This RFC reduces to two questions. Firstly, should there be a standard naming convention for lists of characters in media franchises? And secondly, if so, what should it be?Of the participants, TheGnome, Gonnym, StarTrekker, Betty Logan, Halbared, Pickalittletalkalittle, Graham11, Spintheer, and Ladtrack do not explicitly answer the first question, although Graham11 and Pickalittletalkalittle's contributions are if-then statements which tends to imply that they think not. TompaDompa, Erik, and Adamstom.97 all say no. My assessment is that there isno consensus to implement a standard naming convention for lists of characters in media franchises.Unfortunately this conflicts with our usual guidance, which is set out in several paragraphs atWP:CONDAB, but boils down to "Use consistent article titles, but don't add needless disambiguators for consistency, and where there's a choice, use the shortest unambiguous title". Ideally we would come up with a single consistent way of doing things. But harmonizing this would involve changing the titles of many, many articles, which is significant and disruptive enough to need a strong consensus --- stronger than is to be found here.Because we haven't decided that there ought to be a standard naming convention, there is no need to decide what the standard naming convention should be.In practice the outcome of this RfC isnot to make a change for the time being.Because there is no consensus, editors are free to re-run this RfC, optionally with a re-phrased question, and optionally listed in a more visible place (such as atWP:CENT), if this is desired.—S MarshallT/C14:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What should the standard naming convention, if any, be, for lists of characters in media franchises? As of now, there appear to be three different ways of naming these. Here I use the Cars franchise as an example:
I just looked at that link and it seems to like A as accepted, discourages B, and makes no mention of C (nor the context which requires it). Am I missing something?Tduk (talk)15:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It does not discourage "B". "B" should be used if the title needs to be disambiguated. See the 4th example. And not mentioning C means that it isn't supported. The guideline shows what to use, not a list of what not to use.Gonnym (talk)10:46, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option C Seems the most organic and descriptive. Option A is imprecise, while Option B looks like malformed disambiguation. Whichever one is chosen, the title e.g.Cars needs to be italicised.Betty Logan (talk)20:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should depend on the topic, especially because these terms are not likely to be real-world search terms. ForCars specifically,List ofCars characters suffices because there is no other list of characters in some other topic calledCars possible. So that would be both as natural and as concise as possible (especially with "Cars" being in italics). Thinking on it more, I think Option A may be better more generally unless there are two distinct branches of the same core topic.
Like let's say we haveFoo book that is loosely adapted into a TV show to mean different enough characterizations, and that each of them have their own articles with their own "Characters" sections. If one of the sections is big enough to get split off, do we really need to specify in the list article title if it is from the book or TV show, if it's the only standalone list and not one actively searched out for (as lists of characters are not typically directly searched for)? The list article could have a hatnote linking to the other scope's section. Ifboth sections have enough substance to have their own list of characters, then some form of Option C ("in theFoo book" vs. "in theFoo TV series") would be appropriate to disambiguate them from each other.Erik (talk | contrib)16:22, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are a couple of possible alternative interpretations for "List ofCars characters"; it could just refer to the first film, or it could be taken to refer to any anthropomorphic cars. You can always redirectList of Cars characters toList of characters in the Cars franchise, but at least with the latter you have a fully descriptive title. Either way, I think it would useful to have some uniformity in the titles for these types of articles where we can.Betty Logan (talk)01:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good point about just the first film vs. the franchise in general. Still, I think these terms are not typically directly searched for, so if there are not competing lists of characters from scopes of the same name, I don't think we have to get so granular. Whichever scope a list is split off from, readers are far more likely to get to it through the main article. Looking atMOS:LIST § List naming, it says,"Additionally, an overly precise list title can be less useful and can make the list difficult to find; the precise inclusion criteria for the list should be spelled out in the lead section (see below), not the title." To me, that means we don't need to get so detailed with the list article title. So I think Option C is better only for competing lists. (As a side note, I don't favor Option B, as it looks clunky, when Option C is cleaner.)
Not sure if this reframing helps us think this through, but if we had just one standalone "Analysis" sub-article coming from either the novel or the filmThe Shining, would we want "Analysis of The Shining" or "Analysis of the novel/film The Shining"? Or same with "Production of" for an older film or its remake, what would we want? I suppose my general feeling is that we don't really have to carry over the disambiguation to the split if we don't have to.Erik (talk | contrib)13:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Erik's thoughts, this should be determined on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration whether additional disambiguation is necessary. -adamstom97 (talk)18:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ForCars, I would go with option A, as the article's scope encompasses all topics calledCars that could conceivably have characters (namely the film and the broader franchise).If further disambiguation were required, I think I wouldlean towards option C as more natural.Graham11 (talk)20:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support B or C (include "franchise") – To avoid ambiguity, titles should explicitly indicate that it's a franchise. For example, a list for theAlien franchise titled "List of Alien characters" could be misread as "a list of alien (extraterrestrial) characters," not "characters fromAlien." PerWP:PRECISION andWP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION, including "franchise" makes the topic clear without extra context. Between the two, I slightly prefer B ("List ofX (franchise) characters") for concision and consistency with parenthetical disambiguation, but C ("List of characters in theX franchise") is also fine.spintheer (talk)03:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option A unless there is an unrelated major work of the same title with characters that would not be on the list of characters page. For example, every character in the filmThe Lion King should be inList of The Lion King (franchise) characters, so that article should just be calledList of The Lion King characters. Anybody that wants to see characters in the movie will want the franchise character list, and the franchise characters page is inherently also a film characters page, so there is no benefit for disambiguation. The only instance in which I could see any benefit to a disambiguator is if there is an unrelated major media of the same name in which someone could expect a character list, in which case I would probably prefer option C. However, I cannot think of a single example in which that would be the case.Ladtrack (talk)16:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am closely connected to the filmLA Jesus (2024) and therefore cannot create the article directly. I am requesting help from volunteer editors to create either Draft:LA Jesus or an article in mainspace. The film has coverage in reliable sources, festival awards, and published reviews.
Here is a working draft written in encyclopedic style:
On certain articles such asBatman & Robin (film), the total box office gross in the lead and infobox is rounded off to the nearest million (in this case, it's $238 million) while the decimals in the box office section list it as $238.3 million and the article didn't list the decimals in the lead nor infobox. That said, is it necessary to use decimals for the box office figures in general? Thanks,Lord Sjones23 (talk -contributions)12:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably say you should use 3 significant figures (meaning, if its over $100, round to the millions, if its from $10M to $100M, round to the 100,000's, etc.) unless the reporting source gives less than that.Masem (t)12:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a reasonable level of precision to me too. I would add that box office figures should generally be rounded down/truncated, not rounded up. For instance:Top Gun: Maverick grossed $1,495,696,292, which would naïvely round to $1.50 billion. However, saying "Top Gun: Maverick grossed $1.50 billion" is inappropriate, because that's a milestone the movie never crossed (in other words, the answer to "When did it reach $1.50 billion?" is by any reasonable interpretation "Never.").TompaDompa (talk)19:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the solution in theTop Gun: Maverick article was to use the same four digit figure $1.496 billion consistently in the Infobox, lead section, and article body. If the film was rereleased pushing it past $1.5 billion that question might need to be revisited. (Reflecting back on the original question"is it necessary to use decimals for the box office figures in general?"in general no. most cases do not need more than 3 significant figures or precision. --109.79.68.147 (talk)07:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The documentation ofTemplate:Infobox film gross, points to a discussion from 2014 on"Rounding Dollars in film articles and Infoboxes" which decided that project film should round box office gross numbers for clarity (ie applyMOS:LARGENUM, rather than writing the number out in full as many had been doing up to that point). You can read the discussion yourself but the main concerns were clarity and readability. There were also some concerns that in some edge cases rounding might be misleading, as User:Masem mentioned above and also during that discussion at the time. As Masem said3 significant figures seems plenty, I don't think anyone has ever actually disagree with that. (Yet somehow [the past discussion] has been interpreted as an excuse to list slightly different box office gross figures in different sections of the article for no apparent reason.) I of course have no objection to clarity in an encyclopedia. I do have concerns about consistency and I must object to numbers beingtruncated down instead of being rounded in the normal way perMOS:LARGENUM, when it is simple normal rounding and no one is being mislead. If there really is a concern about accuracy thenbe accurate and include the extra decimal place of precision if you must, but it is absurd to me that some editors seem to be insisting on extra precision in the Infobox (while frequently failing to be precise enough to update the article body) but then in the lead section of that very same article insisting on truncating the same figures down. Case in point, a recent edit toSinners (film) which in the edit summary stated "BO fix" but in the edit(diff) it changed the Infobox to use an extra decimal place (changing $367 million to $366.7 million) then in the very same article choosing to inaccurately andmisleadingly truncate $366.7 million down to $366 million in the lead section. In some cases editors have claimed they were making corrections but were leaving an article listing three slightly different box office figures in the Infobox lead and article, this does not seem to be serving readers with clarity or accuracy. The extra decimal place of precision feels especially unnecessary in cases where a film has grossed many multiples of its budget and was clearly a box office success. (Sinners has grossed 4.1 times its budget[1] no one is being mislead by rounding to the nearest million, it was a clear success.) Be precise consistently if you really believe there is a chance readers might be mislead but don't pretend to care about precision while listing three different box office gross figures in the same article, which is confusing misleading and entirely unnecessary. Please take the path of least resistance and use the same number three times, if you believe precision is necessary then be precise and accurate all three times (and don't forget to update the reference access date too). --109.79.166.62 (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)P.S. While a certain amount of precision might be needed and mostWiki Gnoming over the box office gross is harmless, the reality of the last decade is that an extra decimal place of precision in the Infobox results in a whole lot of churn. Many editors only update the Infobox and frequently fail to update the article body or lead section, ignoring the fact that theWP:LEAD andWP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is to summarize what is in the article, not the other way around. --109.79.166.62 (talk)18:36, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change but that would requirediscussion. AlsoMOS:LARGENUM hasn't changed, the normal rules of rounding numbers hasn't changed. Arbitrarily truncating figures instead of rounding in the normal way has always been weird and unnecessary. This all started with editors calling for people to actually followMOS:LARGENUM so I would remind editors to readMOS:LARGENUM and actually follow it. --109.79.163.110 (talk)21:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that an appropriate level of precision should be used. Three significant figures for precision sounds fine, but rounding to the nearest million is also fine. I would rather not get too specific because different levels of precision may be warranted depending on the scaling of the grosses but generally a figure should not be more precise than it needs to be to make the point it needs to make (nb: my comments refer to figures in prose and infoboxes, not tables). To reference a recent example,Jaws has grossed $495 million, and adding further precision does not add any encyclopedic value, especially in the infobox (but probably not anywhere else either). The recent reissue grossed $12.8 million domestic and $3.4 million overseas for $16.2 million, and that level of precision is used in the article. Personally, I think the extra level of precision is justified in that context because the scaling is much lower, although it is a bit borderline so I probably wouldn't revert if someone cut it back to 13/3/16 million. I take the point above that we should not suggest that a film crossed an important threshold (i.e. rounding a film up to $100 million) if it did not attain that record, but the problem with truncation is that it is more prone to arithmetical errors. For example, if we truncated the decimal from the Jaws figures, we would end up with 12/3/16 million, which would look mathematically incorrect. I would suggest that grosses should be rounded in the normal way, and if that implies a film crossed an important threshold that it did not attain then that would be a justifiable reason for an extra digit of precision.Betty Logan (talk)05:24, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A note on the mathematics, for context: when adding two figures like this, rounding down/truncating results in apparent errorshalf of the time, whereas rounding to the nearest value does soa quarter of the time. So while it is true that the former is more prone to this kind of apparent errors, it is a common outcome either way.TompaDompa (talk)15:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rounding the same numbers in different ways in the very same article has clearly resulted in far too many errors. That is on top of the errors caused by editors who change only the Infobox and fail to edit the article body and lead section. An editor that does not properly update the article body cannot at the same time seriously claim to care about accuracy or precision.
Sloppy edits that leave an article with multiple different box office gross figures are not constructive. (Example vandalism:(diff) that updated only Infobox with plausible but wrong gross.) It means that another editor trying to fix the inconsistency or revert vandalism has to check bothBox Office Mojo andThe Numbers (website) to see if the edit vandalism or a messy incomplete edit. If an editor cannot be precise enough to properly update the gross then other editors should not need to spend time trying toWP:VERIFY their mess.
On a more positive note I would also point out that Box Office Mojo and The Numbers.com often offer slightly different conflicting figures, and rounding to the nearest million frequently helps avoid that conflicting information. --109.79.166.128 (talk)17:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also understand some above concerns. Mathematical rule of rounding off significant figures may disrupt the box office landmarks. I have seen some articles using{{approx}} or{{est}}, and I use the same as well. What I do further is, if there is a landmark, I would mention in the prose, otherwise, leave it to the approximate value with one or two decimal place only.M.Billoo09:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like 1E which makes sense considering it's a pseudonym, was wondering if it might be better to make the article about the film instead or PROD it. Don't really do much in the way of FILM stuff though so figured I'd drop this here for comment.Alpha3031 (t •c)08:20, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you move the article, try to make sure the Wikidata item is updated. Another idea could be to make a separate article for the film and then redirect the actor's article to that.★Trekker (talk)01:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the film is notable, create an article. Don't move the actor's page. PROD it if it isn't notable, or as Trekker said, if the film article is created, you can redirect it there. Although, a red link would probably be better if the actor is notable (so the page is more likely to be created).Gonnym (talk)10:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...according toPetScan. (Release year listed in parentheses, followed by page-creation date and page ID; drop me a line if we somehow missed anything extra.)
Since this pertains to some relevant Disney musical film such as theFrozen films andMoana, I've been thinking: should we consider including a footnote where we can mention the songwriters while we list the primary score composer(s) in the infobox to prevent any potential infobox clutter?sjones23 (talk -contributions)07:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be opposed. That isn't a footnote, but a complete piece of information. If the infobox does not have a parameter for that, then it's not meant to go there.Gonnym (talk)08:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To give an example, other FA/GA articles such as those in theJurassic Park series (i.e.Jurassic Park III, which is a GA, lists Don Davis as the composer and has a footnote that lists John Williams as the composer of its original themes in the infobox).sjones23 (talk -contributions)09:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found the articlePressure Point (2001 film), which at the time was cited solely to a personal review on Blogspot. Please seehere for my attempts at finding sources. I'm not as well versed in film, so I would appreciate any possible help in locating something I might have missed.Ten Pound Hammer •(What did I screw up now?)16:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone think it would be worth creating aneditnotice for film plot summaries, that would advise editors when editing such plot summaries that they generally shouldn't exceed 700 words, and that if their changes cause the summary to exceed 700 words that they may reverted without warning? I think this may save editors (and those reverting their edits) a bit of time and frustration?DonIago (talk)21:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This idea feels very familiar as something brought up in the past but ultimately didn't get enough steam to see it to the finish line. I'd have to do an archives search to see if I'm right. -Favre1fan93 (talk)22:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem as though it would be that complicated from a technical perspective, and I figure if it kept even one person from wasting their time making plot summary edits that were just going to end up being summarily reverted then it might be a worthy pursuit. It seems the biggest 'annoyance' may be that editnotices don't appear to be able to be section-specific, so it would appear whenever any portion of a film article was edited, not just the plot summary...though that would mean that if someone was editing the summary without targeting the section specifically that they'd still see the notice. I'm willing to make the effort to build it if you or anyone else thinks it's worthwhile.DonIago (talk)16:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I started looking into this, but it turns out I don't have the permissions to create an editnotice template. Assuming nobody here with that permission would be willing to just go to bat for us (I don't know how many people even have the permissions), we could request the creation of a template easily enough, but at that point we should probably agree on wording beforehand. Left to my own devices, I might borrow from the wording forTemplate:Uw-plotsum1, with the goal of making an editnotice that could be used more universally rather than just for film articles. If anyone else wants to take a swing at this, I'd sure appreciate that. Otherwise, if anyone wants me to take a swing at it, reply here and I'll do so as time permits (next week I'll be broadly unavailable).DonIago (talk)20:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> Request for feedback: draft article “Giorgio Rayzacher”
> Hello!I’ve prepared a new draft article about film director and writer Giorgio Rayzacher, an Italian–French–Polish filmmaker and author.Here is the link to my sandbox: User:Belliricchiperfidi/sandbox.
> Hello! I’ve prepared a new draft article about film director and writer Giorgio Rayzacher, an Italian–French–Polish filmmaker and author. Here is the link to my sandbox: User:Belliricchiperfidi/sandbox. I would appreciate feedback regarding its notability and sources before publishing. Thank you!
The draft includes verified biographical details, sources from Onet Kultura, Wirtualna Polska, IMDb, and Filmweb, and has been carefully formatted to match the encyclopedia’s standards.
I would appreciate any feedback regarding **notability, structure, or sources** before moving it to mainspace.
The Tic Code has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)01:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am reaching out for outside input on an AfD discussion related to the article about Cliff Divine. There appear to be several misunderstandings in the discussion, so I am hoping that editors from this project can help review the notability question with a clear look at the sources.First, it is important to note that Cliff Divine and Andrew Cliff Tisba are the same person. This can be verified through interviews, festival programs, public nonprofit documents, and media profiles. Some news outlets use one name while others use the other, but they all refer to the same individual. This clarification is important because it affects how the sources are interpreted.The article includes a large number of independent secondary sources from established news organizations. These include ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, Orlando Sentinel, KHON2, KTVB, KUTV, Q2 Billings, and several international outlets. In these reports he is not mentioned briefly. He appears on camera and is the central focus of the stories. Film festivals and award committees have also published material that covers his work in a principal role.A link was provided that contains more than thirty broadcast news segments from major networks where Cliff Divine is clearly identified by name on air. These are public, independent broadcasts, and they show significant coverage that meets the expectations of WP:BIO.Most of the sources cited in the article come from established newsrooms with full editorial oversight. They are not self published and not produced or controlled by the subject. They meet the requirements for independent and reliable sourcing in a biographical article.There is also reporting on his acting awards, his film appearances, and a multistate public initiative that drew repeated coverage. This combination of sources shows significant independent attention over time, which satisfies the criteria for biographical notability.For clarity, I am not the subject of the article. I am participating only to correct factual misunderstandings and to help ensure the discussion stays focused on source quality and policy rather than assumptions about editors.In short, the subject has extensive coverage from reliable independent sources, including dozens of television news reports and multiple print and online publications. These appear to meet the requirements of WP:BIO, and I believe that additional input from this project would be valuable in assessing the article.The AfD discussion is here:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff DivineThank you for taking the time to look at this.Cdlosangeles (talk)20:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm a user with pl.wiki (so my English is what it is). I'm not entirely familiar with the rules in Your language version, so I decided to report a problem here. I wanted to use Your sources to improve the article aboutFilmfare Award for Best Performance in a Comic Role in our language version. It turns out that some of the information in the article is not consistent with the sources. F.e. the source in the article does not list the prizes for the winners in 1972 and 1973. The official awards website provides the following information: NOT AWARDED. So where does the information in the article come from? Not to mention the nominations, because these sources do not mention them at all. But the rewards seem to be a hoax.Kajtus von Rzywiec (talk)21:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Danish Rehman, and I am a new editor from Pakistan (username:User:Danishrehman-writer). As a writer specializing in screenwriting and biographical content, I am passionate about contributing to Wikipedia's coverage of the Pakistani film and television industry. My user page has more details:User:Danishrehman-writer.
I am particularly interested in expanding and improving articles on notable figures in Pakistani entertainment. For example, the existing article onHumayun Saeed is well-established but could benefit from updates on his recent projects, additional reliable sources, and enhanced sections on his production work with Six Sigma Plus.
Could anyone offer advice on:
Best practices for improving existing biographies (e.g., adding infobox images from free sources)?
Reliable sources for Pakistani cinema?
Any ongoing tasks or collaborations related to South Asian or Pakistani cinema?
I am committed to Wikipedia's core policies (WP:VER, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV) and would appreciate any mentorship or feedback.
I’m requesting assistance in updating the Budget and Box Office figures for the article The Taj Story (2025).I previously submitted an edit request on the article’s Talk page, but since it has not been reviewed yet, I’m reaching out here for help from active film-related editors.
The information comes from a reliable source: The Times of India, where actor Paresh Rawal himself confirmed both the film’s budget and updated box office.
Requested Updates
1. Budget
Current: ₹25 crore
Proposed: ₹7–8 crore
Reason: Paresh Rawal confirmed the film was made on a budget of ₹7–8 crore.
2. Box Office
Current: ₹10.10 crore
Proposed: ₹19.31 crore
Reason: The Times of India reports the film’s box office earnings as ₹19.31 crore.
Because the article is currently semi-protected and I cannot edit the infobox myself, I kindly request that an editor update these values using the above source.
Hi again, I would like to clarify one point in my earlier request:
The budget and box office numbers are confirmed by The Times of India, which is the reliable, published source for verifiable data.
The article includes Paresh Rawal’s statements as quoted and reported by TOI, which is why TOI is the primary citation for these figures — not the actor individually.
So to confirm:
Budget (₹7–8 crore) — reported by The Times of India
Box office (₹19.31 crore) — reported by The Times of India
This makes the information fully compliant with Wikipedia’s verifiability and reliable sourcing guidelines.
Willy Loman has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)16:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Angel Heart has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)03:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't understand what was going on when I saw the plot summary ofWicked (2024 film). I finally realized that what I was seeing were song titles shown where the songs are performed.
Lots of musical film and TV articles use this format, I wouldn't be surprised if there is pushback to you just removing them like that. I agree that it is not always clear what this format means, but when discussion of the songs is part of the production/reception sections I do think it makes sense to note in the plot summary where they come, so a new reader who hasn't seen the film/show can understand where the songs fit into the plot and what they mean in context. This issue was raised in the GA review ofSubspace Rhapsody, and the solution we came up with was to say "singing the song XX" in the first instance so new readers would understand what the titles in parentheses indicate. I think that was a good compromise, clarifying the format while keeping the benefits of having them. -adamstom97 (talk)18:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see why a reader who hasn't seen the film would want to see song titles in a plot summary. Surely if the content of the songs is important to an understanding of the plot, we should describe that content in prose? A song title alone is of no use and introduces clutter.Barry Wom (talk)10:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of the plot summary is to provide context to readers who have not seen the film, so you don't need to keep describing the plot throughout the rest of the article. The music/songs section is not the place to be describing plot details to a new reader when there is already a plot section. -adamstom97 (talk)12:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood my point, which is that if the content of any of the songs contain plot points, they should be described in prose in the plot section, not the music section. Song titles are not a part of the plot, and including them is obviously cause for confusion.Barry Wom (talk)13:18, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to comment and say it probably shouldn't be used like that, but after Adam's comment I checked a film I was sure had many eyes throughout it's cycle,La La Land which is a GA and it also does this. Do we have a FA musical film that we can check what it does? For musicals this might actually be a plot-defining moment just as any important story-bit we'd add to an article, and not some trivia information. I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this yet, but the MoS should probably reflect whatever consensus is on this, as this is quite a unique style.Gonnym (talk)14:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "For musicals this might actually be a plot-defining moment just as any important story-bit we'd add to an article, and not some trivia information.". As I mentioned above, if the song includes plot points, we should include those points in prose, not by simply inserting a song title.
As an example of a musical which contains a song title in the plot justifiably, there's this fromCabaret (1972 film):
The rise of the Nazis in the 1930s is also demonstrated towards the end of the film in a rural beer garden scene. There, a blond boy sings to an audience of all ages ("Tomorrow Belongs to Me") about the beauties of nature and youth. It is eventually revealed that the boy is wearing a Hitlerjugend uniform. The ballad then transforms into a militant Nazi anthem, and by the song's end, one by one nearly all of the adults and young people rise and join in the singing.
Hey, I want some input onDraft:Solstice (1993 film). The draft had some major issues with sourcing, as it was using Film Freeway and IMDb as sources to back up claims, particularly claims of it winning various awards. They was also some definite issues withWP:PUFFERY in that there were multiple sections for various releases (TV, DVD, etc) and there was a repeated claim of it being the first Lifetime Original Christmas movie. I did some cleanup and I have a lengthy section on the talk page about what I removed and why.
The big issue here is this: the sourcing is pretty bad. The first movie claim is unverifiable. The only places saying this are either primary or generally unreliable. The source that was used for this is Reel Chicago News, which looks to sell article space as part of their advertising. The reviews are also pretty questionable. We have two reviews, one from Blu-Ray.com and one from Film Threat. I don't think that the B-R.c staff reviews have been outright deemed unusable, however they're still reviews on a site that is otherwise unusable for even the most basic of details. There's been no consensus as of yet to deem Film Threat reviews as unusable, however people have pointed out at AfD that they sell pay-to-play reviews and articles, plus they don't mark which ones are paid and which ones aren't. The film festival awards are pretty much entirely unusable. They all appear to be either minor, non-notable film festivals or they're outright vanity award mills. In other words, the coverage for this is very light and I suspect that almost all of it was paid for, but have no absolute proof of this. It's just one of those 'if it quacks' type situations. I'm not trying to say that the article creator was paid to create it, mind you - just that they're an infrequent editor and as such wouldn't know the discussions and so on about all of this as a result.
Very technically this could probably pass NFILM based on the two reviews, despite them being seen as fairly dubious and low quality sources on Wikipedia nowadays. If anyone feels strongly that it does pass I won't fight the acceptance, but I am very worried about its chances of surviving if it was nominated for AfD. What do you guys think? I feel kind of bad for the article, admittedly.ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)17:48, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They've reverted a lot of the changes I've made. They're also now trying to argue for it being the first based on searchable TV records, rather than news articles stating it was the first or Lifetime itself saying that it was. I can see that they're trying, but it just makes me even more worried.
An award is not notable for inclusion if the award giver is not notable. So that complete section can go. Another red flag for me is the lack of any blue links for personal involved with the film. A film can be notable without anyone involved being notable, but I'd say that is a rare situation.Gonnym (talk)21:55, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure § Buster's fate, which is within the scope of this WikiProject.sjones23 (talk -contributions)03:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
