Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Film color

I would like to add an additional field to the film template to indicate if the film is black & white or color.Ineuw (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Professional

I was just curious about somewhere adding a template for professional reviews, similar to on the infobox for albums? I'm not talking about the entire review but maybe just something based on a letter grade system or a 10 star system. ONEder Boy (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if I see the benefit of doing this, especially considering that there are numerous film critics. It would not reflect consensus accurately. We provide sample reviews after outlining the consensus at the start of a "Reception" section, and an addition to the template does not have this kind of breathing room. We could talk about including Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, but I think that these tend to be less useful before the 21st century since the reviews are not compiled in real-time. (For example, critics were divided over Fight Club when it was released in 1999, but now Rotten Tomatoes shows it in the 80% range due to its cult status.) I am not sure why the album infobox is set up the way it is; it strikes me as a link farm in a quick presentation of reviews without actually adding the reviews to the album articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose this. I have yet to see any actual value in any of those templates nor that they add anything to an article beyond clutter. The prose reception section is far better and more useful to the majority of readers and a contexualess set of numbers. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Automatic image_size for small poster images request

Infobox should be "smart" enough to tell the image size so it will not be "stretched out" when it is smaller than 200px. When we will get a better resolution version, then it will be in a standard size automatically. (Ordinary thumb image works all right for small images, so should the infobox too.) --Snek01 (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki will resize any image to it's give dimensions, no matter if it needs sizing up or down. But you can manually specify the size to override the defualt 200px. — Edokter • Talk • 23:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

MPAA Ratings

I still think that the infobox should have the MPAA Rating for the film on it. Why doesn't it - it would definitely make sense to have it there! Mollymoon 19:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think MOS:FILM#Ratings explains it well. We are the English Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. If a rating is relevant to the film, we can cover it in the article body. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason why has already been explained to you, multiple times. As Erik notes, again, this is not the American Wikipedia, it is the English Wikipedia. MPAA ratings are purely an American connotation that is meaningless to large numbers of readers.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it'd be nice to have, if it were done in a less Amerocentric manner. Previous discussions have been extremely hyperfocused on the MPAA, but that isn't really fair. Perhaps it would work to take an IMDB-like approach and list the MPAA & UK & ratings of the country of origin. Even if that's not done, most countries rate on an age basis, and we could easily include a range of ratings if we selected a common database for the source material (ie IMDB). If we had a way to tag it properly without falling prey to trademark concerns, it would also allow for much more effective categorization. This warrants more substantial consideration than it's recently received. MrZaius^talk 07:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to peruse the archives, where it has already been extensively discussed many times. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Please change the following line:

| labelstyle   = white-space:nowrap;

to:

| labelstyle   = white-space:nowrap; text-align:left;

This will force left text alignment for IE8 users where it is currently centralised, and make the infobox consistant with how it looks in IE7 and Firefox. PC78 (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 13:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Request choreographer(s) be added

I have seen the lack of the choreographer in to info box. It is very important to see those artists contributions to film weather it be Cinema of Hong Kong kung fu flick or Flashdance from the 80s.--Duchamps_comb MFA 16:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The infobox is not meant to be comprehensive of all crew members. We don't have the costume designer nor the visual effects supervisor. It's a summary of "major" crew members as determined by consensus, but this does not mean that a crew member's contributions cannot be mentioned in the article body if they are significant. (For example, The Matrix would be lacking without mentioning visual effect supervisor John Gaeta's award wins.) —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Aspect ratio

I see that requests for adding Aspect ratio to the infobox have arisen in the past, and I didn't see any objections in the achieves. Can we go ahead and add it in? JamesLucas (" " / +) 00:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I say no. There was never any consensus to add it, and it doesn't really add value nor usefulness to the infobox. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't see how its any less useful than the film's running time, or its budget. - ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 13:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The aspect ratio doesn't really tell the reader anything useful, because most of the time you'd have to explain exactly what 4:3 means (or whatever a films ratio is). Without context it means nothing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think adding aspect ratio to the infobox is an excellent idea. It's definitely relevant, and if we're worried about people getting confused, the text "aspect ratio" could link to the appropriate article. I also think it would be better to express it as a single value rather than a ratio, e.g. 1.33 instead of 4:3. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 16:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What purpose does it serve? The budget serves a clear purpose, because that's often used when comparing to the box office gross. It has relevance. What relevance does the aspect ratio have, especially since you'd probably only attain such information from IMDb.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Genre tag

I do not understand why this infobox does not have a genre tag. Such tags appear in the infoboxes for other media (e.g. Template:Infobox Television, Template:Infobox Book, Template:Infobox comic book title).

Though it may be argued that some films cannot be easily classified under a genre, the tag would not be mandatory, and many films would benefit from it. Also, this argument (or any other possible opposition I can think of) would be equally valid for other media, but this does not prevent their use of this tag.

Please share your thoughts on this proposal.--Marcus Brute (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The presence of the new field will compel editors to fill it out, since there are some who devote a good portion of their contributions to revising film infoboxes. I think that the new field will open the door to too many skirmishes about what to include, where the lead section can comfortably accommodate such details if the genre mix is complex. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Genre is hard to classify and too easily falls under POV. BOVINEBOY2008 14:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

How would that be any different from adding the genre category to an article? Input on the original point - the Italian Wiki has the genre in the infobox, which then auto-populates the category. To me it would make sense to have that field in the infobox. Lugnuts (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm against it, because the infobox is generally long enough (sometimes too long), with all the stuff that is relevant to the film. Including a new section, especially one that we already have a problem dealing with for the first sentence of the lead (i.e. editors wanting to include every genre under the Sun a film could fit under), I don't think this is really necessary. Let the categories keep track of them all.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I am neutral as the information may be of value but when some questionable films are involved, it may lead to multiple listings or a POV-spat. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC).

I agree with Bignole, the infobox is getting too long. I don't recall any discussion about adding "Studio" to it prior to someone doing so, and with so many different production companies involved in a project these days, that can mean the addition of several more lines to the infobox. On that basis alone I vote not to include yet another field to add to the clutter. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Bignole - the last thing we need is infobox edit wars. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-use of flag icons?

The article states "Do not use flag icons, as this places an unnecessary emphasis on nationality".

Unnecessary? Films are some of the most nationalistic things that exist. Their funding, their tax breaks, their casting (how many actors of specific nationalities), their weird mishmashes of crews from various places, their eligibility for awards, it's all based on nationality and satisfying somebody's legal or contractual national requirements.

A flag on a film is fundamental. It's more important than who composed the music, since the composer was probably hired to meet some country's national quota.

The IMDb has always had a strong emphasis on nationality for films.

I assume that somewhere in this page's archive there's a long battle over this issue?

Varlaam (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

A flag, not the name of the country, but only a flag is more important than a composer? Also, since you mention IMDB, I don't see a flag here or here. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons). Garion96 (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"A flag on a film is fundamental"? Sorry, but that is utter nonsense; most films have nothing to do with nationalism. Regardless, when you already have a country named in the infobox, a flag icon is just redundant decoration. PC78 (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This has been explained multiple times to this editor over the course of several months, by the looks of things. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I am speaking as an acknowledged Top Contributor to the IMDb. (They thank you there when you are one.)

Yes, American movies tend to be 100% American in their funding and putting Old Glory on the page doesn't add much. I'm talking about all the other countries, like mine for example, that make their movies through complicated co-production arrangements. The cast and crew are all divvied up by nationality in a totally artificial way.

Movies are not a cultural artefact like a poem, with a single author writing thanklessly in a garret. Movies are huge financial undertakings, with producer and writer and director and funding coming from all over. And this financial setup determines which movies are eligible to receive which awards and all of that. If Finland gives out film awards, then the made-in-Sweden movie with 10% Finnish financing probably is eligible for the made-in-Finland prize, because that's how these things operate.

(Plus the flags provide some colour on an otherwise drab page.)

I see reasons to have them there. I don't see reasons not to. Movies in their end credits will declare UK-Romanian-Belgian-Luxembourg co-production. "Ulysses" does not say "Irish production" at the end on the last page. "War and Peace" does not assert "Russian". Movies are fiercely nationalistic in a way that novels and short stories by single authors are not. When Italy wins at the Oscars, isn't this front page news in Verona in a nationalistic way? When Roberto Benigni gets an award, it's talked about immediately in every piazza. And this definitely does not happen when Umberto Eco receives the Los Angeles Book Critics Badge of Merit. The Oscars are a sporting event akin to the Olympics. Aren't they?

In my tiny country, we always know that the 4th lead in that movie is from here. People are always bemoaning the sorry state of this or that country's cinema. "Should there be more government funding invested in cinema?" They don't say that about poetry. They say that about cinema and they say that about sport because those are both garishly nationalistic. Like somebody should be waving a flag.

Varlaam (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC) (greetings on Dominion Day everybody)

I'm not sure why this means there should be flag icons used in the infobox. We are still identifying the countries that are the "home" of the film, though sometimes complications require a case-by-case analysis. (For example, Blindness is a Brazilian-Canadian-Japanese production.) The central argument seems to be that it is "drab", but most infoboxes have a poster image or a DVD cover image, so that is a pretty key illustration already. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a valid point. But I would dispute your use of "most" however. In Wikipedia, I'm editing film-related pages all the time, and older, less familiar ones do not have images. When do documentary films have images? Does Brazil's "Vidas secas" have a photo of a little dog? I haven't looked.

Release dates typically have a flag for convenience: 25 December 2008.

To me, maybe it just seems inconsistent, that something trivial -- release date -- warrants a flag, but something consequential -- origin -- does not.

It's out of balance.

Varlaam (talk)

As far as I know, flag icons are not used (as a best practice) for release dates. I don't include any flag icons in film articles where I contribute, and I have not seen them for Good and Featured Articles, to the best of my memory. I do know that there may be proliferation of such icons for articles that may not be as developed. If you are bothered by the inconsistency of icon usage, you could remove the icons for release dates, too. :) There's always something to adjust on Wikipedia articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Style 1) Soviet Union 1 January 1950

Style 2) 1 January 1950

I think Style 2 is what I am usually seeing around because Style 1 takes up too much space. You think you are seeing Style 1 everywhere?

And of course, earlier, it was not the case that my central argument was about drabness. That was a trivial side argument which explains why it was (parenthesized).

My central argument was that movies are nationalistic. And movies are big business. You can look into how Hollywood destroyed the Argentinian and Mexican film industries in a big powerplay in the 1940s, I believe it was.

Varlaam (talk) (Sorry. I have to run. National holiday. Good speaking with you.)

Back again just quickly.

Since I mentioned Vidas secas I went over there to check:

| released = {{flagicon|Brazil}} 1963<br />{{flagicon|USA}} [[June 5]], [[1969]] | runtime = 103 min. | country = {{FilmBrazil}}

There are release date flags, and no film image of a little dog. The only colour on the page comes from the release date flags. For me personally, I see this often in Wikipedia.

Varlaam (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed them according to wp:mosfilm. Looks much better now. Garion96 (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Web site?

In these modern times, all new films with either a large PR budget or a strong Internet presence seems to have a promotional web site. Sometimes it's even the official source of the film, (see Big Buck Bunny). So why don't have a field in the infobox for this? --193.11.177.69 (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You can put the link in the "External links" section of the article. No need to repeat it at the bottom and top. If it was at the top, it detracts from the purpose of Wikipedia to tell you about the topic itself... that's why external links come after the content Wikipedia provides about said topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Writer(s)

It seems that in all FA-class articles list source material writers. I think the screenplay writers should be listed first as the article is first and foremost about the film. What does anyone else think? BOVINEBOY2008 18:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about it. Lead sections always mention the source material and its writer(s). In the infobox, it seems weird to mention the source material writers but not the source material. Even if we tried to include a link to the source material there, it would get cramped. I don't know if I'd push for either way, as long as the lead section details everyone's roles appropriately. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That's kind of what I was thinking. I mean, the "writer" of a film is the writer of the screenplay. I don't question adding the information in the lede. That isn't even a question. It just seems odd that, for example, Rowling is listed first in a list of writers for the Harry Potter films while she had minimal input on the actual screenplay. BOVINEBOY2008 19:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

True, but the other argument makes sense... her works were the basis for the films, so for some people, it seems like giving proper credit. I don't disagree with that, hence the mixed feelings. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the writer of a film is in the end the screenwriter but to not credit the writer of the source material is unreasonable as storyline, characters etc. are usually derived from it. Crediting the writer(s) of the screenplay first and the writer(s) of the source material second seems like a proper solution, while also possibly linking to the source material's article, if one exists (that is, you can make the word "Novel" or "Novella" or "Book" or whatever a Wikilink).–FunkyVoltron ^talk 20:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. BOVINEBOY2008 20:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Screenwriters first, then source material writers second" sounds like a great approach. For linking to the source material in words like "Novel", I don't know if that would work as well. Links should be intuitive, so a blue-colored "Novel" could mean either Novel or Novel. Then again, we don't always have the most intuitive use with release years, like linking "The Movie is a 1999 film" could be 1999 or 1999... the sentence sets up the context, though, as opposed to the infobox. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this should be added to the writer section of usage. Something along lines of "When there's a source material writer (in the case of films based on books, plays, old screenplays, articles etc.), list the writer(s) of the screenplay first under a bold "Screenplay:", then list the source material writer(s) in a similar fashion." I don't think this is very controversial change as it's already the method all featured film articles use.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 16:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Add alt text support

{{editprotected}} Please install this obvious sandbox edit to add support for alt text as per WP:ALT. I've already updated the documentation and checked out the test case. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering, how extensively should the alternate text describe the poster image? Some may be somewhat indescribable. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the proposed edit for the moment after reviewing WP:ALT. The image in the infobox is intended for identification purposes, and WP:ALT says, "Every visible image should have alt text, unless the image is used only for visual formatting or decoration." The guideline also says that alternate text helps readers interpret the image, but other than for identifying the topic in a decorative manner, the infobox image is disconnected from the article. There's no interpretation that alternate text can provide. I'm happy to review my stance if someone can justify a relationship between identifying images and alternate text. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see #Purely decorative below. Eubulides (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I am opposed, too. I think the caption of what the image is will be enough for identification. BOVINEBOY2008 20:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, please see #Purely decorative below. Eubulides (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is that many readers who are visually impaired may use a screen reader to compensate for an inability to perceive images that those more fortunate take for granted. We should be creating an encyclopedia that anyone can read (as well as edit) and the technology exists to aid us in doing that. Part of that is the use of alt text for images, which are read out by the screen reader when it encounters an image. A good description of the image in alt text, therefore, is an attempt to help those who are not fortunate enough to be able to see the image. I can see no reason why we should consider an image in an infobox a useful addition to an article for those who can see it, yet deny to those who cannot see it any attempt to provide them with the same value. As for captions, they serve an entirely different purpose. --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Purely decorative

Some of above remarks are based on a misunderstanding of WP:ALT. The phrase "used only for visual formatting or decoration" is intended to reflect Web Content Accessibility Guideline 1.1.1, which says that an image must have alt text unless it is "pure decoration, is used only for visual formatting, or is not presented to users". (There are some other exceptions, which do not apply here.) For example, suppose "USA – Michael Phelps" occurs in a table in an article about the Olympics. Here the flag is purely decorative: it conveys no information that is not already conveyed by the "USA", and nothing happens if you click on the flag. Because the flag icon is decorative, it need not have alt text.

In contrast, infobox images are not purely decorative by the W3C definition. This is because they have a function: if you click on the image, you are sent to the page describing the image. For example, if you click on the infobox image in Blade Runner, you are sent to File:Blade Runner poster.jpg. This function is an important aspect of these images and (unlike the flag icon) this function typically could not be removed even if we wanted to, for copyright reasons.

If you are visually impaired and use a screen reader to visit Blade Runner now, you will hear something like "Blade Runner poster dot J P G link original theatrical poster". This point of that image is to convey the visual appearance of the poster to the user, and this text does a poor job of that. Adding alt text support to the template will let us change the page so that a screen reader will say something like 'Faces of a man holding a gun and of a woman smoking, above the top of a cityscape at night, captioned HARRISON FORD and BLADE RUNNER link original theatrical poster'. This would be much better for the visually impaired.

One of Wikipedia's goals is to reach many readers effectively, and this includes visually impaired readers. (Please see WP:ACCESSIBILITY.) We have added alt text support to many infobox templates, including {{Infobox Writer}}, {{Infobox disease}}, and {{Infobox MLB player}}. The proposed change is another step in furthering this important goal of Wikipedia. Eubulides (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation! I am alright with making the edit to the template then. It may be worth clarifying in the documentation that the field is a hidden one and to provide an example of describing a poster image with alternate text so editors know what exactly they should do with the field. —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reading my explanation; I feared it might have been too long to read. And thanks for the suggestion; I updated the documentation to supply an example and to explain that alt text is normally invisible. Eubulides (talk) 06:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done I have change the template as per Eubulides's request. Let me know if there are any problems. Plastikspork (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering what one is supposed to write there, a description like "the theatrical poster of ABC featuring Jon Smith and Jane Thomas doing "this". BOVINEBOY2008 01:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example I wrote for Fight Club (film), which I'm currently nominating as a Featured Article candidate. Might need to beef up the alternate text for the other images if I'm that thorough with this one... :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Imagine you were talking on a telephone to someone who had no idea of what "Jon Smith and Jane Thomas" looked like, and had never seen a "theatrical poster". Now work out how you would describe what you see in that image to them. If they can accurately visualise what you're seeing, then your description is good alt text. --RexxS (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I explained the setup at WT:FILM#Alternate text for images and also encouraged incorporating alternate text in general, since I don't believe the WikiProject ever considered this before. I will include this information in our monthly newsletter as well. If you have anything you want to add to my explanation, please feel free to do so! —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{Editprotected}} Can the template be added to Category:Exclude in print? Glacier Wolf 11:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to exclude infoboxes? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering that, too. I could understand "navigation templates" as the documentation says, but when I generated a couple of PDFs for film articles before, the infobox did not present badly. It kind of reminded me of academic coverage that details the what and the who before the analysis begins. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 11:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why infoboxen should be excluded in print. They're actively used in print publications I've read, for a start. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Movie awards

Seems like it would be appropriate to include in the infobox awards that the movie has earned. Any particular reason they are not included? -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There used to be an awards section in the infobox ages ago, but it was removed as it's not essential for every film and should have it's own section within the film's respective article. Plus for some films that have won several awards such as Pan's Labyrinth, it could totally overflow the infobox. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

They are not included because the infobox is intended to be a summary. What awards should we mention? The importance will depend on the territory. Most non-American films will have awards other than the Oscars and the Golden Globes. It is better to just list the awards in its own section in the article body, where we have far more flexibility to provide such detail than in the infobox. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Add "MPAA rating" please

This template needs to have the MPIAA rating added. (G, PG, PG13, R, etc) --Nerd42 (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the request; this is the English-language Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. MPAA ratings are not the only ratings available for films, and if they are important to a film (such as controversy behind a rating), they can be discussed in the article body. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

See the archives for the many discussions about this, why it does not have it, and why it has continously been rejected. As Erik has summarized, this is not the American Wikipedia, but the English one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please re-add "website" parameter

Many if not most movies, big-budget and home-grown, have their own websites. I understand removing all the other IMDB, etc ones but there is no reason a film's actual website should be excised as well. We should have that listed as key information in any infobox. Can we please get that re-added? Thank you! -- Banjeboi 23:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it not enough to have it in the WP:EL section? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really. The actual official website should be in the infobox; the IMDb et al can be plopped, at the bottom of the article with the rest. If i go to a film's article I should see the website in the infobox just like I would on every actor, product, BLP, company, etc. IMHO, it's quite uncommon for a film to not have a website. -- Banjeboi 00:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that it's quite uncommon for a recent film to not have a website. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This parameter was removed per consensus and should not be added by unless consensus agrees to restore it. In lengthy discussions, it was agreed that the infobox should not have any external links, including the "website" as most films do not have them (only new ones and then only temporary), they are not a focus or summary of the work, and the official link already has a proper home in the EL section. I agree with that consensus and do not support readdition of this parameter. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

An official link is useless and unhelpful in the template. They can be placed in the external links where they are in the vast majority of Wikipedia articles. As mentioned above, most movies do not have official sites, and many that do are abandoned very soon. The template should not be changed. 2005 (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd oppose this addition as well. Even with films that do have official websites, several of them will link to either re-directed or dead url's eventually. Not to mention that countless films do not have official website. It would look weird that some have this link in the infobox while other's done. I'd say do not add them. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That's like saying some films don't have images available so no article should use them. I understand the concern that links can go dead but we have ways to deal with that. There remains no valid reason to omit this key information from a products infobox except that some people don't like them. That unfortunately seems like some odd form of censorship. Do we really need to do a RFC on this to see if the wider community, which seems to support official websites on most all infoboxes, thinks it makes sense here as well? -- Banjeboi 01:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There was more than enough discussion. Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 16 and check the Films project archive as well. This was not done lightly, but after a huge amount of discussion. It has nothing to do with censorship, but properly applying Wikipedia's EL guidelines and looking at the actual purpose of an infobox. And no, "most all" infoboxes do not have official website links, only some. In the realm of media - none of the book/novel infoboxes have them, the journal infobox doesn't have them (while magazine does), the anime/manga infoboxes do not have them, television does (though its been discussed to remove them there as well). Its mixed, not a majority one way or the other. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You're looking at this fully backwards. There is no valid reason to go against the norm of external links with this, and two huge reasons not to (most don't have an external link; those that do go dead often). Let's move on rather than beating this dead horse again. 2005 (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll start a new section as I think that past discussion wasn't quite as transparent as it may need to be. -- Banjeboi 02:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to re-add Official weblink back to infobox

OK, I read through the (quite short and localized) discussion about external links in the infoboxes which seemed to start with concerns of "these links are both redundant and represent an unnecessary bias towards selected websites," (I added emphasis). So the discussion, IMHO quite rightly, favored moving IMDB et al to the external links section but there was stated concerns that this may not be needed for the actual website for the film.

Sorry, on any article I expect to see the official website of the book, person, organization, etc in the infobox. It's just as, if not more, relevant to the subject of the article and quite useful to our readers. We don't say hunt for the actual group's website among these 5-10 links, we put it right there in the infobox along with their logo and what year they were founded etc. On a BLP we have their official website right there while the extra ones can likely be segregated to the bottom of the article where we all know very few will even get down to. Time to rethink this folks. Present the website plainly and clearly. There are no concerns of favoring a subject's own website - simply confirm it's the actually one and move on. This works fine in biography articles and numerous others. Let's get this reinstated. -- Banjeboi 02:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What you expect isn't really a topic for discussion. External links normally appear in the external links section, where they are most convenient to our readers. As stated above, there is no reason to put one in an infobox, and this particular infobox is a terrible one to have external links, for the reasons already mentioned. 2005 (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with 2005. External link shoulds be in the external links section. No need to have it in the infobox, as has been discussed before. Garion96 (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Previous discussions were not "quite short and localized", this is something that was debated to death. Concensus was reached, and I see no compelling argument to backtrack. PC78 (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looking through the discussion, I see no strong consensus to remove the official site at all. Most of the discussion focused on the non-official links, and the removal of the official links seems to be more the opinion of a few regulars who wanted it out. (No offense intended to your opinion, just that a change of this magnitude should have a strong, wide consensus.) As well, the official link makes sense in the infobox as it is, well, official and an important bit of information for the reader to easily access. It is also in line with television articles, business articles, and a host of other infoboxes. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to put external links anywhere besides the "External links" section. The section is found at the bottom of the Wikipedia article because the content of the Wikipedia article comes first. Providing external links anywhere earlier than this section is detrimental to this goal. The "External links" section is commonplace across many articles; if readers want to find an external link like the official website or the film's IMDb page, they know where to go. If anything, other infoboxes that include external links are holding onto tradition (doing things because things have always been that way); there is no compelling reason to have external links anywhere but in the section marked for them. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 00:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but what?!? We're talking about an official site for a film, not IMDB etc., and the infobox is the place where we summarize details for easy access. It's also fully compliant with the spirit of the EL guideline, which aims to limit external links, not exclude them from summary boxes. The arguments you've made regarding official links ("they know where to go" and "no compelling reason... anywhere but in the section marked for them") could equally be made for most of the other details, such as "cast". I doubt we'd want to do that. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that an infobox provides important details about the topic, but the spirit of restricting external links indicates a Wikipedia-preferred scope. WP:ELOFFICIAL says, "Official websites may be included in some infoboxes, and by convention are listed first in the External links section." We need to consider the type of topic at hand, too. I think there could be a better argument for websites in university infoboxes because such websites run deep with information. When it comes to films, official websites do not run so deep. They provide the synopsis, the cast, ways to buy tickets, and other kinds of promotion, such as related merchandise. The commercial nature of such websites makes it not worth repeating outside of the conventional placement. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 17:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion of some official websites and is fine for you to have - the issue is applying your wishes to world's encyclopedia. Many people's and many company's official websites also are sparse but are still the official website and is still the most likely place for our readers to seek information. I see no difference with a website for a film. Put the official one only in the infobox, other ELs can be judged to see if they are needed at all. -- Banjeboi 05:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The official website is being provided no matter what, so there is no harm to the encyclopedia. The guidelines state that official websites "may" be added, not "should" be added, to the infobox, so we need to consider the merits of websites under a particular subject matter. You suggest that the official website is "the most likely place" for readers to seek out. I could agree that this is true for recent films because of how studios promote the websites, but the overwhelming majority of films is in the past. For these films, it does not seem to be fair to say that the official website holds more weight than IMDb or another website. To reiterate, the official websites are commercial and generally outdated because studios just do not provide upkeep for their films that get a lot of attention in such a short time span. I do not understand why the "External links" section is not enough in this case. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 13:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm content to leave the link out of the infobox as I really haven't seen a good reason to include it yet. Just because something is the official site—sanctioned by the studio and usually designed with the promotion of the film in mind—why should we give it prominence over other links, some of which may provide more useful content than the studio does, and with the added benefit of distance from the subject? As a neutral encyclopedia, we shouldn't endorse one over the other (which infobox inclusion may imply), merely judge on a case-by-case basis which links will be useful or of interest to the reader and include them accordingly in the appropriate section. Steve ^T • C 14:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The same reason we quote people about themselves, use photos of the subject of an article and logos of the company the article is about - we strive to accurately reflect them. Arguably nothing expresses a subject's opinion about themselves better than their own opinions and an official website expresses what that company wishes to portray. -- Banjeboi 14:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Leave the external links out of the infobox. Just because something is "convenient" doesn't necessarily make it better. We have enough clutter in the infobox already, that we don't need to backtrack on put stuff in that we've already agreed was unnecessary to include. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to send someone away from our articles as fast as possible--which is why the EL section is last on the page--but to give them all the info we can and then say "for extra stuff, go here". If someone is coming here simply to get a link to the official website of a film, then my suggestion to them is to get better with their Google searching because they can find it just as easily typing the film name into Google as they can into Wikipedia's search engine.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

class1 is description

Is it simply mistake that class1=description? As label1 is directed_by, I don't think class name description makes sense here. Other labels don't have microformat classes either. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Only2sea (talk • contribs) 23:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Studio vs. financial partners

The current parameters force editors to treat the financial backers who share the risk in the production of a film with the studio/production company that plays the more traditional production roles. For example, with Avatar (2009 film), there was a studio and two private equity financial partners, as reported here:

Fox and its financing partners Dune Entertainment and Ingenious Film Partners ... spent about $280 million to produce Avatar after the benefit of tax credits, and Fox spent an additional $150 million to market and distribute it worldwide.

And the three of them play a different role than director Cameron's Lightstorm Entertainment. It appears the current parameters are inadequate at summarizing these distinctions. 67.101.5.20 (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC).

Genre.

(moved from Template talk:Infobox film/doc)

Could we add Genre to the template for the infobox? The primary genre of the film, for categorization and classification purposes, is relevant and significant. (It would probably fit best underneath Language.) Anyone agree/have anything to add?

I see that I am not able to just add it on my own. How can it be achieved?--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 23:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This was brought up before, and I don't believe that there is consensus for it: Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 17#Genre tag. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 00:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see that in the past, but per WP:CCC, it seems worthy of another shot.

Genre is perhaps one of the most pertinent factors in a film's description, and thus should be part of the infobox. Any movie site you go to will often list at least one, if not two, genres applicable to the film.

We can discuss ways in which to keep it tidy though. For example, primary genres ONLY:

• Action (or Action/Adventure)
• Comedy
• Drama
• Horror
• Musical
• Sci-Fi
• Thriller (or Suspense/Thriller)
• Western

Mainly those, and possibly a minute set of others (such as Mystery and Fantasy). Animation and Documentary are obviously indisputable, or at least docs are. But NOT these secondary/tertiary genres:

• Biopic (as no matter what, they can fall under a primary genre listed above)
• Indie (again, this would be a type of production, but not relevant to the film's content)
• Period Piece (anything not in present day can be considered one; needs to be narrowed down to a primary)
• Romance (not specific enough; often either a comedy or drama)

....Among others. That way, we can avoid certain conflicts.

I think it may at least be worth a trial run. But if against it, before shooting it down, please be open to it and offer constructive thoughts. Thanks =).--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 00:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent. I can see the validity of the information, which should already be included in the first sentence of the lead. there can be issues with conflicts, but I don't see that as being any more than what w ealready have with those first sentences. However the infobox is already too long and I really don't want to see more added to it without shortening it up some first. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that several of the current ones are extraneous; I don't think the Cinematography or Editing should be there, because it's not a popular feature that average people care about or pay attention to. If you're going to mention those 2 tech departments, you'd go further with composer, costume design, visual effects--and then it's just far too superfluous.

Also, I don't think the gross revenue is relevant whatsoever. The budget itself is a questionable inclusion and both should be removed. Most film articles have sections dedicated to "Critical and Box Office reception", and therefore, listing them in the infobox is unnecessary. It has nothing to do with the actual FILM's content, but rather the aftermath. (Perhaps studio/distributor could be reduced to just distributor as well.) Other than that, the rest are relevant. So perhaps if some of those were removed, adding genre (which would often be just one or two words) would be more acquiescent to everyone.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 01:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Going by your argument on revenue, then genre is irrelevant too because it does already get mentioned in the article. However, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, budget and gross revenue are a very important points and I would strongly oppose their removal, as well as the removal of studio/distributor. I do, however, agree that Cintamotgrapher and editor could really be dropped as they are rarely notable people/aspects for most films and for the few that they are, it is better covered in the article to indicate why. Most of the time, those two particular bits are never mentioned in the article and just shoved in from IMDB. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree about cinematography and editing. Yes, there are notable editors (Thelma Schoonmaker on Martin Scorsese films) and cinematographers (the infamous Haskell Wexler), but when notable, they can be mentioned in the Production section of articles.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 02:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I support the addition of the genre field in the infobox, although it could be waste resources populating it retrospectivly. Albums have the genre tag in their infoboxes with little or no problem (outside the rare edit war, of couse!) If any parameters should be dropped, it should be the proceeded/followed by fields. Completely pointless, IMO. Lugnuts (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. And don't say that to those LOTR and HP fanboys!--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 18:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Update

This has gone three months without issue, so I'm planning on raising an editprotected request for it in the next few days if there are no objections. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sounds good to me. Lugnuts (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I am okay with it, as long as it is limited to the primary genre. We will need documentation for addressing trickier films, though... for example, I can't even tell what genre to label The Fountain. I also notified WT:FILM because I do not believe many people "watch" the template in the active sense. Erik (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm rather back and forth on it. It is common in the other media infoboxes, but I've also found myself lately questioning it as it is often unsourced. Even in media FACs, no one asks for a source on the genre, despite it being in the lead and infobox, yet never in the article itself. From some of the recent discussions re: plot summary=OR, I couldn't helping thinking that while no, just giving the plot summary is not OR, is the declaration of a genre OR without any source? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh great more edit wars forthcoming. LOL. No, I'm for this. But as AnmaFinotera said, it can be tricky. However, I do think most review sites label the genre, like NY Times, etc. So we can only list ONE genre in the infobox? What if it's a thriller, action, horror, sci-fi? :P —Mike Allen 19:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Then probably best not to fill anything in the infobox and instead execute a combo in the lead sentence. :P Erik (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Night of the Lepus is considered a "science fiction horror" (apparently a favored genre term in the 70s...not sure if its still used now) :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Jason X? Pandorum? :) Erik (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Are those films more sci-fi or more horror? I'm thinking that it's subjective and there will be arguments. Musical artist articles have several genres listed and I assume that's where this is headed. Many subcategories, depending on your opinion, would The Maltese Falcon (1941 film) be action, noir, drama, classics? --Peppage^tlk 21:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, now I have doubts about it... definitely can see the abuse with like what Bovine predicted, [[Thriller (genre)|Thriller]]<br />[[Action film|Action]]<br />[[Horror film|Horror]]<br />[[Science fiction film|Science fiction]]. I'm not so sure if documentation would really be effective, and I can see the genre-filling habit becoming unhealthy. Erik (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposing this simply because all films aren't genre films. It's better to keep it in the first sentence so obvious cases can have it included, while genre crossing films can have a more general description of the narrative. Different cultures also have different genre conventions so no matter what genres are chosen there is a risk of bias. Smetanahue (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that while you've always got the problem with the Cheetos brigade having arguments over whether Shaun of the Dead absolutely has to be categorised as a romantic zombie comedy, neglecting to include a genre field at all does a disservice to things like documentary films and the like which have a simple and clearly defined genre. If it comes down to it I don't mind setting a hard limit on the permitted genres and including something in the infobox documentation to the effect that it's strictly a best-fit parameter and should be chosen from whatever category is used in reliable secondary sources rather then by personal interpretation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

MOS:FILM#Lead section says to include in the lead sentence of a film's article "the major genre(s) under which it can be classified", so we can emulate that. I think that two genre labels in the infobox are enough. For example, romantic comedy is one label. Two labels would be science fiction and comedy. Does anyone think there is a need to go beyond two items? I'd feel better about the field if we had strong documentation planned. There will likely be a few editors who will take the field and run with it; it happened with the "studio" field (to differentiate it from the "distributor" field). Erik (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

For a film, a think two is a good limit. In the anime/manga MoS we limit to three. Main thing, I think, will be having clear instructions in the MoS and Infobox docs.

New parameters

Any reason why production designer, costume designer and possibly casting directors aren't included in the infobox for film? I realize there needs to be a limit, but I bring these up because they've consistently been part of the standard movie opening credits for many decades. John Dhabolt (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Because in general they are not notable and the infobox is not intended to be a catch all for all the credits of the film. If they are notable, they should be mentioned in the prose with the appropriate reliable sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} add a genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Beals (talk • contribs) 09:57, November 23, 2009

There is no consensus for that change, indeed consensus has repeatedly rejected it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite new to wikipedia editing, but my first piece is on a IFTA award winning Costume Designer and I note that the infobox for film doesn't currently support that particular parameter. I agree with the above comment that the info within cannot feasibly be expected to contain all creditable mentions, but I feel high profile positions that are eligible for awards such as IFTA's, BAFTA's or an Oscar really should be given their place within the infobox. I note that on other language editions of Wikipedia (such as the french language version) that this is already the case. Senderon (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, they are generally not notable per Wikipedia standards. If they won an award, the film prose should mention it.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge of minor infobox variants

A proposal has been raised on WT:FILM under WT:FILM#Merge of minor infobox variants which is pertinent to this template. Please leave comments or suggestions on that thread. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Bolding?

Under the writer section: "Some films are based on previously produced or published material, such as books, plays, articles, old screenplays etc. When this is the case, list the writer(s) of the film first (while placing Screenplay in parenthesis either next to or under the name), then list the source material writer(s) in a similar fashion." Would Film: Writer be correct also? People tend to use Film (Writer) but I see it as too small.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

No, it should be done as noted, with (Writer) as the bolding goes against the general MoS guidelines on bolding and gives undue attention to the label. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It does seem small, and I have Firefox zoomed in 1x also. Another editor has chosen to leave it like the bold format, but instead of the bold, have it in italics. So it looks like Screenplay: Mike Allen , etc. Either format is good in my opinion. —Mike Allen 00:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Merging infobox templates

Per discussion at WT:FILM, there is interest in merging the following infobox templates to the {{Infobox film}} template.

• {{infobox television film}}
• {{infobox Korean film}}
• {{infobox Chinese film}}
• {{infobox Bond film}}
• {{infobox Hollywood cartoon}}

Let's choose one infobox to merge, identify the specific fields, and work out the coding for it. Let's start with {{Infobox Korean film}}. Its fields, unique from the main infobox, are:

| hangul         = 
| hanja          = 
| rr             = 
| mr             = 
| context        = 
| admissions     = 

Do we want to keep the field names the same? A field like "context" may not make sense in the main template. Same with "admissions". We could ensure documentation for proper usage, but without renaming, the fields may be used improperly. Erik (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think renaming these would be good, as looking at those names, I'd have no clue what they meant without documentation. Looking at the docs, the first four are language flags. Are all four really needed for Korean films? For rr, I'd recommend renaming to romaji similar to Japanese articles. The rest I'd need more info on. Is context necessary at all? Isn't country enough for differentiated North/South Korea? Admissions I'm inclined to drop, since we don't use that in any other film. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be best to keep the language fields; I think they are a better way to display the foreign titles than the lead sentence. I think that as long as we make a Korean film section in the documentation where editors can just paste these fields, renaming the labels is not necessary. In addition, the source code indicates that "context" does affect the language fields, so I suggest keeping it. I would recommend deprecating "admissions", though. Between 750-1000 film articles use this template, and I randomly clicked through 30 of them and found only one article using it. Erik (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we create a small subtemplate for the various Chinese dialects and attach it in the title film when the film it Chinese. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unresolved

Where are we with this? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but to offer in my two cents: I believe that the television and cartoon infoboxes have a decent case for standing - cartoons have a different creative hierarchy, while television movies have different relevant information (network is important, while box office is not). I would like to see the Bond and national infoboxes assimilated into the general film infobox, though. Last time we discussed the Korean and Chinese infoboxes, my general suggestion was that we incorporate a vernacular parameter into the infobox which could be broader in scope and be used with any foreign film. (Additionally, a transliterated one would be useful for non-Roman alphabets.) I don't really see the need to display a Korean title, for example, in multiple scripts - as per the MoS, we'd simply use the most common vernacular title, whichever that is. Same for transliterating a Chinese title into Mandarin vs. Cantonese - the original dialect of the film would be the one used. Thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for new parameter

Related films The infobox is used to navigate previous and successive films in a series, but these fields are also being used to navigated between related films. Two examples:

• Death Proof was not preceded by Planet Terror; they were two parts of the double feature Grindhouse
• Bad Lieutenant is not followed by Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans; the latter is a loose remake of the former.

Clearly, these films are related to one another, but they aren't strictly sequels. I think it would be useful to have a field for remakes, etc. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Use the prose for that, but it should not be part of the infobox. Far far far too much likely hood of abuse. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, it would be easier to explain why films were related with the prose. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 07:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay Then should these non-sequel and non-prequel films be remove from the infoboxes, or retained even though they aren't strictly part of a series? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If they are not sequel/prequels nor sourced as being the next part of the series, then yes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Unhelpful language linking

{{editprotected}} Could this template be enhanced to avoid linking English language when that's the film's language? It's inconceivable that anyone reading the English Wikipedia would find that link helpful. It's just creating link clutter that detracts from the important links. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Why make wikilinking diffuse and unfocused in an infobox? Readers are more likely to click on links if only the most highly relevant and useful targets are blue. Please, let's not waste the system ... Tony (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with this as long as the coding still provides the "English-language films" category when "English" is in the field. Erik (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's not a very useful link. I looked through the coding and there seems to be no issue with de-linking the language while still allowing for automated listing in the appropriate language category. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully I didn't make a mistake. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Good move! Now watch editors manually add the English language link. :P —Mike Allen 22:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I never realized the template would auto link, and I suspect most other's didn't either. So most instances are most likely already manually linked. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Should we also establish consensus to have an automated process of de-linking the language in the infobox field as a clean-up task? Erik (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. Is there a reason why a category is automatically created for the language but not for the country? It would probably be helpful for categories to automatically be added for the countries listed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The country cat is auto-populated by using the {{Film Country}} template. Lugnuts (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Original title

Hi, why is there no field "original title" ? It's present in the french version of the infobox for example... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webustany (talk • contribs) 23:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Because one is not needed? Most films don't have them, and in general the infobox field is either for the original title, or the common one if that is more well known. The original title in such a case is then noted in the lead. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for new parameter: Rating (not MPAA)

Greetings, people

I know that addition of MPAA to infobox is already discussed an rejected. Well, I am not requesting an MPAA parameter. I am requesting a Rating parameter where all rating information of the films can be supplied in form of an unordered list, categorized by the name of the country and an appropriate {{flag}} (or a more appropriate template!) for each. Something like this:

Code	Result
|R-Rating = <ul> <li>{{flag|USA}}: PG-13</li> <li>{{flag|GBR}}: 12A</li> <li>{{flag|DEU}}: DSK 12</li> </ul>	Ratings: USA: PG-13 GBR: 12A DEU: DSK 12

The reason is simple: Rating information for films and movies is important because they indicate the mentality of the generation at the time the rated movies are released. It is true that not all the countries in the world have a rating system. However, it is also true that a significant number of countries in the world (50, per Motion picture rating system) do have rating systems.

In addition, it is a good idea to provide information which many users look for, all in one place. Rating information is the kind of information for which people look. Fleet Command (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Information about how countries rate their films is no doubt important, but we have the appropriate historical articles to talk about the evolution of the ratings. There is no need to disseminate specifics across all articles of individual films. If there is a particular situation with the rating of a film, then it can be discussed in the article body. We used to have Template:Infobox movie certificates, but the consensus was to delete it. In addition, we already a writeup in the guidelines about including ratings in the proper context and not to list them indiscriminately. There have been two ends of the spectrum with discussion about ratings; citing just MPAA is systemic bias in favor of the United States, and citing all ratings is indiscriminate. The middle ground is to write about ratings when they have context, which much of them do not have. Erik (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Erik. If, as you say, the reason for including this information is for historical context, then it's better left to articles such as Motion Picture Production Code, Motion Picture Association of America, Pre-Code Hollywood, Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle der Filmwirtschaft, Irish Film Classification Office and others to describe "the mentality of the generation" and expand on the reasons for and consequences of change. Simply listing all of the ratings for each country within the infobox is utterly indiscriminate as well as being inappropriate since the infobox is meant to only contain the most essential information on a film. Listings of a film's ratings in each individual country are better left for IMDb where, I personally believe, readers interested in that type of detail are more apt to search for it there rather than here. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree wiht Erik and Big Bird. Do a search for more than enough previous discussions on this issue. As a side note, flagicons do not belong in infoboxes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. In additions, the certifications are mostly the same in most countries, so flags probably won't be needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.147 (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

In support of Fleet Command, I was surprised to find that this template lacked a rating parameter, which IMHO is an important aspect of any film and strikes me at first blush as a glaring omission from this template. As a reader, I'd like to have some sense of where a given movie falls along the GA-to-XXX spectrum. Perhaps this could be done via Wikipedia categories rather than reference any specific country's rating system? A link to previous discussion on this topic would be useful. Cheers. SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not really the venue to re-hash and explain guidelines and existing consensus. If I may suggest, Steve, it may be good to read WP:FILMRATING and check for some recent and archived discussions at WT:FILM. If after reading the guidelines and discussions you still feel unsatisfied, feel free to start a new thread at WT:FILM. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for website (New parameter)

Almost all the films now-a-days have their own official websites, so there should be a place for website in the infobox.--Managerarc^(talk) 06:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The links were removed from this infobox per consensus (see archives 11 where the decision was made, and archives 12, 13, and 14 where it was challenged and eventually upheld) and per WP:EL as external links should not be given such prominence in the article. The external link section already exists for giving such links. That the sites exist isn't really a reason to put them in the infobox. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, most film websites contain little to no encyclopedic information. And often after the film has left cinema, it becomes a simple promotion to buy the DVD. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 13:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur with AnmaFinotera and Bovineboy2008. :) Redundancy is unnecessary, and the "External links" section is the standard format. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for new parameter - Sound

Since the template already includes a space for picture editor, wondering if it would make sense to also include a space for Sound Editor, referring to the Supervising Sound Editor. I realize the box cannot possibly include every category, but the omission of such a high-profile creative contributor looks odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chel2010 (talk • contribs) 19:56, April 29, 2010

I really don't see how Supervising Sound Editor is a high profile contributor. The film's overall editor is the main one that seems to get the kudo's for editing, while one rarely hears about all of the other editors who worked under or with them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sound Editor is not "a high profile contributor"? Sorry, what? All that buzz about 'The Hurt Lockers' sound design? No, not a major creative category. Is that why the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences don't list the Sound Editing category on this page - http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/82/nominees.html (warning: Sarcasm. They do, and it is on that page, and there's TWO sound categories: Editing and Mixing). This new fangled "talkies" thing, it will never last, eh? GermanicusCaesar (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The AMA and other awards also have a ton of other categories, such as for costume design. That isn't a noteworthy enough category, in general, to include in the infobox either. Producer, director, etc are major contributors that are going to be frequently mentioned in reliable sources about the film. Sound editor (and really even picture editor), not so much. And the buzz around a single film does not warrant adding the element for all films. Discussions tend to go more productively without unnecessary sarcasm. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'd say that every single one of those categories should also have a entry, and I came back here specifically to say this, before I sawy your comment. You've got Music, so why is Music more important to a film than Art Design, Sound Design, or Production Design? What about a period film like 'Elizabeth' - Costume Design is *central* to the way such a film works! What about Special Visual Effects; think about 'Avatar'. How about 'Production Design'? That affects *every single thing you see in the film*, and if you think about Baz Lurhmann's or Tim Burton's films. They are all Production Design! Also Star Wars, that's pretty much all Production Design. In many ways, for many films, Production Design is more more important than the Actors. And then there's 'Narrated by'. Most films don't have Narration, and who does the narration in a documentary, I would argue, isn't particularly important, yet you have that. In my opinion, there should be entries created for Sound, Visual Effects, Production/Art Design, and Costume/Makeup Design. Combining several will cover all the major, but missing, creative categories that are each central to creating the film's world. GermanicusCaesar (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The infobox is not for a full credit list. That is what IMDB is for. Such folks are also not covered in the prose, while who stars in, narrates, produces, and directs a film always is. And it is generally important. Most folks other than film buffs have no idea who Lurhmann is or what he does, nor what production design is. If the sources have coverage of those credits and roles, then it is great to have it in the prose as part of the film's production. However, the reality is is that only a few films will have such coverage, while any film with a narrator will always have coverage on that narration, etc. Even the critics who review films will discuss "effects" and "costuming" without usually mentioning who performed that task. So no, I do not see any reason to add such credits and make the infobox any longer than it already is. Indeed, there are a few parameters that need removing to tighten it up more. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"most folks other than film buffs have no idea ..." so when I edit pages about, say, The Roman Republic, I should refrain from discussion about any complex topic that interests historians as apart from the common joe, because they might learn something? You are saying that Wikipedia's role is just reinforcing what people already know about a topic? Perhaps it should just read "Tom Cruise Film". Because to the "non-film-buff" audience, the Director -- ALL directors, apart from one or two like Spielberg or Cameron -- are completely unknown to them. Indeed, on your criteria there should be nothing there more than Title, Director, Year of Production, Country of Production and the Production Company. I would agree that reducing it to that list makes sense - that's the basic information needed to reference the film. But as soon as you admit "Cinematography" (not a subject I think the 'non-film-buff' knows about) and "Film Editing" and "Narrated by" I maintain you are also obliged to also credit all the other important - in fact *central* - creative categories. It's either an at-a-glance rundown of all the major creative players in the film, or just lists the central facts required to find/locate/reference the film, which are as I list above. GermanicusCaesar (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems like you are determined to answer in a purely sarcastic fashion, which does not really help this discussion at all. Giving random red herring examples from other topics also does not help. I was trying to note that even reliable sources do not discuss such folks, so by nature, neither should we, nor does it need highlighting in the infobox if it will not be discussed in the article. Personally, I think Cinematography and editing should also go as they are also rarely noteworthy folks in a film. Narrated is fine as it is primarily for dealing with documentaries and the like which do not have "starring" and it keeps the box flexible. I do not think, however, that the existing of any of those warrants the claim that we must do all or nothing. For now, I think it best to just wait and see if anyone else weighs in, as it seems we are not communicating well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

OK I will drop the sarcasm and not reply further other than this one point. Look at this review of a major film in a major daily newspaper. While yes it concentrates on the director and the actor, it includes this bit of text: "But the biggest letdown is the almost disturbing lack of visual flair in Iron Man 2, which often looks like a mish-mash sampling of other films. Much of the movie has the style of a gigantic iPhone as we spend a lot of time staring at characters who are staring into floating computer screens, doing that touch-and-swipe deal we saw in Avatar and Quantum of Solace and GI Joe and Eagle Eye and Minority Report. Couldn't they think up something else? Seriously?" I mean that's an explicit critique of the film's production design even if they don't mention the production designer. Also I would say a film review is hardly a "reliable" source but that's the academic in me speaking (unless you are studying the reactions of film reviewers, in which case its your primary source, but I digress.) Review source here: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/iron-man-2-goes-soft-in-the-middle-20100428-tscu.html GermanicusCaesar (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think wikipedia should at least list all the professions that receive Oscars (Best mixing, Best sound editing). But for some reason the other laguage wiki show the same ignorance against professions that receive highly acclaimed awards at the Oscars every year. --88.73.125.19 (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Question about release_date field

Just to make sure the rules are still the same, if a film opens in a limited release and later expands wide, only the inital limited release date is to be listed, correct? That is, which article is correct: Dreamgirls (film) or The Princess and the Frog? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Technically, it should be just the first release unless it was preceded by a film festival or something. So Dreamgirls would be following WP:FILMRELEASE more correctly. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 16:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Categories

Wikipedia has an explicit rule against placing code in an infobox template which automatically categorizes an article by plugging input variables into a category link at the template level. The appropriate categories for country, language and year are to be placed directly on the articles themselves, and are not supposed to be indirectly transcluded by way of the infobox template. A couple of reasons why this is a bad idea:

1. If somebody uses this infobox on a sandbox page, or for an unintended purpose like joking around on their user page, then that page gets inappropriately categorized — and there's no way to exclude the page from the categories.
2. The category generation code can screw up and generate nonsense categories if there's an error in how the infobox is coded in an individual article. For example, the infobox for cities in India once automatically categorized cities by the content of the infobox's "state_name" field — but if there was any sort of error in that field (failure to pipe the entry field closed, etc.), then it placed the article in the nonsense category Cities and towns in.

Bottom line, a film should not be in any categories that are transcluded (or variable-generated) by this template; any categories that a film's article belongs in are to be added directly to the article itself. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but I don't see any hard/fast rule about that in the page you linked to, and it is done with many other infoboxes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You may also wish to go to the top of the page linked to and read the fact that items on that page are guidelines not explicit rules. Wikipedia has very few explicit rules. If there is something in this situation that you want changed you will need to gain consensus for that. You may want to start on the talk page for the Wikipedia:Categorization. MarnetteD | Talk 00:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Your point 1 can be avoided by using code which only applies the category if the transclusion is in the article namespace. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"Can be", but "shouldn't be". Adding categories through transclusion makes it intensely difficult to locate the code which is doing the categorising if that needs to be updated, which is one of the main reasons it's discouraged. And by "discouraged" I mean "not used on any well-behaved templates". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please remove the following code to resolve this problem. Auto-categorisation into categories designed for use in articlespace is recommended against in WP:CAT. This code dates to October 2007.

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

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the the discussion so far does not yet present a consensus for this edit. In any case the discussion has only been going for a few hours; don't rush to requesting edits please. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Options for adding Oscar winners to infobox

While the highest-profile crew members like the producer, writer, and director are in the infobox, key crew members (and for this purpose I define "key" to mean those whose work was recognized with an Academy Award) don't appear. Since the infobox can be seen as a tabular summary of information about a film, and work for which an Oscar is awarded qualifies as essential summary information, I am suggesting that a standardized way be established to add them to the infobox.

Three options come to mind:

1. Create a specific but optional named parameter for each crew position for which Oscars are awarded
2. Follow the {{Infobox writer}} convention and create an Oscar-specific section for the infobox
3. Follow the {{Infobox settlement}} convention and provide one or more label/name pairs (e.g. oscarwinnerlabel/oscarwinner)

Reviewing the history of the template and the archives for this discussion page, variations have been discussed and implemented in the past. Since opinions vary depending on who is most active in an area, I'd like to know what the current set of active editors think would be the best approach.

I was prompted to suggest this by the under-representation of Bill Thomas (costume designer) in the film articles. As of this writing he doesn't even have an article, yet he won one Academy Award for Spartacus and was repeatedly Oscar-nominated for his work on other films. It seems appropriate to facilitate the inclusion in the infobox of accomplished crew members. Thanks in advance for your consideration. 72.244.200.129 (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. It is a single award, very American-centric, and has already been discussed (and rejected) several times before. We don't list films as "Oscar winners" in the lead sentence, nor should it be highlighted in the infobox. No other awards are highlighted in the box either, giving no undue preference to American awards. Also see no no reason to add said "key" crew members. It is not our place to give a single person such highlighting (if he has significant coverage, make an article for him with the reliable sources). If the costume designing has significant enough coverage for any film to actual warrant more than just a note in reception that it won an award, then an appropriate section in the production section of the film should be added. However, in reality, just because a film wins an award for "costume design" or the like, does not make the winning person notable, nor does it often mean there is now significant coverage on that aspect of the film. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose as AnmaFinotera this has been discussed before. Three years (or so) ago we had awards in the infobox. I think we were up to twenty or more at one point. Consensus was reached to remove them and have them discussed in the body of the article. I can see no reason to add them back in. MarnetteD | Talk 21:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm pretty sure that both editors above are saying they are opposed to any variation of the idea, I'd like to ask that this not be seen as a vote. There's not a specific proposal...I was hoping for a discussion based on several specific examples. So if you oppose the idea of using an Oscar as a way of deciding when an otherwise excluded crew member is included, fine. Just note that I'm trying to raise a discussion rather than a vote. Thanks. 72.244.200.129 (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no voting at Wikipedia, this is one way discussions tend to go. When someone makes a proposal (which you seemed to be doing, rather than just asking for the explanation/history), people often do a short summary of their view at the start of their response. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

My point is to discourage editors from formatting their comments as if this were a poll. The WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion guideline is what prompted my 22:17 reply. If an editor immediately sees absolutely no merit in even the most minor detail of what I was mentioning, I guess a blanket and emboldened Oppose does serve as a short summary. But I'm concerned that using that convention, which is similar to that used in AfD, makes it more likely editors will throw out the baby with the bath water. For example, you were concerned about the linkage with winning an Oscar, calling it "very American-centric"...does that mean if I had suggested two parameters called crewlabel and crewname you would have just as energetically supported the idea? To begin a comment in a discussion with "Oppose" makes it harder to see common ground. Thanks. 72.244.200.129 (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't have. I already addressed that as well in my comment. I see no reason to offer any sort of open ended way of adding any kind of extra crew to the infobox. Keep in mind it is for all film articles, not the very small percentage who might have a noteworthy editor, or noteworthy costume designer, etc. You made a proposal, I'd suggest focusing more on the reasons for opposition then the format of the responses. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding crew members to the infobox after contribution is nationally honored

I am seeking discussion (as opposed to conducting a poll) about whether editors are open to adding additional crew members to the film infobox under limited circumstances. Currently only six crew roles are allowed in the infobox: director, producer, writer, composer, cinematographer, and editor; other crew members, if included at all, must be in the body of the article. Discussions like the one here suggest that the simplest approach to make this happen, adding new optional parameters, raises objections of various kinds.

I'm seeking comment on whether other editors share my opinion that it should be possible to include other "key" crew members in the "at-a-glance" summary provided by the infobox. Since some editors object to the addition of new optional parameters for this purpose, I am suggesting that a definition of "key crew member" be created. One approach is to say "key crew members" are the director, producer, writer, composer, cinematographer and editor, or they are crew members who are both notable as defined by WP:CREATIVE, and were given an award (for the film in question) by the national organization responsible for the most prestigious film award in the film's country of origin (e.g. Oscars, BAFTA film awards, César Awards, Deutscher Filmpreis, etc.). In other words, if a crew member's work prompted national recognition for his or her contribution, it should be possible to include the crew member in the at-a-glance list of crew members on the film, through some syntax specifically designed for that purpose.

The exact details (what the syntax is, how does one identify the "most prestigious" award, how does one interpret certain details from WP:CREATIVE, is winning that award enough or should nominees also be included) would of course need to be fleshed out if the initial discussion suggests taking that step, but for now I'm just looking for comments on whether others believe like I do that the omission of key crew members from the infobox means that the infobox currently does not meet the requirement to be a good "at a glance" summary. Thanks. 72.244.204.18 (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC) (p.s. this is a restart of a recent previous discussion)

As mentioned in the previous conversation the infobox is big enough as it is. If any other crew is important it should be mentioned in the body of the article with proper context and references. You may be making a mistake in thinking that people actually read much of what is in the infobox and any other crew there is likely to be glossed over. A mention in the article will achieve much more of what you are looking for. Also the simple fact of winning an award is not always reflective of whether the creative talent involved is somehow better than anyone else in the business. Many have won awards whose careers were a bit mundane and others who can be considered among the best at there craft have not been honored. Your need to forum shop under rotating IP's is a bit worrying and conversation or vote consensus has been reached on things in this area before. MarnetteD | Talk 02:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I restarted the conversation because I had earlier given the impression that I was conducting a straw poll, and I had enumerated some specific ideas that distracted from the topic I really wanted to discuss. That was my fault, so I thought I'd try one more time to start the discussion I wanted to have. As far as my IP address is concerned, it changes depending on where I am, and can change dynamically as well. I did draw attention to the fact that I am the same person who started the previous discussion.

But to the subject at hand: you lead with "big enough as it is": I find long infoboxes distracting in stubs and bare-boned start-class articles, but film articles are easy to flesh out with critical reception details, production details, cast summaries, etc. that in most decent film articles infobox length just doesn't seem to be a problem to me. We're only talking about one or two lines added to the infobox. And while I can't prove whether people focus on the infobox like I do, Help:Infobox#What should infoboxes contain? does say they are used for quickly checking facts. Making sure that award-winning crew members are included as part of the essential details of a film seems pretty reasonable. If length of infoboxes is really that critical, we could stop the practice of embedding line breaks between name of people. I guess I need to re-read some MOS: and other WP: articles to better understand why infobox length is such a concern.

As to "creative talent involved is somehow better than anyone else" I agree with you, but the point I'm making is slightly different. Remember we're talking the article about the film, not the bio for the crew member. If the costume designer gets a prestigious award for his/her work on a film, it means that the work in that area has had a notable impact on the quality of the film, notable enough that it deserves to be part of the at-a-glance summary of the film. Thanks. 72.244.204.18 (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC).

Response is the same as above. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Narrator is redundant and unneeded

As seen above, there are concerns about infobox length, yet for some reason the narrator is still part of the infobox. Since a narrator is a voice actor, and for animated films the precedent has been established to list voice actors within the starring list, I'd like to suggest that narrator be removed. For existing uses, it would be easy to create a WP:BOT to make a pass through all the film articles and if a narrator has been supplied, append the actor's name to the starring list, possibly with a "(narrator)" tag. Thank you. 67.101.5.165 (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC).

Narrators are often the only credited person for many documentary films, so it's not redundant. Lugnuts (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As Lugnuts notes, narrator is not the same as "voice actor". Narrator is intended to refer to the narrator of a film, such as documentaries, and films like March of the Penguins. It should only be used for animated films if the narrator is not one of the voice actors in another role. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As stated, it's only for documentaries. If it's not being used and will never be used, delete the "narrated by" parameter. Mike Allen 17:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you felt the need to alter the header for this section so that it could not be readily seen or accessed from the TOC. Next, as stated, it is being used "for documentary films". Thus, there is no reason to remove it. MarnetteD | Talk 18:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously it was a mistake. For some reason, with this new layout on Wikipedia, everything has to load before you start to type or it will move what you type to the top of the page. I didn't know it happened, thanks for correcting it. Mike Allen 18:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. The new shifting motion that you are describing had me hit the rollback command on the AN/I page one day AND that went back to a page blanking that had already been fixed. Hard to make a much bigger mistake then that. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternate release titles

This template could use a row for alternate movie names. It's not uncommon for a movie to be released under a second and even a third title, especially when it appears in other countries.—RJH (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a valid suggestion. I'm not sure if it'll be deemed necessary though, considering most films at most have one alternate release title in the English language, at most, when released in the UK or the USA, such as the film Inside I'm Dancing (British title), a.k.a. Rory O'Shea Was Here (American title). Generally, if the film, such as this one, is made under one title but released overseas under another title, the main page will retain the original title, as is respectful to the film. The alternate English-language titles will be mentioned in the header, and any subsequent foreign-language titles are irrelevant, because this is the English-language Wikipedia. (Foreign film pages are generally formatted in the style seen here on The 400 Blows.) Hope that this was helpful.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 03:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Code cleanup

Requesting sync with the sandbox to fix some hackish bits of code and use frameless as the default image size (which scales with user thumbnail size and doesn't stretch undersized images). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed stylistic changes to "Writer" instructions

In the template documentation, under "Parameters", the instruction for the "Writer" field currently reads:

Some films are based on previously produced or published material, such as books, plays, articles, old screenplays etc. When this is the case, list the writer(s) of the film first (while placing {{small|Screenplay}} in parenthesis either next to or under the name), then list the source material writer(s) in a similar fashion.

I suggest the following change:

Some films are based on previously produced or published material, such as books, plays, articles, old screenplays etc. When this is the case, list the writer(s) of the film first (while placing {{nowrap|{{small|(screenplay)}}}} in parenthesis either next to or under the name), then list the source material writer(s) in a similar fashion.

Here is an explanation of the proposed changes, most of which are minor:

1. Adding {{nowrap}} around the {{small}} template: This will cause the note to automatically move to a line below the name, if the length of the note would otherwise cause text wrapping. An example of this effect can be seen at the current revision of Alien vs. Predator (film). In my opinion it presents a crisp look no matter what changes the reader may make to their viewing settings (such as text size). It also eliminates the need for guesswork with regard to line breaks.
2. Changing "either next to or under the name" to simply "next to the name": With {{nowrap}} in effect, there is no need to place the note under the name by inserting a line break; It will be done automatically if necessary.
3. Placing the note in parentheses: This is a stylistic issue. As a note such as "(screenplay)" or "(story)" next to a name represents an aside, it should be parenthetical.
4. Decapitalizing "screenplay": Words like "screenplay", "story", and "characters" are not proper nouns and therefore shouldn't be capitalized in this situation (where they appear as a parenthetical note next to a proper noun).
5. Placing <code></code> around the templated portion: To make it clear that this is a piece of coding being inserted into the text. It also makes the coding stand out for easy copy/pasting by newer editors.

Would anyone have any objections to these changes being made to the documentation? --IllaZilla (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with this proposal. This is the style I prefer and use. Though I have capitalized "Screenplay" and "Story" since it looked like standard practice (thought not standard English). Nice to have this written into the documentation. Mike Allen 06:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it should be under the name. It's not under the name when the credits are rolling.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the discussion above needs to be resolved first. There's not much point implementing the changes if the field is going to be split anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Bignole, it would only go under the name if the text is long enough that it would otherwise wrap onto 2 lines. Otherwise it will remain next to the name. I think keeping the note on a single line is preferrable to wrapped text. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I get that, but in those cases it looks weird for "screenplay" to be below the name. Especially if it would be easier to just create a separate "Original works" (or something similar) category, thus eliminating the need for the wrap text.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am still having a problem with the material being included together as the writer of the film. The most extreme example I can think of is the film "The Passion of the Christ". No writing credit is given to the Gospel writers though the film is clearly based on the New Testament. While some books and plays are written with them eventually being turned into films in mind, I think it is a big stretch to suggest that Sir Thomas Malory had any part in the making of the film Excalibur. In my opinion, the infobox should be used to provide information about the film itself leaving the material it was adapted from to be included in the text of the article. Having said that, I am ok with the format of the proposal if that is what is agreed upon. Whatever the outcome, it looks like a big cleanup effort will need to take place to provide consistancy throughout all of the articles.Dohhh22 (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Then you would think you'd be in favor of a separate category for original works credits, if you have a situation where it is necessary to credit the original author--(John Carpenter's 1978 Halloween screenplay clearly is used for the Rob Zombie remake, and the same for Wes Craven's screenplay for the 2010 remake of Nightmare on Elm Street)--as that will keep the current film writers separate from the people that may have only contributed because they came up with the original idea that is being reused, or just the characters.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am in favor of a separate category (that was my original suggestion in the previous thread). I agreed with the format change as a compromise if that was the way the majority wanted to go.Dohhh22 (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably I hadn't noticed the thread above where the "Writers" field is already under discussion before I made this suggestion. I merely intended a technical change designed to avoid text wrapping and the need for line breaks. I think the discussion on creating separate fields for different roles should continue above, but for what it's worth I think we should only bother with listing the original works authors if they are so listed in the actual WGA credits. For example, with Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem, Shane Salerno is the credited writer, but the 4 original writers of Alien and Predator (Dan O'Bannon, Ronald Shusett, Jim Thomas, and John Thomas) receive WGA credit for having written the Alien and Predator characters originally. By contrast, for The Passion of the Christ only Mel Gibson and Benedict Fitzgerald are credited by the WGA, not the original Gospel writers. I think we should only bother with crediting the source writers if the WGA does. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think IllaZilla's proposition is reasonable. I find it much more pleasing to the eyes than any other current widely used style (i.e. listing "Screenplay:" in bold above the screenwriters, which is still used in umpteen articles). The problem with adding "screenplay by", "story by" and "based on the works of" sections to the infobox, as I see it, is that there are just too many types of credits to fit it all comfortably in the infobox. There's "based on the characters created by", "adaptation by", "from an idea by" etc. – how would that be worked into the infobox? Also, as IllaZilla mentioned, Wikipedia should follow the WGA's official credits (adding uncredited writers to the infobox when there's reliable, third-party sources verifying that particular writer's involvement).–FunkyVoltron ^talk 14:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I still think a new section of "Original work" is better, as it removes the need for wraparound text and the extra coding for each infobox which could be confusing to the average editor that doesn't edit enough to fully understand how to use the HTML format.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Disregarding potential extra fields for a moment: While parentheses might be okay for a small number of writers, they do not look very good if employed for big teams, especially when the writers were not involved in multiple tasks (e.g. screenplay, story, novel). Overall, I think groups with captions look tidier. For example, see Toy Story with groups, and Toy Story with parentheses. Now, Alien vs. Predator is one of the cases where parentheses are okay, but grouping is still tolerable here, I think (one can also use <small> tags, but that looks a bit weird...). The latter example seems to be more the exception than the rule, though.

In any case, I feel uncredited screenplay writers should simply be put in the screenplay group if we're going that route, and I think they should always be accompanied by a reference in the infobox (most of the time, uncredited writers are mentioned under production anyway, so sources should be there anyway). Prime Blue (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the look of the groups better as wellDohhh22 (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My question remains unanswered, though: how would all the different types of credits be worked into the infobox? Using captions in bold? Look at Blade Runner for instance: it has two screenwriters and one writer of the source material; the screenwriters fit comfortably in the "Screenplay by" caption while the novelist fits under "Original work by". But what about "title by"? And how about Babel? It credits one writer in the style of "Written by" while crediting two writers with "Based on an idea by ". And in the case of Alien vs. Predator, where would the writers credited with creating the original characters fit in? If these concerns are addressed, then I'm all for it.
Also, if the new fields are added to the infobox, which is more and more starting to look like it's happening, keep the "Written by" field as there are films that simply credit writers that way (see American Beauty).–FunkyVoltron ^talk 11:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

When I see something like "AvP", the use of those parentheses hurts my eyes. You spend too much time trying to read this tiny font to find out who contributed in what capacity. To me, the grouping format is better because it's less code, it's easier on the eyes, and much easier to determine who contributed what to the film. If there are two separate categories, then I would keep "Written by" and just add a new one that was "Original work". On a side note, I don't understand why we need to list the guy that came up with the title for the film in the infobox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Funkyvoltron:

I think this is the best format: bolded section titles. As Bignole said, I think this format is the easiest to read.

For Blade Runner, using the current infoboxes (because "original work by"/"based on" or something along the lines is not a separate field yet), it would look like this. I removed Alan E. Nourse and William S. Burroughs (in the actual article as well) as I really don't feel the title creators should be credited with writing the film. For Babel, it would look like this (of course, one could also write "Based on an idea by:", though that is kind of long). And for Alien vs. Predator like this. I'd keep "Characters by" and similar tasks in the writers field if the respective people actually participated in the movie, otherwise I'd just mention it in prose, à la "the script was written by ... and reuses the characters originally created by ...". For example, I removed the character credits from Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull a while ago.

That about sums it up. Prime Blue (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I recommend adding "Screenplay by" and "Story by" parameters for now. We can have it in addition to "Written by" but clarify in guidelines to use either "Written by" or "Screenplay by"/Story by". I'm neutral about a "Characters by" parameter; it is not going to affect as many films as the screenplay and story parameters. Could we start out with these two and, based on their implementation, see about additional progress? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I take it "Story by" is separate from "Based on/Original work" as per the difference I noted above. Based on your suggestion, I put together a test template that looks very nice to me. To compare the three different versions:

• parentheses
• bolded section titles
• separate fields

My personal opinion: separate fields > bolded section titles > parentheses.

However, the question still stands where to put tasks like "Characters by". Hmm...maybe we could make another field for additional contributions? And call it something like "Story contributions by". Or we put it in "Story by" and have another bolded section or parentheses in there. Or we make no distinction at all, consider characters as part of the story writing, and mention the individual credits in prose only (which I would be okay with). Prime Blue (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Prime Blue, I agree with you, separate fields (like this) look the best. I don't see how adding those parameters to the infobox could become controversial – it should be done as long as it does not interfere with the current writing credits, which shouldn't be an issue since the the plan is to keep the "Written by" field.
Then there's all the other types of credits. I think "Characters by" is a common enough credit to warrant its own field. As for the rest, we could follow your proposed guidelines. I think parentheses (like this) look the best in that case.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 11:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with using (characters) in the "Story by" field for now. Perhaps we can have a separate "Characters by" field down the road. In addition, I think "Based on" is a bit too much parameter creep for me. I can understand making "Written by" more granular, but I think that the link to the source material can belong only in the lead section without issue. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case, "Based on" should be replaced with a "Original work by" or "Based on the works by" field, with the writer of the source material being listed in the infobox instead of the title of the source material. That is WGA standard after all. This means Contact would look like this. Personally, I think this is the way to go.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 14:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the bolded sections best. It just looks a little cleaner to me.Dohhh22 (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the separate fields better. Mike Allen 00:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Default image size

{{editprotected}} At the moment the default image size is 200px, which means the image doesn't fully fit the infobox, but changing the default image size to 235px will make the image fill the infobox. d'oh! _talk 02:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. The image doesn't need to fully fit the infobox. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 03:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

But it does look better when it fulls the infobox see Simpsons. Plus the size can be still changed with image_size. d'oh! _talk 04:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it does (and FYI, the Simpsons article is manually changed to 250, not 235). I think it looks just fine at the default, as seen in Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins. Further, if the default size is changed, what will happen to any article whose image was uploaded at 200px width already? Will it not upsize the image, which will distort it? -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 04:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Simpsons infobox is bigger then this infobox which is why 250px is used. Most movie image are 300px or more (including the Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins image), but if the image is 200px or less the image_size can be used to limit the size. Also I made up an example, 200px and 235px. Plus this change will being this infobox inline with other infoboxes. d'oh! _talk 05:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the 200 looks better. *shrug* If the infobox needs to be larger for a reason like keeping the info from wrapping, the image can be upsized, but as it is, I see no reason at all to up it 35 more pixels. 200 is more than sufficient. And yes, MM is uploaded at 300, but that's because I upload all images at that width. I was speaking of its infobox as my example. I also disagree that it would "bring it inline" with other infoboxes, as it seems almost every one has its own way of handling images, including several main ones that have no default size at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 05:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Plus this change will being this infobox inline with other infoboxes. — Not sure what you mean by this. There is no set standard across WP for image sizes in infoboxes. {{Infobox album}} and {{Infobox single}} both use 200px, {{Infobox actor}} and {{Infobox musical artist}} use 220, {{Infobox person}} uses 280x220, and {{Taxobox}} uses whatever the reader's default thumb size preference is. So no, this change would not "bring this infobox in line with other infoboxes", as there is no consistency between infoboxes of different WikiProjects. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't very clear, from what I seen on Wikipedia more and more articles have the infobox image fill the infobox (and by fill I mean this), I know there can never be a set width as most infoboxes are different in sizes. I should have been more clearer with this change, but with it being only a 35px change I didn't believe it would cause very negative respond. d'oh! _talk 07:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Also just a note my edit to The Net (1995 film) was undone so if you want to see the example of the image filling the infobox see history. I am not sure why I am getting hostile responds as I put this request in, and two days later with no responds I assume WP:Consensus because WP:SILENCE and added {{editprotected}}. I am not trying to destroy anyones work, I just put a request for a change which I believe improve articles. d'oh! _talk 14:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Gezzza put the poster image File:Netposter1995.jpg up for deletion. Discussion can be seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I like to stress image deletion is a unrelated to this edit request, so please if you approve or object to the image deletion put it there otherwise leave your approve, object or comments for the edit request here. d'oh! _talk 16:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You attempted to resize the poster image, and when someone disagreed with you, you started a discussion to delete the image. With that relationship, I mentioned it here. Moving on from it, size of the poster image in the infobox is an aesthetic argument. I do not see a compelling reason to change from the status quo; the presentation of poster images have largely been a non-issue on Wikipedia. We are better off worrying about building content in film articles rather than changing our presentation. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't have a problem with you mentioning it here, I just didn't want the discussions getting mix up. Also I am not standing in the way of anyone building content in film articles, I'd simply put forward a change and with no comments for two days I put in a request and if everyone takes that view we wouldn't have Internet. Yes, I know in the grand scheme of things this is minor but I wanted a discussion on this and now I am very worry about how hostile this "discussion" has taken place. Since I have done a few edit request for infoboxes and other locked and unlocked templates before but never this respond. I hope everyone has a read of WP:GOODFAITH. d'oh! _talk 17:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It would have been helpful to advertise your request at the main Film project page, as template talks often have fewer watchers. I did see your initial post, but didn't response as you had not put an edit protected request on there, and as your remark seemed more statement than question, I didn't expect you would try to make the change. Once you went from making a statement to trying to have it changed, then I opposed. Nor would I say this discussion is hostile, it seems pretty civil and calm to me. Once you moved from statement to proposal, it was opposed. People opposing your view is not hostility. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 17:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In hindsight, you are right I should have advertise my request at the main film project page and I could have put my request in a form of a question instead of a statement. Also I have no issue with anyone opposing my view, its unhelpful comments like "The image doesn't need to fully fit the infobox" with nothing added as to why you take this view, I take issue with as it doesn't help the discussion reach a consensus. d'oh! _talk 18:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It is my view, which is what you asked for. It does add to the discussion and help reach a consensus as I have expressed my opinion. You gave no reason why you felt it should fully fit the infobox either, other than you personally think it looks better. So how is my saying the opposite not a valid comment? Thus far, the entire argument is based on personal aesthetics, which is subjective and really cannot be "reasoned" beyond "it looks better to me". -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 18:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Gezza (D'oh) & I have had a little back-&-forth on my talk page, & I've thought of a couple of points pertinent to the discussion. My own opinion is that the image looks fine whether the image is the full width of the box or keeps the current (approx.) ¼ inch border to the left & right, so from an aesthetic standpoint I'm neutral. What keeps me on the "oppose" side are a potential technical issue and a concern with the overall length of the box:

1. If we were to increase to 235px from the current 200px, (correct me if I'm wrong) all of the images that are less than 235px wide would automatically expand to fit the display, which would cause distortion in .jpgs (which most film poster/cover images are). Per NFCC we encourage editors not to upload images in a larger size/resolution than is necessary for article use, and we often shrink down large non-free images to only the size needed for the article, so we probably have many film poster/cover images that are ~200px (potentially tens of thousands). That's a lot of images that would be distorted if we increased the display size. Gezza points out that this can be fixed using image_size, but that would either have to be done manually or using a bot, either way a large task.
2. Increasing the width also means increasing the height, which means making the infobox (even just a bit) longer. Personally I think this infobox is already too long & could use some paring down. If you look at an article like Blade Runner, the box is already 29cm long, extending past the 3-paragraph lead, the 22-line TOC, and well into the third paragraph of the plot. If anything we should be looking for ways to make this infobox shorter, IMO (personally I'd do this getting rid of budget & gross & specifying that the box refers to the original theatrical relese, not later re-releases & alternate cuts, which would trim 9 lines off the runtime alone in the Blade Runner example...but that's another discussion altogether).

--IllaZilla (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree on both points, if that is the case there is tens of thousands articles with infobox images about 200px or less this edit change will cause a huge issues, not only on the edits required but the high server load that goes with it. When this was first mention I thought it was only a few hundred articles, which can be easily fixed manually or by a bot. d'oh! _talk 02:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The default image size should be the user's default thumbnail size. I requested comment on this at #Code cleanup over a week ago, which was promptly ignored. I'm going to be enabling that editprotected request at some point, assuming there are no objections. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the user has not set their own default thumbnail size, what's the standard WP default size for thumbnails? I haven't set my own in preferences, so basically what change will I see in the infobox image size if your change is made? --IllaZilla (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It's about 220px AFAIK. Note that using frameless rather than a hardcoded size has an additional advantage, in that it won't upsize images which are smaller than the default. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No objection from me to using frameless. Presumably this would also mean getting rid of "image size", since there would be no further use for it? PC78 (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It can still be used to override the size in special circumstances. Anyway, I've updated the sandbox to contain a fix for only this issue. Please test it exhaustively (large override sizes, small, broken values, "px" and no "px", blank attribute) to make sure it works as expected, and I'll sync it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it works fine; obviously the infobox will be stretched for those who have their thumbnails set as 250 or 300px, and entering a gibberish value for image size makes the image display at full size, but that's as it is now anyway. I still think that removing the parameter would be a good idea though. AFAIK image size is only supposed to be used for images that are smaller than the default, and that would no longer be necessary; if removed it would instantly fix any pages where the parameter being used incorrectly. I don't see any other situations where the parameter would be useful. Still, I don't mind treating it as a seperate issue. PC78 (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any objections to using frameless for the default image size. Can we proceed with this change? PC78 (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please update with the code at Template:Infobox film/sandbox to implement this change. I've also added a tracking category for the "image size" parameter to help gauge how useful it is with a view to perhaps removing it at a later date. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Any problems, please let me know ASAP. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} And again, Chris. I was sure I sync'd the sandbox with the current template, but I still managed to lose the recently added "screenplay" and "story" parameters. Sorry about that, the corect code is now in the sandbox. PC78 (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No harm  Done. :) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! PC78 (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Added note to doc about ratings

Since there's a note about why there's no IMDB & other links, I added a short note to the doc about why there's no rating= or ratings= parameter. This was discussed in Talk for the Infobox - see the archives. --Lexein (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good move, as it is a regular question. Perhaps having it in the docs will help curb the occasional drive by request for it to be added. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've also added the WP:FILMRATING hat note at the top of the section. You did not mention that there are times where adding a rating(s) is allowable. Such as a film receiving a MPAA R rating in the U.S. but a much heavier rating in another country, etc. It's rare, but it happens, mostly with horror/action films. Mike Allen 18:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Liking the hat note. I was just noting the reasons ratings aren't in the infobox. --Lexein (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Screenplay & story fields

{{editprotected}} Addition of screenplay and story fields per current consensus. Code was already prepared, simply copy it from this revision to the current Template:Infobox film. I will update the documentation afterwards. Prime Blue (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Could I suggest you make use of Template:Infobox film/sandbox in future? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Will do so. Thank you! Prime Blue (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Preceded by/Followed by

It is my understanding that these fields refer to the storyline of a film. So, Rocky V is preceded by Rocky IV and followed by Rocky Balboa.

An alternate reading is being used across the Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer films (Date Movie, Epic Movie, etc.) wherein Date Movie is "followed by" Epic Movie (though the storylines are unrelated) because of the Friedberg/Seltzer connection.

By the logic used in these films, Hitchcock's Rear Window is preceded by Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder and Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back is followed by Kershner's Never Say Never Again or Lucas' Body Heat or Lawrence Kasdan's Raiders of the Lost Ark or nothing because Leigh Brackett died. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This field is the chocolate fireguard of the project, slowly dripping its way onto the logs of the article. Most directors and film series have their own footer navigation boxes, making this redundant. People are always banging on about the infobox being too cluttered, and why it should have fewer and fewer fields, and these are two that could and should be removed. Lugnuts (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The documentation states these fields only apply to films that are part of a series, which implies a narrative continuation by the regular definition of thw word. To make this simple Allmovie states if a film is part of a series, if you do need an impartial ruling on whether a film belongs a series. Here is an example for "Saw" [1] (under "Other Related Works"). If the editor persists, request that he provides a source to prove it is part of "series". Betty Logan (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Lugnuts. I saw this morning a discussion related to this and recalled the repeated discussions about these parameters. In addition to the problem of which chronology to use (in-universe or production), it is also incomplete access. In a given series, the first film will not link to beyond the second film, and at certain points of a film series with more than three films, some films are not linked to. I think we do a remarkable job with providing navigation templates for film series, which is by nature more complete, so I would endorse the infobox parameters' removal. It would lend itself to less clutter as well. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Lugnuts Don't make it sound so forced! ;-) There's 72,000+ film articles in this project. How many of them are actually films in a series? Less than 5%? Lugnuts (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as which chronology to use (in-universe or production)...production order, of course, every time ;) --IllaZilla (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

@Lugnuts, only worded it that way because the OP was not looking to remove the parameters. You proposed alternativley a severing of the Gordian Knot, which I endorsed. :) Until parameters are removed, though, I agree with production order of a film series that take place in a shared universe. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Necessity of the parameters and production order vs. in-universe aside, the parameters are used strictly for a storyline continuation, correct? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Usually but not always. You sometimes get thematic sequels like the "Three Colors" films. Betty Logan (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Also for established franchise series like James Bond (film series); the storylines of the films aren't always connected, but they're unquestionably part of a single franchise. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

perhaps too wide

• you wouldn't wanna do something reasonable like making it narrower or anything, I suppose... • Ling.Nut

And I suppose you wouldn't suggest how we do that... Mike Allen 09:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• A small amount could be gained by narrowing the distance between the info in a given row, e.g., between "Directed by" and {{{director}}}. That actually wouldn't really be much help... However, a much better option would be to trade horizontal real estate for vertical, by putting {{{director}}} under "Directed by" (and indented once). That would create an infobox that is sometimes notably long and narrow (if many fields are populated), but in the case that a given article doesn't populate too many fields, it wouldn't be overly long. Since many articles already use the current format, it would probably be safest to make an alternate version in the manner I just described, and put links to it (and a description of how it differs from this one) in this template's documentation... • Ling.Nut 12:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not understanding the problem you find with the infobox. My first impression was that you were being sarcastic and wanted it to be wider, but you then proposed an alternate solution that would make it very narrow. Can you clarify the issue you find with the current infobox? My impression was that as far as infoboxes go, the width of this one was fairly average. It's about the same as a person infobox, smaller than a video game infobox, and bigger than a book infobox. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Too wide. In a short article, the size of the box would look mismatched with the size of the text.• Ling.Nut 12:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

So add onto the text...? BOVINEBOY2008 13:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestion. An article should be just long enough to cover a topic sufficiently, and no longer. If a film hasn't generated tons of press coverage, isn't a pop-society phenomenon, etc etc etc, there simply may not be too much to say about it. But thanks again. • Ling.Nut 13:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• In a short article, the size of the box would look mismatched with the size of the text. This sounds like an argument against the length of the infobox, not the width of it. A lead section with two lines has the same width has a lead section with three paragraphs' worth of lines. So I'm still not sure what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that for stub articles about films, we should not feel compelled to use the infobox? (With which I wouldn't disagree.) You seem to be suggesting a different sort of infobox, though, rather than its absence. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If its still short and there isn't anymore reliable information, perhaps it isn't notable enough to have an article. Realistically, a short lede, a nice plot summary and a cast section should be able to meet the length of the infobox. Also, infobox is supposed to be a summary of the article. If the content isn't in the prose in some form, it probably shouldn't be in the infobox (although many articles don't follow this). BOVINEBOY2008 14:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• (undent). OK. Thanks, sorry I bothered you... Cheers. • Ling.Nut 14:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Italics

If a section should "always be italicized" then please fix the template to ALWAYS put it in italics. Doesn't make sense to have editors manually do it every time, it misses the whole point of using a template to enforce consistency. -- Horkana (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the "Preceded by" and "Followed by" fields? I would not have a problem with automatically italicizing film titles, but I am wondering if the fields ever contain release years? These should not be italicized, obviously. Just not sure how prevalent the release years are. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It was my understanding that we didn't include the years in those parameters. I don't know if that has ever actually been discussed. But if they don't belong, then I don't see why we can't automatically italicize them. BOVINEBOY2008 16:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

One example I can think of off the top of my head is the Richard Lester directed Musketeer films The Three Musketeers (1973 live-action film), The Four Musketeers (film), The Return of the Musketeers. You will see that the links are piped in the "Preceded by" and "Followed by" fields in the infoboxes. I don't know enough about how this template works so if piping doesn't work with them please let us know and disregard my suggestion. MarnetteD | Talk 16:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Piping should work; The "work" field in the {{cite news}} template automatically italicizes values that are piped. However, in the template, I have had to pipe it in full, as opposed to saving something like [[The Three Musketeers (1973 live-action film)|]], which uses the separator to create [[The Three Musketeers (1973 live-action film)|The Three Musketeers]]. It's a shortcut that I use, which may not work if we automatically italicize the infobox's fields, but it's not truly detrimental. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem with film country templates

The instructions for the "Country" field dont' call for this, but I notice a lot of editors using country-specific film templates such as {{FilmUS}} in this field. The purpose of these templates seems to be to automatically categorize the article ({{FilmUS}} automatically places Category:American films). This seems redundant, as we already categorize films into more specific subcategories by genre: Predators (film), for example, is manually placed in Category:American science fiction action films, a more specific subcategory of American films. Thus usage of the template creates a redundant categorization (the article will be in both a parent category and a subcat). I think we ought to explicitly discourage the use of these templates in the infobox for this reason, similar to how we explicitly discourage piping to "cinema of xxxx" articles. In fact I think these templates should probably be deleted, but this isn't the place for that suggestion. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the redundancy of these templates and have already spoken with Lugnuts about it. Regarding the categorization, I believe that categories such as Category:American films are supposed to contain all American films, regardless of further subcategorization. But yes, generally speaking I don't support the use of these templates in the infobox, since they are unintuitve and offer no real benefit. PC78 (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Could we do what are doing with the language? Have the inputted country automatically categorize the article? BOVINEBOY2008 18:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Bovineboy, that's precisely the problem. We don't want the info in the field to auto-categorize the article, because our film categorization scheme is based on both country and genre, and an auto-categorizing template can't interpret both of those variables and causes redundant overlap. Ie. if Predators (film) is in Category:American science fiction action films, it shouldn't also be in Category:American films, Category:Science fiction films, and Category:Action films, because that's redundant (I can't for the life of me figure out why Category:American films intentionally overlaps with all of its subcats; WP:CAT says to only place articles in the most specific branches or subcats...though I'm open to a rationale as to why we have this deliberate overlap). Film language cats aren't a problem, because they don't have subcats. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm agreeing with PC78. According to WP:FILMCAT all film articles should have those three basic categories: year, country and language. And Film language cats do have subcats, just not as many. BOVINEBOY2008 20:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes it would be possible for the infobox to do this directly, though it isn't quite as straightforward as with the language parameter. I actually did some work on this a few years ago, but it never got implemented. I still have the code in my userspace, so I'll see if I can fix it up. PC78 (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Categories like Category:American films are non-diffusing subcategories. All American films are included so that people don't have to dig through the subcategories to find all the American films. - Kollision (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be a big wave of cleansing of the infobox and categories, and I propose to get the ball rolling after the elections (regardless if I'm re-elected or not). Things off the top of my head:

1. Have the country hard-coded into the infobox, so the category is already populated (but also have the category as well, to "idiot-proof" the article). Then remove the film template in the infobox.
2. Fix the language field. Still alot of articles pipe to the language article.
3. Do all the other minor fixes to the infobox (replace Infobox Film with Infobox film, for example - not that is important at all).
4. Get a consensus on weather we need the followed by/preceeded by fields (which we don't) and remove them.
5. Category and stub cleanup. A while back I started some work on preparing a bot to cleanup this mess. There are tons of articles with stub tags that don't have the main category as well (IE a film with a tag to say 1950s drama stub, but not in the cat Category:1950s drama films).

I'm sure there's tons more, and it would be useful to setup a bot that can make one passing sweep per article and do the changes. Lugnuts (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the |country= parameter, I understand that piped links such as [[Cinema of the United States|United States]] are no longer desirable per WP:EGG. Are we no longer linking to the country either? PC78 (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

PC78, I think that linking to the country and language is no longer done because it's overlink; country names and languages are pretty much common terms. There are exceptions, of course, like with foreign-language films where—from the perspective of a reader of the English Wikipedia—the language is a key characteristic of the film.

Kollision, I don't really get why American films is a non-diffusing subcat. Who the heck is looking for a category of all American films? And why do we care if a reader has to dig through some subcats to find the article they're after? Category:Albums by American artists isn't non-diffusing; neither is Category:American people, for that matter. So why is the films category? --IllaZilla (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I for one use it for AWB tasks but I may be starting to see your point. - Kollision (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally I find the non-diffusing cats useful for finding intersections with other categories. PC78 (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Rating

Shouldn't the rating of the movie be in the infobox? --69.243.147.171 (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Rating depends on who rates, so it's better to be away form the infobox. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the age level ratings (MPAA in the States, forget what they are called elsewhere), then no. I mean, who's ratings would we use; the U.S.'s, country of films origin, or list all of them everywhere it was released? Too problematic. Most of the time ratings aren't included at all in film articles for this very reason. The only exceptions would be something notable (e.g. a film fighting to receive a particular rating or being the first with a type of rating). At that point the information is so detailed it couldn't be conveyed well in an infobox, anyway and would be better served with prose and citations in the text, as Magioladitis said. Millahnna (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Millahnna covered it well, and guidelines also cover it here. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's time for a FAQs at the top of this page. :P Mike Allen 00:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Time to cut some of the bloat from the Infobox?

My suggestions would be:

• Editor/Cinematographer

I could probably name these for a handful of my favorite films, but these two fields are "below the line" credits and I don't see any reason for them to be there.

• Distributor

Independent films can be distributed by many companies in many countries. The distributor is peripheral to the film at best, and there is no reason to feature distributors so prominently.

• Budget

The infobox should include factual information. If we knew the official budgets for films I wouldn't object, but most budgets are vague estimates and sources often contradict each other. Given the iffy nature of most budget information I suggest this comes out. An alternative might be to insist on official budgets only.

• Preceded by/Followed by

Redundant since we have "footers" to take care of this. Sticking them in the infobox is overkill.

If this is a no-go then fair enough, but I think it's worth discussing. Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The only ones I disagree with are the last two. If a film only has one sequel, it's not likely to have a navbox at the bottom with a link to said sequel. Not unless there is such a rich history in the film that it has many sub-articles. As for the budget. I get that it's an estimate, but it gives you at least a general idea of how much they put into the film. With the internet today, most of the time you know when a film has gone over budget. You may never get a dollars and cents exact number, but do I really care if they tell us that they spent $14,035,894, or if they simply say they spent $14 million....not really.

I agree with the first two. The distributor is less important when compared to the studio that produced the film, and I don't know if we ever decided on Erik's proposal for a second box in the production section for other crew members, but that would certainly be the place for editors and cinematographers. Most of the time, they aren't relevant to a film's importance. Not unless you're talking about films like The Fountain or some other film where visual tones are key.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I could get on board with all of that except, possibly, the preceded & followed fields. This is one of those instances where I go back to my usage purely as a reader before I started editing anon (and long before I had an account). There are times when I have looked up a movie on wiki purely for that information alone or been looking at an article and found those fields very relevant. having it right there in the pane instead of scrolling down to footers I only recently even noticed is very helpful to me. Now all of that said, I think we need some clarification over in the project space about what films go in those for franchises. There has been some contradictory editing lately on some franchises and I've gotten conflicting advise about what is and is not correct. But I'll bring that up over in the project space when I've got more time. Millahnna (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree with all points made:

1. The editor and cinematographer/DP are crucial to filmmaking; without them and the writers and directors, there wouldn't be a film. Let's give credit where credit is due.
2. We usually list the distributor for that film's country/countries. Not every distributor possible.
3. We never know the actual budget for any film (sadly, since the production companies don't release the exact amount spent for anything) The "iffy" nature should be mentioned in prose, like tax credits, etc.
4. Not all film articles have navboxes (especially if they are only two films released in a series). Mike Allen 00:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the infobox is so bloated that we need to be making cuts; to me this appears to be a solution in search of a problem. My opinions on these parameters lie somewhere between Bignole and Mike, but I don't think we need to be removing any of them. PC78 (talk) 07:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I also think editors and cinematographers should be kept. They might not get invited to talkshows, but can many times be more important than the director. Otherwise I want to add Narrator to the delete list, as it's redundant to Starring in the cases where the narrator is prominent enough to be in the infobox. Smetanahue (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Narrator is essential for documentary films. They are not considered starring in the film, but are often the most associated thing to that film (March of the Penguins). BOVINEBOY2008 08:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the removal of the followed by boxes, per my comments in the above section. Lugnuts (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem with Unbulleted list template

I turned my attention away from this page for a while, & I see that during that time the use of {{Unbulleted list}} was adopted for all the fields in this infobox that used to use line breaks. I'm having a problem with that: I use IE6 at work, and the template seems to glitch with IE6, sometimes producing an ubulleted list and sometimes the exact opposite...producing a bulleted list. Here's an example diff: [2]. I'd post a screenshot but I don't have anyplace to upload one at the moment. I'm not very technically-minded, and I know IE6 is outdated, but I can't be the only one still stuck using it. I don't think we should be encouraging the widespread use of a template that glitches (especially when the glitch makes it do the exact opposite of what it should). I'm also not sure why we went with a template in the first place; it's functionally identical to using <br />, which is simpler, so what's the deal? Most other infoboxes ({{Infobox album}}, {{Infobox musical artist}}, etc.) use <br />s for creating lists...what's the advantage of {{Unbulleted list}}? --IllaZilla (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Although linebreaks are commonly used inside infoboxes, I think there are some technical reasons why they shouldn't be used. I don't have time now, but I'll try and dig up the relevant info later (if no one beats me to it). PC78 (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Infobox accessibility. I assume that {{unbulleted list}} is intended to resolve this issue, but I don't really know. Since that template is the cause of your problem, you're best raising your concerns with Andy Mabbett. PC78 (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If I'm reading that page correctly, it only applies to instances where there's multiple fields per perameter, or multiple fields per row. That's not the case here. We have 1 parameter/field per row, with the possiblity for multiple values per field. Separating the values with line breaks causes no issues as far as text readers are concerned. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the advantage either. I was using IE6 at work the other day, and was clearly seeing bullets, which therefore makes the template completly redundant. Lugnuts (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I was reading that page wrong, then. In any case, I still think we need Andy's input here. I'll leave a message on his talk page directing him to this discussion. PC78 (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If it is critical that the has has no bullets, then the "unbulleted list" template is not the way to go. If the goal is to create list markup, which is unbulleted in many browsers, then this template will work. You just cannot rely on the "unbulleted" part to work, since it is browser dependent. It is certainly possible to create a similar template which uses br tags, but the logic is more complicated. I use one of these inside templates like {{Infobox person}} for lists that are never longer than three entries. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Wikipeida still supported IE6? Mike Allen 20:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It must. I edit from work almost every day, and my whole company is still on IE6 (hopefully we'll be getting new hardware and software soon *crosses fingers*) --IllaZilla (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I use Wikipedia on IE6,7,8 (two computers one old laptop) and on MSN, Firefox and Mobile Safari. The unbulleted list only works on one of those (Firefox). I would support going back to the old <br /> way. ChaosMaster_Chat 20:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Or use a modern browser like Firefox and Chrome... ^{I joke ;)} @IllaZilla, I thought the new redesign of the site was pretty much incompatible with IE6. I wish IE6 would die. Mike Allen 20:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd support changing it back to <br />. But someone should notify {{Unbulleted list}} that the template isn't working on these several browsers. BOVINEBOY2008 21:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done via [3]. I'll go ahead and re add the <br /> information. ChaosMaster_Chat 21:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Andy and I are the only editors of the unbulleted list template. The fact that it doesn't work in several browsers was noted at Template talk:Br separated entries. This other template with a very cumbersome name (br separated entries) was created to simplify very short br-delimited entries (e.g., birthname, birthdate, birthplace) inside of templates. An attempt was made to convert it to use the unbulleted list markup, but I firmly rejected it due to this very issue. Shortly thereafter, {{unbulleted list}} was born. FYI, making a version of "br separated entries" that works with more than three entries would be tedious. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done via [4]. ChaosMaster_Chat 22:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this a long-term solution to implement? Should we get a bot to replace uses of line breaks in film articles with uses of this template? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. A bot would be helpful :) ChaosMaster_Chat 00:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyone that can get a bot though? ChaosMaster_Chat 00:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Best asking at WP:BOTREQ. PC78 (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The template may be fixed; it failed to reset the image property because list-style is a compound property. So before we let loose the bots, check to see if everything is working again. — Edokter • Talk • 01:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Film date

Hello everyone! A while back, I created a {{Film date}}. This is a template that was to simplify the formatting of multiple entries in |released= as well as automatically categorize the article into the correct year category. Is this something anyone else finds useful? And if so, is this something we can replace the suggestion of using {{Start date}} in the infobox? BOVINEBOY2008 14:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I definitely find it useful, thanks for creating it! Good to finally have a standard for the dates, which, if consensus would want it, now can be changed centrally through the template. Broadening the topic a bit though, I'm more skeptical to other templates such as the ubl template and "Film Country". The time they save is very limited and they look unnecessarily complex, which might discourage inexperienced users from making edits. Imo the meaning of templates like these should be to simplify the syntax, which I think the Film date template does, but not the other two. Smetanahue (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Edit: sorry, saw now that the film country template already was brought up above. Smetanahue (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I find it useful and it does make sense to use on film infoboxes. I do agree with Smetanahue's point of a template making something simpler to edit and use, and this does just that. As long as it is used for solely film infoboxes, then I'm fine. Would this be something that we can "customize" at all though? Instead of having parenthesis after the date, could I put a country before it? If not, it doesn't bother me, just asking for the sake of asking. ChaosMaster_Chat 20:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is possible, yes. But I would prefer if we as a project could come up with a standard presentation for it and make sure all the articles are the same. The whole point of templates is consistency, and it would be nice if this was consistent on all film articles. BOVINEBOY2008 20:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright. I do see your point. ChaosMaster_Chat 21:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I support this template on all film articles. It would make things much easier. Mike Allen 21:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Support use of this template, though I think there is still the question of how to categorise films when just the current year is given. PC78 (talk)

Another question: in a series page (similar to Harry Potter) is there any way to list multiple movies like that and maybe could you provide an example (if its not too much to ask)? ChaosMaster_Chat 00:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

@ PC78: Agreed, the question is whether a film with the date "2010" is considered upcoming or a 2010 film, and I just don't have the answer. I usually put it in Upcoming films, and if this is what people agree with than I can definitely write that into the coding.

@ ChaosMaster16: I don't know if film series get the individual year film categories. If they do, I can see what will word, or they can be used separately, i.e. one template per film. BOVINEBOY2008 04:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd categorise them as Upcoming films, FWIW. PC78 (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I can make that change if no one disagrees. BOVINEBOY2008 09:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been requested. BOVINEBOY2008 13:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that there are any disagreements about using the template, so if no one disagrees, I will place this in the infobox template information. ChaosMaster_Chat 00:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'll be bold and change it in the doc. BOVINEBOY2008 13:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Primary language only?

Wikipedia has a legion of rules and here's another wacky one.
It sure is good that we've got WP to tell us that Casablanca is in English. That went totally over my head.

The reason to have a language section is so when two characters are chattering in some language and one of your kids goes, "Hey, Daddy, what language is that they're speaking?", you can give a confident response. Is it Russian? Is it Ukrainian? Is it Polish?
There should be a data field for primary language(s) and a second field for minor languages. That is a lot better than this nonsense about suppressing useful facts.
The language list is more useful for a viewer than this obsession with box office take. Who cares about that except producers and accountants? It's irrelevant to my like or dislike of the movie. Let's ditch that instead.
Varlaam (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The film infobox is intended to give a brief overview of the article, identifying the people involved and providing key characteristics. A film's minor languages are not key for the infobox, but they can certainly be discussed in the article body in the proper context. You sought to have the minor languages mentioned at Braveheart, and I included mention of them in the article body. If you take issue with the box office field, that will require a separate discussion. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 22:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion and data points are fundamentally different. You and I as English speakers can write a discursive paragraph in English. But that is irrelevant in this instance.

How is that?

If a Filipino character is speaking, then we may not have any idea whether that's Tagalog, Ilokano, Cebuano. A Filipino reader who can accurately provide that specific data point may not be the right guy to wax poetic in paragraph form.

A Pole can confidently state that's Polish, and not Russian, as a data point. He may not have the self-confidence to write complete English sentences. In the same way, I can change a data point in Welsh WP when I can't compose a sentence there.

I am a former major IMDb researcher. I had a lot to do with languages there. I created the Provençal category there, for example, amongst others.

Languages are listed there, but that is a weak point of the IMDb.

Why?

Because that data manager has no personal opinion about which Filipino language is being spoken. He has 3 guys nattering at him and he has to pick one, or ignore all three.

This is an instance where WP works better than the IMDb because there is no middleman.

Here the regional language authorities bash it out and reach some consensus, and we get to stay aloof from that.

We just need to make it easy for those non-English speakers to record their consensus.

Varlaam (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The point of the Language field is to quickly state to the reader what the film's primary language is, not to identify other languages spoken only briefly or in the background. Yes, a lot of films that our articles are about are in English (this being the English Wikipedia, it lends itself towards topics that are in English), and it may seem redundant to say so, but it's only redundant if you've seen the film or are at least familiar enough with it to already know that it's in English. For non-English films, the Language field provides an important data point to readers: it is not redundant to declare, in an English-language encyclopedia article about Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, that the film is entirely in Mandarin. In other words, the point of the field is to answer the question "what is the primary language of this film?", not to help you impress your kids by identifying ancilliary languages spoken by background characters. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, I can imagine many people wondering (for instance) whether The Girl Who Played With Fire is in English or Swedish. The other problem with listing languages spoken only for a few lines would occur when there were several of them. In a primarily English-language Second World War film, for example, you might quite plausibly have odd lines in (say) German, Russian, and Polish. So identifying without further detail that those three were occasionally spoken in the film wouldn't actually be any help to the person who wanted to know what language a particular line used. And the level of further detail required would be ridiculously unworkable. Barnabypage (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Country

Is there an order we should sort the countries listed in the infobox? Alphabetical seems to make sense, but i'm working on the article for The Terminator and that film had UK funding, but was made mostly in the United States with american actors and sets as well as american funding. How should it be listed? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe the list should be alphabetical. If the UK gave a notable amount of funding for the film, then one would think it would "share" in the nationality. If there is any doubt whether it should break that order should question how notable the contribution was. That's just my opinion though. BOVINEBOY2008 14:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The infobox clearly states that the nationality draws from the nationality of the production companies. There are two credited production companies - Hemdale (UK) and Pacific Western (US) - with Hemdale credited first. I believe the nationality order should reflect the credited order of the production companies (since this is where we are getting the nationality from). Where filming took place has no bearing on nationality, hence why Star Wars isn't a UK co-production or Avatar a New Zealand co-production. Assuming the US company played a bigger role in funding the production risks violating WP:NPOV - unless we have a clear breakdown of the funding then we should use the credit order. Betty Logan (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the citation says that Orion and HBO backed the film as well, that's two opposed to the one, so I think US shows prominence here unless we can find actual funding numbers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is synthesis. Unless we know the actual figures we should stick with the credit order; the poster doesn't say "Hemdale presents a Pacific Western Production" just for the fun of it. Betty Logan (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just going for prominence here, but I see what you mean Betty. If anyone reads the article they can figure it out. Thanks though. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Followed by in Infobox. Query on Editors opinions?

If a series does X number of films and then does a remake of the original, then should the last film of the original series be "followed by" the remake? Currently on WP Halloween: Resurrection is "followed by" the Rob Zombie remake of Halloween, and the 3rd Hills Have Eyes III film is "followed by" the remake from the early 2000s. I have 3 times reverted a similar change on Psycho IV: The Beginning. This seems to me to be a wrong use of the "followed by" parameter, unless remake is overtly identified in the box some way. Any opinions?--WickerGuy (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The "followed by" boxes don't imply a narrative sequence. It simply indicates whether a film is part of a particular series/franchise and the chronological order of production. Both BOM ([5]) and Allmovie ([6]) can be used to source they are considered part of the same series/franchise. It's no different really from the Batman series with the latter two Batman films and the Bond series with the latter two Bond films; both series break from the established narrative but are dealt with collectively. Betty Logan (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Betty. The field is for indicating the production order of films in a franchise, not a narrative sequence. Rob Zombie's Halloween remake follows Halloween: Resurrection in the order of films in the Halloween franchise. I've thought for some time that it might be a good idea to transform the "preceded by" and "followed by" parameters into a chronology similar to the one used in {{Infobox album}} (though from prior discussions I know there are some editors who favor removing these fields entirely in the interest of shortening the infobox...I'm in favor of shortening the box but neutral on whether these fields would be cut).--IllaZilla (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Does it make any difference that the reboot of Batman is not a remake of the first film, but the reboot of Halloween is??--WickerGuy (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, still part of one giant franchise of feature films related to Batman.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

More to the point. As long as we are in the same narrative sequence, it makes sense that this template-element should follow production-order. Ergo in WP article for Little Mermaid II, we read

Preceded by The Little Mermaid

Followed by The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning

However, it seems to me that when one breaks out of a narrative sequence all together, something different is called for, at least some sort of flag that the followup film is a new version of the story.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary since the article itself for those new stories will clarify that point for the reader. The infobox doesn't need to be overly complicated for such things. The average reader is pretty smart all by themselves and if they click "The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning" assume that it's a sequel to The Little Mermaid 2, then they'll quickly realize that it isn't once they read the opening paragraph (which should automatically clarify such things).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You do understand I was always fine with how Mermaid was handled? It's the remakes/reboots I'm slightly more concerned about. Perhaps there also we trust the brightness of the reader.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, for remakes/reboots where they share a title with one of the previous films (e.g., Halloween, Friday the 13th, etc.) then the year of release needs to be added to those specific films to at least show that we're not morons who just listed a film twice.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons I think switching to a chronology format like the albums template might be helpful. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm broadly in favor of keeping things in production order, but having some significant flag when you break into a new version of the narrative, as Imdb does. --WickerGuy (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't a break in the order of the narrative (ie. prequel or reboot) be mentioned in the article lead? That would seem like all the "flag" necessary. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Coding for italics

{{Editprotected}} Per WP:ITALICTITLE (as a result of a long-running RfC), article titles should use italics. Other topical areas are using infoboxes to italicize the titles, and we should do so with Template:Infobox film. There is related discussion at WT:FILM that had no complaints, just questions. The coding to italicize the article title is at Template:Infobox film/sandbox. Could the sandbox template's source code be copied over the primary template's source code? Thanks. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, someone has already added italictitle to the infobox but it's not been done particuarly well, so this change still needs to be done. PC78 (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I may indeed have been overly careful; I'm not convinced that just adding {{italictitle}} will not italicize titles that should not be italicized. Ucucha 21:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

There will inevitably be some, but I think it's a negligable concern. As currently coded it leaves considerably more titles unitalicized, thus generating a much higher degree of cleanup. There's no bulletproof way of implementing this, but hey, I didn't !vote for the change in policy. :) PC78 (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is best to implement an additional parameter so that |italics=no leaves the title unitalicized. Ucucha 23:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

One step ahead of you. :) There's an |italic title= parameter which can be set to "no" or "force" to disable or force italics where necessary. PC78 (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Where? I don't see anything in this template. Ucucha 23:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

{{Infobox film/sandbox}}, at the top. PC78 (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the sandbox being updated after Ucucha made the change to the main infobox. Should I be able to do it with the main infobox now? I tried with (500) Days of Summer here. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha didn't use the sandbox code, so we still need this edit. PC78 (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As implied by a comment by Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs) at WT:FILM, just adding {{italictitle}} doesn't handle the requirement since the clarifier such as "(film)" or "([year] film)" should not be italicized (per MOS:DISAMBIG#Individual entries, which says "titles (such as for books and movies) may need to be italicized to conform with the style guidance on titles. If the article's title contains both a title and a clarifier, use a piped link to quote or italicize only the part requiring such treatment, as opposed to the entire link). Thanks. 67.100.125.78 (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

We're stil waiting for this edit request to be carried out. Be patient folks, or at least find an admin and pester them into doing it. :D PC78 (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)