Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 33

Language parameter

While I am supportive of the fact that it should list only the primary language of the film, if the article deals with a film produced in two different languages (see multiple-language version and list of multilingual Indian films), should the secondary language also be listed? For example, the Telugu film Missamma has a Tamil version Missiamma which is not dubbed, but a re-shot version with a slight cast change. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a different film to me, so would it have its own article? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes they do (like Raavan/Raavanan, Yuva/Aaytha Ezhuthu and Vinnaithaandi Varuvaayaa/Ye Maaya Chesave), but most of the times admins protest (eg: Eega/Naan Ee and Payanam/Gaganam), saying the films aren't distinct enough. But my question still hasn't been answered. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Per the template instructions on the front page: "Only in rare cases of clearly bilingual or multilingual films, enter separate entries with unbulleted list." Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh ok, thanks. Sorry, I must have thought "multilingual" means a single film using multiple languages, like Court. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2016

PremKatha1325 (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Part of

I think there should be "part of" or something similar that will link to the series. Like prequels, sequel, and other part of the series like video games, books, novels. :)×---[=== (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Cinematography parameter

Before I make a reversion of this edit, I would like to get some clarification for how the |cinematography= parameter should be used. Is this field for the chief cinematographer(s), or for everybody (like a 2nd or 3rd unit cinematographer) who received a credit with "cinematographer" in the title? Can this be clarified in the instructions? I know that we don't include 2nd or 3rd unit directors in the |director= parameter. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd go for chief, to match the director and producer parameters. We include the producer, not the exec. producer, for example. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Lugnut's. The specific example you give is one of those that needs a prose explanation in the body of the article. Anyone who wants to add the details to the documentation has my support. MarnetteD|Talk 18:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

MarnetteD, thank you both for comments. How do these sound, one in the main template area, and one in the instructions:

| cinematography = <!--The film's chief (i.e. first unit) cinematographer(s)-->

Insert the name(s) of the chief (i.e. first unit) cinematographer(s). Separate multiple entries using {{Plainlist}}. In addition, link each cinematographer to his/her appropriate article if possible. Parameter should not be used for second unit cinematographers or similar "additional cinematography" credits. If additional cinematographers are noteworthy, their inclusion, along with details for why they are noteworthy, are best presented in prose elsewhere in the article.

Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me but you may want to wait for other editors thoughts Cyphoidbomb. As I look at the documentation for other fields IMO the same detailed specifications could be applied to those as well. Thus, I would be okay with updating those. MarnetteD|Talk 21:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I thought that this parametre was aready for the cinematographer only, not any one else who happens to help out, same as how we don't list additional composers under the |composer= parametre. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought as well, but I've had to revert several of these changes recently.[1][2][3] Similar things happen in kids' TV articles, where everybody with "producer" or "director" in their titles wind up in these parameters. Associate producers, supervising directors, etc. The lack of specificity is partly to blame. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

New section request

Request for "Chronology" section with parameters:

• Preceded by
• Followed by
• Related

Considering how many movie franchises, trilogies, sequels, prequel are out there, i think this information should be added into infobox as this information can be considered as "basic". – Vilnisr ^{T | C} 12:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Please read the notes at the top of this page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

yeap it's long, so never mind as I don't want to start new war. – Vilnisr ^{T | C} 14:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Vilnisr don't forget that these film articles have navboxes that mention all the films (as well as other items) in the franchise. Thus, they have more info for the reader than those fields can contain. MarnetteD|Talk 05:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Composer credit

Depauldem has repeatedly put in info contrary to the main composer credit for Sully (film). Multiple previous discussions on various pages determined that song and "additional music" composers are not to be included in the infobox. Comments would be welcome at Talk:Sully (film)#Composer credit. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Note the page is now protected. Once this is done we should address the infobox documentation - Insert the name(s) of composer(s) of the original music, separated using Plain list. Link each composer to his/her appropriate article if possible is too ambiguous for some people, and they are taking it as an invitation to add composers only credited in the end crawl for songs or additional music. Previous earlier consensus was to only include the composer(s) who receive single card "Music by" credit in the infobox. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Eastwood is officially credited as a composer, which is plainly obvious here here (where another credited writer is asked about "Clint's composing process") here and here (in the ACTUAL end credits easier to see with a big screen) The infobox explicitly states listing composers (plural). Depauldem (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not about plural vs singular. We go by the film credits, not separate soundtrack album credits. If the album gets its own article, you can use that credit there. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Even without a link to the soundtrack (which contains the music composed for the film, which the film itself also credits), I have provided a variety of links showing Eastwood is a composer, including an article with one of the other composers where he is literally talking about Eastwood composing music for the film as well. I am sorry you can't see it, but the actual end credits list Eastwood as a composer. That alone should end the debate. Depauldem (talk) 06:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

And one more thing, a direct quote from Eastwood's co-composer: "The scoring began over several themes written by both the director, Clint Eastwood, and myself," Christian Jacob stated. Directly from the mouth of the other credited composer, Eastwood wrote it with him. On top of all of the other uncontradicted sources I have provided, how is this even still a debate? Depauldem (talk) 06:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

That is talking about a theme for the film, not the main film score. The film's main credit says Music by Christian Jacob and The Tierney Sutton Band. The music on the album could be different. In any event discussion about this specific film should stay on the film's Talk page. This is an RfC to Talk:Sully (film)#Composer credit. -Gothicfilm (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Neither I, nor Christian Jacob, was talking about the album. His quote is referring the actual score used in the actual film. And Eastwood is also credited in the actual end credits of the actual film. I agree that this discussion should take place on the film's page, but this is an issue that has been discussed on this page as well, as it pertains to the infobox section for all films. Depauldem (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for composer credit

As I said above, we should address the infobox documentation - the current version Insert the name(s) of composer(s) of the original music, separated using Plain list. Link each composer to his/her appropriate article if possible is too ambiguous for some people, and they are taking it as an invitation to add composers only credited in the end crawl for songs or additional music, or "theme" music, which is credited separately from the main "Music by" credit, and unlike that credit, not included on the poster's billing block. A suggested new version would be:

Insert the name(s) of the composer(s) of the original music score. They are usually credited with "Music by". Composers credited for "additional music" and song writers should not be included. Separate multiple entries using Plainlist. In addition, link each composer to his/her appropriate article if possible.

Note I believe composers of "additional music" and song writers should be mentioned in the article's Music section. Those interested can see a previous discussion at Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 22#Composer credit in infobox, but we did not arrive at a well articulated conclusion there. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

You need to make clear what you mean by "additional music". Many would consider additional music to be something like songs used in the movie that were not composed specifically for inclusion in the film. If that's the case, then of course they should not be included in the box. Theme music, however, is not akin to this. Theme music composed for and included in a specific film is anything but "additional music", especially when the credits say who it was composed by or when the other composers acknowledge other composers that are also credited in the same film (as is the case with Sully). It should also be clear that credits on posters are not all inclusive and information not included on the poster or in a trailer can and should be included if supported by reliable sources. Depauldem (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It should be clear - "additional music" is when there is literally a separate credit for "additional music", usually seen in the end credits crawl. The "Music by" credit stands alone in the main credits. That includes the names of composers that should go in the infobox. Other credits seen separately for "additional music" or "theme" or for songs should be mentioned in the article's Music section, but not the infobox.- Gothicfilm (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

All credits are not listed in the same way. I rarely see the words "additional music" in print in any credits. Theme music is unambiguously "original music", so when it has a named composer, they should get credit. In the case of Sully, we have a named composer--Eastwood. You had previously relented on including even uncredited (in the film at least) music that wasn't even the theme music. And your argument keeps shifting. First it's the poster. Then it's the credits. Now it's only when the credits say "music by" and nothing else. How would your policy apply to the example of Blackhat? Would you deny listing the other composers credited by the director in the article, not to mention the composer credited in the actual credit scrawl who said he didn't do 90% of the score? Depauldem (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

My position has always been to use the "Music by" credit that stands alone in the main credits. That is usually what is also shown on the poster. The use of "additional music" has become more common, for example on films with music by Hans Zimmer. I haven't been involved in the Blackhat case, and that should be addressed on that article's Talk page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

First, your position in just that, yours. It is not, by any stretch, what the actual policy is. Second (and you keep ignoring this), not all credits are the same, so you need to be able to reconcile this fact when you are making a call for a change in policy that would apply to all film articles on wikipedia. Third, building on my last point, you can't dismiss the example from Blackhat and try to confine a discussion to that film's page. You are advocating a modification that would affect ALL film articles, Blackhat included. That example is one of many that will be made even more problematic if your narrow, misguided, position were actually implemented. Existing policy is broad enough to accommodate situations like Blackhat, Sully, The Godfather and others--if there is a composer of original music for the film and this is supported by RS, they go in the infobox. If you want to add a parenthetical that indicates it's for a specific song or musical selection or theme, then so be it...that can go in the infobox as well. Depauldem (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

And that is your opinion. Others would not want to clutter the infobox with such additional credits, especially when they can be mentioned in an article's Music section. Executive producers are forbidden from the infobox, even when they are more important than the person receiving "Produced by" credit. But they are mentioned in the article body. Also forbidden in the infobox are people credited as "co-producers" and "associate producers", which is more analogous to composers credited for "additional music" or "theme". Pages with unusual cases like Blackhat can be addressed case-by-case on specific Talk pages, as is common WP practice. Nothing I'm proposing would block that. We could even add a line saying

Insert the name(s) of the composer(s) of the original music score. They are usually credited with "Music by". Composers credited for "additional music" and song writers should not be included unless agreed to by consensus on an article's Talk page. Separate multiple entries using Plainlist. In addition, link each composer to his/her appropriate article if possible.

Some might find that unnecessarily verbose, but I'm okay with it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Your proposal unnecessarily confines what should be included by limiting it to composer of "original music score". Original music is more encompassing and allows for the leeway to avoid problems on multiple pages. The policy for the infobox should resolve issues, not create them. The second sentence also states something as fact (They are usually credited with "music by"), but that's not actually an established fact-- it's just your own assertion, though saying "usually" helps this. But gain, the "additional music" is also not a common line inserted in many credits. You also leave off any mention of the theme music, which most people would consider part of the actual score (because it is). Finally, your inclusion of the "unless the consensus on that talk page decides otherwise" completely undermines your entire case for altering a policy that is meant to apply to ALL film articles. The current policy helps end disputes by having a clear policy: a composer of original music for the film is included. If there is more than one, list them. Rewriting a policy that includes language which completely undermines it in the same breath is, in my OPINION, unproductive at best (many expletives at worst). Depauldem (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

There's always exceptions, and where necessary you allow for the exceptions. I'm okay with my first proposal which left out unless agreed to by consensus on an article's Talk page as most of us know that's how it works. Common practice is exceptions are agreed to by consensus on specific article Talk pages. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Look, thinking it over more, I am not sure your proposed modification is a bad idea. The music score language would clearly keep other artists just on the soundtrack or with music not created for the film from being an issue. The "usually" credited with music by in end credits also gives some decent wiggle room. But that brings us back to Sully, where we have an impasse. It seems to me that this is a clear cut case where the "usually" language would not apply, were it the policy. Thus, I am willing to support a change with your first two sentence tweaks if you are willing to concede Sully is an example of a film that would not fit the narrower rule. You relented on The Goffather, so I hope you will do so here. Depauldem (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

No one has agreed with you on Sully, as seen below. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment First of all, I should point out that I'm not overly familiar with how music credits work, but this seems to be analogous to the situation we had with associate and executive producers. I personally would interpret the spirit of the guideline to mean the person who gets the primary music credit, whether that is credited as "Music by" or "Original score composed by" etc. The credit fields in the infobox should reflect the formal credits as much as they possibly can. So if a film has two different types of musical credit we should not be combining them and treating them as one credit. After all we wouldn't add the "assistant director" to the main "director" field. Betty Logan (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Valid point on the director, but if there are two--like the Wachowski Brothers--we credit both. Similarly, we list multiple producers, cast, companies etc. As was done with the Godfather example, a simple parenthetical can clarify. Depauldem (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I have repeatedly told you this is not about plural vs singular. I have said the infobox should reflect the Sully film credit of Music by Christian Jacob and The Tierney Sutton Band. And yet you keep trying to confuse the issue by making it sound like I (and now Betty) want to limit the credit to one name. I have never said that, Betty never said that, and the above proposal does not say that. In fact it says composer(s). - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to discuss the specific example disputed (I checked both the AFI and BFI databases and it hasn't been entered yet) but if the film itself makes a credit distinction between the score composer and someone else who contributed "additional" music the infobox should probably do likewise and not treat them equally under the same credit, because it's obviously not an equal contribution. Do either of you know of any other analogous examples where this has happened? I would very much like to see how the AFI and BFI tackle this situation. Betty Logan (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Check out almost any film with music by Hans Zimmer. He usually uses multiple additional composers. Over half a dozen are credited with "additional music" in the end-credit crawl of Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, and reportedly even more worked on it uncredited. (Actually Zimmer was the music producer on this film, but the use and credit of the additional composers is similar to several of those on which he is the main composer.) - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment As far as I have experienced, we always take the official credits for the infobox, and then add any additional, noteworthy credits in prose with references and explanations further down the article. So for the Sully example, it seems logical to me to add the credited composers to the composer field, and then to discuss that Eastwood worked with them and contributed some music down in an actual music section of the article. If that isn't how the documentation reads, then I think it should be changed to reflect the common practice. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Eastwood is credited in the end credits, officially. The other composers have confirmed this. They also credit him as co-composer of the score. He is also the first named credit for the music on the motion picture soundtrack. Depauldem (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

As said before, we go by the film credits, not separate soundtrack album credits. If the album gets its own article, you can use that credit there. The music on the album could be different. The film's main credit says Music by Christian Jacob and The Tierney Sutton Band. No other name appears with it. In the film's TV commercials, no others were credited for music of any kind. It appears Eastwood wanted Jacob and Sutton to have the main music credit to themselves. Your claim is apparently referring to a separate credit of "theme" in the film's end credits for Eastwood, but it looks like he did not want a lot of attention for that or it would have been more prominent. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, when I said that we always go off the official credits, I was referring to the main credits and billing block, not the entire end credits, especially since, as has been pointed out here already, a lot of composers get additional music credit for films these days, and we don't want to be listing them all in the infobox if at all. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

As we seem to have general agreement on the principle of crediting only the main composer(s) in the infobox, can we make this change to the documentation? I would again propose the first version above:

Insert the name(s) of the composer(s) of the original music score. They are usually credited with "Music by". Composers credited for "additional music" and song writers should not be included. Separate multiple entries using Plainlist. In addition, link each composer to his/her appropriate article if possible.

The current documentation is not as clear as it could be, as seen above. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I support the ammendment. Betty Logan (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I see there has been no further comment here, though there does appear to be general agreement. If no one objects, in a couple days I will put in the change in documentation seen three paragraphs above, as it appears that is the only way this will get done. - Gothicfilm (talk) 12:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Just stick it in. You are not likely to get any more responses until you initiate the change. Betty Logan (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Note that music = Gordon Zahler (music supervisor) should be removed from the example, as "music supervisor" is not a composer credit. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Image Size

There doesn't seem to even be a mention of an image size parameter in the template documentation, but it still exists as a parameter, which means that it's still possible to force an image size (like 300px) within a film infobox. In H:INFOP it says that "image_size should normally be left blank, so that the size defaults to the size set in a user's preferences" and in WP:IMGSIZE it says "Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb 300px), which forces a fixed image width." With the default set to upright=1, do we really need to make specified image size an option? There's no obvious reason I can see for movie poster sizes in infoboxes to vary from page to page, but if we do, perhaps we could at least allow and recommend the use of the upright parameter which would at least let it vary relative to a user's preferred image size. Thanks. --tronvillain (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realize it still worked, I thought the size parameter had been disabled yonks ago. I completely agree that image sizing for infobox posters should be scaled to the reader's browser settings rather than hardwired to a specific size. Betty Logan (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't either until I had someone repeatedly add image_size=300px.

There is a problem in that the "upright paramater has been set to "1" in the template so this needs to be changed to upright={{{upright|}}} to make it work. Betty Logan (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Do we want upright to work anyway, rather than just having image_size not work? I suppose there are some situations where you'd want the poster to be bigger than standard, but they're not immediately apparent to me. --tronvillain (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

There may be exceptions where an image may need to be rescaled. What happens if an image is smaller than the default (i.e. 220px) size? Does a 110 pixel image expand to the standard 220 pixels or does it need to be manually resized to fill the infobox? Either way, if that is the case then the image should be scaled using "upright" rather than resized i.e. the "size" parameter should probably be scrapped and the "upright" parameter should probably be added if we can establish whether there are circumstances where it might be required. Betty Logan (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. --tronvillain (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Poking on this...I still notice the image_size parameter is indicated in the Infobox sample at the right of the screen. Should that be removed/changed? Also, take a look at this image in the infobox. Is that what the default should look like? The image is incomprehensible. The previous version was a bit more useful... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pretty sure the image_size parameter there should be swapped out for the upright parameter. As far as I can tell based on Module:InfoboxImage, you should be able to change:
{{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage |image={{{image|}}} |size={{{image_size|{{{image size|}}}}}} |sizedefault=frameless |upright=1 |alt={{{alt|}}} |border={{{border|yes}}} }}
to:
{{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage |image={{{image|}}} |sizedefault=frameless |upright={{{upright}}} |alt={{{alt|}}} |border={{{border|yes}}} }}
Which I think should set the default to upright=1, but allow scaling using the upright parameter if necessary. --tronvillain (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that should work. The images will then be scaled according to people's browser settings. Betty Logan (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

And as for that poster, the source is listed as "Okka Magaadu Poster Designs/Wallpapers." For all I can tell, they could be fan made. Is there anything to establish what accompanied the theatrical release? --tronvillain (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

{{Infobox television}} has implemented the upright feature for a bit now, with no issues. I think the code Betty provided is the same/similar to what is used there, but it may be helpful to double check how we need it here to that. Also, in the documentation, there is a helpful table for what upright number corresponds to px size. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Lyrics Credit

For musical films where the music is by one person (and credited as such) and the lyrics are by another person (and credited as such), do we list the lyricist(s) in the boxed section? If so, is this done as a sub-section of the Music section, as in An American in Paris (film) or as a separate entry? Contributor tom (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

This issue is arising with La La Land (film) where the main credits list "Music By" and "Lyrics By" credits (on the same screen). Should the Lyricists be credited at all? Via a separate entry in the boxed section? Via a subentry under the Music section? Contributor tom (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I would move the lyrics credits from the infobox to the article body. The attempted field insertion does not look great, and a "Lyrics" field would be pretty uncommon for the vast majority of films. The "Music" section is good for identifying those who are credited with writing the lyrics. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Would you do the same thing with the American in Paris (film) boxed credits? That's a very famous film, whose article has had a lot of edits and they've come to a different conclusion... Contributor tom (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I would do the same there. The challenge with fields in the film infobox is that there is always an attempt to fill them out universally, even when music-related credits will relatively minor for most films. So generally speaking, consensus is to not expand the infobox with new fields and instead find other ways to report certain details like what we're discussing here. Also, that article, while it has had edits, does not seem like it has been well-developed, judging from the lack of references and the incomplete structure as well as minimal discussion on the talk page. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Release date(s)

I suggest that "Release dates" be changed to "Release date." The singular here is more appropriate -- not only for when there is only one date, but even when there are two or more. If there are multiple dates, then each should be clarified such as with the country, festival etc. In that case, there is only one date for each (country, festival etc.). 39.12.162.33 (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like this discussion has been had before a few times. It used to be "Release date(s)", but the brackets were removed here possibly as a result of this request. I agree with you that if it is a single date, using "dates" looks odd. I would propose changing the current parameter to something like |release dates= and adding a new parameter, |release date= with a singular label. I've made a potential candidate for this change in the sandbox. If not that, then I think it still more sense to use the singular rather than the plural, as when the list is qualified (e.g. on Pulp Fiction where the list is "May 12, 1994 (Cannes), October 14, 1994 (United States)") each individual item is a single date. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 18:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Primefac (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

want to make sure I'm understanding WP:FILMRELEASE properly

Hi, I'm having a bit of a debate with another editor at Talk:Underworld: Blood Wars#Year_of_Release and want to make sure I'm properly interpreting WP:FILMRELEASE—Blood Wars was released in Russia (and other non-US countries) in late 2016, ahead of its US release last Friday in 2017. That makes its release date 2016 per WP:FILMRELEASE and WP:FILMYEAR despite it not having opened in its country of production until 2017, correct? —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Yup. You are correct. It released in 2016. Similar situation if a film is in a festival and gets a later public release, potentially over two different years. The release of said film would be that of the festival year. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Thanks! Glad to know I'm not crazy. 😉 —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, if it was shown in Russia first in a public screening or festival in 2016, then 2016 would be its release date. Lots of films are shown at the Toronto Film Festival each September, but don't get released domestically until the following year, for example. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Pseudo fields

Many articles (mainly Indian-film based) have derived fields such as dialogue or (dialogues) in bold in the writer field in the infobox as part of a list; as if in the absence of the wanted field the writer feels that they must invent one, an example is in Azhagarsamiyin Kuthirai where the field "writer" has been kidnapped by "(story & dialogue)". This kind of thing is a cheat. Can we have a clear instruction in WP:MOS that we may cite in edit summaries why we have removed such derived fields. I have done it before where it is easy to refer editors to the point where it is mentioned in the main text, or even created the info in the main text but I feel we need more guidance on this. Jodosma (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

These are not "cheats", and nothing has been " "kidnapped", those provide the reader with valuable information, and removing them will be deceiving the reader. Many films, especially early ones, have multiple credits for "additional dialogue", "contribution to scenario", and other, similar titles, and taking them away will create the impression that everyone in the "writer" field did the same thing, which is not true. Life is often not simple, and does not fall into simplified and regimented holes. The addition of "screenplay", "story" and "based on" as fields was a very good thing, and took care of many of those problems, especially for modern films, but because of the multiplicity of credits in early films, they are not quite enough, and I don't think we want to add a half-dozen or more fields to the box. Bear in mind, please, that we are not here to make infoboxes all look the same, we are here to provide information to the reader, and any change which reduces the quality of information is detrimental to the encyclopedia, and a disservice to our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Thank you so much for your insight. I have now started to use the description list method to introduce new fields into infoboxes. Incidentally, why do we not have one, or better, two user defined fields in every infobox to allow more freedom for editors. Jodosma (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea - some infoboxes already have them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

suggested new parameter - "co-director"

In many films there is a credit for a "co-director." Sometimes people use this term when there are two directors (in which case listing two names in the "Director" parameter would be sufficient). But in many other cases it is a distinct credit given to a person who is not the director and who did not have creative control of the project, but who contributed meaningfully to the direction of the film. This is similar to films that have separate and distinct credits for Producers, Co-producers (who are slightly below the producers), Associate Producers (who are below co-producers), etc. There are many examples of this but here are a few: City of God (Directed by Fernand Meirelles; co-directed by Katia Lund); Slumdog Millionaire (dir. Danny Boyle; co-dir. Loveleen Tanden); Wasteland (Director: Lucy Walker; co-directors Karen Harley, Joao Jardim); etc. I see that when I search these three films they are treated three different ways: in Slumdog Millionaire the co-director is left off altogether. In Wasteland all three are listed as directors. In City of God the co-director is listed under the director category but with "(co-director)" added beside her name. None of these is a good solution. It is incorrect and confusing to list the co-directors as directors, since their roles are very different, and adding the parenthetical is only more confusing to 99% of the readers. But it would also be problematic to leave co-directors off of the credit template altogether since their role is signficant. I think a simple and clear solution would be to add a parameter "Co-director" to the template, just below Director and above Producer. --208.120.19.93 (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

A "co-director" credit is rare, and can be handled easily with multiple names in the "director" field, such as "Director= Bob Director<br>Fanny Corie (co-director)" Incidentally, when two names are listed as director, such as with Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen, they are not director and co-director, they are both directors of the film. The only time someone is a co-director, is when there's a credit that specifically says "co-director", and, frankly, I can't remember the last time I saw that. I think there are many other fields that might be added before "co-director". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think it is necessary. Most films don't have co-directors. The infobox exists to serve the typical case, not to tailor articles to anomalous situations. Exceptions can easily be handled in the lead. Betty Logan (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

"Music by:"

Hi all, the display label for the |music= parameter is "Music by:" -- If this parameter is for the name of the person who composed the background score, wouldn't it be wiser to change the label to "Score by:"? I ask because in hundreds of Indian film articles (Padmavati (film) being one example), this parameter is often used to indicate who wrote the song-and-dance numbers. The lack of specificity in the label is encouraging the addition of unrelated information. If, however, the field should be used in this way, then the template instructions should be broadened. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The field is used for a number of different purposes: the person who composed the score to the film, if it's a musical, the person or persons who wrote the film's musical numbers, etc. This information is not "unrelated", for musicals it's essential information. If Cole Porter, for instance, wrote all the songs in a film, his name is the one that's relevant, not, say, Roger Greene, who wrote the "score" (i.e. the incidental music between the musical numbers, which generally uses thematic material from the songs).

There have been several suggestions that he "straight-jacket" fields such as this by limiting how they can be used, even when they're being utilized in a way that's helpful to the reader. I'm opposed to that: the options are either to have many, many fields, most of which will not be used for any particular film, or a smaller number of fields which can be used in a flexible manner. Now, if the "Music by" field begins to be used for non-musical purposes, that's an entirely different question, but as long as information about the music in the film is being imparted to the reader, I see no harm in using the field as is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Thanks for your input. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Art Director and Stunt Choreography

Most of the films have art direction and stunt choreography credits, both these departments are very essential in film production. Kindly consider adding these both in this template. Thanks. Passion1000 (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to Art Direction if Costume Design was not added as well. Stunt coordinator is only relevant in modern movies, so I'd be opposed to that in general. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Format, color, sound

Shouldn't there be standard parameters for format (4x3, Panavision, Cinerama, 3D, etc.) color (B&W/color/Technicolor), and sound (silent/sound)? --Macrakis (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I see the appeal, but barring additional input I think I'd be inclined to oppose this on the grounds that it's information that's not typically significant enough for coverage by reliable sources (and if it is, it probably merits some discussion in the prose of an article), and concerns that the infobox is bulky enough as it is. DonIago (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Needs a way to include the actual film in the infobox

For cases such as King Lear (1916), or other films that are public domain or released under a free license, there needs to be a way to include the actual film in the infobox. You can put it in |image=, but that doesn't display optimally and doesn't let you set a poster frame. --Xover (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

IMO it does not need to be in the infobox. The link can be included (and is in numerous articles) in the "External links" section. MarnetteD|Talk 16:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MarnettD. The "External links" section is appropriate for this per WP:ELYES #2. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I have seen some embedded in the plot section, and that is ok too. Regardless, I agree it is not necessary to include a full length film in the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Judging by the comments there appears to be some misapprehension here. The film in question is a silent short from 1916, so it is in the public domain and actually available on Commons. It is thus not appropriate to include in External links per WP:ELNO #1. WP:ELYES #2 applies to things like Youtube or Flickr, not embeddable media from Commons. It would also be awkward to extract a still frame from a video we actually have available to put in the infobox, and then show the actual video later on, especially when we're talking about an article about the specific film (vs., say, an illustrative video in a quantum mechanics article). An article about a painting would clearly show the painting in the infobox, if at all possible, and it would appear equally obvious that an article about a film would include that film there if it is available. Going by policy, it would actually make more sense to say that non-free media like movie posters can't be embedded in the infobox and must instead be just linked in External links. Not that I would make that argument (I kinda like the fair use provisions), but just to plop up a strawman by way of analogy. --Xover (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think WP:ELNO #1 applies. If anything, we would use the {{Commons}} template under "External links" per WP:ELT. I do not find the painting analogy to be accurate either. It is more like a book where we are obviously not going to include all the text, compressed or scrolling, in the infobox. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The painting analogy does not apply unless we are talking about one frame of a motion picture. Please see The Ace of Hearts (1921 film)#External links as an example of the 1000s of Wikiarticles with ELs to films that are in the public domain. Something like this should work for this situation. MarnetteD|Talk 20:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Or, the complete movie from Commons which is immediately below the infobox. --tronvillain (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your post tronvillain I hadn't noticed that there were two different links to the film in that article. As you point out a link could go there as well. Infobox bloat is always worth avoiding. MarnetteD|Talk 20:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

WP:ELNO#1 is the only part of WP:EL that bears on this discussion; we're discussing media and infoboxes, not extlinks. WP:ELNO #1 is pretty clear that content that could be in the article should not be linked in External links. {{Sisterlinks}} and friends are more akin to navboxes than an extlink: they are put in the last section, which is often but not always External links. The painting analogy is apt: you'd put the painting in the infobox and, if relevant, a detailed crop/zoom in the body of the article somewhere (check out the brush strokes on the Mona Lisa!); but the arguments here are that for a film we should put a detail crop (still frame) in the infobox and the full painting (the video) somewhere in the body. An embedded video here is functionally identical to a still frame, except that you can actually also click it to play the video. That is, it has no downside, it only adds information, functionality, and convenience. The same would have been true of a book from, say Wikibooks, if a similar technical implementation had been available (poster frame is the book's cover, clicking it brings up a reader interface for the full book). Absent such functionality in Mediawiki, the book analogy would be akin to suggesting showing every still frame from the video (all 16? per second for the full 30min.-ish video), one after another, in the infobox. In other words: nobody would actually suggest that. --Xover (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: {{Sisterlinks}} are not extlinks, and a {{commons cat}} link is not actually a link to the video, but to a grab-bag of whatever is there. That is, it is an "inter-project link" akin to an inter language link. And WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a particularly convincing argument in any case. @Tronvillain: Yes, exactly. Do look at it, dangling there. It doesn't strike you as kinda awkward to put it after the infobox instead of where the movie poster goes in the majority of modern-film articles? --Xover (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

That is an odd interpretation of ELNO. It couldn't be shown Frame-by-Frame in the body of the article anymore than it could be in the infobox? That would never work nor would it be useful to a reader. Based on WP:IAR I would oppose adding this kind of link the infobox. MarnetteD|Talk 21:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: I don't understand your second sentence. Could you rephrase it? Also, all this focus on extlinks and "infobox bloat" makes me wonder if there is a fundamental misunderstanding going on here. I do not propose to add any links anywhere in the infobox or in the article (none, zero, zilch). What I am suggesting is that the |image= parameter of the infobox film template be extended with the necessary functionality that one can, where appropriate, embed a video instead of an image in the infobox. This would display to the reader as a static image—literally exactly like an extracted still frame would!—except that it would also be possible to click the image to bring up the built-in Mediawiki video player. --Xover (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Xover:It's no more "dangling there" than any other image or video in an article. --tronvillain (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

ELNO1 states "the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article." So my sentence was pointing out that it is not possible for the film to be in the article. OTOH thanks for making clear (an I apologize for missing it before) what you would alter that field in the infobox. Two problems - first, putting one frame of the pic with the arrow that allows it to play is still "dangling" it is just inside of the box instead of outside. Second, I have always preferred a poster or a lobby card from the film in the infobox. I would not like to see those replaced with a link to the film. If consensus is to alter the "image" field I would like the items I mentioned to take precedence. It would be best if this was spelled out in the documentation to avoid edit wars. But that is just one editors comments. I don't know how soon others will add their input but I would mention that it is a holiday weekend here in the US so responses may not be posted as soon as at other times. MarnetteD|Talk 22:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thank you; now I understand your concerns. I agree that the precedence of the various things (posters, lobby cards, the video itself, a short clip from it, etc.; and if the video, what frame should be used as the poster frame) that could technically be used in the infobox should be subject to local consensus at the article in question, WikiProject guidelines (like MOS:FILM), and the project-wide MoS. For the vast majority of film articles the video will simply not be available (this affects a very small number of very old, typically silent, films; mostly from the US; and possibly some tiny number of freely licensed modern movies that are notable enough for its own article). Putting the video in the infobox will not be appropriate for all articles, and there is definitely room for editors' personal preferences to differ. As an example, for a different article about an old silent Shakespeare film where the promotional poster was available, I probably would have preferred to use that in the infobox (it was visually more interesting and advertised a famous actor) even if the technical capability to put the video in the infobox had been available. It would depend on the article and film in question. --Xover (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Runtime

Chinese movie ticket sales are expected to increase 22% to $10.4 billion in 2017, according to average projections at IHS Markit Ltd. and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, whereas U.S. sales would see going slightly above the $10.2 billion. Is it ok to add a separate runtime in plainlist forms for movies shown in the Mainland China market to indicate communist censorship? I have done so for Logan (film), Love Off the Cuff, Resident Evil: The Final Chapter, Alien: Covenant, The Mummy (2017 film) and The Lost City of Z (film). This should help the world realize what is going on under the rosy picture. I hope we could have rigorous debates here. Thanks.Supermann (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Films are released in many countries around the world so there will be lots of different versions. I think it is WP:INDISCRIMINATE to add lots of different runtimes and Wikipedia would be best served if just the runtime of the "most complete" theatrical version is listed. Betty Logan (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

True, but I have given my arguments in terms of box office receipts. These days, American films are truly buoyed by the Chinese market. I am not suggesting listing out lots of other countries. You see where I am going? Thanks.Supermann (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't be listing different cuts in the infobox. This crops up sometimes on horror films, especially when they are chopped to pieces in various countries. If the censorship is notable, it can be covered in the article's prose. There's no reason to add a Chinese runtime on an American film's infobox. If it's a Chinese co-production, maybe. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I was not referring to director's cut, extended cut, etc. I am referring to theatrical cut in an important country in terms of population, economy, human rights, press freedom, climate change efforts, etc. On a different note, "the running time is given to the second, so round it to the minute." Do we round up or round down? Hacksaw Ridge was censored for more than 30 seconds in the Chinese version. Saying it's 139 minutes in length overlooks this important fact in a plain and simple way.Supermann (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Which is another good reason for not putting that in the infobox. As others have said, such censorship and/or different versions in other countries can be explained in the articles' release section. Most readers won't get the point if it's in the infobox anyway. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

That appears to be a very low confidence in our Wikipedia readers' intelligence quotient. Infobox is such a great summary if readers don't want to drill down further.Supermann (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Betty, Ninja and Gothic, that if there is any notability to the info, the "Release" section is the place for it, not the infobox (unless it is a Chinese [co]production). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I came to this discussion having seen the addition of Chinese runtimes in a couple of movie articles. I agree with Betty et al for all the reasons given; if there is censorship in a particular country of a particular film, and if that censorship has been discussed in reliable sources, it's certainly something that belongs in the Release section, but not in the infobox. Many countries have movie censorship of various kinds, and there are other reasons as well why different country releases may be a little longer or shorter than the original release. We can't add them all, and selecting one country on basis of importance is going to be rather subjective. Finally, American imperialism has nothing to do with it, not when it is a movie made in the US. --bonadea contributions talk 08:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I have looked at the sources given for the Chinese runtime, and they don't appear to mention censorship... --bonadea contributions talk 10:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

When I meant American imperialism, I meant some fellow U.S. citizen should not have done edits on a mobile device without first coming here and seeing if there is any new discussion going on. Granted, the Douban.com source is not the best English-wise, but it is a one-stop shop for Chinese readers to see runtime comparison. Not every censored movie in China gets written about in English in a major Western news publication and that is the sad part due to censorship and the overall media environment. Not to mention, the Chinese Wikipedia is still blocked. English wikipedia had been blocked in China before. If the English Wikipedia don't speak up, who else will? If admin agrees censorship for these movies should be written about in the Release section, then there should be a more clear rule here. For example, in Logan (film)#Outside North America, the censorship was written in the Reception section. I yield my original position.Supermann (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the other editors on this. There is no need to add various countries run times to the infobox. This is in line with other infobox items where only listing info from the original theatrical release info from the country of origin is the norm. It also aligns with not mentioning various countries ratings for a film. Since mention has been made of listing any info of note in the body of the article there is no "censorship" and your overwrought post smacks of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS which never works as a reason for anything on WikiP. Remember WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. MarnetteD|Talk 17:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The infobox is used to sum up the key info of the film. If the runtime is x minutes shorter in y country, then that would be better suited to be added a prose somewhere in the body of the article. If, indeed, it is important at all. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hope this new page Film censorship in China enlightens all of you. Supermann (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

While that is a legitimate article to be creating, I, as Marnette already pointed out, am generally concerned with your usage of Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course that is a legitimate article to be creating, since I left all the opinions here on this talk page, instead of there. That page only describes facts. Supermann (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of which, as I came up with that new page, I found out that the runtime info from British Board of Film Classification is off in numerous occasions. I think we need to question it as an RS going forward. That's why I have been relying on AMCTheatres.com more often. For example, both Rush (2013 film) and Hacksaw Ridge were off by 3 minutes, to name but a few. Also, there is a situation on Django Unchained in which BBFC has two versions: [4] vs. [5]. Furthermore, as I had asked for clarification before, do we round up or round down the minutes? thx. Supermann (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The BBFC times are accurate for the footage that is submitted to them. They even measure the physical length of the film so an exact time can be calculated. The difference for Rush for example is only a minute. It is not unusual for BBFC to list films a minute shorter because they omit distributor logos from the time which can add a few seconds on to the film. Even if a logo plays for only 10 seconds that can result in a 1 minute difference if the running times are rounded to the nearest minute. In the case of Django one entry is for cinema and the other video. Videos have shorter running times due to PAL speedup. Betty Logan (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Ratings

I would love if there were a section added for the ratings the film has received. It shouldn't need to be limited to just the MPAA ratings but there should be an optional field for any of the major ratings like the British Board of Film Classification or the Australian Classification Board. Mostly I suggest this because I love coming to Wikipedia to find out everything I want know about a topic and it confuses me why a film's rating isn't included at all, anywhere on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trooperomulo (talk • contribs)

Trooperomulo, hello! The community consensus is that such sections are too indiscriminate and do not provide much context as to why. We have a guideline at WP:FILMRATING explaining this. In a nutshell, we should avoid listing ratings indiscriminately, but if there is coverage about certain ratings, then we can summarize and include such coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Erik: Ugh, I find this ridiculous. It's not indiscriminate at all, it's a fact about a movie, no less indiscriminate than running time, country, or release date. I was able to find the guideline, but there's not much content or context around its explanation. I'd like to read the discussion the community had to come to this consensus to understand it a little better, but I can't find that anywhere. There's not a single point in the guideline that couldn't also apply to running time, and most also to country, and release date. Yes there are special cases where a movie's rating might change from theater release to home video release, but those are very rare and can be called out and discussed. It's no reason to not have the ratings for the vast majority of movies that get one and have it never change. It's no different than running time in that point. Why call out running time that can change between countries and format releases when it too could be mentioned in the body of an article if there's significant coverage about a film's length? You also don't need context for the rating, the reader can click through to information about the MPAA's rating system and their reasons and flaws. If there's any controversy about a film's rating, it'll surely be called out in the body of the article too in order to provide the needed context. But most films are assigned a rating where there is no coverage or controversy, just like running time. It would also be really helpful if there were categories based on film ratings: "Films rated PG-13 by the MPAA", etc. But I can't find any discussion about why those don't exist either. Onlynone (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

There are over fifty rating systems around the world and it would be impractical to mention them all. The problem with film ratings is that unlike nationality, the worldwide release date and the running time, the film ratings don't really carry any significance outside of the country they are issued. Nobody outside the US will be particularly interested in the MPAA rating, nobody outside of the UK the BBFC rating, Japan the Eiran rating and so on. It is basically a local interest issue. Let's not forget that over half of all the English-language Wikipedia readers live outside the United States, and IIRC about 40% of them don't even live in an English-speaking country so you have to write for a global readership. It is also ephemeral too because ratings are revised over time: Gone with the Wind was released under the Motion Picture Production Code and then was rated G by the MPAA in later years. I think most people accessing the page for film ratings will generally seek the rating for the country they live in and we cannot provide this without adopting an WP:INDISCRIMINATE approach. This is information that is generally available through IMDB or their national ratings body and they would be better of visiting those sites to find the information they want and Wikipedia should focus on providing information that is relevant to a global readership. Betty Logan (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Beyond the concerns raised above, which I agree with (and with WP:FILMRATING in general), I also fear that this would not only bloat the infobox to an unreasonable degree, but also introduce systemic bias, in that I fear American editors would be more likely to include MPAA ratings even on non-American films, where it could be argued that the rating system of the country in which the film was produced should carry greater weight. I might support an argument that the rating of the film in the country which produced it carries some higher degree of significance, but likely not enough to argue for its inclusion in the infobox. Besides, IMDb already offers better coverage of this information for those seeking it. DonIago (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The policy can simply be use the predominant ratings system in place for the country where the country was produced. Only include multiple ratings if the movie has strong connections to more than one country. Onlynone (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

No one's asking to mention all 50 ratings systems on all films. That's just a strawman argument. Most people are just talking about having the MPAA rating on films that had a large US release, or even just US based productions. British productions can have the BBFC rating attached. The ephemeral argument also fails because the exact same thing can be said for running time with theatrical release, first consumer media release, director's cut, subsequent media format releases (VHS vs DVD vs Blu-Ray). We don't let edge cases get in the way of the vast majority of films whose running time doesn't change, why let it get in the way just for ratings? Onlynone (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

In the same way we do not list all film ratings, we do not list the release dates for all countries in which it was released. We also do not list all cast and crew members for most films. The issue with ratings is that traditionally, readers want to have them like movie times in newspapers, to look up for the purpose of seeing the film. Film articles on Wikipedia are not for that purpose, at least not directly. (E.g., the fact that we include coverage of a film's critical reception does not mean we are trying to promote or demote it or tell readers whether or not to go see it; we include it as a matter of historical record.) Are you looking to list multiple ratings? Or list the MPAA ratings for all films, or just those that are U.S. productions? (The latter is where I could see a case made.) Would you want to see an MPAA rating at Their Finest or not? Or would you want to see an MPAA rating for Warcraft even though most of its box office revenue was outside the United States? I guess my point is that the value of this detail is generally limited and localized to the point of only including it if a secondary source deems it relevant. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

"In the same way we do not list all film ratings, we do not list the release dates for all countries in which it was released. We also do not list all cast and crew members for most films." That would seem to be an argument for including film ratings. We don't let long lists of release dates stop us from including a release date; we don't let long lists of cast and crew stop us from listing the starring actors. If long lists and edge cases aren't obstacles to including the most relevant information in those cases, I don't see why it should be an obstacle for ratings. Onlynone (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Really, my concern is that ratings don't really matter much from a historical standpoint (and sometimes change over time). Like, does it historically matter what The Graduate or American Graffiti were rated when they were released? Things like original release date will always historically matter, but a rating won't. If a rating does importantly factor into the production (ie, the film was edited to avoid an R rating), release (it was released only in certain theaters or at midnight showings due to a rating), or reception (specific complaints about the rating) then it becomes significant to note. Really, a rating also has a context and it needs to be explained WHY it was rated that way (ie, did it receive this rating for graphic violence or sexual content?) that is weighted per historical context and that explanation can't really be done in an Infobox. Noting it in the Infobox isn't something I think should be implemented. It needs explanatory context and this information is something that will lose significance over time, which is why it's garnering the indiscriminate opposition. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Even if infobox bloat, US-centric bias and context explaining the rating were not concerns (which they are), it would still be a bad idea to promote film rating information into a norm for Wikipedia articles. Countless hours of creative output have gone unreleased due to the fact that the market selects against adult rated films. While Wikipedia should be as neutral as possible, one political statement that it must inevitably make by its very existence, is that this should not happen. For as long as there are self-censorship problems that come from ratings, we have an obligation not to propagate the idea that ratings are a fundamental property by which films should be defined. Connor Behan (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

We should include film ratings but only those of Switzerland, the most neutral of film ratings. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Languages

Why should only a primary language be listed in the infobox? Some time ago, I recall the article for The Revenant including languages also used extensively in the film, such as Pawnee. So long as a secondary language is used significantly, why not include it? The article for Joyeux Noël lists the film's language as French, English, and German, as all three are given notable screen time. I recently edited Kill Bill: Volume 1 and Kill Bill: Volume 2 to reflect the non-English languages spoken in those films, and my edit on the latter entry was reverted. The former entry, at my time of writing this, remains unreverted. The first film makes significant use of Japanese, and the second film contains a lot of Mandarin. Where is the line in the sand drawn? –Matthew - (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the typical reader is particularly interested in which languages appear in a film, but rather which language is needed to follow the film. For example, you don't need to know any language besides English to be able to follow Kill Bill, which makes it an English-language film. Betty Logan (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

If Pawnee is included on The Revenant infobox I can only imagine it's because someone likes Pawnee and was super thrilled to add it there even if it wasn't necessary and noone since has cared enough to remove it. It makes up 'maybe' 15% of the film, so it is not a primary language of the film. It's like saying Die Hard should have German. Then you look at something like Taken (film) and it has 4 languages because those other languages are spoken briefly in the film? Ridiculous. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

In addition to what Betty Logan and Darkwarriorblake said above, it is reliable sources that establish what language or languages are used in the film, and it is this "primary" logic that they pursue and that we follow. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Use for film series?

Someone has added this template to the Our Gang article, and used it to include composite information for all 220 Our Gang short films and the feature General Spanky. Is this a proper use of this template? Is there another better suited to it, or is this an opportunity for a new Infobox template dedicated to short film series? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Definitely the latter, though I would say it could apply to feature films as well. Many film series articles use the film infobox in a very ugly manner where there should be a separate film series infobox (and guidelines for using it). I suggest posting a notice at WT:FILM to further this discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think it works quite well for the Our Gang page. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

That's because whoever put it together arbitrarily omitted information: the MGM era producers and distributors, the cast, there's no parameter for the number of series entries, and isn't it more important that we know how long the episodes are versus the entire runtime of the series end-to-end? It's even more of a disaster on the Looney Tunes page. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I think one example of poor use is Harry Potter (film series). The values feel absolutely shoehorned into the parameters. Oftentimes each film can have a different set of crew members, so an ideal film series infobox should be designed to focus on consistent information, like the underlying source material and the studio that produced it. (If there is more than one, then perhaps year ranges can be done.) But that example has ridiculous entries like a combined runtime and budget, though I think there is probably precedent for reporting the total box office. In essence, a film series infobox should have fewer parameters. Not sure about identifying individual films, though.... maybe year-based parameters at the bottom of such an infobox, with the film title next to it? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Personally I think tables are the way to go on film series articles such as the one at James_Bond_in_film#Core_crew. Infoboxes are not particularly well suited to multiple instances of media. The information should be tabulated so readers can easily read off which item of information relates to which film. Betty Logan (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

This is also what I was thinking, that tables would do a much better job. But I didn't say it because I though we were only talking about the infobox here. One thing to add is that without a table all these names in the infobox remain unconnected. No one can know who worked on which films, just a whole lot of names, but in a table you would get a sense of purpose for their inclusion. Hoverfish Talk 23:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that tables are better suited for cast and crew. But does this necessarily mean no infobox at all? A film series infobox could have the following fields: Based on, Studio, a field reflecting the range of years (not sure what it should be called), Country, Language, and Box office. I would not be unopposed to listing specific films after that in a kind of timeline, like for Harry Potter, a parameter for 2001 followed by the value of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film). Although it could be argued that should be saved to be in the topmost section of a film series article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no objections to a scaled down infobox but even these basic fields can become complicated in certain cases. For example, how many production companies has the Terminator series passed through? We could just use the {{Infobox media franchise}}—in action at Terminator (franchise)—and just fill out the film section for film series articles. Or, alternatively, create a film series wrapper template that just offers parameters relevant to film series articles which then passes them on to the franchise template. Betty Logan (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm wondering what we could do for older short film series (see Our Gang and Looney Tunes discussion above), series that have hundreds of shorts in their collections that sort of need to be handled, at least in some ways, like a cross between the film and TV show templates. You'll want an inbox, as a table that encapsulates the hundreds of Our Gang and Three Stooges shorts, for example (see Our Gang filmography and The Three Stooges filmography) don't work for the quick, at-a-glance info an infobox can give. Moreover, given observations over the years, editors will continue to try adapting either the film or TV inboxes regardless of rules or guidelines. Therefore, I'd suggest making something new. Something that would include Title, Directors (restricted to five, with more designated in a table instead), Producers (restricted to five), Production Companies, Theatrical Distributors, Television Distributors (separated out), First and Last Release Dates, Format (used to designate length, Length also works), Country, Language, and Number of Entries. I'd omit screenwriters, cinematographers, editors, and any other field that's likely to change per entry more commonly than directors or producers will. My main hope os to stop abuse of this template, I don't think the media franchise inbox will satisfy the editors. —FuriousFreddy (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

You may be interested in Template:Infobox video game series --Izno (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Something similar to this might work.--FuriousFreddy (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2017

Need to add co-producers and executive producers to the box Filmfansofhorror (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Infobox film/doc}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Betty Logan (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Film posters for foreign films

There have been - and continue to be - too many arguments over what poster to use for foreign-language films. "Original theatrical release poster" isn't a clear enough guideline, and many feel a poster from the English-speaking world should be used for all films (if available) since this is English Wikipedia and the image is there to aid recognition. Particularly for films from countries that don't use the Roman script, what does it add to have a load of squiggles that are entirely unrecognisable to the vast majority of readers? We use the title most prevalent in the English-speaking world, so why not apply the same rule to posters? The proposed rule is applied effectively for video games, and it'd save a lot of edit warring and simply make more sense for most visitors if it was applied to films, too. — Film Fan 13:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The instructions at WP:FILMPOSTER about "Original theatrical release post" is clear enough. Do you have any empirical evidence that the "squiggles" are unrecognizable? As to the situation regarding video games WP:OTHERSTUFF shows that is not a reason to alter the guidelines here. I prefer a poster from the country of origin over one created months (or in some cases years) later. For others who want to respond it looks like this thread Talk:Your Name#Poster is what started this. I would also note that this is much more than just the English Wikipedia as there are fields for other written languages in the infobox - like the kanji one in the article in question - as well as the various language templates used in the lede of all virtually all of the 'pedia's articles regarding subjects that are about non-English subjects that help to explain what the "squiggles" mean. MarnetteD|Talk 14:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

need of dialogues

in many films dialogue and screen play are written by different people. so i suggest one more entry of dialogue after screenplay--Dvellakat (talk) 12:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Dialogue is part of the screenplay. — Film Fan 12:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually some films do give separate credits for writing and dialogue. The Killing (film) is one example, and I'm sure there are others. I can't find a clear explanation, but it seems to be a deprecated convention. A field might be worth considering, if only so we could cover old films more accurately. Similarly, it might be a good idea to have an "Adaptation by" credit, which is used in films like Bride of Frankenstein as a distinct thing from the screenplay credit. —Flax5 13:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The infobox is desiged to handle the general case and it is not necessary to have it cater to every single conceivable credit. There is generally enough slack in the infobox to handle exceptions, with The Killing example given above doing this particularly well. Betty Logan (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

This is standard operating procedure with Indian films, but my knowledge about how Indian films are written is nil. Does someone figure out the basic shape of the story and then someone else comes in and writes all the dialogue between characters? What? Also, where in our encyclopedia would we expect to learn about that, because that would be a fairly interesting detail in an article about screenwriting. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Whitespace consensus?

Really quickly, I've reported an an issue at Phabricator about Wikipedia's Visual Editor, because it seems to be stripping whitespace from film infoboxes by default like here, which results in parameter being pulled out of alignment.

Do we have any type of community preference for how the infobox parameters are aligned? I know some people (like myself) prefer this:

| director        = Sally Roe
| cinematographer = John Doe
| editor          = Dave McBoatface

Whereas some of us prefer this style:

| director = Sally Roe
| cinematographer = John Doe
| editor = Dave McBoatface

Since this varies from article to article, I assumed it was kind of a local consensus matter. If that's the case, then it's kind of annoying that Visual Editor is stripping out the whitespace by default. I'm not technically proficient, but from what I can tell of the Phabricator responses, if this is something we don't care for, we'd need to change some aspect of the template markup to instruct Visual Editor to prefer option A, or to prefer option B, or maybe there's another option to tell Visual Editor not to screw with the parameter alignment at all? Technical whizzes welcome. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Does WP:STYLEVAR cover it? It states - "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one styling to another without substantial reason". So if one infobox is used as the default with or without the spacing, it should be retained. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm mostly trying to see if WikiProject Film ever decided, "we love ___ formatting" and if so, that preference should be added into the template code. If we've never arrived at any consensus for how the parameters should be lined up, then I guess there needs to be code saying "don't mess with the whitespace". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The comments by DJ and by ssastry are probably the most relevant in that they believe this may be a bug or possibly just undesirable behavior, not something to change on the TemplateData page. --Izno (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Per comments by Deskana at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T179259#3729758, his solution is:

If you wish to change this instruction, you can go to that page, and where it says

 },
 "format": "block"
}

you can replace it with

 }
}

I'm not sharp with the technical stuff, but if any local template editors want to give it a go, please do. To be clear, I know we're all mixed on how the infoboxes should be formatted. Some (like me) prefer the lined-up versions, some hate the whitespace. My goal is to make whatever change that allows the status quo to exist. The idea that Visual Editor users come by and automatically make these changes like they're WP:AWB users is problematic to me. Thanks all, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

It's actually a very simple fix. The code is in the TemplateData block on the documentation subpage, not the template code itself. When TemplateData was first added to the documentation for all infoboxes it was a big mystery to most people (like WikiData and Lua) and the code was usually added without the editor adding it understanding what it meant. It's only been since Visual Editor has started being used that the problems occurred. Many articles using {{Infobox television}} had the fields re-ordered for no apparent reason. It wasn't that long ago that I reverted one horrible edit that changed many things but should have just been a spelling fix (or something that minor). I agree with your AWB comments. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Country order

If a film has more than one country of production, how exactly do we order them in the infobox? By alphabetical order? -- Wrath X (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

By RS. LUMIERE is the single best source for this. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Gothcifilm about this. The Lumiere database can be found at http://lumiere.obs.coe.int/web/search/ and their methodology for how they select and order countries is here. Betty Logan (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps failing a Lumiere listing, default to alphabetical? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

If sources are consistent about the order then I don't see the need for deviating, but failing that alphabetical order is probably the most neutral approach. Betty Logan (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I would be against putting that in any guideline. If that door is opened, then there would be people who would claim that alphabetical is preferred. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Gothicfilm. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Studios that distribute and produce

I've noticed in many film infoboxes that the studio that distributed and produced the film is only listed in the distributor field. I see Warner Bros, Paramount, 20th Century Fox and other studios listed only in the distributor field even though they distributed and produced. Is this how it's supposed to be done? -- Wrath X (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Could you give us an example please? Betty Logan (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The Godfather films (Paramount), X-Men films (Fox), Star Wars films (Fox), DCEU films (Warner Bros.) -- Wrath X (talk) 10:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It should go by what reliable sources say, such as this entry from AFI for The Godfather. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Wrath X, the 2014 discussion here may interest you. I do find company credits a pain to present regardless of the previous and the current approaches. I suppose the weakness of the current approach is that when you have the studio under "Distributed by" and the production companies under "Production companies", one can't tell the difference between that and a non-studio distributor that could have acquired a film after it was produced. (Where a film released by a major studio means they were more involved than just putting the film in theaters.) Not really sure how else to approach it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Some of the studios may be missing due to when the parameter was renamed. But generally if a studio both produced and distributed a film then arguably it should be represented in both fields, even if it looks a tad redundant. For example, StudioCanal is in both fields at Paddington (film). Betty Logan (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a problem with listing a studio twice. Other fields can have the same person listed three or more times - see some of the films of Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin for example. MarnetteD|Talk 22:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Production company field

We don't need to source crew members in the infobox since the film already credits who directs, produces, writes, etc. So similarly if a film already credits the production company then we don't need to source the company. How would we identify the production company? According to this article section, the companies credited as "A _ Production" or "In Association With" are production companies. I mean come on, if the film credits say "An Amblin Production" then Amblin is a production company. This isn't original research, the film is explicitly crediting Amblin for production. As for companies credited as "In Association With", they helped finance the film. (Source)

However, the company credited as "Presents" is the distributor which may or may not be a production company. So I was thinking that we don't need to source companies credited as "Production" or "In Association With". But for companies credited as "Presents" we'd need a source to confirm whether the company also produced. -- Wrath X (talk) 07:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

If something is explicitly credited as being a "production of" or "produced by" then yes, I believe we can apply a little bit of common sense to that. Beyond that it becomes a grey area, because "in association with" can mean literally anything. It usually denotes a financier or a rights holder or something, or it can mean a junior production partner, and a secondary source may be useful to clarify the matter. You will certainly need a secondary source if your edit is being challenged. This issue was recently discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Unsourced_production_companies which you might find informative. The "Presents" credit is the most difficult to judge IMO, because it is so ambiguous. If the "Presents" company is also a copyright holder then that usually swings it for me. I was recently discussing this issue at Talk:Paddington_(film)#Production_companies if you would like to examine my argument. A third opinion always helps regardless! Betty Logan (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Going to be honest here but listing the production company field in the infobox is driving me crazy. There aren't that many sources for production companies, and even then these sources have holes in them (yes that includes the AFI). How about we only list the company credited as "Production" and we mention the rest in the article? Take a look at Dunkirk's page, only Syncopy is listed in the production company field since it is the only company credited as "Production". The other companies are mention below in the article. I think this is the safest and simplest approach. Otherwise I'll just prefer if we remove the production company field from the infobox altogether, and we talk about which companies did what in the article's production section. -- Wrath X (talk) 09:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Content should be verifiable through reliable sources. This includes production companies, which are frequently subject to hoaxes, original research, and guesswork. Several different editors will have different views on what is "obvious", resulting in continual edit wars. Citations to reliable sources are the best solution. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I would agree about providing sources for the production company and distributor parameters since a lot of them are just copy-pasted from IMDb without no regards to their authenticity. However, other parameters such as directors, writers, producers would depend on whether they're sourced elsewhere in the body. If this isn't the case with the article in question, then supporting them with citations to RS would probably be the right thing to do, though I personally think they look eyesore and unnecessary. Slightlymad 15:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Length

Please add a length field after runtime. The length can be either in feet or meter. The template {{convert|0000|meter|feet}} can be used.

This will help (me) when writing Tamil film articles--UKSharma3 (User | talk | Contribs) 01:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

What would this be used for? DonIago (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Since there is a one-to-one correspondence between length and time, I don't really see the usefulness of adding what is in essence a duplicate parameter. There are plenty of other relevant parameters (Production Designer, for one, and Choreographer for musicals) that I would prefer to see added. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I also do not think this is useful. "Length" seems to require specialist knowledge to determine the relevance, where "Runtime" is easily comprehensible by the layperson. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Silent movies would sometimes run at different speeds before film length was standardised at 24fps and the primary metric was the number of reels. That said, I don't believe an extra field is needed. You can see an example of how this is handled at The Birth of a Nation. Betty Logan (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

A lot of silent movie sources only list length (given that the speed of display wasn't initially standardized), often in feet and sometimes just in reels,but I just put it under runtime.--tronvillain (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 January 2018 -- adding exec producers

Can we make a section for executive producers? They are crucial to the making of a film and often get ignored. Jsp2135 (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: @Jsp2135: Seems like an edit that could very well gain consensus. Please allow some time for consensus for form; you may care to ping the relevant Wikiprojects with RfCs to expedite the process. Once several days have passed, feel free to ping me or reopen the request. Ergo Sum 21:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Query

In the Ronin article, the movie credits David Mamet as one of the screenwriters, under the pseudonym Richard Weisz; how should he be credited in the infobox: should Mamet's name be placed beside Richard Weisz enclosed in parentheses, or pipelink the pseudonym to Mamet's article? Slightlymad 05:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

In Hellraiser: Bloodline, I did it as "Kevin Yagher (credited as Alan Smithee)". I don't know if that's how you're supposed to do it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is a consensus on the right approach, but I think at the very least, WP:EGG would apply in not piping a pseudonym to lead to the real person's article. NinjaRobotPirate's approach can work. Another one may be to have a note tag where the pseudonym is explained in the "Notes" section. See this for the director(s) at Solo: A Star Wars Story. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This issue comes up with Steven Soderbergh somewhat often, since he uses the pseudonyms Peter Andrews and Mary Ann Bernard for his cinematography and editing work, respectively. Contagion uses what has been my preferred method up to this point, crediting Soderbergh with a tag after to explain the name change. Magic Mike opts to just credit him by his real name, while Logan Lucky uses the pipe link with the pseudonyms. I feel like using note tags as suggested by Erik would be the best way to go though, since they're unintrusive and can be explained in more detail. Sock (tock talk) 13:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the approach for Logan Lucky since that is a flagrant violation of WP:EGG. But I do think a note tag approach would be ideal, especially to just explain why. It can be a detail that would not easily fit in the article body. When it comes to Soderbergh, the note can explain the why in a sentence and then link to the "Directorial style and collaborations" section on his article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I've adopted what has been done in Contagion and Logan Lucky. Cheers, Slightlymad 14:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I think if the person in question is using a unique alias (such as the Coen brothers do with "Roderick Jaynes") then we should use the credit and link to the main article, after all that is how they have chosen to be credited. I don't think this violates WP:EGG provided the main article actually acknowledges the alias. Many creators and artists have used aliases down the ages, and they are just as much a part of their professional identity as any other name they use. If the credit is not unique (e.g. Alan Smithee) then this does create an identification problem and I think the correct approach would be to use the person's professional name and add "credited as Alan Smithee". Betty Logan (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It does violate WP:EGG because when a reader clicks the name Roderick Jaynes, they would expect to see a biographical article about Roderick Jaynes. To land on the article for the Coen brothers would be confusing. I don't think the average reader is necessarily familiar with pseudonyms, much less the specific ones used. Why not just take the "<real name> (credited as <pseudonym>)" approach at minimum? A note tag can be used if the situation warrants a bit more explanation. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The Coens are Roderick Jaynes, and readers are taken to an article that covers the work of Roderick Jaynes. The purpose of EGG is to avoid taking readers to the wrong articles, but if you want to know more about "Roderick Jaynes" then the Coen article is where you would have to go. That is not an EGG violation. Any confusion arising from the different name is quickly cleared up by the lead and infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The production company may have some rationale for misleading audiences in credits, but Wikipedia has no defensible rationale for misleading our readers about the real facts. I prefer NinjaRobotPirate's approach in running text "Steven Soderbergh (credited as Peter Andrews)". In an infobox, Erik and Sock's formatting approach is probably better (Steven Soderbergh<br />{{small|(as Peter Andrews)}}). These are properly informative for our readers. WP:EGG is often but not always an issue; it's an issue if the pseudonym does not appear in bold in the lead. But I think that's a side point; readers should not, in the first place, be mislead by us into the idea Soderbergh and Andrews are different people, that someone named Peter Andrews is a notable cinematographer with his own article, and that the film had a different director and cinematographer.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Even if the pseudonym appears in bold in the middle of the lead section, it may not be immediately visible on mobile view. A reader using their smartphone and clicking on Roderick Jaynes and winding up at Coen brothers would definitely be confused. Of course, we can talk about hatnotes disclosing pseudonyms, but the Coen brothers already have one for their individual names redirecting there. More hatnoting seems unnecessary. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

If "Roderick Jaynes" doesn't direct to the Coen article, then the question becomes one of what should it link to? For example, if somebody came to Wikipedia and typed "Roderick Jaynes" into the search box having seen the name in a Coen film, what behavior would you advocate in that instance? Betty Logan (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point. :) I guess I'm not sure how to deal with relatively unimportant pseudonyms. Important ones would be more upfront, e.g., J. K. Rowling. Perhaps in this particular case, a stand-alone article about the pseudonym? It looks like there is some meatier content here and here, and such an article could also list where the credit was used. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I know this conversation has sort of come and gone, but it has come enough in some articles I work on. Generally, Infoboxes are supposed to be used to discuss information already in the prose. This is not always easy with film articles. I'd prefer to use someone's most common name and explain in the prose if possible why this person is credited that way. Its better to have a less cluttered up infobox than it is one trying to do things (like explain someone's Alan Smithee name) than it is to give out what people want, which is who actually did what. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I too missed this last month. One other way to handle things is with a footnote. That is what was used to deal with the Walter/Wendy Carlos listing at A Clockwork Orange (film). MarnetteD|Talk 19:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be handled best with a case by case basis. I have been editing a lot of European genre films lately whose credits are often...bonkers to say the least, ranging from writers nobody on the set seems to be familiar with to directors no one can clarify (see Frankenstein's Castle of Freaks where nobody knows who directed it anymore, or Terror-Creatures from the Grave where authorship has changed at least three times as the decades have gone by). I think since film production is complicated, it will have to be in a case by case basis, but I think either prose or complicated situations (like the films I mentioned) or a footnote in ones that can be explained in a quick sentence do the job. I'm only kind of against the whole giant bold credit saying "Uncredited:" in the infobox which could easily be explained in a more clean way otherwise. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 February 2018

Please add a parameter for secondary languages A145029 (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Betty Logan (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@A145029: From the documentation: "In rare cases of clearly bilingual or multilingual films, enter separate entries with {{unbulleted list}}". This is only for movies that don't have a clear primary language. There is no need for a secondary languages parameter, as it would likely be misused for movies where only a very small amount of a language was spoken in the film. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with this request. What's a secondary language? Dubs? Any other language spoken in the film? (Terminator 2 would have to have Spanish as a secondary language). Having the primary language(s) used for filming is useful to the reader. Beyond that, it's getting into trivia range. Ravensfire (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Backing Ahecht and Ravensfire on this. Very unnecessary to have two language parameters. Sock (tock talk) 20:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, a single "Language" parameter is just fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Poster image requirements

I recently uploaded File:A Quiet Place film poster.jpg and saw it tagged to be reduced based on certain broader non-free image use criteria (see User:Ronhjones/Reduce). It got reduced by a bot, but then it got replaced by another image slightly smaller in dimensions but bigger in file size. There is a discussion about that specific matter here.

However, it does not appear that Template:Infobox film#Image really gets into specifics about what should be considered when uploading a poster image, either in terms of dimensions or file size. Perhaps this is something that the community can determine based on the tag's criteria so we can basically get it right the first time when uploading? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

For myself, I find it easiest to just upload a poster as I find it on the internet and let the bots sort the sizing out; it's much easier, and hopefully means that it will be done correctly. It also means that every jo-blo editor doesn't have to be an expert in images and trying to accurately resize them. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Low resolution should be used, per WP:IMAGERES. Filesize is irrelevant (unless it's crazy big I guess, because that would slow loading time). — Film Fan 22:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Film Fan is correct about this. The file size is essentially irrelevant, since it invariably just represents the level of compression in the file format. It shouldn't be an issue unless—as FF points out—it is so large to the extent that it makes downloading the page problematic (and with kilobytes we are on the wrong scale for that to happen). WP:IMAGESRES stipulates that the image resolution should be as small as possible to be usuable, so this implies it only needs to be as large as its intended use in articles. If the image is only going to be used in infoboxes then it does not need to be wider than 220 pixels. If the file size is considered an issue 9which I don't think it is) then the 17kb file could always be downsized. Betty Logan (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Adamstom.97, I think it can matter because Film Fan uploaded a better-quality version than mine, which is not something a bot can do. (The red text in their version shows up better than mine after a bot's size reduction.) Basically, we could simply suggest vertical posters to be 220 pixels in width and suggest a larger file byte size if it improves an image's readability at that resolution. Thoughts? Betty Logan? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't be against a suggestion for users who want to do it properly themselves. I just think that it will be easiest for most to just keep doing it the same way. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

If somebody uploads a smaller image more in keeping with the guideline then given the option we should adhere to it, but in most cases it is probably easier to just let the bot handle it. So in that sense I agree with Adamstom. However, I have no objection to qualifying the dimensions of an upload in the infobox instructions. Betty Logan (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we can make a couple of suggestions rather than requirements. I'll look at the current wording and suggest additional wording. One more question: is PNG preferred over JPG when it comes to poster images? Or it does not matter? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the file type makes any difference to be honest. JPG is a compressed format so it would make the overall file size a bit smaller. Betty Logan (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if someone could take a look at this. Cheers — Film Fan 16:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed text

Currently, Template:Infobox film#Image says, "Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox to serve as an identifying image for the article. Poster images can be found..." I propose for the following text to be inserted: "Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox to serve as an identifying image for the article. For portrait-oriented posters, the image does not need to be more than 220 pixels in width due to the infobox's image framing. There is no limit to an image's file byte size, so an image of the same resolution but with a larger file byte size can be uploaded if it improves visibility or readability. Poster images can be found..." Thoughts on that? Betty Logan, Film Fan, Adamstom.97? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I think there is a problem in that it implies that editors should upload images less than 220 pixels wide, when ideally we want them at 220 pixels exactly. It is probably better if the images are slightly larger than they need to be than smaller. If editors want to replace a 250 pixel image with a 220 pixel image then that's ok with me; however we have a bot going around that chops images down to size so isn't this a solution looking for a problem? Wikipedia isn't going to be sued for copyright infringement over 50 pixels or so. Betty Logan (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

First, I wanted to stay away from requiring the width outright, but we can do that. But in terms of the benefit, it would help to state the parameters explicitly so we can avoid back-and-forth uploading. This way we can say it should be 220 pixels in width, and if a new version's file byte size is bigger and improves visibility, then that's fine. Basically wanted to get it right for myself and to make sure everyone can be on the same page too (or at least point to the agreed-upon page). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It's only going to be relevant to a relatively small amount of film content, but I feel like the recommended pixel width should be connected to the non-free content reference. If the image is public domain, we don't need people reducing images when the bot wouldn't either.--tronvillain (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

tronvillain, that is a very good point! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm okay with everything here. May be worth adding something for landscape ("quad") posters which are used in the UK. The UK also uses one-sheet (portrait) posters and I think a recommendation to use those instead of the quads would make sense, as there is often edit warring between the two, and quad posters don't fit the infobox format quite as well. — Film Fan 22:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

What should the parameter be for "quad" posters? Also 220 pixels for width or what? I'm not familiar with the best practice for that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

220 pixels works fine for quad posters too. Just check out any of the James Bond film articles which use the quad poster. If anything the image is slightly more compact because they are smaller in height. Betty Logan (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, rather than giving a recommendation on what users should do, we should just state what parametres they need to be aware of: the default size is 220 pixels, there is no restriction on resolution except where non-free restrictions apply, etc. Then users can decide what they are going to do from there, and bots will clean up after them where needed. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Kind of thought that's what the proposed text was doing already. :) What kind of alternative wording did you have in mind? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I just meant, rather than say the image does not need to be more than 220 pixels in width due to the infobox's image framing, we could say Note that the infobox's default image width is 220 pixels or something along those lines, just a little change that focus on the requriements rather than suggestions. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - 220px is not sufficent for some images, due to their complexity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  Hmm, complexity of what? WP:IMAGERES says, "An original, high resolution image (that can be reasonably scaled down to maintain overall artistic and critical details) may lose some text detail. In such cases, that text should be duplicated on the image description page. Care should be given to the recreation of copyrighted text: while it is appropriate for credits from a movie poster as factual data, such duplication would not be appropriate for an original poem embedded within an image." Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

  I would add to that in the case of non-free images, having a larger image would potentially violate the FUR if the film is identifiable from a much smaller version. That said, wouldn't the bot just automatically reduce the size anyway? Betty Logan (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

  Please, expand on your comment with examples, Beyond My Ken. — Film Fan 00:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)