Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Change in template films

It would be nice if this film template might be modified and become "collapsible", fitting the top right-hand corner of the articles, once it serves as a link, not an infobox. Like this it wouldn't prevent wikitables to expand or pictures to get stuck below. I've seen and changed the width of tables in numerous articles and feel that it might be time for a change. I'd also like to remind those who'll take part in this discussion that our purpose here as established users is to modify things in order to improve them. Wikipedia is an ongoing project and I'm sure you understand the meaning of this. So please, do yourselves a favor, mull this over for a couple of days before saying no and show the other Wikiprojects how bold and progressive you are. Thank you, Krenakarore ^TK

I assume you mean to automatically collapse the {{Infobox film}} template so it just shows the film poster and the title? It's an interesting thought. I believe that there might be a set of articles at WP:MILHIST that do that. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It might well be like this Erik, but I mean that on the Soviet film list, not the infobox once this move would certainly cause a thrill in the community. I don't know if there are others like this one, but if so it would be great to change them too. Thanks for your input ! Krenakarore ^TK

Academy Award non free image and placeholder discussion

An editor had placed a non free image on the article Academy Award believing that the Commons policy on source country freedom of Panorama applies to Wikipedia because commons recently decided by consensus to allow the uploads until a law suit somewhere creates case law. Wikipedia has a strict non free image policy about the use of copyrighted 3 dimensional works. Since the image is not allowed on Wikipedia without a fair use rationale and a placeholder image has been put into the infobox, a consensus discussion has begun to determine if the place holder should remain at Talk:Academy Award#Image place holder? please join the discussion and add you input.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Plot summary policy

I've been unclear on this for awhile, and have tried to find an answer to no avail. Is it policy to have actors' names after their character's names in the plot section, or should they be left out? Just wondering if there's a solid rule here. Corvoe (speak to me) 20:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be policy, but we do not have any guidelines for that. Opinions differ, though. There was a discussion last June (seen here) that was inconclusive. It can depend on the article and your preference. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that your question has to do with Inglourious Basterds. I do agree with you that the actors' names cluttered the plot summary. I disagree with the notion of merging cast lists into plot summaries, especially with an ensemble film like this. Now that the actors' names are removed, though, we have nothing linking actors with their roles. We need to recreate a cast list (if one existed before), perhaps as a table in "Casting" like what Fight Club#Casting has. Or there could be a stand-alone "Cast" section with two columns. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That it does. Personally, I would say that it just needs to be reformatted into a cast list like on most articles, with the extraneous information attached to the end, like the Avengers castlist and others.

UPDATE: I started a revamp of the casting section, and pasted it in my personal sandbox. Any reception, or help with links involving Daniel Brühl, Til Schweiger, Mélanie Laurent, Denis Menochet, August Riehl, or any other actors with central roles in the film that aren't used in the current "casting" section, would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to update my sandbox as you see fit. Corvoe (speak to me) 04:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The Wolverine film poster

At The Wolverine (film), there is a content dispute about what film poster to use in the infobox: this or this. There is a discussion on the talk page, and I ask other editors to weigh in. The discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Foreign-language version

The article Foreign-language version contains only information about US film productions, whether it should be named differently or further sections (e.g about MLVs made in Europe or in India) should be added. Unfortunately the author didn't mention any reliable sources.
By the way, there are several "red-links" which refer to the same topic: multi-language version (see The Love Waltz, A Night in Venice (film), Tropical Nights) or Multi language version (see Atlantik (film), Hanns Schwarz) or multi language version (see Melody of the Heart). I would prefer to rename the article as "Multiple language version", as the abbreviation MLV is in common use. --Hoerestimmen (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems the article takes its name from the term that was used at the time. The reason California conventions are discussed exclusively is that the term refers to a practice from a certain period and place. Some sources are needed but the term multi-language version is apparently a more recent coinage. Is that correct? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The terms multiple language versions (MLVs) and multilingual film are used in filmreference.com or BFI: E.A.Dupont's biography or Cinematrics Studies: Statistical Analysis by Charles O'Brien. Furthermore, “MLV” is used in Wikipedia articles like Lilian Harvey and F.P.1. --Hoerestimmen (talk) 08:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that in that certain time and place that was not the terminology used? If the point is to import current usage into an article about a certain period, that seems misplaced to me. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Last year I wrote the German article about this topic. Because I used German literature I'm not so familiar with the English terms. Further, sources about this topic are hardly to find. It is just important to define the difference of "the method of production" and "the products itself". Before the shooting, the producer decides to shoot two, three or more language versions of the film (=this technique is called multilingual film) in order to sell the versions of the same film in different language areas (=foreign-language versions, e.g. french-language version). This method started by the rise of talkies, but in fact, the first multilingual film was Atlantic/Atlantik/Atlantis by E.A. Dupont, made at Elstree Studios, Great Britain, not in the United States, as it appeals in the article. It didn't appear just in the European and American film industry during the 1930s, also in India they produced bi- or multilingual films, which is still in use overthere (e.g. Raavan in Hindi and Raavanan in Tamil).

The name of the article should explain this specific filming method in general and avoid periodical and local focus. --Hoerestimmen (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I see your point and thanks for explaining. The possible exception I see to your thinking is this: could there be an article about only the Hollywood practice c. 1929? The article under discussion seems to cover a limited set of films -- perhaps by design instead of mistake. Then there could be another article to correspond to your German article on broader practices worldwide. Perhaps that is not feasible or worthwhile though. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

At first, the discussion about the article itself could be continued in its disc, but it will be difficult to find experts who are willing to expand much less to open additional lemmata to it. I suppose the author himself got to know about foreign-language versions while he was doing his research for the list of lost films. I could try to improve something, but I am afraid my English language skills aren't good enough for this job.

Trying to make my point: The article should be renamed as multiple-language version or multilingual film because it deals about this specific film production method and not about a product. The table itself lists these types of film, mentioning the OV (=original version), the production year/ film studio, and the FLVs (foreign-language versions). Example: The movie The Big House was shot as a MLV in four language versions, an EV, SV, FV and GV.

The terminology of this section of film-history isn't clearly determined and difficult to be searched in internet. E.g. multilingual film could be interpreted as a film, in which more than one language is spoken. Or "Spanish Version" could be understood as a dubbed version. Readers and contributors should know about these differences. (And I don't think it changed by time, the expressions used in the 1930s are probably the same right now) Hoerestimmen (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Problem with biographies

Hey, all!

I'm not an expert on film, but I've been readings dozens (over a hundred, I'm guessing) biographies on actors, screenwriters, directors and producers, primarily from the period 1900-1950. I've just been doing clean-up, typos, fixing some awkward writing, sometimes reorganizing the page. I'm not adding much content, mostly polishing and working on structural issues of articles, as a whole.

But what I've run into time and time again are statements that are WP:PEA. There are frequent statements like, "considered the most beautiful woman in film", "the most influential director", "generally thought of as the most fashionable actress in Hollywood," "the new 'It Girl'", and the like. Seriously, I've come across at least 20 women's biographies where they were stated to be the most beautiful actresses of all time. Statements like this make a Wikipedia entry sound more like a fanpage and, of course, all evaluations like this are not sourced.

It seems to be an especially big problem among bios of actresses during the silent film period which, sometimes, just gush about the wonderfulness of the individual. It wouldn't be a surprise to me to find the same editor or small group of editor put all of these biographies together.

I'm coming to the Film Project page because I wondered if this was seen as an acceptable way of writing a biography (both for NYC-based and Hollywood-based actors). I didn't want to edit out a lot of superfluous content if this is the standard that has been agreed-upon by those editors on your team.

I want to add that this is not an evaluation on the talent and contributions of these artists. It's just an attempt to keep a neutral POV and avoid unsourced content that is more flattery than factual. I look forward to hearing your feedback. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I just was reading the Talk Page (above) and noticed someone say that biography wasn't discussed here. I had originally posted this in the Actors Project Talk Page but there seemed to be very little activity and I was interested in getting some quick feedback. So, if it's okay, could I leave this here and hear your thoughts? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Newjerseyliz, I have to wonder if you are now following me around everywhere. Considering this and this, I have my doubts that your posting here is coincidence.

If it is especially relevant to the celebrity's notability (as in the cases of Marilyn Monroe, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Angelina Jolie, etc.), then, no, it is not a problem to mention that the celebrity has often been cited for their physical attractiveness. Even if it's not especially relevant to the celebrity's notability, such additions are wholly appropriate for "Image"/"Public image" and "Media"/"In the media" sections, which are generally about how others' view these people. If the celebrity's perceived physical attractiveness is a significant discussion lower in the article, then, per WP:LEAD, it should be mentioned in the lead. All of that is encyclopedic, and is usually not about being a fan of the celebrity...but usually rather about covering all significant points about the celebrity; such inclusions do not make the article a fan page, if done right. And of course such additions should be reliably sourced.

On a side note, it is not good to start the same discussion across multiple talk pages (as you did here and here). It is best to start it at one talk page, and then, if wanting others of related talk pages to weigh in about it, pointing to that discussion at those those related talk pages by leaving a note about it (along with a link to it). Flyer22 (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Flyer22, I don't get the significance of the first link but the second is a really odd coincidence. I've been working on these bios since late May, throughout June. It's only today that I came across the WikiProject Film page and thought to post about it here. It's an issue I've noticed over the past few months (long before I met you) but only found a Forum to start a discussion now.

As for posting the same query on different Talk Pages, I first posted this on the WikiProject Film Actors and Directors Talk Page. But then, I read over the page and users were complaining that people came to the WikiProject Film Talk Page and didn't use that Forum any more. So, I posted it here.

Then, when I read over the WikiProject Film Talk Page, I came across people here saying that this forum was only used for films, not to discuss biographies. So, I was wrong twice. So, I reposted it on the WikiProject Biography Talk Page where they actually deal with these issues all of the time.

I guess what I should have done is delete my posts at WikiProject Film Actors and Directors and WikiProject Film but I just posted them in the last two hours and I wanted to see if they generated any immediate reaction. I didn't expect for my conduct to be the subject of the conversation. I thought it was an important topic to get a consensus about.

Since it is bad form to cross-post, I suppose I will give it 24 hours and then delete these postings on the Talk Page for WikiProject Actors and Directors and WikiProject Film. I don't want to give anyone an excuse to revert me.

Believe me, I am trying to stay far away from areas where you edit. I had assumed that the biographies of silent film actresses was neutral ground. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 00:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The first link relates to the Antoine Dodson‎ article (I've edited that article; you edited its talk page, likely because you saw the article posted on my talk page). And I apologize if the latter is a coincidence. I know that you have been working hard on Wikipedia before we met each other, and I wasn't trying to make this discussion the focus of your editing (which is why I mostly focused on the matter you brought up, but it was also after I replied that I saw that you are mainly speaking of "actors, screenwriters, directors and producers, primarily from the period 1900-1950" and especially "actresses during the silent film period"). As for deleting the postings, like I stated, if you want input from those other WikiProjects, you should leave those sections there...but shorten them to a note that points to one discussion that is taking place about the topic. But then again, at those other WikiProjects, I've already pointed people to the fact that the topic was also posted here. And, no, LOL, I'm not an editor of biographies concerning the silent film era, so, you are indeed safe from interacting with me in that regard. Flyer22 (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I think it's ok to get input from multiple projects; what can be frustrating is when several discussions sprout up. I usually start a discussion on the article talk page and then post notices at the projects I want input from if there is more than one. As for these "most beautiful" epithets they are usually writing of the lowest common denominator, but do frequently occur in tabloid newspapers and gossip magazines, so they are fair game to an extent since we are supposed to included proportional coverage of the person. In the case of someone like Angelina Jolie for example, her standing and influence in film is probably more down to her looks and sex appeal than her actual acting talent so the article perhaps shouldn't just ignore the attribute that has propelled her to stardom. It arguably could be framed better, perhaps be more analytical of the role her looks have played in her career, but there are plenty of high quality sources that address her beauty on Google Books: [1]. Betty Logan (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Betty, that's what I often do. And, yes, the part of the In the Media section of the Angelina Jolie article that discusses Jolie's looks would be better framed if it went in-depth about the matter in the way you described it ("analytical of the role her looks have played in her career"). It would be good if you would mention that in the aforementioned discussion on the Angelina Jolie talk page. Or, if you'd rather not, I'll post a note (with a diff-link) there showing what you stated. Flyer22 (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes content on Wikipedia

Just a heads up: if you're looking to incorporate data from the popular film review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes in articles, there's now a template, {{Rotten Tomatoes score}}, which automagically updates to include the latest data from Rotten Tomatoes, no manual updating required. Check it out, and your assistance in helping to add it to articles about new movies would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Theopolisme (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that for the first time at the Man of Steel (film) article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, this is a great tool! Do you think it's possible to do something similar with Metacritic and Box Office Mojo? Man, this will save so much trouble. :) One thing about this template, would it be possible to get the number of "positive" reviews out of the total number of reviews? I think some ways to report the Rotten Tomatoes score do that in addition to the percentage. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Glad you like it, Erik. Yep, I'd definitely like to do something similar with other sites—however, there's a bit of a problem: they forbid it. Without limiting any other provision in these Terms, you may not use the Services to do the following or assist others to do the following:[...]Engage in unauthorized spidering, “scraping,” or harvesting Content, contact or other personal information, or use any other unauthorized automated means to compile information (Metacritic). Robots and Screen Scraping: You may not use data mining, robots, screen scraping, or similar data gathering and extraction tools on this Site, except with our express written consent as noted below (Box Office Mojo). Who knows what an polite email and explanation of the benefits might do, of course...

It would be possible to get the specific number of positive reviews, but is it really necessary? Does the "average_rating" not already suffice? (Purely in the interest of keeping the number of queries down to a minimum.) Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems like it would be worth contacting Metacritic and Box Office Mojo about permission to do that. Maybe we could put together a kind of WikiProject Film page that would serve as a letter?

Regarding the number of positive and negative reviews from Rotten Tomatoes, I'm constantly trying to find a good way to word the scores. For example, at The East (film)#Critical response (last paragraph), I try to explain how Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes categorize reviews, especially compared to each other. As for the querying issue, that makes sense. Can a query pull several details at once, though? I'm wondering if it's possible to have a template where you can have free form text but reference the relevant variables within? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I just tried it out at The Wolverine. Is this the proper usage?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if there is a glitch or not, but as in The Wolverine example and all the articles I've tried it on, instead of the data showing up, it simply displays: "placeholder for Rotten Tomatoes info...refresh in a few minutes". Those using the template should also remember to leave the proper punctuation, as the template does not put the colon before or the period after, when generating a consensus. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it takes 10-15 minutes for the bot to update the instances. If you check the article now, you'll see that the data has been filled in. I'll add a notice about the punctuation to {{Rotten Tomatoes score}}.

@Erik: I'll look into adding the additional datapoints, stay tuned! :) If you'd like to start a letter, I'll be happy to add whatever I can to it (and then I can send it out via OTRS, for the Wikipedia-based email address). Theopolisme (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Added fresh/rotten parameters; I'll be updating the template docs shortly. Wow, that was suspiciously easy... Theopolisme (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I added the templates to G.I. Joe: Retaliation [2], but I opted for the individual statistics, since again the all-in-one template did not allow the proper punctuation for any sentence fragments after the template. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Great. The "all_in_one" obviously can't accommodate for all use cases, which is what the individual parameters are for. :) General note: the fresh/rotten review counts may take up to 5 days to be available in all templates. Theopolisme (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

TemplateData for Template:Infobox film

I added a new TemplateData-section (for the new VisualEditor interface) to Template:Infobox Film/doc. I tried to stay as close as possible to the original documentation, but had to trim some points for brevity. Someone interested may want to double-check and improve the data, in case i misunderstood some of the film guidelines. GermanJoe (talk) 09:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Miracle Park

Do we need to merge anything from Miracle Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)'s former film article versions to some other article? Someone wanted to replace the page with Miracle Park (community) (when it was redirected to the director, the disambiguatory note was lost), which would delete the page in the process. I've (temporarily) disambiguated it to restore the lost disambiguation information -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

AfD – Bond 24

Comments are welcomed on a discussion relating to the deletion or re-direct of the "Bond 24" article. - SchroCat (talk) 10:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The 10 Least Scary Movies

Some of you might get a kick out of this article: The 10 Least Scary Movies ... According to Their Wikipedia Pages. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell and Castle of Cagliostro

Ghost in the Shell (film) and The Castle of Cagliostro have been nominated for GA by ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs). Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

My Neighbor Totoro

Heads up everyone: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) and I are going to start working on My Neighbor Totoro to get this up to FA. I intend to get this up by April 16, 2013 (the 35th anniversary of the release of the film). Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this a joke? The film was released in 1988, so the 35th anniversary of its release is not until 2023. If you meant the 25th anniversary on April 16, 2013, you have already missed it by 4 months. I wish you good luck with improving the article, but I hope you get someone to check any dates or math involved :-) 99.192.82.39 (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, I meant 30th and the TFA date is April 16, 2018. I apologize for my error once again. I have been a project member for 6 years with over 50,000 edits and contributed significantly to over 10 GAs and 10 FAs obviously. I was intending to bring this up for the 25th anniversary, but other things prevented me from doing it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

From Dusk till Dawn

There is discussion on the talk page for From Dusk till Dawn about the year of release in the film. An anonymous user suggests that it should be based on the copyright year of the film and has edited MOS:FILM to suit these views. I've provided source showing that the film premiered in 1996, which has been removed by the same user.. Little help? Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Editor was blocked due to lack of cooperation. At least we tried, Andrzejbanas. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Good, good. Common sense 1, IP scum zero. Carry on. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Epic (film) and juvenile writing

As with many animated films, this one draws its fair share of childish writing from enthusiastic, well intentioned editors who have little writing experience. Could someone pop their head over at this film and help me explain why the IP's recent edits are unwarranted (check article history and you'll spot it easy enough)? I'm about to venture into 3rr territory but the edits are completely superfluous and cheesy in that way that only animated films get (they become boyfriend and girlfriend, that sort of thing). Based on edit summary responses to my removal, I'm not sure the editor even has a clue what I meant in my own edit summary and the notes I dropped on their talk page. It's like they're responding to something I never said. Millahnna (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Ranges of Reception

Is there a consensus regarding the use of ranges such as "mixed to positive" with regards to how a film has been received? Personally I think it's poor and imprecise writing, but I'd like to know what other editors think. DonIago (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It should be based on what the source says. It can be difficult to report what film review aggregators say, so I tend to break down their scores. For example, for Metacritic, I report how many reviews they identify as positive, mixed, and negative. I think it is best to lead with what sources other than the aggregators say, though. We can report that the Los Angeles Times or Variety said critics thought this and that about a film, then talk about how the aggregators categorized the reviews. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I know at The Avengers (2012 film), we decided to get rid of that sentence and just allowed the aggregate scores to speak for themselves. On other articles I've seen editors adopted the Metacritic range for terminology.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Also at The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, the critic's consensus and terminology is referenced by reliable sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought we weren't putting interpretations of the ratings in anymore. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That's what I thought too, but I see it is still widely being done and probably will until we adopt a guideline and retroactively remove them from film articles. Right now it seems to be a case by case basis.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hm. Thanks everyone for your feedback thus far. If it makes a difference, the specific case is Warm Bodies. DonIago (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

When I Googled "warm bodies" critics site:variety.com, it turned up this, which said, "'Warm Bodies,' a quirky zomcom starring Nicholas Hoult and Teresa Palmer, has been relatively well-received by critics." Replace variety.com with latimes.com, and this shows, "'Warm Bodies' is getting a warm reception from critics with its head-turning girl-meets-boy-zombie premise." These can be used in front of the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Eric. I'm going to give this some time in case the editor I was disagreeing with about this opts to chime in; if I don't see anything in another couple of days I'll make some edits based on the feedback I've gotten here. DonIago (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend starting a thread at Talk:Warm Bodies (film) so discussion for that specific film can be had if needed. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done DonIago (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I despise "mixed to negative" with the burning passion of a thousand fiery suns. It's lazy writing, absolutely appalling grammatically speaking (in the same way that all of those overused marketing terms that only mean something to marketing people are bad grammar) and I'd love to see every project I participate in flat out kill it. I get the idea; reception was generally mixed but trending towards more negative/positive reviews. But that's rather the point of the prose in subsequent paragraphs. Reception was mixed. Now we shall detail some of the reviews that distill the overall reception and you should notice that most of them are more on the negative side of things. Basically the "to pos/neg" part is completely redundant (in the sense that the actual definition of "redundant" is "superfluous" and not "repetitive" the way most of us use it).

I would love to see us get away from bothering to note mixed/pos/neg unless we are flat out quoting a source (as in Erik's above examples) because on many mixed reception films, it just leads to edit warring and really ridiculous interpretations. I swear if I have to tell one more person that mixed/pos/neg is not some direct translation of specific RT percentages I'm going to pull my hair out. And I have some seriously nice hair so that would just be a shame. It's a misconception a lot of newer editors have because of watching the edit wars over mixed to positive. I was just as guilty of that assumption when I was newish as anyone else. I very much feel the reception ranges contribute to this problem. Millahnna (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Better late than never. :) In this particular case the editor who apparently took issue with my removing the range never spoke up again at my Talk page (where the argument arose) or the discussion at the article's Talk page, much less here, so it's hard to know whether they had actual feelings on the matter. I ended up removing the phrase as the simplest path, though I stated an openness to alternate approaches. I wouldn't object to a guideline regarding how these things should be handled, but I'm not going to be the one to start that conversation. DonIago (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with it if that is the general consensus. It was just that with such a large gap between the RT score and MC score it way have served a better purpose. Even if it isn't the greatest writing. I think a guideline would be quite helpful as well. Thanks - Jak Fisher (talk)

Cast lists in columns; discuss?

So you know how in some film articles, there's no major casting section but a simple cast list (bulleted actor as character lists with maybe some character description if necessary)? And you know how a lot of us a couple of years ago started taking the longer cast lists and putting them into simple columns (the kind that will adjust how many based on your own monitor settings, as I recall) because 1) the excessive whitespace kind of looks horrid and 2) we'd gotten the impression that it was helpful to readers? Well a couple of editors have recently decided they don't like them so they are removing them (which sounds snottier than I mean it to, I'm just in a rush here). That's all well and good but the point I keep making is that they are particularly helpful to readers who view the site from mobile devices (and that the excess white space still looks awful, like why did we bother dropping those annoying cast tables it looks so awful).

One editor pointed out to me that the mobile site has these sections collapsed. Nifty. Too bad I don't look at the mobile site from my phone but the full site. And my tablet defaults to the full site. And it looks better on widescreen monitors for laptops and desktops (which are now the default monitor size and not the exception). Another editor made the argument that the columns are confusing because he's reading the top row then the next row instead of first column then second column (thus reading starring role then random guy then another starring role and another random guy). I don't know why anyone would do this. In fact whole studies have been published about how people by default, instinctively don't read columns this way (Asians from certain generations apparently read the columns right to left instead of left to right but that makes sense given how their written languages work).

So anyway... are the cast columns bad/good/whatever? Discuss. Millahnna (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support column formatting for the reasons you outline. No good rationale especially to delete them where they are already present. Elizium23 (talk) 04:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any technical advantages or disadvantages either way, otherwise we wouldn't allow it for the reference sections. It seems to be a purely aesthetic thing—some people hate having a load of white space in the middle of the article. If it's a bare list of credits I prefer columns, but if there is accompanying text then it depends how much there is. Betty Logan (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

That's where I'm at, especially the accompanying text issue. If the text on bulleted cast is large the columns would be terribad. I think the article for Alien (or am I thinking of Predator?) is a good example; last time I checked it had bulleted cast but paragraph-ish descriptions similar to a purely prose casting section. Obviously completely wouldn't work there. Cast lists where the longest entries are only a sentence or two usually work great. And again, I only really find it necessary for longer cast lists (when they go over 15 or so is when I start looking at it). It prevents absurd amounts of scrolling. I'm not opposed to white space in its entirety or anything; that would be counterproductive to any decent concept of graphic/web design and layout. You want some of the stuff to help guide readers through sections because that's how our brains work. And I don't think we need some sort of policy or guideline in our MOS about it. I just want to get a feel for the issues the other editors brought up (re: mobile site and the odd reading of columns). Are these issues strong enough to warrant us taking a closer look at when we use columns and to possibly use them less? Millahnna (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm in support of using columns to list cast members and even crew members. My only concern is that the DIV tags involved in creating multiple columns may not work in all browsers. Looking at {{Div col}}, it appears that this does not work for Internet Explorer below v9. I suppose that wikitables would be the alternative. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: My problems with the columns in cast sections in film articles are that the less important actor would be on the right side of the column, where we should have the second lead actor on the right side, rather then on the second left column side. It probably would confuse a lot of English readers and that become an issue later on. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I addressed this above. That is simply not how people read columns. You read one column then the next. Our eyeballs are literally hardwired to do it that way. There have been tons of studies done on how we read web pages and traditional text that show this. If we try to read it as rows instead of columns, we slow down and don't process the information as well cognitively speaking because of the skipping around with our eyes. I like to think of it as our eyes having inertia but that's just me. THe only difference in how columns are read that I can find any information on is that some cultures would read the left column and then the right but in English it's always right column and then left column. Millahnna (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Digital Intermediate

this article needs to be rewritten to be up to date. Much of this article is now historical in nature; as of 2013, film is now almost completely gone as both a capture and projection medium, and the DI industry is now focused entirely on the digital-to-digital mastering process, with any film prints as a secondary product for markets without digital projection. -- The Anome (talk) 07:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Spirited Away

Heads up: Spirited Away is nominated for GA by ChrisGualtieri. More eyes from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Shootout (film series) AfD

Further contributions are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shootout (film series), which has already been relisted due to lack of participation. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Plot Bloat at 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954 film)

Additional eyes at 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954 film) would be greatly appreciated. There's one or more editors repeatedly adding unneeded plot detail. I'm close to a 3RR at this point, and an AIV filing went nowhere because apparently repeatedly engaging in plot bloat, even when you've been blocked for edit-warring previously, isn't considered vandalism. Thanks all. DonIago (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"because apparently repeatedly engaging in plot bloat, even when you've been blocked for edit-warring previously, isn't considered vandalism"

Are you frelling kidding me? Because we've totally used AIV for this problem with persistent bloaters in the past (as it's basically a massive MOS violation). Like that guy from a few years back who was obsessed with Insidious (film), I think it was. How stupid. Also, on it. Millahnna (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The editor has not engaged in any discussion since last month, either. I would endorse a block here. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Outta time for now. Possibly an RFPP since it's coming from multiple sources? I just felt I couldn't keep pushing it myself as nobody else was getting involved on the side of...er...policy. Thanks all! DonIago (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I noted the lack of conversation in my AIV report just now. And since they have more than enough warns and a rather obvious history of problem editing I will keep reporting them to AIV until they ban me instead of him, if necessary (because it's hilarious). From looking at editor's history that's rather their thing. They aren't even at least talking back in their edit summaries though to be fair a lot of folks don't really; they just describe their edit and hope that is explanation enough. Millahnna (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

There's a very clear definition of vandalism on Wikipedia and "not engaging in conversation" or "adding too much detail" are not part of that definition. In fact, this type of dispute is clearly defined as "not vandalism". Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

@Orange Suede Sofa: Your latter link mentions, "Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue." The editor who has been adding plot detail has never talked to anyone. I've added an updated message on the film article's talk page and asked the editor directly to comment, but a response is doubtful. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

SO I guess ANI is our only recourse for this kind of stuff (since the editor does seem well intentioned if misguided and unobservant)? After years of watching stuff get auto archived off the page there I find that very disappointing. Millahnna (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I admit I'm having a hard time seeing exactly why this kind of case can't be handled through AIV myself. The editor was blocked previously for edit-warring, they're entirely non-communicative, they've been given multiple chances to stop or engage in dialogue...what else are we supposed to do in this sort of situation? I get AGF and all, but this feels like we're supposed to bend over backwards to accommodate them. DonIago (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I kind of see the point they're making over at AIV about this sort of thing being more of a content dispute than vandalism, strictly speaking. Of course as you noted the editor has been blocked for just this sort of thing before so one would think it might work (since I think every single one of us in this conversation has seen exactly this type of problem show up, get reported at AIV, and get handled). If I had any faith in ANI to be anything other than a huge page of dramallamas while people with legit concerns get archived off the page I wouldn't worry about it. But ANI was pretty much the beginning of my disillusionment with wikipedia so, no, I have zero faith in that. I've seen chronic overlinkers of the worst kind get reported at AIV, then get sent to ANI because they weren't vandals and then get ignored flat out by ANI. That gunspotting IP who has been around for years? Yeah the last time I reported him (when he's been blocked for this before) it just got ignored at ANI. It's a big circle jerk of administrative garbage that I can get just as well by following Congress. No thanks. Millahnna (talk) 03:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the adding editor has been blocked. Hopefully that will be the end of it, though they weren't the only one making the changes. Thanks everyone for your help! DonIago (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest the style of the edit summaries could imply the same user, just not logged in. Would need checking, but if it happens again, I'd start a WP:SOCK investigation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The thought crossed my mind to be sure, but I suppose I was hoping to follow the path of least resistance on this one. If the bloating occurs again I definitely recommend opening an SPI and possibly setting up an RFPP. DonIago (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Didn't take long for an IP to make exactly the same edits. I've opened an SPI here. DonIago (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Short comment from blocking admin

While one reviewer at AIV indeed called it a content dispute, I disagreed based on my experience and familiarity with this project and its standards. WP:FILMPLOT isn't just about brevity and succinctness. It's about respecting copyright, therefore repeatedly restoring the extra detail becomes willful copyright violation. More to the point, this user had been warned repeatedly to stop yet continued, making it disruptive editing. A block was, in my opinion, the only option at that point.

A genuine content dispute, on the other hand, would have been about which plot details in an acceptbly brief summary to include, and would have involved settling it on the talk page, not by edit-warring. Daniel Case (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Daniel. I certainly would have handled this matter differently if the editor adding material had shown any interest in having a discussion regarding their edits. DonIago (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Still going

One of the IPs has continued to try to force their edits through...though from the edit summaries it sounds like they're getting quite frustrated. Perhaps frustrated enough that they'll open a dialogue with us? DonIago (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Diner (film)#it's redundant to mention it's a film

Opinions requested. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Proper grammar

User:ITeachThem insists that the words "a M1911 pistol" should be "an M1911 pistol" on the article G.I. Joe: Retaliation. I've tried to explain that this is incorrect, but he keeps reverting it back [3], because according to him, "the word M1911 is pronounced as em-waan-nain-waan-waan". Am I missing something here, or can someone please explain the idea of proper grammar to him better than I can? Fortdj33 (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think he's right. This mentions that "an FBI agent" is chosen over "a FBI agent" because we go by the first sound made, so the same would apply here. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Wish this explanation had come before all of the reversions were made on the article. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't feel bad, it's news to me too! Betty Logan (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

This error in writing is one that pretty much nobody makes when they talk. You will almost never hear someone say "an unicorn" or "an ewe". People pretty naturally know that it's "a unicorn" and "a ewe". Similarly, no one ever says "a NFL team" or "a hour"; they will say "an NFL team" and "an hour". The letter "h" is one that can go either way depending on the word. So it's "an hour", "an honor" and "an heir", but it's also "a house", "a hat" and "a hammer". So when in doubt, just try saying it out loud!

The fact that "h" sometimes goes one way and sometimes another has led to the most absurd result that some people think they are proving that they are clever by insisting on saying "an historic". Unless you are in the habit of dropping your "h" sounds and so say "an 'istoric", it should be "a historic".

On the next episode of "Grammar Gripes", we will explore the problem of people who can't figure out when "you and I" is correct and when "you and me" is correct. 99.192.51.38 (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Question Re: my involvement with this project.

Good morning, I am working on my final exam requirements for my adopter Jackson Peebles and part of the exam is to become a member of a project or two. I "joined" this project way back when I was a bit newer and always just assumed that since I joined and have worked on cleaning up or adding to some of the articles in this category that I was doing as I was supposed to do. My question is: Is there anything that I can do to become a more involved editor on this project? Is there a list of tasked needed to be completed and can I just jump in or do I wait for someone to assign me some things to do on a particular project? If so I would love some "assignments" if not maybe a suggestion or two as to what it more pressing at this time. Thank you so much for your time and attention, in advance, to this matter.Tattoodwaitress♥LetsTalk 18:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a list of suggestions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film#Tasks. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Aishwarya Rai Filmography

This filmography has recently been subjected to highly disruptive editing. One of the editors turns out to be a banned user (puppet account). The other has been indeffed. I'd like to clean up the page but am a little unsure how to proceed. I don't know what the project's guidelines are on separate filmographies, but this is the first time I've seen one (not that I've seen many) that has a descriptive lead before the table itself. Is that common? Not common but acceptable? My preference would be to eliminate the lead entirely and just keep the table, but I thought I'd ask here first. If we're going to keep the lead, it needs to be cleaned up. The current version is not good, and if I recall correctly, the the other editor's version is not good, either. One more thing. The actress's article itself has a "selected" filmography in it. I don't care for that, either, as it seems to me to be a value judgment (picking what goes in it) and unnecessary anyway.

If this doesn't grab anyone, I'll simply remove the filmography lead and the selected filmography from the main article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

While many of them don't have leads, they probably should. If it ever became a featured list it would need one. See Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record for a good example. User:SchroCat does a lot of these filmography type lists so it may be worth asking him what he thinks. Betty Logan (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The Thief and the Cobbler

An IP editor is burning a giant straw man at Talk:The Thief and the Cobbler, which they think shouldn't be listed in the "art film" category because "cartoon flicks" are just "pretty pictures" which can't deal with adult themes or capture the nuances of a human face. They've made an edit request to remove the category, but I'm not familiar with the film or the boundaries of the definitions of arthouse cinema; it'd be good if someone who knows their stuff could take a look at this. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

A heads up that after making a pointy nomination of the entire "art film" category for deletion, the same IP editor has now gone through a bunch of other film articles deleting the term "art film" and "arthouse", with perhaps not very much care or attention ("in 2010, the first arthouse box office success in China" becomes "in 2010, the first box office success in China"). From his talk page comments, the editor appears to be taking his favourite academic as gospel on whether or not a film counts as "arthouse". --McGeddon (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a new attempt to restore the category in the article based on an Animation World Network reference that calls the film "a work of art". I'm not sure if this is the same thing as the film genre. This is apparently the best source to call this film an art film because Google Books does not show any results of this film title tied with the film genre itself. I think this speaks volumes about what it is not. See continued discussion at Talk:The Thief and the Cobbler#Animation World Network. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Motion to remove actor names from plot summaries

I've been doing this in articles whose plot summaries contain a lot of characters (namely, Inglourious Basterds), which creates visual clutter when trying to read through the synopsis. I was not aware that there is actually a policy that states actor's names SHOULD be included after character names, so I apologize for these edits. I've since stopped removing actor names, but I haven't reinstated any that I previously removed. As far as I can tell, a cast list directly below the plot summary (as is common practice in film articles) should be enough information regarding who played who. Reading the plot without names clogged in there would be highly beneficial, and you could simply scroll down a little bit to find the cast. Thoughts? Corvoe (speak to me) 14:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

We had a discussion about this last June, though it fizzled out: WT:MOSFILM#Cast in plot descriptions. Some editors find it useful, some don't. I guess it is a case-by-case basis, like maybe if it is an ensemble film, it causes too much clutter. I tried to use hover-over descriptions at A Field in England here, but it was too controversial. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to that discussion. I saw the suggestion of putting in the cast box to the side of the plot, but that it wouldn't work due to the infobox. Why not just put the cast list on the opposite side? Corvoe (speak to me) 15:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that it would probably look bad to constrain the body of context on both sides. The general approach is to try to stagger elements (like images or quoteboxes). Another possibility is to put the cast list above the plot summary but under the "Plot" section heading. EDIT: Surf Ninjas is an example. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is with the current guidelines. It's pretty common practice to have actors' names in parentheses after character names, but it also gives us leeway. However, I don't think the Surf Ninjas is a good model to be following. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "it also gives us leeway"? I'm not getting that. And it's fairly common practice to not have actors' names as well, as several articles I've gone to do not (and not thanks to me). And just because something is common practice doesn't mean it can't, and shouldn't, be changed. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I mean, the guideline allows us to do what is most appropriate for the article. And sorry I should have been more clear - I meant common practice outside Wikipedia. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Valid point. And that definitely makes more sense. I'm not going to remove names willy-nilly anymore, but when it comes to things like Inglourious or The King's Speech that are just visually exhausting, I'll make a few removals. Thanks guys. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

If it helps, my personal policy is that I won't remove the names just to remove them, but if I'm making other edits (generally trimming summaries that are violating WP:FILMPLOT) then I have no compunctions against removing the names at the same time. DonIago (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The add of the actor names on the plot summaries shouldn't really qualify as word characters about the plot summary of the movie. That always has been discussed in the past and there is no consensus of not having names of the actors on the plot summary of those movies. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, it's a personal policy. No consensus means we're pretty much left to our own devices unless a situation comes up where we need to form a consensus. I prefer not seeing them there (specifically I prefer reasonably short Plot sections in general) and if I really need to refresh my memory I don't mind scrolling down to the Cast section. DonIago (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll probably adhere to that policy as well. Thanks to you too. Corvoe (speak to me) 16:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer them to be kept at least for the headliners, the ones with poster-level billing. Cameos can depend on the actual film. Most lead paragraphs only talk about the starring roles and the film's awards, but they don't relate them to any characters until the Cast section, so the Plot is a good place to expose them to their role in the film. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just stopping by to point out that Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary is not a policy. It's not even an official guideline. It's an essay (scroll to the top of that page and you'll see). Flyer22 (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

One way to reduce the clutter is to reduce the names. Characters that only appear in one scene often don't need to be named, just described (e.g. "her husband"), which makes it easier to leave out the actor name as well. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that some people get confused on which characters they are and the actor names on the plot summaries sometimes help avoid confusion. Some people find it useful to avoid the confusion, regardless of what others might say about it. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Two points to consider: We have a big problem of plot-bloat with synopses going well past 700-word guideline, and removing actors' names from the plot helps reduce word-count. Secondly, the cast section is right below the plot section, so actor names in the plot seems redundant. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't considered actors' names to be word characters in the plot summary, just the plot of the movie itself would count as word characters, regardless of the word count with the actors' name on the plot summary of the film itself. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Big, big research news

A huge library of archival movie magazines has just been made openly available! I would urge everyone in WikiProject Films to read about the Lantern project. Here's a background story: http://www.indiewire.com/article/film-history-nerds-rejoice-old-film-journals-and-mags-now-searchable-for-everyone --Tenebrae (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Are these kind of "See Also" sections necessary?

A question, are these kind of "See Also" sections necessary? Should we add a "see also" section to Marilyn Monroe with links to People from Los Angeles and List of American film actresses? In my view the relevant categories already cover these kind of informations, and while I know that categories and lists can coexist in Wikipedia I'm not sure we need to have both of them in the same page. Cavarrone 11:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The portal links are certainly not necessary. Anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I have yet to see a portal link employed usefully. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Lol, and consider that the editor who added the section added originally put 5 portal links! I boldly removed three then I started this discussion because I had no record/experience of a similar section in an actor bio. Cavarrone 12:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm with you. These kind of "See also" sections frustrate me. It's almost as if someone has just added the section, and thought: "Hmm - what can we put in here?" Delete it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Like you said, categories and lists can coexist. While we old-timers are deeply familiar with categories, I'm not sure if they are familiar to most readers. Lists are more "obvious" links to access and can also be better than categories in providing descriptions or sortable columns of different characteristics. Links in "See also" sections are tangential, and that will vary by degree. For example, for a typical American film, Cinema of the United States is tangentially related but overly broad. However, if it was a seminal film that is probably mentioned in that article, a link would be acceptable. Otherwise, linking to a list of American films of the given release year is a bit more relevant. Maybe readers will check it out, maybe they won't. "See also" sections come at the end of articles too, so I don't find them disruptive. I'd rather that we try to be creative with such sections in different ways, like linking to chronological lists, lists of common content, similar films, etc. If you want to experiment, one way you could test for click-throughs is to create a redirect and pipe the link and check the traffic in a week or so. At the end of the day, we don't fully know what readers want, but I don't find it detrimental to give them possibilities to continue roaming Wikipedia. The sections don't get in the way of the meat of the article. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Going to agree with Erik on this one. As long as they aren't distracting, these are things at the bottom of the article that don't really seem to be too frustrating. I'm not sure how useful Portal's are. I still remember starting wikipedia about 9 years ago and wondering what on earth the portal pages were for. They aren't that helpful. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Enabling article feedback

As some of you have probably seen, enabling article feedback through adding Category:Article Feedback 5 no longer works. The category has been removed from articles that were using it. To enable feedback for articles again, there is an "Enable feedback" link under "Toolbox" in the sidebar. All you have to do is click on it. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 12:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

History merge

Is there someone who can merge the editing history of the article Fifty Shades of Grey (2014 film) into Fifty Shades of Grey (film)? Because Fifty Shades of Grey (film) was already existed and a user just create the other one. And another thing, should we merge the history or just redirect the Fifty Shades of Grey (2014 film) to Fifty Shades of Grey (film)? -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 07:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

A history merge is not necessary, because you shouldn't have copied and pasted fom another page. If the article is at the wrong page (which it is) you need to request a page move. Betty Logan (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I copied but I undid that. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 07:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

On a related note, I'm concerned about a similar approach with The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (film), where The Man from U.N.C.L.E.#Film adaptation was copied without attribution as needed per WP:PROSPLIT. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I didn't think of that, I'm going to change it but for copy thing you can see the Fifty Shades of Grey (film), it also copied from its novel article. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 13:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

This seems like the right way to attribute from the main-article POV, though it could have been more specific. The attribution from the film article POV is muddled, though. I can't tell if the content is from the main article or an incubated one that the other editor was developing. In any case, you need to be explicit (especially nowadays) about where you move content, in the edit summaries for both the copied-from article and the pasted-to article. You seem to be on thin ice here. I really would suggest stepping away from any moving and copying initiatives. There's regular content-building that can be accomplished instead. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for this time but I'll be aware next time with attribution, thanks. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 13:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Captain, didnt we just conclude an ANI requesting you cease from doing anything film related for awhile? Rusted AutoParts 14:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes but that's for moving articles which I've stopped. But I'm doing good now, learning more day by day instead making mistakes. Sorry but we all learn from mistakes brother. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 14:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

But the other editors who discussed on the ANI suggested you step away from movies altogether for awhile. And the history merge you've requested probably won't go through due to your actions. A Million Ways to Die in the West is different. I created the article back in February, with edits already on it. That's why the history from the one I created was restored. It would appear to editors who've seen the ANI that your request seems more based on wanting the credit. Not trying to start anything, but I'm merely pointing out what is most likely going down. Rusted AutoParts 14:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Please leave the past behind and talk about now and I'm doing as well as I can and I'm trying to, OK? So please help me as today I've learnt so much while I was making mistakes again. So these mistakes will be not done again. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 15:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:PG-13 films that drop the F-bomb

TreCoolGuy is adding films to Category:PG-13 films that drop the F-bomb which he created after the fact. I have posted the category for deletion as seen here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 15:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we nominated that for deletion at exactly the same time! --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

GMTA. :-P To be fair, there could be coverage about films using the word "fuck" in PG-13 (as well as just PG) films as seen here, but it seems trivial to categorize all the films that have done that. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If sourceable it might make an interesting list article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If you go ahead, please use plain language rather than "The F-Bomb"! --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

and "drop".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's not a bad idea. I think a related issue to just categorizing is that the categorization has to be verifiable. However, it would be trivial to drop a sentence in each article just to say that the film used the word "fuck", especially without context. In a list article, the various items would be verifiable. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

How is sourcing with regard to this categorization any different than sourcing with regard to other film article categorization that is about the plot aspect (something that happens in the plot)? In this case, doesn't the film serve as the source...just like it does for a Plot section? Flyer22 (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:CAT#Articles, "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." To accomplish that for this category, we would need to state in the plot summary that so-and-so said "fuck". Obviously we are not going to do that because it is not one of the main elements of the plot. In a list article, if we created one about this topic, we would probably use secondary sources to indicate that a film used this word, so we can say that the mention has been considered noteworthy outside Wikipedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec)As an editor who frequently finds himself confronted with in popular culture-related issues in articles, I'd like to suggest that this category should be focused on scenarios where the dropping of the bomb garnered notice from third-party sources, rather than just being a laundry list of every PG-13 film (nevermind the WP:FILMRATING-related issues) in which the bomb is dropped. If editors aren't willing to make such a stipulation, I'd at least recommend that there be clearly defined criteria for inclusion. It's my opinion that WP doesn't need one more catch-all list of items for which no significance is established. DonIago (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that the consensus will be against having a category for reasons already stated. A stand-alone list article would be more appropriate since we can have criteria for inclusion, such as referencing the article by The Huffington Post listed above to mention some of the films. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my mistake. My concerns are with regards to the List article. DonIago (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

We seem to be in agreement, then. To address the concerns of systemic bias, the best we can do is be clear-cut about the MPAA and the nature of their ratings and how profanity, especially the word "fuck", fits in the rating process. There's plenty of coverage about this; if other countries have similarly notable thresholds, we can write articles about these too. Just that as far as I can tell, this topic is one of these American oddities: "Okay, you can say 'fuck', but just once. Maybe twice." The list article would probably be a cousin to list of films that most frequently use the word "fuck". Erik (talk | contribs) 19:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

On a separate topic, I'm seeing sources for PG/PG-13 films that feature nudity. If such a list would be considered notable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Classification ratings in film articles?

Maybe this subject has been thoroughly discussed previously, but after reading the above discussion about "Category:PG-13 films that drop the F-bomb" I checked a few of the articles that the category had been added to and was surprised to find that none of them had any indication on the page that the film was rated PG-13 by the MPAA. When a film's rating has been controversial (eg; Bully) or otherwise notable (eg Red Dawn) the rating is mentioned, but it does not seem to be done for most films.

So I was wondering if it might not be a good idea to include somewhere on film article pages generally information about ratings. As a Canadian (where PG-13 does not and never has existed as a possible rating), I am well aware of the problem that including film classification ratings invites the question "which ones should be included?" The rating from the countries of origin seems an obvious place to start, but also including for all films the classification ratings on the initial theatrical release from Britain, the USA, Australia, and India might not be a bad idea. Since this is the English Wikipedia these four countries are a good representative sample of the major English-speaking countries in different parts of the world. But if that seems like too much clutter it still might make sense to include just the countries of origin classification. 99.192.72.48 (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd recommend reviewing WP:FILMRATING, which I'm pretty happy with as a policy myself. DonIago (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Not technically a policy, but I understand your point. Flyer22 (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but I still am not sure what is wrong with what that section calls the "indiscriminate identification of ratings". Put another way, why is the running time and the production budget of every film put in the info box, but film rating information is suggested to be avoided? If I am considering seeing Elysium, for example, the production budget is of no interest to me and the run time is of no interest unless the film is unusually long, but the fact that the MPAA has rated it "R" might be relevant to my decision whether or not to see it (or, for some people, whether or not they want to let their kids see it). So classification ratings can be quite useful information and not as trivial as budgets or run times. 99.192.72.48 (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The rating is not encyclopedic information, unless the film is notable for being that specific certificate. WP:FILMRATING does cover the issue well. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Rob, but just saying that it is not encyclopedic does not explain why it isn't. I don't see why running time is any more encyclopedic than classification rating. But further, if critical evaluations of films (eg; "Roger Ebert gave the film 3.5 out of 4 stars" is encyclopedic then why isn't ratings classification (eg; "The Grey was rated R by the MPAA")? 99.192.72.48 (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

We cannot compare film ratings to running times and production budgets. The budget tends to be a specific number, and it is simple enough to use the original running time in most cases. Before the guidelines were implemented, film articles either had just the MPAA rating or a laundry list of ratings from around the world (the latter usually culled from IMDb). While this is the English-language Wikipedia, there are a lot of American readers, and it was very common for them to try to add MPAA ratings everywhere. The laundry list of ratings was intended to offset that systemic bias, but it was indiscriminate. The guidelines offer the sensible solution of needing context to report on ratings. In addition, films have increasingly international releases. Is it fair that we only show the MPAA ratings because it was produced in America? At the end of the day, we are writing an encyclopedia, so when we write about films, we want the coverage to be enduring. We're not trying to tell moviegoers whether or not to see a film; any conclusions are incidental because coverage of critical reception is there to stay. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

To respond about Ebert, Wikipedia's encyclopedic policy on works of fiction is, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." We don't report on Ebert's review explicitly so moviegoers can decide whether or not to see the movie. We report it to establish contemporary reception because years will pass and readers can look back and learn what critics thought of the film at the time. In any case, merely reporting a number of stars is not sufficient. We should strive to summarize a film critic's review. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Erik, that's a bit more helpful and I am almost ready to let the subject drop, but first just a few brief replies: (1) I agree the laundry list is a problem which is why I suggested either only a county of origin classification or the representative sample approach. The question should not be "is it fair", but "is it informative" to do either. (2) You say that reporting an Ebert score helps "establish contemporary reception because years will pass and readers can look back and learn what critics thought of the film at the time." I agree. But I also would say that classification ratings of films also establish a different type of contemporary reception and in years to come tell us something about what the was thought of the film at the time. Critical reviews are enduring (even though critics, including Ebert, have sometimes retrospectively revised reviews), but so are classifications (even when they are changed subsequent to a film's initial release).

With Hollywood films today, MPAA ratings classifications are often (if not always) contractual requirements of directors (the "you must make a film that gets no higher than a PG-13 rating" type clause). So those ratings certainly can be an important factor in the production and editing of films which determines the content of the final product. But I suppose that in cases where a contractual requirement regarding an MPAA rating has a reliable source then that could be included in the "production" section anyway. Thanks again. 99.192.72.48 (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that each country has its own classification system (and about a third of Wikipedia readers reside in non-English speaking countries) there is also the problem of historic ratings. What do we do about the thousands of films with a defunct rating? The rating in itself isn't encyclopedic, but rather what it indicates about the content and appeal of the film, so that's what should be focused on. Is it a children's film? Does it have adult themes? Maybe we could put more effort into covering target demographics and audience breakdowns in the release section, since it's reasonable to cover who the film is made for. Betty Logan (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Betty, questions like "Who is the target audience?" and "Is it a children's film?" are ones that will have different answers in different cultures and at different times. In 2007 when the first season of Sesame Street was released on DVD it came with a parental warning that these episodes from 1969 and 1970 were (in 2007) intended for adults and might not be appropriate for preschoolers. Meanwhile, Midnight Cowboy famously was rated "X" when it was initially released in 1969 and by 2007 could be shown unedited on commercial television.

But I'm still a bit stuck on the "it's not encyclopedic" claim. If a film were banned, surely that would be an encyclopedic fact. So why isn't the fact that a film is banned for children under 18 just as encyclopedic? That's what the "NC-17" rating does. Restricting access to a film so that people under 18 must have an adult with them, as the "R" rating does, is a milder form of a ban, but seems to report an encyclopedic fact about legal access to a film. 99.192.72.48 (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that the NC-17 rating is more noteworthy than the other ratings. It is pretty common to see coverage about films getting that rating. I think another way to think about it is that we have many individual film articles, and we can't talk about ratings for most of them. Where a film fits the rating perfectly, like a family film getting a G rating, it makes sense. Coverage usually springs up when a film is on some kind of threshold, like between G/PG, PG/PG-13, PG-13/R, and R/NC-17. It's worth reporting coverage with these as well as in other rating systems. We can cover instances relevant to individual films, but not just the rating on its own. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

There will be a disparity in classifications due to different cultures and different times. However audience breakdowns are measurable metrics, and target demographics are an intrinsic feature of the film's marketing i.e. it is something we can document in an encylopedic context. For example, Eyes Wide Shut was rated "U" in France (suitable for everyone) which means children were admitted; however, it was clearly marketed at adults, and I am sure the audience primarily comprised adults. In that respect the classification is pretty meaningless, whereas target demographics and audience breakdowns tell us something encyclopedic about the film's content and appeal. The French classification just tells us something about how the French consume their media. Betty Logan (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This is my last shot, then I will let it go. Eric, I see your point, but I do question the claim that we can't talk about ratings for most films. Just as the "reception" section for most films reports something like "It has a 77% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes" and sometimes says things like "Roger Ebert named it as the best film of the year", I see no reason why it cannot also say "The MPAA said that the film may be inappropriate for children under 13" or, more succinctly, "The MPAA gave the film a PG-13 rating." Is that not an assessment of the film by a notable organization? 99.192.72.48 (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Telling us who was admitted tells us more about MPAA corporate policy and cultural attitudes in the US than it does about the film. Here's an example: Lincoln was rated PG-13, but that doesn't necessarily tell us who the film was aimed at nor who it was consumed by. It probably had a very different audience to Iron Man 3 for example. A report by USA Today states "While about 65% of the audience remains 40 and older, Disney is reporting an uptick of parents bringing their children to theaters." Statistics are much more robust than classifications because they tell us who actually went to watch this film, not merely who was just admitted to it, and that's where the emphasis should be. Betty Logan (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Betty, that does not really respond to my last comment. I said nothing about who did see the film. I was talking about an assessment by the MPAA. When they say that a film is inappropriate for children under 13, that is an assessment of a film by a notable film organization. As such, it seems no different from other content in the "reception" section such as "it has a 77% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes" and "Roger Ebert named it as the best film of the year". 99.192.72.48 (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

But why is the MPAA rating any more important than any other country's rating? To only include the MPAA rating would be giving it undue weight, especially if the rating wasn't contentious in any manner. This is why we focus on ratings that have generated some level of discussion in reliable sources. DonIago (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Well it's not, is it? Audience demographics tell us about who saw the film. Box office tells us about the popularity of the film. Reviews tell us about the quality of the film. The MPAA rating just tells us who in theory should be admitted in one market. Betty Logan (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we not add one of those FAQ templates to the top of the page linking to these most frequent topics of discussion? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

(1) Guys, you are changing the subject and ignoring the history of the discussion. Look back and you will see that in my initial suggestion I mentioned using the rating by the country of origin or by a representative sample. I have never advocated using just the MPAA rating and only talked just about it for simplicity in the discussion. Your conclusion that I might think it is more important is no more reasonable than concluding that I think that Ebert is the only reviewer who counts or Rotten Tomatoes is the only aggregator that counts since I did not name 100 other reviewers or any other aggregators. (2) You have not disagreed with my claim here that the assessment of the MPAA is no different from the other content I offered as examples for what is routinely in "reception" sections. So if your only worry in response to that claim is that the MPAA is not any more important than other classification boards, we are in total agreement, because I never said it was and never advocated using it alone. Read back the discussion again from the start and you will see I explicitly denied this. 99.192.72.48 (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The MPAA and every other rating body represents a snapshot of the current moral, legal and political landscape. Two kids go wild in a school? Come down harsher on violence in film. In America? No titties. In the UK? Keep that head on those shoulders. It is a meaningless series of measurements set by a moral majority or a vocal minority that offers no information about the film, and does not belong in the articles. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it is sufficient to report the rating by country of origin if there is no coverage about the rating. This approach would not work well with many of today's mainstream films, which are usually American and have international releases. We are an encyclopedia as opposed to a database, and we write about content that is verifiable, especially what is in secondary sources that are considered reliable. Wikipedia has to have a global perspective, so for internationally released American films, having just the MPAA rating (where no secondary coverage exists) perpetuates systemic bias. Even a different body of films, such as 20th century films produced and released only in the United States, just the rating by itself does not provide useful context. Like Blake indicated, there are changing norms with the rating systems (not to mention inconsistency). I think that's why the default should be that the inclusion needs to be justified somehow. When the detail is questionable in importance, we should follow what secondary sources say. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You only have to look at something like The Dark Knight to see how loosely ratings are applied based on a particular context. Because judging by the number of parents who took their small children out of the film, TDK should not have been a 12A. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

In reverse order, Erik: "We write about content that is verifiable, especially what is in secondary sources that are considered reliable." Film ratings are easily verifiable in reliable secondary sources, so I don't know why you mention this. "For internationally released American films, having just the MPAA rating (where no secondary coverage exists) perpetuates systemic bias." Film ratings almost always have extensive coverage in secondary sources. But your comment might also be an argument for having more than one rating in articles, as I mentioned was an alternative. "Just the rating by itself does not provide useful context." The same is true for box office. Knowing that a film made $40m does not tell you much about the film unless you know when it was released. Did it make $40m in 1970 or in 2013? Also, even in 2013 a film that makes $40m on a production budget of $1m and only in limited release is different from a film that made $40m with a production budget of $200m and released to 4000 theaters. So for box office, context matters, but the solution is to provide the context, not eliminate the information. The same could be done for other information that needs context, like ratings. "We should follow what secondary sources say." RT says that Elysium is rated "R" and explains that it is "for strong bloody violence and language throughout." The LA Times review reports, "MPAA Rating: R, for strong bloody violence and language throughout". The NY Times review reports, "Elysium is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). Apocalyptic violence." Richard Roeper reports with his review that the film is rated "R". Both The Toronto Star and the Globe & Mail (both Canadian) report that the film is rated 14A along with their reviews. Reliable secondary sources for ratings are easy to find. What the secondary sources almost always say is what the film is rated in the country where the review is published. So this is another argument for inclusion.

Darkwarriorblake: You are right that ratings are subject to the mores current at the time the film is rated, but, as I pointed out, box office is not of time-independent significance either. But further, reviews also reflect the mores of the time. What is thought to be terrifying to reviewers of one era might elicit yawns from reviewers of another era. The effect the shower scene in Psycho had on audiences when it was released is very much a product of the times, too. So that ratings are similarly a snapshot of the times is not unique or problematic at all.

But in sum, so far five different experienced film article editors have spoken against the idea of having ratings in film articles and none other than me has spoken for it, so I'll surrender now. I might not buy the reasons that have been offered for keeping ratings out, but it is clear that the consensus is on that side. As just a final note, referring back to the section that precedes this one, if including the information that a film is rated PG-13 by the MPAA should not be in an article and the PG-13 rating itself is an inconsistently applied categorization given by a morality police, then I would suppose that a category or list like PG/PG-13 films that feature nudity or PG/PG-13 films that use the word "fuck" would also be not acceptable? 99.192.51.16 (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.72.48)

When I talk about secondary sources covering ratings, I'm not referring to just the rating itself being mentioned. I'm referring to actual coverage that put the ratings in context. For example, see the second paragraph of Fight Club#Theatrical run. Or the second paragraph of Panic Room#Theatrical run. Hancock (film)#Marketing has a lot of information too. There's coverage for Midnight Cowboy and The Dark Knight, two films that we've mentioned here. Another example would be The Matrix Reloaded having the largest opening weekend for an R-rated movie. Heck, for Elysium, we have this that talks about its R rating. We depend on others to provide encyclopedic context for ratings, and it's not that hard to do that. It's just the rest of the films that come and go without the rating factoring into any discussion about the film. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems that there is a bias against including ratings, but for my money there is something to the point that a rating is interesting information and good context. It tells us about the culture of the time of the rating -- maybe of the film, too. Films with wide distribution are made usually for exactly that -- wide distribution. So if a film is accepted by authorities (with a nod to DWBlake, who only somewhat hyperbolically discounts their opinions as uniformly corrupt) that is a certain sort of fact about the film; it says that that film fit with the "expectations" for cinema of that time. Midnight Cowboy didn't fit, but then there was a change of values and tastes and we can all think about what it all means and feel superior. The point that might be falling by the wayside is this: the rare, severe, or stupid rating gets context from the more numerous ratings that are routine. If we leave out the routine, we leave out the context. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

IMO that would be better handled at the articles about the ratings themselves than scattering the information across hundreds of film articles where there isn't any indication of relativism. And if a film's rating did generate any level of discussion, then I believe there's already consensus to include it with proper sourcing and discussion. DonIago (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

A rating is an aspect of reception. It's reception by a certain group, but it is not a trivial group if they decide what people view. The problem though is that each country has their own criteria and method. But the reception of Midnight Cowboy should be covered on the MPAA site? I don't think that method would be particularly useful for readers. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

If the MPAA's handling of MC is considered a significant event in the organization's history as established by third-party sources, why not discuss it at the MPAA article? That doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed at the MC article as well. IMO the MPAA rating is trivial unless and until third-party sources document how the rating impacted a film in some manner. To assume the rating must have impacted a film in some manner is, to my mind, little better than original research. DonIago (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed at some of our film articles that use Wikipedia:Article feedback that some of our readers want to know the rating of the film when they visit a film Wikipedia article. We used to provide ratings, I think in the infoboxes, but now we obviously usually don't. I'm not sure how helpful keeping the ratings out of film articles is to Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how we could include the ratings in the infobox and avoid systemic bias. Adding them to the article would likely not help IMO, as I doubt people looking specifically for that information are inclined to dig into the article to locate it. It's my guess that they want a quick and easy movie database. One already exists - IMDb. DonIago (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

New template for Yahoo! Movies link

Hello. I've created a new template for creating links to profiles at Yahoo! Movies: {{Ymovies person}}. The template uses the new URL format for profiles (like http://movies.yahoo.com/person/naomi-watts) instead of the old one (like http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1800180388, which is now a redirect to the new one) used by {{Ymovies name}}. It's also able to generate URLs automatically from the page name, without specifying any parameter. I've modified Naomi Watts (See the External links section) to use this template as an example. Documentations are available at the template's page. Any suggestions? Thanks a lot. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 03:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

How a Mosquito Operates FAC

I've put up the article for Winsor McCay's 1912 animated film How a Mosquito Operates as a Featured Article Candidate. Any and all participation in the nomination page would be enormously helpful. Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm helping, but you're reverting my edits with no rationale. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Variety access

I'm hoping there's someone who'll be able to help—someone with access to Variety. I'm trying to find out the budgets for the 14 films in the Sherlock Holmes (1939 film series). If anyone is able to help I'd be much obliged! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You could try to email Variety itself. The email address is variety@pubservice.com. You could explain that you're working on Wikipedia and would like to reference them. They could help directly or indirectly somehow. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, assuming you're referencing an issue with a paywall at Variety, AndyTheGrump answered a similar question at the Help Desk recently. Hesaid:

As WP:PAYWALL states, the best place to ask for help accessing paywalled material is Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.

Hope that helps! -- Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both: I shall try both avenues and see where I can get to. Much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Ranges and Reception - Regarding Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters

This is regarding films in general, but also the above mentioned. It holds a 38% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes and 39 out of 100 on Metacritic. There have also been one or two published articles from some magazines and entertainment sites that report the reaction as being poor. This reads as being generally "negative" in my eyes, but another user says that it is "mixed to negative", as not every review was negative (As reported on Metacritic with more mixed reviews being collected than positive or negative, though they do casts 2 star reviews as being mixed, which again I would perceive as being generally negative, but I may be wrong). But is this not the case with all films released, as not every critic will like or dislike the film, and that the general consensus is to be reported instead.

I was wondering who is correct on the matter, or if we are both wrong. As far as I am aware, these ranges are meant to be avoided on Wikipedia, and that the general reaction/reception is to be used instead, as it is poor writing and can be open to misleading interpretation. Or should the whole "Negative", "Mixed" or "Positive" be done away with entirely. I understand this is a big problem in a lot of film articles and would appreciate the input and help. Thanks - 21:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, please note that new topics should generally be started at the bottom of Talk pages.

There's a couple of active topics on this currently as you can see. I believe the consensus is either to avoid making a statement summarizing the reception, or to make such a statement based on reliable sources and include an appropriate citation. To summarize them ourselves can be construed as synthesis. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll know now in the future. Yeah, that's kind of what I thought and is the same conclusion the other discussions on the topic reached as well. Thanks for clarifying. - Jak Fisher (talk)

Cast sections in film articles

We need to have cast sections in film articles as a general consensus for all film articles, regardless of how trivial that it might be to some editors. Some editors keep on deleting based on good faith & such and there are so many film articles that have cast sections. There are a few films that are featured articles have cast sections. If the general consensus is reached for the cast sections, I think we should do with them is to have brief character descriptions and make sure we get a reliable source regarding their casting. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree. They are useful, but some editors remove them and don't even site their reasons, and just presume that they are correct on the matter. - Jak Fisher (talk)

The instigator for this discussion is a dispute between BattleshipMan and I over the inclusion of a cast list in the Jingle All the Way article. For that discussion, see here. To sum up my view: Cast sections can be useful and the best option for an article. In the case of Jingle All the Way I believe this not to be the case, with it instead being completely superfluous as the plot and development sections do a far better job than a cast list ever could. They are, at present, not compulsory and I see no reason why they ever should be. Gran² 22:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Gran2, just so you know, many people are disputing over have actor's names on plot summaries in movies, just like many people are disputing having cast sections in film articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

This is already address in WP:MOSFILM.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

What I meant is that Plot summaries should be in film articles in general and have a general consensus not to remove them. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I meant your initial issue you came here with. Cast sections is discussed at MOSFILM.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Jacque Fresco - 3D Projector.jpg

image:Jacque Fresco - 3D Projector.jpg has been nominated for deletion at PUF -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Redundant film stub tags

Recently, several stub tags were created, in order to better sort Category:Canadian film stubs by decade. While I agree that these tags were needed, instead of simply updating the tags for articles in that category, other editors have also been adding them to stub articles for Canadian documentaries and television films, which were already tagged as being from Canada. Therefore, I am looking for a consensus on whether it is necessary to add a second (and in some cases a third) stub tag, just to show what decade a film was made, when that article already has a stub tag in the same category that is more specific. Or, is it simply redundant, when an article is already tagged as a Canadian film and/or already tagged as a film from a specific decade or genre, and the additional tag just adds the article to multiple sub-categories of the same parent category? Fortdj33 (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm very glad to see this discussion here. As the above editor knows, as one who has not had a hand in creating any of these stub tags, but works in this area, I don't see any practical reason at all why, say, {{1990s-Canada-film-stub}} and {{Canada-documentary-film-stub}} should not be able to coexist on a stub article, unless there is a problem with too many tags. While my own particular interest is doc cinema, other editors may wish to work on films of a certain decade. In short, one does not cancel out the other. Myself and another editor have been involved in an exchange with Fortdj33 on his user talk page, with majority view holding that he has been mistaken in using AWB to substitute one template for another. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• I've also posted a link to this discussion from Wikipedia talk:Stub. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted, that I did not mention any names when I brought the discussion here, because I am seeking an unbiased consensus. It is misleading for Shawn to state that his opinion is the majority, just because he and another editor disagreed with me on my talk page. I don't know why Shawn is trying to make this personal, but regardless of his uncertainty about AWB, this issue affects WikiProject Film in general, not just the areas that he is interested in. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It was two against one, I'm afraid -- and that is a majority. Though that may change here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Fortdj33's logic is flawed. This is no different than a Canadian drama film of the 1980s having both the Canada decade stub and the 1980s drama film stub on the article. They are both stubs in the 1980s category. Oh no! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Look, I think that Shawn, Lugnuts and I all have the same goal of trying to improve the articles of WikiProject Film. I don't know why they are trying to make this personal, but I think they are both biased against me because I use AWB as an editing tool. The truth is, I respect the large amount of positive contributions they have made to the project. I have never received the same civility form Lugnuts, and I do not appreciate their condescending tone, both here and on my talk page. Two people does not a consensus make, and I would prefer to hear from unbiased editors who can look at this issue objectively. Fortdj33 (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as you've just mentioned AWB, have you got round to reading the rules of use yet? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Personal comments like that just prove my point, and have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Please stick to the topic of redundant stub tags. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a straight-forward question. I'll take the answer as being a "no" then. Once you've read the page in question, maybe you'll be in a better place to comment on blind tagging and un-tagging of articles without knowing the wider picture. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

He's now removing the doc stub from articles where he had placed it alongside the by-decade stub, without waiting to see if there would be any broader consensus here, because in his words it "serves no positive function." But if he's stopped deleting your edits, Lugnuts, that's good. It'll be interesting to see what happens if you or some other unsuspecting editor comes along and re-adds the doc stub tag, I'm just going to look away. Let's move on. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I did not use AWB to make those edits, I only removed stub tags that were added by me in the first place, I did not remove them from all the articles in that category, only the ones where the third stub tag was redundant, and I explained the rationale for those edits on my talk page. You have derailed this discussion from developing an unbiased consensus on the issue, because of trying to make this into a personal vendetta. I apologize for my part in that, but I hope that you will truly move on, so that we can all get back to trying to improve Wikipedia. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Nobody has a personal vendetta against you. Read WP:DRAMA, for god's sakes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Film director category at CfD

More input on this please. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Character in film articles

TreCoolGuy (talk · contribs) has recently created Captain America in film, Hulk in film and Thor in film. He previously created Iron Man in film, and after an AfD and a deletion review, no consensus was reached but at least there are three released films in the Iron Man series. What is the communities feelings on the rest of these articles? Captain America has had one released film, a serial film, a direct to video film and a made for television film. Hulk has had two released films and three made for television films. Thor has had one released. Also what is the general threshold of notability for these types of articles in the first place?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

On the face of it, it seems to be a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF. However, I'd say that Captain America is probably deserving of his own article due to the 1944 serial, the TV movies and the earlier film of 1990 (although it could use some rewriting), and Hulk possibly if it was expanded to the TV movies (maybe - but they're better off lumped in with the TV series). As Thor hasn't really had much of a film career outside the MCU, I don't think the article is warranted. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I've redirected Thor in film back to Thor in other media. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Having a look at the other articles user has created, 21 Jump Street series‎ wasn't suitable (or suitably titled) so I've redirected to the TV series article at 21 Jump Street. How do we feel about Kick-Ass (film series)? Maybe a Kick-Ass (franchise) article might be more suitable. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I not sure if two films is a notable franchise or series.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say not a notable film series, but combined with the comics, a notable franchise maybe? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't think of that. Combined with the four comic books (including Hit-Girl) and the video game, it would be notable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to talk about the general threshold of notability for these types of articles. Iron Man in film I originally wanted to make a Iron Man film series page for the character but due to the hole AfD and a deletion review I was able to keep it which I would like to thank everybody who allowed my Iron Man page to exist but instead of Iron Man film series I changed it to Iron Man in film. Due to Iron Man being so many animated direct-to-video films, I changed the name to Iron Man in film. For Captain America in film like what Rob Sinden said the Captain America character has been in a 1944 serial, a couple TV movies, a god offal 1990 movie and the current Marvel Studios produced films and I had a lot of fun making the Iron Man in film I decided to make a Captain America in film due to what Rob Sinden said the character being in a lot of films. For the Hulk in film, I created that because of the Bill Bixby/Lou Ferrigno films, the god offal 2003 movie, a lot of animated-direct-to-video films and also the current Marvel Studios produced films. So I thought hey, "If nobody made a Hulk in film yet, guess I will." For Thor in film I am completely agree with Rob Sinden and TriiipleThreat, I think that it was too soon to make a Thor in film page. The character has been currently only been in one standalone film until the second film hits theaters in November. If they announce a Thor 3 though I might make again a Thor in film page. I hope I was able to really able to give a general threshold of notability for these types of articles.--TreCoolGuy (talk)

Doesn't Kick-Ass (character) already cover his role in the comics and the films? Is the film portrayal that much different? The article's hardly worth splitting. Even characters like Harry Potter (character) and The Terminator (character) don't have separate "in film" articles. -AngusWOOF (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment While the film presences of these characters are obviously notable, I do question whether we need yet another article on them. We have the Marvel Cinematic Universe article to specifically cover their presence in that series, an then we have articles like Captain America in other media, Thor (Marvel Comics) in other media, Hulk (comics) in other media which seems easily capable of covering the films not in the MCU. Creating even more umbrella articles seems a little bit redundant to me. Also, with edits like this it seems to me "in other media" articles are no longer doing their job of providing an overview. Readers don't want to be directed all over Wikipedia form article to article, they should be able to obtain the information from one place. Furthermore, content was split out of these articles with no author attribution and no discussion, so I think the content should be restored to the articles it was removed from, and the "in film" articles redirected to the "in other media" articles. If TreCoolGuy still believes there is a compelling reason to have a third umbrella article covering the films specifically, he can start an article split discussion, which is what he should have done to begin with. Betty Logan (talk) 07:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Rodriguezandres789

This user's contributions make me worry he is a sockpuppet of Hoppybunny or Bambifan101. I can't file an investigation request at the moment but I thought some of you might want to check it out before he causes any damage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I signed your username for you above, modeled after this post I saw of yours at Bearcat's talk page (when briefly looking over your contributions). As you can see on Rodriguezandres789's user page and talk page, you are not the first to suspect (or rather correctly deduce) that he is a sockpuppet of a particular editor. His edits are problematic, as expressed by me before on this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh hey, thanks for that. Have there been any proposed solutions for what can be done?--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. And, no, there have been no solutions. As you may have seen from looking at his talk page, the discussion I started about it here was short. Flyer22 (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, in that discussion, there were two proposed solutions. MarnetteD stated, "If the editing pattern continues feel free to file an SPI and you can also report the new user to the admin who blocked Bluerules." Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've learned I'm terrible at filing SPI reports, otherwise I would.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Marvel's The Avengers film series

I'll like to ask the community if we should or shouldn't make a Marvel's The Avengers film series page. Im split in between if we should or shouldn't. Should - Marvel confirmed that a series would happen, Marvel's The Avengers: Age of Ultron is in pre-production and is starting casting and Robert Downey, Jr. has signed on for The Avengers 2 and 3. Shouldn't - Only one film has been released and its too soon. Please tell me your thoughts of a Marvel's The Avengers film series page, thank you for reading this and have a good day. - TreCoolGuy (talk) 7:23 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Shouldn't. Only one film has been released and even if they were two they would be too few for a "film series" article. Cavarrone 07:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• See Marvel Cinematic Universe. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Redirect Marvel's The Avengers film series to Marvel Cinematic Universe (and all the other ones that are part of MCU, including Iron Man (film series) ) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

PorkysRailroadTitle.jpg

image:PorkysRailroadTitle.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Referencing plots (dispute)

Hi everyone, there is a dispute at WT:DYK, namely at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Prep_area_4_article, which may be of interest. While reviewing the article Wanita dan Satria, an article on a presumed-lost work, Epeefleche has been insisting on having footnotes for each individual paragraph, citing the policy WP:V. I, however, have used the same formula as my previous FAs in this area (Terang Boelan, Sorga Ka Toedjoe) and given a source for the plot summary as a single footnote meant to apply to both paragraphs of the plot summary; I cite an implied WP:CONSENSUS from these previous FAs in support of my position. We both recognise that at least one reference is required, as the film is a lost work, but the "to footnote or not to footnote" of the other paragraph has led to a minor edit war and a long thread (linked above). Outside opinions would be welcome at the WT:DYK page. Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The Harvest (2010 film) - another page move discussion

Please see the latest discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"Actor" or "actress" for erm, actresses?

Question came up at WT:MOS#Actor/actress. Our actress articles seem to be fairly consistent on this point, so please correct me at the discussion if I am mistaken. Since the question has come up, do you think we should get it down in black & white at Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Project style recommendations (or even MOS:FILM since the actor project seems pretty dead these days)? Betty Logan (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure there really is a need. A "uses what the sources say" policy should cover it, since it is pretty common for actor/actress to be used. But in the few cases where it is not (like for the SAG awards, which use "female actor" and "male actor") there is no problem with using term used in those cases. The words "directrix" and "murderess" still exist, but we don't really need a policy to refer to female directors as "director", not "directrix" or to refer to female characters who murder as a "murderer", not a "murderess". The word "murderess" is occasionally used in articles (See Don Juan (1926 film) and Yield to the Night), but if that is the word used in the film itself it seems ok to use it in the article (although not necessary). If, in the future, the word "actress" goes the way of "directrix" reliable sources will let us know. But for now, the word "actress" is so widely and dominantly used there seems little need for a policy statement. 99.192.69.149 (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not solely an issue of self-identification, it is also an issue of industry terminology so our MOS should address it. They are occupations with distinctly different characteristics that the film industry itself acknowledges i.e. there is a Best Actress category at the oscars, but not a separate category for female directors. Betty Logan (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree it is not an issue of self-identification, but there are probably some film publications that use "female actor" instead of "actress" and the SAG awards use "male actor" and "female actor", so there is some industry use of "actor" for women already. The industry is not unanimous in how it refers to women who act. In fact, SAG has seemed to push a wider use of "actor" for women with their "My name is ... and I'm an actor" segments in the broadcasts of the SAG awards. So the word "actress" is still the dominant term both inside and outside the industry, which is reason enough to keep using it in articles. A policy saying that it must be used seems a bit unnecessary and a bit strong, given the dissent of SAG from the terminology, while a policy stating a preference for "actress" seems unnecessary given that it does not seem to be an issue on any pages right now and too weak to resolve a dispute should one arise. I say let sleeping dogs lie. 99.192.69.149 (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It's appropriate for the MOS to offer guidance on industry terminology. We already impliictly express a preference through the categorization of our articles. Betty Logan (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case, then the MOS should indicate something. For films, there is not one single industry source for terminology, so the fact that AMPAS, BAFTA, AACTA, IFTA, ACCT, and the Indian National Film Awards all use "actress" is worth noting, but so is the fact that SAG uses "female actor". 99.192.83.240 (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.69.149)

@99, I believe there is a need. In the past I have changed instances of "actor" to "actress", and they were just changed back. I believe this is a potentially contentious issue that would benefit from centralised guidelines to help resolve disputes. 86.160.213.112 (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Webcitation question

So does anyone know the status of this site yet as I know there was talk of Wikipedia buying it outright. I am concerned if it stops taking refs but more concerned if it goes down as some of my articles are based heavily on studio's own production notes for background information which are archived but removed from their owner sites quite quickly for NO reason. Is there anyway to re-archive a webcite archive elsewhere? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

There are a couple of ways to deal with it: you can see if the original page was archived at Wayback machine and use that instead, or you can use Archive.is in the same way you use Webcite, and also to archive the Webcite pages too if the original isn't available. Betty Logan (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Betty. It's a shame sites don't seem to cover these details, they're the stuff sent out to the sites specifically to cover but if they get lost permanently, a lot of good info would be lost. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Films by plot device category at CfD

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The Departed and Whitey Bulger

There is currently a dispute ongoing at The Departed over how many sources are needed to make the case that Jack Nicholson's character was inspired by --- which is not to say "based upon" --- Whitey Bulger. AutoMamet added a large chunk of text to the themes section, most of which consisted of the names of books that he claims mention the connection between Bulger and the film. My argument is that we do not need a long list of titles since the claim is already made and supported and is not controversial. Furthermore, simply listing the titles of 6 or 7 books is not helpful; if they have something substantive to say on the matter, they should be quoted, but, as I already stated, the claim is sourced and further citations are not needed. The article is not about Bulger, so books about him, apart from the minor point that he was an inspiration for the film, are not needed. I cannot get through to AutoMamet, though, and he is now claiming that I am violating NPOV. Can other editors have a look and weigh in on the talk page, please? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

As the discussion is now opening up, would all interested editors post there so that a consensus may be reached.
The OP is refusing to follow WP:BRD and is challenging the three revert rule. Thanks!
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 18:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The situation at this article, and on the talk page, is getting worse. I have requested page protection, but more editors involved in the discussion might help. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Are the first three Pirates of the Caribbean films a "trilogy"?

There is a discussion at Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean (film series)#Pirates "trilogy"?. I know some editors have tackled this question before for other film series, although to be honest I'm not really sure either way. I'm quite happy to defer to superior judgment in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Mixed to positive / Mixed to negative

Hey all, is there an official stance on the use of "Mixed to positive" and "Mixed to negative" to describe critical reaction to films? Either of these phrases sound absurdly redundant, as "mixed" implies both positive and negative reactions. I see these phrases all over Wikipedia. I appreciate your thoughts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No, we're formally against it as a project, but enforcing it is another thing altogether. Basically the general stance is just to give the aggregator scores and summaries unless you can independently source the critical appraisal. There is a good example at The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey#Critical response. Betty Logan (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sort of confused where these terms are coming from. I know Metacritic states "mixed or average reviews"; is that the source of these variations? If so, I think it would be better to unpackage the Metacritic report and state how many reviews it assessed as positive, mixed, and negative. Otherwise, per MOS:FILM#Critical response, we should use commentary from reliable sources to state the consensus among critics (or lack of one). Erik (talk | contribs) 23:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think at least in some cases it may be coming from people who are trying to distort the "overall" impression of a film in one direction or another. DonIago (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes there is a disparity between RT and Metacritic i.e. one says the film got positive reviews and the other saying they were mixed, so editors shoehorn the terms together. It will keep happening and there isn't much we can do about it, apart from have a very clear response about how it should be done. Betty Logan (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the "Mixed to positive" and "Mixed to negative" additions come about due to the fact that all reviews are mixed, as in there are always critics who dislike even a well-received film and hardly does a film ever get 100% acclaim on a website, but some films lean more toward positive reviews and others lean more toward negative reviews. So, because the film does not have a 50%-50% rating, what is most commonly meant by "mixed," but rather, for example, a 44% rating, you will see an editor add "Mixed to negative." By contrast, when the significant majority of reviews for a film are positive, then for the Reception section we (a lot of Wikipedia film editors) generally state "Mostly positive," "Generally positive," or simply report what Rotten Tomatoes and/or Metacritic state for the initial summary; vice versa for when the significant majority of reviews for a film are negative. Flyer22 (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey all, thanks for indulging me in this discussion. I think Flyer22 and I might be on the same page about all reviews being mixed. The word also seems unnecessary, because if we provide readers with examples of good and bad reviews, it will be apparent that the reviews were mixed. The word "mixed" also implies an even balance on either side, when that might not actually be the case. But if we must use this word, do we all agree definitively that "mixed to negative" or "mixed to positive" doesn't mean anything, and instead "generally positive" or "generally negative" should be used in its place? And I agree with DonIago that often when the phrase is used, it can be a subtle way to sway POV one way or another. Or, does anybody still see a value for its inclusion? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, see this section on my talk page where Cyphoidbomb and I discussed a similar matter. I definitely don't feel that "Mixed to positive" or "Mixed to negative" should be used, per statements discouraging the use above. Using such wording can be confusing, and can be more so based on the POV of the editor who added it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line is, we should attribute the wording of a consensus to a reliable source, either directly or by paraphrasing closely. We can report figures from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, but prose needs to be based on their prose (such as RT's critical consensus or Metacritic's brief summary). Beyond these, we should use other sources such as periodicals or books to explain the consensus (or lack thereof). To cite examples, The East (film)#Critical response uses Wall Street Journal, and Panic Room#Critical reception uses a book about David Fincher's films. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

This may or may not be a delicate question, but are we essentially saying that it technically constitutes synthesis to provide even a general critical reaction without sourcing it? I know we backed away from phrases like "critical acclaim" (or worse, "universal acclaim") without sourcing some time ago. I don't mind someone saying "positive" in a situation where it seems overwhelmingly true (Schindler's List), but it may strengthen our case if/when there's disputes about this sort of thing if we are in agreement that yes, this does qualify as synthesis. DonIago (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it does constitute synthesis. Some films may "obviously" be well-received based on our cultural experiences, but we have to write articles to outlast our experiences. A film like Schindler's List would be easy to reference, in any case. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You know, I was actually going to use the word "synthesis" in my last comment, to describe the act of summarizing the reaction as "mixed", but I wasn't sure if I would have been using the term correctly. It does seem that this is synthesis, as we individuals are deciding what the general reaction was to a certain work, as opposed to saying "Metacritic rated the film 4/100" or whatever. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a bit of a buzzword since by invoking it one goes right to policy (see also "notable"), hence my saying it might be a delicate question. It's one thing to say we should shy away from summarizing the reactions...it's another to overtly say that we feel that qualifies as synthesis. That said, let's see whether anyone has significant objections. DonIago (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

If the significant majority of reviews for a film are positive, for example, I fail to see how it is WP:SYNTHESIS to state that the film received "mostly positive" or "generally positive" reviews. And indeed, like I told Cyphoidbomb in the aforementioned discussion, that is standard practice in Wikipedia film articles. Some of our film editors, especially the WP:FILM editors, are against it and state that we should always let the review aggregators speak for themselves; others, like me, are not against it...especially when Metacritic uses the same or close to the same wording...such as "generally favorable reviews." There is no doubt that The Avengers is a "mostly positive"/"generally positive" case; it is not WP:SYNTHESIS to state that it received "mostly positive" or "generally positive" reviews any more than it is to state that it received "positive reviews." But simply stating "positive reviews" is less accurate because the film clearly received a tiny minority of negative reviews. Using "mixed to positive" or "mixed to negative," however, is WP:SYNTHESIS to me...for the reasons gone over about it above. Flyer22 (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

And as for writing articles to outlast our experiences, the Critical reception section is about what critics felt about the film when it came out (in some cases, before it officially came out). I had not thought about it being about what critics will state about the film decades or centuries from now. While it can eventually be somewhat about that, I don't feel that we should write the sections with that outlook; it reminds me of WP:CRYSTAL. Flyer22 (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Going back to The Avengers (2012 film) article example, this change that Erik made at that article makes complete sense to me. This one (meaning the revert and other removal) does not make much sense to me. Flyer22 (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a strong argument to be made against using blanket phrases such as "mostly positive" or "mostly negative" because WP:FILM only endorses a very narrow selection of reliable sources here. As editors, we can see what these minimal sources (three at present) say about a film, but it is a rather hairy proposition that we should feel comfortable to suggest that the critical reception of a film was "generally _____" based on a few select sources. (And because I find myself editing on TV articles and books, I wonder how "mostly this" or "mostly that" can ever be used without bumping against established Wikipedia policies, beit WP:NPOV or WP:RS or WP:NOR or...) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

This subject has been discussed a lot of times before, at this project and across Wikipedia film articles. Because Rotten Tomatoes is made up of so many film critics, from all walks of life, I find it questionable to suggest that a film that received a 92% score on that site may not have received mostly positive reviews from film critics...especially considering the weight that Rotten Tomatoes holds; many reliable sources will report the same because it is what Rotten Tomatoes stated. So there ends up being many sources reporting "many"...other than the many sources on Rotten Tomatoes showing that to be the case. Again, in cases such as the 2012 The Avengers film, it just doesn't make sense to me at all not to use "mostly positive reviews" or some variation of that. That's how I've always felt about this subject; it's a view of mine that never manages to change, no matter how many times this subject is discussed. Flyer22 (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You're certainly not limited to those sources, it's just that aggregators are rather thin on the ground. For older films we would certainly accept scholarly articles, authoritative books etc. The thing about Rotten Tomatoes though is that it's not a statistical sample, so it is technically original research to extrapolate a consensus from the scores i.e. its findings ultimately only apply to its own data set. That's why people say "let the data speak for themselves". It's just as easy to say "Review aggregators Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic found the reviews for the film to be generally positive" as it is to say "The film received generally positive reviews". They both impart the same sentiment, but one correctly attributes where that consensus comes from. Betty Logan (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Would recaps like the Critics Consensus column at Rotten Tomatoes seen here be worth attributing in film articles? It is more meaty than the mechanical reporting of scores. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me to be a fine approach. But how would you apply it? Are you asking that we use that to replace the score reporting/critical consensus summary that is typically used in film articles with regard to Rotten Tomatoes? If so, I don't agree with replacing that, and don't see how we could make/keep it as standard practice considering how common the aforementioned way is. Or are you asking that we use that as a source for the "generally positive," "mixed," "generally negative" type of wording? Flyer22 (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Describing transgendered individuals

Hello all. The question of how to write about a transgendered individual in their past has been discussed before by this WikiProject at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_42#The_Matrix_-_Larry_to_Lana_.28And_other_films.29, with Lana Wachowski as the key example. That discussion recognised that MOS:IDENTITY, a general Wikipedia guideline, is clear that an individual should be referred to by their current gender. However, it was felt that film credits represent a special case not covered by MOS:IDENTITY and that there was an absence of WP:MOS consensus specific to this question. Thus, discussion there reached a Project consensus that infoboxes should represent people "by the name which they were using professionally at the time the film was made."

However, the Project's view of what to do in the article prose was mixed. Various editors expressed opinions, but the result of that discussion was to leave this as a question for another day. I also note that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which is policy, puts tight restrictions on the ability of a WikiProject to deviate from a Wikipedia-wide guideline. I quote: "For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."

That previous WikiProject discussion was one year ago. I haven't been able to find anything more recent in the WikiProject's archives; please correct me if I am wrong. I stumbled into this issue more recently. Both I and later an IP editor changed "the Wachowski Brothers" to "the Wachowskis" in The Matrix article's prose (we both left the infobox untouched). We were both reverted by User:Darkwarriorblake, who, very robustly, opposed the change in discussion here.

It was Darkwarriorblake who referred me to this Project and your earlier discussion. However, it appears to me that Darkwarriorblake's comments might be seen to give an inaccurate impression that WikiProject Film has a settled view on how to tackle this matter in article prose. As far as I can see, WikiProject Film has no agreed view on what to do in article prose. (In which case, surely MOS:IDENTITY applies.)

Thus, would it be possible for the Project to re-open this discussion, as it applies to article prose? What is the WikiProject's current, agreed view? Does the WikiProject need to develop its local style guidelines any further on this matter, or is MOS:IDENTITY sufficient? Bondegezou (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to repeat myself again, as I already have ad nauseum, and as have other editors: Wikipedia records history, meaning that the fact that she was born Larry and that she directed The Matrix and credited as Larry will never change. Pretending otherwise does not change anything. That some people are touchy about the fact that trans used to be men and want to pretend that they have always been women have nothing to do with Wikipedia. Our concern is historical accuracy. Lana was born a he. You cannot change that fact. If you want to pretend that trans have always been women, suit yourself. Wikipedia will not help you do it. Wikipedia records this fact. Period.

The guideline of the film project was clear. It is to make a clear distinction without having to explain over much that she directed it while still Larry. It's also there to attach the correct pseudonyms/stage names/then-current names to a movie, as their true identities are quite often not what people remember them by, and these names change at whim sometimes. The infobox named him Larry as credited for a reason. Naming Larry in the infobox, and then Lana in the prose also creates jarring inconsistency within the article and creates some confusion to casual readers who do not know enough about Larry/Lana thing. Wikipedia is written for everyone. Imagine that you didn't know anything about Larry/Lana being the same person, you'd think there was a mistake in the prose and try to edit it when there was no mistake, so it pays to be consistent in the first place. He had been directing it as male, and using his male identity throughout the article is of course, appropriate. Also note that the MOS:IDENTITY that you keep waving at us uses the word 'commonly' not 'always'. Naming her Lana will require undue discussion/explanation about her identity in the article about a movie. It's off topic and does not belong there. We cannot make do without telling people that she directed it while she was still Larry either, because without explanation, this part of history will not be recorded, but it is Wikipedia's concern to do so. Again, if you want to pretend that trans have always been women, do it yourself. It's not Wikipedia's job to help you. Trying to push naming Larry Lana in the article's prose, is more of "If I don't get my way there, I'll get my way here" type of discussion; it's here to satisfy you. This guideline of the film project about naming the person in the infobox as credited has been here this long due to these reasons. Admins, readers, editors, and a lot more know about it. So to answer the doubt you expressed on The Matrix's talk page: Of course, it has convinced the main community and passed their scrutiny. Anthonydraco (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, kindly take into consideration that numerous users besides Darkwarriorblake revert edits changing Larry to Lana. Please do not conveniently ignore it and target only one person you're disagreeing with. I would've revert some myself if I were in the same time zone or were quick enough. The way you started this discussion read as if he was somehow at fault for not letting you change it, while in fact, it was the oversensitive and overly political intentional inaccuracy that was the problem. Anthonydraco (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree that we should stay with the historical gender. However, perhaps as a compromise, we could have a "Notes" section where we have a note attached to the first Wachowski mentions in the article (lead section, infobox, and article body) where we explain that Larry Wachowski is now Lana Wachowski, having transitioned in the 2000s and that the article will refer to the person as Larry due to his identity at the time. We could proliferate this for past film articles where Lana was Larry, since Lana will be Lana going forward. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Just two brief comments: (1) Using "The Wachowskis" instead of "The Wachowski Brothers" in the prose will confuse no one and is not revisionist history, as it does not deny that they were brothers. As such, it seems reasonable to use "The Wachowskis". (2) Noting a name or gender change need not be a long digression and does not require special footnotes. All you need to do is this: "Larry Wachowski (now known as Lana Wachowski)...." It only needs to be done the first time the name appears in an article. A one-time five-word parenthetical acknowledges the change while not running any risk of confusing people or being thought to be revisionist history. Something like this is already used in the article for the film Requiem for a Heavyweight. It says, "Cassius Clay, later known as Muhammad Ali, appears as Quinn's opponent in a boxing match at the beginning of the movie...." There a four-word appositive phrase does the same job. 99.192.56.248 (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Muhammad Ali and Metta World Peace articles seem to handle its name transitions fine. I agree with using "The Wachowskis" when referring to both. All the variants including Larry can be bolded in the lead as they are searchable terms. Also remove the date active for aliases from the infobox. A lot of folks change stage names; the more difficult issue is when they carry two stage names at the same time or change back-and-forth like Prince (musician) where you have to choose the more dominant stage name. -AngusWOOF (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

More brief comments then: (1) When I say "Our concern is historical accuracy", do I really need to say that includes "historical clarity" as well? As non-clarity leads to misinterpretation and misunderstanding, and by extension, inaccuracy. Using "the Wachowskis" implicitly covers up the fact that they were brothers at the time, while "the Wachowski Brothers" made the distinction clear from the very moment you encounter it. (2) We do not choose which was the more dominant stage for them. That is not an encyclopedian's job. We record the history. We say what they use, when they use it, in what movie to keep the facts about the movies accurate. In this case, the history is clear. The Matrix was not directed by "Lana Wachowski and Andy Wachowski", but "Larry Wachowski and Andy Wachowski", in other words, "The Wachowski Brothers". It's very, very clear in the credit. If we're doing an article about "The Wachowskis" then that's a different story. We use the current names or what they are most known for so most people who know them by their current famous names can find the articles. However, we are doing an article about the film and its history, not the Wachowskis. The concern is different. (3) Wikipedia is universally governed by "Reference" policy. The DVD itself and official materials say that "The Matrix" was directed by "The Wachowski Brothers", unlike "Cloud Atlas" which was directed by "The Wachowskis". Anthonydraco (talk) 05:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

(1) If saying "the Wachowskis" implicitly covers up the fact that they were brothers at the time, then saying "the Wachowski Brothers" implicitly covers up the fact that there were TWO brothers who made the film, not three or four or more. So if you are really worried about implicit cover ups you should insist on calling them "the two Wachowski Brothers" in the prose. Also, that they were brothers at the time rather than related in some other way is not essential information for the film article, so to say "brothers" in the prose is to be more specific about their relationship than the film article needs to be. (2) You don't seem to have stated any objection to my suggestion that we use a pattern of "credited name (now know as current name)". That suggestion has nothing to do with which (if either) is a more "dominant" name, which was discussed by AngusWOOF. So I take it that that part of my suggestion is acceptable. (3) This point seems to solely address the issue of what the infobox should say. But be careful what you argue: Amazon has the film for sale and lists "Lana Wachowski" as one of the directors. A quick google search for "Lana Wachowski Matrix" brings up dozens of news articles that say that "Lana" was a co-director of the film. So if you insist too hard on what references say, you will find a stronger argument for using "Lana" than you might think. 99.192.71.35 (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.56.248)

Anthonydraco, your comments about my intentions or politics are inaccurate and unhelpful. I politely suggest you consider WP:AGF and WP:FOC: focus on the content, rather than the person making the edit.

You put forth an argument for a particular approach, which you explain clearly. Thanks for that. However, what you don't do is provide much justification for that approach with specific reference to existing Wikipedia policy or guideline, or WikiProject Film guideline. (The Project guideline applies to the infobox only and the discussion I linked to earlier explicitly states that the question of how to handle the matter in the article prose has not been resolved. You do refer to "Reference" policy, but I am unclear what you mean here. WP:REF doesn't support your position, for example.)

The Wikipedia community has considered these issues before and come up with MOS:IDENTITY. We are bound to follow that guideline. Editors on Wikipedia should not, by themselves, decide willy-nilly which policies and guidelines they are going to follow and which they are going to ignore. That undermines the whole project. If you think MOS:IDENTITY is wrong, then discuss that at the relevant Talk page. If you think MOS:IDENTITY is OK, but needs clearer interpretation in the context of articles covered by WikiProject Film, then that's why I started this discussion: to get some consensus on that. But to achieve that consensus, I suggest we must recognise that any interpretation of MOS:IDENTITY has to respect that guideline and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. To seek to circumvent MOS:IDENTITY at the outset is to go against WP:POLICY. To simply ignore it or seek to overrule it breaks Wikipedia policy; we must work within it.

Erik, 99.192.56.248, AngusWOOF: thanks for the constructive suggestions. I agree with 99.192.56.248 and AngusWOOF that, in the specific case of the Wachowskis, the phrase "the Wachowskis" (rather than "the Wachowski Brothers") seems like a very convenient compromise that satisfies MOS:IDENTITY without causing any confusion to the reader. However, Darkwarriorblake and Anthonydraco both oppose that edit. Bondegezou (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: Anthonydraco, you make several references to "historical accuracy". As I understand the reasoning behind MOS:IDENTITY, the argument is that Lana/Larry was always fundamentally a woman, even if Lana/Larry appeared to be and/or identified as a man at the time. Id est, it is more historically accurate to reflect that Lana/Larry was a she at the time. Now, I am no expert on the subject. I offer that in way of explanation, not as my own personal view. You can, of course, disagree with that thesis. However, I reiterate, the decision has been made and MOS:IDENTITY stands as a guideline we must work under. If you want MOS:IDENTITY changed, the appropriate course of action is to go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and seek a new consensus. It is not appropriate to seek to circumvent the Manual of Style for your 'local patch' of articles. At least, that's my understanding of Wikipedia policy: do tell me if you disagree. Bondegezou (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I also support the usage of the "Wachowski Brothers" when referring to the authorship of the film. MOS:IDENTITY is not a policy, it's a guiding principle that asks to be senistive to people's identity choices. However, it does not exist to support historical revisionism, and WP:VERIFIABLE is a policy which trumps guidelines i.e. Wikipedia exists to document verifiable fact, and when a policy and a guideline don't meet on good terms the policy trumps the guideline. The biological relationship between the Wachowskis was integral to their partnership at the time (and still is) so accurately documenting it comes before being sensitive to Larry's gender choice. Second of all, "Wachowski Brothers" does not just describe their relationship, it is also a professional credit: this is the credit used on the copyright registration, so it is also a stage name in the way "The Beatles" was. We don't remove the band name from their albums simply because they split up and no longer go by that name. Furthermore, they themselves have not applied to update the revised credit on their copyright registration which they are entitled to do, so we are being presumptious to assume this is no longer how they wish to be identified in relation to the film. So to summarise: "Wachowski Brothers" is the professional credit they used at the time, and which the copyright of the film continues to be assigned to, and WP:V trumps MOS:IDENTITY when it comes to documenting verifiable fact. Betty Logan (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This is my consideration as well. Would the film's have been made if it was Lana and Andy? Who knows, it was 1999. If you revise enough it gets to a point where 60 years from now no one would know the reality of the situation and it would just be lost. It's a comparatively minor situation in perspective but symptomatic of the larger problem concerning a vocal and perceivably over sensitive group who make the same edit and justify it as respecting a solitary individuals feelings, when the individual feelings of a person should not have a bearing on what we record here, otherwise we would have to remove any and all criticism from articles in case a person's feelings were hurt. It's a weak arguement and not an adequate justification for retroactively modifying historical events.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you just have to write from the perspective of the events you are documenting, otherwise it becomes very confusing. When the film was being made they were brothers, so that's how you write it. If you document a film they make now, then they are still brothers except one in a transgender female known as "Lana", so that's how you identify her. The only time I would consider breaking away from that format is if you are actually documenting revisionism i.e. if Lana was interviewed now about The Matrix, and we wanted to include that in the article. In a case like that I would advocate something along the lines of "Larry Wachowski (subsequently known as a Lana) would later comment that the sequels were crap and they just did it for the money". It's that sort of scenario MOS:IDENTITY is designed for, so we don't omit relevant context to put events into the correct perspective. Betty Logan (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Betty: "...they are still brothers except one [is] a transgender female...." It is becoming more clear that you did not misspeak (miswrite) earlier and that the problem is you don't fully understand what it means to be transgender. Lana is not Andy's brother. Lana is Andy's sister. They were brothers before, but are not brothers now. That's why they have changed how they collectively identify from "the Wachowski Brothers" to "the Wachowskis". 99.192.74.65 (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.56.248)

By dominant name, I was assuming stage names at the same time where there might be career prose like "Dr. Jekyll did this. He then as Mr. Hyde did that. And then returned as Jekyll did this." For Wachowski, this is not the case. However, if you want to clarify when they use "The Wachowskis" vs. "The Wachowski Brothers" in the Filmography production credits, you can certainly make a "Credited as" column for that. I did that for Sutter_Kain#Singles. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Bondegezou: "...the argument is that Lana/Larry was always fundamentally a woman, even if Lana/Larry appeared to be and/or identified as a man at the time." There are two different issues you are confusing here: gender and name. Regardless of how Lana self-identified at the time, her name was "Larry" when The Matrix was made. To try to sort out when a person changed (if they ever did) how they self-identify and use that as a benchmark for reference is too murky for a film article. So using "Larry (now known as Lana)" as I suggested acknowledges the clear facts of name identity while not getting into the less clear identification timeline.

Reply to Betty Logan: Two comments. (1) If you look at the film articles for films made by the Coen brothers, you will find that in the infobox they are always credited separately as Joel Coen and Ethan Coen and never as "the Coen brothers", yet in the prose for those same film articles they are frequently called "the Coen brothers". I see no reason why that is a problem or how it is any different from calling the Wachowskis "the Wachowski Brothers" in the infobox and "the Wachowskis" in the prose. (2) I assume that you just misspoke (miswrote?), but just to be clear, to use the phrase "Larry's gender choice" is to misrepresent the situation. A person can choose their sex by having it surgically altered, but a person no more chooses their gender than they choose their sexual orientation.

Reply to Darkwarriorblake: Your entire comment assumes that how a person is referred to is a question of sensitivity to feelings. You rightly point out that this is a poor argument to use, but it is not one I have used at all. Bondegezou, who started this discussion here, has also not used that as an argument. My example of Muhammad Ali is not based on whether it would hurt his feelings either. Your response here seems to assume arguments not being made here and which I, like you, think are very weak ones. 99.192.74.65 (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.56.248)

Dear Bondegezou, so now a respectable user has taken time to describe the point for us. To simply ignore WP:VERIFIABLE or seek to overrule it breaks Wikipedia policy; we must work within it. A manual of style/guideline is not a policy.

Regarding the links on WP:AGF and WP:FOC, thank you. Allow me to return the courtesy: I politely suggest you look up on a Wikipedia suggestion saying "Don't template the regulars". Providing the link itself goes against that suggestion, so I won't. I also suggest you heed your own advice and focus on content too, as by criticizing me through providing those links, you've gone against your own suggestion.

99.192.56.248, I did not suggest an alternative because I've pretty much made clear that they should be credited as "The Wachowski Brothers". Only. We already have the blue link that connect "The Wachowski Brothers" to "The Wachowskis". That's the whole point of the link, more of this is redundant and more political than historical. Like Betty said, "The Wachowski Brothers" not only indicates the director's relationship, it is also the accurate credit. We don't remove the band name from their albums simply because they split up and no longer go by that name. And if you find references that Lana directed it, provide them as much as you like; they will only prove that Lana was the same human being as Larry who directed it, but none of that will ever prove that she directed The Matrix while still Lana. There will be, however, evidences confirming that she directed it while still Larry. And those recent search results you've run into were written like that out of respect to her. Their concern is different from us. Perhaps you should heed your own advice: be careful when you argue. The amount of evidence does not overrule its quality. It might be weaker than you think. Anthonydraco (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S. to 99.192.56.248, "Coen brothers" is a generic reference. Wikipedia let you choose how you word it. However, "The Wachowski Brothers" - please note the capital letter of the word Brother - is not. It was the name they chose. They chose to be identified so during the production of that movie, and, more importantly, they were credited as such by the official source material. It stays because of WP:verifiable. Anthonydraco (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Anthonydraco, (1) Do you object to the article for the film Requiem for a Heavyweight saying, "Cassius Clay, later known as Muhammad Ali, appears as Quinn's opponent in a boxing match at the beginning of the movie...."? (2) Joel Coen and Ethan Coen are how they chose to be identified during the production of their movies and is how they were credited - as two separate people, not two parts of a single whole. Yet referring to them as "the Coen brothers" is not problematic in the prose of the film articles. Nor does it seem to be a problem for naming the article about them Coen brothers rather than calling the article Joel Coen and Ethan Coen. The term "the Wachowskis" used in the prose can just as easily be a generic reference to them. So as long as the infobox continues to refer to them as credited ("the Wachowski Brothers") there should be no problem with the more generic reference in the prose. The situations are entirely the same. 99.192.74.65 (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.56.248)

Not entirely the same. The difference I see here is that Joel and Ethan Coen can accurately be described as "Coen brothers" at any point in their careers (or indeed lives). This transition was a bureaucratic one, and has no real importance outside DGA arbitration. The transition from Larry to Lana, on the other hand, was a substantive personal and physical process, one which received much media attention, and it's tied directly to the change in credit from "The Wachowski Brothers" to "The Wachowskis". Retroactively referring to Joel and Ethan as the "Coen brothers" is no big deal, but using Lana and Andy's official credit in the article for a 1999 film is bringing in all sorts of baggage that simply doesn't belong there. —Flax5 21:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Flax5, you don't seem to understand the scope of what is being discussed. You referred to changing the "official credit in the article for a 1999 film", but no one is suggesting we do that. The premise for the initial post starting this discussion was that it has been settled that the name the person was credited as at the time is the name that should go in the infobox. No one here is disputing that. As for the example of the Coens, they are officially credited separately as Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, but are often referred to in the prose in film articles as "the Coen brothers". No problem. So it should be equally no problem that for The Matrix the official credit in the infobox is "The Wachowski Brothers", yet they be referred to as "Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski" in the prose. The two cases are a perfect mirror image. In fact, in the prose for True Grit they are sometimes called "the Coen brothers", sometimes "the Coens", and sometimes just "the brothers". The prose allows several different ways of referring to them, none of which is the way they are officially credited. The official credit is strictly adhered to in the infobox, but not in the prose. So I don't see why in the case of The Matrix there is this need to slavishly follow the official way the Wachowskis are credited when it comes to the prose.

I am not disputing that Lana should be referred to as "Larry" in the prose of the article. All I have suggested is the first time that "Larry" is used (in the prose, not the infobox) a simple parenthetical be allowed that says "now known as Lana". This is why the Muhammad Ali and The Beatles examples are precisely on point. They already do the thing I am suggesting. And the articles for the films of the Coen brothers already do the other thing I am suggesting. 99.192.55.145 (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.56.248)

BTW, since Betty Logan and Anthonydraco both have used The Beatles as an example, I direct you to the page for My Bonnie, which begins, "My Bonnie is the name of a 1961 single, a 1962 album and a 1963 EP by Tony Sheridan and The Beat Brothers, better known as The Beatles." It seems even with The Beatles editors follow the pattern I suggested. Whether a parenthetical or an appositive phrase set off by commas, it is a solution that acknowledges both the credited name at the time and the current name. 99.192.74.65 (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.56.248)

Considering that The Beatles were perhaps the most successful and influential musical group of all time, whereas "The Beat Brothers" was just a credit they used in a brief period both preceded by and followed by work under the "Beatles" name, I would say that My Bonnie is an exceptional case – that article would hardly make sense without mentioning The Beatles. —Flax5 21:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

9.192.56.248, do I object wording The Matrix like the article for the film Requiem for a Heavyweight saying, "Cassius Clay, later known as Muhammad Ali, appears as Quinn's opponent in a boxing match at the beginning of the movie...."? Yes, I do. That "the Wachowski" can be used generically means that there is no need to explain the obvious generic grammatical point for those who can understand English. It's already generic, with links to help you understand besides. It's just another term in our generic references inventory, and we're already using it in the prose to reduce monotony and repetition. There is no reason to push it into being used exclusively in the prose or used in the infobox. People who come across "Joel and Ethan Coen" can easily understand that they are "Coen brothers". People who run into "The Wachowski Brothers" will understand that "the Wachowskis" are "the Wachowski Brothers" or "Larry Wachowski and Andy Wachowski" as well. Unlike Cassius Clay and Muhammad Ali, which sound easily like two different persons. That requires clarification. Anthonydraco (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Betty Logan, thank you for a policy-based response. I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of WP:V and MOS:IDENTITY. MOS:IDENTITY was drafted in the context of WP:V (and other policies). It says, "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life." When MOS:IDENTITY was drafted, the issue of an individual's gender at another time being different was considered and MOS:IDENTITY is very clear on what we should do.

You suggest MOS:IDENTITY "asks to be senistive to people's identity choices" and "does not exist to support historical revisionism". That, if I may say so, appears to be your interpretation of MOS:IDENTITY's intent. I have reviewed some of the (very extensive) discussion (e.g. at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_133#Modification_to_MOS:IDENTITY, which specifically considers the Wachowskis) and it's more complicated than that. There is more to MOS:IDENTITY than being sensitive to people's identity choices (although that's part of it). What is historically accurate is debatable (is it accurate to say L. Wachowski was a man/brother at the time, or is it more accurate to say L. Wachowski was a pre-male-to-female transexual?). What is clear, however, is that the issue of WP:V and how an individual was referred to by reliable sources at the time was considered in the drafting of MOS:IDENTITY.

If you feel MOS:IDENTITY is wrong, go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. I feel a discussion here can only consider how we interpret MOS:IDENTITY (and WP:V and other policies and guidelines) in the context of film articles. The argument you present is not specific to film articles, and covers ground that was thoroughly explored in the drafting and maintenance of MOS:IDENTITY.

More generally, most (but not all) people in the discussion above support the use of notes (parenthetical, footnote, whatever) to explain the issue to the reader. Is that somewhere where we can reach consensus? So, when first mentioning the Wachowskis (be it as "the Wachowskis" or "the Wachowski Brothers"), we include a note saying Larry is now Lana. OK/not OK? Bondegezou (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

On the subject of WP:V, it is verifiable fact that "The Matrix" was made by two people, who were credited at the time as Brothers, but one of whom now identifies as a woman. I do not see how it is revisionist to note this, and yet "The Matrix" article makes no mention of it at all. It appears to me more revisionist that "The Matrix" article appears to go out of its way to not mention the matter. Bondegezou (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree with the wording of MOS:IDENTITY, especially when it says we should write of a transgender male "becoming a parent" as opposed to "giving birth". This is obsfucating a verifiable fact and directly conflicts with WP:V. Becoming a parent is not the same as giving birth, so the guideline is advocating historical revisionism that directly contradicts WP:V. When a guideline comes into direct conflict with a policy, the policy takes precedence. The spirit of MOS:IDENTITY is to add context, not to remove it. Betty Logan (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Betty, you're right ... but you're wrong :-) It is not false to say that Courteney Cox "became a parent" in 2004 when her daughter was born. That she also "gave birth" to her daughter is not contradicted by the more general phrase. It is not "revisionist" to use a phrase that is 100% true, both at the time the child was born and now. You are right, however, that this is a badly chosen example. Talking about someone becoming a parent is most likely going to happen in a personal article, which will also fully deal with the fact that the person is transgender, thus there will be no confusion created by saying "gave birth" on that page. 99.192.76.127 (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.56.248)

Bondegezou, I have not commented so far on the issue of what pronouns should be used because, frankly, it is a bit confusing. For most people their sex and their gender "match". Most people are either both male and a man or female and a woman. But in the case of a transgender person (who has not had sex reassignment surgery) a person can be male and a woman or female and a man, so the question of whether pronouns should track the person's sex or their gender is not intuitively obvious, at least to those of us who are not transgender. But to those who are it generally seems obvious that pronouns should track gender, not sex and MOS:IDENTITY has been written to specifically acknowledge that fact. Since a person's gender does not change over time (regardless of whether or not the person's sex changes), it means that the correct pronoun to use for a male (sex) woman (gender) is "she" even when referring to a time when the person had a male name, male genitalia, and presented as a man.

So while it would be right to refer to Lana as "Larry" in the article for The Matrix, it also seems that the article should use the pronoun "she" when referring to Larry. While that might seem jarring to anyone not used to talking about transgender people (which is most of us!), it is nevertheless correct. The closest thing I can compare it to would be if Lana had been both female and a girl from birth, but no one knew it because she had presented as a boy/man her entire life and only after The Matirx was made her true identity was revealed. In a case like that, we would think that "she" is correct, even though no one knew that she was a "she" at the time. With gender it is very similar. Lana was a "she" (gender) at the time the film was made, even though no one knew it then. But since we know it now, the film article should say "she" when mentioning "Larry", not "he".

MOS:IDENTITY does also advise that we should "avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text", and since using "she" when talking about "Larry" in the article for The Matrix will be confusing to many, it is probably best to word sentences so that no gendered pronoun is needed. I am reminded of how for the article for Let the Right One In (film) the result of discussion about the question of Eli's sex/gender resulted in a decision to avoid using gendered pronouns in reference to Eli. It sometimes take a bit of thinking to figure out how to word things, but it can be done. So when it comes to the personal article for The Wachowskis, using "she" for Lana even when her name was Larry is what MOS:IDENTITY requires, but for the article for The Martix the recommendation to "avoid confusion" suggests that pronouns be avoided altogether for Larry/Lana. 99.192.76.127 (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.56.248)

Did someone say Groundhog Day? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't believe anyone did, but for those people still worried about "historical accuracy" I thought it might be a good idea to see how some actual articles about history handle place name changes. Here are a couple of examples:

Siege of Leningrad: The city is called "Leningrad" throughout the article, but in the opening sentence it says, "Leningrad—historically and currently known as Saint Petersburg—...."

Bombay Explosion (1944): The city is called "Bombay" throughout the article, but the first sentence says, "The Bombay Explosion ... occurred on 14 April 1944, in the Victoria Dock of Bombay (now Mumbai) when...."

I even checked a biography article for a person whose home town has changed name and found this"

Paul Shaffer: The "Early years" section begins, "Shaffer was born and raised in Fort William (now Thunder Bay), Ontario, Canada...."

Conclusion? No historical inaccuracy is introduced by adding a "now known as ..." comment on one occasion when a person or place has changed name. 99.192.73.25 (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.56.248)

To continue the theme of historical accuracy, Lana Wachowski has been out as a transexual to family and friends since at least 2001: see [4]. When precisely she identified herself as being transexual is unclear, but in that cite she discusses feelings and experiences in childhood. Thus, both "The Matrix Reloaded" and "The Matrix Revolutions" were, while credited to "The Wachowski Brothers", made by an individual who identified as a woman to herself, to her key collaborator (her brother) and to (unspecified, unknown) others. If historical accuracy trumps everything, would it not be appropriate for the articles for those films to consider changing "The Wachowski Brothers" to "the Wachowskis" in their ledes? Bondegezou (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

WP: OTHERSTUFF and as explained twice by myself now, biographical articles. If the credits are wrong, fix them, "boldly" making a chance at The Matrix in contravention of both the standing discussion and ongoing discussion is just being obstructionist, there is no time demand on the change and no case made for making the chance as we give exactly 0 f's when she identified herself to her friends and family and exactly 1 f' about what the credit is and the credits she chose to use as late as 2009. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Saw your edits on Reloaded and Revolutions too, do you honestly think that mini essay is required to address an issue unrelated entirely to the film and in ignorance of this ongoing discussion? You betray yourself as too invested in the gender issue rather than detatched and beholden to reality alone. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Bondegezou, I disagree. For the purposes of the film articles, it does not matter how she self-identified in 1999 or 2001. The historical fact is that in 1999 her name was "Larry" and they were credited as "The Wachowski Brothers", just as in 1944 Mumbi was "Bombay". As that article uses "Bombay" throughout in the prose, it makes sense for the article for The Matrix to use "Larry" throughout the prose. But just as on the first mention there is the parenthetical "now Mumbai" it also makes sense to have a parenthetical "now Lana" for her.

MOS:IDENTITY makes it clear that it does not matter how she identified in 1999 or 2001, it is how she identifies today that matters. As such, if any pronouns at all are to be used, they should be "she" and "her". But as MOS:IDENTITY also makes clear, it is important to avoid confusing the reader, thus my suggestion that all gendered pronouns be avoided when writing about her in The Matrix article.

As for my argument about "The Wachowski Brothers" vs "the Wachowskis" in the prose, it does not matter how she identifies then or now for my argument to be right. Neither of the Coen brothers has changed how they identify, yet the prose on their film articles stands several different ways of referring to them other than their official credit, so the same should be true for the Wachowskis. There is no good reason to insist on using "The Wachowski Brothers" in the prose, regardless of gender identification issues. 99.192.73.25 (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.56.248)

Did someone say Groundhog Day? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

If the prose on the Coen brothers film articles stands several different ways of referring to them other than their official credit, it means that we are allowed to use something else to break the monotony. But there is no reason to exclude "The Wachowski Brothers" as one of the alternatives either. The most obvious good reason not to is that it is the official credit. And not everyone interpret MOS the same way, nor believe that it is set in stone or overrides everything. Anthonydraco (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Anthonydraco, the term "The Wachowski Brothers" is retained in the infobox, as per WikiProject Film guidelines. No-one (I think) has suggested changing that. I concur that MOS:IDENTITY does not override everything else. That doesn't mean you can simply ignore it, however.

99.192.73.25, I agree with you that MOS:IDENTITY is clear that it only matters how Lana Wachowski currently identifies. However, I was trying to work with those editors who are troubled by a straightforward interpretation of MOS:IDENTITY. User:Betty Logan in comments above talked about historical accuracy, that the article should reflect the situation at the time, even saying "The biological relationship between the Wachowskis was integral to their partnership at the time (and still is) so accurately documenting it comes before being sensitive to Larry's gender choice." User:Darkwarriorblake has also talked about historical accuracy. This notion of 'historical accuracy', of reflecting the situation at the time, appears to be the main reason given for overriding MOS:IDENTITY.

If those individuals who oppose a straightforward interpretation of MOS:IDENTITY feel it is important to reflect the situation at the time, I presumed they would be open to a reliably sourced edit demonstrating that Lana identified as a woman at the time of the second two Matrix movies. I, thus, boldly made edits along those lines to The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions. However, Darkwarriorblake promptly reverted them. I am left unclear what the argument is for ignoring the issue if they reject Lana's current gender as not being historically relevant and they reject reliably sourced edits about Lana's gender at the time. We are left with the notion that the official credit overrides everything else and, indeed, forbids even any parenthetical notes etc. I just don't get how that makes sense. Bondegezou (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Bondegezou, you were writing the above comment while I was writing the one below, so I forgot to comment on this one until now. Sorry about that. Here's my reply: What editors who express a concern about "historical accuracy" and you both don't seem to understand is that the question of when a person self-identifies as transgender is irrelevant. The situation is much like sexual orientation in that way. It is not unusual for homosexuals to not come to the realization that they are gay until they are adults, and in some cases it can come fairly late in life. But for those people they do not become gay when they realize that they are gay. They always were gay and just didn't recognize it. Someone who is transgender, similarly, does not become transgender at some point in their life, even if it takes them decades before they come to the realization that they are transgender. That is why MOS:IDENTITY says that pronouns reflecting the person's actual gender should be used for transgender people even when writing about a time in their life before they realized that they were transgender. So when Lana knew that she was a "she" and when she started telling people that she is a "she" does not matter. She has always been a "she" whether or not anyone knew it, including herself. Thus the sentence "She was born in 1965" is historically accurate and "He was born in 1965" is not. Because of how being transgender works, the issue of "historical accuracy" has nothing to do with when a person comes to realize that they are transgender or when they start telling people that they are transgender.

Having said all that, the issue of a person's name is entirely a different matter and has nothing to do with their gender, trans or otherwise. Lana's name used to be "Larry". It was "Larry" when the film The Matrix was made. Lana's name was not "Lana" at that time. So for full and proper historical accuracy, it is correct to refer to Lana as "Larry" in the article for The Matrix and not as "Lana". Yes, the name change was because of a change in how she presented her gender to the world, but her name and her gender are still two independent facts with independent temporal circumstances. Why a person changes their name is immaterial when the issue is referring to them by name in a historically accurate way. When a person came to realize that they are transgender is immaterial when the issue is referring to their gender in a historically accurate way. 99.192.92.149 (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.56.248)

Anthonydraco, this looks like a productive suggestion. I see no reason to exclude "The Wachowski Brothers" entirely from the prose. If a capital "T" and a capital "B" are being used, it indicates that the phrase is being used as a name, not as a description of them and their relationship. As such, I would suggest that when "The Wachowski Brothers" is used in the prose for the first time it be followed with the parenthetical "(now known as The Wachowskis)". If the prose refers to Lana by name, it should be as "Larry", but on the first occurrence it should say "Larry (now known as Lana). Subsequent informal descriptions could include sometimes saying "The Wachowski Brothers" (with or without capitals on the "T" and "B"), sometimes "the Wachowskis", and sometimes as "Larry and Andy Wachowski". That's all fine with me. It's also fine with me that the prose never says "Lana Wachowski" unless referring specifically to something she did or said after she changed her name. Given the use of parentheticals or the equivalent in a variety of types of articles I have linked to, it should not be a problem to include them in the article for The Matrix 99.192.73.25 (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.56.248)

An attempt at summing up

Interest in this discussion seems to be waning, so it might be a good idea to see where we are. The issue has come up before and probably will come up again, so it might be useful to conclude with some sort of "state of the discussion" report. Here is how I think things stand on the key issues. Anyone who thinks I have it wrong is free to jump back in the discussion and point it out.

• Infoboxes - No one in the above discussion has recommended changing the current policy on what names are used in infoboxes for film articles. That policy, which is to report the name that the person was credited as in the film at the time, remains unaffected by the above discussion.
• Names used in film articles - People involved in making films will, from time to time, change their names. Those changes might be for reasons of marriage (eg; Roseanne Barr), because of a change in public identification of gender (eg; Wendy Carlos), for religious reasons (eg; Muhammad Ali), or for other professional or personal reasons (eg; Larry Fishburne or Nicolas Coppola). But as the infobox is designed to record the historical fact of what name the person used at the time the film was made, so too should the prose of the article. Thus in the prose of film articles, people should generally be referred to by their credited name at the time the film was made.
• Parenthetically noting name changes - Historical articles like Siege of Leningrad and Bombay Explosion (1944) and biographical articles that mention place names like Paul Shaffer further support the idea that the name-at-the-time should be used in articles. But they also support the idea that a one-time parenthetical of the form "(now know as ...)" located after the first use of a name-that-has-since-been-changed in the prose is both acceptable and can be helpful to a reader. The same can be done for names in film articles, as it already is done in the article for the film Requiem for a Heavyweight
• "Team" names, especially "brothers" - When two or more people are officially credited or well known as a team that works together, there often is a need or a desire to refer to them using a collective term. This is seen frequently in cases of sibling film directing teams like the Coens, the Farrellys, and the Wachowskis. In those cases, the infobox should continue (as per the above) to list their names as officially credited, whether they are named individually in the credits or collectively. In the prose, however, it is acceptable to refer to these teams in various ways. So that Joel and Ethan Coen are officially credited individually on their films is not a reason to refrain from using the phrase "the Coens" in the prose of the article. When Peter and Bobby Farrelly are credited separately it is acceptable for the prose to refer to them as "the Farrelly brothers". And that Andy and Lana (formerly known as "Larry") Wachowski were often credited as "the Wachowski Brothers" is not a reason to refrain from using "Andy and Larry Wachowski" or "the Wachowskis" in the prose.
• "Team" name changes - When two or more people are typically credited and known by a "team" name and that team name is officially changed, the above suggests that it would be appropriate and acceptable for the first time the credited-at-the-time team name is used in the prose that a parenthetical be included to report the new team name they are now known by. So since "the Wachowski Brothers" is the team name the two Wachowskis were officially credited as and well known as at the time the Matrix films were made and they are now officially credited and well known as "the Wachowskis", it would be reasonable and acceptable for the first time they are mentioned in the prose of older film articles for it to read "the Wachowski Brothers (now known as the Wachowskis)". This patten can be seen used in articles like My Bonnie.
• Gender references - Sometimes it happens that a person's gender is thought to be one gender and later learned to be another gender. In such cases MOS:IDENTITY is clear that people "should be referred to by the gendered ... pronouns and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." So while the name used in the article might be the name-at-the-time, not the current name of the person, the pronouns need to be updated if there is new information about a person's gender. But MOS:IDENTITY also advises that we should "avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text". Thus to fully follow the recommendations of MOS:IDENTITY it is best if possible to simply avoid gendered pronouns in a film article when referring to a person who is transgender.

For anyone who thinks the above is too long-winded and wants the shortest possible summary of what to do about Lana Wachowski in The Matrix article, here it is:

• Infobox - "The Wachowski Brothers"
• Prose - all of "the Wachowski Brothers", "the Wachowskis", "Andy and Larry Wachowski", and just "Larry Wachowski" are acceptable. Using "Lana Wachowski" in the prose is incorrect.
• Parentheticals - After the first use of "the Wachowski Brothers" in the prose it is acceptable to add the parenthetical "(now known as the Wachowskis)" and after the first use of "Larry" in the prose it is acceptable to add the parenthetical "(now known as Lana)"
• Pronouns - Female pronouns should be used for when talking about "Larry", but it is better to rewrite anything so that no gendered pronoun is needed.

Does that sound right? 99.192.69.149 (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.56.248)

I have been busy during the week. US FOMC's minutes, US job reports, etc. and how they are going to affect my investments is among my concerns aside from my day job. I cannot speak for others, but I agree about a few suggestions, namely the first point, the second point, and the third. However, I've noted a little difference in the third suggestion. The summary suggested we use Lana, then add that she was then Larry. But what you've suggested later that we put in the article say that we use Larry, then add that she is now Lana. I must insist that when the parenthetic comma is used, "Larry" must be the main clause, and "Lana" must be the modifier clause. In other words, we say "Larry Wachowski (currently/now known as Lana)" or whatever, because it leaves no room to misunderstanding. Saying "Lana Wachowski, formerly known as Larry" can be confusing, because "formerly" can mean "before directing the movie". Since the article puts you in the movie production's time frame, it could be interpreted that she was Larry BEFORE directing, then directed it as Lana, which is incorrect. While saying "Larry, currently/now known as Lana" can only mean she is Lana NOW, as we speak. Please keep in mind that a good article criteria pays attention to good wording. Clarity is definitely a part of this, so better be clear.

Also, I believe your suggestions on pronouns is a little over the top. Avoiding gender is politically correct, but since language is another concern, it must read well too. Referring to Larry as her, or avoiding gendered pronoun too obviously can be jarring to casual readers. So the problem is that you must come up with a way to do it well. I will not prevent you from finding a way, but I will take no part in this, as I believe that referring to her past self as a he is good already when it comes to language. So I hope you can come up with a solution. And since I cannot speak for others, I suggest you discuss the new wording on the article's talk page before you actually overhaul it, so the editors who have agreed on the current wording and use of gender pronouns have no problem with it either. Anthonydraco (talk) 09:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Anthonydraco: "The summary suggested we use Lana, then add that she was then Larry." No. You are misreading it. "I must insist that when the parenthetic comma is used, "Larry" must be the main clause, and "Lana" must be the modifier clause." That is what I have suggested is the agreed conclusion of the discussion. We are in complete agreement on that matter.

"Also, I believe your suggestions on pronouns is a little over the top." Insofar as you are talking about using female pronouns, it's not my suggestion. It is what the MOS:IDENTITYall guideline requires. But insofar as you are talking about avoiding the use of any pronoun, it is a lot less difficult to do than you might think. But if it seems impossible to avoid a pronoun without making the text torturous, we still have the MOS:IDENTITY requirement that we use "her" to fall back on.

"I believe that referring to her past self as a he is good already when it comes to language." Yes, lots of people believe this, but it is the equivalent of referring to a person as heterosexual for the time of their life before they "came out" as gay, even after we now know that the person is gay. You might be ok with it, but it is factually incorrect, which is why the guideline tells us to use the correct pronouns. 99.192.84.19 (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.56.248)

When it comes to writing about transgender people, the correct practice is to use the pronouns and names consistent with the target gender regardless of whether they were externally presenting as that gender at the time you're writing about. We did not make this rule up ourselves just to be difficult or "politically correct" — every media style guide on earth that has any reputability at all on usage matters (AP, Canadian Press, etc.) will tell you the exact same thing. You need to look at it from the transgender person's perspective for a moment: doing otherwise is essentially robbing them of their self-identity, essentially bifurcating them into two different people, in a way that no non-transgender person ever has to face. It is, as 99 points out above, like saying that a gay person was straight and then turned gay, rather than acknowledging that they were always gay and just hadn't come out yet.

Lana Wachowski has a real, recognized real medical condition, in which the gender of her brain and the physical sex of her body didn't match up correctly the way they do for most people. That condition has real, recognized causes — it is not a delusion, or a casual decision that people suddenly undertake on a whim, but rather it actually does have a real biological basis. It really does happen to a small minority of people. And yes, it does cause complications for us when a person who was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article comes out about it, and we have to figure out how to deal with the change in her public presentation — but for WP:BLP reasons, we have to err on the side of respect for her self-identity. There are ways to respect her internal gender identity, all the way back to birth, without writing the article in an excessively confusing way — you may have to think a little bit more creatively than usual about how to phrase yourself, but it can be done.

But there is absolutely no way in which it is ever acceptable to misrepresent, discount or undermine a transgender person's preferred gender identity in any way, for any reason. When there's a problem, you are obliged to find the solution that best defers to the fact that Wachowski's gender identity is female. We can certainly acknowledge, for example, that their directing credit at the time was "Wachowski Brothers" while still deferring to "the Wachowskis" instead of "the Wachowski brothers" anywhere that it isn't contextually critical to follow the exact wording of the credit itself (such as running body text.)

But even more importantly, the question has to be asked as to why Lana Wachowski should somehow be subject to different standards of acceptance for her gender identity than a trans woman who was already out as transgender before she became famous. The other woman would be written about in a consistently female way all the way back to birth, so why should Wachowski not have that same right? Because it might be a little bit confusing a few readers? When it is possible for us to write her as consistently female without getting unnecessarily confusing about it? This is not difficult stuff here. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

99.192.69.149, Yes, lots of people believe this, but it is the equivalent of referring to a person as heterosexual for the time of their life before they "came out" as gay, even after we now know that the person is gay. No, it is not an equivalent. Referring to a person as a he is not referring to a person as a heterosexual. Please do not try to pass it off as a fact. While the guideline appeases your sensitivity over the issue, what you said in this regard is simply not true. Calling someone a he is not branding someone with a preference, and some gay is also happy to be called a he. While this might not be true in her case, you have no reference to prove that she is unhappy to be called so either. So please don’t impose this as a fact. And if it the wording is too jarring, I will not hesitate to change it, and even if I don't, there will be others who will. You have MOS:IDENTITY to back you, other editors that disagree with you have it too: WP:MOS saying that Consistency in language, style, and formatting promotes clarity and cohesion. Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best; avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording. Since MOS does not prevent neither sides from doing what we want, if you wish to reword the article that way, feel free, but do not be surprised if, without a settled agreement there, others might revert some changes because they too can exercise their editing privilege as much as you can yours. The current version is a consensus settled through editing. You did not find a record of the discussion because active contributors eventually find a way to make a version stable through actions.

Dear Bearcat, allow me to repeat the same statement as above: Referring to a person as a he is not referring to a person as a heterosexual. I am aware that sexuality is condition decided in utero, so her mental gender is decided since birth, same as her physical, though they might not match. That is what I said to my father. But calling someone a he is not branding someone with a preference, and some gay is also happy to be called a he. A person can be both gay AND a he.

But there is absolutely no way in which it is ever acceptable to misrepresent, discount or undermine a transgender person's preferred gender identity in any way, for any reason. When there's a problem, you are obliged to find the solution that best defers to the fact that Wachowski's gender identity is female. Forgive my bluntness, but I am afraid you're mistaking something here. None of these announcement makes a rule anyone have to conform on Wikipedia.

Because it might be a little bit confusing a few readers? When it is possible for us to write her as consistently female without getting unnecessarily confusing about it? Since Wikipedia is written for everyone, its article is written so as many people as possible can understand it. Writing the article in the clearest way possible is better for everyone, not just those few people. WP:MOS suggests clarity for a reason. If you can find a way to phrase it without confusing people, feel free to do it. But please realize that the fact that it can be done only allows you to do it; it does not exclude those who disagree with you from altering it, nor dictates that we must do it or agree with it as well. If it reads well, preserves history, and is sensitive enough to her identity, I'm sure no one else will revert it. Preserving the accurate history of the film, that Lana directed it while still Larry, is also good in the long run. As, say 90 years from now, nobody might know Lana enough to know that he was born physically a he anymore. Naming her Lana in the article or exclusively using The Wachowskis, on the other hand, would only make some happy.

Also kindly read the argument more carefully. We are not talking about WP:BLP. We are discussing about what we are going to put in an article about a movie. Check the article on The Wachowskis and see if she is subjected to a different treatment. The rest of trans do not have a different standard; they just don't have separated articles on their movies. Those movies articles have different concerns: the movies themselves. Not one of the directors. I also would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a place to right Great Wrongs. We're here to write an encyclopedia. We can’t ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. Also please be aware that BLP always contain something a group of people might not be happy with, like Gordon Ramsay, James Eagan Holmes, Robert Bales, or Edward Snowden articles. Anthonydraco (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Referring to a person as a he is not referring to a person as a heterosexual.

and some gay is also happy to be called a he.

You're misunderstanding the point that was even being made if you think that's a germane response — nobody said any different. Gender identity is not the same thing as sexual orientation — but they are similar in the fact that they are still true even before the person chooses to make the fact publicly known to others. A person may appear to be straight before they come out as gay, but we don't write the article from the perspective that their sexual orientation changed; we acknowledge that they were always gay and just not out about it. A person may appear to be male before they come out as transgender, but gender identity is also fixed long before a person chooses to go public about it — so that person has to be extended the same courtesy. Their identity didn't change, just the outward expression of it did.

And yes, we are talking about WP:BLP. That rule applies to any article — regardless of whether its topic is a person, a film, an inanimate object or whatever — if that article contains any information about a living person at all. So yes, it does still apply to a film if there is information about a living person inside the film's article. Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Something that I want to add to Bearcat's points is that we do have a Causes of transsexualism article, which can help people better understand the transgender topic being discussed above. As stated in this section of the Gender identity disorder article, there isn't always brain evidence that supports that a person is transgender, but there is enough evidence suggesting that a genetic mixup does indeed happen, especially with regard to male-to-female transgender people. Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, Bearcat, forgive me. WP:BLP applies to any info about living person, so I'd like to point out that in that very same page, at the top: there's a policy it insists we follow: WP:V, and WP:NOR. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. So until you find sources saying she was credited as Lana while she directed it at the time, calling her Larry and referring to him as Larry at that point in time stays, as it is the sourced credit. Like I said, all the evidence you think you've found will ever prove is that she is the same individual as Larry Wachowski, not that she was credited/named Lana at that point, regardless of whether she had always been Lana in truth. WP:MOS say different thing in different parts, so it's up to editors to use their judgement which pronouns we use. I will not stop you from rewording it, but you cannot stop other editors from changing it or challenging it either. But please assume good faith: this doesn't mean that I or anyone will just revert it back without good reasons. I'll do it only if it doesn't read well. And if you insist that we must follow WP:BLP, as it is mandatory, pray, please point out where in WP:BLP saying we must refer to "Larry" as a she, because it's not WP:MOS.

And yes, that response was germane, because even though the point he was trying to make was about identity, the example he gave was one of sexuality: but it is the equivalent of referring to a person as heterosexual for the time of their life before they "came out" as gay, even after we now know that the person is gay.

Flyer, that you help us understand is well and good. I am afraid, however, that the links you've provided does not exempt the application of WP:V and WP:NOR in the article. Anthonydraco (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I've gotten a bit lost in the most recent comments (Bearcat is right about how Anthonydraco misunderstood my example), so I want to repeat my briefest summation and see if I am right about where you two stand. My summation was:

• Infobox - "The Wachowski Brothers"
• Prose - all of "the Wachowski Brothers", "the Wachowskis", "Andy and Larry Wachowski", and just "Larry Wachowski" are acceptable. Using "Lana Wachowski" in the prose is incorrect.
• Parentheticals - After the first use of "the Wachowski Brothers" in the prose it is acceptable to add the parenthetical "(now known as the Wachowskis)" and after the first use of "Larry" in the prose it is acceptable to add the parenthetical "(now known as Lana)"
• Pronouns - Female pronouns should be used for when talking about "Larry", but it is better to rewrite anything so that no gendered pronoun is needed.

Now if I read you two right, it seems to me that Bearcat is ok with all of this while Anthonydraco only objects to point 4 - "Pronouns". If that is the case, then there is really little else to discuss here as point 4 on pronouns is dictated by MOS:IDENTITY. So Anthonydraco, if you do want to object to applying MOS:IDENTITY I would suggest joining the discussion ongoing at WT:MOS about it, as the guideline would need to be changed before male pronouns could be used for Lana, even when using the name "Larry". You say, "WP:MOS say different thing in different parts, so it's up to editors to use their judgement which pronouns we use." But I searched the page for the word "pronoun" and only find one instruction, that in MOS:IDENTITY. Can you point out where in the MOS it says to use male pronouns when using the name "Larry"? 99.192.94.34 (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

You can follow the link to MOS:IDENTITY. WP:MOS and that page is actually the same one with different link to different parts. What I have referred to is the second lead paragraph at the top. WP:MOS saying that Consistency in language, style, and formatting promotes clarity and cohesion. Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best; avoid ambiguity. You can edit the part to suit her identity, and I will reword anything if it contradicts the part I've quoted. But assume good faith. This is an IF, done to follow both parts of WP:MOS without violating neither, not an obstruction. So there is indeed nothing to discuss, as the same page give us different privilege of editing on different grounds. Because while you are obliged to follow MOS:IDENTITY, you will have to follow WP:MOS lead written on the same page, not just the part you prefer. I will do the same. Anthonydraco (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. The passage you quoted from the lead does not say something different from MOS:IDENTITY. To say, "Larry and her brother Andy..." is consistent, clear, concise, and unambiguous. Nothing in the lead says there is any problem with using female pronouns. 99.192.94.34 (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

That's where we disagree. Lana/Larry preferred identity aside, the name Larry itself sounds male, and by WP:COMMON it's quite jarring to use female pronouns right after. Even if you want to say it's not jarring to you, you know full well that many others will find it so – more people than not naming her Lana. Also remember MOS:IDENTITY saying avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage. While your example is not impossible, it seems like a mistake at first glance. That is why your MOS:IDENTITY says avoid seemingly impossible text. Using our common sense, let's not pretend that if you insist it's not jarring, most people won't find it so. Let's not selectively ignore parts that's inconvenient and face it. I would prefer neutral gender or avoiding it altogether. As long as the new wording reads well, it should be fine, and I won't touch it. But if it doesn't… well, someone will change it anyway – even if I leave it alone. So instead of sitting there and revert every attempt to change it, why not write it well in the first place? Anthonydraco (talk) 09:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

"Also remember MOS:IDENTITY saying avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage. While your example is not impossible, it seems like a mistake at first glance." It is odd that you think I do not know this. Please read all 25 words in the point marked "Pronouns". See? No? Then go back and read the bullet point I wrote called "Gender references" of which it is a summation. I quote that exact part of MOS:IDENTITY there. All the more reason to think that MOS:IDENTITY covers the same ground in the same way as the lead paragraphs. There is no conflict between them.

"That is why your MOS:IDENTITY says...." If you want to call it my MOS:IDENTITY, then you are ignoring the fact that I didn't write it (in fact, the key parts were written over 8 years ago) and suggesting that it is a personal guideline rather than a Wikipedia guideline. At best, this is obnoxious. At worst, it demonstrates bad faith.

"So instead of sitting there and revert every attempt to change it...."' More bad faith. I have not reverted anything, so your suggestion that I have (and in an obsessive way) is dishonest. 99.192.80.196 (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

there is way too much text to dig through here, but the argument FOR the change seems to boil down to satisfying the personal feelings of Lana Wachowski (see this kind of crap by Daira Hopwood "or with general respect for Lana Wachowski"). We don't care about respecting or making Lana Wachowski generally feel good about herself, we're an encylopedia, not a fansite and again, if someone does something BAD, we do not omit that from their article because it is disrespectful or might upset the person in question. Not one person for the change can say anything but MOS: IDENTITY and respect Lana Wachowski. It is failing to convince. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake, the point of my summing up was to avoid making people wade through all the text and also try to avoid just ignoring it and so forgetting what has been established. If you think that the argument here is just about "personal feelings" then you have not read my comments. Mine have nothing to do with "personal feelings". But read the summation I gave. Other than Anthonydraco's worry that the MOS contradicts itself, it seems there is general agreement about what names and pronouns to use. Finally, saying that "Not one person for the change can say anything but MOS:IDENTITY and respect Lana Wachowski" is to show that you have not read most of what has been discussed. The argument for saying "Larry (now known as Lana)" in the article is neither based on MOS:IDENTITY nor "respect" for Lana. It is based on being historically accurate (the "Larry" part) while at the same time being informative to a reader (the "now known as Lana" part) in a way that is minimally intrusive (a one-time, four-word parenthetical). But if you think that nothing more can be said for using female pronouns than MOS:IDENTITY, then you are saying that the argument is based on following Wikipedia's guidelines, not the personal desires of individual editors. That's a good thing. 99.192.80.196 (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

To answer the comment whether I see it: yes, I did see. What made me said what I did was that you haven't come up with another solution that avoid using gendered pronouns altogether yet, and we've been at this over long. Also, by "reverting any attempt to change it" means that even if you go through with referring to Larry as a she as per MOS:IDENTITY, someone will edit it anyway, because of the obviously jarring prose, and it's only up to those who want to conform with the established consensus to revert it back. That means that if some active contributors agree to go through with this too, the reverting burden will also fall on them as well, not just you. Reverting a lot of contributions from a swarm of new editors who aren't aware of the established consensus and answering their challenge every single time can be tedious. I wasn't accusing anyone of obsessively reverting it. Assume good faith. Thank you.

Regarding my ONE mistake in calling it 'your MOS:IDENTITY', forgive the wording, but unlike how we are going to word it in the article, what I've said here is just an attempt to communicate to get the point across. If you cannot get past the fact that I was just referring to MOS:IDENTITY a bit too carelessly, then perhaps you are in no position to call me obnoxious or have bad faith. Assume good faith. Thank you. Anthonydraco (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

"...you haven't come up with another solution that avoid using gendered pronouns altogether yet...." I don't see why I need to come up with another suggestion, give that this was my suggestion and it would work just fine. There is no need to ever use gendered pronouns in reference to Lana in the article for The Matrix, so let's do that. Problem solved. Why ask me for another solution? Surely this solution satisfies any of your concerns. 99.192.85.43 (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

What I actually meant was that you propose the exact wording on the article's talk page or try to reword it in the article itself. The previous example you've given saying "Larry" and "her" right in the same sentence didn't work, so I thought you would come up with another. I do not speak for everyone, but if editors agree on your new wording, then it works. Anthonydraco (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

So you will not accept "Larry" and "her" in the same sentence. Is this a problem you have because "Larry" is typically a male name or because you have a problem referring to a transgender woman as "her"? I ask because there are other women with typically male names who are not transgender. Take Michael Learned for example. She was born female, raised female, and has always identified as a woman. But she was named "Michael" at birth and always used that name. She has talked about how in childhood people did not believe her when she said her name is "Michael". She has talked about even as an adult working as an actress that she was mistaken for a man based on her name. When she won one of her Emmy awards for "Best Actress" her name was announced as "Michelle" and she had to use some of her acceptance speech time to correct the error and defend her name. So it is not unusual and quite understandable when people get confused about her gender or her name.

The article for The Waltons has a sentence that reads: "Michael Learned won the Emmy for Lead Actress in a Drama Series three times (1973, 1974, and 1976)." Do you object to the "Michael" and the "Actress" in the same sentence? Would you object if there were a sentence that read "Michael Learned won her third Emmy for Lead Actress in a Drama Series in 1976"? Should we refuse to use pronouns any time her name is used in an attempt to avoid confusion? I am just curious if your objection is really about a name-pronoun "fit" problem or if it a special objection reserved for someone who is transgender. 99.192.95.67 (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

Whether I accept it or not is just one voice over many editors, like I said, if it's too jarring to many, someone is bound to change it. That said, Michael Learned is physically a woman and has always been, and there's no alternative in her pronouns. She just is. I am also aware of a lot of person have a name of the opposite gender. Larry Wachowski is a different matter though, as he was a part of the Wachowski Brothers, and he was physically a male with a male name to match. Casual readers might see these as a reason to use male pronouns, and the sentence can be mistaken for a mistake instead. Note that I say casual readers, not people who have been working with it.

That said, my not pandering you does not give you the right to point finger at me and hint that I have a special objection reserved for trans. You do not know me, and I am under no obligation to answer any of such question. I do, however, have a special objection to those people who know nothing about me but likes to point finger and tag my disagreements I have with trans as personal bias. Kindly assume good faith and realize that the world does not revolve around transphobia. Also bear in mind that I am one of the few who would prefer to name Larry as a him, but come to anything that resembles an agreement/consensus with you. If you think that my disagreeing with you in some regards comes from transphobia, you can report WP:ANI. They will see if it has some merit. Anthonydraco (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

"Michael Learned is physically a woman and has always been, and there's no alternative in her pronouns." This says it all. To think that there is an alternative in pronouns for "Larry Wachowski" is to question her gender. Your objection is not to the style of writing, but to the reality of transgender people.

"...if it's too jarring to many people, someone is bound to change it.... Casual readers might see these as a reason to use male pronouns...." Yes. People often make good faith errors in editing and sometimes they make the same good faith error repeatedly. Editors who are aware that it is an error can revert erroneous changes and even add hidden notes to help confused or misinformed people. When editors make mistakes, correction and education is better than conceding to ignorance.

"Larry Wachowski ... he was ... and he...." Did you use male pronouns there because you were worried I might be confused if you used female ones or because you wish to deny her gender identity? 99.192.95.67 (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

First point, we are discussing whether using the pronoun is a good choice. What I have said is just a way of saying we have other reasons to choose the pronouns to use. Your opinion saying that naming Larry a him is not an alternative doesn't make it a fact. That is the very point of discussion. We are here to solve the difference between our opinions. If you have a problem with reading others' inputs for the discussion and take it to your own hands to decide if others input is correct, then why are you here?

And as far as I'm concerned, we've already solved the content dispute. You agree not to avoid gendered pronouns. I didn't even say I would remove it. I said others might.

Second point, suit yourself. Other editors will do the same.

Third point, think whatever you wish. WP:BLP does not extend here. Check the policy. This place is a discussion of which pronouns works best and how to refer to them. Disagreement here is expect. If you cannot accept it, seek help on WP:ANI. Anthonydraco (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The IP editor really needs to raise their concerns at MOS:IDENTITY and not here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Lugnuts, since everything I have said is consistent with MOS:IDENTITY as it is right now and I have argued that the film articles need to follow MOS:IDENTITY, your comment does not make sense. I have no concerns that are inconsistent with MOS:IDENTITY. 99.192.71.6 (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC) (99.192....)

I think the discussion has ended IP, and the Film policy remains the same. Larry should only be referred to as Lana in those articles if it is discussing contemporary events involving Lana and not Larry. Her personal bio has nothing, nothing at all to do with the film(s), at no time did she put her hand up and ask to be credited as the Wachowski Siblings or The Wachowskis, it was the Wachowski Brothers and larry and andy. She can have identified as a woman she was in the womb, doesn't change who was involved in the film and later physical changes do not retroactively modify that, nor are they something that would. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

"Larry should only be referred to as Lana in those articles if it is discussing contemporary events involving Lana and not Larry." That is exactly what I advocated and exactly what I said in the summing up. Thanks for confirming that I was right. 99.192.77.12 (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

• Here is the recommendation from the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association on the historical usage of gender pronouns:

And when I asked the NLGJA by e-mail to clarify its policy on reporting about Manning’s past, a spokesperson for the group said it would recommend “he” for historical reference too: “When writing about events prior to when the person began living publicly as the opposite gender, NLGJA recommends using the name and gender the individual used publicly at that time. For example: Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley, came out as transgender last week. In a statement, Manning said she had felt this way since childhood. Manning grew up in Oklahoma. In middle school, he was very outspoken in class about government issues and religious beliefs, friends said.”

You can read the full article at [5]. It seems like a very sensible recommendation to me i.e. the "she" pronoun is not applied retrospectively, but only applies from the point that Larry took "Lana" as a name. Betty Logan (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)