work, and it is quite possible that it will include some"s from the literature work under review. You have "Pre-production but that's really just internet pro cons essay a casting section, because that's all you have there. Brazil (1985 film), Star Wars (film), and Blade Runner, it all in the "Release" section (albeit in subsections thereof in those cases, which would not normally be needed). I also think that it makes more sense for marketing content to go in a Release section than in a Production section. The Gnome ( talk ) 10:36, (UTC) Support. adamstom97 ( talk ) 11:33, (UTC) Again, the onus isn't on me to explain why a rule exists. Second, there are a variety of style guides out there, not just the cmos, and Wikipedia's MOS is not held hostage to any particular one of those. I think the takeaway is that, as a general rule, each section and subsection level should have at least two instances. It almost seems like you're arguing that the "rule" isn't even a rule because the exceptions are so numerous that the "exception" is really having more than one subsection. I generally find it dubious the claim that adding two to four words bracketed is a distraction. Maybe the user is reading the plot section to get a clear summary of the storyline without distraction from bracketed interruptions every time a new character is mentioned?
French ma famille essay
How to set up college essay
Amherst college supplemental essays
That should be directly related to how marketing is related to that parent topic. The titles of the websites are not italicized, and should be headline-style capitalized. adamstom97 ( talk ) 11:44, (UTC) I would support that as well, but since this is a site-wide issue, I imagine some kind of consensus would need to form at WT:MOS before moving forward. An introduction, it contains brief explanation importance of it essay of topic relevance chosen for analysis. So, regardless of how you want to define it, the MOS already tells you that it shouldn't be isolated like that.
As for a summary before subsectioning, you know that I'm aware of the Jason Voorhees article you wrote. Some films even get multiple theatrical releases (e.g. The reality is, almost every one of your examples to justify a single subsection could be re-adjusted to fit the rule without ever upsetting the flow of the article. That's a poor excuse for unprofessional writing.