User talk:Ryan (Wiki Ed)/Films

Feedback on the draft

Thanks for taking the time to provide feedback on this draft. Please leave your feedback in a new section below. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Either under sources or in its own section, the issue of copypasting text from other sites should be noted. Sometimes one would think it's fine to copy a short description fro IMDb or similar. Also a note of the limits when quoting directly from sources. Hoverfish Talk 20:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hoverfish: Thanks. Copy/pasting is touched upon in the avoid close paraphrasing section and IMDb as a source under sources. Is there a way those points should be emphasized/articulated beyond that? We don't yet touch on the limits of quoting directly. Could you elaborate on that? I tried be clear that paraphrasing is generally preferred and that short quotes are really just for e.g. critics in the reception section, but maybe that doesn't quite get to what you mean? Thanks again. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

A few comments

These comments might be a little nitpicky.

• Under the "close paraphrasing" section, I would probably change "when most of the words are changed" to "when some of the words are changed". Using "most" may cause potential editors to become too paranoid to actually save their edits for fear of unintentionally committing plagiarism.
• Wikipedia's definition of "notability" is a bit idiosyncratic. I would introduce the concept a bit more explicitly. For example: "you'll need to determine whether or not it's 'notable.'" → "you'll need to determine whether it satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, known as 'notability'". This reinforces that "notability" has an unintuitive, jargon-like definition on Wikipedia.
• Reception sections are often subject to extensive original research. In the section about reception, you ask, Did multiple reviewers praise or criticize the same elements? Inexperienced editors may take that as an invitation to add their own synthesis. It's something to consider.
• Categories probably deserve a quick mention. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thanks.

• most → some seems like a sensible change
• Also seems reasonable being a little clearer re: notability. As an aside, I will say that before doing any editing, students also go through the Dashboard training. That touches on notability in a couple places, but in particular here: slide 1, slide 2, quiz.
• "Did multiple reviewers praise or criticize the same elements" is trying to do a couple things. First, to suss out WP:WEIGHT, extracting where the sources touch on the same ideas. Second, and related to the first, is asking a question that students would be likely to answer in their own words, based on sources, rather than just assemble a series of quotes. Is there a way to reword that might be less likely to produce synth?
• Can I ask you to touch on what aspect of categories? Are you thinking of a particular problem people run into with regard to cats, suggestions of common categories, just a note reminding them to look for categories? --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll chime in here to say that the mistake that I see editors make time and again is that per WP:CATDEF a) there needs to be sourced info in the article to support the cat and b) it needs to be a defining feature of the film. I know the second one can be open to debate but the first is essential. In conjunction with my post below - editors are forever adding cats stating "I think this film is X or Y or Z" but unless it is sourced in the article that is WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. NRP may have other thoughts but I thought these were important to note. MarnetteD|Talk 20:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Good points. I suppose my question for both of you would be whether there is an aspect of this that's particular to articles about films. I mean, obviously there are categories that apply specifically to films, but is problematic categorization something that you see particularly often in film articles? I ask because if not, it may be good to talk about modifying one of the other editing guides for students (the training, the standard Editing Wikipedia brochure, etc.). This supplements those, and while we do want to make sure to touch on some essential policies here as well, we're limited to 4 pages (2 pages front/back) for this one. I'm not pushing back on the idea that it's an important thing to bring up -- just trying to suss out whether it makes sense to add specifically in the context of films or whether your concern is based on categorization in general? --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I suppose film categories are more of a generic issue. I can't come up with any film-specific issues. With respect to the "did multiple reviewers" question, the way you explain it makes it sound better to me. Also, I can't think of anything better – so it's probably fine as-is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

After genres the one I see the most is where someone interprets the plot in a certain way to mean the film belongs in a certain category. That is always problematic. I guess I should also mention the "country" of origin cats. This also spills over into the infobox and the lede. Discussions about this come up. Maybe NRP can provide links to the most recent ones. I can say that sourcing is vital for all of these.

Yeah, genres and categories are always troublesome, especially for music and film articles. There are endless wars over whether to classify something as horror vs thriller, hard rock vs heavy metal, American vs American-British, etc. This should probably be mentioned somewhere, perhaps when introducing students to categories. We could just tell them all classifications and categorizations require reliable sourcing. That should cover the vast majority of edit wars over this stuff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Hi everyone! I'm making some changes and I made sure to add something to the reception section about not creating their own OR from the reviews and that if a review sounds odd, that they should ask for a second opinion about the review. I'll try to add something about the categories and classification in a moment. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Quick (well long winded actually) comment

This is such a good idea R. It looks like it will be a help to editors to come. It is important to note that - whether young or old - long time editor or newbie - the info you add to WikiP articles shouldn't be based on what you know (or think you know) about a film or the actors in it. It has to be based on what is written in WP:SECONDARY reliable sources that can be verified by other editors. One of the fun things about researching items to add to articles is finding sources that back up what you know. It can be just as much fun to find info that teaches you something new or even info that shows that what you thought you knew is wrong. Always be willing to adjust your notions to new info - whether it be what you learn or what other editors discover and bring to a given article. It is also worth mentioning that we all make mistakes. Don't be afraid to acknowledge them - apologize and move on. Since I haven't had time to read your page thoroughly (apologies) I should mention that you have probably covered this. I have seen so many editors - new and long time - that get frustrated with the way things are done here. That happens to all of us - I hope that some of this can help others deal with this frustration and continue on with their editing. MarnetteD|Talk

I should add to my comment above about plots. The word limit is important. The minute someone goes own the road of "I think this plot point is important to a reader" what they mean is "It is important to me" and it is easy to get bogged down in minutiae. A good adage to use is "less is more" this applies to plot sections - and many parts of life as well :-) MarnetteD|Talk 22:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Changes

Hi all! I've made some changes to the brochure - let me know what you all think! The main changes I made are:

1. Adding a general synopsis word limit to the plot section and mentioning that less is more. [1]
2. I made a section about categorization and classification, making sure to mention that they need to have sourcing for this and to not base it on their own interpretation. [2]
3. Made a change to the wording in the section about close paraphrasing, as well as telling them to avoid using synopses taken from elsewhere. [3]
4. Changed the reception section to tell them to avoid synthesizing critic reviews. (This edit also made the suggested edit to the picking the right film section.) [4]
5. Specifically added the words "edit warring" to the section about interacting with other editors. [5]
6. Finally, added a note not to be afraid of owning up to their mistakes. [6]

What do you think? I've linked to the edit diffs so it'd be easier to see what I've changed. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Ryan made a good suggestion about the bit about avoiding synopses, as there are times when you could have a synopsis in a review, so I've tweaked this to his suggestion: [7]. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Shortened draft

Hi all,

I've posted a new version of the draft just now. The current version factors in some of the feedback above while also reducing the length considerably. I made a mistake when considering the length of the draft and was unaware of certain design requirements. As a result, it was much too long. I think that it still touches upon all of the main themes, but repeats less of the other training materials for which it's intended to be a supplement rather than a substitute, and similarly repeats less of what is available on the WikiProject MOS page that could be linked to for more information. I'm going to ping the users who provided feedback already. The gist is quite similar, but I want to ensure we didn't remove anything you would consider essential. @Hoverfish, NinjaRobotPirate, and MarnetteD:. Thanks again. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks good Ryan. Here are a few thoughts:

1. In the "sources" section the sentence states "Articles should be written using reliable sources" I would change "should" to "must" - Per WP:BURDEN info needs to come with sourcing and, in my experience, new editors get frustrated when their edits are reverted because the have not provided reliable sources.

   Y --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

2. You should consider removing the "narrator field" in the infobox. It started out being any voice describing things in a film but that was found to be too broad and its use has been narrowed. The nuances are a bit tricky to describe. A good example is that Michael Hordern is a narrator in Barry Lyndon but in Clockwork Orange Malcolm MacDowell isn't. Since this is a bit tricky my thinking is don't draw attention to it at the start. I can understand if this thinking on this seems a bit of a cop out.

   Barry Lyndon is on my massive to-watch list, and has been for quite a long time, I'm ashamed to say. The other example is interesting, given, of course, he is "your humble narrator". Since I would've fallen into that trap myself, I'd tend to agree it's best omitted in this basic guide. :) Y --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

3. The last bullet point in the "final thoughts" section is a good one - the one sentence I might add is "don't be embarrassed or afraid to ask questions" - along with the "get help" button there are lots of places to ask those questions.

   Modified this one a bit along these lines. I'm hesitant to point someone other than "get help" for general help purposes, since that button leads them to a Wikipedian staff member working with their class. That's not to say that they wouldn't benefit from interacting with others in the community or that the staff member can be all things to all students, of course -- just that most questions they have are pretty straightforward, and the staff member is a reliable source of prompt, consistent information that doesn't require taking up the time of volunteers. I've added a note to the beginning that I think gets at the first part of your recommendation: "It's normal to have questions. If you're not sure what to do at any point, a good place to find guidance is the "Get Help" button near the top of your course page on the Dashboard." --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I did not know how the "get help" button works. I am glad that it takes them directly to volunteer. MarnetteD|Talk 13:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

1. I know that you avoiding links but you might provide one or two to film articles that have become FAs so the students have examples of what they should be aiming for. Along with the editors that you have already pinged perhaps Erik, Betty Logan or Lugnuts might suggest articles that would good for them to read.

   This came up at the books handout too. I'll partially repeat what I said there, which is admittedly not a conclusive response: We talked about some possible examples but ultimately didn't for a few reasons. As it's a printed document and cannot include links, the examples would have to be few enough that students would actually type them in to check, and also means we cannot link to a stable version without a cumbersome URL in the text. FAs are obviously pretty safe bets, but if the purpose is to show structure/style/tone, there's no guarantee the structure won't change to be something that deviates significantly from the typical structure we're urging students to use -- and linking to examples may make concrete particular stylistic choices that we'd otherwise want to characterize as flexible or requiring judgment. There are not insurmountable concerns, to be sure, and there are good arguments for including examples -- these are just how we arrived without. Is there a particular context you'd recommend mentioning them? --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I was basing my point on my experience when I was starting my editing here. I was always looking at other articles to see how things were done. Granted that was a long time ago now - WikiP had less than 400,000 articles then :-) I think you have things well in hand. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 13:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I know any or all of these are long winded and may not fit into what you are trying to accomplish. Thanks for all your work on this and I wish you and all the students who will be editing the very best. MarnetteD|Talk 19:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)