion specifically. You're not referring to arguments made by others either. And could you please stick to the subject? I'm not suggesting we exclude the aggregators (I even explicitly write I don't think there's consensus for that). And please don't make it personal. If you have objections to my suggestion, please write them down so we can move forward in a constructive fashion. Just "No" is neither compelling nor constructive. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 09:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning something you said (I quote: "These sites are owned by the movie industry... and their content is carefully calibrated to avoid deterring movie-goers...") as being ridiculous and discrediting is not a personal attack. Toa Nidhiki05 13:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

While I relate to the frustrations of how critical-reception sections often reference only RT and MC, I am not seeing a need to insert language about not settling for RT and MC. Such sections are not seen as complete. If an article reached GA status without more than RT and MC, I'd be concerned. Also, I'd be fine with adding templates to encourage expansions of such sections, but simply put, RT and MC are low-hanging fruit to be plucked and put into Wikipedia articles. If anything is to be added, I would support language to put prose-based summaries ahead of RT and MC where such summaries exist. In other words, "Critics praised the film," properly referenced, should come before, "Rotten Tomatoes gave the film a 98% rating." Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd support a template creation indicating the article should feature reviewers thoughts/reviews beyond just listing RT and MC. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't an {{Expand section}} do the job? El Millo (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes it would. I wasn't sure if Erik had meant a reception-specific template. {{Expand section}} works fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Late comment but I'd like specifically object to the earlier suggestion that film articles should be encouraged to use Template:Film_and_game_ratings like game articles do, as this would be a step in the wrong direction because it fails WP:PROSE. (I think Erik has already said it well, a quality article (such one that has reached GA status) should have far more other information than RT and MC.) -- 109.79.172.238 (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)