This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film 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 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 This page may fall under the contentious topics procedure and be given additional attention, as it may be closely associated to the article titles policy and capitalisation. Both areas are 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 Belgian cinema talk British cinema talk Canadian cinema talk Chinese cinema talk French cinema talk German cinema talk Indian cinema talk Israeli 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 invite 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, 23, 24

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 10.

I am not sure if this has been discussed before, but I wonder when we should use navigation templates for film directors (like Template:Jake Schreier) versus categories of works by film directors (like Category:Films directed by Jake Schreier). Sometimes both the template and the category coexist, as seen with Jake Schreier above, while other filmmakers may have only one or the other. I tried to look for an answer in MOS:FILM, but it did not clarify under what circumstances each should be used, aside from the note that navigation templates are meant to feature multiple works from the same subject. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 07:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should add categories and I would actively encourage you to do so. Do try to make sure the categories are WP:CATVER clearly verifiable, but for a director category that should not be a problem. (For other categories try to also make sure they are important and relevant, a defining characteristic of the film, not just every category that can possibly apply, see WP:CATDEF.)

The template Template:Jake Schreier creates a Navbox which will only ever be shown to desktop users, which is less than half of all users, and even then it will almost always be collapsed and hidden at the bottom of the page and almost never used. You have the option to add a Navbox if you really want and believe it is relevant, see WP:NAVBOX "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by WikiProjects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article."

Hope that helps. -- 109.79.69.189 (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Coming from the relevant discussion of the "of the same name" terminology on WT:FILM, I'm starting a discussion here for additional input on how we should include a note regarding the use of this particular terminology (and said essay) in the lead section. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why yet another discussion is required for this. This is an essay about someone's personal opinion about certain wording choices, not something that a MOS should be dictating. Adding this essay here would be overreaching. Why can't articles be left for local consensus to determine the best wording in the lead? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We've had a lot of discussions like this in the past (e.g. banning "mixed-to-positive" type language to describe reception) that are not left to local consensus. So it is necessary on some occasions to discuss these things and gauge consensus at the project level.

However, I'm in agreement that we don't necessarily need something in the MoS verbatim that pulls something directly from WP:ELEVAR (an excellent essay BTW, Popcornfud). We may just need to keep discussing at the other thread and let the outcome live in the discussion archives. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional opinions are requested at Talk:Mars Needs Moms#Gribble Full Name. Edit dispute about including the full name of a character name that was revealed in the film as part of the listed credits in the cast list. This is a MOS:FILMCAST issue specifically related to the guidance "Names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source." Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor whose recent edit prompted this discussion, the full name of the character is clearly spoken in the film, which qualifies as a reliable primary source (per WP:PRIMARY). MOS:FILMCAST says "names should be referred to as credited, 'or by common name supported by a reliable source." Since the film explicitly provides the full name, which is technically a common name, and no reliable sources contradict that usage, this meets MOS criteria. The full name is also briefly mentioned in the plot summary, reflecting its usage in the film.

The format Firstname "Nickname" Lastname is a common way to present character names when both full names and nicknames are mentioned in sources including the film itself. It is clear and non-confusing to readers and not much less concise.

Since this is a standalone film rather than a large franchise with an extensive cast and complicated character naming conventions, the need for strict conciseness (such as using only the most common name or nickname) is less pressing. Including the full name alongside the nickname in this context is reasonable, clear, and should be acceptable to help build general consensus.

I just became aware of this discussion after some time, so it’s now easier to make my point again.

I disengaged about three weeks ago after a two-day dispute to focus on other priorities and to avoid getting obsessed or warring. I do not intend to get into a dispute over this matter again, but I hope this helps progress to resolving the issue constructively. Exce1sior (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This should really be posted to the article talk page rather than here. Also, you appear to have been editing regularly whilst logged out, using least two different IP addresses, which is a bit of a no-no. Barry Wom (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it moved here was because the initial discussion on that page lasted a couple of days, far longer than it probably needed to, so I decided to disengage at the time. I know editing while logged out is a bit of a no-no, but I don’t think it’s that big of a deal; I just edit casually and don’t worry too much about whether I’m logged in or not. I’m not looking to get back into the dispute, and even though I still disagree, I’m pretty much over it now. Exce1sior (talk) 07:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Wrong Paris#Starring cast. Editors are need to weigh in on this discussion. Is it appropriate to add a cast member to the starring cast if the cast member is not even listed on the billing block poster nor even credited alongside the starring cast? — YoungForever^(talk) 13:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page for The Bad Guys 2 has litsed cast members, their roles, as well as descriptors of their roles. I am removing those, but I wanted to know if there's any guidelines supporting or opposing such inclusion.
Additionally, most cast entries are supported by a citation. Are those really necessary? Kingsacrificer (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FILMCAST is what we have for guidelines. I don't think it's necessary to support credited roles with a citation; the film is typically considered a reliable primary source for the credits...but I probably wouldn't remove the citations just for the sake of removing them either. If there's a specific editor who added them, you might try engaging with them on the matter if the citations bother you. DonIago (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're opposing those descriptions? It outlines what animal they are (given it's a world where there are humans and anthropomorphic animals) and their role, it's fairly common. As long as it's not saying what they do in the plot (such as "an Egyptian billionaire whose car was robbed by the Bad Guys", an Egyptian billionaire is fine) or very long, there's no issue. I have no investment in The Bad Guys 2, but I do think you're wrong to remove what is there based on what I'm reading. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Blake. This was perfectly acceptable. It's brief and no personal interpretation are brought in, like it seems the first film's article has done. Mike Allen 16:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought these descriptions can be addressed in plot. Many featured film articles have them, and many don't. I think discussing this and then including it in policy or guidelines won't really hurt. Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to talk about an update to the MoS, I'd like more clear examples of how this is a widespread issue that can't be resolved in a satisfactory manner at each article's Talk page if/when it's contested. Some variance between articles isn't necessarily a problem that needs to be solved. DonIago (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not realistic to cover them all in the plot due to the word limit. The plot is best used to describe the story than the characters unless relevant, and some people in the cast, by nature, won't show up in the plot because they're not that important to events. The opening paragraph introduces the main characters as "Wolf, Shark, Piranha, and Tarantula". If you're describing them in the plot, you will end up with "Wolf, a pickpocket, the leader of the Bad Guys and Diane's boyfriend, Shark, the Bad Guys' master of disguise, Piranha, the Bad Guys' muscle, and Tarantula, the Bad Guys' hacker and youngest member, unsuccessfully apply for jobs while Snake is frequently away from home." Now, IMO, "and Diane's boyfriend" shouldn't be there, that is something that should be covered in the plot, and I don't think it's even true until the end, but the rest was fine as it was. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, then. Kingsacrificer (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear Kingsacrificer, there are articles with serious issues in this regard, especially where it basically repeats the plot but for each character in the cast list or has made up descriptors that aren't backed up by a source so are synthesis, I just don't think The Bad Guys 2 is the best example of this. I can't think of one off the top of my head as they tend to be articles I'm just casually reading, so this isn't to say that there shouldn't be standards, but as previously mentioned, I think it's more of a local issue than widespread. Actually, Abigail (2024 film) is a good example because there was tonnes of edit warring over the cast list, so much so that I walked away from the article, but those descriptions are now reliably sourced. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha Kingsacrificer (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added back the cast descriptions that I removed, based on the consensus in this discussion. Kingsacrificer (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Especially in category. Regarding the validity of this edit. --Altenmann >talk 23:05, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest public screening: MOS:FILMLEAD. Betty Logan (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion regarding the box office figure decimals in Template:Infobox film over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Decimals in box office figures. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Removed duplicate query as requested on talk page and linking one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Film plot in TV style?. Updated: M. Billoo 11:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Please do not WP:DISCUSSFORK. Answered at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Film plot in TV style?. Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's the MOS recommended practice for writing a plot section where a character's name isn't revealed until the closing credits, and they aren't named in any way on screen during the events of the film? Do we use that name, or do we write the plot as the audience would have experienced it - that the character's name isn't important, and isn't mentioned?

The Polar Express article has had some trouble over this: nearly all the characters are unnamed during the film, but the end credits give them descriptive names such as "Hero Boy" and "Lonely Boy". Belbury (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor added inflation adjusted figures to the Plot section (as a footnote). The really huge billions of dollars figure even adjusted for inflation remains a really huge billion dollar figure so including it does little to improve readers understanding of the plot. The editor argues that it is "harmless" and that many other articles do this. I understand his good faith intentions in adding the information but my argument is that it is simply not relevant, it is minutiae or trivia. (My past experience has been that inflation adjusted figures do not improve film plot sections, but I haven't been able to recall or dig up the one or two cases where I discussed this before).

Talk:Entrapment_(film)#Inflation_adjusted_figures

It doesn't come up very often but perhaps the style guide should address the issue, and warn that inflation adjusted figures should only be used when there is a particularly strong reason for doing so, not simply because it can easily be done using the template. Or maybe I'm wrong and editors would like to see articles include inflation adjusted figures more often? -- ~2025-43070-44 (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]