Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Executive Producers

The last discussions here, here, and most recently here didn't seem to actually result in anything meaningful, and tbh I'm getting really tired of editing articles on here when most of the time is just spent in the constant back and forth with users about this and other fields, when we have an "accepted" policy but nothing written down we can point to. Can we come to an agreement one way or another about this role, add it to the template page in the producer box and just have it be done with once and for all? I'm not going to repeat what has been said in the past discussions linked above, Exec Producer is accepted as a title that is handed out like candy for people who do things to which another title doesn't apply, so they get their name on the poster but rarely will have done anything that an actual producer does, which is the heavy lifting. Exec producer might come about purely as means to settle a legal case (Scream 4). I favor only credited producers being listed in the field unless the executive producer is shown to have done a significant contribution to the work though for some reason did not get a producer credit. Now I can't thnk of any executive producer who fits this, someone with experience of other films probably can. I think it is plenty fair and puts the onus on the conflicting editor to provide a source for why their contribution is significant. Perhaps we can put guidelines to a straw poll? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be handled on a case by case basis. As I've said before, we don't have room to clutter up the infobox with everyone who managed to win some kind of producer title. But it's not uncommon for the line producer to get "produced by" while the one who actually initiated, developed and had the most influence over the project takes exec producer credit. These people should be listed. Most obviously, George Lucas never takes "produced by." He gives that to his line producer. He's been EXP on every film he's done since More American Graffiti. Yet I see he was recently deleted from the producer column for The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. So he has no credit in the infobox other than writer. (He's not mentioned as a producer in the lead, either.) This is absurd, and makes the infobox downright inaccurate. When appropriate, like with Lucas, the parenthetical "(executive)" is probably the best way to handle it. I use Executive Producers: when there's more than one. - Gothicfilm (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well as I said above, I'm fine with it when we have sources that say the exec producer or co-producer did have a significant impact on the film, though nmaybe it is something that should be covered in prose rather than by the infobox and we should reserve the infobox purely for credits given by hte poster or in the film. I don't see anything wrong with the lede mentioning something like "Despite having done this, this, this, and this, Lucas gave his producer credit to his line-producer because..., instead taking an executive producer credit". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's too awkward to spell out why a line producer is credited with "produced by" in the lead. It's usually not even in the article. And all the exec producers we're talking about are on the poster. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support – The problem with crediting the executive producer is that it is a non-specific title. If the article makes it clear what their involvement entailed then there is no problem adding them to the infobox, but we don't really want to just namecheck executive producers because it doesn't really tell the reader what they did, which is what we end up with by having a slack guideline. I think we should have a guideline saying that executive prodcers should not be added to the infobox unless their involvement in the film's production is covered in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

And as it's used today, the "Produced by" title is almost as non-specific as "executive producer." On some films they're the opposite of what most would assume, and the executive producer is more important (as with Lucas). But in general I agree with you, though the "producers" are often not mentioned in the article either, so that might be too high a standard. It has to be judged case by case. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that a producer's role is not well understood, even if there is some variation. George Lucas knows what he's doing, so if he says his line producer deserves the credit we can take him at his word. His case is easy because he retains substantial control. A more critical eye should be applied when the person credited has no protection if the credit is wrong. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

My vote is that we get rid of the category altogether from the infobox. I'm sorry, but most producers are not well known to the general public in the same way that writers or directors are, and in most cases (there are obvious exceptions) they do not have as much input into what the movie is like a writer or director. Given the constant warring of which producers deserve to be listed, it is probably better to just remove it entirely. If there is a producer who is actually worth mentioning, chances are they'll have something in prose in the Production section anyway.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, the purpose of this discussion is to cut out all the bull and have something we can point to so there is no arguing. If you want it removed that's valid, I do think producers can have a big role, especially depending how much funding they provide, for better or worse. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Editors and cinematographers are even less well known to the general public - shall we drop them as well? I think not. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine with that as well. I get that they have awards (though, I don't think there is an award for best producer), but it's still stuff that just extends an infobox in a way that most readers don't even know who they are. Cut the cruft. Some producers do have big roles, but they aren't the director or the writer(s) and typically are not well known. Most of the well known producers are well known because they were once directors (or still are in some cases).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• The thing is, this shouldn't even need a discussion. "Producer" is an actual credited job title that appears in the opening credits, just like director, or editor; an executive producer or line producer is not the credited producer on the film. We don't stick the assistant director in the director box, nor do we put the second unit cinematographer in the cinematographer field. Why? Because they are not actually credited in that capacity, so why do we insist on abusing the producer field in this way? At the moment there isn't a consensus to add the executive producer to the infobox, otherwise it would have its own field; it seems to me putting them into the producer field along with the actual credited producer is just circumventing consensus. To say that in some cases the executive producer has done "the job of the producer" is basically just original research, an editorial interpretation of what the person's function was on the film. If we think the producer is important enough to have in the field, then it should be for people credited in that role, if not then the field should be dropped. If the editor or cinematographer isn't notable enough to be in the infobox, then that should be discussed separately and on its own merits. If the executive producer is deemed important enough to have in the infobox then we should add the field; if it isn't, we shouldn't be lumping them in with other people who are actually credited with holding the title. Betty Logan (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  Support Actually makes a lot of sense, we're debating misusing the field for purposes not intended. If we can agree that Producers go in the Producer field and that's it, that would be handy. Any other form of producer needs its own field which is a separate argument altogether. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Betty's argument. Shirtwaist ☎ 18:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support listing the Executive Producer when it's merited. That means basically keeping the status quo, unless or until it gets its own field. The Producer title is different from all the others in that it is the only one that has another commonly used term - Executive Producer - that now is given just as prominent a placement and listing in most films' credits and posters. The Producers Guild of America itself is not happy with this situation, but it is today's reality. This doesn't mean they all have to be listed, but when you leave George Lucas off the Producer field for The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, it turns those infoboxes into an embarrassment. It wouldn't take much research to prove that Lucas was the primary producer on those films, even though he took Executive Producer credit. I have found the best way to deal with this is make a judgment on a case-by-case basis, and where appropriate use the parenthetical "(executive)" after the name of a single person, so it doesn't take up another line, or use Executive Producers: above the names when there's more than one that deserve listing. This is a compromise, it's not perfect, but I see no better way of dealing with the situation under the current template. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - But what Betty is saying that regardless of what he did, Lucas isn't given an official credit as producer and the infobox is meant to represent the data about the film at the time of earliest release. His contribution would be covered in the article if it is significant, but the field is not for executive producers and there is no executive producer field which is a separate issue. The EP credit is also open to abuse, reading hte articles Spielberg doesn't seem to have done much of anything with Transformers beyond potentially bitch about Megan Fox, his name beyond funding seems to b there as a marketing tool. No one is going to question Lucas' involvement because he isn't listed as an exec producer in the infobox. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If it's abused, it should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. And Lucas was given official credit as Executive Producer on those films at the time of their earliest release, as you put it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, it still comes down to the fact that the category is "Producer" not "Types of producers". A "producer" is not the same as an "executive producer". The only names that should be listed are "producers".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. As I said the Producer title is different from all the others. The fields were set up a certain, simple way, but that doesn't mean only "Producers" can be listed. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, the parameter says: "Insert the name(s) of the producer(s). Separate multiple entries using {{Plainlist}}. In addition, link each producer to his/her appropriate article if possible" - I don't see where it says "insert the names of anyone with the word "producer" attached to their title. The field is for the role of "Producer" (that's capitalized). You cannot make exceptions to the rule as you see fit, otherwise there's no point to the rule. You might as well open it up to Associate, Line, Co-executive (which, is not the same as a regular Executive), co-producer (which is not the same as a regular producer), as well because I can argue that they are just as important as an executive producer. You're picking and choose based on the well known status of the executive. George Lucas is famous. So is Steven Spielburg. I would guarantee that there are executive producers out there that have done more for their films than either of those 2 men, but are merely not as well known and thus would never be argued to be put in the infobox. 2nd unit directors can provide a lot of work into a film, but they are not put in the "Director" field. Again, there is only one role that is labeled "Producer", it's not shared with others. Either you were given that credit, or you weren't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing in what you quoted that says I'm violating any policy. And there's nothing in what you're saying that I would use for judging whether or not someone should be listed. I base it on what they actually did on the film, not how famous they are. I only used Lucas as an example so people would know who I'm talking about, and recognize how absurd it is that he not be listed as a producer. Since you're the one who wants to drop Producers from the infobox altogether, I think it's best to say we agree to disagree. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I say drop it because it solves all problems. If it stays, then it needs to be used as it is intended to be used. You seem to think this is some catch-all parameter for producers depending on a judgment that you have to make on how much they contributed to the film. We have a place for editor judgment. Lucas is not credited as a producer, so who you are (or anyone else) to try and say that he should be credited as a producer here? Trying to add some small text "executive producer" title next to his name doesn't change the fact that you're miss using the category. It just means you're miss using it knowingly and are trying to circumvent what it is meant for. Again, I might as well add Elton John to the music section of The Lion King, because he contributed musically just as much as Hans Zimmer did, in my opinion. The infobox shouldn't be a place to make judgment calls. It should stand on its own with objectivity. You're not creating objectivity. BTW, people only agree to disagree when they know they have no real argument for/against something.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I've actually seen it used where people wanted to simply end a disagreement in a civil manner. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I'm reminded of how Thelma Schoonmaker described her working relationship with Scorsese as a collaborative process, with Scorsese often sitting in the editing bay with Thelma acting more or less as a co-editor. Yet the only editing credit in his films goes to Schoonmaker. Other powerful directors - including Kubrick who did extensive editing on 2001, but is not credited in the film or in the infobox - have, and often use, their "final cut" privilege in the editing process, but are never credited. Just something to consider. Shirtwaist ☎ 06:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Taking action - Not sure how the above comment affects this conversation, since we're talking about credits that indisputably are listed in the films' titles and posters. In the meantime, I have now restored George Lucas to the Producer field for The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, as those infoboxes are an embarrassment without it. There's no consensus arrived at against it, and it's accurate to the facts. He was the principal producer on those films. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No consensus? Everyone here seems to be more in favor of using the Producer field as intended only than anything else, except for BigNole who partially favors its removal altogether. If anything your actions prove why this action needs to be taken. It's an "embarrassment" to who? George Lucas? Or is it that people are viewing those articles and remarking "How can we take Wikipedia seriously when they aren't giving Lucas a credit he didn't have on this film based on their own personal view on how much work he did and how much his work was worth? This is ignoring the general theory that Empire and Return are good in spite of Lucas, not because of him, due to the greater efforts of others. There were like 8 writers on Tower Heist, they're all mentioned in the production notes and they're mentioned in the article body but only two are credited as writers in the film. I don't make the judgement call that "Hey, these guys wrote stuff, they should be in here too". Cowboys and Aliens has a bunch of producers listed on it, there is apparently no limit on being credited as a producer and Lucas didn't have that, nor did Spielberg on Transformers, because they obviously didn't perform the Producer role.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean giving Lucas a credit he didn't have on this film based on their own personal view? He indisputably had this credit from the film's first release to the present day. And the above is loaded with your opinion. Now I finally see why you're so against Lucas being listed. But that is all your opinion - he had the credit, he had the controlling producer authority. Who most influenced the quality of the films is another issue, and is obviously not directly reflected in the infobox. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not start this discussion to get at Lucas, if he had a producer credit then you wouldn't be having to add the (executive) qualifier by his name in the infobox or be having to discuss it here. He wasn't given a Producer credit, and the Producer field is not for executive producers regardless of what they did. People who receive credit don't always necessarily deserve it, but that is the credit given. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand, executive producer != producer and produced by field is for producers. The producers also generally correlate to the studio field which is why they are producers. They're producing it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

What's interesting is the general run to Lucus to point out reason to ignore common sense. Let's not forget, George Lucas OWNS everything that is Star Wars. The fact that his name is on the marketing is irrelevant. It's marketing. Don't confuse a marketing strategy with actual work on a film. Speilberg had nothing to really do with Transformers, but his name sells. Here's a very simple "yes" or "no" question that I would love to be answered with exactly that, a "yes" or "no": "Is the job of 'Producer' the same as the job of 'Executive producer'?"  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not his credit is marketing is your opinion. The fact is he was the principal producer on those films. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Says who? His credit is "Executive producer". I don't believe his credit was "Principal producer", unless I'm mistaken in all the times I've seen those films and didn't notice it. I don't believe I noticed a general "Producer" credit either. So, exactly where is his credited as the principal producer again?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't list him as "Principal producer" in the infobox -- this is pointless. As you said, Lucas owns it, he could have taken Producer credit if he wanted to. For whatever reason, he apparently decided years ago that he was always going to take "Executive Producer" credit (starting with More American Graffiti in 1979), and give "Produced by" to his line producer. That was his own personal choice. No other producer I can think of has done that, consistently on every project. But there's been tons in the media over the decades on how he makes his films. Like them or not, he initiates them, and he has final control over them. So he's the principal producer. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Gothicfilm - My point is simply that even though Scorsese and other directors participate in the editing process, they are not credited as "editor", just as Lucas was not credited as "producer" even though he may have acted as a "producer". This relates directly to the conversation, as I don't think anyone in their right mind would consider changing the infoboxes on Raging Bull and 2001 to give Scorsese and Kubrick editing credits, even though it's clear they were significantly involved in the editing of their films. Shirtwaist ☎ 22:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's another issue. Lucas had "Executive Producer" credit. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what the problem is, Lucas has the story credit on both films, I would've thought that would be more important and it also means his name isn't absent from the infobox so I'm really not sure where the embarrassing part comes into it. Skimming Empire I'm not really seeing what this big contribution he made is either, beyond paying a fine. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

He just caused the film to exist, and had final say over it. I'm going to watch the Super Bowl now. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It slightly concerns me how you do not realize the absurdity that seems to be coming out of your thoughts. He has final say over the film so that makes him a "Producer"? Are you aware of what a "Producer" actually does? I'm starting to think not. Executive producers are not Producers. It is not the same job. The category "Produced by" is very specific; it's for the people who are actually "Producers". If they don't have that credit then they don't need to be in that category. As far as Lucas is concerned, he doesn't have that credit. Please stop claiming that he does, because he doesn't. He has the "executive" credit, there is a big difference. Enjoy the Super Bowl.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a pointless tangent either way, I would say it's clear that Gothic is firmly in the Oppose camp, concerning using the field for Producers only. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, my specific vote can be seen above - Support listing the Executive Producer when it's merited. The category "Produced by" is not specific anymore at all. It has come to mean very different things on different films. As an example from a less famous person, Robert L. Rosen was John Frankenheimer's line producer for six films. On the first, French Connection II, he got "Produced by" credit. On the second, Black Sunday in 1977, he got "Executive Producer" credit, even though he did the same job. (For what it's worth, I think he and others should have objected -- that switching the then-common meaning of the two titles was not a good thing.) The two credits have become increasingly interchangeable on feature films ever since, and I trace it back to that film.

Let's not lose sight of the big picture. The infobox is supposed to accurately reflect who made the film. When if comes to the Producer category, the most important criterion is not a strict telling of who got the "Produced by" title, but who actually initiated the film and oversaw it - this guy is the effective principal producer, whatever title he actually got. He needs to be listed for the article to be accurate. It now looks to me like the reason some people here are arguing against this is anti-Executive Producer bias based on stereotype, and anti-George Lucas bias. Not all Executive Producers are stereotypical managers or lawyers or studio heads whose credit is questionable. There is no strict policy for excluding all "Executive Producers" from the infobox now, and there shouldn't be. - Gothicfilm (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem here seems to be that if Lucas had been credited as co-part-time-associate-friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend-of-a-producer-in-charge-of-coffee-and-sundries, you'd be arguing instead for that to be included because it's Lucas. Don't see Lucas bias where there is none, crap he makes aside, I have no interest in him nor do I think I have ever edited the Star Wars articles, I just generally have no interest in them. And credit is questionable, if htey aren't given producer credit they shouldn't be under the produced by label, its like talking to a brick wall. Lucas' contributions should and seemingly are mentioned in the article body, it is not lesser for not having his name with a little (executive) beside it in the infobox because you think he's a rockin' dude. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I mean, it should be producers unless there is an exception? Where do the exceptions end? If you have an exception because your fav film doesn't list Lucas then why can't this guy over here list all the producers of every role because they did stuff involved with the film to? There is no end and thus it results in another discussion, and discussion, and discussion aboutwhat goes in the infobox. I think at this point we should just have a straw poll for and against producer only and get it over with Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. Nothing I said should lead to assumptions like if Lucas had been credited as co-part-time-associate-friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend-of-a-producer-in-charge-of-coffee-and-sundries, you'd be arguing instead for that to be included because it's Lucas. And the fact that you did say it shows obvious bias. - Gothicfilm (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the argument that we are trying to reflect who made the film. There is guidance, perhaps, from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS). The Oscar for Best Picture goes to the producers, and in their guidelines the Academy says:

The individual(s) who shall be credited for Academy Award purposes must have screen credit of “producer” or “produced by.” Persons with screen credits of executive producer, co-producer, associate producer, line producer, produced in association with or any other credit shall not receive nominations or Academy statuettes. The nominees will be those three or fewer producers who have performed the major portion of the producing functions. The Producers Branch Executive Committee will designate the qualifying producer nominees for each of the nominated pictures. The committee has the right, in what it determines to be a rare and extraordinary circumstance, to name any additional qualified producer as a nominee.

So, producers know they have to be credited as producer. Ex Producer knows they are not the producer. The exceptions should be seen in that light. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am well aware of this policy. The Academy and the Producers Guild are looking to exclude those stereotypical managers, lawyers and studio heads whose credit might seem questionable. This was emphasized after Harvey Weinstein was among five producers who won Best Picture for Shakespeare in Love. Also interesting is the fact it's not a strickly enforced rule - they decide exceptions on a case-by-case basis, which is what I've been saying should be done here. As I laid out above, the infobox should reflect who made the film. Whether or not they're also eligible for awards is a side issue. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You need a reliable source that shows that they contributed significantly to the film, but for whatever reason where not given the credit they deserve. Without a reliable source, it's not verifiable. An editor's "judgement" is not enough.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstood me a little bit, Gothic. I'm not saying that there is an identity between awards eligibility and being the producer. But, what it means to be the producer is first of all defined by the industry. And because of that, we are wise to look at what is done by people who know the industry realities most intimately. Believe me, the Academy wants to give the Oscar for Best Picture to the real producers. That is something they take extremely seriously. So the standard they use is not only likely to be a very good standard, it is very likely that the rest of the industry will follow their lead. I think we are wise to pay attention to that. (And as for reliable sources, there is no source more reliable than the credits on the movie.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In general I agree with that. Four entries above you said The exceptions should be seen in that light, so hopefully you agree with me -- the point I've been trying to make is we have to allow for the verifiable exceptions. The "Produced by" and "Executive Producer" credits have become increasingly interchangeable since the 1980s. (See my example of the less famous Robert L. Rosen about eight paragraphs above.) Frankly, I don't like it either. I think credits should be more specific. So does the Producers Guild. But despite their best efforts, the industry has not defined or standardized the term. So they decided to focus the award on those getting the "Produced by" title, knowing that didn't solve all the issues, but it was the most they could do to try to encourage people to use the credit properly. I've been using Lucas as an example of an exception because he's the most obvious and well-known. I didn't think anybody would dispute the verifiable fact that he had more to do with producing his films than anyone else. I didn't expect to get anti-Lucas bias here, where policy should be objective. The person who initiated the film, hired the writers, director and cast and retained the final control over the film is much more important than the line producer, and he should be listed in the infobox -- even if he took Executive Producer credit. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we should note the exceptions, but I think the bulk of them will occur outside the contemporary understanding of producer. It is not arguable that professionals know that the Executive Producer is not the Producer. It's not anti-Lucas bias to point out that he knows exactly what he's doing when he gives a colleague the producer credit. His actions speak for themselves and it is entirely reliable. I'm not sure what you mean when you say Lucas had more to do with producing his films than anyone else. Look at his own production company's page and it seems that he lists his role differently when a different credit is in order. That indicates some level of awareness that he didn't produce what he says he didn't produce. Sure, he wears many hats. He writes, raises money, directs, and sometimes also produces. Do you have some evidence that he defines 'Producer' in his personal lexicon differently from the industry? There is a distinction between a creative producer and a business producer since they wear both hats. But the term endures because it can't be replaced. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Claiming persecution is a pretty poor way to argue. What credit he took DOES matter. That you feel he did a lot doesn't mean anything, it doesn't change the credit he has and your ONE exception is what causes hte problem with all infoboxes. The point of this discussion is to end the debate and yet what we will get under a GothicFilm infobox regime is the exact same problem. "You can't add these to the infobox", "Why?", "Because the infobox guidelines say so", "Well I think he is important even if he was credited as line-producer", "Oh great, let's have another massive debate about this". He didn't get the credit, the credit he has is not what the field is for. Arguing that he really meant to have the producer credit or he SHOULD have it because are specious and the reason this conversation was started in the first place. His reasoning behind not taking the credit. Does. Not. Matter. It isn't the correct credit for the field and he is not the first or the last person to not receive or to intentionally not take proper credit on a film. THANKFULLY, his contributions, great as they are, are covered in the article and not forever lost in time like tears in rain or quality filmmaking in the Star Wars prequels, and so him appearing in the Infobox as a writer and not as a producer will not forever damage him or the article. And to make it clear, I have no anti-Lucas bias, I am just completely lost on how completely bias you are in his favor that it prevents you from seeing that you can't have a guideline that works except when you feel that it doesn't. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Claiming I'm working from motives I don't actually have is a pretty poor way to argue. You're the one drawing this out with false assumptions of what I'm trying to do, like your last insulting entry yesterday. Lucas should be listed a producer because he wasn't just a writer on the film. The policy does not strictly say what you claim it does, if it did you wouldn't be here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

When you're calling it an "embarrassment" that he isn't listed as a producer, it's hard to take your opinion on that particular case as objective. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can't handle that statement without becoming insulting and assigning false motives to me, that's your problem. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Agree with the concerns by Betty Logan and Darkwarriorblake. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't really want to ignite this again, but Sjones23 comes back every couple months and deletes Lucas from the producer column for The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. He just struck again, and I restored it again. I gave my extensive reasoning for keeping him listed as Executive Producer above. There is no policy against it. I'll also note the guideline for the editing parameter actually says Listing "additional editors" and "supervising editors" may occasionally be appropriate, so I don't think it's much of a stretch to list an Exec Producer when he's clearly the functioning primary producer, such as Lucas was on the Star Wars sequels. Gothicfilm (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, as I don't ever want to start an edit war while removing the executive producers. I think that the producers parameter only calls for producers (after all they are listed as "Produced by"), not executive producers since they can work better in prose. We are still trying to get a new consensus since this is being debatable for some time now. I never question Lucas' role as executive producer in the film, but I feel that we only need to list producers. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

What works better in prose is opinion. My rationale is accurate to the facts of how the film was made, and it's detailed above. You're the one who took it out without discussion. Again. Gothicfilm (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to open up an RfC on this matter. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should George Lucas be listed as Executive Producer in the infobox for The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi?

Should executive producers for films be mentioned in this infobox? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Not in my opinion, no. An "executive producer", is, quite simply, not a "producer", and therefore does not belong in the infobox, or lumped in with the bona fide producer(s). Some films have scores of executive producers, some of them with very minor roles in the production. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not why we're here, despite the misleading title put on this. This was brought about, again, by George Lucas being listed in the infobox for The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. He had a lot more to do with producing those films than the listed line producer. Other supposedly useless EPs are not the issue at hand. Saying an "executive producer", is, quite simply, not a "producer" is not universally true at all. See my discussion at Template talk:Infobox film#Executive Producers above the RfC logo. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm changing the sub-header here so we don't get any more responses to the strawman. I'm not trying to list every executive producer credited on every film, like the first heading implied. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay. However, I think it still stands. The infobox, for good reason, does not have an "executive producer" field. As established, an "executive producer" is a diffent role to "producer", therefore the infobox should not have anything but bona fide producers in the "producer" field. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not established, as I explained well above. There's no more bona fide producer on those two films than Lucas. He caused them to exist, he controlled them. As I've said before, the question of whether to list an Executive Producer should be handled on a case by case basis. We don't have room to clutter up the infobox with everyone who managed to win some kind of producer title. But it's not uncommon for the line producer to get "produced by" while the one who actually initiated, developed and had the most influence over the project takes exec producer credit. These people should be listed. Most obviously, George Lucas, who never takes "produced by." He gives that to his line producer. He's been EXP on every film he's done since More American Graffiti. If he's deleted from the producer column for The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, he has no credit in the infobox other than writer. This is absurd, and makes the infobox downright inaccurate.

I'll also note again the infobox guideline for the editing parameter actually says Listing "additional editors" and "supervising editors" may occasionally be appropriate, so I don't think it's much of a stretch to list an Exec Producer when he's clearly the functioning primary producer, such as Lucas was on the Star Wars sequels. - Gothicfilm (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Are we not supposed to be listing the credits as per the film? Okay, Lucas may be the de facto producer, but that isn't his role. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, why is this conversation even happening? There seems to be clear consensus above not to include him in the infobox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

A clear consensus? On the specific subject of Lucas? I don't see it. And this is about listing the credits as per the film. That's what I've done in the numerous film pages I've worked on. Usually it goes fine, but on some pages, like here, there are some people who don't want the credits accurately reflected. Lucas had this credit. It's merited. It should be in the infobox. There's no policy against it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't see the clear consensus that everybody but you thinks that he shouldn't be credited in the infobox? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Rob, do not bother, seriously, we went through this, Gothic will not be swayed from his perspective so it is an argument that will not end unless you give in. Honestly it's time to just hold a straw poll on the above section and end this once and for all Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Not listing Lucas as an EP in the "Produced by" column is NOT inaccurate. It's actually accurate. If he was a producer and we didn't list him, then that would be inaccurate. The reality is, that for whatever reason he has for not taking credit as a producer (if he was actually acting as one) it doesn't change the fact that his title was EP. We're being objective here, it's not a matter of hating on Lucas. The inappropriate thing to do would be to only list him because we believe that he was somehow more special than other EPs that we don't list. In addition, when the guideline says "other editors" and the like, those people still have the standard title of "Editor". They are not "Temporary editor that we know about, but was not credited as such". Keep him out, and explain his position in prose in the body of the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

What? The infobox guideline for the editing parameter says Listing "additional editors" and "supervising editors" may occasionally be appropriate - how do you read them as the standard title of "Editor"? They're listed on a separate title card, just like an Executive Producer. There is no consistency to your position. And the hating on Lucas came out in the earlier discussion above. It was clearly seen. Do I need to run quotes from it? - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need a straw poll - consensus is clear not to include, as only one editor involved in the discussions thinks it appropriate to include. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I mean a straw poll regarding the parent argument about exec producers. If we have a policy in place then we can point to it rather than having the same discussion again and again. It needs to be settled since it's been going on for years. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking back at the previous discussions, consensus favours not including executive producers, with the odd editor suggesting it is okay in rare circumstances. However other editors do point out the problems with these exceptions, and if the discussion above is anything to go on (i.e., if there are rare exceptions, then George Lucas is an obvious one), then I would suggest we have our consensus. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This seems rather clear-cut to me. Sign me up for a !vote. Doniago (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on this consensus, I've updated the template documentation to reflect that we shouldn't be showing executive and associate producers. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of Plan 9 as example for infobox format

I just noticed the infobox for Plan 9 from Outer Space that appears here as an example infobox is different from the infobox on the actual Plan 9 article, in that the Producer field here only lists J. Edward Reynolds as producer, while the actual article lists Reynolds and Wood as producers (presumably because the poster credits both of them as "producer") . Should the example be revised, or should we use a more clear-cut film article as an example to illustrate a typical infobox? Shirtwaist ☎ 06:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

In general, we should use a clear-cut example from an FA article; it demonstrates that its usage and format has been peer reviewed at the highest level. Betty Logan (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings Runtime

I have recently put in the Lord of the Rings Extended Run times into the info boxes. I put it there as for the public readers who want to know the run time for the extended versions will be able to easily find it and they have the right for the information. But DarkWarriorBlake keeps reverting my edit, and then sends me a message on my talk page saying that I have started an edit war, when he was the one who started to revert my edits. The public and readers of Wikipedia have the right to know information, and DarkWarriorBlake is taking information away from them that the public should be able to find when they want it to instead of traveling through the web to find the information they want. He is taking their right away. Wikipedia is supposed to be a friendly place and have good easy access for the public, but it's users like DarkWarriorBlake that take away the rights the public have, they deserve the rights to view information. He even went onto my talk page and criticised ME of starting an edit war and editing articles to make them fit for how I want them to, but its like he is taking away my right to edit on Wikipedia as if he is higher than me. I am putting information in for readers to see and he is taking it away, it's like I am not allowed to put any work into articles and I am offended by this. Can someone please sort this out? Charlr6 (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe it says you STARTED an edit war. It says you are engaged in one, which you were and are since I told you to direct a discussion here and then you went and reinstated the info for the 4th time at The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers‎. Your right to edit has a finite elasticity, everyone can't do whatever they want or everything kind of falls apart and ends up a fansite. Others can deal with this if htey wish, I'm beyond exasperated trying to convey basic guidelines to this user.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The infobox is intended to refer to the original, theatrical version of a film, not all subsequent extended/special/anniversary editions, director's cuts, etc. Information about later revisions is best left to the article body to avoid cluttering the infobox. This is especially true of blockbuster films of the last several decades, which often see several subsequent re-released editions. It is the same convention for albums and video games. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• It's true that the infobox doesn't stipulate that we use the original theatrical running time, but the infobox is by convention specific to the original version and not derivative works: the theatrical poster, the exhibition date, the distributor, running time, and box office gross all refer specifically to the original theatrical version. If we didn't do that the infobox would just become a mishmash of disparate data relating to different versions of the film. A film release can vary from territory to territory anyway based on censorship laws, so we focus on documenting the original primary work. Betty Logan (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've always thought we should just make that explicit in the infobox documentation. What do you think? It used to bug the hell out of me to look at Blade Runner and see this nonsense. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be explicit but some care needs to be taken. Films are changed at the last minute or reedited if the response is poor. One option is to tie it to the film referenced in the release dates field as the earliest date: the runtime of the film's earliest release, either festival, theatrically, or on television. Another is to go with the runtime of the film that has been exhibited theatrically most commonly. Both are practical for different reasons. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally I would go with the 'primary' work. In this case this would mean the version that opened the film up on general release (as opposed to some festival screening where a different cut might have been screened or subsequent derivative versions). In the case of DTV then that would be the most 'complete' version that hits the shelves first. The release date would be the earliest public showing of the theatrical version i.e. a festival screening if it is premiered at a festival, but if the film is recut for general release then we use the theatrical release date. The plot and running time would also document the general release version. Obviously you might not agree with all of that, but something along those lines that has clarity and editors can be referred to. Betty Logan (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand your thinking, but that gets wordy. To avoid the complexity I suggested we go with the runtime of the theatrical version shown the most. Or, if you want a settled issue, the theatrical version shown most in the film's year of theatrical release. Isn't that the essence of what you're getting at? --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

LOTR spinoff

I wasn't asking about every single cut that Lord of the Rings has, it only has TWO, the theatrical release and the extended release that was released a year later. And the Blade Runner one WAS stupid because there was only a minute difference, what I was saying is that if there is a huge difference in running time then list it. And it would be the theatrical version and the latest cut of the film that is more positively received than some studio cut or editors cut or directors cut. So lets say that there are five versions of one film, we list the first one and the very last one, the one that is more acclaimed than the previous re-edits. And it said "Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.", I put the edit in so you DarkWarriorBlake wasn't collaborating with me, I gave reasons for why they should be there "that would be the consensus" and you just kept undoing it and then you blame me for editing and editing until I get it MY way, even though YOU started reverting MY edits. So how dare you as that is extremely unfair, saying I am the one editing and editing until I get it my way, when YOU started reverting MY edits. And if the info box is only supposed to follow the original film, then can you care to explain these films, as I've seen them like this for months and months; Alexander (film, Troy (film), King Arthur (film). I'm surprised that none of you have seen these. Is there an exception here? With these info boxes that HAVE been like that for months. Charlr6 (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There are only so many editors to monitor thousands of articles and check everything is in order. Some articles being wrong is not an excuse for all doing it. And you don't seem to understand what consensus means. Giving a reason for an edit is not a consensus, it's giving a reason. Consensus is when multiple people consent to something. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

So are you going to change the run time on those pages? You spend a lot of time on Wikipedia by the looks of it and seems like something you can do for each page in less than two minutes. And I was giving my OPINION on why it needs to be there, you weren't adding your opinion you were just saying "it says this on the Wikipedia rules so it can't be put there". If I went onto The Hobbit's page and discussed the run time I can't see you changing your mind. But are you going to go onto those pages and change the run times? You edit a lot of pages so why not those three quickly. Charlr6 (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Because I'm not the Wikipolice, and I have other things to take care of. But to satiate your hunger for blood, I have edited them. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You may not be the Wikipolice, but you act like one. And to 'satiate my hunger for blood', I suggested them for you to do as you say that the info boxes should only be for the theatrical version, I suggested it so it would satisfy your need to make perfection on Wikipedia. Charlr6 (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If you feel the edits are appropriate, you are welcome to make them yourself. If you don't believe the edits are appropriate but consensus is against you (as it appears to be) then I would recommend not making an issue of it. No Wikipedia editor is under any obligation to make any edits; we're all volunteers here. Your comments are beginning to veer from a discussion of the topic to personal attacks though, which is unwarranted and inappropriate. Please remain civil and focus on the issues rather than the editors involved. Doniago (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks? I keep getting criticised of all of my comments and edits now and I what I feel is that Darkwarriorblake wasn't letting me put my edit in and taking my right away to edit. And I didn't linger off topic, I was talking about how those films (Alexander, Troy and King Arthur) had the extended version running times and how they had been like that for months and that I was surprised that no one had gone and edited it out, if anything by mentioning them I was helping Wikipedia and letting other editors know that on other pages it features a mistake of mentioning more than one running time. And if I am not supposed to make an issue out of anything, then how is it ANYTHING get resolves if people don't stand up for what they believe in? Politics, different countries. That's how decisions are made by going off topic and using things as examples, just like how I made examples of how those three films still had their running times on. If nothing wasn't made an issue out of, then it would just be a bunch of people saying either "no" or "yes" all the time to what should be agreed upon and what shouldn't. Charlr6 (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The way you're coming across, and it's certainly possible I'm reading you wrong, is that you're getting much more wound up about this than the situation merits. It wasn't my intent to criticize you or to make you feel criticized; simply to point out approaches that I felt might be more constructive. When you say things like, "You may not be the Wikipolice, but you act like one", that does come across as a personal attack. You're not talking about how to handle the infobox, you're talking about an editor's conduct. It's beside the point, and it's not helpful to your argument to make such statements. Nobody is taking away your right to edit. If DWB is constantly reverting your edits, then in general he's just as guilty of edit-warring as you are. You may wish to review WP:EW, which discusses such things in more detail, or WP:BRD, which discusses an "ideal" form of dispute resolution that avoids the issues of edit-warring altogether.

All that being said, as other editors have noted, listing the theatrical time in the infobox is the convention that has generally been agreed upon, and edits that you make should reflect that. If there are film articles that don't reflect that convention, it's not a justification to change other articles against consensus, it simply means the problems with those articles should also be addressed. Once it's clear that the consensus is that those articles have problems, why not fix them and move on? I just don't understand why you seem to be so agitated about this, and I'm sorry if I contributed to that. Doniago (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I would have fixed them, but I believe that the info box should contain at least two of the running times, the theatrical version and the extended version (if there are more than one extended cuts then the one that is more well known or praised). I believe it because there will be readers who come on knowing of the extended versions and like to know the run time, and with it missing in the info boxes, it makes them read the rest of the article to try and find it. But when actually writing at least my several previous posts, I wrote it in a calm way, I felt clam, but trying to get my point across at the same time. But sorry if it seemed like I was over-agitated about the situation. Charlr6 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Director's cuts, extended cuts, etc. are best discussed in prose with appropriate sources. Without intentional discrimination against non-basic information, the infobox could easily get over-crowded and lose its usefulness all at once. Lots of information can be appropriate in the article but not in the infobox: a plot description is one example, extended running time is another. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Image handling code

Currently nearly 50% of this template's code is devoted to the image formatting, due to changes made here and here. For some reason, J Greb (talk · contribs) removed the use of {{px}} and frameless (which sanitizes the image_size input and defaults to the user thumbnail size without upscaling small images) and replaced it with some convoluted manual system. That should be undone: {{px}} and frameless have been rolled out to pretty much every major infobox now, and are the most simple and elegant way to handle image sizing. I'm not sure why J Greb had problems with {{px}} back in July 2011, but it's certainly working these days. I've updated the sandbox with working code. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Going back over what the issues were:

• Having the infobox image exceed a reasonable size based on reader defaults.
• Having the image shrink under the, assumed at the time, template stated minimum size.
• Having "image size" deliberately set at 300+ to bloat the 'box.
• Providing an optional border for images that have either all white or mostly white bleeds.

Going back over the docs, the bottom limit looks like it was a miss-read. I still think it is a reasonable thing, but it looks like it that point needs a more discusion.

As for the rest though. Will Px/frameless set up work with providing a cap and allowing the border?

- J Greb (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The border works in the sandbox code (I took Illazilla's code as the starting point). An upper limit is an unnecessary technical restriction to a social problem, and an enforced minimum is a bad idea due to upscaling. If we need to explain this to editors, we have WP:IMGSIZE to do so. I can't think of any other high-profile infobox which insists on doing its own enforcement of this type these days; all that is needed is a sanity check for when the size parameter is malformed or omitted, which is what the sandbox code provides. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Border: Fair enough. And pretty much the same for the lower limit.

But with regard to an upper cap... I'm sorry, but when dealing with a sidebar that has a set limit or size (22em for the base infobox), restricting the contents of the sidebar not to push it out makes sense. Either that or, at a minimum, a tracking category to flag articles where the 'box is being pushed out.

- J Greb (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm having a difficult time believing that this is a problem at all, let alone one which requires a tracking category. Furthermore, "whether the box is pushed out" depends on a whole lot of factors with the user agent, such as font size and form factor (infoboxes are presently full-width on mobile devices, for instance). Nevertheless, if you really want a tracking category for articles where {{{image_size}}} > 300 then that's doable: check the sandbox for some additional checking which should sort articles of that sort into category:Film articles using image size parameter greater than 300 and not just category:Film articles using image size parameter. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

As there's been no further input on this, I've pushed the image code live. As noted, this introduces a new category which will catch transclusions using overly-large images. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Country

I'd hate to beat this up again, and I know it was discussed previously in the archives in archive 19, but I'd like to discuss the infobox. I believe that the infobox should list all production countries that are known to the production. This information is not difficult to obtain from sources such as Variety magazine reviews and the British Film Institute website (http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/784433). Listing all countries production is important as it shows the evolution and history of some directors. For example, with English director Paul W. S. Anderson, his most recent film is a co-production in German, United states, America and France.[1]. These production companies and countries are important when taking records into consideration as well, such as in this article here where Resident Evil: Afterlife breaks the record for highest grossing Canadian film as it lists it as a Canadian-German co-production. It's not just in his career, but in other directors like M. Night Shyamalyn, who's Happening film is an American-Indian production. Yes, there is no obvious signs of an Indian production if you only saw a trailer or watched the film, but 50% of the film was financed from an Indian company [2]. I understand the desire to have the production company information listed in the production of an article, but for films that are older, such as Vampyr it's hard to exactly decipher what funding was made from a French company and what was the German one. But it doesn't meant this information should not be printed or removed. I understand that it's confusing to some readers, but I think the more it is printed, the more readers will begin to understand that not all films are simply American from how they look or the nationality of the director, but where the funding is coming from. Can we clean up the out of date information in the infobox in this section that still refers to IMDb notices (which we shouldn't even be discussing per WP:RS/IMDB. I think it needs a re-write! Any other comments? Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The aim of the infobox is to summarise the most important and pertinent facts about the subject. It is not the right great wrongs regarding how little credit is given to given countries' involvement in shooting certain works. If the country parameter truly causes significant confusion then it should be removed, rather than expanded with material which will usually be trivial and frequently poorly sourced. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The country parameter is a problem because it is still not understood that the production company's location is not the determining factor. The director's nationality seems to deserve primary consideration, while the language of the film matters, the setting of the story, perhaps the locations of the shoot, the source of the financing, the nationalities of the participants (cast, crew, production), and the location of the production company's office (not in that order) are all factors to consider. Simmer for three hours. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

None of that is clarified in the documentation, so it's unsurprising that people are unclear on this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It should summarize it, but not including countries is like not including certain producers or directors. The countries rarely go over 5 different countries so I don't see why it would be a problem to list all. See my comment below as well. I'd still disagree with Ring Cinema. Are the films of Milos Forman, Paul Verhoeven, Paul W.S. Anderson, Fritz Lang and so forth still considered films of their native countries (Czech, Dutch, British, and Austrian respectively)? Fritz Lang has made films in France and America for example. I don't think these films of his are considered German or Austrian anywhere. Same goes for Luc Besson who made Leon, a film that is a french production but shot in English in New York City with some American actors.Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

One quick way to add a bit of clarity would be to take after the German infobox film and call it "Production country" instead of just "Country". Smetanahue (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with this one. Country is too broad and stating production country or countries clears things up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Why not list "Director Nationality" then, since that tracks much more closely on the film's "nationality" and has only one correct answer. The idea that every production company lends their nationality to a film is very obviously wrong. The director, on the other hand, in most cases is contributing to that country's film culture and history. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

So Grizzly Man is a German film? Lugnuts (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What makes you say it's wrong Ring? As stated above it's used by Variety and the British Film Board and from my own lessons taking university courses in film. It's fine by me. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I am correct in saying that in all the arts the nationality of the work of art is determined by the nationality of the creator, not the nationality of the source of the commission. Since the director is the main artist, that must be the main country. Variety and a national film board do not have the same goals as an encyclopedia. Fellini's films are Italian, Bergman's are Swedish, Spielberg's are American, no matter which production company was used. It is some kind of distortion of film culture to think that nationality derives solely from the location of the production company's offices. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

For simplicity and accuracy, it seems to me it should just go by where the principal development/production company is based. Most important is where was the project developed. The listing's not really meant to be a comment on the film's "nationality". When Milos Forman was hired to direct One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (film), that did not turn the project into a Czech film. And location is less important. If "Production country" means where it was shot I'd be against that. Lucas shooting Star Wars in England did not make it British. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

There are few citations that prove a "main country" that's not out of it's own speculation. Several films that are generally conisdered "French" or "French-Italian" co-productions for example: (Wages of Fear, Eyes Without a Face, Nikita). This also comes into play with modern cinema in Hong Kong such as several films that are Hong Kong/Chinese productions. Listing these makes them follow Chinese film rules opposed to simple Hong Kong ones. Examples include several new films East Meets West, [Love in the Buff Love in the Buff], while films that are strictly Hong Kong productions have different laws surrounding them and what can be shown. These include the works of Johnnie To such as Life Without Principle source and Category III films like The 33D Invader source. If we only listed the main production country for the Hong Kong-Chinese productions, it doesn't promote them as films that would follow Chinese censorship rules. These are several reasons why it's important to not skimp on secondary countries in World cinema. Every country that contributed should be cited and has it's importance. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean only one country could ever be listed. If a film is being produced out of two countries, there will be production companies based in both of them. That's quite different than shooting in a territory for tax-rebate or other lower-cost reasons or because of specialized location needs. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I don't want it to be based on location of shooting. I want it to be listed whenever a production country is noted by a reliable source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I think for simplicity, clarity, and brevity -- not to mention accuracy -- the director's nationality is superior. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Please can someone mention another art form where nationality is determined by the source of the money? Would Beethoven's Opus 59 be described as "Russian" or "Austrian" because the Russian ambassador in Vienna paid for it? I think we all understand it's German because Beethoven is German. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether others or not other art forms do this. I've provided several film related sources that state the funding is what determined the nationality. You've just provided opinion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter? Obviously it matters. I'm not offering an opinion, I'm pointing out the relevant evidence. You can't argue that Beethoven's work isn't German, but you don't really have a reason why that doesn't apply to film artists. I think that weakens your argument significantly. The Cannes Film Festival goes by the nationality of the director because the director is the artist and receives the award. So based on that you are comfortable with going by the director's nationality? --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

IMO, the country should be based on who owns the property. If Warner Bros. owns the property, but they film in India, then the film is still American. That includes if they use an all Indian cast. It should be about who owns the property.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that is your opinion, but can you give a justification for it based on some form of valid reasoning that derives from encyclopedic convention, history, custom, logic, or another reliable source? For example, A. O. Scott: "And what determines the nationality of a film in any case? Why is Rachid Bouchareb’s “Outside the Law” an Algerian rather than a French film, given that its director is a French citizen and that it was made with mostly French financing and therefore within that country’s extensive legal statutes governing cinematic production? And what makes “Biutiful,” shot in Barcelona with a Spanish cast, a Mexican film?" New York Times --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Another proposal I have seen in these pages would derive a film's nationality from the country of the copyright of the film. That is objective, stable, brief, simple, and clear. It's worth considering. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're arguing to use the copyright, then you're arguing what I just said: Who owns the film. You ask for logic, and my statement was in fact the most logical. It removes the third-party players from the equation and boils it down to one simply question: "Who owns this film?" The person/company that owns the film has all the rights to the film, and thus wherever they are located is in fact the origin of the film, no matter if it has been filmed somewhere else. Filming is irrelevant because people film in different locations all the time. Some of those locations are even meant to masquerade has completely different places (i.e. Vancouver subbing for middle town Kansas - see Smallville). Who is directing a film is also irrelevant because they are merely hired labor. They do not dictate where the film comes from because they were just hired to do a job, not change the nationality of the film. Secondary company's that help to finance the film also do not change the nationality, because again that itself is not uncommon. They do not own the film, what they own is a portion of the profits. If the primary studio decides to make a sequel to the film, those secondary companies have no say in the matter, because they do not own the film (i.e. they have no copyright, trademark, or licensing rights to the film itself). The most objective way of looking at it is by looking at who literally owns the film, because they will likely be only 1 company that owns the film. Rarely are you going to find a split ownership of a film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Who directs a film is irrelevant? I'm sorry, that's just not serious. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are people proposing things that aren't mentioned in any real world topics? That's what's ludacris to me. And yes it is irrelevant who directs it to the director's nationality. James Cameron is Canadian, he's a Canadian citizen, but his films are not Canadian films. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Directors contribute to the film culture of their countries; that is not even a little bit controversial. Please note it is the first criterion AO Scott mentions in the quote above. I'm sure Canadians are aware of Cameron's contribution to their film culture. To be fair, his connection to Hollywood matters, but it is stating the obvious to note that Kurosawa's films are Japanese, Coppola's are American, Fassbender's are German, Kieslowski's are Polish. There is no coherent way to deny this. The greater the director, the more obvious is this connection because the artists define the medium, not the accountants in the production office, and the dead notion that the director is just a hired hand has been an anachronism for a half century. "Directors turn a script into a movie; they are responsible for the quality of the final product and its success." (Princeton Review)

The country of origin is not a medium, it is merely a description of what country the film comes from. If Warner Bros. hires Kieslowski to make a movie that does not change the fact that the film is an American film. It's merely an American film that was directed by a Polish director. The nationality of one person does not dictate the nationality of the film, unless said person controls everything about the film including actually owning it. Directors have a hand in how the film looks, what goes into the film, and the final product, yes...but they do not control who owns the film. And who owns the film will always dictate the country of origin for the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

So you would say that a Monet purchased by a Japanese collector becomes a Japanese painting because of the ownership? That is clearly wrong. In every art form, the ostensible "nationality" of the work is attributed to the artist's. Let's look again at the criteria I mentioned at the top. "The director's nationality,... the language of the film..., the setting of the story, perhaps the locations of the shoot, the source of the financing, the nationalities of the participants (cast, crew, production), and the location of the production company's office (not in that order)." These criteria stand up to scrutiny. So, to agree with you as much as possible: if an American studio hires a Polish director to shoot a film in the US in English with an American cast for release to the American market, yes, I agree that would be an American film. Something like that happened with Paris, Texas, I think. But if an American studio simply finances a Polish film shot in Warsaw with a Polish cast and director from a Polish script, that is a Polish film -- no matter which company takes the production credit. That is where your argument is at odds with common sense. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

In the instance you just laid out, the production office for that particular film would be set up in Poland. Everything - casting, staffing, daily reports, payroll, etc., would be run out of there. And more importantly, the script would have been developed in Poland as well. So we would list it as a Polish film. I believe this is what happened with A Very Long Engagement, a French film financed by Warner Bros. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

So you say. But as I pointed out, it doesn't matter where the production office has its address, the film would be Polish. Because the location of the production office is irrelevant to the film's "nationality," this shows that a film's nationality is not determined by this criterion. (The production office might be in Germany if they are filming there, right? But the film would still be a Polish film.) A Very Long Engagement is a Polish film? That's just absurd, so if your argument leads to that result, you are on very thin ice. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

(Whew!) I double checked and fortunately A Very Long Engagement is correctly listed as French. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I called it a French film financed by Warner Bros., using it as an example, but I guess I wasn't clear enough. I couldn't come up with any Polish films financed by an American major off the top of my head. And as to the now-qualified example you've changed it to - No, the script would not have been developed in Germany, and the production company's main office wouldn't be there either. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The script wouldn't have been developed in Germany? What are you talking about? You invented a fanciful, convoluted example that proves nothing. I was simply pointing out something fairly obvious: if an American studio financed a Polish film made in Poland for the Poles, that's a Polish film -- as it happens, A Very Long Engagement also makes my point. It's financed by Warner Bros (offices in LA) but anyone can see it's a French film, for the reasons I've mentioned. French director, French language, French story, French actors (mostly), French release. So this makes the argument very clear. The source of the money or the location of the production office cannot make a French film into an American film. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It was your example, which you invented, then changed. And you missed the point - Everything with A Very Long Engagement - casting, staffing, daily reports, payroll, etc. - were run out of France. And more importantly, the script was developed in France as well. So we list it as a French film. Only the financing came from America. The production was French. So going by the development/production company - not the financier - is the simplest way to go. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't change the example. Anyway, I think you are in a contradiction. A Very Long Engagement is French, yet by your criterion it would be American. Wouldn't it be nothing short of absurd to think that's an American film? Obviously it is a French film. Am I misunderstanding you? --Ring Cinema (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. The (French) development/production company and the (American) financier/distributor are different entities. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Ring, you're comparing two different mediums. Paintings and films are not the same thing. Paintings are owned by individuals (usually), while films are owned by companies. If WB sells the film rights to a French company, then all subsequent films would ultimately be french films. By your definition, we'd have to dissect every aspect of the film to find out where there majority of nationalities lie, whereas by simply leaving it to who OWNS the film, it makes it simply and objective. Your way is subjective, because you're attributing higher values to people based on how popular they are, whereas leaving it to who owns the product removes such subjectivity. BTW, don't sneak in your insulting comments about soemthing "being at odds with common sense". It gets old, and it isn't appreciated it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, so then you'll have an ironclad argument simply by listing the many arts where the owner of the artwork defines its "nationality." If I have chosen a bad example, you will have a substantial list of other forms where nationality is determined by ownership. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I should respond to your assertion that my criteria are too hard. They're not, and they happen to have the virtue of being correct. Personally, I think the Country field should be eliminated. It leads to long conversations like this one that are not very productive. A long time ago BettyLogan suggested that we parenthetically list the nation of the production companies in their field. Maybe there would be support for that now. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

There you go, just assuming that everything you come up with is automatically "correct". I'm not sure if you're asking for "arts" as in paintings, or "arts" as in anything that can be classified as part of the "arts" field. If it's a painting, the Mona Lisa will always be Italian, even though it resides in a French museum. This is because you're speaking of a piece of art that was created and owned by a single person (Leondardo Da Vinci) who was Italian. The fact that he sold the painting does not change the fact that it will always be Italian. Film on the other hand is not the same as a painting, as unlike with paintings, films can have sequels and subsequent films in said series can be owned by someone else if the rights are sold. As for this idea that the director decides the nationality, then I shall present some evidence to the contrary. To start, let's just look at one high profile director...say Roman Polanski. His film Knife in the Water is considered a Polish film. Now, the studio that owns said film is a Polish company. Now, Rosemary's Baby (arguably one of his most famous films) is considered an American horror film. It is owned by Paramount Pictures...an American company. By your standards, Polanski (who is widely known across the world) should have all of his films be considered either French or Polish (considering he has heritage in both). As for the field itself, I have been fine with it being removed since that was first proposed some time ago.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

So you can't cite any of the arts where "nationality" is tied to ownership. That's what I thought. Thus, your objection above (that I chose the wrong art form to compare) has no force. To have the better of the argument, you have to show that if I'd chosen a different art form then ownership would be seen as the criterion for ownership nationality. And I left it completely open for you so you could choose any of the arts. Still, you couldn't do it. To conclude, there is apparently no art where nationality is determined by ownership and film is no exception.

Also, you should be aware that you don't understand my criteria. You are confusing two separate issues. 1. if only one criterion is chosen for the purposes of the infobox Country field, which one should it be? (director's nationality because it is the single most important criterion). 2. which criteria should be used to determine a film's nationality (see the several criteria I mention above). The good news is that in most cases we don't disagree about a film's nationality. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

As many others have stated, with very good examples, director's nationality should not be used to determine the nationality of a film. Nationalities of films can be found in various sources, and are usually where the money comes from. Take Casino Royale for example. If we are using only one criteria, should this be classed as a New Zealand film, just because that's where Martin Campbell is from? No.

It seems to me the nationality of the producers (or rather production company) is more relevant in this case. And if a film has (for sake of argument) producers from three countries, then we would need to list these. It would be inaccurate to list only one. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

A. O. Scott: "And what determines the nationality of a film in any case? Why is Rachid Bouchareb’s “Outside the Law” an Algerian rather than a French film, given that its director is a French citizen and that it was made with mostly French financing and therefore within that country’s extensive legal statutes governing cinematic production? And what makes “Biutiful,” shot in Barcelona with a Spanish cast, a Mexican film?" New York Times. In other words, he lists the following criteria: director's nationality, source of financing, location of the shoot, nationality of the cast. And, again, is there any other example anywhere in the world where the nationality of a work of art is determined by anything other than the nationality of the artist? So in what way are the producers more relevant? --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

A O Scott is asking questions, not answering them. He's not saying "XXXX is a Yyyyish film", he's saying "WHY is XXXX a Xxxxish film and not a Yyyyish film, when the director is from Yyyy", pretty much the same way you are. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think that your reading is tendentious? Isn't it obvious to everyone that a rhetorical question is not simply asking questions? Don't we all readily understand that it is a device to state one's own views while questioning someone else's conclusion? Isn't he saying that it is dubious to say Biutiful is a Mexican film when the cast and shoot were Spanish? Doesn't he mean that it is questionable to call Outside the Law an Algerian film when the director is French? So, again, is there any other example anywhere in the world where the nationality of a work of art is determined by anything other than the nationality of the artist? Isn't it clear that it's more relevant than the production office's address? --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

But you're making the assumption that the director is the artist. Whilst in the main the director maintains most of the artistic control, he is not, as Bignole points out to you, the sole author of the work. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

So, you are accepting that the artist's nationality is relevant, but the director is not the artist? Okay: "Directors turn a script into a movie; they are responsible for the quality of the final product and its success." (Princeton Review) Perhaps we should also consider that many great painters over the centuries have had assistants do the work on their canvases and still they are accepted as the artist. Here and here are more recent examples. Beethoven's symphonies were performed by others, especially after he was deaf, but there's no question that the works are his and that they are German, even when some of his orchestra was not. Shakespeare's plays are accepted as his and as English, I believe, despite the many collaborators who brought them to the stage. And of even more importance is that the production company is not an artist at all. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I just cited where the nationality of the film is tied to the ownership, because those 2 films were owned by their respective companies. This is why no one can discuss things with you Ring, because you read what you want and dismiss the rest. You see paintings and films and think that they are somehow comparable. That's your misunderstandings, not mine, so please do not apply them to everyone. Also, please stop confusing "finance" and "ownership". I have told you repeatedly, my argument is about who owns the film not who is paying for the film. As was pointed out by Gothic, you can have someone else pay for a film and yet not actually own it (i.e., they get a piece of the gross, but do not own any licensings for the film). The company that owns the film should be the country that is identified as the "country of origin". That would be OWNS, not PAYS for the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

But we are discussing it. You wanted to say that I chose the wrong art form as evidence for my argument that the artist, not the ownership, determines nationality. So if that is your argument then there must be a better example, one that supports your argument. That's why I asked for an example from you. But you haven't offered one. So my point stands, I believe, and this is an exchange of views. You suggested I made a mistake, but this assertion of yours doesn't stand up to scrutiny, it seems. Apparently every art form in every medium attributes nationality based on the nationality of the artist, and I haven't seen anyone offer a reason why film is an exception. I am open to the evidence, but I haven't seen it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll try this slowly, since you seem to not be recognizing it. The other art forms (e.g., drawing, painting, writing, etc.) are arts that are based on one person's contributions. When J.K. Rowlings writes a Harry Potter book, she is the sole contributor and SHE owns those books. When Da Vinci paints, he OWNS those paintings until they are sold and even still he was the sole contributor to the painting. Film is a different form or art, one where there are multiple contributors. You cannot say that a director has more weight than a producer, a writer, or anyone else when it comes to the film's nationality (speaking ONLY about a film's nationality). There is one consistent with films, that there is a sole owner and that own is usually a company. What film companies have in common with artists and novelists is that they all OWN the property. So, you cannot directly compare painters and novelists to what it takes to create a film, because they are working by themselves. Without a script, a director has nothing to work with, so the director's nationality plays no role in the nationality of the film. That is why, as I showed, Roman Polanski's nationality does not dictate the nationality of his films (see Rosemary's Baby). If you want to continue to ignore the evidence in front of you, that is on you. I'm not going to entertain your delusions any longer. Cheers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Not good reasoning. Let's just take one easy example. You say that a director "plays no role in the nationality of the film" because "without a script, a director has nothing to work with." Okay, without a script no one has anything to work with except for a documentarian. So, this is your standard? The director didn't write the script, "that is why" Polanski's nationality is irrelevant? Hmmmm. So the same argument can be made about the owners, right? Except in their case it's even stronger, since they don't have a script or a director or actors. So you went slowly and you showed that your most careful reasoning is flawed. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Bignole explains it quite clearly. You seem to be purposely missing the point. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

What he says is that X is not relevant to a film's nationality because X did not write the film's script. So that applies to any X, including the owners. If you accept the one, logic dictates that you accept the other. And really that is simply the most obvious flaw. His assertion that only artists who own their works lend it their nationality is wrong. His assumption that only artists who work alone lend it their nationality is wrong. Again, is there any example anywhere in the world in any art form where the work's nationality is not derived from the artist? So far there isn't a single example before us, neither do we have any sound reason to accept that film should be treated differently. Can you come up with anything, because BigNole has not. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have a theory that you wish to advance that goes against standard practice of determining the nationality of a film. Bignole has explained how the standard practice works, but you refuse to accept it, thinking that your theory is better. However, it is not up to us to determine the nationality of a film - this has already been determined, and reliable sources are available to show what these are. If you look at a film magazine, like Sight and Sound, or on the BFI website, or elsewhere, it gives us this information. What you are suggesting is to add OR or synthesised material, which isn't how Wikipedia works. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

My theory? I gave sources and sound arguments. Actually, it is not now and has never been the case that Country = Production Company's Country, for the simple reason that they are not equivalent. A. O. Scott states clearly the difficulty with that equivalence. Perhaps you can explain why you don't want to accept it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see any sound arguments. And the source from A. O. Scott is just a question / opinion. You're the one not wanting to accept the standard practice. In any case, as I have stated, we should use sourced nationalities for films. Anything else is just synthesis or original research. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Noted: you refuse to discuss the substance of the issue. Scott is only opinion? What a laughably inept response. Of course it's an opinion. Are you really so dense that you think that's a reason to ignore it? Maybe you are not acquainted with the nature of written communication, but virtually everything written can be described as someone's opinion. But you didn't know this? You are really that lost when it comes to assessing the nature of written communication? Truly astonishing. Perhaps you could offer an example of something written that is not an opinion. I think it might be entertaining. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting to the point where I refuse to discuss anything with you. "Laughably inept", "dense" and "lost" are not in the spirit of civil discussion, and if you have to resort to insults, you must be running out of steam. Sourced nationalities only please. The end. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This conversation is going further away from the topic originally intended, so I'm going to re-state it quickly here again. We should list all production countries involved in the infobox that are citable through review sources like Variety or databases that are not user-submitted like the BFI. To make it clear, the title "Country" should be changed to "Production Country". Anyone against this?Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

In general I'm agreeable. For simplicity and accuracy, it seems to me it should just go by where the principal development/production company(s) is based. Most important is where the project was developed. But I'm a little concerned "Production country" might be taken to mean where it was shot - I'd still be against that. Lucas shooting Star Wars in England did not make it British. The many American projects now shooting in Vancouver are not Canadian. Perhaps this can be satisfactorily addressed in the infobox guideline. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm agreeable too. There are plenty of sources for nationalities of films, like the Variety or BFI sites, so these should be used, and we shouldn't be picking which countries are more important or involved than others, so all should be shown. Personally, I don't see that "production country" is necessary. The issue is quite simple - the nationality of the film is the nationality of the film. There just seems to be one user with a fanciful notion (and straw man arguments) that somehow the director's nationality overrides this. It doesn't, and to go against these sources would be synthesis or OR. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be preferable to take BettyLogan's suggestion and list the nation of a production company parenthetically in the same field they are listed. That would remove the ambiguity. --Ring Cinema (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't care what you do with the field content but I'm not agreeable to renaming it. It's unnecessary first and foremost, and aesthetically it will not fit without stretching the infobox or pushing it onto two lines which immediately make every single film infobox using that field a mess. There is no need to rename it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

So, are we in agreement to leave it as it is, and include all sourced nationalities as given by the BFI, Variety, etc? It's not up to us to determine the nationality of films. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like it. I agree a change to "Production country" is unnecessary, as well as a bit ambiguous. The BBFC is the best source for running time, but it doesn't list "Country". It does list "Main Language", which wouldn't be a bad idea here. I see too many WP film articles with multiple languages listed because of a single scene of subtitled dialogue. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay good that we're on the same page in general about all production countries being listed. I don't think Variety or BFI simply list films because they were filmed in certain parts of the world, so I'm not too worried about that being a problem. I'm totally fine with not changing country to production country as well, I just thought it would remove some confusion. But if we agree that it's not a big deal, than let's continue with that step. Does anyone want to write up a new description and add these new rules to the country section in the infobox? Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to voice my support for Gothicfilm's suggestion regarding main language. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've updated the country and language sections. Hope what I've written is agreeable, but it may need some tweaking. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It's good for the most part, and I'm glad to see the "Main Language" BBFC recommendation in there. I'm not sure about recommending Variety or the BFI for "Country". Variety doesn't consistently list the Country, and you need a subscription if you go past a few pages. And I just tried "A Very Long Engagement" at the BFI as a test and I got this - the top 20 results are a bunch of other titles. I tried a few others and got similar results. Only when I put in Un Long Dimanche de Fiancailles - which is not the title it was released under in the English speaking world - did it come up. It should have at least come up as an alternate result. I tried another film, the American remake Let Me In, and got this - no matches found. Maybe I'm not doing it right, but I doubt it. In any case it shouldn't be this difficult to use. - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If you webcite a variety page, it removes the overlay and lets you read it (the archived version that is). :Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the overlay kicked in when I tried testing a fourth or fifth title. And it didn't consistently list the Country. - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow - yes, the BFI database isn't the most user-friendly, but where else should we suggest to find reliable information? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay - the BFI site may not be so reliable after all. United Germany anyone? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC) It seems this isn't an error and they use "United Germany" to denote post-1990. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If we want to restrict the field to the production company's location only, we shouldn't pretend we are actually naming the film's "real country". As the A.O. Scott quote makes obvious, there is not a perfect identity between "country" and "production country".--Ring Cinema (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop banging on abouy A.O. Scott's opinion that it is not that easy to judge the nationality of a film. We know this, but we're trying to find the best sources that give the nationality. Please only add constructive comments. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, we're not trying to restrict the field. Consensus seems to be that we'll include all sourced nationalities, as we shouldn't be making the judgement call regarding nationality. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and please do not revert the template. We have come to a consensus - you are the only one opposing this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of the Argument

Let's briefly review the arguments. A.O. Scott says that a film's "nationality" derives from a few things, not all of which are tied to the location of the production company. In addition, in all of the arts in all the world for all of human history, the nationality of the work of art is tied to the nationality of the artist. Since the director of the film is generally accepted as the main artist of a film, it is a sound argument of induction that directors lend their nationalities to their films.

Other experts substitute their opinion that the production company's home country is equivalent to the film's country.

Some have objected to this argument. Why? Well, BigNole said it's false because the director doesn't write the script. He also asserts that the film's owner lends it their nationality because film is different from other arts in that films have sequels. RobSinden objects that the director is not the only artist and that AO Scott is just stating his opinion.

Flaws in BigNole's assertions have been mentioned: The script's writer does not determine the film's nationality. There is no reason that the possibility of a sequel changes the usual method for determining a film's nationality.

RobSinden's objection seems to fail, as well, because by analogy we don't accept that Beethoven's music is any less German for his having had collaborators. Or any number of other examples.

RobSinden objects that A.O. Scott's words are only his opinion. That objection fails because (obviously!) all reliable sources on this subject are offering their opinion.

I believe this includes all the major points. Although RobSinden wants to ignore reliable sources, I don't think that's really a legitimate stance to take on Wikipedia. Presumably, not all editors will want to simply dismiss Scott because they wish he hadn't written what he actually wrote.

As it stands, on the substance, my original comment seems to hold up under scrutiny: "The director's nationality seems to deserve primary consideration, while the language of the film matters, the setting of the story, perhaps the locations of the shoot, the source of the financing, the nationalities of the participants (cast, crew, production), and the location of the production company's office (not in that order) are all factors to consider."

The positions taken by BigNole and RobSinden have logical flaws that seem to obviate their arguments.

RobSinden asserted that this summary includes only straw man arguments, but he hasn't pointed out any examples of that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of the Review

Please stop with your straw man arguments and your obsession with A.O. Scott. It is not a "sound argument of induction that directors lend their nationalities to their films". This is not among the standard practices of determining nationality of a film. As per countless examples, this would mean the the 2006 Casino Royale film would be a New Zealand film. It is not, and cannot be. The director is not the ultimate artist of the production, as BigNole points out to you clearly above. You seem to think that we should ignore everything else just because of what one person (funnily enough, A.O. Scott) says. This is crazy!

You say that "RobSinden wants to ignore reliable sources". This is not true. I am searching for reliable sources, you seem to only want to listen to what A.O.Scott has to say on the subject.

And your original comment does not hold up under scrutiny because you say "the director's nationality seems to deserve primary consideration". NO! Sources giving nationality deserve primary consideration. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and if I'm dismissing A.O. Scott, it's because he's just one critic in an entire industry, not because I "wish he hadn't written what he actually wrote". His opinions go against the generally accepted industry conventions of determining nationality. We shouldn't be discussing him in such depth or giving him such weight here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no straw man arguments here. I stated everyone's position as they made it themselves. If I did not, please point out any inaccuracy and I will promptly correct it. These are the arguments that were made.

Casino Royale. Are you intentionally misrepresenting my position? I don't say that it is only dependent on the director's nationality. Primary consideration is not sole consideration. So, again, you have it wrong.

Your unfortunate attempt to dispense with Scott's words are not consistent with a careful examination of the subject. You attempted to dismiss it first with an obviously tendentious reading and, when that failed, you simply said you'd ignore it. I strongly disapprove. You are a good editor, so you know.

You are looking for reliable sources? But I haven't seen any other writer who takes your position. Allow me to point out that my approach gives deference to the opinions of those who differ with me.

Scott's positions is an outlier? You have no evidence for that. You can't cite a single writer who agrees with you. I count your third illicit attempt to ignore his words for no reason.

Okay, there is one thing we can discuss that has not been raise explicitly before. You say, "Sources giving nationality deserve primary consideration." Well, I have no objection to using any reliable source, but there is not an identity between production company and country, so sources that assume that identity have a different set of criteria. See, this is exactly the reason that I think we would be better off listing the countries of the production companies in the field of the production companies. There is not a single criterion that can be used to determine a film's "nationality". Perhaps we agree on that.

--Ring Cinema (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to get so petty with irrelevancies such as picking all the flaws in your arguments. This is all so much bigger than it needs to be. All we need to be doing here is discussing which countries need to be shown in the infobox, not the larger topic of the definition of the "nationality" of the film. We reached a consensus above that we should show the countries from a reliable source, such as the BFI database. When you read a film magazine, it will state something underneath the title, something like:

Highway Patrolman (Alex Cox, 1991, Mexico)

The Tin Drum (Die Blechtrommel, Volker Schlöndorff, 1979, West Germany/France/Yugoslavia/Poland)

This is the information we should be replicating in an encyclopedia. Surely you agree this. We shouldn't be making the rules to define nationality, but finding where it is sourced elsewhere. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought - is it the use of the word "nationality" in the "explanation" field that's the source of the problem? Perhaps we could change this to something more neutral. Not sure exactly what though. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Amazing, Rob, that you seem to think you decide when it's time to dismiss a view that you don't like. Sorry, no consensus. My legitimate reasons, backed with reliable sources, are still under discussion here. So far your arguments have failed, and rather obviously. I understand why you don't want to discuss them in detail; your view doesn't stand up to scrutiny and mine does.

Rob, you seem to be taking the view that if there is one exception to a particular method, then we should throw out the method entirely. For example, because you feel that Casino Royale's director does not lend his nationality to that film, therefore we should ignore the director's nationality entirely. I'm going to hold you to that. If there is one case where the production company is the wrong index for nationality, I expect you to join me in throwing out that method entirely. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This so-called view that I don't like is single paragraph in the New York Times by one single critic which was an aside, a musing, when he's discussing eligibility for the Golden Globes. I'm amazed that you can base your entire argument on this, and I don't feel the necessity to justify my dismissal of it. It's just not worth bothering about.

And what's all this "your arguments have failed" nonsense? My view is simple. We should follow Wikipedia's guidelines and use reliable sources to demonstrate nationality.

I think you're being a little personal and petty. There are massive holes in your arguments, but they're not worth the effort to unpick, as the issue has got out of hand as it is. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

RobSinden, you say "The director is not the ultimate artist of the production." This is false. It is starting to look like you really don't know what you're talking about. Please correct your mistake. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay - "The director is not necessarily the ultimate artist of the production." --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is widely understood that the director is a film's main artist. I am surprised that you don't know that, but I guess that doesn't stop you from offering your opinion here.

You haven't put a dent in any of my arguments. Sorry. Yes, you made three blatantly illicit attempts to dismiss a reliable source for no reason. I see you're still trying. The fact is, the ideas he mentions are perfectly ordinary, mainstream ideas. And apparently you can't find a single source to bring to the argument. So in all the internet, no one takes your view? That says volumes about how weak your argument is.

Let me repeat: since you thought one exception (Casino Royale) was sufficient to dismiss the director's nationality criterion, I assume you agree that one exception to your preferred method will also be sufficient in your mind to dismiss it at once. Your standard seems to be that one exception is enough, right? --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I am well versed with auteur theory thanks very much. However, the majority of films that are made do not follow these rules. Please stop saying that I don't understand the topic. Your supposed superiority is tedious. Interesting to note that every other contributor here does not agree with your supposition that the nationality of a director is important in determining what to put in the country field in this template. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, Casino Royale is not one exception, but an example of one of the many situations (other examples are offered by other editors above) where the nationality of the director is irrelevant in determining the nationality of the film. Rather than hanging on to your quaint notion that the director is the sole artist, and the only creative force behind a film, perhaps consider him more of a designer of a machine. If you had a machine financed and built by an American firm, yet the designer was, say, German, then that would quite clearly an American machine that happened to have a German designer. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think there are lots of ways a film's nationality can be perceived: where it is copyrighted, where it is made, auteur theory, but Wikipedia editors setting criteria is original research at the end of the day. I know a few editors would prefer to see the parameter removed and for national interests to be presented in prose (and I'm one of them), but the long and short of it is that if we have this paramenter it must be verifiable i.e. to deduce that a film is French or American etc because of its copyright is original research; saying a film is French or American because we have a high quality source that says it is French or American is what is consistent with WP:Verifiability. We have a couple of highly respectable sources in the AFI and BFI databases. If they concur on the nationality of a film then I suggest we just go with these sources (after all, the notion that a Wikipedia editor's opinion can trump the American Film Institute on film matters is pretty laughable). To take Superman (1978) for example: this film had a complicated production, it was produced by an independent British outfit, made in Britain, directed and written and mostly starring Americans, and financed mainly by a Swiss bank loan. Both the BFI and AFI seem to regard the film as a UK/Swiss/Panama/US co-production. Some of that I can understand, some I can't, but the key point here is that both the AFI and BFI are in agreement over it so in accordance with our policies can we really adopt a stance contrary to these organizations, simply because we don't agree with their criteria for nationality? This debate comes up again and again and we can make this really simple if we choose to: if the AFI and BFI catalogues agree on a nationality use that, if they don't leave the field blank. Betty Logan (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but the AFI and BFI catalogues look overly expansive to me. It looks like they go by what banks were used, and include them all. Surely Superman (1978) is a UK-US film, but to call it a UK/Swiss/Panama/US co-production because the Salkinds ran some money through Switzerland and Panama is a bit much. I'm not necessarily saying the parameter should be changed again, just that perhaps the BFI should not be emphasized. There is no one perfect source on this, the countries themselves and the producers argue over it, particularly for Oscar consideration. This happened with A Very Long Engagement, for example. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas has now listed Alien vs. Predator as American-British-Czech-Canadian-German under "Country", after being reverted twice by its two most involved editors. That's five lines being taken up in its infobox. Apparently this film's nationality was a main factor in why he came here to start this discussion. Again, listing every country used for finance transactions seems a bit much to me. The reader will wonder how is this film Czech, Canadian and German? We often have editors on here complaining about infobox clutter - how are they going to take this? - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

We have to go by what the sources say. It's very difficult to determine the involvement of each country, and we shouldn't be making judgement calls over which countries are more important. Four countries are shown on the Casino Royale page too, without being removed. Maybe there's an ownership issue from the "two most involved editors". --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is really off the rails. First of all, there is no consensus to key the Country field to only the production company's nationality. As has been repeatedly pointed out, that is only one aspect of it. The guideline doesn't say that but now it unfortunately implies it. Andrzejbanas's excessive zeal makes a good example of the absurdity of pretending that only the production company matters. I think I'll revert the guideline to the less misleading text we had before. Any objection? --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

There is consensus. It's already changed in the infobox. And from the conversation here everyone seems against your idea and we seem to be a bit tired of your idea. So no. Do not revert it. I think you are just a bit bitter after I've changed the infobox on the White Ribbon article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are mistaken. Already it is clear that your interpretation is not the consensus as there is objection to your reading of it. Granted, you tried to force your views on the discussion. That's a bad idea and the results will not be good. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to be honest, I don't think the addition is well written. It looks like the project is advocating production companies as the primary means of national identification. What we want is national identification to be entirely source driven. I don't have a problem with someone going to the AFI or BFI databases or some other high quality film source and using those to fill out the countries, but we don't want to end up with a situation where sources are discounted because they use some other criteria. If the guideline is going to be altered it might be a good idea to actually hack out the actual text here first. Betty Logan (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree that it could use a re-write. I'd be the first to admit I wouldn't be the best at a re-write. Do you want to take a stab at that Betty? Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a good time to eliminate the field. It's more trouble than it's worth. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Uhh...I think you'd have to expand on why you'd want it removed rather than vote for removal completely. Production countries are not really difficult to understand. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'd hate to bring this up, but this user seems to be attacking me on my changes made. Little help anyone? Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

See, you are making a mistake there. The production company is not the only thing to consider. You have been incorrectly insisting on that repeatedly. Now, if the field said "Production Companies' Home Country", that would be different. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Attacking you for correctly telling you that you don't understand the guideline? Hmmm. A little help anyone with this editor who falsely accuses me of attacking him? --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It is when you can't even tell me what I'm doing wrong. Why not correct me instead of stating you'll just revert my edits? That is attacking in my books. Please focus on the the topic here of how to re-phrase the comments so everyone understands. I've left comments for you on the white ribbon page so we can clear it up by the way. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

So your accusation was false. Noted. Yes, The White Ribbon is a good example of the failure of your method, isn't it. Despite extended discussions in the media about if the film is Austrian or German, by your misguided lights it's a French film. I will keep coming back to that one. While we're at it, let's also mention that recent winners and nominees for the Goya for Best Foreign Film have producers in Spain. Obviously a Spanish film can't be a foreign film in Spain so apparently the professionals know that the production company doesn't determine a film's nationality. Or perhaps we should discuss the Fellini films with a French production company. A Fellini film is not Italian? That's funny. So, yeah, I don't think this field is useful any more and these examples make it clear. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It is partially a french production, I have no doubt. I've provided 6 citations. It doesn't matter where the director is from. John Woo is from China, made several films in Hong Kong and America. His films Hong Kong films (The Killer) are Hong Kong Productions and his American films are American productions unless stated otherwise. His American films (Hard Target) are American. It's not rocket science. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

If your position allows you to claim that The White Ribbon is a French film, I think we have as strong an argument as we need of the poverty of your claims. It doesn't matter where the director is from? That's not serious, and I have the source to back me up. You have no sources to take your side, right? No one ever wrote anything that is congruent with your position? So I am following reliable sources and you are not. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

For fucks sake Ring Cinema. I've provided you seven sources, let me show them to you again. [[Variety (magazine)}Variety]] (source), Film Society Lincoln Center (source) and even the Austrian Film Comission (source), Cannes Film Festival website: here, Screen Daily here also lists the four countries: here, mubi.com. "I have the source to back me up". Where is it then? Oh wait. You've shown no links. Also here you go: this book here "Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures" states that "the nationality of a cinema is determined and transferred from the nationality of the production company of a studio". I can't make it clearer. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

False statements again? Why? Assuming good faith, you are not reading with comprehension. "The film is Austrian." So says the article. This is an easy case and you still misunderstand? Okay, that's not my problem. There is a published dispute about whether the film is Austrian or German, so I think even a child knows it's not French or Italian. But, I want to thank you for laying out the poverty of your position. If you insist on your mistaken view even in a case this clear, it's transparent that your views make a poor guide for the rest of us and would lead to the inclusion of many errors in the film articles. Thank you for making it obvious. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

"False statements again?". None of my statements are false, read the seven links I posted, if you can operate your browser at all. "so I think even a child knows it's not French or Italian." A child would be able to press "CTRL+F" on their keyboard and see in the seven posts that it mentions the other countries I mentioned. Ring, you are either a really manic troll or you are blind to anything that doesn't support your view. Sure there is a published dispute, but that's for awards being based on countries which is not what we base the infobox on. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

BBFC recommendation for runtime

How about adding a BBFC recommendation to the infobox guideline for the running time? Those in the know on here all seem to agree it's the best source, unless the film's been censored - and they always tell you if that's the case. It could explain this, the need to use the runtime listing for the "Film" (with earliest date listed), not one of the video versions (with later dates), and to use the already existing reminder to round to the nearest minute as the BBFC gives the runtime to the second. I propose:

Insert an approximate time duration of the film in minutes. Do not link to minute. The BBFC website is a good resource - the running time is given to the second, so round it to the minute.

If it's not too much detail, we could include:

Use the listing for the "Film" (with earlier date listed), not one of the video versions (with later dates). The BBFC will usually note "This work was passed with no cuts made." In a case where the film was cut, the site will say so, and the running time should be obtained from another source. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Not much comment here... I've put in the first option seen just above. Part or all of the second may be added, but that much detail may be too much. Comments welcome. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)