Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film

Inflation adjusted figures in plot section

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

Talk:Entrapment_(film)#Inflation_adjusted_figures

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

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

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

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

Complications with multiple production countries

I'm uncertain on how we handle multiple production countries in the MOS.

Currently, the manual of style suggests "If the nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), identify it in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section."

This seems complicated as per template:infobox film and a recent discussion on WP:FILM's talk page. template:infobox film notes the complications of a films nationality (near WP:FILMRUNTIME), specifically that there is no " There are no widely accepted international or even European definitions of the criteria to be used to determine the country of origin of a film." The complications of what is a requirement for a co-production or even a production within a country becomes more complicated when actually trying to look into it This older BFI one goes into details of what could qualify something for a British film. I found a similar qualifier for Canadian flms here from Stats Canada in the early 1980s. These are all obviously only attributable to the dates the films were made.

So when it says "cover the different national interests later in the lead section." how should this be done? In some cases, this can be relatively simple. In others, like our discussion recently at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Nationality_for_the_Super_Mario_Galaxy_Movie, various sources would share different blips and often limit their information to a simple "Country: United States" or "[film title] [country/countries] [runtime]" and its very rare to find any sources or writing that go into detail on the how and why they came up with this info. I'm also a bit torn about this even being in the lead per MOS:INTRO "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article", but we rarely discuss this kind of material in the prose the way the MOS for film is set-up and how much writing about the nationality of a single film usually is.

Does anyone have any solid articles where this is handled well? From there I think we might be able to phrase this part of the MOS a bit better. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Would also help if someone could find a recent (because old FA has much less actual standards) FA film article that is a co-production. Gonnym (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Looking at more recent Featured articles

• KPop Demon Hunters (passed in December 2025) is referred to as American in its infobox. There are two citations in the lead (presumably for the genre). In them, the first identifies its production company as being a "Japanese corporation Sony Pictures Animation". There appears to be no discussion of why its labeled as American within the article.
• Pulgasari (passed in 2025) does go into it bit, but just cites one source in the infobox, while the prose mentions several companies involved, but seems to be a bit synth-y to me just citing several sources between Japanese and Korean studios, and a single one for the Chinese one then presumes it as production between all of them. (this is a lot to sift through, but this is just another good example of how complicated it is to get these kind of details across.) The lead does state it as a " A co-production between North Korea, Japan, and China," but the prose in the article suggests the previous problem I mentioned. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

There appears to be no discussion of why its labeled as American within the article because Sony Pictures Animation is an American company, not a Japanese one. Gonnym (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I mean I'm not here to disagree about that, but it would be confusing for anyone else wondering what that source is doing in the lead and shows how this material is or isnt discussed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

...it would be confusing for anyone else wondering what that source is doing in the lead

The sources are placed right next to the genre, urban fantasy. They are providing support for that claim. Their purpose seems pretty clear to me. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Thats because you know wiki standards work. If anyone checked this and read what I read, it wouldn't line up. For someone so adamant about having no sources in the infobox, I'm surprised you are okay with citing genres in the first sentence if the lead. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

For someone so adamant about having no sources in the infobox...

I know you know that wasn't what I said in the thread where I had to explain NOCON to you, but let's stay focused on content, shall we? Let's get right to the point...

Now that you've looked at a couple FA examples and cleared up any confusion you had, are you still hoping to make a change in the MoS excerpt you've highlighted at the top or at Template talk:Infobox film? If so, what specific changes would you propose? -- GoneIn60 (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

You haven't really defined a problem; what does "handle multiple production companies" mean? If there are multiple production companies, we list them out in the article and infobox. Similarly, if they come from multiple countries, we list out the countries in the infobox. The infobox lists as data the various people and entities involved with the film, on an inclusive basis, supported by appropriate citation.

If the question is about how the film is described in the lead section of the article, that is based on how it is described in reliable sources, as for any other descriptor within the film article, or any other type of article on WP. If the film is widely described as "American" then in WP it's an American film; just the same principle used for descriptors such as "acclaimed", "horror", "epic" or "flopped". Or, indeed, "co-production". Yes, sometimes achieving consensus around the balance of sources can be challenging, just as it can be for many articles across the site; resolving these is the essence of being a WP editor. Where we sometimes run into difficulties, often with editors who concentrate on film and TV rather than editing more broadly, is with the assumption that the countries in the infobox somehow derive or determine the descriptor in the article, or alternatively that the descriptor can be deduced by looking at the film's financing, or where the production companies are based. Sometimes these used to be advanced as 'rules' for film articles, when no such rules exist, and such an approach is effectively WP:SYNTH, since the descriptor isn't being sourced explicitly. American or British or French films are ones that are described as such in reliable sources - sometimes it's helpful to look at English-speaking sources outside the country of production for these as, for example, an American film is more likely to be so described in the British or Australian film press, with American sources taking it for granted. MapReader (talk) 07:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what this post is supposed to say in regard to this conversation. The is issue is that we are told to "cover the different national interests later in the lead section", but if the lead is supposed to represent the prose in the article, where and how should this be written in a general way? I'm sure there will be outliers, but I don't see anywhere that would be an appropriate fit. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

What do you suggest is the solution? Maybe your suggestion will help us understand the problem more. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure! I'm open to suggestions, but I think the current structure seems to be against what MOS:INTRO is about, i.e: having the material in the lead be representative of the context of the article. This would also go for genre like in the K-Pop Demon Hunters genre cite. The closest thing I can think of citing it in the infobox as I have suggested in my recent infobox suggestion and which appears to be the preferred solution in the current discussion about the Super Mario Movie discussion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Just so I understand you correctly... Your primary concern is the placement of items in the lead (like genres) that aren't covered in the body, and you feel that doing so is in violation of MOS:LEAD? Are there any other secondary concerns besides that? -- GoneIn60 (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Well there's that, but the discussion in this item was also for the nationality of the film. Its one of those things that's hard to "discuss" or find discussion about in studies on film to give a fledged out discussion. But seems to be something people researching film seem to find important in term of discussing this type of material. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Alright, well I can help describe the current state of things. The Film project has taken the stance that basic descriptors, such as genre and nationality, are elements that should usually be present in the lead per MOS:FILMLEAD. These do not necessarily need to be addressed in the article body. Per MOS:LEAD:

Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

Items considered basic facts are exceptions. We see this addressed in more detail with examples down in MOS:LEADNO. Now in some rare situations, one of these basic details may have received extensive coverage in sources, for whatever reason, which would warrant additional coverage in the body. That could happen and maybe has happened, but it wouldn't be the norm. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

These "basic facts" are complicated though, as what makes something the nationality is, as established, it is not an easy to clarify. So the lead asking us to explain it in the lead is where problems come in. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

But it is easy to classify in most cases. In situations where it's not, find the necessary sourcing and cover it in more detail down in the body. If the necessary sourcing doesn't exist, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS may decide to omit it altogether. Seems like a logical approach. What other options are there? -- GoneIn60 (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

"down in the body" is a very vague. Where per the MOS, would you suggest? This is where the problem kicks in. Nobody has been able to provide an area where this fits. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Some rules are meant to be a little vague for a reason. Wouldn't nationality be discussed in the Production section? I'm sure local consensus can figure it out on a case-by-case basis. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Well that's not how it's currently being handled. Please note per my user page I'm on a vacation. Regardless, you seem to be arguing it should be handled elsewhere and not in the lead which is currently what the MOS states. So I presume you also think it should be explained elsewhere. This would require it to be updated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas, you've been asked to make a suggestion here, yet all you seem to want to do is have someone explain something so you can criticize it. Again, I invite you to make a suggestion on how you would improve things, and also how you would change the MoS. If you aren't able to do either, then I'm not sure there's anything to discuss. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Use a footnote in the infobox to clarify the situation for the country when it's complicated. simple solution. I'm aware of wp:infobox purpose. Please don't rush to close. I was seeing if someone else had a suggestion first or if I was misunderstanding. This is the best solution in my mind. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

archive.today links should be replaced as soon as possible

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

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

IMDb as a cast source

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pakistani films

Hi all. There is a debate open at User talk:~2026-19304-32#April 2026 regarding verifiability of publications and there usage on Wikipedia on the article for any Pakistani film. Anyone is welcome to participate, thank you! M. Billoo 03:24, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Actors' Role Names - Exactly like Credits Scroll or not?

There seems to be a confusing, contradictory disconnect:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Treatment of CinemaScore (and why it's annoying to see it pop up everywhere, in the manner it does)

Exhibiting case - Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RT and MC film prose templates at TfD

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

"Upon release"

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

Love interest

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

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

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

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

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