Template talk:Alfred Hitchcock

Untitled

Please don't delete again. There was clearly no consensus to delete on the TfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that I as the the person who created this page had been told that it was up for VFD Smith03 16:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC) I think it was a worthwhile page[reply]

Template redesign ?

This template has nearly 60 films on it. As a flat table, it's confusing and difficult to navigate. I propose a redesign of the structure, such as this:

Films directed by Alfred Hitchcock

Silent films (1925-1929)

Number 13 • The Pleasure Garden • The Mountain Eagle • The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog • Downhill • Easy Virtue • The Ring • The Farmer's Wife • Champagne • The Manxman

British sound films (1929-1939)

Blackmail • Juno and the Paycock • Murder! • Elstree Calling • The Skin Game • Mary • Number Seventeen • Rich and Strange • Waltzes from Vienna • The Man Who Knew Too Much • The 39 Steps • Secret Agent • Sabotage • Young and Innocent • The Lady Vanishes • Jamaica Inn

Hollywood (1940-1949)

Rebecca • Foreign Correspondent • Mr. & Mrs. Smith • Suspicion • Saboteur • Shadow of a Doubt • Lifeboat • Aventure Malgache • Bon Voyage • Spellbound • Notorious • The Paradine Case • Rope • Under Capricorn

Hollywood (1950-1960)

Stage Fright • Strangers on a Train • I Confess • Dial M for Murder • Rear Window • To Catch a Thief • The Trouble with Harry • The Man Who Knew Too Much • The Wrong Man • Vertigo • North by Northwest • Psycho

Later films (1963-1976)

The Birds • Marnie • Torn Curtain • Topaz • Frenzy • Family Plot

Any other opinions? 69.43.65.27 16:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the idea I find the current one works fineSmith03 18:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of photograph

As this already director navbox is already pretty large, couldn't we make it a little less cumbersome by removing the director photo? It's purely decorative and doesn't assist functionality. Thoughts? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Its removal scarcely makes the box any smaller. And the navbox size on the bottom of a page isn't a problem anyway. I also have a problem with your removal of decades from dozens of director navboxes, based on an inconclusive, archived discussion. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that's how you feel, I'd suggest you restart a discussion at either the template wikiproject or the film wikiproject on that separate issue. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support removal of photograph. It serves no purpose on a navigational template, especially when the same photo is already being used on the article for the primary topic of the template. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A small note to point out that picture is not otherwise seen on some 60 film article pages the template appears on. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the template does contain a link to Alfred Hitchcock, where the photo can be seen. So any article containing this template can simply navigate to that article for more information about Alfred Hitchcock, including his photo. The purpose of the template is navigation, not information. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard some people saying that, but I use navboxes as one-quick-look filmographies all the time. Often they are the closest thing to a full list visible at one glimpse on the page. Otherwise I have to click elsewhere. But I know if I scroll to the bottom I can hopefully see all the titles in proper order and with their years. I'm sure you and RS will dismiss that, but I find it useful, and I doubt I'm the only one. And if there's a little picture paying tribute to the person in the navbox, it makes the experience a little more pleasant. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support No need to have a photo of the person in the infobox. Sets a bad precedent. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about need. And that precedent, such as it is, was set a while ago. Unfortunately I suspect others who would prefer to see it stay won't see this template discussion. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support The addition of the photo here provides little value other than to decorate the navbox -- and the large, mostly white side section that it creates appears clunky. When I compared versions of this navbox with and without the photo, I found the navbox without the photo was more readable to me. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you using to look at it? When I compare them the readability is identical. And without the image the navbox is only slightly smaller. Most people would never notice the difference in size. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Television

Shouldn't there be an additional section for television? While Alfred Hitchcock Presents should probably remain in "related," Hitchcock himself directed 17 episodes of this series of which there are only two pages so far. - kosboot (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in an attempt to "be bold," I suggest the template be emended as follows:

No, there should not be. Not least because none of these articles exist. See WP:EXISTING. --wooden superman 10:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link to deleted portal removed

The Alfred Hitchcock portal was recently deleted. I've removed the red link from the template. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 12:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]