Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film

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

Talk:Entrapment_(film)#Inflation_adjusted_figures

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

Still no comments? Needs a 3rd opinion. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. I remain skeptical that inflation adjusted figures are ever appropriate in plot sections. Some editors might believe it is helpful but I believe it sets a bad precedent for an encyclopedia. -- ~2025-43070-44 (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I think this is not the right venue to request input on this; specific dollar amounts even being relevant enough to mention in a plot summary is sufficiently niche that I doubt it warrants mention in the MOS. But in any case I did weigh in on the talk page discussion. Walkersam (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the amount's context in today's value adds to that specific plot. Gonnym (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:NOMOREARCHIVETODAY links to archive.today should be replaced with other archive sites. If you maintain GA, FA, or FL articles, please make sure those links get replaced as soon as possible. See Wikipedia:Archive.today guidance for more information. Gonnym (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I guess I’m now glad I always used Archive.org. Wow. Mike Allen 12:31, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I use the Internet Archive whenever possible but editors need to be very careful to check that the archive links provided actually work (errors, redirects, or otherwise unreadable pages). There were many times when only Archive Today properly captured the page and editors will have to manually check and confirm properly every time they want to replace one with the other. -- ~2026-37849-52 (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

In the cast section, it says not to use IMDb. However, I've edited a lot of film articles (and watched a lot of films), and I have trouble recalling any time IMDb has been wrong as far as casting is concerned (at least as far as actors I recognize). I know that any user additions or changes to IMDb have to go through a vetting process. Comments? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

If it was up to me, IMDb wouldn't be used as a source at all, though I grant there are cases where it's likely, perhaps extremely likely, to be accurate. It's hard for me to believe that cast information can't be pulled from another source though? DonIago (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

IMDb can be used as a starting point for you in identifying actors to go out and find better sources as references for use on Wikipedia. But IMDb itself can't be used as the source because of WP:USERG. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I routinely use IMDb as a starting point for anything I actually watch, but when editing Cast listings, I always verify the Actor Name/Spelling, Role Name/Spelling, and the Screen-credit Order from the Primary Source (the Film/TV Opening & Closing Motion picture credits). If the Primary Source does not list an Actor's name, then it is "uncredited" so I look for Reliable Sources, such as AFI Catalog of Feature Films, British Film Institute, Turner Classic Movies, Rotten Tomatoes, and others listed here on WP as RS. For prominent American films, the aforementioned AFI is particularly good, as it draws its own credits references from Reliable Sources such as Variety, and others listed as Reliable here on WP. I've learned, having edited many Film & TV series, that IMDb can be completely wrong. I've even tried to change IMDb to match the Primary Sources' Screen credits, and they've rejected those changes, even given direct proof (which seems obstructive). A good example (which is still Wrong at IMDb) is The Equalizer season 1 episode "Breakpoint" – IMDb lists Ned Eisenberg as Frank Stevens (when he's clearly on-screen as one of the Terrorists), and Sam Schacht as "Norrell" who's a completely different character & actor & from a season 2 episode (instead of as Frank Stevens, a City Councilman, who clearly ID's himself in Dialog, and thus in CC/Subtitles), and Tony Spiridakis as Wrong Waiter, whatever that means (when he too is one of the unnamed Terrorists). Another example is the Canadian series, Counterstrike - I watched the entire series (3 seasons) & added Plot summaries for all 66 episodes, noting the many errors IMDb has, getting either the Actor and/or Role names wrong. Anyway, hope my 2¢ helps. ~<}:^> GreyElfGT (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Some helpful links: WP:FILMSOURCES, WP:TVRS & WP:RSP. The latter shows how long-debated (i.e., Perennial) sources compare against each other, e.g., IMDb = Unreliable versus Rotten Tomatoes = Generally Reliable. GreyElfGT (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Clarityfiend, I started learning to Review articles using Rater as I noticed many Film & TV articles are stale (out of date) in their Class values (i.e., Stub, Start, et al), and in the process have had to most closely/carefully evaluate those that might qualify as "B" providing its Source/Ref(s) are "Generally Reliable" completely attributed, and verifiable. So a Helpful Script for that process is @ User:Headbomb/unreliable which checks Refs against a number of lists including: WP:CITEWATCH • WP:DEPRECATE • WP:NPPSG • WP:RSN • WP:SPSLIST • WP:VSAFE/PSOURCES & {{Predatory open access source list}}. Once it's installed in your Common.js, its use is automatic. Simply go to the References section of the Article, and links will be either be as they were, or Highlighted in various ways, indicating the level of un/reliability. Hope that helps...It did for me. ~<}:^> GreyElf (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

There seems to be a confusing, contradictory disconnect:

• MOS:FILMCAST reads: "Do not put common nouns within roles in capitals, for example, Saul Williams as Security at Ball should be Saul Williams as security at ball."
• WP:FILMOGRAPHY#Example #3 under Role states: "The role played by your given subject. It is to be written exactly as it is presented in the credits of the work."

I've seen a lot of liberties taken in Film & TV series Articles when it comes to listing Roles for the Actors in the Cast section to the point where the "Credited" Role name is so far from the actual Screen Credit as to be nearly lost altogether. Now, I understand that "All [Role] names should be referred to as Credited, or by common name..." and the latter might add this or that to the Screen Credit Role name. For instance, the Screen Credit may only read "Joe . . . Moe Howard" whereas Dialog has the character referred to further as "Joe Schmoe" ...and oh, he's also refers himself to those he questions as Detective Schmoe, his C.O. calls him "Sergeant," and his friend nicknamed him "Moe" so a concatenation is built up in the Cast List: Instead of Moe Howard as Joe, it grows to Moe Howard as Det. Sgt. Joe "Moe" Schmoe. I don't have a problem with that in Film/TV cast lists.

But when there's only "common nouns" which name the Role, and no Given or Surname or Title/Honorific mentioned in either the Screen Credit or in Dialog, shouldn't it be represented Exactly as the Credit? that is to say, using the same Capitalization? For instance, Larry Fine as Stooge Cop #2 and Shemp Howard as Stooge Cop #3 ?? instead of, say, Larry Fine as the second stooge cop or Shemp Howard as the third of three stooge cops, which begins to stray further and further from the actual Screen Credit.

The problem I see with a difference in MOS language between a Film article, and its Actors' Biography articles, is the potential for Role name Errors to be initiated, propagated, and regurgitated as churnalism out into the wilds of the interweb, spreading disinformation. Don't we have a duty to the truth? Shouldn't Role names in the Cast list be at least nearly the same as the Credits scroll? (and don't get me started on the Character descriptions, which sometimes obfuscate the Role name, instead of following afterwards where it belongs – <Actor_Name> as <Role_Name>, and a short description follows – should be the standard, IMHO).

ThanQ IA for your comments, clarifications, & advice. ~<}:^> GreyElf (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I haven't read this yet, but I'll just comment that one is a Manual of Style page, and the other is just a random project page. The MoS is obviously the one you should follow every time. Gonnym (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issue is here. You should follow the credits, but don't capitalise common nouns. Similar to how we would fix incorrect capitalisation in a quote or reference or something like that. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I disagree, @Gonnym, that Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (including its "Filmography tables" subsection) is "just a random project page." WP Actors and Filmmakers is subordinate to WP Biography, which is very much concerned with the Truth of a Person (the Actor), and their career, namely, their Credited Works (Film, TV, Stage, etc), and the Roles they portrayed. Proper Nomenclature/Attribution is Key. As such, I feel that we have a duty to the truth, to report it according to the Primary Source, the works themselves, which Opening/Closing Billed Credits explicitly list (and yes, also 2ndary RS sources). IMO, the work itself overrides what MOS:FILMCAST currently reads, in terms of the exact wording/capitalization of the Role Name. For instance, when I edit a Person's Bio Article, in their Career or Filmography sections, I try to confirm what the actual screen credit says (assuming I've actually watched/verified it), ignoring other sources such as IMDb, or even what's been listed on the Film/TV Wiki Article, after witnessing the liberties taken on Role names in the Film/TV article, changing capitalization, adding descriptors, etc, (as I stated above). In short, someone who does work in both the Works (Film/Show) and the Person (Biography), like me, will see the Disconnect in how Role names are Documented.

To answer @Adamstom.97's concern, "in a quote or reference or something like that," I completely agree, don't capitalize "commong nouns" in a Quote "or something like that," but in a Role, we're not talking about a Quote or a Reference...we're talking about how the Character is Defined in a Work, and the Role assigned to an actual Person (the Actor). Shouldn't it match on both the Articles for the Work itself (the Film/TV article), and on the Biography? Or, at least come close to being the same?

Hope that clarifies. ~<}:^> GreyElf (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Exhibiting case - Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2

On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 0% of 46 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 2.5/10. The website's consensus reads: "A startling lack of taste pervades Superbabies, a sequel offering further proof that bad jokes still aren't funny when coming from the mouths of babes." Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned the film a score of 9 out of 100, based on 19 critics, indicating "overwhelming dislike". Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B−" on an A+ to F scale, the same grade earned by its predecessor.

As brought up in the article talk page, there's a two-fold problem with CinemaScore:

1) Time and again, when CinemaScore is mentioned on a movie article, I find that it is greatly at odds with the general receptions shown in other review aggregation sources.

2) And yet, these film articles do not state why CinemaScore consistently misjudges the consensus, nor even point out this glaring oddity in the Receptions sections. (Consider what it would be like if the last sentence in the example above states "On the other hand, audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B−" on an A+ to F scale, the same grade earned by its predecessor.")

CinemaScore, which polls opening-day audiences, should not be treated as simply "another place where everyday people share reviews" like RottenTomatoes or IMDb etc. Just stating it among these other receptions in an unqualified manner does a disservice to all of these articles. (Note that receptions include both aggregate scores from average viewers as well as individual film critics.) This firm is more interested in getting feedback from people most likely to be potential fans rather than collecting an overall perception.

If the CinemaScore score is to be mentioned, it should be relegated to where it is arguably more relevant like the box office (because apparently there's some correlation between its score and the box office performance). Or the articles should actually talk about what CinemaScore is doing. Example: "CinemaScore, (insert what it actually does and how its score is processed), gave the film an average grade of (results)." ~2026-34873-35 (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Please read MOS:FILMAUDIENCE. Verified, scientific polls of actual audience members are accepted on Wikipedia. Unverified, easily manipulated "audience" ratings on sites like Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb are not. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

"CinemaScore consistently misjudges the consensus" Please read the CinemaScore article again. CinemaScore only judges the opinions of the people who see the film on the opening weekend, the people most likely to feel positively about it. They never claimed they were judging the consensus. That their results are much more positive than anyone else is expected. (That their results are much more negative about a film where the marketing was misleadingly or confusing is also expected.)

CinemaScore grades are an imperfect metric but they are far more open and honest about how they come up with their grades than either Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are about how they generate their scores. Readers should compare like with like, if you are trying to compare CinemaScore against anything other than maybe PostTrak scores then you are misunderstanding its purpose.

CinemaScore is only useful in a limited context, it has historically been a good indication of word-of-mouth praise and audience response to a film. CinemaScore is most useful when it can be compared to previous Cinemascore grades such as the case of sequels like Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2 as you mentioned your example, the kind of people who thought it was a good idea to go to see the first film still felt about the same level of positivity to the similarly dumb sequel.

It is unfortunate that many people do not understand that a B grade from CinemaScore is not actually very good but it would be redundant for every film article to explain the details of how Cinemascore works and what their grades actually mean, same as video game articles do not explain every time that IGN gives overinflated scores in their reviews compared to more reliable publications. (It would be similarly redundant for every film article to even begin to explain how deeply flawed Rotten Tomatoes scores are with their reductive binary system.) Ultimately these kinds of grades and scores provide a brief and convenient overview, but they are not supposed to be the be-all-and-end-all. Good articles are not supossed to put too much emphasis on the overview and instead collect reviews from critics to provide more specific insights into what parts of the film were praised or what parts were reviewed negatively. The example you provided could do with an expanded Critical response section to better explain the pros and cons of the film to better inform readers (and if anyone wanted to get it up to {{good article}} status it would be essential) but I do not see how treating Cinemascore any differently would really benefit encyclopedia normal ordinary readers. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a TfD regarding Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose and Template:Metacritic film prose, which can be found here. Your input regarding the disposition of those templates is welcome! DonIago (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Could these guidelines please encourage editors to avoid writing needlessly redundant phrases and only write "Upon release" when they are also making a comparison to "After release" ie in cases such as Popeye (film) where the critical response "upon release" was very bad and got better with time. It seems some editors feel the need to redundantly write "Upon release" (when else?) in article when they are not contrasting or making any special comparison to something that happened after release. This is redundant and not good writing. (It is similar to the excessive use of the [WP:IDIOM]] "... on the other hand" when the opening "on the one hand ..." has not been used.) Editors seem to be increasily writing are "upon release" in the lead section of articles, but that should almost always be obvious, and even where there is a later retrospective evaluation to contrast against you still do not really need to say "upon release". (I appreciate a little consistency but this has gone too far and for too long, so I belatedly make this complaint.) -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Could the WP:FILMCAST guidelines please be updated to avoid describing any character as "love interest"? It is horribly reductive to describe any character in this way, and it is not a good actual description of the character, it is an outside perception, not an inherent characteristic of the character.

Specifically I propose changing "X"
"Subjective interpretation using labels such as protagonist, antagonist, villain, or main character, should be avoided."
to "Y" "Subjective interpretation using labels such as protagonist, antagonist, villain, main character, or love interest, should be avoided."
Thanks. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of this, especially where changing the wording received any pushback? This feels like an edge case to me, and I don't feel as though we should be updating the MOS for things that can be addressed easily enough without needing to point at the MOS. DonIago (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Admittedly it doesn't come up very often, but it is such terrible writing for an encyclopedia that it disappoints that it comes up at all. I hoped it was a dead issue much like WP:ANTAGONIST (which comes up about as often) and a very small adjustment to the guidelines would help prevent it. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it's bad form to regurgitate plot within the cast section, so I'd say you should feel free to remove (or at least reword) that. If that is reverted, then I'd start a discussion at the article's Talk page. Unfortunately the people using that language probably also wouldn't be familiar with the guidelines in any case. DonIago (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd prefer something specific in the guidelines but even being able to reference this discussion might help. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I would imagine "love interest" falls somewhere close to WP: ANTAGONIST - "Subjective interpretation using labels such as protagonist, antagonist, villain, or main character, should be avoided. The plot summary should convey such roles." Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Sometimes these two sites display different international box office totals and I am not sure exactly what to do in these cases. I originally considered The Numbers a better source, but I am not sure anymore. Both sites have their pros and cons. Is there a consensus on which source is preferred by Wikipedia? Girl, I Like Opossums! (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

The short answer might be to wait a while, for the film to have left cinemas and the final figures to settle down. Wikipedia is not news, we can wait.

From what I can tell the most active editors seem to prefer Box Office Mojo, but it was defacto their general preference is not a policy or consensus as far as I know. I vaguely recall a discussion about incorrect box office gross figures (some earnings being double counted) but that after being contacted by Wikipedia editors Box Office Mojo corrected their figures, and I think that correction made those editors trust them more. Way back I started to dislike Box Office Mojo when they went through a phase of almost entirely failing to update the international box office gross figures (and some editors wanted to calculate the figures themselves). Box office mojo is probably still a bit slow about updating their international figures, as it is the American domestic box office they are getting paid to track.

The Numbers and Box Office Mojo used to update their figures at varying speeds and enthusiastic fans always wanted to change articles to use the bigger numbers, which was frequently Box Office Mojo (and if the figures from Box Office Mojo look too neat and evenly rounded that is because they post weekend estimates in a way that is difficult to differentiate from actual reported figures which don't normally arrive until Monday or Tuesday). The differences between the two sites is usually only temporary, and in most cases both settle on the same final figures. When rounded to 3 significant figures their box office gross figures both match about 99% of the time, in my estimation. I have seen only a few rare very cases where there was a substantial difference between what the two supposedly reliable sources were reporting, and editors therefore felt it was necessary to objectively report both figures. N.B. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is to summarize and not supplant key points from the article body, so in the case of a substantial difference properly writing about both reliable sources in the Box office section is sometimes necessary, but I don't expect that will happen very often, a vanishingly rare occurrence.

Most of the time the box office grosses aren't an end in themselves, they are being used as a measure of success. A film that grosses twice its production budget is generally considered to be a success. So figures being precise is not even as important as you might think. Don't worry about it. -- ~2026-20754-35 (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I still think its good to keep as updated as possible and some movies have a 50 million disparity between BOM and The Numbers Girl, I Like Opossums! (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Both of them are sub-standard sources, but Box-Office Mojo is generally superior and more consistent with box-office documented elsewhere. The Numbers has some very anomalous figures in some cases. In the case of older films it often confuses box-office grosses with theatrical rental. Personally, I would only defer to The Numbers if the data were not available at Box Office Mojo. Box Office Mojo isn't perfect either due to the double-counting issue, but the error can usually be isolated and fixed manually (as is often the case at List of highest-grossing films. Putting blind faith into either source will lead to incorrect grosses being recorded. It's better to take the time and understand why the figures are inconsistent. As to when to update, I am not a fan of quick updates just because one source has a slightly higher figure for two reasons: (i) it is not always apparent why one source has a higher figure than another, and may not be due to an update at all (the BOM double-counting issue is a great example of this); (ii) Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, so it doesn't matter if there is a delay of a few days waiting for a particular source to be updated. Replacing a superior source with an inferior source simply because the inferior source is updated faster goes against the ethos of WP:BESTSOURCE. The key to all of this is editorial judgment: understand the data, and why one source has one figure and another source another before dropping it in an article. Betty Logan (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Not exactly sure if this is the best place for a discussion on this topic; could move to WT:MUSIC, but this talk page seems more active for film-related things. Recently there was an AfD discussion whose result was to merge a standalone article for the musical score to Obsession (2025 film). For context, I started the AfD, highlighting regurgitated info from the main article, a trivial track listing, and a reception section made up of passing mentions of the soundtrack in reviews for the film; others said the article was premature and/or that the soundtrack wasn't independently notable from the film.

A few days ago, an IP user tried to bypass the AfD and recreate the soundtrack article under a new name, which was swiftly reverted. The thing is, this IP has created 65+ articles dedicated to film scores in the last two months. Now, I don't have the time or energy to look through them all, and they seem to have gone through WP:AFC, but the pattern remains the same; an overview of the film, release dates, #Reception made up of reviews for the movie, a track listing, and at most a couple crew interviews. This took me down a rabbit hole, finding users (mostly IP) behind 12, 20, 29, 31, 35, 40, and 73 film score articles in the last two years (that's 305 articles between 8 people). Going by this category, just this decade alone has produced nearly 500 articles.

This seems a growing trend, but the last discussion I could find on this topic was from seventeen years ago. A film comes out, and it gets a separate article for its score, even if it isn't a topic of discussion. Sometimes it's as simple as someone copy-pasting the #Music section (details on influences, instrumentation) to the new article and adding a track listing and reviews with passing mentions, when this info already fit under the Production section to the non-extensive main article. Of course, plenty of exceptions exist (charts, nominations, actual music reviews), but guidelines specific to film music (here, WP:NALBUM) are vague, short, and simply point to WP:GNG; "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. ... Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting."

I'm not proposing clean-up or deletion (I understand Wikipedia has the space), though an independent case-by-case culling seems daunting against a never-ending hoard of articles; I'm just calling attention to the topic for some discussion and, at most, suggesting better/longer wording (and possible restrictions) for creating them so fast and in bulk, particularly in this MoS since it's the one specific to the medium. Filmgoer (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd be okay adding a line to the MOS explicitly stating that soundtrack articles should only be created when independent notability of the soundtrack can be demonstrated, or something to that effect. Technically soundtracks are covered by WP:NALBUM, but if there is a particular problem related to film soundtracks it wouldn't hurt to double down on it here. Betty Logan (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Smaller details can be important to the plot synopsis of a film. As an example, I recently posted information about something that happens at the End of The Goonies, which keeps being reverted even though it happens in the film. This scene is significant in that it belongs to the film's main character and happens right before the end credits, as it brings an end to the character's overall journey in the film. Just because a scene is short in the overall terms or the film itself, it doesn't make it any less noteworthy or significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarwolfPrime (talk • contribs) 23:10, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

True, but it’s also true that minor details are often fancruft and it is easy for some editors to become fixated with them when they are entirely incidental to the plot. MapReader (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I feel it should be noted that I encouraged Warwolf to bring this up at the Talk page for the film if they felt strongly about including this plot point. I'm not sure why they felt it needed to be escalated here without bringing it there first. I also would have appreciated being pinged if there was going to be a discussion that involved my edits, but I do see that they're a newer editor and likely still learning their way around. DonIago (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2026 (UTC)