Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Adding Sound, Sound design, Sound effects editing and Dialog editing credit parameters to infobox film

May I strongly suggest that Sound, Sound design, Sound effects editing and Dialog editing credit parameters be added to the infobox film template ( most likely between labels 8 and 9 ), since these credits are at least as important as the editing credit (image), this being quite apparent in all awards for these credits (Best overall sound, Best sound editing, etc.).--Iswearius (talk) 08:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's have a bit of discussion before we start requesting edits to the template, eh? These all seem like fairly minor credits. Just because people win awards for them, it doesn't mean that they need including in the infobox. PC78 (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with PC78 - if the sound team is specifically notable to a film, then discussion of their contributions (and awards) belong in the article proper, rather than the infobox. If anything, the infobox would do better with a sizable amount of paring down. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Concur with PC78 and GS; the infobox is meant to be brief. We can't be indiscriminate with listing all the crew members involved. It's best saved for the article body if these roles are demonstrated to be relevant (winning an award or detailing how it shaped the final product). —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. All of you have raised very good points. The purpose of my suggestion initially was to seek counsel and discuss the matter. Being new to this type of discussion, I'm afraid my suggestion might not have been formulated appropriately, please forgive me. I do believe Infobox should not be unnecessarily encumbered and agree that if the sound team is specifically notable to a film, then discussion of their contributions (and awards) belong in the article proper. I nonetheless commonly see Sound credit (usually for sound designer, but occasionnaly also for production sound recordist and re-recording mixer) very present at generic level and made public in this format; for example on Theatrical release posters (and this is a good point because Infobox should reflect basic credits present on the poster, since an image of the poster is usually present), in national archives (where may I add there is always a credit for Sound, but obviously not for the whole team) and once again in the way awards present these credits. I strongly feel this is for a valid reason. Please advise.--Iswearius (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That varies from poster to poster. I have 26 posters up in my home and they list almost different things. You'll always see director, writer, cast, but you'll find variations for producer, music composer, executive producer, special effects, etc. Not all list them, even when they have them. A few even list the DoP, but I've rarely, if ever, seen a poster list "Sound editing" (not saying that some might not, just that I haven't seen it before that I can remember). I cannot imagine that it is a common thing, unless that is something appearing on more modern posters (most of mine are 10, 15, 20 years old).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point. The modern posters often have a "Sound or Sound by" credit listing names but not specific functions of major sound contributors: production sound recordist, sound designer and sound re-recording mixer. I guess the tendancy arose with the advent of tecnological advancements and refinement in the sound area. May I suggest we refer to official formats in use today (including national archives per WP:NF).--Iswearius (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Still wondering how prevalent it is. Here is the poster for The Dark Knight. No where on there does it mention sound (not including the composers), but it does mention costume designer and production designer, which is not something you typically find. Here is another for Watchmen and The Caller. These were ones that I just randomly picked up at IMPawards.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I also notice that non-commercial films (Art films, experimental films, Auteure films,...), even old ones, tend to have these credits on the Theatrical release poster and other generic publications. Perhaps a question of refinement. May I suggest we take this into account and further examine these occurences in order to better refer to them.--Iswearius (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

We probably need some actual examples of this going on. It's hard to determine how realistic the prevalence is if we don't see what films actually use this standard, or how many do.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll do a bit of digging, and get back to you.--Iswearius (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The infobox shouldn't be longer than the article. I think costume and production designers are as valuable as sound, sound design, sound effects, and dialogue editors but they're not listed either. You have to draw the line somewhere. If sound or sound effects is a major part of a movie it can be discusse in the article, right? 209.247.22.166 (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bignole and fellow collaborators. I may, for now, only point to the following posters of notable films http://www.moviegoods.com/movie_poster/apocalypse_now_1979.htm and http://www.moviegoods.com/movie_poster/the_english_patient_1996.htm (Both list respectively Sound and Sound by Walter Murch, unfortunately resolution is inadequate; but better quality reproductions can assuredly be found). I can think of at least a dozen more notable titles and will take the time to dig up the sources (perhaps with the help of some wikifriends). I feel at least one Sound parameter should be present in the infobox.--Iswearius (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Munich was only the film editor for The English Patient (that is his poster credit, which is indicative of his A.C.E. license attached to his name - plus, it just says "Edited by"). His sound credit is as the re-recording mixer (which isn't something credited on the poster). He wasn't the sound editor for that film. Apocalpse Now does list his as "Sound Designer". If you throw out the list of films I might be able to track down some enlarged images so that we can visually see the credits better.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Back again. Just caught a few winks. Bignole, you are right about Walter Murch's credit on the The English Patient poster. My mistake, I stand corrected. These low resolution images are eye-bending. Perhaps I also need a new pair of glasses. Here are a few more notable films with Sound credits on the posters; TIFF 2006 official selection Out of the Blue by Robert Sarkies has a Sound Designer credit for Dave Whitehead on the poster http://www.whosdatedwho.com/poster/6280/out-of-the-blue.htm, Cannes 1992 official selection Léolo has a Sound (Son) credit for Marcel Pothier on the poster http://www.impawards.com/1993/leolo.html, Cannes 1993 official selection The Piano has a Sound Designer credit for Lee Smith on the poster http://www.impawards.com/1993/piano_ver2.html and http://www.impawards.com/1993/piano_ver1.html... there are many more out there, only it will take me time to dig them up (but I'll keep at it). May I suggest we go through the posters of the Cannes festival selections from 1990 on up (tracking images of adequate resolution as you proposed). I'm convinced we could find enough occurences to justify the addition of at least one parameter for sound (most likely Sound Design or Sound Designer) to Infobox film.--Iswearius (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see the point - our infobox inclusion criteria have never been tied into what the posters do. My objections, for instance, are not going to change regardless. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see of the posters, and then checking their IMDb pages, the ones that have it are typically ones attempting to win the awards for that (not saying that putting a name on a poster is indicative of winning, but that they prize that aspect of the film enough to promote the person responsible). To me, that means we'd have to do that for every section that could possibly win awards. Like I've said, costume designer appears on quite a few posters, and they win awards too, but the question is are they really an important piece to creating the film. Sound is important yes, but what are the most important jobs for creating the film? Those should be what we include - just the pertinent stuff. I'm still on the fence as to whether "Sound Design" or some variation is really important enough beyond some Indie films to really warrant this inclusion. Thinking that way makes me wonder if we even really need "Cinematographer" and "Edited By" on there, because you can find just as many posters that DON'T have those titles listed as do.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Girolamo Savonarola. Let's be careful about adding new credits to the infobox, as that is a slippery slope. For example, should the costume designer be added to the infobox for Gone With the Wind? Perhaps he or she is mentioned there, perhaps not, but the costumes were notable and I'd guess that the designer is, and if not should be, mentioned in the text of the article. Likewise the special effects people who did E.T. and Close Encounters of the Third Kind (or the animal trainers in the Lassie and Rin Tin Tin movies). I think such important contributions should be in the main text rather than in the infobox, if worth mentioning. Stetsonharry (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bignole and fellow collaborators. Thank you for responding with so much concern and effort. The process of this dicussion has further defined my feeling that inclusion of a Sound credit to Infobox film may indeed be appropriate. The feeling arises from the fact that Production and Post-production are two different "realms" that are ultimately united to result in the film in it's complete form. Each of these "realms" has (or should have) a head representative contributor having final say on the work (done by a team) relative to that "realm". For Production we have the Director who supervises acting, cinematography, esthetics, production sound recording..., the work of this body of contributors is encapsuled in the resulting film stock footage (and associated production sound) available for editing. An intermediate pivotal "realm" is Film editing since it sits at the end of Production and beginning of Post-production and has as head representative contributor the Film Editor (team members are few, occasionally assistants, etc.) who is the Director's peer and edits the disparate fragments brought to him (like a writer who composes a text from scribbled notes you give him) into the final visual component; the physical work copy of the film. And finally Post-production sound having as head representative contributor the Sound Designer (being usually also the Sound effects Editor) who again is the Director's peer but brings to the film a component of a completely different nature from sources (created sound, sound effects librairies, specifically recorded sound,...) completely unrelated to all work done before (exept, of course, generic sound recording, mostly dialogue, during production). He is like a painter commissioned to adorn the ceiling of a chapel. He contributes to the project in full mastery and has final say on the body of work (which he incorporates) done by the team (dialogue editors, foley, etc) (here I add that Music is definitely an important parallel contribution but ultimately, in the best of cases, is also incorporated by the Sound Designer), and this all the way through to, and including, the Mix (done by the sound re-recording mixer), a packaging phase during which the two major components, visual and sonic, are conjugated before being physically united on the first film copy. My feeling is that these three "heads" (representing their respective teams) should appear as the primary credits for any given film. Adding other (secondary) credits, I feel, is an act of expansion and specification. It is for this reason that I am convinced these three credits (Director, Film Editor or Editor and Sound Designer) should have parameters in Infobox film. (May I point out that Infobox film already has parameters the likes of country, language, runtime, budget and gross which, I feel, are by comparison trivial). (N.B. I have not neglected the Writing credit but have simply ommited it for clarity). Please advise.--Iswearius (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I do understand and respect your position on this. Surely, particularly today, post production is at least as significant as any other realm in moviemaking, particularly when it comes to sound. Very few moviegoers realize that much of the dialogue that they hear is added or enhanced after the actual making of the movie. Still, looking at the whole subject more narrowly, as it relates to the infobox, we come down to a general reluctance to expand and indeed a tendency to streamline infoboxes. That's the crux of the issue here. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your counsel. Have I not just narrowed the parameters down to three؟:)--Iswearius (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bignole - I'd rather scrap the Cinematography and Editing parameters (heck, maybe even the Producing one too), if you'd rather us be consistent. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely uncompliant with my previous response. I am just suggesting we “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s".--Iswearius (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That is to say, put the right thing in the right place for the right reason.--Iswearius (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

May I propose: Infobox Film | name = | image = | image_size = | caption = | director = | (cinematography) = | editor = | sound designer = | music = | starring = | writer = | producer = | (distributor) | released = | runtime = | country = | (language) =. (Parameters in brackets being optional second tier specifications).--Iswearius (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

We can debate this endlessly, and adding new parameters is a slippery slope (forgive me if I used that expression already). I think that we should have a moritorium on new parameters. Stetsonharry (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet what I suggest is actually refining the current infobox parameter configuration by adding one parameter for Sound, and eliminating superfluous parameters (the reasons being clearly defined in my above response).--Iswearius (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is an alternate thought. We could actually shorten the infobox and add parameters like sound-related roles. If we look at {{Infobox Actor}}, there is an "Awards won" drop-down. What if we used a similar drop-down for "additional crew"? We could put the editor, cinematographer, sound designer, and other roles there. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean like a "hide/show" feature in the infobox? It certainly solves the issue, but I've never been a fan of those "hide/show" options. To me, I always wonder why we are trying to default hide all of these "extra" positions. It suggests to me that they must not be that important if we have to hide them because the box is too long. IMO.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the "hide/show" feature is what I mean. The benefit of using this feature would be navigational. On one hand, we don't want the infobox to stretch down the right side of the page. On the other hand, keeping the infobox short deprives us of linking to secondary crew members. Obviously, I am not wanting to add a gaffer field, but with the feature, we could add fields that garner recognition but may not necessarily be covered in the article body. It helps avoid an indiscriminate nature in having too many names put out there, yet promotes accessibility to the crew members' articles. I don't want new parameters added to the infobox, but I don't think we should strip the other parameters. This is a novel workaround, IMO. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I completely understand, but my feelings are that most films don't garner recognition for those fields and I think it's going to start opening up a whole new can of worms with future discussions on "why don't we have a costume designer option, they have an Academy Award for that", or "why isn't the director of photography listed, he's just as important as the cinematographer".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Why would these future discussions be a bad thing? The show/hide feature places such fields "below the fold" so to speak. We can have one major discussion about new fields under this feature, most likely tied to positions that do get awarded. This helps us build the web. The full presence of such names can be up to editorial discretion. It's not a push to fill out all fields (this happens gradually), but it gives options to editors. It gets to completely side-step so-called "number of lines" arguments in keeping the infobox succinct. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be a bad thing if you're in the crowd of "the infobox doesn't need to contain every production job". I can just see it boiling into a "why not just list the head of every department, regardless of whether they win an award". As for the "editor discretion", I think that if people see the option they'll fill it out automatically (Hell, I know I would :D). I'm not saying "don't do it", I'm merely voicing my opinion of those types of features. To me, it harkens back to those "hide/show" reference sections. If it's important to the article, then it shouldn't be hidden (IMO).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

IMDB, etc. links

Please bring these back. There has been no extensive discussion. Take it to CENT. Very poor form. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC) {{editprotected}} Please restore this version. A large change across thousands of articles is being made with too little discussion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not done for now:. I see a huge amount of discussion on this page from a substantial number of editors. I can't revert these changes based on a request from one editor. Please establish consensus here before requesting an edit. Thanks, Martin^msgj 08:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I know all about the "wrong version", but this recent change chaneged things that have stood for years. Consensus may determine that the current one is more appropriate, but it hasn't done it yet. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for a revert since the IMDB links are not even removed from the template yet. That said, this has been dicussed multiple times and there does seem consensus for it. Garion96 (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is the consensus? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion elsewhere on this page if you would care to read it. Links are being moved elsewhere in the article, they are not being removed altogether. There's no drama here, so let's not create one. PC78 (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Tag line

How would people feel about a tag line parameter? Most films have one, and at the moment there's usually a line in a film's article saying "Tagline: Blah blah blah." Usually there's no discussion needed for a tag line, and so it sits on it's own paragraph. I just think it'd suit better tucked away in the info box. Shamess (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose, since tag lines shouldn't be in articles anyway. You seem them like that, just remove them. They should onyl be included in very rare cases where the tagline became famous. See the marketing section of the MoS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The section is found here: MOS:FILM#Marketing. Taglines are part of promoting a film, and just to tack on taglines to Wikipedia's film articles would be in violation of WP:NPOV. Like AnmaFinotera said, it is best to make note of taglines if they are famous for whatever reason. Otherwise, I strongly encourage the removal of taglines that arbitrarily exist in articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"We're gonna need a bigger box..." Sorry, couldn't resist. Lugnuts (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

strongly agree that tag lines should be present. Tagline is part of the movie, just as the movie poster is. A movie is a product, not some form of purist art. You pay to see a movie. IMDB has taglines. If you want to take a such a hard line, then we really shouldn't have album artwork, etc. Seems silly to take such a hardline view. But then I'm liberal. Repliedthemockturtle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC).

We are not discussing cover art, we are discussing taglines. I do not see why calling films "product[s]" means that it is okay to include promotional detail when Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. IMDB is not Wikipedia, either... just because one place has them does not mean Wikipedia should have them. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Taglines serve no encyclopedic purpose, unless you can show that they have in some way impacted the film or pop culture. Most films have half a dozen taglines generated for them, and none typically stand out above the rest. Taglines are used purely as promotional pieces, and if you want to chronicle how a tagline has impacted a movie, great. If all there is to say is "this is the tagline", then it's trivial.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

MPAA Rating

There should be a spot on the infobox for the MPAA rating. A lot of people check that before going to a movie. Personally, I almost always have to go to a different website to see what the rating is. It would be helpful to many people and much more convenient to have a space on the infobox for the MPAA rating. If you're an administrator, please add one. (I would, but you have to be an administrator.) Mollymoon (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Short answer, no. This has been discussed ad nauseum, including very recently MPAA ratings have been repeatedly rejected as being part of Film articles except in the rare cases where the rating is controversial or otherwise notable. As such, it also will not be added to the infobox. Generally it is as being American-centric and adds no actual value to an article to anyone who isn't American (and even then, not most of them). Attempting to avoid systemic bias by including every rating results in an extremely indiscriminate list. This consensus was upheld very recently with the deletion of {{Infobox movie certificates}}. Its deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 20#Template:Infobox movie certificates, includes links to several of the most recent discussions upholding this consensus. It is very easy to find the rating if you are an American reader; its usually found on any of the standard ELs. For the rest of our editors, the MPAA rating is nothing but a useless letter. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera pretty much said it. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be encyclopedic, not a direct way to gauge whether or not it is worth seeing a film. If ratings have context in relation to the film, such as controversial ratings or milestones with specific ratings (highest grossing b.o. for an R-rated film), they can be included. Otherwise, we don't overtly cater to people who are trying to see if a film is worth seeing. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently she didn't like the answer, as she turned around and created a copy of the infobox, added the MPAA rating, then began changing several film articles to use her template (as well as making a fake project claiming its purpose was to change all infoboxes to the "new" one. More eyes on her contribs would be very good. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Almost all films today were released in other countries at some point, and therefore there can be an optional section for "Rating" instead of "MPAA Rating", and place MPAA next to the rating along with those ratings for outside the US. (ie. BBFC, Canadian ratings) Jscorp (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, no. And no, "almost all" films are not released in every last country in the world, and if they are, such ratings would then be indiscriminate. The template being deleted is a clear sign that these ratings absolutely do not belong. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Please change:

| data14 = {{#if: {{{language|}}}|{{#ifexist: {{{language}}} language | [[{{{language}}} language|{{{language}}}]]{{#ifeq: {{{language|}}}|||[[Category:{{{language}}}-language films]]}} | {{{language}}} }} }}

to:

| data14 = {{#if: {{{language|}}}|{{#ifexist: {{{language}}} language | [[{{{language}}} language|{{{language}}}]]{{#ifeq: {{{language|}}}|||{{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACE}}||[[Category:{{{language}}}-language films]]|}}}} | {{{language}}} }} }}

This will suppress the language auto-categorisation if the infobox is used outside the article space (in a user sandbox, for example). Cheers! PC78 (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Has this been tested in the (or your) sandbox? — Edokter • Talk • 02:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not done for now: A) where has this been tested? B) Why is this needed?--Aervanath (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've said why it is needed above; to prevent the infobox from adding non-article pages (user sandboxes and such) to article categories. As for testing, I've already made the same change to the unprotected {{Infobox Korean film}} and it works fine. I see that Od Mishehu has already made a similar change to the template, but I prefer this solution; a parameter requires people to actually use it, and this is a simple enough task to be handled by a parser function doing a namespace check. PC78 (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Od Mishehu's edit to the template, if the intention was to add a |category= parameter to disable categorisation then it doesn't appear to work. PC78 (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess the idea is that we don't want to have a redlink and we don't want to categorise into a non-existent category. So, is it your belief that if there is an article on ABC language then there exists Category:ABC-language films?

That's sensible; the template already checks to see if the article exists, it should probably check to see if the category exists as well. (I didn't write the code for this, you know!) Regarding the revised code you posted before whisking it away again, I've tested it in the sandbox and it appears to do the opposite of what is intended, i.e. the category is suppressed in article space but not anywhere else. PC78 (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, how about something like this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

| data14       = {{#ifexist:{{{language|gobbledygook}}} language
 |[[{{{language}}} language|{{{language}}}]]
 |{{{language|}}}
}}{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|
 |{{#ifexist:Category:{{{language|gobbledygook}}}-language films
  |[[Category:{{{language}}}-language films]]
 }}
}}

Tested in the sandbox; if |language= is present but left blank then it displays [[ language|]] in the infobox, which it shouldn't. That's as far as I got. :) PC78 (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I didn't get around to testing your revised code (sorry!), but I had chance to ponder this while offline and came up with this:

| data14       = {{#if:{{{language|}}}
 |{{#ifexist:{{{language}}} language
 |[[{{{language}}} language|{{{language}}}]]
 |{{{language|}}}
 }}{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|
 |{{#ifexist:Category:{{{language}}}-language films
 |[[Category:{{{language}}}-language films]]
 }} }}
}}

Tried it in the sandbox and it all works as intended. PC78 (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think mine worked too, and it has one fewer parser function. Please let me know if it's not working properly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No, you're still getting [[ language|]] for blank |language= parameters. Per the documentation at {{Infobox}} you need to wrap the field within an #if: parser function, as I did in the code above. PC78 (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right. It works for undefined but not for blank values. Okay, I'll stop trying to be clever and implement your code :( — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries! :) PC78 (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought of another clever method to reduce parser functions but wasn't brave enough to do it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

| data14       = {{#if:{{{language|}}}
 |{{#ifexist:{{{language}}} language
  |[[{{{language}}} language|{{{language}}}]]
  |{{{language|}}}
 }}{{#ifexist:Category:{{{language}}}-lan{{NAMESPACE}}guage films
  |[[Category:{{{language}}}-language films]]
 }}
}}

Running time

inasmuch as all (100%) of run times are approximated, it makes better sense to include that in the label instead of the myriad ways it is currently recorded (ie. ~100 minutes; circa 100 minutes; approx. 100 minutes, etc.) --emerson7 19:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Current:
| label12      = Running time
| data12       = {{{runtime|}}}

Proposed:
| label12      = Approx. run time
| data12       = {{{runtime|}}}

Oppose this edit. If you are seeing variability added to the field, just cut to it and say, "100 min." We don't need to be PC about the field name, saying, "Oh, it's close enough." It's not going to be perfect, but we shouldn't be so ambivalent about it. Besides, most reviews I see about a film are pretty consistent with the runtime. What situations are you seeing approximations with? —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

proposal withdrawn. this issue is more of a problem with television episodes, and was posted at the wrong template. --emerson7 19:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

External links (imdb, amg, etc)

Sorry to raise this up (again), but I think we need to get a final consensus on the external links in the film infobox. Prior to Christmas, discussion was suspended until "after the holidays". There are two issues:

1. Do we include external links in the infobox?
2. If not, what's the best solution to deal with the deprecated parameters?

Do we include external links in the infobox?

IMO, this is a yes. To run over some old ground: Other projects on WP have external links in their infoboxes (WP:ALBUM and WP:CRIC, for example). Why should one project (ours) not have external links? One of the main arguments against ex links is promoting/favouring one site (mainly IMDb - there doesn't seem too much fuss raised about AMG) over other resources. I find this strange, certainly compared to album infoboxes that link directly to reviews of said album. These sites (Rolling Stone, Q Magazine, etc) are then getting promoted. I fail to see how a single persons' review of an album is more worthy of being included than a link to some very valuable film info.

The same goes for the cricket infobox. This uses cricinfo.com to source stats. One of the main arguments about not linking/using IMDb is that it is unreliable. To the average article browser, how are they to know that cricinfo is OK and IMDb is not? Regarding reliability, I keep seeing the old chestnut of IMDb not being a reliable source (as its content is user submitted). That's fine, but can anyone point to a real-life example of IMDb being totally wrong about a really important "fact" that an article would need? I'm not talking about some chef's assistant who has a typo in their name vs. what is in the film's credits, but a real earth stopping error.

Deprecated parameters.

I've noticed that the links to the website, AMG and IMDb are now deprecated. I can't seem to find the consensus discussion that decided this. Now if these links are deprecated, then they should be turned off in the infobox, rather than being manually removed by an editor or bot. Again, that depends on the above.

If ex links do go from the infobox - what then?

Once a clear consensus has been reached, and if it goes the way of no links, then as an absolute minimum there must be a happy-medium. Therefore, if that does happen a bot must be created to populate articles that don't have an external links section at the foot of their articles with the IMDb/AMG, etc links in the infobox. I stumble across articles like that all the time (and fix them, of course).

Again, apologies for bringing this up again, but I think we finally need to get a clear outcome going forward. Thanks Lugnuts (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been for their removal. It's unnecessary bias toward select websites (ones that we don't even allow for reliable source usage). We already have them linked at the bottom of the article, and the table of contents will bring you right there with one click (i.e. there is no argument of "it's convienent", because the TOC is right there). As for being the only Project without them, we are first not those other Projects. We are our own entity, and are not governed by what others do. Second, the TV Project has discussed removing the same links as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's OK, we need a clear concensus on this issue either way, and hopefully this discussion won't descend into the same sort of chaos as the last. :) That said, I'm not entirely sure what there is to say about this that hasn't already been said. To address some of your points:

• We only really have one issue to discuss, namely "Do we include external links in the infobox?"; it's rather pointless discussing how we deal with it unless we have something to deal with.
• My understanding of WP:EL (and someone correct me if they think I'm wrong) is that such links need not strictly conform to the standards of WP:RS, as they are not being used as references. With that in mind, discussion over the reliability of IMDb is not really helpful here.
• Comparisons to other infoboxes are not really valid. Personally I don't think it is appropriate for {{Infobox Album}} to include cherry picked reviews. But we're here to discuss this infobox, not others.
• The main argument last time (as I saw it) was the redundancy of these links. We should already have them in an "External links" section; that's as it should be, and we don't need them anywhere else. An infobox should contain salient points about a film, and that does not include links to other websites.
• IMDb is not a valuable resource for all films. I deal mainly with Asian films, and details on IMDb are often sketchy at best. If we just have a few links in the infobox then that represents a bias towards those websites, whereas we can link to whichever websites are useful in the "External links" section.

No offence Lugnuts, but I'm not seeing much of a reason to keep these links in your comment above. Your argument seems to boil down to "other infoboxes have external links, so why shouldn't we?", but if people are going to defend these links then I would like to see some concrete reasons why they should stay. My own position on this remains that these links are both redundant and represent an unnecessary bias towards selected websites, hence I believe they should be removed (again). PC78 (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No offence Lugnuts - None taken! ;-) I think the way it's going is very much for the removal of the links. I'm not going to throw my toys out of the pram if my preferred option isn't kept. My main concern is that if/when it goes, that many ex. links will be "lost" from the article if they aren't added to the foot of the page. Lugnuts (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a familiar block... anyway, PC78 pretty much summarized it for now. I don't think that the reliability of the external links need to be called into question here, since we accept these links for the "External links" section. It is mainly a question of redundancy, why these three links are repeated at the very beginning of the article. I've seen two arguments to keep: Because other WikiProjects' infoboxes do it, and because they like it -- more specifically, they are accustomed to having it there and feel inconvenienced by having to click "External links" in the TOC where all links are provided. Sure, it is inconvenient because we've been so accustomed to it, but if we started out the film infobox long, long ago without any external links, would there really have been a push to add these three? Like Bignole said, it seems unnecessary to favor these links over others. For example, why is IMDb really needed at the top in the infobox? The infobox has the main cast and crew information. Why are we pointing them off-wiki at the beginning of the article? (The same can be said for the other two.) The Wikipedia article should come first; the external links are purely supplementary, especially if the article is at its finest. If there is interest in reviewing the consensus of whether or not to include the links in the infobox, we can do that, but if there is drama caused like last time, it's not worth it. There's an encyclopedia to build. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There's an encyclopedia to build Hehe, there is indeed! I'm the last one who wants this dragging on and on, so hopefully this can be wrapt up one way or the other. Lugnuts (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Something that I proposed in our previous discussion that did not quite take off was to find a bot to check for the presences of IMDb, AMG, and the official website in the "External links" section, and if they are not there, move them from the infobox to the section. If there are articles discovered without these links (probably the very stubby sort), they could be identified, but I imagine that adding links to the article for the first time would be manual. Also, depending on if this refreshed discussion goes as roughly as last time or not, we could have a survey of sorts in a second questionnaire later in 2009 with arguments for both sides outlined. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

again, I support the removal of all of the external links from the infobox. They do not add substantially to the infobox, they are not major components of the article, and they have their own section at the bottom of the page which is easily accessible. Nor would we be the only project to not have them, many other projects do not have them either. For media specific projects, there are no ELs in the novel/book infoboxes nor in any of the anime/manga infobox (including the film one). Game and Albums have them, and suffer from the same issue, IMHO, as films - a non-neutral selection of a handful of "favorites" that leave our infoboxes given a wholescale endorsement and preferential treatment to those few sites (intended or not), irregardless of whether those sites provide in-depth additional information or not. IMDB does not add substantially to any article except maybe a stub no one has bothered to fill out. It gives credits, unverified trivia, user written plot summaries, and forums to discuss it. Credits can be gotten from the films, our plot summaries are almost always better, the trivia is useless, and forums are irrelevant. Where is the value? At least AMG does provide reviews, but even those are of varying usefulness and quality, depending on the films age, popularity, etc. Official links I'd compromise on, if necessary, to get the rest out, but really, most film sites don't do much but give a plot summary and a trailer and when its opening date, which again does not add substantially to the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I also support removal. External links should only be used in an external links or reference section. Not in an infobox. I do support a bot going through all the articles and check if there is IMDB/AMD link in the external links section. Garion96 (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward (2)

Thanks everyone for your comments. It seems to be a quite clear consensus that external links should not be in the infobox, and I recommend that those fields are switched off in the infobox. Before that is done, a bot should be used to add the IMDb/AMG links as external links in articles that don't already have them. Lugnuts (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure you're not jumping the gun here? You remember what happened last time we declared concensus and removed the links, don't you? ;) PC78 (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I had hoped to have this sooner than now, but this list contains all articles which have an IMDb link in the infobox but which don't otherwise have a link in the article. That's 6,112 articles altogether out of a total of 38,704 (16%). PC78 (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that the vast majority of these articles are actually stubs (first two I randomly clicked on 100% Arabica & The Gray Nun of Belgium showed that). It isn't like these are full fledged articles that someone escaped getting an IMDb link in their EL section, these are articles that don't have an EL section at all. Yes, 6100 is a lot, but if 16% is all that are missing IMDb links (and probably EL sections as well), then I think that's very doable. A bot could easily correct this issue in a matter of a couple of hours (if that). I think it's more impressive that 84% of our articles are redundantly, and biasly linking IMDb is both the infobox and the EL section. (P.S. the bot should also move the AMG link to the EL section as well, since it's probably in the same predicament as IMDb, though less heavily linked).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks PC78. I recall what happened last time, but I think this conversation has had long enough for people to post their views for or against. I think a good 10 days went by before I posted this section. I hope we can get a bot to go through the 6,000 articles to add the link in the right place, and then the ex. link parameters in the infobox can be turned off! Lugnuts (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if a bot were able to make all the parameter links fully redundant with EL, then I imagine that a sizable portion of the objection to the link removal would be diminished, as the parameter's loss would then be at no practical difference. Should we perhaps pursue and conclude that first, then, before bringing this up again? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

A bot is now working through this request. Lugnuts (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

When the bot is done, this entire log needs to be checked for any errors. So far i have checked the "added" up to Salomé (1923 film), the "multiple" up to Hanzo the Razor and "no infobox" up to Hungama. The log only contains "possible" errors. Any properly authored article should not have a problem. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that the bot has done it's job, I think it's time for an admin now to turn off the fields in the infobox. How do I go about getting an admin to do that? Thanks for everyone's input. Lugnuts (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the bot is finished yet. ;) Once it's done you would just need to make the request here and tag it with {{editprotected}}. PC78 (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Question With regards to this move, I see the discussion regarding IMDb/AMG-type links - but were links to the main site of the film itself also to be removed? (I've seen a burst of activity in this regard today.) If so, this seems to be a counterproductive move. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I assumed the goal was to make sure that external links were moved from the infobox to the "External links" section. I saw a bot doing this for IMDb and AMG at least. Have you seen official sites being removed outright? Maybe drop a line to the editor or the bot for clarification, since official sites are acceptable to keep in the EL sections. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

All links, including the official ones, are being removed from the infobox and relocated to the "External links" section; that was the outcome of the discussion we had, I believe. Official links aren't being removed outright, though; see [1] for one recent example. Coincidentally I asked Anomie for a progress report just last night: so far the bot has processed 34637 pages from a total of 39146. PC78 (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I miss the links in the infoboxes. Just registering. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Y Done AnomieBOT seems to have finished processing this request: 39300 pages were checked, and 13404 pages were edited. All pages with these links remaining in the infobox are either (a) already having all the links in the External Links, so no edit was necessary; (b) listed in the log as having multiple or no infoboxes detected; or (c) reverted by a human editor. I'll leave the bot running to catch newly-created articles until an admin removes support for those parameters from the template. Anomie⚔ 13:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice work and thanks for setting up the bot to do this. Request to hide the fields:

{{editprotected}}

To hide the external links (IMDb, AMG, etc) from the infobox, following the above discussion (and others). Thanks! Lugnuts (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. I hope I got it right. If not, drop a line here or on my talk please. - Nabla (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The bot task has now been stopped, so log file at User:AnomieBOT/TemplateReplacer13 log will no longer be updated by the bot; you may use it however you wish to mark off entries as they are reviewed. Anomie⚔ 22:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - Nabla (talk) 03:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out, Nabla. Lugnuts (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The log should really be worked through sooner rather than later. I've already done a bit myself. PC78 (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Listen: What exactly are you gaining by doing this? Vahokif (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)