Film Project‑class

This page 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 articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are known to be subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

WikiProject Film
General information () Main project page + talk → Discussion archives Style guidelines talk → Multimedia talk → Naming conventions talk → Copy-editing essentials talk Notability guidelines talk Announcements and open tasks talk → Article alerts → Cleanup listing → New articles talk → Nominations for deletion talk → Popular pages → Requests talk Spotlight talk Film portal talk Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization Coordinators talk Participants talk Project banner talk Project category talk
Departments Assessment talk → B-Class → Instructions Categorization talk Core talk Outreach talk Resources talk Review talk Spotlight talk → Spotlight cleanup listing Topic workshop talk
Task forces General topics Film awards talk Film festivals talk Film finance talk Filmmaking talk Silent films talk Genre Animated films talk Christian films talk Comic book films talk Documentary films talk Marvel Cinematic Universe talk Skydance Media talk War films talk Avant-garde and experimental films talk National and regional American cinema talk Argentine cinema talk Australian cinema talk Baltic cinema talk British cinema talk Canadian cinema talk Chinese cinema talk French cinema talk German cinema talk Indian cinema talk Italian cinema talk Japanese cinema talk Korean cinema talk Mexican cinema talk New Zealand cinema talk Nordic cinema talk Pakistani cinema talk Persian cinema talk Southeast Asian cinema talk Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk Spanish cinema talk Uruguayan cinema talk Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates banner DVD citation DVD liner notes citation infobox plot cleanup stub userbox

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

I've noticed in some film articles, the infobox includes co-directors in addition to the DGA credited one. Should co-directors be included if it's necessary? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how you define "necessary". If the film is properly co-directed like the Pixar films or a Wachowski film then more likely than not the DGA will acknowledge that collaboration, so the first thing I'd like to know is why didn't the DGA credit a particular person. If it's a situation where someone else just directed a handful of scenes I'd say no. Betty Logan (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably agree with this assessment. A brief discussion between Sjones23 and I, in relation to the animated film Hoodwinked!, prompted this question. I'm not an expert on the topic, but I would imagine that if a co-director is credited as such within a film's end credits, than that would indicate that they were also credited by the DGA - is that a correct understanding? In the case of Hoodwinked!, Cory Edwards is the film's "director", while Todd Edwards and Tony Leech are both credited co-directors. I'm inclined to think that all three should be credited within the infobox (as well as the article's lead). On the other hand, a mere second unit director, such as Andy Serkis on The Hobbit films, or a "guest" director, such as George Lucas creating a newspaper montage in the The Godfather, wouldn't merit special mention anywhere aside from the article's production section. --Jpcase (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, the topic of who directed what should be covered in the body of the article as well. In Popcorn (1991 film), an article on which I have worked, sources say that Alan Ormsby directed the three films-within-the film, while the rest of the film was directed by Mark Herrier. Which seems to be important as according to one of the sources: "the films-within-a-film [are] ... more interesting than the frame story."

Sometimes I worry that Wikipedia places too much importance on infoboxes instead of the main text. They are supposed to only summarize information, not to cover every important aspect of the topic. Dimadick (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, prose is preferable in an encyclopedia. Infoboxes are essentially a type of list and the information is well defined which makes it easier for machines to process and can be quite useful in other ways. Writing good prose takes more effort though. -- 109.79.55.62 (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this from WP:FILMLEAD:

At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources.

I have long interpreted this to mean "only mention one genre or one subgenre", which I learnt from seeing how other editors use the policy. But after having disagreements on two different articles recently, I've realised this is ambiguous, and possibly I've been misinterpreting it all this time.

• "at a minimum, the opening sentence should identify ... the primary genre or sub-genre" - does this mean more genres are OK, since this is only a minimum?
• "primary genre or sub-genre" - I took this took mean either one genre (eg horror) or one subgenre (eg romantic comedy). But other editors have interpreted this to mean they can combine two genres and package them as a subgenre (eg scifi horror). Assume for the sake of the argument that they have at least a few good sources describing the film the same way - though I am cautious of inviting editors to add whatever genres they can source, because we might end up with dozens of genres.

Help please? Popcornduff (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this needs clarification. I've seen multiple articles now that list multiple genres/sub-genres, and while I'll tend to edit anything more than three (and request sources), even three seems excessive to me, but I've felt I lacked any backup for that.

If we wanted to take a hard-line approach to this, we could stipulate that the genres in the lead require sourcing, but that would conflict with general lead guidelines. DonIago (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) "At minimum" here only means the set of elements that should be in the opening sentence. It does not permit going beyond the "primary genre or sub-genre under which [the film] is verifiably classified". Basically, something like "Arrival is a 2016 science fiction film" would be a minimum. In this case, the article writes, "Arrival is a 2016 American science fiction thriller film directed by Denis Villeneuve and written by Eric Heisserer, based on the short story 'Story of Your Life' by author Ted Chiang." No comment on whether or not "science fiction thriller" is the appropriate sub-genre here (should depend on if sources say that), but that shows the minimum satisified, plus whatever detail helps identify the film for the reader. I tend to add elements by recognizability, like I would not add the short-story element because it doesn't help readers understand the film better. It's better saved for later in the lead section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would support some standardization of the genre presentation. Problems:

Rangoon: "action period romance drama film"

Abhimaan: "Romantic action Comedy and drama film"

And one from the world of TV articles, Sharknado: "comedy disaster science fiction horror television film"

Wow! I, along with most casual editors, don't particularly know what all the appropriate genres and sub-genres are. Is "Family" a genre? Is "Children's" a genre? The biggest pain in the ass is that even when you do find someone who is willing to provide a reference for a genre, they often wind up synthesizing these weird genre chains from multiple sources. Rotten Tomatoes calls film X a comedy, but Amazon's genre keywords indicate "Musical, Fantasy", so it must be a musical fantasy comedy. So I think:

• Require sources for genres
• Clarify that we want a primary and maybe a sub-genre
• Clarify that we not synthesize genres, to the effect of "Primary and sub-genre should come from a single source or from multiple sources that are in agreement" and "where there is a conflict over sub-genre, i.e. 'comedy coming-of-age film' vs 'comedy slice-of-life film' the genre present in both (i.e. 'comedy') prevails until consensus is reached." Or whatever the right examples/phrasing might be.

To Doniago's point that sourcing in the lead would conflict with the general lead guidelines, the lead guidelines don't prohibit sourcing, and since genre will almost always only appear in the lead, it is reasonable to demand a source. From WP:LEADCITE: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus" ... "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." If we decide that sourcing is necessary (and we should) then that prevails. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think once you go beyond one sub-genre (e.g. psychological thriller) or two primary genres (sci-fi horror film) the information starts to become less useful. If you depend entirely on sourcing then in theory you could have half a dozen genres in the lead so it should rely on the most cited genre (per WP:WEIGHT) or the most applicable sub-genre. Betty Logan (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the requirement is that the genre can't be Frankensteined from multiple sources, then I doubt we'd have much occasion to see half a dozen genres. This tends to be an issue when people combine genres from multiple sources. One says comedy, one says fantasy, one says comedy adventure, so the result becomes comedy fantasy adventure. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree, I'd also say sometimes a rather lengthy-looking set of genres can be necessary. Take the article for Pixar's Up for instance, which lists it as a "computer-animated comedy-drama adventure film", or the Ratchet & Clank, film adaptation, a "computer-animated science-fiction action comedy film". I also agree that reliable sourcing for the genres is an important factor. –Matthew - (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a sample layout template for film articles? It's not presently clear which sections are subsections of other sections. Like, is Release an L2 heading, and Critical response is an L3 heading? Is the Accolades section an L3 under Release, or a stand-alone section? I think it would be useful to have a visual idea of layout that everyone agrees on. Kinda like what I see at File:Wikipedia_layout_sample_Notes_References.png. An image would work, but maybe a straight-up bare-bones template that users could copy/paste would be good? I dunno.

'''''Film Name''''' is a YYYY Tanzanian film directed by John Doe and written by Jane Doe.

==Plot==

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur...

==Cast==

• Jane Doe as Role Name

==Reception==
Summary of content expected in the L2 heading
===Critical response===
===Box office===
===Awards===

That sort of thing. Thoughts? Does it exist? For example here I see an L2 for Release, then an L2 on Music then an L2 on Box office, when Box office seems to intuitively be a subsection of Release. (At least to me.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created my own bare-bones template, and I use it for the articles that I create. You can see an example of my preferred layout in Leprechaun (film), a GA that I wrote a little while ago. It's not a very beefy article, though, and it's missing a few sections that are often found in GAs, such as info on the soundtrack and themes. For how I would do that, you can see Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth and Hellraiser: Bloodline, two articles that I've been improving off-and-on for the past few months. I prefer to put advertising, marketing, and box office data in the release section. Reviews go in the reception, a separate L2 header, that also includes awards. If they're brief, I write out the awards in prose; otherwise, it goes in a table, probably in a subsection. Many people like throwing everything under an L2 header titled "release", but it's not my preferred layout. In my mind, professional criticism is not part of the release any more than the release is part of the production. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We could just add a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Assessment#Film_grading_scheme which has sample articles listed at each level. As NinjaRobotPirate states, editors have different views on what should go under certain headings. I have my own views too but other layouts are perfectly acceptable to me provided there is some internal logic to it. Betty Logan (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking of reverting this edit, however, I just want to know, should it say "American" or "American-Chinese", because it was an American production, but was also released and co-produced by China Film Group in China, the same goes for Kung Fu Panda 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric0928 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just made what I hope is a factual edit to the film style page, but want to flag it here as I suspect I should have done this first (sorry, my first time on a style page).

The way film box office information is generally being described on film pages - "North America" and "other territories" isn't correct - the 'North American' data isn't actually data from the whole of North America (as defined on Wikipedia and elsewhere) but almost always from US & Canada only. These latter are of course countries whereas North America is a continent; the term 'territory' doesn't happily apply to either of them and when applied to the other reporting units (using box office mojo as the gold standard source) the reporting units are all independent countries and, to someone who isn't North American, describing them as 'other territories' following on from either North America or US & Canada doesn't feel appropriate. "US & Canada" is the accurate description of what Mojo calls the 'domestic' box office and 'other countries' for its 'international'.

If any of the above of contentious please reverse my edit to the style page whilst we discuss. User:IanB2 7 December 2016 22:23 GMT IanB2 (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term "territories" is actually used quite a bit in box office coverage in the trade papers Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, which is why it is used here. This is also the case with Box Office Mojo articles. There is probably a reason for this, perhaps "territories" being a more appropriate catch-all than "countries". We can research the matter, but there is solid basis for using this term. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the Los Angeles Times uses "countries" far more than "territories" (when I search either term with "box office"). Perhaps it is worth doing a wider search to see what the larger consensus is. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They do also, however, use terms that assume a North American perspective, whereas here we don't. As a European it doesn't feel right for the other countries for which Mojo collects box office data to be tacked on after reference to 'North America' (which is being widely misused on film pages, in relation to box office data) or 'US and Canada' as "other territories". IanB2 (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if we have formalized it anywhere, but we do oppose using "North America" in film articles and instead endorse writing out "U.S. and Canada". These countries' box office grosses are combined, so perhaps that makes up a territory for reporting. I do not have time now, but perhaps someone could research to trace why "territories" in particular is used. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree U.S. and Canada is accurate, reflecting the descriptions on Mojo (if often as a definition of 'domestic'). Nevertheless having reviewed quite a few film pages, its use is surprising even where accurate (e.g. 'North American release', generally meaning U.S. release and often worldwide release, in a 'first' sense), and there is some shocking mis-use where for example Mexican box office data and commentary is included under an "other territory" sub-section following on from "North America".

The issue with the word 'territory' is that, in a geographical or national context, it is often used in situations where third party ownership is implied (French overseas territories, German occupied territory) and doesn't feel appropriate when it really means "countries that aren't the U.S. or Canada". See Territory IanB2 (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nomenclature is being used in an industry context because films are released into territories/markets/regions and the grosses for those markets are reported. In many cases those will correspond to countries, in others they will not. Most of us are aware of the US/Canada example, but the UK gross actually includes the UK, Republic of Ireland and Malta (so three countries to be exact). Since the purpose of the guideline is to try and help editors interpret the information then it is arguably more helpful to use the terminology they will regaularly encounter in various trade journals. I'm receptive to improving the guideline, but I think the key point to convey is that film distribution markets don't always have a one-to-one relationship with nation states. Betty Logan (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that raises a couple of issues. Firstly, the word "territory" is usually encountered in the phrase "other territories" for which one aggregated box office figure is given for the lot. "Other countries" is an equally accurate description since the figures clearly come from countries other than the US and Canada - the fact that within the total some of the sub-totals cover two or more countries doesn't change this. Secondly, there are quite a few pages where the UK figure is given separately as the "UK gross", and I bet 99% of readers wouldn't expect this to be other than as described? So the terminology makes it more difficult to interpret - which is a shame, as there are a lot of editors who go to the trouble to update the box office figures daily, even to a change of $0.1m, yet we are really sloppy as to where these figures specifically apply! IanB2 (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the article Box office, section "Related terminology": the source we are using for box office information, defines the "domestic" box office for North American releases, as only the box office figures from the United States and Canada. It defines the "foreign" box office as the available figures from every other country. They estimate the "worldwide" box office by combining the two figures.

The geographic definition Wikipedia uses for North America includes Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Bonaire, the British Virgin Islands, Canada, the Cayman Islands, Clipperton Island, Costa Rica, Cuba, Curaçao, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Greenland, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Martinique, Mexico, Montserrat, Navassa Island, Nicaragua, Panama, Puerto Rico, Saba, Saint Barthélemy, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Martin, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sint Eustatius, Sint Maarten, Trinidad and Tobago, the Turks and Caicos Islands, the United States, and the United States Virgin Islands. A combined area of 24,500,995 square kilometers, inhabited by 541,7 million people.

Equating North America with just two countries makes our articles rather misleading. It is an accuracy problem that also tends to turn up in other articles and categories relating to North America. Better yet, some of them seem to equate North America with just the United States.

Meanwhile, our article on the term "territory" and its multiple definitions, lacks sources and probably contains original research. Dimadick (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the MOS to clarify not to use "North American" (and by extent, "North America"). As for "territories" vs. "countries", perhaps the easiest thing to do is to stick to the sources. I don't think it is appropriate to use the terms synonymously especially if it is reported that a film was released in x territories since it does not mean the film was released in x countries, and vice versa. I've also updated the MOS in this regard. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging IanB2, Betty Logan, and Dimadick for feedback. Diff is here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. The edit goes a long way to resolving. I still don't like the word 'territory' at all, because whilst the movie industry appears to think it means 'more than one country', its more common geographical usage is clear from our own page on the term (despite its general weakness as a page), and it doesn't feel right for a U.S. dominated industry to be referring to other countries in such a way. From this debate I have also learned that "UK box office" includes cinema tickets bought in Malta, which I would never have imagined! User:IanB2 9 December 2016

p.s. I would also observe that, if we do use 'territory' to mean 'more than one country', the information that a movie has been released in 'X territories' does not appear to be particularly useful or meaningful? User:IanB2

Neither would I. Malta was British from 1814 to 1964, but was then declared independent. It has been out of British control for 52 years. And while it has British citizens still living on the island, these were estimated to be about 4,700 people. Not a large part of the population. Why is the island still grouped with the U.K. ? Dimadick (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, regarding this, this and this, how is it an improvement? You state "avoid these quoted terms," but then state "Since countries and territories may not precisely match in count, copy the term used by the source(s) being referenced for box office coverage." Huh? The current wording is confusing and one could take it to mean to avoid the "U.S. and Canada" title as well. Furthermore, the sources are not always consistent in the wording they use. Some sources might state "North America" and others might state "U.S. and Canada." But, really, I see "North America" used far more often. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do wonder whether, if these so-called 'territories' are really the markets into which films are sold (so pity the poor Maltese and Irish who just get shown whatever the British are buying!), the most accurate terminology for referring to the sub-sections of worldwide box office is indeed "markets". Whilst maintaining my view that "other countries" is both the best and a fully accurate term to use for the gross total for everything other than the U.S. & Canada. IanB2 (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Reborn, I am being literal when I say "quoted terms". I mean the terms used in quotation marks, which are: domestic, international, and North American. How should we clarify it to be clear it is these terms to be avoided? Italics or bold instead? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, I realized that soon after I commented. But it's still the case that the sources are not always consistent with the terminology. So how can we then state "copy the term used by the source(s) being referenced for box office coverage"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that "copy the term" sentence is in reference to countries vs. territories. We want to avoid the terms international, domestic, and North American because we editors can agree that it is US-centric, which is inappropriate for the English-language Wikipedia. I'm not sure if the US-centric argument apples to countries/territories, and I haven't really found anything to explain the distinction. I've preferred "territories" because of the trade papers using that when reporting counts, but it does not mean we can't call a country a country when we happen to focus on one. I think it is more of an issue if a number is involved. We can't convert 30 territories to mean 30 countries and vice versa since a source like one of the trade papers may not necessarily name them all. What do you think? Feel free to suggest a rewriting of the sentence to clear up the matter. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest "such terms as these" as a replacement for "these quoted terms".

I also suggest that the instruction "specify the ... territories" doesn't really help editors, since doing so effectively means "specify the countries" anyway.

Not addressed at all, really, is the issue I raised originally of using the term "other territories" to refer to the world beyond the US and Canada. My reason should be obvious from our own page on 'territory'. I don't see the problem with "other countries", which is clearly accurate, but if we wish to retain the movie industry's fondness for lumping countries together, "other markets" is both accurate and non-perjorative? IanB2 (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IanB2, stop mass-changing "territories" to "countries" right now. You have no consensus to perpetuate a change that is based on your own dislike. Pinging Betty Logan, Flyer22 Reborn, Dimadick. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erik - I must express my concern that you appear to want to make this issue a personal one - you have just posted my username into the title of an item on Wikiprojects: Film. I did properly raise my concerns about both 'North America' (inarguably being used incorrectly on most of our movie pages) and 'territory' (which to me is just as bad - but with 'other countries' already accepted here as alternative to 'other territories') and, where I have been making edits, I have introduced my preferred (factually correct) terminology. If edits are not incorrect then it is within any editor's right to make them here, 'the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit'. If there is indeed a way to make a "mass edit" it would save a lot of work, since the phrasaeology used on our numerous movie sites is so similar that I wonder whether it is coming from a template somewhere? IanB2 (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should resolve this issue before initiating mass changes, and I think it is useful to consider the terminoloy that the MPAA uses in its annual market analysis. Here are some examples:

• In 2015, U.S./Canada box office was $11.1 billion
• Global box office for all films released in each country around the world reached $38.3 billion in 2015
• Both U.S./Canada ($11.1 billion) and international box office ($27.2 billion)
• In 2015, the Asia Pacific region ($14.1 billion) increased 13% compared to 2014
• Europe, Middle East & Africa (EMEA) box office decreased 9% from 2014, with decreases in larger European markets such as France (-18%), Russia (-34%) and Spain (-8%).
• 2015 Top 20 International Box Office Markets –All Films (US$ Billions)

Ignoring the domestic/international nomenclature, the MPAA tends to favor "US/Canada", "countries", "regions" and "markets". When they are discussing the box office in global terms they tend to go with "countries", and when they are discussing specific areas such as the UK or China they go with "markets". They generally use "region" to denote a large area that contains several markets such as Europe or Asia-Pacific. They don't tend to use "territories" or "North America" so it wouldn't hurt to consider revising our position on this. Betty Logan (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that we can all agree about "North America" (which the MOS now says to avoid using). Regarding "territory" or "territories", despite IanB2's layperson disagreements with using that term at all, it is a valid term used in reliable sources. We should not replace "territories" with "countries" when exact numbers are involved. When it is more abstract, such as the writing of "other territories", "territories" is not inherently wrong (as evidenced by reliable sources) to force a replacement. Perhaps MOS:RETAIN should apply. I suppose a related issue to this is if we should accept a "Box office" section that uses both "territories" and "countries". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute the fact that is fairly standard terminology in trade journals such as Variety and The Hollywood Reporter (which is why I have never thought to challenge it) but I think Ian's point is worth considering: "territories" has a more general interpretation beyond the film business which could cause confusion for some readers. Betty Logan (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The opening words of our own page on "territory" (which I have never edited) are: "A territory is a term for types of administrative division, usually an area that is under the jurisdiction of a state". As such I regard my challenge as an entirely legitimate one - within the open spirit of Wikipedia. Erik's posts have prompted me to take up the issue with the Hollywood industry and I await their responses. The phrase I am objecting to is "other territories" for which "other countries" is undeniably equally accurate and less confusing. I don't understand Erik's reference: "when exact numbers are involved", since the one thing obvious from this discussion is that no-one actually understand to which countries the figures being reported really apply. Which is our real problem - since our gnomes who diligently update the box office data every day are surely wasting their time if none of our readers can appreciate to which locations the data being cited refer?

I'll chime in here, having followed this discussion a bit. I agree with Erik that many publications use the word "territory" in reporting their box office information. I don't see this as being "wrong" in anyway, if you are using it based on reliable sources. Now if multiple sources are used in the article, and they all use different terminology, then we should maybe shy away from using "territory" and go with "market" or another. This should be taken to note going forward, but not necessarily one that should be changed in existing articles per WP:RETAIN unless it is very erroneous. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To update here, I've reverted IanB2's changes per MOS:RETAIN, especially since the discussion is still pending. Unfortunately, in my research to get a handle in the use of different terms, the reality is a bit complicated. The Numbers states "the domestic box office, defined as the North American movie territory (consisting of the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico and Guam)". In contrast, Box Office Mojo says, "domestic earnings, i.e., United States and Canada". Forbes says, "Secondly, the U.S. is not actually the relevant territory for comparison, since film distributors count the U.S. and Canada together as a single united territory, North America (never mind that Mexico and the Caribbean are also parts of North America; for the purposes of box office calculations they’re counted separately)." So while we need to figure out how to properly address "North America" in articles, it is treated as a movie territory, which can be confused with other definitions of a territory. (This would make sense as to why box office coverage both in the U.S. and outside it have used this term; it is somewhat specialist language.) IanB2 is okay with the use of "market", and it has been advocated by Daß Wölf as well. So would this suffice as a high-level enough term to use generally? This way, it recognizes the combination of the U.S. and Canadian (and Puerto Rican and Guamanian, apparently) grosses and that other groupings exist. I still maintain that "territories" should be kept when specific numbers are cited since they are not readily convertible (and have not seen specific disagreement on this point). Thoughts from others? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like Erik, I am interested to hear others' views. The only point I would make meanwhile is to observe that much of the issue here is the tendency of an American-dominated industry to be careless about how it refers to the world - a mindset that can treat "US and Canada" as the whole of "North America" is basically the same as describing the rest of the world as "other territories". Therefore I hope you will understand why I suggest that evidence drawn from terminology used on Californian movie-industry websites should not necessarily be definitive, or a precedent for Wikipedia as an international encyclopedia.IanB2 (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to note that in my research, "territory" or "territories" appears in UK-based publications including BBC and The Guardian. It is also used in The Age. To some degree, it also appears in China Daily. In essence, it is a valid term used in box office coverage around the world. We have consensus to avoid using "North America" because the general definition is the continent, where the box-office definition is select countries from that continent. There is a similar issue with "territory" having a general definition and a box-office definition. While we can sidestep the issue in general use with "markets" (not likely to be confused with bazaars, I hope), for specific numbers (e.g., 62 territories), we have to leave well alone. I'm still mulling what approaches can be taken, but in the meantime, I've started Draft:Box office territory with some research I've collected. The terms "movie territory" and "cinema territory" are also synonymous with that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, of the major reporting units (the top fifteen or so), there are only two I have found that do not represent discrete individual countries, these being the US (which also includes Canada, and possibly some other actual US territories) and the UK (which also includes Ireland and Malta). All the others are countries. Further, we are dealing with hard data (tickets sold) here, which a lot of our editors take trouble to update daily. Thus, a country is either included or excluded from the data - phrases such as "Malta has also been considered to be part of this territory" are unhelpful, since either tickets sold in Malta are included witin the quoted data, or they are not.IanB2 (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created box office territory with some feedback from IanB2. Other editors are invited to read the article to understand what "territory" means in context of the box office. For what it is worth, I could not find any more evidence beyond The Numbers to include Puerto Rico and Guam clearly being included in the "North America". Another source mentions that each country's respective territories are included, but beyond that, most sources repeat "North America" = "U.S. and Canada" ad nauseum. So I would say that it is fine to change "North America" to "U.S. and Canada" across Wikipedia articles. I do not find it a systemic-bias concern since this territory label is used in non-US box office coverage, but it is more about "North America" being specialist language that should be more clear-cut for readers. (An issue like "domestic"/"international" is US-centric for the most part and should be addressed as well to eliminate the relativity of such terms.)

To return to the heart of the matter, what term or terms should we use when having a summary sentence reporting on box office in "North America" and elsewhere? "Territories" is considered too confusing because it generally understood to mean dependent territories rather than box office territories. "Countries" is an alternative, but my qualm with this is that the U.S. and Canada's gross is reported as one sum, which reflects a singular market (e.g., box office territory), and what remains should be other "markets", which I hope is clear enough to laypersons. "Regions" was another suggestion, but I think this has the same issue as "territories" in having a more common geographical definition. So what do editors think should be used in the summary sentence? IanB2, do you also want to talk about use of "territories" in more detailed prose? I suggest that we could write "box office territories" instead of just "territories" on the first use, link to the Wikipedia article, and then use "territories" afterward when sources talk about specific numbers. A country can be called a country. Pinging editors who have weighed in so far: Betty Logan, Dimadick, Flyer22 Reborn. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The new article is a good effort to define "territory" in this context. However when the source just says "x territories", it is not easy to decipher what geographical areas are the ones intended. Dimadick (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need to decipher, though. From what I've seen in box office coverage, a source may state "x territories" and then provide highlights from certain countries. We would reference and summarize that report and not try to deduce anything on our own. In my experience, coverage needs to be based on prose that establishes noteworthiness. Editors should not plumb raw data (e.g., looking at Box Office Mojo's tables) and provide their own highlights. What difficulty are you envisioning with "x territories"? Do you have an example in mind? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather go with "box office market". I'm getting a lot more results for market in Google vs. territory, and it is also a more intuitively understood term. Daß Wölf 00:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a preference for "markets" too. It is unambiguous in its application. If it's good enough for the MPAA it should be good enough for us. Betty Logan (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with "market" too, but I still think if all or the vast majority of sources used in an article for the box office information use "territory", that should stay. However, now with the article Erik created, the first instance in the section should state and link to "box office territory" with "territory/territories" used subsequently if needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few things have become clearer from the work Erik and I have been doing on the dedicated page:

• use of the word 'territory' is widespread in the industry, although there are alternatives in use also
• there is no one standard set of national groupings in use - for example if you look up "UK box office" on Box Office Mojo, the figures you will get include ticket sales in Malta; if you look elsewhere, you will likely get just UK and Ireland. This will mean (small) differences in data quoted for UK Box office (noting that many Irish people would object to such a description anyway) depending on where you get the data.
• the source data appears actually to be collected by country (as you would expect) - if you want the Canadian or Irish ticket sales for a movie, the figures are there, if you hunt hard enough.
• it appears decisions on which data to collect, and how to add them together for presentation, are being made by the agencies who collect the figures, each of whom pitches its info to the industry; the coverage of data available isn't particularly logical (e.g. comsource collects Moldovan but none from any Scandinavian country) and probably reflects practical constraints, or the connections each agency has.
• the implication of this is that it's a data gathering/presentation issue rather than about how the film industry is structured (Q: are Canadian theaters, or their offering, managed from the US?).. The Malta issue is a good test in this regard.

my own view based on the above is that the industry is using this term fuzzily, probably because the US and Canada are almost always combined, hence cannot be described as a country (noting however that if you spell out 'US and Canada' then 'other countries' is both an accurate and reasonable phrase). And therefore that it cannot really be "defined" in any meaningful sense and doesn't merit its own page. In terms of descriptors, IMHO 'other countries' remains the most accurate when discussing ROW (world-US-Canada-uncollected) box office, and 'markets' when discussing box office data generically, reflecting the mix of single- and multi-country data. Apols for length IanB2 (talk) 07:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since this dovetails with WP:FILM MOS regarding proper titles of film, I'm posting a neutral notice of a title-change discussion regarding a film with the onscreen title Steamboat Bill, Jr., taking place at Talk:Steamboat Bill Jr.#Requested move 15 December 2016. The input of WP:FILM editors is requested. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely recall discussions about rounding box office figures (FWIW I was in favor of the infobox containing the specific figure from the source, and the article body including the rounded figures because it made for better readability but that wasn't the consensus and we've rounded figures in both places now). The discussion linked from Template:Infobox film leads me to believe that the idea was to provide 3 significant figures and that the intention behind it was to provide figures with an appropriate amount of detail in proportion to the budget (because people basically want to see if film more than doubled the budget).

I'd just like clarification that I'm interpreting that discussion fairly and that 3 significant figures is plenty, because it seems very strange to me to keep seeing $100 million dollar budget films, and the gross then given as $675.4 million. It just seems like an odd level of precision I think editors saw so many article that provided that 1 extra place of precision for films with a gross of under $100 million (i.e. 3 significant figures) that they misunderstood the intention and thought the rule was always to give 1 decimal place of precision when there's really no need for it when the figures are in excess of $100 million. If the guidelines here and on Template:Infobox film could be updated to be a bit more specific that would help too. -- 109.77.139.50 (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear that the related discussion involved significant figures, but I have written 1 decimal place because reliable sources writing about box office grosses report it this way. This is a recent example. I'm open to discussing this, though. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Variety isn't exactly consistent but they do seem wiling to go to 4 figures. In their weekly news Box Office Mojo it looks more like they use 3 sig. figs.

Even so those are industry journals posting week by week box office news, they aren't trying to be an encyclopedia. Rounding to 4 figures seems weird to me is all. -- 109.77.139.50 (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think different levels of precision for grosses and budgets are a huge problem i.e. Rocky cost $1.1 million and grossed $225 million and you don't need an identical level of precision to get a sense of scale there. All that is required is a sensible application of MOS:LARGENUM and I am certainly not going to get on an editor's case simply because they are using four significant figures rather than three. There are several reasons where we may opt for more or less though. For example, many sources for older films may only give a figure to two or even one significant figures (e.g. $5 million) so the source itself could be a limiting factor. Alternatively, if a gross is on the cusp of a milestone an editor may wish to avoid implying the film reached said milestone i.e. $999.9 million rather than $1 billion. Some articles may opt for more precision in a table than they do in prose and so on. As long as readers can get a sense of scale and we don't have numbers trailing off to extreme levels of precision then that would seem to comply with LARGENUM. Betty Logan (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at 4 digit levels of precision on the big tentpole releases that are still in cinemas now and that extra digit seems weird to me. I'm not looking at older cases and I'm not suggesting we should use LARGENUM to push a total over the billion mark. As someone who would have written the full number in the past I'm struggling to understand why if the consensus was to round the figures, then why are so many articles including 4 significant figures worth of information for the box office grosses in excess of $100 million. It seems like we are getting the worst of both, no real precision and none of the elegant simplicity or clarity of a number rounded to 3 significant figures. Erik provided a good suggestion as to why people might be following that habit but it doesn't seem like the right choice for the encyclopedia.

My first reading of the policies made me think 3 significant figures was what was intended (with a few limited exceptions) but rereading it I unfortunately saw no such clarity. -- 109.77.139.50 (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I guess I should also clarify that I'm recommending more rounding not less. On gross figures over 100 million I'm recommending 3 sig figs. I'm not recommending any other changes, and I'm definitely not suggesting editors should force three significant figures when 2 sig figs is enough (eg when the gross has been rounded to 1.1 million, I'm not suggesting any more detail that that. Also if the gross is under $1 million I think it is totally reasonable to specify the full amount, eg 42,000 or 42,123). So I'm recommending 3 significant figures or less if appropriate with room for editors to make exceptions but hoping that people might agree that for an encyclopedia 3 sig figs should be enough in most cases. -- 109.79.173.124 (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping for greater clarity but no joy, I think this discussion is about done. I think the WP:LARGENUM guidelines support rounding to 3 significant figures but then again it isn't worth fighting against all those people who revert without any kind of explanation and most people will just keep doing what they've been doing. I hope you'll consider that 3 significant figures is more than enough precision and going forward I'll be trying to do that but I'm not going to get into revert wars over it. I think it all comes down to no consensus yet but I for one would like to see rounding to 3 significant figures (with room for people to make exceptions, such as those Betty mentioned). -- 109.77.139.50 (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are expecting too quick of a response here. Discussions like this need to be open for more than a day, so I encourage you not to expect a fast turnaround. For what it is worth, I notified WT:FILM of this discussion. Perhaps let a week go by, especially considering that it is a holiday time frame for many, and comment requesting feedback so this page shows up on others' watchlists. We can also add such a comment at the WT:FILM notification thread. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm weakly in favour of 3 significant figures, even though the sources seem adamant on keeping the hundred-thousand digit. I agree with 109.77, it's a bit clunky if you're looking for a ballpark estimate, and not enough if you're looking for an exact number. Daß Wölf 23:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of not limiting grosses to 3 sig figs as the IP is suggesting, per Erik's initial response as well as Betty Logan's. 3 may be appropriate in certain cases (mainly older films perhaps), but with newer films, and the exact precision that is generally reported on box office grosses, 4 sig figs for an under $1 billion earning is appropriate and give a proper amount of precision (ie $567.5 million is a better representation of $567,482,114 than $567 million). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That also makes me realize, if a source reports a box office figure with three sig figs and the decimal 0.5, we do not know if we should round down or up if we wanted to do only three sig figs, right? We may be stuck with how the sources do it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ultimately the sources will dictate how much discretion we have over the precision but this is becoming too prescriptive for my liking. In the case of something like The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King anything between $1,119.9 million and $1.1 billion is a perfectly acceptable level of precision in the infobox, as far as the guideline is concerned (ironically the $1.119 billion is incorrectly rounded!). This is really a solution looking for a problem. Betty Logan (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a weird hypothetical, we almost never have have problems like that with box office grosses rounding point 0.5 and even if we did that would be an obviously reasonable case to report the figures directly as provided in the source. Nearly all box office grosses (especially the recent ones) are sourced from Box Office Mojo or The Numbers, and we actually have the precise figures and could easily have continue including the full figures in the Infobox and rounding them down only in the text to improve readability but the consensus was the round them down in both places.

So when the consensus was to round down and follow WP:LARGENUM I'm unimpressed by odd choice to not actually follow that policy and round them as appropriate ($1.1 billion, is best for readability) and it is an odd assertion that because NEWS sources only round their week by week figures down to four figures, that then this supposed to be an encyclopedia should provide that arbitrary level of precision for the total gross. It feels like yet another very odd very selective interpretation of a policy but then if I didn't think Wikipedia was wildly inconsistent with weird interpretations of the rules, and full of deletionists, I might still have a named user account. -- 109.77.138.70 (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this limited to only two films? What if the individual has a significant amount of notable works that surpasses that limit?

Take John Williams: Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Harry Potter, Jaws. Saving Private Ryan, E.T. the Extra Terrestrial. Listing only two for him invites editors to squabble over which get added in. At the very least the limit should be five. Rusted AutoParts 22:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this discussion, WP:FILM editors added a passage to WP:FILMMOS reading, "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus. With a film largely overlooked for awards, a prose summary of it appearing on such lists may be appropriate; likewise with films nominated for awards yet appearing on few such lists."

The language indicates that mentions of top-lists, if editors agree on including such a mention, be within "a prose summary".

Based on another discussion, an editor added: "per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 61#American Film Institute recognition, American Film Institute mentions should only include those films that made a given list — not those that were nominated."

Because the main paragraph specifies prose, not list, I think the average editor will deduce that any AFI mention should be in prose as well. However, I'm running into a situation where that may not be understood, and it's causing friction. While I'm no fan of redundancy, I'm wondering if it would help make things "idiot-proof", to use a common colloquialism not directed any anyone, to tweak that phrase with one more word so that it reads: "...American Film Institute prose mentions should only include..." --Tenebrae (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Related to the above, WP:FILM made an exception for American Film Institute lists. A good and responsible editor has begun adding National Board of Review top-ten mentions. I'm concerned that this will lead back to the egregious top-ten-list bloat we reached consensus against. Should we make a second exception, or should National Board of Review's top-10 lists be subject to discussion and consensus at the article level? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of vote-stack canvassing is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin-opinion request on canvassing issue. This should be resolved before discussion can continue here]]. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

[The following discussion began in WT:FILM @ Re "Top ten" vs. "Top ten list" in Carol and List of accolades received by Carol (film) and was shifted to the MOS:FILM Talk page. (This is the first time I have initiated a discussion for the purpose of reaching consensus and because it regards interpretation and application of MOS:FILM guidelines, I thought that page was the correct forum. Please accept my apologies for any confusion. – Pyxis Solitary.)]

One editor has persistently deleted summary prose about critics lists from the main article's critical response section and the list of accolades article, using MOS:FILM as the basis for these deletions. I've requested that guidelines about critics lists vs. prose about critics lists be made plain and crystal clear in MOS:FILM.

The crux:

• Is a summary sentence about critics list/s (e.g. "Carol was named one of the best films of 2015 by numerous critics and publications, appearing in over 130 critics' Top Ten lists.") the same as adding a top-ten list of critics names and publications?

If you think the answer is obvious, it obviously is not. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something I thought was so obvious it didn't need to be explained, but I guess that's not so: One reason WP:FILM consensus is not to include top-10 lists is that so many of them are non-notable and meaningless. You say Carol is on 130 top-10 lists — but how many of those are from non-notable groups, such as the film club Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film, or the Central Ohio Film Critics Association, or the North Texas Film Critics Association, or any number of others that were deleted from Wikipedia as minor, non-notable organizations? Top-10 lists from non-notable groups are meaningless, and WP:FILM disallows them as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. So it's on 130 lists? So what, if half of them are from non-notable groups. And we really can't footnote every one of, say, the other 65 claims.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. "how many of those are from non-notable groups, such as the film club Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film, or the Central Ohio Film Critics Association, or the North Texas Film Critics Association, or any number of others that were deleted from Wikipedia as minor, non-notable organizations? - based on this logic, then MOS:FILM should also not allow the inclusion of review aggregators. Rotten Tomatoes states that 250 reviews are counted for Carol. If you look at "All Critics" in the reviews page, you see that the 250 reviews includes reviews (for example) from "The Mary Sue", "Grantland", "Antagony & Ecstasy", "Correcámara", "AARP Movies for Grownups", "Fan The Fire", "Cinegarage", "Butaca Ancha", "Seven Days", "Junkee", "Impulse Gamer", "Student Edge", "One Guy's Opinion", "The Popcorn Junkie", "Tiny Mix Tapes", "Spirituality and Practice", "Truthdig", "Playboy Online", "Nerd Report", "Film Freak Central", "HeyUGuys". Why should MOS:FILM accept a review aggregator that includes these sources for its ratings and rankings? Are they in any way superior compared to a review from the "North Texas Film Critics Association"?

And this also applies to the results from Metacritic. Why should MOS:FILM accept Metacritic as a source?

2. If you've read all the comments regarding your deletion of summary sentences and any mention of a "top" list (e.g. Rotten Tomatoes' "Top 100 Movies of 2015"), then you know by now that the summary sentence about "130 critics' Top Ten lists" is based on the *Top ten lists* section that was removed from the main article (Revision as of 09:11, 9 February 2016). If you look at that "Top ten list", you will see that it is a list composed of legitimate, film industry sources (some of them are sources used by Rotten Tomatoes).

3. You are mixing apples with oranges. A "list" is not a "prose". If you want to argue that a list = prose ... do it in the Re "Top ten" vs. "Top ten list" in Carol and List of accolades received by Carol (film) discussion @ WT:FILM. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an answer but here is my fruit for the pie: Firstly, trying to make a quantitative statistic out of qualitative information is not easy to do in an objective and reliable way. Being on "130 lists" appears to be data, but really just saying "many commentators rate it highly", and personally I would rather see the latter since the subjectivity is up front. The aggregators attempt to tackle this (having turned each review into a score in the first place) by identifying a panel of reviewers, screening out the least notable, and then weighting toward the sources considered most authoritative. Secondly, what do people expect from an encyclopaedia page about reaction to a film? I suggest an indication of how the film was received and is regarded in general (i.e. the 'consensus') and, where there is a divergence of views, enough information about the minority perspectives to appreciate the debate. Or, if it's a 'marmite' (love it or hate it) film, the sides of the debate set out dispassionately. Any editor who chooses a quote to add to a page is making subjective judgement that the comment is representative of a broader strand of opinion, and referring to someone's top ten list is IMO no different (although as a reader I am more interested in why the reviewer rates it enough to be in the list, rather than the fact of being in a list per se) but I don't think we should be trying to make 'fake data' out of it IanB2 (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what are you saying? Is it okay to add a summary sentence that says (for example) "Numerous critics rated Carol a Top-ten 2015 film"? Or not? Is it okay to add the info "Rotten Tomatoes named Carol one of the Top 100 Movies of 2015? Or not? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am neither an expert nor pretending to have the answer (as I said). Personally I don't have any difficulty with either of your formulations, although feel the former would be better as "as one of several reviews that rated "Carol" in 2016's top ten, reviewer X said.....", with the usual criteria used to select the quote from X. That makes the list supporting information for the quote rather than getting dragged into some sort of list war. For you might add afterwards "other critics did not include "Carol" in their top ten lists", and such trading of empty facts would quickly become boring to read. IanB2 (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with the controversial sentence. There is a large difference, as you have pointed out, between a section full of rankings on critics' lists (which has been abandoned for good reason) and a single sentence summarizing year-end critical opinion. Erik earlier suggested that the sentence could be improved by indicating how many top 10 lists in total were counted by Metacritic. I agree. If this number isn't available, however, I still do not know of any way the inclusion of the sentence violates MOS:FILM.

Tenebrae wrote in an earlier discussion that top 10 lists serve no encyclopedic purpose, and are unnecessary due to the availability of aggregators. I disagree. A film's score on one of the two major aggregators is not a perfect indicator of year-end placements. Look at The Tree of Life, for example. It was not the most unanimously praised film of 2011, but according to the tabulations of both Metacritic and the British Film Institute, it was handily the year's most acclaimed film with regards to list inclusion. Also, the same year's Margaret garnered a mild 61/100 on Metacritic but later proved to be 11th of its year by list inclusion. This information is not irrelevant. AndrewOne (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We still have the issue of "130 lists," which, aside from involving an SPA gilding the lily when we already have a long list of awards, is inappropriate since some percentage of that list will be from trivial, non-notable sources. Some may be from audience polls, which are disallowed. Additionally, User:Pyxis Solitary is conflating two different things: "reviews," which have their own FILMMOS guidelines, and "accolades," for which FILMMOS disallows non-notables.

FILMMOS already makes allowances for cases such as Margaret. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tabulation, according to Metacritic, is the result of lists from "the film critics regularly included in Metacritic's score calculations, as well as a few extra lists from additional prominent film sources." If a long-standing and reliable review aggregator factors those sources in, what makes them indiscriminate? Why assume that a notable percentage will be audience polls or otherwise "trivial" lists when the source claims to be aggregating critics' lists? Pyxis Solitary makes a valid point when asserting that under this logic the use of aggregators themselves would have to be discontinued. (Also, a note for both sides: the film appeared in 126 of the lists counted by Metacritic, not "over 130".) AndrewOne (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You ask reasonably enough, "Why assume that a notable percentage will be audience polls or otherwise "trivial" lists when the source claims to be aggregating critics' lists?" I would answer that, by your use of the term "claims", that we aren't ascertaining MC's claim and so you're making an assumption the other way. I'm saying we shouldn't make assumptions either way but get the facts, which we don't have. Who are these 126 critics? Are there really 126 notable critics whose periodicals and websites all have Wikipedia articles?

And with all due respect, this logic does not mean aggregators have to be discontinued. Let's not conflate WP:FILMMOS standards for reviews with its standards for accolades. There's nothing in FILMMOS that says every single review aggregated has to be from a notable site or periodical. However, FILMMOS does say that no awards be listed from non-notable sources. Reviews and accolades. Apples and oranges. The listing of awards is held, as it should be, to a higher standard.

And all these points aside, the spirit of the consensus is clearly that WikiProject Film, for well-discussed reasons, does not to include top-10 lists. Wikilawyering to find loopholes in order to shoehorn in top-10 lists for one's favorite film means anyone could do it for any film. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

is this really different in principle from a big fan (or critic) of a film looking for good quotes to add into its article, which happens all the time? On film and TV pages many editors are clearly fans, and the risk goes with the territory, tempered by appropriate self-control and community moderation. Banning any reference to an authoritative commentator's best film selection seems a sledgehammer solution? IanB2 (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the guidelines concerning accolades reviews are different from those concerning accolades. My issue is with what appears to be the assumption on your part that certain lists factored in by Metacritic are guaranteed to be trivial and non-notable. Once again, why this assumption? If this list or that list is trivial, what makes it so? Since Wikipedia is not a source, one cannot argue lack of reliability from lack of a Wikipedia page. I would agree with you if what we had on our hands was something like a user scouring the web and counting on their own how many lists Carol appeared on – but if this is from an established aggregator stating that its tabulation is one of critics' lists, I once again fail to see how any sort of dishonest gaming is occurring here. AndrewOne (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RE "one cannot argue lack of reliability from lack of a Wikipedia page": Actually, WP:FILMMOS explicitly states that we don't include awards from non-notables as defined by lack of a Wikipedia page. And from having gone to the Metacritc tabulation at here, I can certainly say that CinemaDope and Cinephiled, to name two from a quick perusal, are non-notable under that definition. Also, many of the sources have multiple lists — The A.V. Club has seven and Indiewire's "The Playlist" has nine, in addition to Indiewire's own five. This kind of indiscriminate clutter is exactly why WP:FILM decided not to include top-10 lists. Because y'know, we're not just talking about Carol — we're talking about every single movie on somebody's list. So what you call "dishonest gaming" is what I call, I believe very accurately, as going against the spirt of the consensus by Wikilawyering to find loopholes. I don't know how much clearer it can be: "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus." --Tenebrae (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the comments \*/ so far in response to a summary "prose" about lists being acceptable in a film article [for example, "XYZ was named one of the Top Ten films of 2015 by numerous critics" / "XYZ was named one of the Top 100 movies of 2015 by Rotten Tomatoes" / etc.]:

Acceptable:

• Pyxis Solitary
• @Erik:
• @IanB2:
• @AndrewOne:
• @Anachronist:
• @Loggednotlogged:

Not acceptable:

• @Tenebrae:

\*/ In this discussion and similar discussion @ WT:FILM: Re "Top ten" vs. "Top ten list" in Carol and List of accolades received by Carol (film). Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the mischaracterization noted by Anachronist below, and aside from suspicious redlink editor User:Loggednotlogged, who has no other edits except his comment here, I'd like to remind Pyxis Solitary that these discussion are not vote-based. They're policy based. And as this editor appears unwilling to accept, WP:FILMMOS disallows including top-10 lists in film articles, for very good reasons that editors spent a fair of time debating.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that characterization above isn't quite right. My main objection was that the "130 lists" claim constituted original research and isn't relevant. I don't really object to mentioning a notable list, as was with the AFI top 10 in accordance with the "case by case basis" requirement of WP:FILM. I do, however, object to introducing WP:WEASEL words such as "numerous critics" into the prose. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the misinterpretation of your position. How a summary prose is worded can be worked out. We don't need to say that a film was included in more than "X Top-ten lists". We don't need to specify a numerical figure. The summary can be composed to state that it was well received by many film critics and publications and, to support the statement, add a few reference citations where Wikipedia readers can see a sample as verification. It's simply my position that if a film becomes highly regarded, providing information about the widespread critical acclaim is important. Out of hundreds of films released in 2015, only 100 made "Top 100" of the year -- including this fact about a film is also important. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tbo I would be more interested in knowing a film is in an authoritative critic's top ten of the year or top hundred of all time; top hundred made in a particular year doesn't seem hugely noteworthy for a mainstream film? IanB2 (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, what we are each personally interested in knowing should take a back seat to what we help Wikipedia provide the general public, scholars, and researchers, now and in the future.

"top hundred of all time". Is applying this limitation fair to a film released in, say, the last 3 years?

Tenebrae deleted the following citations and summary prose from the Carol article's critical reception (aka critical response) section:

• Top 100 Movies of 2015 / http://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/bestofrt/?year=2015

• Best of 2015: Film Critic Top Ten Lists / http://www.metacritic.com/feature/film-critics-list-the-top-10-movies-of-2015

• The 20 Best Films Of 2015 / http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/the-20-best-films-of-2015-20151210?page=4

• The 50 best films of 2015 in the UK: the full list / https://www.theguardian.com/film/ng-interactive/2015/dec/04/best-films-of-2015-uk

• The 10 best films of 2015 / http://www.bbc.co.uk/culture/story/20151218-the-10-best-films-of-2015

• Film Comment ranked Carol the best film of 2015 based on its year-end poll of over 100 film critics. <ref>

• The film topped Variety film critics' Best Films of 2015 poll. <ref>

• Carol was ranked second on 'Sight & Sound Best Films of 2015 critics' poll, voted on by 168 film critics. <ref>

• The film also came in second place on the Village Voice Film Critics' Poll, voted on by over 125 film critics, and IndieWire's critics' poll of best films, voted on by over 200 film critics. <ref> <ref>

(see: Revision 22:17, 11 January 2017)

Should a film article be cut to the bone? Is this the purpose of MOS:FILM? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ That was deleted? How does restricting these facts about a movie serve the purpose of Wikipedia?

Other than an actual list I dont find anything in mos about excluding statements of how a movie was received by critics. I don't see in mos where citing pertinent sources that reinforce such statements are also not permitted. I don't see anything wrong in providing this kind of material. These particulars are important in that they enhance the accuracy about a movie's critical reception. As someone who has used and continues to use Wikipedia as an information source I think suppressing material about how a movie was received by critics would be an unfortunate decision. I also agree that a list showing the critics and staff that included a movie as a top ten movie of the year is not equivalent to statements about a movie being considered one of the best movies of a year, with reliable sources bolstering the statements. If mos guidelines for critical response need to be amended, it should be done. The sooner the better.

I've been editing anonymously for over a year and created an account so that my opinion would be taken seriously. Please add me to the list of those who consider summary sentences about critical reception acceptable. Loggednotlogged (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think anyone monitoring this discussion needs to know that Loggednotlogged is someone with exactly one edit: this comment. Going through WP:SOCK is time-consuming, but perhaps that's necessary. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is childish. You don't like what I had to say so you accuse me of being a sock. Every editor, including you, should read: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.html. Loggednotlogged (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "Should a film article be cut to the bone?" That's a completely false dichotomy, which is a standard high-school debate trick. The two Carol articles are by no means "cut to the bone" without this laundry list of top-10 and top-100 polls and lists. Anyone looking at these articles will see scads of awards and other accolades, not to mention the main article's substantial sections on Development, Pre-production, Filming, Post-production and much more. If we're going to have a discussion, let's please be honest.

Second, you mischaracterize some editors' ambivalent stances or comments designed to add perspective as supporting your position. Coupled with this, these discussions are not vote-based: They're based on whether we're following guidelines and policies. And WP:FILM is clear: : "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus." If you want to change a Project-wide guideline, that's a completely different discussion that one that's centered solely on one editor's favorite film that one wants to promote.--Tenebrae (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor who has commented and thinks I mischaracterized his or her stance or comments has the opportunity to remove any doubt. There is nothing preventing any editor from doing so. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— —

I would also note that Pyxis Solitary has posted notice about the discussion on several editors' talk pages. That's fine, of course, but she needs to disclose if she's cherrypicking sympathetic editors or if she has some objective criteria, such as "every registered editor over the last six months" or "a year". If she has no such criteria, she may be WP:CANVASSING. If she considers what she is doing not canvassing, then it would follow that any of us in this discussion is free to do as she did. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CAN:

"it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."

"An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

• On the user talk pages of concerned editors.

"The {Please see} template may help in notifying people in a quick, simple, and neutral manner."

That's what WP:CAN suggests. That's what this editor did. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you avoided answering the question of just how you cherrypicked these particular editors. Interesting. Here's what WP:CAN also says: "[E]ditors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following," including examples not applicable here, such noticeboards or the Village Pump, and:

• Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
• Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
• Editors known for expertise in the field
• Editors who have asked to be kept informed

Which of these criteria did you use? And please back up your claim. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After two days, I'm still awaiting a response from Pyxis Solitary as to which of the above criteria that editor may have used for the notifications, or if editors were cherrypicked because they were considered sympathetic to the editor's position. Which would be canvassiong. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may continue to wait since there is nothing in WP:CAN that requires an explanation from an editor that used the neutral {Please see} template. If you weren't so wrapped-up in your combative antagonism, you could figure it out for yourself. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you had none of the specified criteria above. That means you cherrypicked editors you thought would support your position. That absolutely is canvassing. And since you can see from my Contributions list that i work to improve articles of all types, while you are an WP:SPA devoted almost solely to puffing up your favorite film and doing nothing else for this altruistic free encyclopedia, which one of is being combative?

I'm going to ask for an admin opinion on this. You can't just cherrypick any editors you want. Your canvassing has nulled this entire discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In short:

You are questioning the honesty of @Erik:, @IanB2:, @AndrewOne:, and @Anachronist:, and dismissing their opinions because they are biased in my favor. Because they responded to a "cherrypicked" canvass. And of course, lest we forget, @Loggednotlogged: is a sock puppet. Because you say so.

Go right ahead and indulge your paranoia. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More name-calling from Pyxis Solitary. I find that people resort to name-calling when they're insecure about their position and so try to divert, distract and insult as a way of smokescreening. In any event, Pyxis Solitary committed a textbook case of vote-stacking, which is cherrypicking editors without objective criteria. Are you denying you did this? Because I asked twice for criteria and you couldn't give me any. So this entire discussion is void. I've asked an admin to either make it official or say differently. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed I was pinged because I had been posting recently in both talk/tv and talk/film. I have a lot of time for Tenebrae's editing so do not think there is any reason to imagine I would be biased one way or the other IanB2 (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say my opinion is in favor of Pyxis Solitary's position, judging by my third opinion written at Talk:List of accolades received by Carol (film)#Gushy tone and other vios. As I have already stated, I have no objection to mentioning specific top 10 lists on a case by case basis, in accordance with MOS:FILM, but I do object to the WP:OR of the "130 lists" claim, as well as the irrelevancy of some of the lists included in that 130. And I have zero interest in this canvassing discussion, to me it's a non-issue. I'm replying only because I was pinged. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I responded to your previous comment re "130 lists" ... How a summary prose is worded can be worked out. We don't need to say that a film was included in more than "X Top-ten lists". We don't need to specify a numerical figure. All a summary sentence can state is (for example only) "XYZ film was included in many best of films year-end lists." and provide several reliable (and well-regarded) source citations that support the summary statement [sources such as (for example) Film Comment, Sight & Sound, IndieWire, Variety, BBC].

My pinging you was not an intent to drag you or anyone else into the drama about canvassing. You know that the only interaction you and I have had until this discussion was in the recent third opinion comments in the List of accolades received by Carol (film) Talk page. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The statement by Tenebrae regarding the guideline in MOS:FILM that awards "should have a Wikipedia page to demonstrate notability" is not applicable here, as the guideline refers to particular awards (e.g. Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay), not year-end lists. The sentence informing editors not to "add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus" intends presumably to ban the inclusion of rankings on lists, but does not explicitly prohibit the inclusion of a single sentence summarizing the extent of a film's presence on year-end lists. Therefore, there is no uncontroversial basis in the manual of style for the removal of the sentence that Pyxis Solitary wants, but only an arguable and highly disputed basis – which is a sign that the manual's wording could be improved. When the noun of the guideline is not rankings on lists or summaries of how frequently a work appears on lists but lists themselves, the only thing that the guideline is explicitly barring, realistically speaking, is the inclusion of lists themselves. If the intent of the guideline is to ban virtually any mentioning of top 10 lists, the manual must state this in a more unambiguous way than it currently does.

If MOS:FILM ultimately is changed because of this disagreement, I would also support a change to the aforementioned other guideline (on awards), as it once again falsely implies that having a Wikipedia article is sufficient evidence of something's notability. AndrewOne (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FILMMOS says no top-10 lists, with the case-by-case exception. It doesn't have to say "no top-10 lists here, but over here it's OK." It says no top-10 lists. Petition to change the MOS if you want. But please don't read into it claims that support your position but are factually not there. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIRCULAR, which you linked above, is about verifiability, not notability. Having a long-standing Wikipedia article is a reasonable litmus test for notability of a subject, for the purpose of linking in lists and what not, particularly if the article demonstrates that the subject meets WP:GNG criteria. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline reads, "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus." This statement addresses the inclusion of a list itself, not of a single sentence reporting how many lists a film made. As I posted in my previous comment, "there is no uncontroversial basis in the manual of style for the removal of the sentence that Pyxis Solitary wants, but only an arguable and highly disputed basis – which is a sign that the manual's wording could be improved. When the noun of the guideline is not rankings on lists or summaries of how frequently a work appears on lists but lists themselves, the only thing that the guideline is explicitly barring, realistically speaking, is the inclusion of lists themselves. If the intent of the guideline is to ban virtually any mentioning of top 10 lists, the manual must state this in a more unambiguous way than it currently does." AndrewOne (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "which is a sign that the manual's wording could be improved" — That may be true, and I'm all for improving WIkipedia however we can. But "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears" certainly reads unambiguously. I'm not sure arguing that it says something that one wants it to say, rather than what it flatly states, is supportable. RE: "[T]he manual must state this in a more unambiguous way than it currently does" — First, as noted, "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears" doesn't seem ambiguous to me in the least. Second, I don't believe we can say that we won't follow the manual unless it states something the way we prefer it be stated.

In any event, this discussion needs to be put on hold until an admin can address the issue of vote-stacking. An editor can cherrypick which editor to notify, without using an objective criteria. Please see the blue-linked guideline. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]