Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 17

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)

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. --

talk · contribs

) 21:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for that change, indeed consensus has repeatedly rejected it. --

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.--

talk · contribs

) 00:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

Per

• {{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 {{

| 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. --

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)

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. --

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. --

talk · contribs

) 22:49, 8 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. --

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)

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. --

talk · contribs

) 23:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

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:

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

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

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

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 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. --

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

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)

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

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)

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. --

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. --

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. --

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

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)

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)

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. --

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)

{{

{{#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)

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

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)

{{

Oppose. The image doesn't need to fully fit the infobox. --

talk ~ contribs

) 03:56, 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

talk ~ contribs

) 04:44, 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. --

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 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)

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

_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

_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. --

talk ~ contribs

) 17:42, 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". --

talk ~ contribs

) 18:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

--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.

_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)

{{

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

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. --

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)

{{

 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)

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

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? -

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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. -

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

{{

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

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)