This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film This page is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm Manual of Style This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

WikiProject Film
General information () Main project page talk → Discussion archives Style guidelines talk → Multimedia talk → Naming conventions talk → Copy-editing essentials talk Notability guidelines talk Announcements and open tasks talk → Article alerts → Cleanup listing → New articles talk → Nominations for deletion talk → Popular pages → Requests talk Spotlight talk Film portal talk Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization Coordinators talk Participants talk Project banner talk Project category talk
Departments Assessment talk → B-Class → Instructions Categorization talk Core talk Outreach talk Resources talk Review talk Spotlight talk → Spotlight cleanup listing Topic workshop talk
Task forces General topics Film awards talk Film festivals talk Film finance talk Filmmaking talk Silent films talk Genre Animated films talk Christian films talk Comic book films talk Documentary films talk Marvel Cinematic Universe talk Skydance Media talk War films talk Avant-garde and experimental films talk National and regional American cinema talk Argentine cinema talk Australian cinema talk Baltic cinema talk Belgian cinema talk British cinema talk Canadian cinema talk Chinese cinema talk French cinema talk German cinema talk Indian cinema talk Israeli cinema talk Italian cinema talk Japanese cinema talk Korean cinema talk Mexican cinema talk New Zealand cinema talk Nordic cinema talk Pakistani cinema talk Persian cinema talk Southeast Asian cinema talk Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk Spanish cinema talk Uruguayan cinema talk Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates banner DVD citation DVD liner notes citation infobox invite plot cleanup stub userbox

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Compulsive Brainstormer, regarding this, the sentence "See WP:LEADSENTENCE for guidance that applies to other elements, such as reputable directors, starring actors, and source material" is supposed to offset the tendency that a lot of editors have to simply name the director upfront every single time. A film could have a director be the most notworthy element, but sometimes a film's starring actors outweigh the director (especially if the latter is more of a hired hand), and sometimes the source material outweighs any one person. (If the weights are relatively close, it would take consensus to sort out the order.) Does that help? I would be fine with a rephrasing of that sentence, but I find it necessary as an offset. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about Other elements, such as the director, starring actors, or source material, should be included in the lead sentence only if they are especially noteworthy. I would still move the LEADSENTENCE link to the first mention of the lead sentence. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying there's a better solution, but personally I hate phrases such as "especially noteworthy" because it just lays the groundwork for future arguments over whether the element in question is "especially noteworthy". Never mind that "noteworthy" is perilously close to notable. DonIago (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I have a better solution, but this goes to show why the lead section is usually not a good place to start. Getting wrapped up in what the first sentence should say isn't a good way to begin. That's why I tried to add a note that while developing an article, one could mostly ignore the lead section until the body is substantially complete. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's good advice to tell (or suggest to) editors, "Oh, you can just ignore that for the time-being..." regardless of what 'that' is. If we were going to advise editors against overly focusing on the first sentence of the lead, that doesn't seem like advice specific to film articles, so I don't really feel that it would belong here. The Film MOS should discuss things specific to film articles. Unless you feel that advice is specific to film articles? DonIago (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section is supposed to summarize the body. If the article body is not yet developed, it could be counter-productive to spend much time on the lead. I'm not sure this page even makes it sufficiently clear that the lead section is supposed to summarize the body. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first sentence in the guideline was based on older "nutshell" text at WP:LEAD, and it looks like that text has changed since. I updated this guideline to open with the latest text, "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." Does that work better? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, but perhaps there could still be a note that if one is developing an article, the lead section might not be the best place to start. I suppose this can be done without saying "ignore the lead until everything else is in order". Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is general advice for how to write the lead of a new article, it is not specific to writing a film article. I would suggest taking that concern to a more appropriate policy or guideline page. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doniago asked you if you thought this was necessary specifically for film articles. We can't import WP:LEAD here, and I don't even think WP:LEAD says anything about article development that way. It's implied in the fact that the lead section needs to summarize the article body, so the body needs to be written first for the lead to then be appropriate. It's not a WikiProject Film-centric item to have. After using the nutshell from WP:LEAD, the guideline text focuses on elements specific to films. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why your assumption is that the MOS is telling editors to start with the lead section. That so-called section is simply at the top of any given article, so in the MOS, it's at the top of the list of sections under "Primary content". Not to mention that many articles are already developed in some way but may warrant improvement of its lead section.

As for your suggested rewrite, I think it needs to be more encompassing. This is probably too long, but something like, "Additional context, such as the director, source material, or starring actors, may be included in the opening sentence when these elements are prominent in reliable sources and help situate the film for non-specialist readers." Think of disambiguation pages where we explain just a little more than the article title, per WP:DABNOT "to add a little additional information" to an entry. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We could just use that and drop and help situate the film for non-specialist readers. That doesn't seem essential. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest some further adjustments to clarify what the sentence is trying to get across: Other noteworthy elements that are prominent in reliable sources may be included, but do not overload the first sentence with too many details per WP:LEADSENTENCE. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about While it should be kept reasonably succinct, the opening sentence may also include other elements if they are especially prominent in reliable sources. Compulsive Brainstormer (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That may be opening up arguments about what "reasonably succinct" means. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off-topic, but is there any chance of also recommending some restrictions on including production companies and distributors in the opening sentence? Seems to me too many film articles start with the likes of <Film name> is a <year> film produced by ABC Productions and DEF Productions and released by XYZ Films. Barry Wom (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and that approach alarmingly makes Wikipedia articles sound like press releases, running afoul of WP:PROMO. US franchise films suffer this the most, and I think the same editors tend to work on these articles and open them the same way in the name of standardization. Comic book films especially do (did?) this to the point of not even naming or linking to titular characters until a few sentences in. I'd rather that we write the first sentences to the film itself. (I think way too much about this and cover it in my essay here.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A concern was raised regarding my edits to the Studio Ghibli-related articles on my talk page regarding the removal of information of several producers (including the production companies) and distributors here. Taking this, along with Barry Wom and Erik's comments from the "First sentence in lead section" section, into consideration, what should we do about the producers and distributors? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors feel these should never be included in the lead, or at least not early in the lead, but there isn't a hard and fast rule about what belongs in the lead for all films. If local consensus has determined that those are noteworthy elements to include, you shouldn't be blanket removing them without discussing first. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My personal preference is that they shouldn't be there. The inclusion of distributors, in particular, is the reason I don't bother editing MCU articles because that inclusion will always bother me. There may be special cases where you mention the producer in context because they had an important role, i.e. "The film began production after producer x spent 6 years gathering funds", but just "x is a film directed by x and written by x, with x serving as a producer and it was distributed by Disney"? Get that outta here. A studio makes sense, again in context to why rather than just "x was the production company." Distributor again, I would use Trading Places as an example, the studio is mentioned but as part of an interesting part of the intro instead of just a name drop. I get mentioning Studio Ghibli since my understand is they're animating it. Looking at the Spirited Away changes, "It was produced by Toshio Suzuki", is just a name drop as he's not mentioned again. I assume he is more involved than other producers, but part of the reason I disagree with including producers is that the credit system for them is widely abused and can be given to pretty much anyone, and modern films can also have 3+ of them so you're just listing names when the infobox is right there. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with this. The problem for me is that the production and distribution companies are often only a sentence or two in the body (and sometimes not discussed at all outside of the infobox), and so including them in the lead may seem like undue weight. If they are important or discussed more in depth in the body and this weight is supported by the cited sources, then it would make more sense to include in the lead. Ultimately, for me this is a question of what the sources say and how much weight they put on discussing the production or distribution companies. – notwally (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like film producers, production companies, and distributors should all be separate discussions:

• My first thought is that in any film's box office coverage, the distributor will always be mentioned, and it seems easy enough to simply say that so-and-so distributor released the film in theaters.
• Production companies, if simply named, feel rather shoehorned in. If there is a good "Production" section that can be summarized in the middle part of the lead section, then that would be most suitable.
• Speaking of film producers, NYT had an interesting article about that recently here. I admit I am less sure about this, especially considering the case that producers go up to collect the Best Picture award. Maybe I'd be more keen to name them if the given film has received such awards, but for most films, perhaps it is not worthwhile unless there is similarly a good production-related part of the lead section?

The lead section needs to "stand on its own as a concise overview of the article". With films, there are so many individual and corporate crediting possible, so the lead-section material should focus on what's important. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're definitely overloading the opening sentence in the majority of articles. Overwhelming readers with too much unimportant information doesn't help them. It's a bit different in mature articles. You can spread the information throughout the lead and include context for why it's important. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of this data is usually set out in the infobox; indeed, that’s the purpose of having an infobox in the article. And it will be covered in prose in the relevant sections of the article. It only goes into the lead if the information is particularly notable and significant to the topic, as per WP:LEAD. This will vary by film - sometimes the director is particularly notable, sometimes the lead actors, sometimes the original writer; sometimes a lot of people involved with a film will be particularly prominent, on other occasions none of them are. Hence the quest for a standard approach to apply to all film articles is futile. I’d be surprised however if the distributor very often qualifies. MapReader (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Directors, actors, writers - fine. Distributors, producers, production companies though - nobody cares, and the introduction of them to the lede should really be under exceptional circumstances only. I can see the value in mentioning a single production company if they're primarily associated with a particular genre of film (Studio Ghibli, Walt Disney, Hammer etc.), but that's about it. Barry Wom (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that "nobody cares" about distributors specifically. They are invariably mentioned as part of a film's box office coverage. There is enough due weight from reliable sources that this to me is as basic of a fact as naming the film's director. (In contrast, film producers and production companies aren't as consistently mentioned anywhere like that.) Mainstream films' distributors are usually not just distributors anyway, if they're under one of the major studios. Unless you're talking about films beyond the mainstream? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What percentage of visitors to a film article would you estimate are seeking to learn which company distributed the film? It's information that belongs in the "Release" section, not the lede. Barry Wom (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the right way to frame it. We have to follow WP:LEAD, which says in the nutshell, "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." This is covered in detail with MOS:LEADREL. If all of a film's box office coverage invariably names its distributor, establishing clear encyclopedic weight (along with relevant figures), then we would be remiss not to name it. That's what matters, not what we think readers are or are not looking for. Is the claim that we should not even identify blockbuster films' distributors in spite of overwhelming coverage naming them in many reliable sources? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To give some examples, the Marvel Cinematic Universe articles mention the distributors' involvement (in this case, it's Paramount and Disney) later on in the lead (specifically the second and paragraph). Same with Back to the Future and Conan the Barbarian (1982 film). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, were you asking about distributors at all in the lead section or in the first sentence(s)? I feel like later in the lead section is most appropriate because it is in the context of the release and the resulting box office. To do it any more upfront, outside of context, feels like a press release to me. Overall, for me, the details should be organically introduced. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking about whether we should put the distributors in the first section of the lead, but if not, we can always mention said distributors in a later paragraph of the lead as necessary. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it now! Yeah, I think later in the lead section where the film's release and box office is detailed makes the most sense for most cases. There may be some companies have weight in their own right to be mentioned in the first paragraph. Disney and A24 are two instances that come to mind as having more noteworthy context than others, to the point of an audience desire to see their productions because of their name. Streaming services are another interesting case. Like before, we would indicate if a film was direct-to-video. For some Netflix films, it may be that the Netflix element is more noteworthy than anything else. (I'm just thinking out loud at this point...) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, about certain companies involved in film productions (including production committees where multiple companies are involved as in some anime productions like Studio Ghibli films), should the relevant ones be listed in the release or production sections? Also, one of the things we do want to avoid is an exhaustive list of credits which include several production companies involved (for example, 15 or so companies listed as members of the film's production committee), which isn't Wikipedia's purpose, so should we do those on a case-by-case basis? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there should be a hard and fast rule about it. It's like with "Cast" sections where we don't name everyone, but we probably name some actors whose screen time are brief because reliable sources tend to name them in their set of actors. If secondary sources are naming production companies in a set, there is some merit to naming them. Maybe moreso if they're blue-linked topics compared to not. 15 does sound like a lot, though! I recall one time I did this, with Wolf Totem (film) where I just had them in a note. It's less prominent placement, which could be an in-between approach. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, given the previous points raised in the above discussions, which paragraphs in the lead sections should we list film producers (such as Raffaella De Laurentiis in the Conan the Barbarian (1982 film) article) if they are important to said film's production? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the production-based paragraph is fine. The example you mention is a good one in organically naming a producer. I had another thought -- the first paragraph tends to parallel the infobox in naming the director, writers, producers, and stars. That probably has seemed the easiest way to put something in the lead section, and it is a habit that has taken hold. Foundationally, that can be fine, though I think we can have the flexibility to move beyond that, especially if the film has other noteworthy contexts that are more appropriate to highlight (like for a biopic, naming the real-life figure). It's also possible that for some films the writers are not worthwhile to name in the first paragraph either (like if they are numerous and/or lack blue links to indicate notability) and only in the production-based paragraph if it fits. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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