Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Written by?

There's a complaint on VRTS ticket # 2008120710016497 from a Hollywood screenplay writer about the "written by" field in this infobox. Apparently, "written by" is only used when the same person wrote both the story and the screenplay. Where there is different authorship for the two, there should be two fields: "story by" and "screenplay by" to make the distinction. - Mark 07:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

These are the WGA rules, I believe (I remember reading something recently that went into who gets credits for what, and how; I'll link it if I can find it). But for our purposes, "Written by" has generally been enough, because the infobox is only ever meant to be a summary; what each writer contributed should be expanded upon in the article proper. If we followed the WGA's crediting system to the letter, in many cases this would not perfectly reflect what went into writing the film. Examples include Leatherheads and The Incredible Hulk, the on-screen credits of which did not mention George Clooney's and Edward Norton's rewrites respectively. Some editors prefer to place "(story)" or "(screenplay)" or whatever after the writers' names in the infobox, and I'm OK with that. If enough editors feel it necessary, maybe we can come up with more directed guidance? But for now, if there's a specific film article that a writer does not feel credits or explains each writer's contribution to the screenplay, this is something that can be fixed immediately; just let us know which article it is and as long as it's not going to be a controversial change, we'll be happy to amend it accordingly. Steve ^{T • C} 08:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Steve mostly covered it. We provide a quick fix with adding "(story)" or "(screenplay)", but I admit we could have a cleaner way to approach it. My issue with two fields is that the distinction will add more lines to the infobox, especially when the names are redundant. Perhaps we can find a way to provide parameters that are sub-levels of "Written by", where they're slightly indented. There are also additional nuances to writing credits, like Steve said, such as uncredited rewrites or different kinds of source material like comic book characters or magazine articles. (I believe that Live Free or Die Hard was based on a Wired article.) I'm in favor of explaining these nuances in the article body itself... it's just that there is not a ton of breathing room in the infobox, and following WGA credits is pretty limited when we can find reliable sources that clarify the actual work done. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

My solution has been

John Smith
Based on the novel by Mary Jones

It looks fine to me that way. LiteraryMaven (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Too long for an ibox, especially if Mary Jones is "Marietta Espinoza". Better solutions are:
Mary Jones (novel)
John Smith
or
Novel:
Mary Jones
Screenplay:
John Smith.

Comment: Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, my opinion is that writer of the source material should always come first. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The best would be to have all 3 options available.

| writer =

| story =

| screenplay =

The first option should be used when both the story and screenplay have been written by the same person, and another 2 in case the story and the screenplay have different authorship.--Termer (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many early films have a variety of writing credits which will not fit easily into your scheme: "adaptation", "dialogue", "additional dialogue" and "scenario" are just some off the top of my head. The multiplicity of credit types would seem to suggest that a flexible system, such as the one currently in use, is perferable to a fixed system such as you suggest. (Besides, what does "writer" mean in your suggestion? -- all the people involved are writers of one sort of another.) Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see the ticket above: "Writer" refers to "written by" that is used in case both the story and screenplay have been written by the same person. In case not, "story" and "screenplay" are used instead. Things you've listed: , "dialogue", "additional dialogue" would be irrelevant in the context like lighters and/or set painters would be irrelevant in case we'd talk about art direction. And screenplay in (Italian: scenario) , and story "adaptation" = Screenplay in the context.--Termer (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That turns out not to be the case. The person who did the adaptation would recast the story into cinematic form, but the persons who did "dialogue" and "additional dialogue" actually wrote the script, the words that the actors said. These days we would combine both of these functions into the person who writes the "screenplay", but that was very often not the case back when. All of the credited people involved had a hand in the creation of the script, so the comparison to set dressers and scenic artists is not apt.

Remember that film is a comparatively recent artform, and things which seem set in stone nowadays, such as the role of the writer, the director or the producer, were much more fluid when the form was developing. We cannot see the work of those artists through the lens of contemporary conventions, so our scheme for writers' credits needs to be able to have the flexibility to deal with both the standardization of current films (as exemplified by the writer who complained about the "written by" credit) and the fluidity of the developing artform.

Because of this, I find the current practice to be quite acceptable, because we can adapted it to the needs of the particular film at the particular time, made under changing circumstances, with differing practices. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, Ed. Given the article is about a film, I feel the screenwriter should receive billing over the author of the source material. LiteraryMaven (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Modification to Template

I believe a "production company" or "studio" bar should be added to the template, as some people on wikipedia mistakenly refer to them interchangeably. For example, the Casino Royale Article lsits MGM and Columbia Pitcures as "distributors" of the film, when in actuality, the two companies coproduced it, while the credits say that the film was "Distributed by Columbia Pitcures." Now, we want wikipedia to be sonsistent and more reliable, this cahnge would help increase its reliability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhenYou'reAJet (talk • contribs) 11:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"Production company" opens up a whole can of worms because these days (since the late 1950s at least), the star, producers and director all have their own "production companies." In the studio era, the studios were both production and distribution companies (and did presentation as well until a Supreme Court decision made them divest their movie theatre chains), so "distribution" covers them adequately.

We should be certain about what we're aiming for in adding an entry to the infobox. In the studio era, for the most part, production=distribution (which is already listed), in the modern era, production companies=personal companies of the main participants (who are already listed), so the question is what is there to be gained by adding production company to the box that's not there already, in one form or another? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 11:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for leaving my first comment unsigned. Anyway, yes, the studios back then did do both, but nowadays they do not. Thjat is why I proposed a "Studio" information instead, In order to prevent any confusion. That would not mean small production comapnies, like "Happy Madison Productions," would be in the box, but rather big ones. An example would be the Weisntein Company, a studio that has MGM distribute its films. Alternatively, we could replace the distributor bar with "studio," so for Clerks II, it would read studio = The Weinstein Company (Distributed by MGM Distribution Co.) That would solve dealing with puttign the same name in two tabs for old movies.WhenYou'reAJet (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Country question

After going though the talk archives and WP:FILMS I'm still wondering the following. Bear with me.

The country field is defined to contain: "...the country or countries that the film was produced in". OK, clear. Let's take Tropic Thunder, a recent film, according to IMDb ([1]) it's produced by (companies from) USA and Germany. So Germany should be added in the infobox, no problems here. Now it gets trickier -- the article goes now also to the category Category:German films? And as such also to List of German films just like Beyond the Sea (2004) is there? But it feels weird to say "Tropic Thunder is a German (/American) film", even if it involved a German production company -- still who is to say it isn't a German film as it is possible that 99% of the money for the production came from Germany and only the actors and crew are American and it would be an insult then not to classify it a "German film".

Another example, La Vie en rose (film) infobox contains all the production countries:France, United Kingdom, Czech Republic (USA needs to be removed per imdb). So again add Category:Czech films and then to List of Czech films -- the latter of these just seems wrong. Still the facts cannot be twisted -- it is produced by a Czech company so it is a Czech film. Or what? Point being that the country field affects other aspects of Wikipedia (see also Les Triplettes de Belleville - well categorised). Thoughts? feydey (talk) 05:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this can be a little tricky. I think that the best way to assess a film is to focus on the major companies. In the case of Tropic Thunder, the major company of the four listed at IMDb is DreamWorks SKG, and that is an American company. So Tropic Thunder is best seen as an American film. With this criteria, Valkyrie also qualifies as an American film, being produced by United Artists, even though it is set and shot in Germany. Admittedly, the criteria is not always easy to apply... one of the stranger combinations I've seen is Blindness, which was a Japanese-Canadian-Brazilian production. It's best to treat it on a case-by-case basis. So for La Vie en rose, it may be worth looking at what the major production companies were. —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I know that some of these films may not "feel" like a X-ian production, but they are what they are. Do we follow the facts, or our perceptions? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Why give so much credence to what it says on IMDB? According to Allmovie, Tropic Thunder is merely American. PC78 (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Followed by/preceded by

Ok, I think we need to be a bit more clear about what constitutes "a series" in the definition of what we put in the "Followed By" and "Preceded By" sections of the infobox. Should we base it on continuity, or just chronological order of the film's release. If we do it with the former (continuity), then we have films like Halloween that has three different continuities, as the series has been retconned multiple times. If we followed the later (order of release), then we ignore the idea of "canon" and we keep the article more objective. We also have the issue of remakes and reboots. If we say, "follow order of release", should we include the last film in a particular continuity set in the "preceded by" section of a film that has been remade. For instance, should Freddy vs. Jason be in the "preceded by" of Friday the 13th (2009 film). Technically, the upcoming F13 is a reboot of the continuity, starting fresh, so it isn't connected directly with FvJ. On the other hand, it's still all part of the same F13 film series, just not part of any particular canon. The same for James Bond. None of those films are actually sequels of each other (minus the recent Quantum of Solace), but really individual films. Should they be placed in the two sections of the infobox? Should Die Another Day precede Casino Royale?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it depends. Where there are neat and orderly chronologies that are filmed out of order (such as Star Wars or basically any prequels), going in canonical order should be given preference. However, as things get convoluted, sticking with production order is the most objective way and perhaps should be preferred. Or to state it the other way around, keep with the production order unless an obvious and uncontentious alternative exists. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And what about reboots/remakes? One could argue that it's "neat and orderly" because it starts it all over, but, in such a case it isn't like Star Wars because it isn't a new movie that provides backstory. Also, what happens when you have a series of films, let's say five of them. The first two are sequels. The third film takes place in the distant future. The fourth film is really a prequel to the first film, and the last film is a direct sequel to the second film (thus existing before the third film in canon). Should we rearrange these films to be in canonical order, since it's "clear and obvious", or production order? To me, putting things in canonical order (if they differ from production order), sends a falls message to the readers that the "next film" in the series was actually made 5, 10, 30 years before the previous film. We don't allow people to go back and alter the plot of Halloween because we now know Laurie is Michael's sister, or the plot of A New Hope because we now know Vader is Luke's father. Why should we go back and change the order of the films just because we might now have a backstory on a character or an ending point? Here's another example, the new Wolverine movie. Should that be placed after X-Men 3, before X-Men or sit by itself? (This isn't a question directed specifically to you Girolamo, it's a general question for everyone).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how useful those fields in the infobox are TBH. Most film series seem to have footer templates anyway. Lugnuts (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This is also true.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's also something that would be better handled in the lead paragraph(s) of the article. "Hero-Man: Retold is a relaunch of the Hero-Man franchise, starting fresh after 2002's Hero-Man: The Unnecessary Sequel." A bit more context can be given that way. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

So, are you on the "might be better to just remove them" band-wagon?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so. It's handy, but can be done better. I'm not, however, a fan of just out-and-out removing them; I think the articles that use the fields need to be modified specifically so that they mention the other films. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Studio

It suprises me the template does not have a field for the producing studio. Some movies are produced by a different studio then the one distributing them (ie. Pixar movies, which are distributed by Disney). Would it be prudent to add a 'studio' (or 'released_by') field? — Edokter • Talk • 00:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree here. RHI Entertainment makes most of their films, but they are generally distributed by Genius Entertainment. The channels that do their own films also rarely distribute as well. I think the creating company should at least have as much importance as the distributer. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the production company field? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There isn't one unless its not showing in the docs? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I could've sworn we had one... In any case, I think that production company would probably be a more useful descriptor, since studios can be either the producer, the distributor, or both. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there is already a 'distributor' field, there shouldn't be any confusion when using 'studio'. — Edokter • Talk • 16:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think "released by" sounds too similar to "distributed by". If you're trying to distinguish between who makes a film and who distributes a film, then I think "Produced by" is a better identifier. But, that would only be if we changed the individual titles to "Director", "Writer(s)", "Producer(s)". Either way, I think "released by" is virtually the same thing as "distributed by".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

How about just "Studio" or "Production company" (though the later makes it harder to have (s) for potential multiples). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice addition, but per above I don't think "Released by" is the best (or most accurate; wouldn't a film be "released" by the distributor?) name for this parameter. Would prefer "Studio" or "Production company". PC78 (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I was having a little trouble with that as well. My prefernece would be "Studio" then, as "Production company" is too long. — Edokter • Talk • 14:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Add a " Rating" row to infobox

In the video game infobox we have an rating row, so why shouldn't we have one for the first form of media to be rated; movies? In addition to listing the traditional MPAA ratings (G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17), we could also list ratings for Canada, the UK, Australia, etc. Personally, I don't see why we haven't done this already. Tom Danson (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Because consensus has long agreed that MPAA ratings are arbitrary, only applicable to US readers (and therefore American-centric and of no interest to anyone else), and are primarily trivial and irrelevant to encyclopedic coverage. Adding in every country's ratings is no better. Such ratings should only be noted in an article if the rating of the film has receive significant coverage (i.e. producers had to battle for a specific rating or the rating was controversial). That is why it is also not covered in the article text. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd state my thoughts, but AnmaFinotera pretty much took the words out of my mouth, which isn't particularly sanitary. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with AnmaFinotera. To me, there are two ends of the spectrum; one end is to include the rating for the country from which the film came (in the sense of production). If there is no context beyond the set of letters or numbers and its brief explanation, it does not seem insightful. Also, the tendency is to include solely the MPAA rating for any given film, so this systemic bias needs to be countered. On the other end, listing all the ratings is pretty indiscriminate. It seems a better approach to include the MPAA rating or another country's rating if the proper context exists, such as attempts to target the right audience, a box office milestone ("highest-grossing R-rated film"), or controversy over the appropriateness of the rating. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Series

There should be a row for the film franchise/film series, like there is for the novels infobox.

Perhaps a "fictional universe" one as well. (though there is no such switch at novels yet) 76.66.198.171 (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A parameter for "film series" isn't a bad idea to be honest. It would be more pertinent (and less bothersome in some cases) to link to a film series article than either the preceeding or following films. PC78 (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree - this may be a better way to resolve the preceeding/following question. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Conversion to use 'infobox' base class

So following on from #Width! and #Contested change above, I'm restarting the discussion about migrating this back across to use the {{infobox}} base class. The current code is in the sandbox, and a side-by-side comparison of old and new is available at template:infobox Film/testcases.

I believe that the original reasons for this being rejected have been addressed. If there are any issues with the sandboxed code please either fix them or point them out so that I can.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Support. Standardisation is good. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral for now. Unless there's an actual requirement for infoboxes to use {{Infobox}} (and I don't believe there is), then I honestly don't see the point. What does this change buy us? PC78 (talk) 11:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Significant code simplification (which will make the template considerably easier to improve and maintain in the future) and automatic inheritance of a tried-and-tested styling which requires only minimal tweaking to suit the project's tastes (as has already been done). It's not going to make one iota of difference to readers (or editors who don't edit templates), but for editors who look after templatespace this is a big win. This is not change just for change's sake. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that you're trying to fix a non-existant problem; the code is straightforward enough, and there are no problems with maintaining and improving this template. What we'll inherit is the limitations of the meta, while losing the flexibility currently afforded to us. Seriously, I'd like to support this change because I think infobox standardisation is a worthy goal, but I remain unconvinced on the merits of {{Infobox}} at this time. PC78 (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you give some example of the "limitations" which will be inherited, and flexibility which you believe will be lost? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well (if I can thank you not to speak on my behalf), this is admittingly more of a hypothetical concern with regards to the meta as a whole, but a valid one nonetheless I feel. Could you, perchance, elaborate on why you think this change would be a good thing? PC78 (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not attempted to speak on your behalf; I have asked you to substantiate your claims of "limitations" which will be inherited, and flexibility which will be lost. You have failed to do so. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Prodding me for an answer was rather unnecessary; surely my silence would have spoken for itself? In any case, I have now responded to your question. My concern is more a general one with the meta rather than its specific application here. Now if it's not too much trouble, would you care to expand on your reasons for supporting this change? You might even sell me on the idea. PC78 (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

"Prodding" you for an answer seems to have resulted in you giving an answer that was not previously forthcoming; however that answer seems to suggest that you claims of "limitations" which will be inherited, and flexibility which will be lost were bogus. I and others have already stated why {{Infobox}} is an improvement. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No, all you've said is "standardisation is good", which isn't saying much. I've twice asked you to expand on this, yet you seem unwilling. What are the benefits that this change brings us, in your own words? My concern, hypothetical as it may be at this point, may be pertinent to the future development of this template. PC78 (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If you beieve that that is all that has been said in favour of the change, then I suggest you re-read this discussion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That's all you've said in favour of this change, the only other reason being code simplification, the need for which I have already questioned. Your stubborn refusal to justify your own support further and allay the concerns I obviously have is rather unconstructive. If the fears I have regarding the the meta and its ability to handle more complex infobox coding are as unjustified as what you apparently seem to think, then it should be little trouble for you to dispel them, yes? PC78 (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to my earlier comments, which have already addressed these points. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You described them as "bogus", which isn't in any way addressing them. Now, can the meta handle the additional coding in User:PC78/Infobox Film? (These are features that have been suggested and tentatively supported elsewhere, though they remain a WIP.) Can the meta also handle the additional coding in {{Infobox Korean film}}? (This is pertinent here because a) it would be desirable to keep all related infoboxes consistant should this one be converted, and b) because if a previously proposed merge is to go ahead then we may need to add similar coding here.) If the answer to these questions is yes, then would you be gracious enough to demonstrate how (I have attempted this myself, but with no real success). I'll even lend my support to this proposal. But at the moment, my concerns that this change will stifle future development here (which are perfectly valid, and hardly "bogus") remain. PC78 (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added a second option using infobox' standard 88% font-size, as 90% looks no different then standard text in IE. This will make sizes consistent in IE and Firefox. (I also removed the images for obvious reasons) Obviouslly, my support goes to new option 2. — Edokter • Talk • 15:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I also use IE, and there is clearly a visible difference in the text size; this is precisely what the last drama was about on this page. While I remain on the fence with regards to the initial proposal, I oppose this "new option 2". PC78 (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to get across is the difference in size between IE and Firefox (among others); that is something that needs to be consistent. Have you tried watching the examples in Firefox? Because I feel you cannot make an informed decision is you haven't. — Edokter • Talk • 16:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You've just said that the two text sizes look no different in IE, and yet they patently do. PC78 (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You missunderstood me; The first new version (like the original) has the same font-size as regular text (only spaced closer). But you will see that both new versions have different sizes in IE, but have the same size in Firefox. — Edokter • Talk • 16:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK; so how does it actually look in Firefox (bearing in mind that I can't see for myself)? Does the middle box look different in each browser? Does the third box look the same? PC78 (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Unlike in IE, Google Chrome and Safari, Firefox displays no difference between the second (90%) and third (88%) box.--Termer (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

So they both look small, like the third box in IE? PC78 (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, after a closer look, it's only the text size that is all the same in Firefox and that makes the height of the two last versions equal. The thickness or wideness is still different also in Firefox. So it's more like an optical illusion that the size of the last 2 boxes is the same in Firefox. But it's just abut the text that Firefox keeps the same in all versions.--Termer (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. And as Terner points out, there is a slight difference is the spacing, but that has a far lower impact that the actual size of the letters. — Edokter • Talk • 01:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, but I assume this is an existing problem with the template and not something caused by the meta? PC78 (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The root of the problem is the base font declaration in main.css. It is not template-specific; all templates suffer this probem. — Edokter • Talk • 12:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

In which case I am a little confused as to why this is being raised here, as it is not related to the proposal to convert this template to the meta and only complicates this discussion. I remain opposed to this additional change for the same reasons I opposed it the other day, because (in IE at least) the reduced text size impairs readability and creates an unnecessary and undesiarble amount of whitespace in the template, and this is not a good aesthetic. Perhaps another change could alleviate this problem, by increasing the text size to 92% for example? PC78 (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(←)While this is a global problem, there is nothing keeping us from 'fixing' it by not using font-size values that inhibit this problem: 90% being the most obvious problem value. I also cannot understand why the same font-size would impair readability in IE, and not in Firefox. There are many templates using 88%, and there are no complaints about impaired readability there. — Edokter • Talk • 13:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It is nonetheless the case that the smaller font under IE is harder to read. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 13:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I could also point out that there are many templates that don't use 88%, again with no complaint as to how they are rendered in Firefox, but either way this is not a compelling line of argument. Surely a global problem such as this require a more global solution than adjusting text sizes in individual infoboxes? PC78 (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course you don't see complaints from Firefox users regarding templates that use 90%; it already displays right as it should. All I'm trying to acomplish is to make IE behave the same. 88% is no less readable under IE then under Firefox, so this is a non-argument. Consistency is indeed a compelling argument; in fact it is a leading incentive in the site's CSS. A global fix requires editing a system CSS file, which is not possible by admins, so fixing it where possible in the mean time is not unheard of. And BTW: You do realize that 88% is already the default fontsize, but which is overridden in the sandbox, thereby actually unfixing what has already been fixed? — Edokter • Talk • 15:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course I'm aware of the default in the meta, but if it's such a major concern then why is it even possible to override it? Since we first started having this discussion, I found comments about this at Template talk:Infobox where you outlined the issue far better than what you have done here (and from which you should already be aware that similar complaints over the reduced font size were made at Template talk:Infobox GB station). Consistency within Wikipedia is indeed a compelling argument, but attemting to compensate for external inconsistencies in this manner is somewhat less so. Comments above by Termer suggest that Firefox is the odd one out here, in which case I don't understand why you're trying to make everything else consistent with Firefox and not the other way around. PC78 (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Weak support - so long as the meta template allows the project to have the freedom to otherwise modify the template parameters and cosmetics fairly liberally. (Which is not to say that we will; only that ideally we should not be unduly limited by the meta template.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem in passing the bodystyle parameter. — Edokter • Talk • 12:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Support the conversion but if problems arise with the base class that cannot be easily fixed, I would want a return to the status quo. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Weak support for the sandboxed template. My earlier concerns are now largely satisfied, though I still believe the argument for code simplification is rather overstated. However, I remain opposed to the additional changes put forward by Edokter for reasons stated in the discussion above. PC78 (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Update

{{editprotected}}

As there seems to be support for this now, I've updated the sandbox code to match the current parameters in the template and I'm requesting sync. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I would still like to plead my case for the 88% fontsize; the main advantages being consistency and readability. Even though the font would decreasse in size (and therefor show the same as in any other browser as it is shown now), it also releaves the box of problem related to limited space and eliminate many unwanted line breaks. The effects can be clearly seen in the test page. So far, only one editor has expressed opposition, so I would like to hear other on this sunject. — Edokter • Talk • 14:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

While I sympathise with your position Edokter, would you mind if we took a raincheck on that for now? I don't think I was the only one who was adverse to the smaller font size, so I feel it could do with a bit more discussion and perhaps a better outline of the problem and its solution. After we last discussed it I had a good look at the font tests and browser screenshots you have in your userspace, and was a little unconvinced on the merits of 88% as an ideal across all browsers. Presumably this isn't the first time this issue has been discussed; could you perhaps point me in the way of any previous discussions which might give me a better understanding? I can assure you I'm not being obstinate over this matter; I'm quite willing to be convinced as I ultimatly was with the meta. :) In the meantime there's no reason why we shouldn't go ahead with converting this template. PC78 (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Copied from Sandbox. Maxim_(talk) 15:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

←Where are we with this? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? Conversion to the meta was done about a month ago. PC78 (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Description of "country" parameter

At present the parameter country is described as: Insert the country or countries that the film was produced in. This I believe may lead to confusion as to whether this parameter should contain only countries the production companies belong to or also countries which the film was primarily shot in. This issue arose for Slumdog Millionaire which although shot in India is produced by UK based companies. If the parameter is in fact intended only for countries involved in production, I think the parameter description should be changed to make this explicitly clear. ^LeaveSleaves 17:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the wording could be made more explicit. Perhaps, "Insert the home country (or countries) of the major production companies"? We could also say, "Cover filming locations in the article's 'Production' section" as alternative placement. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This is used for country where production company are from. For example:

• March of the Penguins the country is France because production company is from France, although the filming location is Antarctica, of course.
• The Legend of the White Serpent (1956 film), the country is Japan and Hong Kong, because Toho is from Japan and and Shaw Brothers is from Hong Kong. (And I do not know where are filming locations.)
• and so on. This country information is or can be used to find out copyright status of film. For example if there is Japan as country so pre 1953 films are public domain, if there is China then 50 years old films are public domain, I think. But in many examples this country infomation is only additional information, because anybody can see where is the production company from in its separated article. --Snek01 (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a clarification would be useful. How about "Insert the country or countries in which the film production company is based"? Stetsonharry (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

While we're discussing the usage of this parameter, would anyone object if we added a note to dissuade people from using flag icons? I often see things like United States (which is usually a result of people using templates like {{USA}}), but per the general arguments outlined at WP:FLAG I find this practise highly unnecessary. PC78 (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have thought about flag icons before, too. I thought that MOS:ICON discouraged them in cases like these, but when I re-read it, there's nothing to really exclude them. What are the general arguments you see against using flag icons? —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Under MOS:FLAG, I believe this is somewhat covered under Do not emphasize nationality without good reason, wherein placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things. Film infoboxes obviously have nothing to do with nationalism and hence there isn't any need to display national flag. I regularly remove flags from infoboxes and am rarely faced with any protest, except when inexperienced editors readd them. ^LeaveSleaves 18:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What he said. :) Their use is already discouraged for the "Release" parameter anyway (see WP:FilmRelease), so I just think it best to extend this across the whole infobox. I also tend to remove them where I see them, and I don't recall anyone kicking up a fuss. PC78 (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Those flag icons are unduly nationalistic. Stetsonharry (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

black-and-white, color (and maybe some others)

I just added some details to an article about a film from the 1960s, and I thought it was pertinent to note the the film was in black-and-white. Anyone know why the infobox doesn't have a standard way of indicating that? I imagine the subject has come up before but it wasn't obvious how to search the archives (forgive my ignorance about that). Such a field could also include the medium or other technical specifications (e.g. aspect ratio). I would probably call the optional field "specification" and if present, display it just after the cinematographer, or perhaps if it were limited just to B+W/color, add it to the name at the top, e.g.

Citizen Kane (1941; black and white)

The key question is whether it belongs in the infobox (i.e. don't let my off-the-cuff ideas about how to display it distract from the core question of whether it should be an optional parameter). Thanks. 68.167.191.88 (talk) 06:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

All parameters are optional these days. I think a "format" param, like the one used for TV infoboxen, would work fine here, and would also allow for the inclusion of aspect ratio / IMAX et cetera. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that references to black and white or color should be used with caution, and tend to be overused. Prior to 1960, most films were b&w; today almost none are. Citizen Kane's being black and white is not worth mentioning but the same can't be said for a b&w movie today. On the other hand, it was noteworthy that Saratoga Trunk was in black and white, as its lack of color was criticized. I don't know if it would be pertinent for the movie mentioned at the top of this section as I don't know the movie or when it was made. Stetsonharry (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

At present, one of the primary concerns with the infobox is streamlining rather than expanding it. Black and white films generally are designated as such in the Category section at the bottom of the article. If the fact a film is in black and white instead of color is notable, the reasons for it being so can be discussed within the body of the article. LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Alignment issue?

{{editprotected}}Why is the infobox suddenly left-aligned, and can someone fix it please? //roux   17:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. PC78 (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Then I am terribly confused.. it's showing up left-aligned for me. //roux   18:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Purge your cache. There hasn't been any change to the infobox code in a month, so it isn't this template which is causing the problem. Are you getting this on other {{infobox}}-based templates? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Already purged. And yes, now that you mention it, it's all infoboxes. //roux   19:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a style issue. That happened to me awhile back and someone had changed the stylesheet I was using. Trying changing it to something else then back to your preferred...that seemed to help with me. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)