Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Expansion

If you add a new parameter to a paramaterized template, then it's your responsibility to go through all the linked-to articles and add that parameter if it's missing, even if it's blank. Otherwise it will render as {{{producer}}}. Thanks. --Lexor|Talk 10:02, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Is this relevant or nessecary now that we are using hiddenClass structures? AdamJacobMuller 16:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Autogroup distributor

I was thinking of perhaps to change parameter "distibuted by" to automatically refer to category [[Category:Films by {{{distributed by}}}]] _→AzaToth 18:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

No. Categories should be handled separately, not within templates. As anyone familiar with WP:CFD will tell you, moving articles between categories is made very difficult when it involves a template. Additionally, a free-text field like "distributed by" can lead to misspellings. Lastly, some films are distributed by different companies in different countries or regions. -- Netoholic @ 19:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Since it's protected, I'll ask here

Please add this template to this category: Category:Infobox templates .Jacoplane 01:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I was going to do so after having the template unprotected but I stopped when I saw Infobox templates is a candidate for deletion... 69.3.70.211 07:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC).

Choice of image

I think whenever possible, the image chosen for the infobox should be not only pleasing to the eye, but also serve to show the main characters, etc. For an example, see the change I made to Resident Evil (movie). Initially, the infobox image consisted of a bland, pre-release teaser poster that only had the logo and the release date. Zzzzz. I replaced it with the more vibrant DVD cover that also showed two of the stars of the film and I think it works much better now. Similarly the image for Avalon (Japanese film) was likewise changed to provide a better graphic (though this film article has no infobox yet). Just some thoughts. 23skidoo 22:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Actually I agree. When looking for The Last Samurai poster, I found the imdb choice to be unappealing. When I did some further searching I found an alternate poster featuring Ken Watanabe. IMHO, it just looked much better and spoke much more about the heart of the film, even though there's no Cruise to be found.Troy34 04:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Aspect ratio

How about an optional/hidden field that gives the aspect ratio of a film? This may be useful for enthusiasts. Shawnc 10:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The following comment has been received: "I think this would be a useful addition to that template. This would be better than categorisation. I'm not sure many people would search for aspect ratio via the categories system." by User:Valiantis. Shawnc 22:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with adding this. There is much confusion to aspect ratio, particularly in classic film post-1953 where open-matte films play on TV full-frame so long that people think that that is the original aspect ratio. Definitely for.The Photoplayer 03:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Triplets of Belleville

Some of the text is leaking from the template at Triplets of Belleville, anyone mind checking it out, and fixing it if possible? That'd be great, thanks. --Brendanfox 12:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Certificate rating

What about adding this into the infobox? I think it would be better to add it in to the infobox, rather than having it's own sentence on the film article. --^KILO-_LIMA 18:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That's been talked about both in here and in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. The consensus seems to be that ratings definitely shouldn't be in the infobox, but some people feel they might be useful somewhere else in the article. - Bobet 19:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the MPAA rating belongs in the info box. I do not understand why it would be excluded. --Blue Tie 00:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion entitled 'MPAA Ratings' further down on this page. Ziggurat 00:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Include a trailer field

Trailers are just as encyclopedic as posters. Including an optional trailer field on this template would not hurt. Noclip 23:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree seeing any movie worth being on wikipedia has a trailer and they can be sumed up in a short link--Whywhywhy 12:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There's been a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Infobox film fields (trailer/ratings). There's pretty much a consensus there saying this field and the ratings field suggested above don't belong in the infobox. - Bobet 11:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Include a Cinematographic Process field

I would like for a "Cinematographic Process" field to be added to the template. Cinematographic process types include anamorphic, hard-matte spherical, soft-matte spherical, and Super 35. This would help in making informed purchasing decisions between widescreen and full-screen versions of a motion picture released in two aspect ratios. I would buy both versions of the motion picture if filmed in Super 35. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 08:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The template is crowded enough: I'd like to see a stronger reason than "help in making informed purchasing decisions" before adding yet another field. Turnstep 13:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Super 35 cinematographic process causes the most confusion to consumers in purchasing decisions involving aspect ratio if the original-aspect-ratio and 1.33:1 pan-and-scan versions are sold separately. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 00:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That may be, but 1) this information can be put into articles as needed, and 2) Wikipedia is not a shopping guide. Turnstep 01:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The field would be called "Film format" in the template. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 06:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Must agree with this. Most writers might overlook this, and it's hardly the basis for a "shopping guide", it's an important fact about the film. For example, while you may know that The Robe (1953) was the first film shot in CinemaScope, were you aware that it was simulaneously shot in the Academy Ratio? Valuable information such as that should be listed. The Photoplayer 03:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrapping of multiple entries

Would it greatly disconcert anybody if I added <span style="white-space:nowrap;">…</span> to the various multi-person parameters (director, writer, starring, etc)? These tend to have <br /> separating the names anyway, but sometimes an extra long entry can really mess up the display. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too clear on what you're suggesting... will the lines go off the side of the box, or will it just grow wider? What about nowrap (or using nbsp) for the "directed by" and other two-word parameters in case they wrap (like they do if you put a really long word into the right column) —Fitch 20:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

includeonly/noinclude magic

I used includeonly/noinclude so that you can see all of the paramaters of the template in page (instead of just the only non-optional paramater {{name}}) I was orginally just testing but it works very well and doesn't seem to have any side affects to i'm going to leave it in place unless someone objects AdamJacobMuller 16:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Movie ratings

I know this has been discussed before, but why isn't there a section for the movie rating? So why not merge the Template:Infobox Film rating with the main film infobox? My suggestion would to include at least the American and Canadian ratings, and ignore the rating descriptions. How this could be put onto the infobox would be like:

Rating: <Flag of country> <Rating (including reratings)>

--FlyingPenguins 07:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As you said, it's been discussed before, and as far as I know, each time, the conclusion has been "Not a good idea". I personally think your idea is particulary "not a good idea", mainly because you said "at least the American and Canadian ratings" which isn't NPOV (to focus on those ratings). Seriously though, you'd either have to restrict the countries that could put ratings in (again not NPOV) or you'd have to put up with enourmous rating lists for popular films (with all the fans/contributors on this Wikipedia alone, imagine how long Harry Potter films would be!). So in short "why not?" cause its too messy. - ^R_H^e_o^d_t 19:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what you said was kind of true; checking the motion_picture_rating_system page, there are over 34 ratings systems! It would be a better idea for the TV ratings system, as there are only around 6. --FlyingPenguins 23:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Example: [1] We clearly don't want that. Shinobu 21:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion from SIMPLE version: Country of production?

As I already know, not every film covered on Wikipedia comes from the United States--a great deal of them are from other nations as well. So I'd like you to put in a "Country" namespace in order to avoid American bias. The language namespace is already in the Infobox, so why not countries? I wonder...

P.S.: I'm not sure if we could incorporate a Wikiquote link inside it, just like the SIMPLE version has it. This would replace the Wikiquote template at the bottom of the pages where available. --Slgrandson 17:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Other language editions of Wikipedia do this already - the English Wiki is showing a clear bias by not following suit. IMDB does this too - why doesn't Wikipedia? Esn 23:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've done this now. (Well not now, last night!) - ^Red_Hot 08:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

IMDB Ratings

The following user/IP has been adding IMDB ratings to the infobox for a lot of films, and I've not seen any mention of this anywhere else. Personally I think it's a bad idea, as the information changes very frequently (especially the number of votes - why would you want to show that anyway), and is going to be a headache for keeping up to date and accurate. Anyone got any thoughts? --duncan 12:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC) http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=69.227.173.21

I agree that it's not a good idea as the information will go out of date, and it's of no benefit for editors to be regularly checking the score on the IMDb (to which there is already a link in the infobox if anyone wants to know the score) and updating the page just to change the score. Nor is it what the caption field is for... —Whouk (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• This is the user of an IP address you refer speaking. Since I saw the ratings in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King—in which I was NOT responsible for that, I thought I could do an inspiration by adding IMDB ratings in lots of articles. But I see your point in disagreeing with this since it would be a matter of wasting our time updating it frequently. Here's this: rather than updating it frequently, how about updating it for every 1~3 months? If not, how about either every week or every New Year's Day? 69.227.173.21 12:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Almost forgot, here are someone's (or my) instructions of this:

[[Internet Movie Database|IMDB]] [[Image:{{{n}}} out of 5.png]] #.#/10 (##### votes)

Example: If the rating is 6.5~7.4, it could be [[Image:3hvof5.png]] (). If 8.5~9.4, [[Image:4hvof5.png]] (). In other words, round the IMDB rating into nearest unit (8.5 = 9), divide it into 2 (9/2 = 4.5), and type the image link that equals to the amount of stars. I'll be more specific later on if you don't know my logics. 69.227.173.21 12:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

While I admit the idea of seeing the rating is not a bad idea the fact that some films can drastically change ratings if there is not many votes make me think it would be a hard thing to keep up. Unless there was someway to have update automatically I think it may be worth putting it on hold for the time being. --Lummie 14:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to do it, I'd say take the number of votes off, as they're not that relevant to the film information, and are going to change most often. --duncan 16:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Given the fluidity of the score and the need to check it in future, there should really also be a note (although I realise this isn't great for the formatting) of when the count was taken, as with any cited web source. —Whouk (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd think that the number of votes is important - it lets you know how long ago the wikipedia movie page was updated by comparing it with the number of votes at the actual IMDB site. In fact, the number of votes is a better reference number than the date in my opinion, because how the score changes depends on the number of votes, not on the date. I for one think that this feature is very helpful - most movies don't change scores very quickly, after all, and it wouldn't take much effort to change them. It's a nice visual guide when browsing wikipedia of how "good" a movie is. It's not like they have to be changed CONSTANTLY... however, it would be a lot better if it were automatic. Esn 23:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a cool template for stars, too, {{Rating}}. {{Rating|2.5|5|score=2.5 stars|rating=star}} → —Fitch 14:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm against it

• The Internet Movie Database ratings system is not a valid way of asserting how good a film is. For instance, many people will take up multiple accounts on the website, just to drive the ratings up. Studios have hired people to vote "10" on titles they are releasing in order to drive the ratings up. Many of the actual voters are extremely gullible, or will not give critically-acclaimed films (such as This Island Earth and The Lord of the Rings (1978)) a chance and instead give these films negative ratings because other people tell them to do so, not because these films are truly bad.

The IMDb is not a valid representation of what the general public thinks of a film. It represents a limited number of people in North America and the United Kingdom, 50% of which are biased net nerds who think that certain people, such as Peter Jackson, are the greatest living specimens on planet Earth and beyond the stars.

Furthermore, Wikipedia advises against having an article represent the POV of a select group of people. It is a rule of thumb for editing that each article maintain a neutral point of view. When you insert the Internet Movie Database overall USER rating, you are going against this policy and you thereby make these articles biased to a select group, not all of which everyone is going to agree on.

It is perfectly all right to quote licensed critics and well-known offers in order to provide Wikipedia readers with an idea of how a certain film was recieved, but to allow them to make up their own minds. It is not all right to try and brainwash people by telling them that the Internet Movie Database user rating system is the be-all and end-all way of determining how these films are either good or bad. That is bullshit. (Ibaranoff24 03:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC))

Well said. I agree with its removal purely on the grounds that the field is completely unmaintainable, but the rating is clearly not a very useful piece of information to be quoting. Flowerparty☀ 15:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I too also agree with this stance, just to be on the record here due to its reintroduction by another editor. K1Bond007 03:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

image size too big for some posters

I see there has been some image size discussion in the past, but not on this matter.

Some of the pictures used in the infobox have a natural size less than 200px width: therefore, the infobox stretches them out. One example: Impostor (film).

How feasible is it to have the template (or a derivative template, or whatever) take the width as an argument? That way it could be omitted and the natural size could be used.

-- Jon Dowland 10:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added an image_size parameter (you specify width in pixels, so for example image_size = 150px) which defaults to 200px. I also modified the article you provided as an example to use this and it seems to work okay. I'll wait for some more discussion before adding it to the docs to see if anyone thinks it's a bad idea. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that we shouldn't have an extra parameter. Seeing a stretched image should be an impetus to find one at least 200px wide. That's not so big and won't be hard to find for just about any film. It's going to look ugly streched or too small... so, why not minimized the code excess? gren グレン 06:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's kind of what my feeling was as well. Hence why I waited for comment before advertising it too much, heh. =) Feel free to remove it if you like (just make it so it says "200px" instead of "{{{image_size|200px}}}"). Articles that use thed parameter won't matter, the parameter will just be ignored. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. You can as easily say "seeing a small image will be impetus enough to go find a bigger image. Surely we should not deliberately set out to post a degraded image on a page when we have the option of not doing so. Spoiling the wikipedia merely to provide a whip to encourage improvement is a strange medicine. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Music

What music goes into the music section? Is it only for scores? Or do original songs go in there? And what about non-original music?ONEder Boy 06:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Does the /Syntax Guide explain it well enough? —Fitch 14:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

AMG_ID?

Can anyone tell me what amg_id is? It is not explained in the Syntax Guide. Esn 19:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

All Movie Guide: http://www.allmovie.com/ Can't say I'd ever heard of it before, and not sure it deserves to be part of the template; imdb is obviously better known and more widely recognised; do we need to link to a 2nd (3rd, 4th...) film listing site? What does AMG offer that IMDB doesn't? --duncan 20:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It was added at the request of others I know, and I think it could be a nice addition to IMDb. It can be useful when trying to find some information not on IMDb like "Box office gross", "Flags" (content some might find offensive), etc. But like I said this is in no way ment to replace IMDb but to be used as an optional adition to it. -- UKPhoenix79 19:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do we even link to imdb here? It's an infobox, not an external links section. Flowerparty☀ 20:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say that the IMDb link is almost a must when talking about movies on the web. It helps the page expand its encyclopedic qualities. I doubt that there are but a handful of movies using this template that don't use the provided IMDb link. -- UKPhoenix79 20:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that a link to IMDB is an absolute must. It is incredibly useful for too many reasons to list. I suppose that the AMG link is fine too, if it really does have info that IMDB does not... although I'm a bit unsure. Still, I don't really care too much either way. Esn 03:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not knocking imdb, but it justs feels like the external links section is being gradually migrated into the infobox (or rather duplicated there - {{imdb title}} is already used on most of the film pages I come across). And it seems POV to link to only imdb from the infobox, like we're endorsing it as the only film site worth visiting. Flowerparty☀ 02:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well an All Movie Guide link option has been added also so there is a choice... but you really should use IMDb whenever you use this templte since it is the standerd on the net. -- UKPhoenix79 04:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

IMDb is "the standard on the net" only to the extent that it has almost no competition. It's just the fattest kid on a block where only 4-5 kids live, so to speak. It is still fraught with errors and is incomplete for much of world film, and limits what it will accept by way of information (e.g. complete synopses, which could *only* be put up on Wikipedia, to the best of my knowledge, and would have to be based on actually watching a film). AMG is, BTW, IMDb's biggest competitor, is far behind it in accuracy, and is even less amenable to correction. Neither site should be treated as anything more than a reference source 12.73.195.203 00:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The option to allow users to either use IMDB or AMG hasn't really been communicated properly in the INFOBOX. By adding the amg option under the imdb one, it looks like there is a policy in effect to include both the imdb and amg. And as mentioned before, this should not be encouraged. At the very most, there should be a section on the project page stating that AMG is an alternative to IMDB. That way, there would be no confusion. --P-Chan 06:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan... Where do you think that should be mentioned? -- UKPhoenix79 06:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

One option could be to include it into the infobox section, either above it or below it. Stating what was said here... that AMG can be used as another option to IMDB. I have yet to thoroughly compare the two in anymore than a few cases, so I really can't comment on the quality. But I think that it is entirely possible that AMG could have a better entry than IMDB on some films (although I think this would be uncommon). Choice is good. Cheers. --P-Chan 06:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The AMG that was just removed from the template was and is a very useful link, especially for one trying to fill in missing film infoboxes (like me). The information is given in a very orderly way that is easy to work with, whereas in IMDB one has to look around to find all the names, dates, etc, and often misses information that AMG has. IMDB is surely more interesting for its viewers' comments etc, but the quality of AMG is also very high. I please ask that the template is restored as previously, for reasons of high-practicality, if not for public choice. I have read the above discussion, and had I found it earlier, I would have surely posted my opinion earlier. Also I don't see such a broad consensus above that justifies the removal. Is P-Chan back, by the way? If so, please, drop me a line. Hoverfish 13:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me the AMG links no longer work

Seems that AMG has changed their hyperlinks. Is there a way to fix this. Otherwise all our links go to nowhere. Hektor 06:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

A change was made to automatically add a prefix of "1:" to the amg_id and this ended up disabling the amg link for existing film articles. I have restored the previous version. It is only my opinion, but I think changes to the template that alter how a link works should be discussed first because it can potentially affect and disrupt hundreds to many thousands of existing film articles. Alan Smithee 09:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add this to my watchlist and therefore didn't see this, so I'm sorry. When I added a link, it never worked due to the incorrect format. I didn't realize this because I hadn't been checking all of them, assuming that the format was correct. When I did check them, I tested the format carefully, before figuring out the problem was the omission of the correct prefix. If you would rather have pointed out in the syntax that one should manually add the "1:", I suppose that is a solution as well, but there was no indication of that either. It is now irrelevant, however, as apparently consensus has been reached that the amg link should not be included on the template. Shannernanner 11:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)