Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Use of spoilers in a film's lead[edit]

There's a slow edit war[1] at Thoroughbreds (2017 film). This is the latest iteration of it. There was a little discussion back in March about it, but otherwise it's been conducted in edit summaries.

  • WP:LEAD does not explicitly indicate how much of the plot to summarise, but "most important elements" can be reasonably read as including plot points including twists and endings.
  • WP:SPOILERS addresses the use of explicit spoilers in sections such as "Plot" in which the section title provides the implicit spoiler warning and spoilers are expected. It doesn't really cover whether spoilers should be avoided if possible in the lead section (other than stating "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with... any other element of article quality (e.g., the lead section)".
  • WP:FILMLEAD does not currently cover how much of the plot should be included, and whether spoilers/twists should be included or avoided
  • Spoilers in the lead section are unexpected. It's reasonable for readers unfamiliar with the film to be able to read the lead without having the film spoiled, this is not censorship but consideration. Spoilers further on may be expected and/or unavoidable
  • A quick scan of films in Category:FA-Class_film_articles shows that endings and plot twists are not spoiled in their leads. I'd expect that attempting to add a fuller summary to Fight Club, Manhunter (film), American Beauty (1999 film), and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan would prove to be an interesting experience.
  • Proposal: WP:FILMLEAD should provide more explicit guidance in what is expected in terms of plot summaries, to reflect common practice.

~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 04:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

From all previous discussions on this, my understanding is that spoilers should not be removed because they are spoilers, but they should not be kept just because they are spoilers either. If you can't justify including something beyond the fact that we don't remove spoilers for spoilers' sake, then it should not be included. So all of our guidelines just need to make that clear. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
The bottom line is that an encyclopaedia should be telling readers about the film, and someone who really doesn't want to know what happens in a film shouldn't go looking it up in an encyclopaedia. MapReader (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:SPOILER, "Wikipedia previously included such warnings in some articles, but no longer does so, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as 'Plot' or 'Ending') which imply the presence of spoilers.... When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served. Articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance." Since WP:SPOILER specifically mentions section headings, there must be a very compelling reason to write the plot in full in the lead section itself. Fuller plot write-ups in the lead section can happen with articles with hugely impactful endings (or mid-film scenes) because the impact is determined by the reliable third-party sources themselves, for example, I could see The Sixth Sense's lead section discussing the ending because so many sources have talked about it. However, in the case of Thoroughbreds, there is no encyclopedic purpose being served. A search engine test shows no impactful mid-film or ending scene that would warrant such detailing, its lead section doesn't even include how the film was received, which is far, far more important to mention. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
"The film tells the story of Cole Sear (Haley Joel Osment), a troubled, isolated boy who is able to see and talk to the dead, and an equally troubled child psychologist named Malcolm Crowe (Bruce Willis) who tries to help him. The film established Shyamalan as a writer and director, and introduced the cinema public to his traits, most notably his affinity for surprise endings." - That's actually a very good example of talking about the ending without actually revealing that actual ending. --Gonnym (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
We have to remember that that Wikipedia article is not in good shape at all; it covers the topic fairly superficially. If I were to write it in full to be a Featured Article, I would convey the premise in the first paragraph, and in the third or fourth paragraph, go into detail about the ending as discussed by sources. Probably start that paragraph with indicating that the film's ending will be discussed. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
And, of course, a good encyclopaedia entry shouldn't be concerned with whether its content 'reveals' anything to the uninitiated, since revelation and enlightenment are central to its very purpose. While editors shouldn't be going out of their way to "spoil" the film, equally they shouldn't be making efforts to write their text in a way that doesn't do so. MapReader (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:SPOILER clearly mentions the use of section headings, not just the content disclaimer. In this vein, it makes sense to have similar lead-in language in the lead section, the point of WP:SPOILER is to not remove content that has an encyclopedic purpose because it is also spoiler content. The plot by itself has no inherent encyclopedic purpose. Per WP:PLOT, a concise plot summary complements coverage presented in an "encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance". So the question is, what of the plot should be covered in the lead section? Essentially, the most important parts as determined by the weight of reliable third-party sources. This is most often the basics (e.g., the premise), and beyond that, spoiler content should be included if there is weight for it. Controversial or specifically praised content should be included even if is spoiler content; that can be characters' deaths, twist endings, etc. This is going to be more likely for more noteworthy topics (e.g., classic films) because they are thoroughly scrutinized. For Thoroughbreds, no one is discussing how the film ends, the summary of a summary is just tacked on with no visible encyclopedic purpose. There seems to be discussion about the nihilism within, and spoiler content related to that could be included, but there's not even any reception information in the section. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
While only Good Articles, Memento, Inception and The Prestige manage to convey the film without clearly writing out the last act. I doubt there is really reason for that to happen in the lead in any film. Detailing the story or analyzing plot (including ending) is for body of the article itself.--Gonnym (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:FILMLEAD maybe could be made even more explicit, but on this issue, it seems clear enough to me. It suggests to give the premise in the lead, but says nothing of a plot summary. --SubSeven (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the above proposal, and in terms of limits to plot elements in the lead, I agree with Erik. Hoverfish Talk 15:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Am against any spoilers in the lead of any film article and plot description in the lead should be minimal, I dont think a new reader would expect spoilers other than in the plot or if necessary in a later section if it is very notable and that section should be structured so that readers are aware that spoilers are coming up. Many leads are just too long and if too much is included there people wont bother with the rest of the article as they will have had their fill of a bloated intro. A lot of film articles are read by youngsters and why should we spoil their enjoyment of a film just to be "encyclopedic" ? thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Agree with all the above. Spoilers belong in the lead when they serve an encyclopedic purpose. We shouldn't just throw in spoilers because we can; in the case of Thoroughbreds, I don't see any reason the ending** belongs in the lead based on the current state of the article. Would support a minor amendment to WP:Lead or WP:Spoiler to make this clearer.
** It also seems that Koavf's preferred summary gives undue weight to the ending compared to the rest of the plot. Sums up some 60 or 70 minutes of movie in the same length as the last few minutes. (It has other errors also, like calling Olivia Cooke's character a sociopath when she says in the movie that she isn't a sociopath.) Boycool (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Commnt As far as the plot is concerned, the lead should just convey the basic premise. For example, you don't need to reveal the ending of The Empire Strikes Back to convey the premise. However, revealing the ending may be justified if there is significant RS coverage of the ending that is discussed in the article, as a basic rule of thumb I do not accept it is necessary to include spoilers that only appear in the plot summary; if the spoilers are discussed in a real-life context (such as the production, themes or reception sections) then the amount of coverage they receive in the article may justify a mention in the lead. Betty Logan (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think I stated my case very well, going to try again: WP:FILMLEAD should be touched up just to squash any future confusion, but as far as settling the actual debate, it is fine. WP:FILMLEAD is not shy about stating exactly what should go in the lead of a film article. If a plot summary belonged in the lead, then the guideline would say so. That is the project consensus, it has been for a long time, and the project's best articles are completely in sync with that consensus, as Erik states, the primary goal of these articles are real-world perspective. The plot section is the place that is designated for in-universe perspectives. If the film's endings constitutes a significant part of its notability, then the lead should of course summarize that. Even that wouldn't justify a plot summary in the lead, but rather a summary of what third-party sources say about the ending, and if that requires disclosing details of the ending, so be it. Spoilers should not be omitted, due to WP:SPOILERS, but at the same time, spoilers should not be shoe-horned where they don't belong in the name of WP:SPOILERS overreach. --SubSeven (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I read FILMLEDE, and as per LEDE, that there should be a very brief summary of a film's plot if there is a plot section since this is a significant part of the article. That summary should be 1 sentence at most, never more than two, that sentence should not try to summarize the whole film but only its major thrust, as well as placing key actors in their roles. In how that relates to spoilers, I think the summary in Seven is about as spoiler-ish as this one sentence could ever get (in that it reveals the role Spacey had). One-two sentences do not get anywhere close to enough space to allow for more detailed spoilers without being far too long or losing more higher-level elements of the film. --Masem (t) 05:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
A detective solves a crime in which a butler murders his employer? ;) MapReader (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
MapReader your scenario did happen once. Well until the final reveal that is. Oops I think I just posted a spoiler :-) MarnetteD|Talk 17:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Seeing a lot of identical opinions in this discussion. I'd love some input from Koavf on this. Boycool (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for soliciting my opinion, the function of a lead is to summarize the article. If you summarize the plot of a film by only giving the initial premise but say nothing about what happens in the rest of it, you aren't summarizing it. Romeo and Juliet has a "spoiler" saying that they die; why are films somehow exempt? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 05:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree to this. The lead should summarize the article. Also we should make sure that what is present in the lead, in terms of plot, stays in Due Weight with the overall article, except maybe in underdeveloped articles where all we find is cast, plot and little else (There the lead should be kept to the bare basics about the film IMO). No spoilers in the lead are needed for this, some tact should be used if the plot is very sensitive to some end result. In Sleuth (1972 film), for example, revealing the final phrase would be too much for the lead so instead of spoilers, just avoid mentioning it. Something a little more elaborate than what is presently in the Plot sectioon of Sleuth (2007 film) would be fine for the lead. Hoverfish Talk 05:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
What the responders here have said is that there must be due weight. The deaths of Romeo and Juliet form a substantial part of the article and are integral to the coverage of the topic. I doubt anybody here would argue that their deaths should not be covered in the lead. However, it is perfectly possible to describe what Romeo and Juliet is about without giving away the ending, so the decision to reveal the ending in the lead should be determined by how much coverage the ending receives in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The ship sinks, Verbal is Keyser Söze and the dam gets busted. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment: The plot in the lead should be the setup IMO. Deadpool forms a new team to fight against a time-travelling super soldier bent on killing a young mutant. John McClane is a new york cop who finds himself trapped in a tower block with a group of terrorists led by Hans Gruber; in 1997, the artificial intelligence Skynet sends a Terminator back in time to kill the future leader of the human resistance, John Connor, when he is only a child. The resistance sends back its own Terminator to protect him, each in a race to find Connor first. There's no need to go beyond that, the lead should summarise the article, you should be able to read the summary without being exposed to massive spoilers, I think that is a fair expectation. Imagine if Wikipedia was around in the 80s and the Empire Strikes Back article opened with "While Luke Skywalker confronts Darth Vader, his father!!!" Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
If you wish to contest the existing WP-wide disregard for spoilers, you're in the wrong place, and need to make your case on the talk page for WP:Spoiler MapReader (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not contesting spoilers, I'm explaining what does need to be in the lead. If Avengers Infinity War opens up with "and they all die in the end", it's a dick move to start with but it's also not necessary in the lead. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
How is it any different than saying that Hitler dies at the end? Why are movies treated differently than actual events. Is it "spoiling" World War II to let you know that Uncle Joe teamed up with the Allies and beat the Nazis? It's just ridiculous. Why is someone reading an encyclopedia article assuming that a movie won't be "spoiled"? Also, since spoilers make you enjoy a movie more, you are the one trying to deprive others of enjoyment as well as make for a less encyclopedic article. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 06:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not treating them differently. If the fact that Hitler died at the end of World War II was not that notable in the grand scope of the article, it should not be mentioned in the lead, the question that (apparently) needs to be asked is "do we need to spoil the film here?" And in general, I would say no. Even for films like The Sixth Sense where there is an obvious spoiler that could be noted in the lead, it isn't actually requried so it should not be stated (the important thing with that film is that it has a twist ending, not what the twist ending is, and so that is why I was in support of the current version of that article which does not spoil the film). We should not be adding spoilers to the lead unless we would be putting them there if they were not spoilers, any discussion regarding whether spoilers in general should be included or what the benefits of spoiling are is just a red herring. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The fact that you call anything a "spoiler" shows that you are segregating it out from the rest of the information with some arbitrary rule about how it "ruins" a movie by knowing about it. A lead should provide a comprehensive overview. If you don't know that Bruce Willis is dead the whole time, then you don't have even a cursory understanding of The Sixth Sense. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 01:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it's strange that I suddenly started using the term "spoiler" as if it was the topic of the discussion or something... adamstom97 (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
And what is a "spoiler" is just arbitrary. The difference is nonsense. Is the outcome of a war a "spoiler"? Is it a "spolier" to say that Lincoln was assassinated? It's just whimsical nonsense. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 08:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
What's nonsense is editors adding things to the lead that just shouldn't be there, like plot details beyond the most basic premise, and then justifying their inclusion by citing WP:SPOILER. It has to stop. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Koavf, The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet is just about the worst possible counterexample you could have used. Their deaths are discussed in the opening of the play. Clear consensus is for the premise but not the plot to be in Film leads, but yet you continue to edit war at Thoroughbreds, that said, this discussion needs to be opened up (probably at VPP given the scope) since the same premise vs plot issue affects other fictional media including books (Murder of Roger Ackroyd) and games (Bioshock) and probably other things such as radioplays. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 23:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
@Hydronium Hydroxide: Agreed. Would you like to open the thread there or should I? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 01:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm on phone only for a while, so complex editing is painful. If you feel that you can lay out the issue / dispute / arguments / positions neutrally and fairly, then go for it. Thanks, ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 01:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
It's hard to believe that this issue has not been clearly resolved. Policy needs to established and followed by all editors, those in power need to set rules and enforce them.Eschoryii (talk) 04:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
No one is in power. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 05:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed amendment[edit]

The consensus seems pretty clear here, the lone dissenter who incited this dispute has continued to edit war in various articles even as he was aware this discussion was underway, so can we get a better guideline in place? There has been ample time to discuss, many people have checked in, and literally nobody agrees with him. The existing consensus, which is reflected in the top articles (and virtually all articles, really) the project has produced, clearly has strong support.

Since nobody else has, I'll make a first proposal for an amendment to WP:FILMLEAD (in bold). Feel free to improve it as this is not really my forte. --SubSeven (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The lead section should introduce the film and provide a summary of the most important aspects of the film from the article body, at minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. For other applicable elements to add (e.g., reputable director or source material), see WP:LEADSENTENCE. Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources, for presentation of foreign-language titles, see the naming conventions for foreign-language films. If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section, the first paragraph of the lead section should also identify the director and the star or stars of the film. If any writers or producers are well-known, they can also be identified in the paragraph. If the film is based on source material, that source material and its creators should be identified. If possible, convey the general premise of the film in the paragraph and identify actors' roles in the premise. Do not include a complete plot summary, as this is considered beyond the scope of the lead.

If others like this, then I would not object to its addition. I think it could be helpful in general, as I have seen some articles that try to give the whole plot in the lead (with spoilers or not) and it is just silly. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't really like this, and would have to oppose. "Complete plot summary" is vague and a recipe for argument. What if the plot can be summarised in a short sentence? Does "complete" mean that a partial summary is OK? Moreover, what's the point of saying this? Including justification for the guideline within the MoS is often a sign of weakness, and here we simply have a tautology - effectively it says "don't do this because we don't think you should". The words after the comma therefore add nothing, and the words before the comma aren't sufficiently specific. Insofar as it adds value, the same result could be achieved by adding "briefly", "concisely" or "in a sentence" into the existing words that suggest a summary of the premise. Or if, as is likely, the proposal is intended obliquely to imply "don't spoil the film by putting the ending in the lead" but without actually saying so, then this isn't good policy making. If we mean this, say this; if not, not. Otherwise we simply fuel new argument over "complete" and "premise" v "plot". MapReader (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Like I said, by all means propose a better version. The point is that the lead should contain the premise, and that's all. That's what this discussion has arrived at. Most good-faith editors can understand what is implicitly meant by that, but now there is at least one editor taking advantage of the fact that WP:FILMLEAD doesn't spell out VERY CLEARLY its stance on plot summaries, and using that as a loophole. --SubSeven (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Film with several good sources present proposed for deletion[edit]

Proposed deletion of Rajja Rani


The article Rajja Rani has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable film with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hoverfish Talk 12:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You could always remove the prod if you disagree with it. I find South Asian cinema a bit intimidating to edit because I know so little about it. It's funny, because I probably don't know much more about Russian cinema and Mexican cinema than the average person, but I still edit those films. Sit a man in front of a few Tarkovsky films, and he thinks he understands Russian cinema, I guess. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

List of box office bombs (2000s)[edit]

There is a discussion about what films should be included in the List of box office bombs (2000s) that members of this project might be interested in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Need help finding sources for Portable hole[edit]

I've been working on Portable hole. When I started, it was almost entirely unsourced WP:OR. I've made some progress finding sources, but not as much as I'd like. Many entries remain unsourced, and many of the sources I've added are, admittedly, not reliable. There's no doubt that this is a notable concept, having been used in film, cartoons, and literature by many authors. But, good sources are hard to find. I'd appreciate any help. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I did some brief skimming but could not find anything talking about the topic, just brief mentions. Per WP:NEO, we need treatment in secondary sources. I know TV Tropes brings together many references to highlight an "obvious" trend in certain media, but for there to be an encyclopedic article about such an element or concept, we need coverage that discusses it directly. I'm not seeing how this topic could be more than a few sentences under a broader topic. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Academy Award for Best Director[edit]

Some of you may recall the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_68#Best_Directing_Academy_Award_and_related_changes over whether the Academy Award for Best Director article should be at that title or Academy Award for Best Directing, given that the award is officially for directing. There was some preliminary discussion over renaming the article but it looks like the discussion got archived and faded from memory. Anyway, I have started the formal move process at Talk:Academy_Award_for_Best_Director#Requested_move_14_June_2018 because currently the name of the article is inconsistent with analogous categories. Whichever way this pans out its is necessary to make the article and categories match up. Betty Logan (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional opinions requested[edit]

Given that I have found them to be a rather tendentious editor, I would ask that other editors weigh in at Talk:The Swimmer (1968 film)#Plot revert, in which Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) reinserted Cast members into the Plot section of a film article that already had a Cast section and reverted other plot changes; acknowledging the former while neglecting to discuss the latter. It has been my understanding that it is generally considered acceptable if not an improvement to remove cast members from the Plot section in cases where the length of the plot summary is a concern and a separate Cast section exists. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

((ping|Donaiago}} I suggest you re-familiarize yourself with WP:CANVASSING. It's perfectly legitimate to post a notification on this project's talk page about our dispute, but such notifications are required to be neutral -- on the order of "There is a discussion at X which members of this project may be interested in" -- which this notifcation is clearly not. It's also usual to put a notice in the discussion itself that you have posted a notification to a WikiProject talk page, which you failed to do. Fnanlly, your description of my editing as "tendentious" is unwarranted, and, since you present no evidence to support it, is a violation of WP:Casting aspersions. Please either strike it, or provide proper evidence of my "tendentiousness" in the proper place, which is at WP:ANI, and not here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
@Doniago: Fixing ping. Please see previous edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh please, I came here to the film project to ask for opinions on edits to a film article, and this is the only place I've come to for opinions. That's not canvassing.
My description of the issue is, to my mind, reasonably neutral and fact-based. Sorry you disagree. My claim that I have found you to be a rather tendentious editor may have been more information than was necessary, but is an explanation for why I am asking for other editors to review the matter as well. Would "An editor I have experienced difficulty collaborating with, and who has experienced difficulty collaborating with me" better suit you?
Thank you for notifying me of what's usual. Usual does not equal required.
If you have a problem with my conduct, you're welcome to bring it to ANI, since you're clearly aware of that noticeboard. Otherwise, I'm not clear as to what purpose your response is intended to accomplish beyond proving my point that we have difficulty working together and other opinions probably are appropriate in this matter. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 05:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I am not BMK's biggest fan either, but describing an editor you are in a dispute with as "tendentious" isn't a neutral notice, even if it is true! The neutral version would be to simply say you are in a dispute with BMK. Personally I would strike that bit out before anybody else responds at the discussion because if consensus goes your way BMK will have just grounds for an appeal. Betty Logan (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Struck, with apologies. DonIago (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Plot sections are for summarising the plot. Cast sections are for listing the cast. There's no need to put cast in the plot. Popcornduff (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree. This issue has been discussed extensively and consensus is that actors' names don't belong in the plot section. MapReader (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Honestly, I thought this was settled. Why does it keep coming up again and again? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
If it's a high profile star vehicle that is built around the stars' personas (something like the Ocean films) then there is actually a valid argument that including actors names in the summary is helpful. On the other hand they are redundant if you have a cast list and they can lead to plot bloat. If I had to come down on one side I would back removing them (provided the article had a cast list) but to be honest I never really engage on this issue. Betty Logan (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
A role for a high profile star will surely have been mentioned in the lead, normally just above the plot section. And there'll be a cast list, normally just below the plot section, where they'll be mentioned again. There is no need to litter the summary of the storyline with various actors' names in brackets; really this isn't an "on the one hand..." issue, as far as readability is concerned. MapReader (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Please note that BMK has stated that a consensus here would be non-binding on the article in question. I am therefore re-requesting that users weigh in there. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

On a related note (sorry to bounce this again), WP:How to write a plot summary, which is an essay, states, "As key characters are introduced in the plot of a film or play with a known cast, list the actors' names in parentheses after them, Character (Actor), where applicable." I don't believe that reflects current consensus. An editor raised that very point over three years ago at Wikipedia talk:How to write a plot summary#Cast in summary, but nobody else commented, and that appears to have been the end of it. I think it may be worth revisiting that subject and potentially updating the essay if it's considered to be at variance with current consensus. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see that removed. Popcornduff (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Gotti (2018 film) categories[edit]

Looking at the article for the new Gotti film, I noticed that it was in the following three categories: Biographical films about American gangsters, Biographical films about mobsters, and Biographical films about criminals. I removed the third, which is a parent cat to the two previous, but that still left the other two. Honestly, I don't see an inherent difference between films about mobsters and films about gangsters, so do we need two bio film subcats with these titles? If one is to be deleted, which should it be? Both cats have existed for about 4 years, and I am surprised no one has noticed this. I'd like to hear some other opinions, please. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Help improve?[edit]

I was wondering if anyone could help improve the article Women and Documentary Film. It's up for deletion and I've done a major overhaul to it. I think that there's definite potential here and at the very least the current work could be merged into an existing article (women in film? documentary films?), but I wanted to see if I could breathe some life into this. If it's going to be deleted, I wanted to see if I could rescue it first, for full disclosure, this was created by a Wiki Ed student in one of the classes I oversaw this past semester. I also posted to the women WP as well about this. ReaderofthePack (。◕‿◕。) 15:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Sarcastic review[edit]

Here's a weird one: Race 3 appears to have not fared well with the critic public. This critic gave it a 5/5 star review, but the review sounds over-the-top tongue-in-checek (that's four hyphens!) Would we include content from this review in the mix, or would we omit it? One commenter writes "Only India today has given positive review of this movie while the rest have given negative reviews." Would we consider it "positive" just because at face value it's 5/5 stars? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The review is clearly tongue-in-cheek. Personally I would completely discount it. Betty Logan (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Terminator (2019 film) page move[edit]

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)