Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film

Individual and professional film critics

Individual critics can also be referenced to detail various aspects of the film. Which individual critics can be referenced for their opinion on a film? Notable ones? Ones that write for notable and reliable sources? Do we care what John Non-Notable Smith, who writes for Not-Notable And Obviously Unreliable Website, thinks of a film? Professional film critics are regarded as reliable sources, although reputable commentators and experts — connected to the film or to topics covered by the film — may also be cited. How is it determined that a person is a "professional" film critic? Geniac (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

If it's a self-published blog, it's undue emphasis to include their views. I also look for evidence of citation spamming and editors citing themselves when I see a niche source being used as if it's prominent. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Ways to tell if someone is a professional film critic include checking whether their reviews are on sites like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, and seeing if they have a history of writing for known/reputable sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

We would follow WP:SOURCEDEF, which says, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." If the publication is reliable, it's usually fair to say that the film critic for it is too. It's hard to imagine a situation where the writer is reliable but the publication is not. As for selecting critics, I think ideally all (or most) of Metacritic's sampled critics are reliable, as well as Rotten Tomatoes's Top Critics (generally, not beyond that, since these get into blog territory). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

To add on, the first sentence you quoted is more about the latter part, detailing "various aspects of the film". For most films, there won't be a good overall critical reception to indicate the overall trends of what critics liked or disliked. So if we are stuck with just "critics liked the film", we can only sample as fairly as possible all the different positive reviews with no particular emphasis on any trend. If the overall critical reception indicates something like the visual effects being impressive, we could sample in part to that, quoting a critic detailing their positive thoughts on the effects. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:LEADSENTENCE

Can anyone help clarify the following sentence: "See WP:LEADSENTENCE for guidance that applies to other elements, such as reputable directors, starring actors, and source material." I ask because there's nothing in the link specifically about films. fgnievinski (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's more referring to WP:LEADSENTENCE for guidance on writing out the sentence. Like does it mean anything for nonspecialist readers to read that a film is by a director, if that director is not notable themselves? Or, don't have to stuff everything in the first sentence. Or if there's one key reason that the topic is notable, put it in the first sentence. I personally get a litle deeper into this in my essay here. I think we're so used to just saying the director and writer(s) in the first sentence, mimicking the infobox, no matter what, but we can introduce the topic better to readers. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

16 mm vs 16mm film

I keep seeing articles (e.g. 16 mm film) simultaneously use both formats of "16 mm" (with a space), and "16mm" (without a space) when referring to film gauges. According to MOS:UNITSYMBOLS and the International System of Units, there should always be a space between the number and the unit symbol. However, omitting the space for film gauges is very common in other places online. Even Fujifilm and Ilford omit the space on their product pages. I'm not familiar enough with film to confidently say which style should be used on Wikipedia, but I definitely think there should be guidelines in the MOS specifically for film gauges given how inconsistent they are. Nikoledood (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I've always found it a tad strange that Wikipedia insists on a space in film gauges, as it's not normal practice elsewhere. I'd support their removal. Barry Wom (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I've done some more research and I have some things to share regarding film gauge inconsistencies. Firstly, this issue has already been discussed in 2019 on the 35 mm movie film article talk page, with the ultimate decision being to use a space between "35" and "mm" (Links to the discussions: Rfc: 35mm articles, Requested move 28 April 2019). Despite this, there are still some instances of "35mm" being used in the body of the article. Secondly, I went through 100 Wikipedia articles about film formats, and counted how many times they referred to film gauges, either with or without a space between the gauge number and the unit ("mm"). Out of 1079 instances of film gauge measurements, a space was used 909 times, and a space was omitted 170 times. This shows that currently, a space is used when referring to film gauges about 84% of the time.

With this in mind, I support having a space between the number and the unit ("mm") for film gauges, because it stays consistent with MOS:UNITSYMBOLS, prior consensus, and the way Wikipedia is already written. I still think that it would be useful to have a guideline in the MOS specifically for this case, since spaces are still omitted about 16% of the time, which leads to a lot of inconsistent styling. Before implementing anything though, I would like to establish consensus on this topic. Nikoledood (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this, but for consistency's sake I agree that there should be a guideline added to the MOS. Per UNITSYMBOLS and your research I think it makes sense for that guideline to be a space between the number and unit. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

RfC notification: film gauge styling

Based on the discussion 16 mm vs 16mm film, I have created a request for comment on the MOS:NUM talk page. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page, which can be found here: RfC on film gauge styling. Nikoledood (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Additional opinions requested regarding reception statement in lead

Additional opinions are requested at Talk:The Golden Compass (film)#Edit warring by Doniago about the info in the opening section.. DonIago (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Preemptive splits of soundtrack articles for films

I'd like to begin a discussion to form a consensus on an issue I and a few other editors have noticed with the preemptive splits on score articles of film, and how to (hopefully) alleviate this sort of occurrence by appending the MOS. I'll share an example of the problem, the one that led me here to voice my concerns, and whose case exemplifies how the issue tends to play out: The article Captain America: Brave New World (soundtrack) was created on February 12, 2025 containing two references. The article was not of developed state, and failed WP:SIGCOV and needed draft development to satisfy WP:GNG, at a point where its contents would not exceed that space accorded to a subsection on the main page. It's been a few weeks, and the article received two days worth of editing, with the article development remaining stagnant and the state of the article stoic. I had noticed this sort of cycle going on with editors performing preemptive splits of specifically music soundtrack content failing GNG and the subsequent abandonment of these types of articles, and I've discussed with a few editors who agree we should append the MOS to keep this sort of editing from happening.

@Trailblazer101, @Adamstom.97 and I had a nice discussion on the earlier's talk page about how we notice this common occurance—the split of soundtrack articles at a point when no SIGCOV is established of the music score / soundtrack, with no further improvements being made for GNG. Adamstom made a good point about the MOS not preventing this sort of thing, and that there should be efforts to curtail the editors who are creating these splits as soon as the soundtrack is announced but then not putting in the effort to expand the article. We could probably look into adding something to the MOS to discourage this, and maybe try shut these splits down as soon as they happen.

• I seek to prompt discussion with editors and WikiProject Film members about this, and ask for everyone's input. If this turns into a support/oppose discussion, fine by me. If we have a discussion about wording and technical aspects, that's great. If anybody would like to share examples of articles where this exact scenario plays out, that would also rock. I, Adam and Trail are of the opinion that Adam's suggestion of an append to the MOS would aid greatly in editors exercising vigilance about catching these sorts of bad splits early on. Trail wrote that he has tried in the past (fruitlessly) to stop this. I too believe it would help to have a guideline etched in the MOS to stop this from happening.

Thanks for reading this. I encourage editors to share their thoughts below. BarntToust 22:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I hate long lists and ugly tables and am generally glad to see them banished to separate list articles but as you say unnecessary separate articles are likely to be neglected and remain underdeveloped and incomplete, so I get your point and must agree with you. I believe the WP:SPLIT/WP:MERGE existing guidelines already implicitly support this idea so I agree with the suggestion that something should be written into the FILM guidelines to discourage creation of unnecessary separate articles. Having said that the guidelines have a warning in WP:FILMSERIES that is frequently ignored, so improving the guidelines might only help a little. -- 109.77.197.55 (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the detailed soundtrack information in many film articles is unnecessary and takes up too much space and distraction from the article about the film. Unless the soundtrack is worthy of a separate article, I would suggest that most should be deleted. Sudiani (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Removal of links to "animated" on animated film articles

Should "animated" be linked in the lead sentences of articles for animated films? Example: Toy Story is an animated adventure comedy film produced by Pixar Animation Studios for Walt Disney Pictures. —Matthew  / (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Do link, per the term's relevance to the context in the articles in question, and per the standard practice of linking genre terms (such as "comedy" or "horror") in the lead sentences of film articles. Previous discussion of this topic, which took place last year on this talk page, can be found here; the discussion did not result in a consensus to remove said links, and attempts to restore these links have been and continue to be reverted. —Matthew  / (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd say it falls under WP: OVERLINK, in fact it's the first example used there. It also violates WP: SEAOFBLUE Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:OL and WP:SOB have been repeatedly cited as justification for removing the links, though I would like to note that the term "animation" was only added to the list of examples on WP:OL back in October 2023 (see diff); this was done without consensus from other editors, the same month that "animated" began being removed from the lead sentences of animated film articles. In other words, the removal of the links in question occurred first, and the guideline being used as justification was edited afterwards. —Matthew  / (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

It remained in OL as an example until July 2024 (see Diff). People were removing the links per WP:OL guidance before it was added to the guideline as a somewhat obvious example. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Don't link This is a well understood English language word what falls within WP:OVERLINKING. Also, specifically in film articles, It is one more word in the list of descriptive adjectives that can be left unlinked per WP:SEAOFBLUE. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Don't link per the SEAOFBLUE (when included with the film's genre, which typically already draw too many words and links) and being a well-known term. Masem (t) 22:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

No need to link common terms, especially where there are SEAOFBLUE considerations as previously noted. DonIago (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Don't link as per term's relevance to the context in the animated articles. Also, should this extend to anime-related film articles (such as those from Studio Ghibli, Toei Animation, etc.). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Do link in this kind of content, since it provides contextually meaningful immediate access to the Animated film, the overarching article on the subject with the history and scope and technique range and so on of the genre, which is more apt to be of interest to the reader of a film article than linking some contextually non-significant common term like "mountain" or "British". To look at it another way, Animated film is at least as contextually significant in the lead of Toy Story as the link to adventure comedy film (and other such genre links at similar articles). The question is not "Could any reader not already know what 'animated' means?", the question is "Will a non-trivial number of readers of this article want background on animated films, which are clearly very pertinent to the subject of a particular animated film?", and the answer is obviously "yes".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Don't link per WP:OVERLINK and WP:SEAOFBLUE. The specific kind of animation can be linked later in the lead/body if sourced and relevant, but linking to animated film is like linking to television series. It is not the same as linking to a genre page. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Don't link: This is an unnecessary and wildly ambiguous WP:OVERLINK of a general term, especially when there are different types of animation used to create films, and causes a WP:SEAOFBLUE issue as these are usually always paired with multiple genres. The specific type of animation ought to be included and linked to in say, the second paragraph in the lead or where else is appropriate, with computer animation, stop motion, claymation, etc. being more specific. It's not like most readers won't understand what a general animated film is, but they may not be as aware as to the specific terms like the ones I mentioned. Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Do link: This is one of the occasional issues on which I am in agreement with User:SMcCandlish, despite our deep differences elsewhere. I fully concur with User:SMcCandlish's argument on this issue. We are talking about the most valuable film genre in the world. Of course it should be linked. (And yes, I am well-versed in the literature, including the long-running debate over whether animation is a medium, not a film genre.) --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Don't link. I can think of no reason why anybody who's reading the English Wikipedia would need more context on what an animated film is. It might be acceptable to link specific types (like stop-motion), depending on how obscure they are, but there's no reason to clutter the lead with links to everything. Ships & Space_(Edits) 15:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Do link – but consider rewording first sentence, linking second mention, or placing (some) descriptors in subsequent sentences. I started out "don't" but I find the arguments in favor convincing. Animated film is highly contextually relevant even if the meaning is obvious. I am sensitive to the issue and I cringe when I see things like The Ten Commandments is a 1956 American epic religious drama film… Editors should be encouraged to consider rewording, linking some of the descriptors on second mention, or placing some of the descriptors in the second or subsequent sentences to avoid the MOS:WINGSUIT/SOB problem. I recognize that the MOS is most helpful when the guidance is straightforward and that rewording to avoid consecutive links sometimes produces more awkward prose. On balance, the animated film link is valuable and should be permitted but the MOS should not encourage editors to pile every relevant descriptor into the opening sentence with an accompanying wikilink.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

To clarify my position: animated (film) should almost always be linked. It should not be delinked solely to prevent a sea of blue. It is still worthwhile to try and avoid a sea of blue, per the general guidance, and this is always preferable when it produces good prose and links to contextually relevant articles, including the film's genre and medium. Sometimes sea of blue is the more elegant solution. The MOS should not forbid such linking nor should it require that every descriptor listed and linked in the first sentence. If the MOS is as verbose as my comments 😝 then it won't be useful so it should clearly and concisely permit such usage while encouraging rewording to include the link(s) in the opening few sentences while avoiding SOB when possible. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Don't link for MOS:SEAOFBLUE reasons given above, unless the adjective is demarcated in some way (e.g., commas are placed around it). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Don't link when it would create a sea of blue, per Myceteae. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Do link per SMcCandlish and Myceteae. The wikilink to animation is just as useful as other genre indicators, such that the solution to a MOS:SEAOFBLUE is separating the genre keywords across multiple phrases/sentences, not categorizing which genres are uniformly worthy of wikilinking. As MatthewHoobin noted in last year's discussion, WP:OVERLINK condones wikilinking of everyday terms when "particularly relevant to the context in the article." ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 03:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion: do not include it in the lead sentence. The relevant guideline in this MOS says "At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title, the year of its earliest public screening (either general release or at a film festival), and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified." Animation isn't a genre at all. As the page animation says, "Animation has been recognized as an artistic medium, specifically within the entertainment industry." There is no reason to list it with the genres when it isn't one. As an alternate suggestion, why not include a optional parameter in the infobox for animation type, which can be turned on if it is an animated film? We could list 2d animation, 3d animation, and stop motion animation, and maybe more types if consensus agrees on that. We can link it properly there. This way it's net positive information compared to the current format, and honestly medium fits better with stuff like country of origin and language than with genre. Ladtrack (talk) 05:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

That a film is animated is a part of its basic description and thus belongs in the intro sentence as films are presumed live-action otherwise. It isn't a genre but it needs be listed when applicable. It shouldn't be linked as everyone knows what it means but it is significant. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, it is part of the basic description! That's why it should be a part of the infobox, as the infobox is for "allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". The infobox gives the basic information of a movie, like the runtime, release date, production company, or, like I've mentioned, the country of origin or language. Users wanting to find out if a movie is animated can simply glance at the infobox to find out, just as they could check it for the language the movie is in, which is also a part of the basic description of a film. That doesn't mean that either the medium or language has to go in the lead sentence, which is for other things like genres. Ladtrack (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Everyone knows the meaning of many common film genres. The meaning of many subgenres and hybrid genres (e.g., comedy horror) is obvious and typically requires no explanation. Help me understand why comedy or musical should always be linked but animation should never be linked.

Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. Barring [specific exceptions], an article should remain complete with its infobox ignored. There are probably many technical details about a film that warrant exception here but the basic fact that it is animated is not one. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Common genres shouldn't be linked either for the same reasons. WP:OL and WP:SOB applies there too. About the only time a genre should be linked is if it is uncommon or the meaning not obvious. Linking "Comedy film", for example, serves no purpose. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Don't link because even though I agree with SMc the link is both useful and relevant, I think it will be easier to just enforce no linking than it would to get people to reword sentences to avoid the MOS:WINGSUIT issue brought up by Myceteae. Huggums^{537_voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk)} 14:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC).

Do link because what we need is better implementation of existing policies on good writing and linking practices, not more restrictions or instruction creep about potentially useful links so I'm changing my vote to be more in line with my editing philosophies. Thanks. Huggums^{537_voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk)} 13:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

do link, an added layer of complexity comes in the form of anime, e.g. "castle in the sky is a japanese animated fantasy adventure film", the link to anime provides additional context relating to the nature of its production, situating individual films in relation to the medium it's a part of. it would be weird to not link animation and still link anime. i personally fall on the side that a film's medium is a part of its genre. we don't usually use live-action to describe the majority of films released--and when we do it's usually in the context of the film being part of a wider media franchise with prior animated films since live-action is generally accepted as the default. for that reason i might fall slightly on the side of the status quo. to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE maybe it would be better to rephrase to "[x] is a comedy film that is animated by [y]." or something similar.--Plifal (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

We need a section on how to designate supporting roles in the lead paragraphs

I just noticed that there is an anonymous IP editor who has been wreaking havoc in a lot of articles on older films across English Wikipedia for the last one or two years because they do not understand the basic conventions for how to designate the supporting members of a film cast in English prose. It's escaped notice until now because the editor is largely targeting articles on older films from before 1980 which are relatively unpopular. Most of the people who saw them in their first run are long dead. Unfortunately, we can't just do wholesale reverts because about half of the anonymous IP editor's edits to the articles do appear to be constructive, especially edits to the plot summaries. The problem is with the edits to the lead paragraphs.

The correct convention is to write something like "the cast also features [list]" or "supporting cast members include [list]" or "[list] appear in supporting roles".

The anonymous IP editor is consistently rephrasing that to the nonsensical and idiosyncratic phrases "appear in support" or "features in support". That is not the correct convention. Google Ngram Viewer shows that "supporting cast" and "supporting roles" are far more common in published English literature.

Google with the "site" operator reveals that numerous articles have already been damaged in this fashion. I propose revising this part of MOS to more clearly explain how to describe a cast.

What does everyone else think? Coolcaesar (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if this warrants a MOS change. If it's one editor, and wording that I don't think most editors would endorse, then that editor should be approached. Have they engaged in discussions before? Do they respond to talk page messages? If they do not respond to anything, perhaps there could be a request for an admin to block their editing until they can participate in discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) 18:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't respond because I'm too busy to track down and try to bug an anon IP editor who keeps coming and going from different addresses. Which means it's unlikely that a talk page message at any of those addresses will actually reach them.

Actually, this needs to be broader. I have been on the lookout for more examples of writing that does not match the traditional phraseology for writing about films in formal written English and soon found them. We need to also specify how to designate leading roles under MOS:FILMCAST.

I just noticed a pattern in edits by User:Krimuk2.0 to Kirsten Dunst and then confirmed they had done the same thing to a portion of Jesse Eisenberg (since transferred to Works by Jesse Eisenberg): a tendency to revise the correct idiom "starred in a leading role" to "led the film" or "leading the film".

This appears to arise from confusing the term "leading role", which merely means the primary, largest, significant, or dominant role, with the broader concept of leadership of a film, which is a completely different concept.

An actor in a leading role does not lead the film (or lead the cast) unless they are also the director. For example, Clint Eastwood directed himself in a leading role in The Bridges of Madison County (film).

The director is the one who leads on the film set, by barking crisp commands at all the cast and crew members, subject only to the producer's authority to fire them or exercise final cut privilege. And this is why all experienced writers always write that an actor is cast in or stars in a "leading role".

Unfortunately, it appears that some editors do not understand this. I think the MOS needs to make clear the traditional conventions in formal written English for describing both leading and supporting roles. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Time to make a more specific and concrete proposal for revising MOS:FILMCAST. I propose to add the following language as a new paragraph under the Cast section, before the last full paragraph at the end, the one that currently begins with "Per MOS:BOLD, limit boldface to...": "The traditional convention is to write that an actor "appears", "stars", "is cast", or "acted" in a "leading role" or a "supporting role". In the entertainment field, the word "leading" merely means that a role gets the bulk of the lines and most of the time on stage or screen, and the word "supporting" is used to distinguish roles which get less lines and less time than "leading roles". These words do not mean that a cast member literally provided "leadership" or "support" to the rest of the cast. Therefore, it is improper to use them in that fashion—for example, to write that an actor "led the film" or "appears in support" of the lead actor. It is improper because the crew is there to support the cast and the director and producer are there to provide leadership to the cast and crew." --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Inclusion of awards that don’t have Wikipedia pages but have significant media coverage in articles

I look forward to hearing the community’s consensus on this matter.

I’ve added awards with significant coverage in reliable, National and independent media outlets as evidence of their notability. However, these awards were removed on the grounds that they don’t have individual Wikipedia pages.

Media coverage: These awards are widely covered in national media, and I believe they meet the notability guidelines for inclusion.

Inconsistency- I’ve noticed that similar awards are included in other South Indian actors' pages without issue, even though they also lack Wikipedia pages. This creates an inconsistency in applying the guidelines.

I would appreciate clarification on whether notability for awards should solely depend on the presence of a Wikipedia page or if media coverage itself should be a valid factor for inclusion.

Thank you. WikiWizardInfoScribe (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe awards should be included unless there are Wikipedia articles about them. If that sounds unfair, then I'd point out that there's nothing stopping articles from being created, and it serves as a bright-line determiner as to whether to include an award. If awards for which there aren't articles are being included on pages, then those awards should probably be removed in accordance with everything I've just said...but I'm also just one editor, so I'd wait to see what others might have to say before taking any precipitous action. DonIago (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I understand the value of using Wikipedia articles as a clear threshold, but WP:N and WP:V emphasize significant coverage in reliable sources, which these awards have.

The concern is that some actor pages include similar awards (also without Wikipedia pages), and removing them only from certain pages feels inconsistent.

Rather than relying solely on the existence of a Wikipedia article, shouldn’t we evaluate awards based on independent coverage and notability per the core content policies? I welcome further thoughts from others to reach a balanced consensus. WikiWizardInfoScribe (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in a debate on the subject; I'm content with the thoughts I've offered my thoughts on how I personally feel about it. If it was up to me they wouldn't be removed only from certain pages. DonIago (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your view. I’m not challenging the guideline itself, but hoping for consistent application. When similar awards remain on other pages, selective removal raises concerns. WikiWizardInfoScribe (talk) 08:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I concur with this. DonIago (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

MOS:FILMACCOLADES says "awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability". Indagate (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

thank you. While MOS:FILMACCOLADES provides useful guidance, it's still part of the Manual of Style,not a strict policy,and should be balanced with core content policies like WP:V, WP:N, and WP:DUE.

If an award is independently and significantly covered by national, reliable sources, then it may already meet notability standards, even if a Wikipedia article doesn’t yet exist.

Shouldn’t editorial judgment and consistency across similar articles also factor into inclusion? WikiWizardInfoScribe (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Who decides if an award should be included? Can you provide a few examples of pages where you believe such awards should be added? --CNMall41 (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. similar awards included on other pages

such as List of awards and nominations received by Nayanthara

List of awards and nominations received by Kamal Haasan

List of awards and nominations received by Anushka Shetty

despite the lack of standalone Wikipedia pages for those awards.

Specifically, I’m referring to page,List of awards and nominations received by Trisha Krishnan

where the awards were removed on the grounds despite having reliable media coverage I believe this page also deserves the same approval. WikiWizardInfoScribe (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

If an award is notable, then you should not have any problems creating an article for it. Which then agrees with MOS:FILMACCOLADES. If however, the page cannot be created because it is not notable, then there is completely no reason to add an award from the local town newspaper to an article. Gonnym (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. However, I believe there is an inconsistency in removing from this page, while similar are retained on other pages despite not having Wikipedia articles. These awards have notable National media coverage, and I think this page deserves similar recognition, rather than selective enforcement of guidelines WikiWizardInfoScribe (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If something is bad in other articles, then fix those also. Don't spread it to other articles. Picking an example from List of awards and nominations received by Nayanthara which you linked to. The Galatta Crown Awards has no article. Galatta Media the award giver, has no article. List of awards and nominations received by Nayanthara#The Galatta Crown Awards has no references. If you think this is good, then I really don't know what else to tell you. Gonnym (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

understand WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but my concern is about inconsistency not duplication. The awards I added, like The Hindu and TAG Heuer , have significant coverage in reliable sources (e.g., The Hindu, Times of India) and also have their own Wikipedia pages. Removing them, despite meeting WP:V and WP:N, feels like selective removal on this page List of awards and nominations received by Trisha Krishnan by certain editors WikiWizardInfoScribe (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The awards I added, like The Hindu and TAG Heuer , have significant coverage in reliable sources (e.g., The Hindu, Times of India) and also have their own Wikipedia pages.

You appear to be suggesting that those awards have their own Wikipedia pages, which is not the case. There's also several awards included on the page you mention which simply redirect to the Wikipedia article Awards. These need to be removed.

I'm of the opinion that there are already too many minor film awards with their own Wikipedia page, some of those pages being little more than stubs. We don't need to start adding even more. Barry Wom (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your perspective. While I understand concerns about minor awards, these particular awards have strong coverage in national, and reliable sources which supports WP:N. I believe these specific awards meet notability through verifiability, even if the standalone page is a stub or not yet created. The standard should be consistency and sourcing.

These awards such as

1- JFW Awards – jfw- JFW is a long-running women-focused magazine that honors women, particularly for their impact, and empowerment. These awards are highly regarded in the industry and they have strong digital presence.

2- TAG Heuer Honours – TAG Heuer Given selectively, particularly for the person impact and contribution of their field, with major coverage by The Times of India.

3- The Hindu Awards-The Hindu one of India’s oldest and most respected national newspapers,These awards are typically honorary recognition, not given annually.

4- Behindwoods Awards'-' Behindwoods long-running media nearly two decades and have strong digital presence.

5- Critics' Choice Awards India-Critics Choice Awards India covered by National_Film_Awards

6- Galatta Awards- Galatta Long-running media nearly two decades and have strong digital presence. WikiWizardInfoScribe (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

understand WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but my concern is about inconsistency not duplication - so you don't under what WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, please stop pasting web URLs of Wikipedia articles. It's hard to take you serious like this as it shows some lack of understanding how this site works.

Regarding the specific awards, again (and for me it will be the last time commenting on this), if the award category has a page, it should be included (regardless if it a stub or not). If the award category does not have a page but the award itself does, it should be included. If the award does not, but the award giver does and the award has a notable section in its article, it could be included. But if all pages don't exist, then the award is not notable and stop adding them.

If your concern is about inconsistency, then I'll provide you with an alternative option, go and remove the same non-notable award from other pages. Cite this discussion and the MoS guideline. Gonnym (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

MOS:FILMACCOLADES says that awards in lists of "accolades that a film receives" should have a Wikipedia article. Trisha Krishnan is an actress, not a film, and so technically MOS:FILMACCOLADES doesn't apply. That said, I think it should apply to actors for the same reasons it applies to films, and I think this should be clarified in MOS:FILMACCOLADES. Additional discussions on the notability of awards in lists can be found here:

WT:Manual_of_Style/Film/Archive_11#Awards_organizations'_notability

WT:Manual_of_Style/Film/Archive_13#Formalizing_a_consensus_we've_been_operating_under

~ Nikoledood (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I’m not here to remove any awards from other pages. similar profiles on seem to be included without the scrutiny, this is all about selective enforcement , and different standard for policy application. WikiWizardInfoScribe (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:ENFORCEMENT: "individual editors (including you) enforce and apply policies and guidelines."

WP:INCONSISTENT: "There are policies, guidelines, and even essays assembled by users and editors worldwide to assist in this process. Still, sometimes there are disputes and inconsistent enforcement of rules on Wikipedia. Selective enforcement is nothing new to the world. Sometimes it is a good thing, sometimes it is a bad thing... but it happens."

~ Nikoledood (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

True, even some editors with long-standing Wikipedia presence selectively enforce these rules while being more lenient with other similar articles. WikiWizardInfoScribe (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, my intention was to point out that Wikipedia is edited by millions of individual editors; inconsistencies just happen. If you spot inconsistencies in enforcement, please, WP:BEBOLD and fix them yourself to adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Inconsistent application is not a reason to disregard the guidelines. ~ Nikoledood (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, certain articles consistently receive stricter scrutiny than others with similar content and sourcing, selective enforcement that may affect neutrality and balance across articles WikiWizardInfoScribe (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes there are good reasons to go against guidelines as stated in the WP:ignore all rules policy statement. If there is a good reason for a particular article, write a justification statement on the article talk page, acknowledge the guideline that is being ignored, and give a good reason why going against it would improve the article. Get a consensus from other involved editors, and if there is consensus, make the edit. We default to the guidelines but guidelines can't cover everything. In the case of a normally non-notable award being added to an article, a possible justification would be if it is significant to the topic as shown by reasons given in reliable sources. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you , your point about WP:Ignore all rules and the importance of consensus. They have significant media coverage and relevance to the subject’s career. I'll prepare a justification on the article’s Talk page referencing reliable sources and would appreciate your input there to help build consensus

welcome to join and share your thoughts your input would be valuable in reaching a consensus.

Talk page List of awards and nominations received by Trisha Krishnan WikiWizardInfoScribe (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Jurisdiction of style guidance

I don't necessarily side with any particular position above, but the conversation sparked a thought...

Should the MoS be limited to providing style guidance, and not be so focused on limiting the type of content? Surely, it can limit certain descriptive phrases in favor of more preferable alternatives, but when you start getting granular with things like award types and creating specific notability and significance criteria, it would seem to me that the MoS is stepping outside its purview of responsibility. I would go even further to say that we should instead be adhering to the core content policies (e.g., WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:NOR) and core content guidelines (e.g., WP:N, WP:RS, WP:CITE) long before anything in the MoS. Any CONLEVEL conflict that has found its way in the MOS deserves further discussion and probably needs to be removed or relocated. Am I missing something? --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you ,the core content policies should take precedence over style-based limitations. MOS should guide how we present content, not necessarily what content is eligible for inclusion, especially when that content is verifiable, neutral, and reliably sourced. When well-documented recognitions are removed based on style driven notability thresholds, it does seem like MoS is stretching beyond its intended role, this is a much needed conversation  particularly when such strict interpretations result in inconsistent treatment across similar pages WikiWizardInfoScribe (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@GoneIn60 MOS:FILMACCOLADES derives it's scope from Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Notability:

Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles. (emphasis in original)

That sections then links to WP:LSC, which has WP:CSC: Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia.

So yes, the current guideline is completely inline with the content guidelines of lists. Gonnym (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify If notability is strictly defined by the existence of a standalone Wikipedia article, does that mean an award that ran from 2004 to 2008 but has a stub article is considered more "notable" than another award that started in 2010, is still ongoing as of 2025, and is widely covered by national media consider as "non-notable "because it lacks its own Wikipedia page?

Also, awards already in Wikipedia  are acceptable, does that mean we're prioritizing internal presence over external real-world coverage? That seems to contradict core content policies like WP:V and WP:RS, which emphasize reliable and verifiable sources over internal status.

valuing style enforcement over actual encyclopedic relevance? WikiWizardInfoScribe (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

"MOS should guide how we present content, not necessarily what content is eligible for inclusion..."

Precisely. It can go a little further sometimes and give guidance on certain phrases or grammar that should be used with caution (see MOS:WTW), but it rarely outright forbids content per se. These kinds of restrictions should be handled elsewhere.

"does that mean we're prioritizing internal presence over external real-world coverage?

No, we definitely should not be. That doesn't mean we can't offer guidance that an article should exist eventually. Simply WP:REDLINK the list entry until one is created, don't deny its inclusion altogether based on some arbitrary internal rule.

"That sections then links to WP:LSC, which has WP:CSC"

Gonnym, for starters, these guidelines have a lower CONLEVEL than WP:V and WP:DUE. So if an entry passes both of those litmus tests, it belongs, period. I'm not saying it does (I haven't studied the issue at hand), but this would seem to indicate that FILMACCOLADES is overstepping, and in some cases, could be offering conflicting guidance.

Secondly, LSC and CSC are apart of WP:STANDALONE, the scope of which deals with standalone list articles. Nothing here concerns lists within articles. Now of course, you can always limit the scope of any list based on UNDUE or WP:NOT, but be sure to do that in any talk page discussion and cite your reasoning for why. Pointing to FILMACCOLADES and saying that a Wikipedia article must exist for a non-standalone list entry seems to be stretching things quite a bit. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Is List of awards and nominations received by Nayanthara not a stand alone list? Gonnym (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't catch that in the convo above, mainly because I wasn't focused on the specific example at hand. The excerpt "Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability" from FILMACCOLADES was what was grabbing my attention. Perhaps we should add clarification here that this is specifically referring to standalone lists? Thoughts? -- GoneIn60 (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

List of awards received by Trisha Krishnan

also removed from an individual's main article please have a look @GoneIn60 @Gonnym WikiWizardInfoScribe (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Add-on: Maybe someone can jump in and point to the past consensus on why this was added into MOS:FILM. There's usually a very good reason (though the potential conflict and overstepping mentioned above may not have been considered). --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Anyways, you two feel free to start an RFC and challenge, MOS:FILMACCOLADES, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Notability, and WP:LISTCRITERIA. Be sure to ping this discussion when you do. Until then, that's the consensus. Gonnym (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

No need to get so defensive. The widest consensus rooted in policy will always take precedence. Cheers. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of you two ignoring the guideline and looking for loopholes. The guideline says what it says, if you have any issue with it, the only way to change it with an RfC. Gonnym (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Why is that the perceived motive here? I'm not trying to make any edits to any articles. I'm simply bringing up an observation. You are not required to agree or even respond. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Duck test Gonnym (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

editors are removing awards not just from standalone lists, but also from article pages WikiWizardInfoScribe (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

BTW, the discussion linked below approving the insertion of this guidance was not an RfC. Also, it only involved a handful of WikiProject editors in 2016. Is it possible the localized WikiProject consensus still agrees with it? Sure, maybe, but it's ridiculous to suggest that an RfC is the "only" method to enact change. Even if that were true, then you'd be punching the existing guidance in the mouth; it would have to be removed until getting proper RfC approval. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Sidebar discussion concerning an article content dispute

Thank you ,this shows the guideline is being applied beyond standalone lists particularly when it results in the removal of well-sourced content. List of awards and nominations received by Trisha Krishnan WikiWizardInfoScribe (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Well, this and the other example you posted above, appear to be basic content disputes. If they are citing MOS:FILMACCOLADES as the reason for the removal, then they need to re-read the guideline. It doesn't support removal in prose for non-notable items. Notability is a concept for "long" standalone lists and article existence only, not article content. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC) even in same awards main article content removal citing MOS:FILMACCOLADES and saying the awards were non-notable because they don’t have individual Wikipedia pages. That’s why I brought it up here. MOS:FILMACCOLADES is influencing removals even outside standalone lists, as shown in the examples, the guideline is being applied more broadly than intended. WikiWizardInfoScribe (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC) could you suggest what the next steps should be? WikiWizardInfoScribe (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC) If the guideline doesn't support what they say it supports, then it'll need to be sorted out on the article talk page. Resort to dispute resolution if needed, and note that WP:DISENGAGE is always an option. I'd like this subsection of the discussion to be more focused on what changes (if any) are needed to MOS:FILMACCOLADES, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC) According to the MOS:FILMACCOLADES Standalone Lists -The restriction on including awards bestowed by web-only entities applies to standalone lists, not to prose within an article. Article Prose- In the prose sections of an article the inclusion of an award should be based on general content policies (WP:V), (WP:DUE), and (WP:RS). If an award, even if from a web-only entity, is covered by reliable sources and is significant to the subject, it may be appropriately mentioned in the prose, am I understanding this correctly?-- WikiWizardInfoScribe (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC) WikiWizardInfoScribe, there are a lot of elements at play with your situation; some relative to FILMACCOLADES, some not. I'm going to collapse this portion of the discussion, since it's straying a bit out of focus, but I will reply further on your talk page here shortly. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

This part in MOS:FILMACCOLADES was added with unanimous consensus from this discussion, which originated from this discussion, which originated from this discussion. ~ Nikoledood (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Nikoledood. I'll review soon.

(edit conflict) Apparently, I've struck a nerve. The only loophole here is a MoS guideline that is attempting to blindly enforce a broad concept from the larger Notability guideline, and in the process, even misconstrues what it says: "editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists". This is "maybe" guidance that only applies to large lists in standalone list articles as a way to limit them from becoming unnecessarily long.

So right off the bat, this only applies to standalone lists. FILMACCOLADES should probably make this more clear. Also, not every standalone accolades list is large or has the potential to be (WP:CSC defines a "relatively short" list as being under 32 KB, and the example being debated here is only 22.4 KB), so we shouldn't be invoking this guidance with knee-jerk certainty like FILMACCOLADES enshrines. We want entries that first and foremost pass V, DUE, NOR, and bring value to the list. Whether or not it has a standalone Wikipedia article is a secondary concern and shouldn't be a restriction UNLESS it becomes a long list. We should update our guidance to reflect this appropriately. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

When should we use navigation templates and/or categories?

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