Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Image

Is it possible to write something into the code so that if an image is narrower than 200 pixels it isn't stretched to fit? Or is it possible to do it on a case-by-case basis somehow? Sometimes it's not possible to find anything that's wide enough, and the results can look quite ugly. Esn 05:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

An example please? I'm wording what needs to be tweaked in the code to allow it, so an example would be best. :) Cbrown1023 22:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There is an image_size parameter, which does the trick. Prolog 00:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Awards section

Actors have an awards section for their infobox, so should films. See: Template:Infobox actor Fistful of Questions 22:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Nearly a year later and nobody has commented on this. I was just thinking the same and that's why I came here -- SteveCrook (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Year of release

Does anyone else see a certain silliness in filling in year with [[1977-05-25]]? For one thing, the entire date wraps around, clumsily in my opin'. Also, the infobox seems a "capsule fact sheet"; I'm not sure that the precise date of a films release (RELEASED = )is needed. ... when for a film, something like 1977 in film would more appropriate (filled in as [[1977 in film|1977]]), give a reader a more pertinent link, that is, maybe finding out that 1977 was the year Star Wars was released. Just a suggestion. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 00:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• An example of this can be viewed here. ~Dbs

The full date provides useful information, maybe you want to know if it's a summer movie or whether it came out before or after another film. Doctor Sunshine talk 11:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we are free to enter the date as we like. The link to "19xx in film" can happen anyway. What I usually find is: February 03, [[1977 in film|1977]]. It could also be [[1977 in film|1977-02-03]], but IMO this date system may be confusing to many. Hoverfish Talk 19:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Aspect ratio

Shouldn't we include the aspect ratio of the film? Tony Myers 07:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll second this. Doctor Sunshine talk 11:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki Link

Please add th:แม่แบบ:กล่องข้อมูล หนัง for Thai interwiki link. Thanks --Jutiphan 21:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cbrown1023 00:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please add hsb:Infokašćik film for upper sorbian interwiki link. Thanks and greetings --Tlustulimu 09:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. RWardy 12:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

image_size parameter

The image_size parameter works correctly, and I have been using it for images that are not the default size 220px and I need to modify their width. However it would be much more convenient if this field was part of the copy-and-pastable blank syntax code. The code is protected so I can't add it myself, can someone with access do so? Fistful of Questions 04:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion. I had to ask in WP Films and as I see in many infoboxes many usres have left behind unsuccessful attempts at resizing. Also many have asked here (see archieved talk). Hoverfish Talk 14:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I added it since it's in the code. You could've done it yourself though, since the subpage with the syntax isn't protected (it's at Template talk:Infobox Film/Syntax, which get included to the main template page). - Bobet 15:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the default 200px? The default needs to be stated on the style guidelines because if you don't specify the size and you have the field, the infobox does not work.--Supernumerary 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd make it so that if not specified it still goes to 200px, if I knew how. Or maybe it should be given entered in the template (= 200px) and let people modify it. Hoverfish Talk 22:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Why does it work for Template: Infobox actor but not this one?Fistful of Questions 23:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Better now? It worked when I tried it. Only way I could get problems now were by entering random text into the field, in which case it displays the full image. - Bobet 11:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Should we red-link everyone?

In adding infoboxes I keep linking everyone, but it doesn't always seem right. Recently I was even reverted "wikifying" an infobox. The instruction say "link the name(s)", but.... always? Hoverfish Talk 14:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should. Then people can later add an article for that person when they see the redlink for them. Remember, Wikipedia still has many articles that can be potentially added, and redlinking reminds us about these pages.Fistful of Questions 14:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I prefer red-linking in the Cast section or elsewhere. For the infobox, I try to minimize how many names are in there, and majors are usually linked. I realize, no always, but..... David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I usually only leave the cast and director red linked. Most producers, cinematographers and especially editors don't get the love the rest do and will never have articles, sad as it is... Doctor Sunshine talk 11:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is a new films sub-project intended to work on screenwriters, but it's awefully unmanned in relation to the huge amount of biographies that should be created. And if one looks at imdb, they also offer links for all crew, but very few have even basic biographical info. Hoverfish Talk 19:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Aspect ratio again

I strongly agree on adding aspect ratio. This is useful information that I often wonder about a film myself so that I can tell whether or not I have the right aspect ratio when I'm watching it.Fistful of Questions 23:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought that most post-1952 films are shot in some sort of widescreen format, while pre-1952 were either Academy frame or a silent film format? Or are you referring to home video and dvd?--PhantomS 00:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Release date format

Which is the proper form for a release date, linking to the year, or the year in film?

Year in film...

 October 17, 1939

Year....

 October 17 1939

--posted by Fistful of Questions

I've always seen just the year. --PhantomS 00:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what the status quo is, what should it be?Fistful of Questions 01:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think years in film would be a better option out of the two listed above. --PhantomS 04:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, thats what I would've thought.Fistful of Questions 05:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "years in film" is the recommended way ...and please, easy on the flags: if we have a flag in Country, it goes (or it should go) without saying that the release date is given for the country that produced it. Also there are films with more than one producing country, so if we give all flags in country and in release, it will look kind of funny. Hoverfish Talk 09:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

One problem with using year-in-film links that way, when a user has set a date display preference sans-year-in-film will display the date to their liking while links with the year-in-film won't. I only use year-ins at beginning of the lead, myself. Doctor Sunshine talk 11:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly will not work? Does the link [[February 03]] misfire under other preferences? Hoverfish Talk 19:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't read the [[1939 in film|1939]] as part of the date when reformatting per user preferences. If you go to my preference>Date and time and change the Date format you'll see what I mean. It's not a huge deal but something to be aware of. Doctor Sunshine talk 07:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Why <br />?

What is the difference between <br /> and <br>? Is it only for readability? As of now I am using just <br> because I do not see the point of the extra space and backslash.Fistful of Questions 23:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

br is HTML and br / is XHTML, Wikipedia uses XHTML, even though they both work. Cbrown1023 23:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's no big deal. However, since the editing bar offers the break, it's easier to just press on it than to enter code. Hoverfish Talk 09:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Animation?

What do we do with animators? Leave them out? Hoverfish Talk 09:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What I've done is simply put them in the "crew" section of the article. It's true that for some films animators are far more important than voice actors (films which have barely any talking and a lot of animation), but the film infobox only has a space for those professions which are considered more important in cinema in general. Since the percentage of mostly-animated films out of the total number of films in the world is fairly small, I suppose there isn't too much support for an "animators" category in the infobox. But as I said, that need not be a problem. Esn 11:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Animators are always more important than the voice actors in feature animation, especially based upon the comparison of man-hours each logs for a given film. It may be a good idea to make a infobox for animated films alone, and include a parameter there for supervising animators, since they would be analogous to the lead actors in a live-action film. --FuriousFreddy 15:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Genre

I added the param "genre". Are there any objections to this addition? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that prior to this edit without consensus, there had been no major changes to this template for months. When there were, such as with the addition of "narrator", this was done only after obtaining approval from Wikipedia:WikiProject Films ... Smee 21:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

I know. I got a message from a concerned editor. Nonetheless, I think it is a worthy addition. Wikipedia:WikiProject Films does not own this template. The only issue is that it is protected, and only admins can edit it, a fact that escaped me when I did the addition. So, I am asking for editors to tell me if this is a useful addition or not. I am reverting for now, looking for arguments about why we should not have such a useful parameter as genre. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bad addition, but there are some problems with it. One is that there are no absolute facts, correct genres, for the field, and a film's genres vary a lot depending on the sources used. Other fields in the template, director, writer, music et cetera, are very clear and not open to interpretation. I'm also not sure if it is necessary to have the genre information in the infobox, as it is usually included, or at least should be, in the lead section: Jaws is a 1975 horror–thriller film directed by... We also need to avoid the infobox becoming too long and list-like. Prolog 23:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I like the idea of film genre's to be sourced and easy to read, not only do I think it comes into interpretation, but it leads to constant edit wars, like how in infoboxes with music bands claiming what styles of music they play. I agree with the above statement that it's easier just to say things like "Jaws is a Horror/Thriller" film. Any extra suggested genre's can be added to Categories at the bottom as well. Andrzejbanas 00:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

All film databases use some kind of categorization by Genre. Seems strange not to have one in the template. As with any other material, it will need to be sourced ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I also strongly suggest genre should be left for categories. Let's not comlicate the infobox with such a subjective field. Hoverfish Talk 13:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It does seem to open the door to POV classifications and potential edit warring... Smee 18:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Taglines?

This might be a question better intended for the Film wikiproject as a whole, but what about a parameter for a movie's tagline? Taglines are interesting trivia, but there is no clear place to put them in a film's article, and many articles have them unfashionably sandwiched between the intro paragraphs and the TOC. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stratadrake (talk • contribs) 01:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

I think we discussed it before and the consensus was no, but what about for an article whose tagline is quite long? (which many of them are...) How would that be fit in the infobox? Cbrown1023 talk 21:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternate Title

it seems to me that every film is known by other names--e.g. foreign, working titles, subsequent releases etc., it would be very useful to have a field to reflect these aka titles. --emerson7 | Talk 00:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)]

These are much better discussed in the main body of the article, surely, since the reasons are often complex. Most articles explain the alternate titles in the first few sentences. Cop 633 17:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability

A major problem with these infoboxes is that they are not verifiable. They don't say where the information comes from. Of course, most are compiled from the IMDB. Is it possible to include a note at the bottom saying 'Data is from the IMDB unless otherwise specified'. Users could then add footnotes if they include data from other sources. Thoughts? Cop 633 17:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The data that appears in the infobox is supposed to also be included somewhere else in the article. In the case of fields where referencing is needed (eg. not the 'director' and 'writer' fields that are most likely verifiable from watching the credits of the film itself), it would be better to add the footnotes outside of the infobox (in my opinion). In a case where something for some reason appears only in the infobox, nothing stops you from adding a ref there. In the case you listed above, if you actually did compile the data from imdb, adding a ref in the infobox about it would be good. - Bobet 18:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that data in infoboxes ought to also appear in the main article, but the problem is that in 99.9% of cases, it doesn't, even in featured articles (Ran (film) is an example where a couple of infobox stats don't appear in the article itself). There are thousands of film articles in which the infobox data is not duplicated in the article. Since most if not all people who create infoboxes use the IMDB as their source, I think adding a note at the bottom about this would improve the verifiability of film articles greatly. Cop 633 14:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I always thought they would be verified by both the All Movie Guide links and the imdb links. They aren't always 100% accurate, but they are at least 95%. When they aren't accurate on either site, most people cite that. Andrzejbanas 14:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

IMDB can't be considered a reliable source, though, since its information is all user-added. —Angr 10:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples, "film credits on IMDb, which are provided by the Writer's Guild of America, can be considered to be adequately reliable." I agree that the rest of IMDb cannot be used as a source on WP. Colin°^Talk 12:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

box office succes

Shouldn't we add a line for how much a film has made? - Peregrine Fisher 00:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox color?

Could anybody tell me if there is a way I can add a "color" section on the infobox? I want to add information like black and white, technicolor; tinted color etc. Is that impossible? Please just put your response on my discussion page if you can help.--Dudeman5685 17:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Film ratings

Can we add a parameter for films' ratings? — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 03:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Which country's ratings, and how are we handling films, made before the current ratings systems, that have been re-rated? --PhantomS 03:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be basically a text field by my idea, but maybe it could have two parameters. One for the rating and one for the system, like (template snippet): {{Infobox Film|...|rating = PG|rating_system = MPAA|...}}. Films that have been rated in multiple systems could have more than one parameter, separated by line breaks as in the crew lists. Would it be possible to set the template up so {{Infobox Film|...|rating = PG, <br />Rating2, <br />Rating3|rating_system = MPAA, <br />System2, <br />System3|...}} would make properly-aligned lists? Or is that too complex? — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 03:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I still think it's best to keep this for section "Reception", or on its own within the article. The special template mentioned above would do fine. The infobox is already quite full, if all fields are entered, and this one may end up including various countries' ratings, as many users like to copy whatever imdb offers, so I foresee a messy field there. Hoverfish Talk 08:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not just use the pre-existing {{Infobox movie certificates}}? --PhantomS 08:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the one I meant. Hoverfish Talk 21:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That template is pretty big, too. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 23:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Only if you fill all the fields. Cbrown1023 talk 00:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Foreign film title

A field should be added for films whose original name is in a different language, for example this film: Nowhere to Hide.MJCdetroit 01:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is better dealt with in the main article, because sometimes it's too complicated to express in an infobox, especially with Asian films - see Hard Boiled, for example. In most articles, the original title immediately follows the English one in the article's first sentence, so there's no chance it can be missed. Cop 633 01:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, which name should I use, the original one or the English one? Kar.ma 14:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

See the guidelines here, and let us know if they're unclear. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (films)#Foreign-language_films. Cop 633 14:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Missing item: Film studio/production company

I suggest to add an important item into the template: film studio/production company. `'mikka 22:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I said something on this effect (Template talk:Infobox Film/Archive 3#Distributor) but there was very little interest (and that's not an encouraging sign usually). I guess when we have 18,000 articles with most of them having infoboxes, going back and replacing them all with a new type that will include one more field is not going to meet with much enthusiasm. However, we still have categories that can do this. Actually it was recommended in Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Categorization that we include studio in the basic categorization of films, but in all the thousands of films I've been through lately, only few have studio. So even adding the category to all films would be a huge campain, but at least a feasible one. Hoverfish Talk 23:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I definitely think it would be an improvement. Couldn't we simply add it as an #ifdef so that the info could be added gradually and wouldn't impact existing articles? Pepto gecko 23:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

To add a new field in the template (if it's done properly) doesn't impact existing infoboxes. But unless it's also added in all the thousands of existing infoboxes, it will be a privilege of only few ones we enter after including the new field. I would support it, if I knew that there is a group of 5-10 editors determined to go through many thousands of infoboxes and add the studio field. The problem is that we are just going through the last few thousands of film articles without infoboxes and we are adding the existing infobox without it. And it's a LOT of work!! Hoverfish Talk 19:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

We could also slowly add it to whatever films takes our fancy. While we're at it, I think we should have a field for Box office results. - Peregrine Fisher 19:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever we decide, should include all changes in one go. I think we should come up with a total proposal and notify WP Films, so we get some effective consensus. Hoverfish Talk 19:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's make a wish list, then, and then take it there and see which ones people think are worth adding. I think Production company and Box office returns are two things that we should put on the list. What else? - Peregrine Fisher 20:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

At this time, I can't think of any needed additions other than Studio and Box office. Pepto gecko 01:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe aspect ratio. I'd prefer to keep the infobox as short as possible but that's probably the ideal place for it. Doctor Sunshine talk 07:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Aspect ratio is a very good infobox item. Pepto gecko 17:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, for aspect ratio, I see reason for a new field. About production company, I was going to mention it, but now I see it already practiced: Give production company in the field "Producer", right after the name of the producer (if present). Any problems with this? See Una película de huevos. I personally find nothing wrong with it. Hoverfish Talk 08:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

When you mention aspect ratio, do you mean available DVD ratios or original film aspect ratio? See my comment above about film aspect ratios. --PhantomS 08:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

They're usually the same. Even when a film does have multiple aspect ratios (switching between scenes, like Dr. Strangelove, or viewers choice, like Gus Van Sant's doing now) it takes up minimal space. 1.33:1, 16:9, they'll fit on one line. And putting the production company in the Produced by field is a good idea. I can't remember where I saw it, maybe not on Wikipedia, but I remember seeing something like "produced by: 'producer name' for 'production company'" which should work fine. Doctor Sunshine talk 11:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

About the aspect ratio: The purpose of the infobox isn't to be a replacement for the article body, or a collection of technical details. I don't recall seeing many articles where the writers have thought it important enough to include a single sentence about the aspect ratio of the film, which would seem to indicate that there's not much merit in having it as a field in the infobox. Please keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, not a film site, and not a replacement for eg. dvdcompare.net. If there's a good reason to include it, please tell, but 'I think it's useful' or 'it doesn't take up much space' isn't one (in my opinion). - Bobet 10:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit Bobet's comment brings us much closer to Wikipedia's aims. Let's keep the infobox to what it's meant for and enrich film articles with prose and usefull sections rather than an overly full infobox. Thanks Bobet. Hoverfish Talk 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a couple of months since this discussion, was the proposal to add the Studio/production company to the infobox ever submitted? Yorkshiresky 14:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Infobox

Could someone edit this page mildly just so the See Also segment has the link to Template:Infobox Chinese Film? Andrzejbanas 22:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. --PhantomS 05:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

documentation transclusion

Can the documentation be completely transcluded? At the moment, half of the documentation aspects are still in the template. In addition, the documentation that has already been transcluded needs to be placed in a more typical location with a proper transcluded document header. --PhantomS 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added transclusion headers to the syntax subpages (as they are not protected). As for the rest... hmm... do we even need two subpages, anyway? How about merging the /Syntax page with the /Syntax Guide page (or vice versa)? --Stratadrake 00:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

An admin is needed to properly transclude the entire documentation (this includes categories, interwikis, etc...basically everything with noinclude tags around it). By the way, there is a proper template for transcluded documentation, which I've added. Unfortunately, since the documentation is in an odd location, the template isn't pointing to the correct location. In addition, I agree that the documentation pages should be merged.--PhantomS 02:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I tweaked the template to allow a parameter for an alternate subpage name (/Synatx, in this case). But the template seems to be suffering from namespace issues.... --Stratadrake 04:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, figured it out (moved /Syntax Guide to proper namespace).

I copied the blank syntax form (/doc subpage) into the full syntax guide at Template:Infobox Film/Syntax Guide. Infobox page should transclude that page -- e.g. change {{/doc}} to {{/Syntax Guide}}. --Stratadrake 04:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a parameter table to the documentation page, which supercedes the syntax guide. Therefore, the syntax guide can now safely be setup as a redirect. --PhantomS 05:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Spaces

Could someone remove all the extra spaces in the template? So it looks like this:

{{Infobox Film
|name=
|image=
|image_size=
|caption=
|director=
|producer=
|writer=
|narrator=
|starring=
|music=
|cinematography=
|editing=
|distributor=
|released=
|runtime=
|country=
|language=
|budget=
|preceded_by=
|followed_by=
|website=
|amg_id=
|imdb_id=
}} TJ Spyke 08:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The documentation is not protected. As for the spaces, they are there to increase legibility and do not affect usage of the template. --PhantomS 08:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also prefer the spaces to stay. They do help legibility while editing. Hoverfish Talk 07:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer the spaces be removed. It's fine when you add an infobox for the first time, but if someone else adds the infobox and then removes some of the fields, when you go to add a field you have to match the spaces. Maybe this isn't a difficult thing, but in reality, it's doesn't seem to be happening. If we did it as above, it would match added fields almost every time. - Peregrine Fisher 08:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO, infoboxes should have all the fields. I don't see why editors remove empty fields. If I see it done I enter again the full infobox with all its fields for others to fill up any needed ones. Hoverfish Talk 08:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)