I know that many film critics use spoiler warnings as a courtesy, but it stems from the interpretation that the viewer should be supervised by the film, not the critic. Many other critics do not share that interpretation. I oliver think critics can and do interpret the plots of films differently. WP:NOTinfo says articles on fictional works should offer sourced analysis. I suppose the interpretation that a plot description should be preceded by a spoiler warning could go in a critical reception section, but I think such an interpretation is directly related to the plot and is more appropriate when placed before a plot summary. pixelface ( talk ) 09:56, 17 november 2007 (UTC)Good point about updating the mos for the deletion of the spoiler tag. But I can't go with you for the second part of your proposal. I know that some people wish we could have some spoiler protection, but that's at odds with wp's purpose.
As for critic interpretations in general, i think that needs to come in its own section, later. I think that section in the mos is a little off to begin with. You generally cannot "interpret" the plot to a film in many ways. You can interprete themes, symbolisms, and other subjective topics, but a plot is basically the objective information about the film. When you start drifting into interpretations, you're straying from basic plot information. Bignole (Contact me) 08:04, 17 november 2007 (UTC)The policy on no original research says "Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses" and this guideline says "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the film itself is the. An exception to this rule may be films containing plot details that are unclear or open to interpretation, in which case the different interpretations should be sourced to reliable sources." A film critic who uses a spoiler warning in their review of a film has.
Plot, summary, essay example for Free
I admit that placing such an interpretation before others in a plot summary may be biased, but I think such an interpretation could really only be placed before in-depth plot details. For an example, i can point to the article on the film Million Dollar Baby ( this revision specifically). I propose that the following be added to the Plot section of this guideline: If one or more film critics (whose reviews are published in reliable sources) have included a spoiler warning in their review of a film, it is acceptable to mention this interpretation. I would appreciate some input about heavy this from editors involved with wikiproject Films. pixelface ( talk ) 07:55, 17 november 2007 (UTC) i agree that the mos should be updated to remove the line "For guidelines on using (and not about using) spoiler tags, see wp:spoiler." However, i disagree with the suggestion that critics reviews be used.
Wikipedia is not a spoiler free zone and there is no need to mention that a plot section will contain spoilers. AnmaFinotera ( talk ) 08:00, 17 november 2007 (UTC)Citations from critics are not to "get around" the deletion of the tag. Spoiler tags had no citations.9 of the time. I realize that wikipedia contains spoilers, but interpretations of films should cite secondary sources. pixelface ( talk ) 09:56, 17 november 2007 (UTC)I'm not seeing how a critic using a spoiler warning in their review has anything to do with different interpretations of a film. They could simply be being curtious to readers who may not have seen the film.
Do you think this is something feasible down the line? nehrams2020 00:00, (UTC) Citing critics who use spoiler warnings at the beginning of Plot sections In the Plot section of the this guideline, it says: Now provide a more comprehensive plot summary. As this is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement, you should include plot twists and a description of the ending. For guidelines on using (and not using) spoiler tags, see wp:spoiler. The events of the film do not have to be described in the order in which they appear on screen, however; see pulp Fiction for an example of this.
Spoilers should not under any circumstances be deleted, as it directly contradicts the wikipedia-wide content disclaimer. There are also other unacceptable alternatives which have been proposed in the past. In short, wikipedia contains spoilers; please respect this policy. The spoiler template was deleted recently so any mention of spoiler tags should perhaps be removed from this guideline. After Template:Spoiler was deleted, the spoiler guideline was rewritten and I wondered about some wording in this guideline. The Plot section of the style guide also says "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the film itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the film. An exception to this rule may be films containing plot details that are unclear or open to interpretation, in which case the different interpretations should be sourced to be reliable sources." i am wondering if it is considered acceptable to cite film critics who use. The idea that certain information may spoil a film for people who haven't seen it yet is open to interpretation and this guideline says "different interpretations should be sourced to be reliable sources." (I think the "be" in that sentence seems out of place.
Plot, summary - imdb
I'll also include that image under example images. Is the 300px or below requirement reasonable to you? nehrams2020 23:25, (UTC)Works for. I've re-uploaded the sunshine spacesuit image to be 300px at its longest dimension. — erik ( talk contrib ) - 23:30, (UTC) I'm thinking we should organize mom a drive or just develop a subpage within the project that lists all of the oversized images and/or ones that have already been reduced that need the old oversized image. Normally, you would have to reduce the image, add the reduced tag to it, wait seven days for an administrator to delete the old version, and then they have to remove evernote the reduced tag. With our own page within the project, once we have educated the members, they can fix their own images or images they run across and then list the images on the subpage for one of the project's administrators to delete the old versions. I think it would be easier and less time consuming, and help ensure that the images that come through have proper sources, copyrights, licenses, and furs.
Phil Sandifer 17:18, (utc images. I expanded the instructions for images somewhat to help explain some of the fair use requirements and have included several example non-free images (in links of course) that editors can reference. I've also seen other projects reducing their images to be 300px or below in one of the dimensions, and have included that as well. Over the last few weeks i've been reducing oversized images as I come across them, so hopefully higher some information here will help prevent other large images from being uploaded in the future. Feel free to edit the things i added if you think it can be better worded or add other example images that meet the criteria. Nehrams2020 23:05, (UTC) I think that the purpose of Image:g needs to be explained in the image description better, something like the text at Image:Sunshine. — erik ( talk contrib ) - 23:16, (UTC) good idea, i'll modify it now.
- 00:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC). That works for. It keeps it flexible for special situations. Jim Dunning talk 14:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)I agree with this as well, although I think we should use a stronger term than "generally to emphasize that the order should only change in exceptional circumstances. Green451 17:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)How about "customarily"? Or too broad still? Erik ( talk contrib ) - 18:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Works for me! Green451 02:33, 12 September 2007 (utc i tend to think that the production section should go first - it helps establish that the article is in an out-of-universe perspective, whereas the plot section going first foregrounds the aspects of the article that are most-often irritating.
I don't think it needs to be mentioned in the dissertation guideline, though. The guideline should be flexible enough that a different order may be necessary (though I can't think of any immediate examples). It's a more inherent trend to follow, i believe. Erik ( talk contrib ) - 23:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Yeah, you need the plot section first because it's often difficult to describe the production without referring to the plot. Also that's how people experience films: most people watch them for the story before they want to learn about how it was made. Cop 663 00:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)I also agree that Plot should come before the other sections. It additionally benefits any possible spoiler complaints that may occur by users reading details about the plot that are mentioned before the Plot section. Girolamo savonarola 00:44, 9 September 2007 (utc what does everyone think about implementing this rough layout in the guideline, then? It could be as simple as saying after the first sentence.
Plot, summary of a study in Scarlet Owlcation
Contents, plot before production? I notice that of all the featured film articles, about half have the plot section before the production section, such. Sunset resume boulevard, and the other half have the production section first (the Star Wars films). These style guidelines seem rather vague as to which order the sections should go in, but I think it should be consistent for all film articles. Personally, i prefer the plot section first for a more logical flow, but what does anyone else think? Green451 23:23, 8 September 2007 (utc i used to be ambivalent about this issue, but I think people generally prefer for it to be at the beginning of an article. Since plot summaries are supposed to assist real-world context, the Plot section at the beginning sets the stage for the real-world information that follows - production, reception, et cetera.