Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

I'm not sure how many times I have to say this before you folks get it.

• (1) The Infobox field calls for "Stars"
• (2) In general, every film has a small number of stars, although some are "ensemble" films, which have more
• (3) The names of the stars almost always appear above the titles, and their pictures often appear together in advertising as the principal visual element
• {4} The actors listed in the billing block are not the "stars", they are the "principal actors", which means the stars plus the featured actors
• (5) Film billing is not a meritocracy, it's purpose is to help the film draw in customers and make money.
• (6) Stars sell a movie, that's why their names appear in larger type above the title, so that their names can be easily seen by people who will then (hopefully) be enticed to see the moving. The other people in the billing box, listed in the equivalent of agate type, are there primarily for contractual reasons, not to sell the movie, because almost no one reads the agate type.
• (7) Anybody who has any familiarity with the billing process for films knows that 1-6 are absolutely and indisputably true, and that therefore the advice in the documentation is simply wrong.
• {8) Telling editors to put all the names in the billing box in the "starring" field is not only a disservice to our readers, but clutters up the infobox with too many names. It also defies WP:COMMONSENSE.
• [9) Anyone interested in the film articles in Wikipedia being accurate should support the change of documentation to say that if there are names listed above the title, these actors alone are the stars of the film.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, it might be worth adding a "non-starring actors" entry. Which I agree does not necessarily improve the infobox, but might be pragmatic in dealing with other editors; by the tone of this post, BMK is fighting against windmills. 95.237.25.92 (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I fail to see anything in the template that can be construed as "billing". Not so much because my fault, but because there is none. 95.237.25.92 (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, the fact that there's any debate on what you're proposing makes it clear that it is not a common sense issue, nor is it the objective truth you're making it out to be. I don't see how you think taking a sardonic tone will help you at all, if anything it's just going to put users like myself (those who agree with your opinion) off from wanting to be paired with the tone you've taken. Accusing people who prefer billing block inclusion of not wanting film articles to be accurate is disrespectful at best and offensive at worst. Sock (tock talk) 13:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with BMK's sentiment. I can't recall when it was decided to go with billing block only? I could have sworn that once upon a time it could be the billing block or the names above the title or some other measure (basically, a rule of thumb). Fight Club is a good example of a bad billing-block implementation; it lists Meat Loaf Aday and Jared Leto as "Starring". BMK, maybe list a few examples where just the billing-block approach is problematic? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I decided not to be lazy and just pinpoint when the change was made. It was made in 2012 as seen here. The discussion for that is here: Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 22#Starring parameter: criteria?. It should be noted that we have had several related discussions after this change, none of which panned out. I would support reopening discussion to consider more of a "rule of thumb" approach (which I seem to have said back then too). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I feel like it can get problematic in some of the more recent ensemble films to come out. Off the top of my head, the billing block for Avengers: Age of Ultron boasts a whopping 17 actors, while there are only eight listed on the poster's graphic design (Downey, Hemsworth, Ruffalo, Evans, Johansson, Renner, Spader, and Jackson). This can be applied to a lot of films with similarly huge cast lists. I think using actors from the billing block in-prose is perfectly fine, but, for example, burying Spader and Jackson all the way below so many supporting actors when they're central has always rubbed me a bit wrong. Sock (tock talk) 17:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Given the various definitions of "star" and "starring", it may not follow that one has to be a star to star in a movie, or that starring in a movie makes one a star. Perhaps if the field was renamed "principal actors" instead of "starring"? Though I've seen credible definitions that essentially define one in terms of the other. Also, how many names is "too many", and which pages have too many names in the infobox? --tronvillain (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but billing block rules seem to fall apart a lot more when it comes to foreign-language films. I don't mind it being a rule of thumb with exceptions, but for Japanese films for example...what do we do? These films don't really have billing blocks like English-language films do. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Do we even need the field? We generally mention the principal actors in the lead and most articles these days have some form of cast list. Is it really that necessary to add a few actors' names to the infobox? It seems to me we don't gain much from it and it is a continual headache. Betty Logan (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

As I remember it the the billing block came about as a way to stop (or at least slow down) edit warring. I remember mentioning that I did not feel that Raquel Welch was a star of the film Bedazzled (1967 film) and was told (in no uncertain terms) that her name had to be in the infobox since it was on the poster. This was probably ten or more years ago which means it proceeds the thread that Erik linked to. While I like Betty Logan's idea of dropping it I imagine that would have more than a little opposition. I also like Tronvillain's idea of changing the fields name. I remember that at some point in time the It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World just had a link to the cast section in the infobox but that was done away with at some point. I can't remember if it was labeled "see below" or something like that but I've long felt that was a workable solution - though I may be the only one who feels that way. Hammering out a new set of criteria and then adding it to the documentation for the template would be great. MarnetteD|Talk 23:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The cast of a film is a reasonably significant part of it, and the infobox covers the main points of the film. By your logic Betty, we could basically just do away with the infobox entirely. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

That's not my logic at all. My logic is that we usually have a cast list at some point in the article, so the names are duplicated just a little further down the article. That's certainly not the case for people such as the editor, the cinematographer, the composer etc, who often don't event get mentioned in the lead. The director and writers are often mentioned in the lead but their names are not generally duplicated by a second list in the article. Basically most film articles have two cast lists now, and I question the need for that. Betty Logan (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The director and writers will almost definitely be listed as much, if not more so, than the cast. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean? I am not proposing we remove the director and writer. My point is that most of these articles have two cast lists which is redundant. How does having two cast lists benefit the article? Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I mean exactly what I said. The director and writers will almost definitely be listed as much, if not more so, than the cast. So if it is redundant to list cast members in the infobox, then it must be even more so to list the director and writers. So again, by your logic, why don't we just get rid of infoboxes? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Content being duplicated in infoboxes isn't a flaw, it's a feature. --00:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Including too much content in an infobox is a flaw though, which is essentially what is driving this dicussion. The purpose of the infobox is to summarise the keys facts covered by the article. In the case of say the director, the editor, composer etc the infobox usefully aggregates these names into a "single glance" list of the key personnel. However, in respect of the principal actors a cast list already provides this function, aggregating the cast into a "single glance" list. In respect of the cast, the infobox isn't just summarising key facts, it is summarising a summary. If you want to know who was behind the making of Avengers: Age of Ultron the infobox is a useful overview. If you want to know who appears in the film, I don't see any discernible advantage of the infobox over the main cast list. There is a reason why list articles don't generally have infoboxes, and that is because the content is already in a summary format. Betty Logan (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I kind of agree with Betty. What would make most sense to swap from an article would be the cast. It would save any excessive crediting that we can't find rules for, and it would also make the infobox far more uniform, as it would strictly be behind-the-scenes crew. Cast can easily be explained in the lead, its own section in the plot, or even by those handy casting boxes that are getting more popular, like the one The Thing has. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Now you guys are starting to miss the point of what an infobox is and why we have them. A read of Help:Infobox may be required. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Both Andrzejbanas and I have been on Wikipedia longer than you and have more experience than you, so please don't imply we don't understand the basic purpose of the infobox. If you have a different view on how to best fulfil that purpose then that is a completely valid viewpoint, but these discussions are generally more productive when we engage each others' arguments rather than being dismissive of them. Betty Logan (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

How people use infoboxes will vary based on their own habits. This isn't a case where someones right and anothers wrong. Personally I also have to say that the proposal to remove the cast listings from the Infobox seems very extreme, and we can solve the problem without resorting to that measure. --Deathawk (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, removing it entirely is more harmful than good. Perhaps instead of coming up with a hard rule, we can suggest to use either the billing block or the names above the title and allow WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to determine which is the better approach on a case-by-case basis.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Isn't this the reason we have the first point of WP:FILMCAST? So we can pick the best method to list the cast of a film, be it by billing above the title, the billing block below, or some other way suggested there, so we don't add in our own opinions of who is or isn't consider a "star" to be included? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem with Beyond My Ken proposal can be seen currently at the Armageddon and this ensuing talk page debate. To sum up the situation, despite having an ensemble cast only Bruce Willis's name appears above the poster, thus there was an edit war regarding the infobox and everyone's trying to figure the situation out. This is obviously not an ideal situation. The best situation I think of would be to use the the "above the titles" as a tool, but above all else, use common sense. For the vast majority of films the guideline is probably fine to populate the infobox using the tool. but now and then we come across an Armageddon, and we shouldn't all freak out just because a name isn't where it's supposed to be on the poster. --Deathawk (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm still not really hearing anyone's reasoning why removing the cast from the infobox would be a bad idea. There are countless articles on Wikipedia which have cast information which basically regurgitates the same thing with better information (i.e: an actor and the the role they played). It will also significantly shrink infobox sizes which always helps articles with less prose. Take a look at The Thing (1982 film), which has its own cast box. un-obtrusive, gives out more information than the infobox can, ideal for a lists that can't get into specific casting details for each actor or actress. As people are terrified at anything that sounds like removing information, I don't expect it to be popular, but this feels like such a cleaner and more informative solution for our readers.Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I would oppose it because who appears in the film is among the "key facts" that the infobox provides about a film, more so than most of the parameters in the infobox. We shouldn't give up on the "Starring" parameter just because of the occasional flare-up. If anything, we should pursue a form of MOS:RETAIN to leave the parameter alone if the contents are remotely acceptable. The film infobox, to me, simply provides a summarized presentation of a film's cast and crew. (I would argue that the latter should have their own "Crew" section to present a fuller list that the infobox itself actually summarizes.) If you're really serious about removing the parameter, an RfC is a must. And honestly, I don't think the outcome would favor such a removal. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I'm sure you're aware, the infobox is designed to place commonly sought information in a conveniently and uniformly placed location so visitors don't have to scan the article to look for it. Many visitors come to an article just to check the infobox for quick reference. Other easily found information like the director is placed there for this purpose. This proposition is like throwing the baby out with bad water just to solve a problem on a relatively few articles. Again common sense and local consensus is the best way to solve this problem.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I've created maybe five to ten thousand film articles, all with infoboxes. I don't ever recall an edit-war over the order of the starring field (that's not to say it might have happened). However, I have witnessed (mainly IP editors) adding every man and his dog who appears in the film into the infobox field. I think this needs to be looked at a case-by-case basis on any articles where this seems an issue, rather than removing one field across 100,000 articles. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Tagline

This is a suggestion. Every film poster contains one tagline. So why not have in the in the { {Infobox film} } template has a parameter which should appear after title of the film. Dunno if it has been discussed before. But what do you admins think?

For instance: { {Infobox film title = Kyon Ki tagline = ...its fate. ... } } Harsh Rathod 13:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

We used to have taglines in articles, actually, but we exclude them for the most part because they're simply marketing elements. We can report the most noteworthy ones based on secondary sources, but Wikipedia's film articles are not meant to titillate readers into seeing the films. See WP:TAGLINE for our MOS guideline on the matter. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Alt text

Bovineboy2008, why did you restore the long alt text? From MOS:ALT: "Alternative text should be short ... Very long descriptions can be left for the body of the article." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I was not aware of the MOS. I've revert myself! BOVINEBOY2008 02:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit on March 3, 2018

I have updated the page per the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Narrator in infobox. While the discussion did not receive an "official admin" close the bot did remove the RFC which means the thread will soon be archived and I wanted to make the bold edit before the decision recedes into the mists of time. If anyone feels I have erred in this please feel free to reopen the discussion at the thread linked to. MarnetteD|Talk 23:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

As the discussion in question has now been archived I leave the updated link Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 68#Narrator in infobox in case any questions arise. MarnetteD|Talk 00:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Voice actors for movies

Hello! Can you add the voices part for actors in movies. They use voice actors mainly in animated films and in stop-motion movies. It had been fine that you would have added this. It is important for people to know who had the voices in these movies--193.161.216.4 (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

For anyone who replies please be aware that the IP made this edit attempting to change the "starring field" in the infobox. MarnetteD|Talk 16:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

"Oh Stewardess, I speak jive." I assume that what the IP is asking, is that we add |voices= to the template similar to what is found at Template:Infobox television, for use with animated roles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Misaligned labels and data

Since line-height is set to 1.3em for the data, but not for the labels (they're using 1.5em from .infobox – line 405), the stuff on the left and the right ends up being misaligned. Here's a screencap from Barry Lyndon, for instance. Was the line-height set to 1.3em to make lists generated via {{plainlist}} more compact or? At any rate, it'd be nice to fix this by either adding line-height:1.3em; to labelstyle (although, that would make the infobox look a bit crammed), or by getting rid of it in datastyle (which kind of makes lists look a bit weird with the extra space between the lines, but that could be because I'm used to seeing it the current way), or unless there's a different way I'm missing. – Srdjan m (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I support fixing this alignment issue but am not sure the best code to implement for this. Maybe check to see who has edited this template in the past (which I think would indicate their familiarity with the code) and ping them to see what they think? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I removed the datastyle parameter in the sandbox. See a comparison of the Barry Lyndon infobox on the testcases subpage. Does this solve the issue? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it just me or does the existing version look more aligned? Could this be a browser issue? Betty Logan (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Yeah, it does. – Srdjan m (talk) 09:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Srdjan m: Cool. Glad it seemed to do what you wanted. @Betty Logan: Yesterday the existing version looked better to me, but today the sandbox version looks more aligned. I'm on Chrome on a Mac, FWIW. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: It's been a while. When is this going to go live? – Srdjan m (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

There hasn't been much objection, so I'll put in the edit request. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 March 2018

Please implement this version of the sandbox to the live template, per the above discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Films that have no dialogue

What do we put in the language field for such films? "Silent" may not be the option, since there are sound films which are not really silent, like Pushpaka Vimana and The Thief, which just lack dialogue. ----Kailash29792 (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Can't you just ignore it, if there is no language to name? - adamstom97 (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a nice option. At least something that prevents auto-categorisation on the basis of language. But I initially thought the field cannot be left blank. ----Kailash29792 (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I've put the words "No dialogue" in that field, to avoid it being incorrectly completed by someone who thinks it's been forgotten. The language category is only pre-populated if the category already exists. You can see this if you do a test edit (with a preview) on a variable that's obviously not a language. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

You could also put "No dialogue" in a hidden comment in case someone tried to add something there. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

And is "silent" even really a valid entry for the language of a silent film if it has intertitles. The intertitles at initial release are inevitably going to have been in a specific language, and are as much a part of the film as spoken dialogue. --tronvillain (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Lugnuts, I put "no dialogue" in the language field at Pushpaka Vimana, but it doesn't auto-categorise. Should it be made possible that if we put "none" in the field, the article automatically gets added to the category "films without speech"? ----Kailash29792 (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

It wont auto-cat, as their is no such languge as "no dialogue" or "none". In these rare cases, you just need to add the category yourself. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Colour System

There does not appear to be any provision for the colour system used in the film's brief details. I believe there should be; Technicolor, Eastmancolor, DeLuxe Color, etc. Unknown if no colour system is credited, and black & white or black & white (Sepiatone), etc. SButler860(talk) 14:21 7 April 2018 (BST)

Dunkirk Budget

We have a debate going at the page for Dunkirk. We have multiple RS reporting the budget is $150 million (one official film office report from the Netherlands shows its around $130 million) and multiple sources showing it is $100 million. One or two of the sources first claimed it was $150 million and then said WB claimed it was $100 million. In one case, a source that re-reported it as $100 million still acknowledged the earlier $150 million amount and did not disavow either amount. Like wikipedia, they kept both amounts for a range. No source issued a correction and no source that later added the $100 million budget claimed the other amount was incorrect. And one of them actually re-reported the $100 million as the "net" budget, which means there was a higher gross budget (as the film shot in rebate locations of the UK, Netherlands and France). Finally, many of the sources claiming $150 million always reported it as such, including trade publications TheWrap and Deadline as well as the LA Times, Marketwatch, The Guardian and others. Info box rules are clear that we list the budget range, but two editors feel that the sources who later included the $100 million budget means they somehow disowned the $150 million amount or invalidated the $150 million amount as incorrect. Again, these sources did not disown the $150 million amount or say it was "incorrect". This is the interpretation of the two editors, not the actual position of the sources in question. Edits to include a range have been reverted. Rather than reply to arguments for including the range and address the multiple cited RS using the $150 million or lower (the Netherlands film office report), the two editors who only want $100 million have remained silent. Any thoughts for or against using a budget range on this film would be welcome on the Dunkirk talk page. Foodles42 (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You are unlikely to get a proper answer to that question here, you would be better to ask on the Wikipedia Project Film Talk page. The people who comment there are the the people who edit film articles most often and effectively they decide the consensus (in part by discussion and in a greater part by being the most active editors). Some of them seem to have already joined in the discussion on the Dunkirk Talk page. There may be a discussion in the archives but from other articles there seems to be a consensus to keep multiple figures, even when on the balance of probability one of those figures is wrong. (I argued over a film budget questioning a figure that seemed unlikely until I eventually found an interview with the director clearly stating the budget and that seemed definitive to me, but ultimately the article kept both figures). I'd have thought the infobox would go with the most likely figure and that the article text would explain further but apparently not. Wikipedia often contains the wikitruth that reflects the sources rather than any objective absolute truth. It's weird but that's how it goes. -- 109.76.208.8 (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem though is that Wikipedia lacks the resources to establish the "truth". It would require professional Wikipedia researchers to corroborate facts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so its jobs is to document the factual record, rather than facts themselves. Hopefully there is a sufficiently large overlap between the factual record and the truth though, otherwise Wikipedia would be just a massive misinformation project. I am inclined to believe a director about a film's budget because I think most times they would tell the truth, so Wikipedia should look to contextualising. This is the approach I am advocating at the Dunkirk discussion, rather than just blindly report a figure i.e. let readers see where the figures come from. Betty Logan (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Running time issue

So I'm working on the running time for Flesh for Frankenstein. There are two known running times, the US running time, and a shorter Italian running time (the film is an Italian production predominantly, but was heavily edited for its Italian release, which was a later release). The film originally premiered in West Germany, I don't know the running time then. Should the infobox handle the running time here? Or just try to explain it best we can as prose as this is a more complicated issue? Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe not mention it at all in the infobox in this case, and go for the Blade Runner approach. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

That is what I was suggesting, but another user has stated we should just use the BBFC website as its has running times and is recommended in the infobox instructions. I suggest that its too complicated of an issue to just place in the infobox without some sort of explanation. Any other thoughts?Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm the other user. We could add a clarifying note to the infobox runtime, similar to the Dunkirk (2017 film) budget. Other than not being established as the runtime of the initial German release, the runtime submitted to the BBFC is clearly the notable runtime. --tronvillain (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Questions about the "writer" field

Should it be used instead of the "screenplay" field if the writer and story writer is the same person? What if the screenplay is based on a work of the screenwriter? (e.g. Oleanna). Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

It can, but you should look at the billing block of the film to see how each person is credited (the chunk of text at the bottom of the film poster). In this case, it states "Screenplay By DAVID MAMET", so the screenplay field should be used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Runtime amendment

Currently the guidelines request that the "approximate time duration of the theatrical release of the film in minutes" is added to the infobox, and advises that the British Board of Film Classification is a reliable source. The reason for this is because the BBFC physically measures the length of film in those instances where the film had a theatrical release, and as such its time should be exact (for the version submitted to the BBFC).

However, there have been complications as can be seen at Talk:Ronin_(film)#Runtime_in_infobox and Talk:The_Grand_Budapest_Hotel#Runtime. This is because the BBFC rates every version submitted, and the times can sometimes vary. It is useful to consider the three separate entries for The Grand Budapest Hotel:

• Type: Feature – 97 minutes (approximate)
• Type: Film – 99 minutes 39 seconds (approved)
• Type: Video – 95 minutes 11 seconds (approved)

There is a difference of over 4 minutes between the "film" and "video" version, so what does this mean, considering that both submitted versions were uncut? The difference is due to a phenomenon known as PAL speedup. PAL is the television system used in some European and Asian countries and runs at 25 frames per second (as opposed to NTSC which runs at 30 frames per second). Synchronised sound films on the other hand observe the worldwide standard of 24 frames per second. Obviously a film playing at 25 frames per second on TV is 4% faster/shorter than the exact same version of the film playing in theaters, playing at 24 frames per second. Bearing this in mind, the PAL format this will shave about 4 minutes off a 100 minute film, explaining the discrepancy between the film and video versions of The Grand Budapest Hotel. The "Feature" entry that the BBFC also has seems to be an amalgamation of the film and video entries, giving an average time and the release dates for both versions. However, for the purpose of this infobox we specifically want the film entry i.e. the time it will take to watch the film when it plays at 24 frames per second. If the guidelines are going to recommend the BBFC as a source it needs to be specific about which entry we actually want. We can't reasonably expect editors to be aware of European broadcast specifications. I suggest the following tweak:

Original version:

Insert an approximate time duration of the theatrical release of the film in minutes. Do not link to minute. The BBFC website is a reliable source—the running time is given to the second, so round it to the minute. Do not include any additional run times, such as a director's cut or an unrated version, without consensus.

Proposed version:

Insert an approximate time duration of the film in minutes. In some sources the running time is given to the second, so round it to the minute (and do not link to "minute"). Restrict the entry to the run time for the primary release; this will usually be the format the film premiered on, so for films that have had a theatrical release insert the run time of the original theatrical version. Run times can vary due to regional censorship, alternative cuts (such as a director's cut or an unrated version) and different technical specifications across release formats, but do not include any additional run times without consensus. If using the BBFC website as a source take note that it logs the run time for each release which can lead to variances in the run time, so please take care to source the correct time (all the releases are listed at the bottom of the entry page for the film under "Feature").

The current version is a bit outdated anyway, because the infobox is also used on DTV and television films, so the re-write would help to generalize the guidance. While the BBFC is probably the single best source for run times that we have, I do think the current version reads like we are mandating its usage, and as the discussion directly above this section demonstrates it is not always the most appropriate source. Anyway, this is just a draft, so any changes/suggestions are welcome. Betty Logan (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd very much approve of these changes. I like your wording too. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Just one minor thing - is it "runtime" or "run time". I think it should be the former, but I could be wrong. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I wrote it as "runtime" but the spellchecker told me it was misspelt! I am happy to revolt against spelling fascism though. Betty Logan (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

This write-up works for me. Perhaps a line break between "...version" and "Run times..."? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks good and thanks for your work on this. I wonder if it might be worthwhile to add a note emphasizing the fact that DVD/Bluray runtimes should not be used. I've come across a handful of articles that used them and I have found that they can be off the theatrical release by a few seconds to a few minutes. This is often due to disclaimer messages on the DVD that weren't part of the theatrical release. Another factor can be a commentary track that runs beyond the credits as people finish up their thoughts and/or thank yous. Now I might be being to nitpicky but I thought I would mention it to see what others might think. MarnetteD|Talk 18:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Assuming that the film wasn't direct to DVD/Blu-ray. --tronvillain (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Marnette is challenging the use of a DVD time for a film that was released straight to DVD, but rather assuming that the time on the DVD box is the same for a cinema release. The times on the boxes may differ too, depending on whether you have a PAL or NTSC version. We could add a sentence instructing editors to obtain the time from a secondary reliable source, and not to take it from the packaging or time it themselves. Betty Logan (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think they were, I just wanted to point out that "DVD/Blu-ray runtimes should not be used" would need clarification - as you say, not off of the box. --tronvillain (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we clarify what is meant by “each release”? It is not immediately apparent to the lay person.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we could change each use of “release” to “version”.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "version" is a good term as it could be read to include VHS/DVD/Bluray formats and those should not be in the infobox. MarnetteD|Talk 18:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

But isn't that what we're talking about? The BBFC logging different versions of the film including home video and we should be using primary version, which in most cases would be the theatrical release. "Cuts" could be another option.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem here is that the BBFC doesn't just log each version, it seems to log each separate commercial release, which could be an identical cut in the same medium. Take Star Wars for instance: it has a dozen entries across two formats (cinema and video). Therefore I don't think "version" and "format" really work, which incidentally I did consider before settling on "release". If anyone can think of a better descriptor though I'm all ears, but basically what the BBFC logs is releases, not versions. Betty Logan (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, looking at that list it also has a separate entry for the audio commentary, so a single DVD release can also be spread across more than one entry. I agree that we need to rework that last sentence. Betty Logan (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

How about this revision: "If using the BBFC website as a source take note that a film may have been submitted to the BBFC several times for classification and have several different runtimes associated with it depending on format, version and component (such as a DVD commentary), so be careful to source the correct time (all listed at the bottom of the entry page for the film under "Feature")." Betty Logan (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

That sounds very clear.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• To accommodate the concerns expressed by MarnetteD and TriiipleThreat above, here is the revised version:

Insert an approximate time duration of the film in minutes. If the running time is given to the second, round it to the minute (and do not link to "minute"). Restrict the entry to the runtime for the primary release; this will usually be the format the film premiered on, so for films that have had a theatrical release insert the runtime of the original theatrical version. Runtimes can vary due to regional censorship, alternative cuts (such as a director's cut or an unrated version) and different technical specifications across release formats, but do not include any additional runtimes without consensus. Use a reliable secondary source to cite the information; do not take it from home video packaging or time it yourself. If using the BBFC website as a source take note that a film may have been submitted to the BBFC several times for classification and have several different runtimes associated with it depending on format, version and component (such as a DVD commentary), so be careful to source the correct time, which are all listed at the bottom of the entry page for the film under "Feature".

The altered bit is highlighted in bold, but it essentially says the same thing but a bit more clearly. If you were satisfied above I will assume you are satisfied with the revision unless you voice an objection. Betty Logan (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey, have we ever specified how the rounding is supposed to work? Nearest minute, with 29 seconds down and 30 seconds up, or something else? --tronvillain (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe it's ever been specified, but what you suggest makes sense. I only seem to see seconds added for short and/or silent films, but it's not that often. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I was taught that "rounding" was always to the nearest whole number or decimal place, but I don't object to making it explicit. Betty Logan (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Usually you have to add a convention for the halfway point, like "round five up" or "round 5 up or down the even number" (to reduce systematic error). I think 29 down/30 up up is probably the easiest way. --tronvillain (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks [[User:|Betty Logan]]. Looks good to me. MarnetteD|Talk 15:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

There have been no further objections to the revised version. I will check back tomorrow and if there are still no objections I will insert this into the guidelines. Betty Logan (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with the updated text but to @Tronvillain:'s question on rounding, at least as I've come to know it for films, anything from 1 second - 59 seconds is a minute. For example, a film that has a runtime of 54 minutes and 12 seconds, would be rounded to 55 minutes, because those 12 seconds entered the 55th minute (even though it wasn't completed). I guess "conventional" rounding practices would say to round this to 54 minutes since 12 seconds is closer to 54 than 55 minutes, so it may be helpful to state how we as a project wish to round. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

That's probably another discussion in all fairness. The existing guideline is non-specific in this regard and the revised guideline is not altering this particular aspect. If there is a consensus to round to the nearest minute or to round up then both guidelines would need to be updated to reflect this. Betty Logan (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• I have updated the guideline in accordance with the proposal here. If Erik still thinks it would benefit from a line break then go for it. If editors think the rounding advice needs to be more specific I suggest starting a new discussion, because it seems some editors would prefer to "round up" while some would prefer to "round to the nearest". If there is a standard approach used in sources such as the AFI and BFI I would suggest following suit so the film articles are consistent. Either way, I generally agree we should clarify this so we are at least internally consistent i.e. we can't have a 2:01:10 film round to 122 minutes and a 2:01:20 film rounded to 121 minutes. Betty Logan (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a long article on Rounding, and as others have mentioned already, in conventional rounding more than half rounds up and everyone seems to accept rounding budget figures that way. It makes sense to use conventional rounding by half for minutes too, unless there is a consensus to do otherwise. -- 109.78.222.5 (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Alt

Could the text for "alt" be improved to mention that most browsers will show a tooltip containing the alt text if you hover over it? By failing to mention this it makes it seem like the alt description is not a widely used feature but it is.

XKCD frequently uses the alt tag feature to add an extra line to the comic strip rather than actually providing an alternative description of the image. -- 109.77.213.7 (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Specifically I suggest changing "This field is normally not visible in standard web browsers, but you can see it by requesting the image's properties from the browser." to something more like:

"This field is shown as a tooltip when the mouse is held over an image, or when the image's properties are requested from the browser." -- 109.78.253.21 (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the alt image text is not supposed to be a replacement for a tooltip and add new information, but instead describe for visual impairment readers what is shown in the image. I was sure I read that somewhere but it's not mentioned at Wikipedia:ALT so I might be wrong. --Gonnym (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the wording does a good enough job of explaining that this is a widely useful feature. Although the alt text is hidden, it is also shown on mouseover.

Yes, as you say, the primary purpose of the alternative description in web markup was to help readers with visual impairments, but it is also useful to those without visual impairments. A picture is worth a thousand words but conversely a few words can sometimes convey the same meaning as a whole picture. Text descriptions are useful too and should be used more widely.

I think editors should be more strongly encouraged to use the alt description, and a stronger better description in this infobox would help. -- 109.76.152.102 (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Isn't what you are asking for the "caption" field? The caption adds a text that describes the image (Titanic (1997 film) "Theatrical release poster"), while the alt field is provided for those that can't see the image at all ("The film poster shows a man and a woman hugging over a picture of the Titanic's bow. In the background is a partly cloudy sky and at the top are the names of the two lead actors. The middle has the film's name and tagline, and the bottom contains a list of the director's previous works, as well as the film's credits, rating, and release date."). If you misuse the alt field for some other text, you deprive those readers of actually seeing the image added. --Gonnym (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit request: use the same list template

The documentation at various points recommends using {{unbulleted list}} and {{Plainlist}} but the example uses {{startplainlist}}. Would someone please make the documentation and examples consistent. I'd like to use {{Plain list}} in all cases (yes with the space, because it means not being distracted yet another spelling mistake in the wikisource) but I'd settle for the documentation and the example using the same template consistently throughout.

At the very least, please remove the weirdly inconsistent use of {{startplainlist}}{{endplainlist}} from the example. -- 109.76.152.102 (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The documentation shouldn't add {{Plain list}} as a valid option as currently its just a redirect to {{Plainlist}}, however you are right that {{startplainlist}} should be removed as that too is a redirect. According to the documentation on Plainlist, a list can be added either by {{Plainlist| }} or by {{Plainlist}} {{Endplainlist}} so both are valid. --Gonnym (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

How about something in the doc to suggest that using plainlist for a "list" of two people is really not necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

What alternative code would you use to create the list then? --Gonnym (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

{name}<br>{name}. Used in many hundreds of infoboxes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Using <br> in lists shouldn't be used per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Unbulleted vertical lists, so those many hundreds of infobox are not a good example. --Gonnym (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Pardon me thinking that we might use good ol' fashioned WP:COMMONSENSE when applying MOS, instead of rigidly following guidelines. My mistake, I thought rational and reasonable people edited Wikipedia, not robots. I stand corrected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You do understand that some people are blind and use screen readers not by choice right? If you fail to understand, that's ok, just don't assume you know better. --Gonnym (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

And you do understand that using <br> doesn't inconvenience people using screen readers, don't you? People who can't see are blind, they're not stupid. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any facts to backup your claim? The accessibility MoS is edited regularly and I highly doubt that such a glaring mistake would have slipped in. If you do, go ahead and bring up the issue there. Also, bold text still doesn't make what you say less wrong. --Gonnym (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I've seen people use the unbulleted list template for only one item! Also it is strange using a template if you're only going to strip all the spaces out and make the markup as unpleasant to read, but fans of unbulleted lists do it all the time. Wikipedia is a nightmare of inconsistency on so many levels, but this at least seemed like an easy request to get a bit more consistency, and at least have the documentation and the example match. {{Plainlist| }} seems to be the more widely used style.

Personally I don't bother using a list template for any less than 3 items and I understand why you might think the guidelines should tell people that too but I vaguely recall something about the benefits of using lists to logically organize and itemize things, probably because it helps machine readers. I don't remember the details but I'm fairly sure someone will insist they've a constitutional right to make lists with only 2 items, so it's best to ignore those rare lists with only 2 items and move along. -- 109.76.152.102 (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Guidelines: the benefit of using the list templates was "to improve accessibility and semantic meaningfulness". -- 109.76.152.102 (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

This template still use {{startplainlist}}{{endplainlist}}

Please change it to match how most articles actually use this template:

{{Plainlist|
* [[cat]]
* [[dog]]
* [[horse]]
* [[cow]]
}}

which is also what Template:Plainlist recommends. (It does also mentions other alternative syntax, but the recommended syntax is as I have shown.) -- 109.79.165.105 (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on anime film articles

Hello. A relevant RfC regarding which companies are to be listed in the infobox for anime films is taking place on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Request for Comment: Is it relevant to list all production companies or just main animation studios in the infobox of film articles?. Input from members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Executive Producer

I don't know if it has been discussed before. If it was, then please provide me with a link to that/those discussios(s). I propose for one more parameter called "Executive producer(s)" with given instructions to be used only if the person(s) assinged to this parameter has/have WP articles to wikilink. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 16:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
For instance take My Name is Khan. Varun Dhawan is one of the executive producer of this film. It is also his only executive produced film. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 17:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I think this is the most recent (and comprehensive) discussion about not adding this field. It also links to multiple previous discussions along the same lines. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I concur with the status quo of not having the executive producer in the film infobox. However, I do not think this precludes the use of a "Crew" section in the article body to list both crew names from the infobox and additional names not in the infobox that may be worthy of secondary note. In essence, like what we do with the infobox's "Starring" field and the "Cast" section. Still, I am not sure if executive producers as a whole are that worth listing. Maybe if it seems like their name comes up in relation to the given film, it would warrant listing in a "Crew" section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, after reading all that, now I'm convinced I was doing nothing good with this proposal. That comprehensive discussion shifted from yes to no. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 05:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

fix title so it respects "italic title=no"

Hi,

Can someone fix this line:

| abovestyle = font-size:110%;font-style:italic;

so that it respects if you have |italic title=no set? —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: |italic title=no is only meant to omit italics on the article name at top of the page. It works as intended. If you want to omit italics in the infobox heading then you can use |name={{no italic|...}} . PrimeHunter (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah I see... thanks! —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 November 2018

Wrap the tfm notice in <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags to suppress showing in mainspace –Ammarpad (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The point of the tfm tags is to be noticed. Izno (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Short description

Seeing as how automatic episode short descriptions at Template:Infobox television episode did not have a lot of issues, I was wondering if an automatic generated short description can be implemented here as well. I've been seeing a few styles:

1. <YEAR> film directed by <DIRECTOR>. Example: The Birth of a Nation - "1915 film directed by D. W. Griffith".
2. <YEAR> <GENRE> film produced by <STUDIO>. Example: Iron Man (2008 film) - "2008 superhero film produced by Marvel Studios".
3. <YEAR> <GENRE> film by <DIRECTOR>. Example: La La Land (film) - "2016 musical film by Damien Chazelle".
4. <YEAR> <COUNTRY> <FORMAT> <GENRE> <GENRE> film directed by <DIRECTOR>. Example: Way Down East - "1920 American silent romantic drama film directed by D. W. Griffith".

I think the style which would be less controversial and best match the character limit recommendation, would be the first option - as it does not have to deal with genres and has the most important attributes of the film. Thoughts? Comments? --Gonnym (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Merge process with Infobox Hollywood cartoon

Following the merge discussion with Template:Infobox Hollywood cartoon that passed, I've added the following parameters to the sandbox version: |animator=, |layout_artist=, |background_artist= and |color_process=. A side by side comparison can be viewed here. Any comments and suggestions are welcomed. --Gonnym (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I have created Category:Pages using infobox Hollywood cartoon with unknown parameters (0). In my experience, it is best to clean up these errors by fixing or removing unknown parameters before merging an infobox, especially because Category:Pages using infobox film with unknown parameters (0) already contains over 3,000 articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll wait for it to fully populate and give it a look. I've already noticed that some parameters showing up there are ones that are available in this template, such as editing or based_on. --Gonnym (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that too. I have adjusted the error check in Template:Infobox Hollywood cartoon so that it ignores parameters supported by Infobox film. They do not appear in the article today, but they will appear post-merge. That is how I have handled parameters like this in the past.

I have fixed about 20 articles, and it looks like there will be 50 to 100 more. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I fixed a total of about 130 articles. I think that's all of them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Add editor= and cinematographer= aliases?

All of the writer/producer/artist parameters use the name of the role as the parameter except for |editing= and |cinematography=. Unless there is an objection, I would like to add |editor= as an alias of |editing= and |cinematographer= as an alias of |cinematography= in order to make the template parameters more consistent with each other. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I've also noticed that for some reasons those parameter names aren't consistent, but to be honest, I think that as long as en.wiki decides to keep using code inside the template, aliases just make the code harder and harder to read. I'd much rather see just one version of a parameter name used instead of having multiple options which serve no use. --Gonnym (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Credits: official or unofficial?

Should credits in the infobox be the official credits or, on a case-by-case basis, include un-credited persons? It would be good to add the answer to this question to the Credits section in the template documentation.—Aquegg (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

This is what the documentation says:

Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release.[1] If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits. Other additions by consensus.

So no, an uncredited cast member as a rule should not go into the infobox. However, the guidelines do allow for consensus based exceptions. Betty Logan (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, so for cast members, official credits are the norm—should this be generalized in the Credits section of the template documentation, e.g. as Infobox credits should be 'official' credits, obtained from the original theatrical release poster if available, or on-screen credits otherwise.?—Aquegg (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Personally I would have no problem with that. It might be worth dropping a note at WT:FILM though because the template affects most film articles. Betty Logan (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I have put a note there as you suggest and restated below.—Aquegg (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed addition to Credits documentation

With a view to promoting consistency across the FILM project, it is proposed to modify the Credits section of the Infobox-Film template documentation with the addition of a new initial sentence, shown here in green:

Infobox credits should be 'official' credits, obtained from the original theatrical release poster if available, or on-screen credits otherwise. Credits in the infobox should not be retrospectively altered to accommodate name changes at a later date. A person should be credited by the name they were using professionally at the time the film was made.

Note that the proposed change is a generalization of existing documentation for cast member credits ('starring').—Aquegg (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'd Support that. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support I'm on board with this suggestion too. Betty Logan (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose because this argument stems from a case at Bohemian Rhapsody (film), which Aquegg fails to disclose. Getting a change here would allow them to "win" their argument at that film's article. Axem Titanium edited in the above sentence with their own unsanctioned sentence, so it seems like a content dispute spiraling out beyond the original article. The documentation here should instead provide guidance on what to do when official credits conflict with who reliable sources are saying is responsible for a given role in the film. Remember that Wikipedia is "based on reliable, published secondary sources"; it is only because most official credits are without dispute that we trust the primary source (the distributor). One problem is that Bohemian Rhapsody is very recent, so it is hard to take a long view here. Considering that cases will vary, it should be on a case-by-case basis to resolve each dispute. One possible case that comes to mind is a director actually directing the film, but got blacklisted and never got credited by the studio. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  I overlooked that the proposed addition omitted the all important "Other additions by consensus" that I quoted in the above section. However I still think the addition is a good one provided we incorporate the caveat. In most cases the official credits will match up. If they don't then I think a well sourced argument (such as the blacklist) should be a requirement to add uncredited names to the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  I agree that we incorporate the caveat. My feeling was that if the caveat was included, would Aquegg have proposed this change at all? Because Bohemian Rhapsody is one of these caveats in the first place. It's a harder discussion but necessary to determine how Wikipedia should present such information. (I would be okay with naming interesting examples for consideration like Solo: A Star Wars Story.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  My thinking was that we already clarify the "starring" parameter in this manner, so why not just generalize the advice? The credits should really be treated all the same way. Regardless of where Aquegg stands on one sole issue (I may agree with him and I may not if I reviewed the actual issue) he did ask a legitimate question about how to approach "uncredited" credits. In truth uncredited names should be added with care, which means there should be a sourced based rationale and a general agreement. Basically the threshold for adding an uncredited name should be higher than it is for adding a credited name. For example, I don't think script doctors should be listed in the infobox because in the typical case they are not a primary author, but a blacklisted writer who wrote the whole script definitely should be. Betty Logan (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  I agree with this completely. I can envision a dozen scenarios, all of which are extremely uncommon, in which someone should be legitimately credited but for whatever reason was not (or vice versa). Wikipedia should reflect the truth revealed to us by reliable verifiable sources, no more and no less. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose because being WP:NEUTRAL means not just following official credits, but presenting information from all reliable sources fairly, and clarifying that as needed. This includes credits that are true but not recognized officially. ChromeGames923 (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Erik, support adding the phrase "The guidelines allow for consensus based exceptions" per Betty's actual proposal which Aquegg conveniently forgot to include. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Erik and ChromeGames92. oncamera 10:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to add 'Preceded by' and 'Followed by' options

Quite a number of films these days have prequels and sequels. With one film leading to the other and so on. Notable examples include star wars, Lord of the rings, Hobbit, Aliens, Despicable me just to mention but a few. I hereby propose addition of the two options so as to cater for the same. Shadychiri (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

As stated in the information box above "Before initiating a discussion regarding adding sequel information to the infobox, please be aware that such fields were removed in 2011 after a lengthy discussion." There are also navboxes for all the films you mentioned (and thousands of other) that have all the prequel/sequel (and more) information. MarnetteD|Talk 07:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

IMO we got rid of these parameters just in the nick of time. Navboxes are much better suited to handling series such as the MCU and Star Wars. For example, which film followed The Force Awakens? Was it Rogue One or The Last Jedi? Which film followed Iron Man 2? Was it The Avengers or Iron Man 3, or even Thor? Series navboxes avoid all of these debates and allow us to concentrate on important stuff. Betty Logan (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd have to hear a very compelling reason to add those fields back in before I'd even remotely consider supporting reinstating them. DonIago (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with everyone on not including these parameters in the infobox. I think Betty makes a great point in how confusing these parameters would have been in the past decade of pseudo-reboots and spinoffs and "interquels". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Also agree with everyone else here. If noting "preceded by" and "following info" is necessary, that can be done in prose, where more info can be provided. Such as Betty's Star Wars example. The prose can explain that Rogue One is the film that released after The Force Awakens and before The Last Jedi, but narratively, it occurs between Episodes III and IV. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Inserting genre as a parameter of the template

Is there any structured way to include the "genre" of the film? It can be edited on Wikidata, but as far as I know, the template does not provide any way to include genre. Including it in the introduction section does not make it structured.

I'mFeistyIncognito 10:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Please search for the word "genre" in the talk page archives of this page (the search box at the top of the page). You will find multiple discussions, including some from August 2013 and January 2015. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You'll see the rationales there, but the short version is what we don't because the "genre" classification could become unnecessarily long, sending an already overly long infobox further down the page. We have categories that easily do that for us.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Re-releases and remasterings

Hello, I was just wondering about how much (mainly science fiction) films and TV productions do have re-releases which differ from their original "selfs" due to digital alteration (Star Wars films, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, Star Trek: The Original Series,...) and I thought that a modify to the infobox should be made about this versions of the works (I thought to do it similarly to the sub-templates of the Animanga infoboxes, but it can also be done differently). I cannot do this as I am not a template editor, but if someone could, with your authorization, I think it could be a good idea.

--Aledownload (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The infobox is for parameters that apply to most films, and most films these days are not re-released in an altered form. Therefore it would not be an economical use of template space. Betty Logan (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Crediting The Wachowskis

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:The Matrix (franchise)/Archive 2#Request for Comment - Crediting The Wachowskis. It partly concerns Template:Infobox film. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Question about the color process field

For articles about live-action movies, do I really insert the film stock used here or the technology the movie was post-processed with? For instance, in the Ronin (film) article, I found sources stating that the movie was photographed with Kodak film stock while its color was provided by Deluxe. Which of these should I insert in the parameter? Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The color process parameter is for animated films. It was ported in when the cartoon infobox was merged with the film one. Just ignore it for live-action films. Betty Logan (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding an "executive producer" credit

I think we should add an executive producer credit in the infobox, as these producers finance the film, and are equally as vital as the producer, writer, and director of the film. ATC ^{. Talk} 19:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You may want to review the many times this has been brought up before and address some of the reasons why it has been rejected previously. Ravensfire (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Ravensfire. Traditionally, we are pretty conservative about expanding the film infobox with more credits. We don't even have parameters for some positions that win awards, like costume designer, art director, production designer, visual effects supervisor. This does not mean that executive producers cannot be mentioned in the article at all. I've instead advocated for "Crew" sections that can show more credits than the film infobox (since that infobox is technically a summary of the article body, and sometimes even fully-written articles don't mention all the crew names). So I would not support an executive producer credit at this point, unless we can do something collapsible with infoboxes and wiki-code. However, collapsibility isn't really a deserved feature in such templates. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

New field?

I've just discovered that PatTheMoron is making edits like thus adding a field to the infobox that does not currently exist. At the moment PtM seems to be adding info about the people that wrote the English language versions of various foreign films films. I know that we tend to reserve the infobox for original theatrical release information. OTOH I don't know if there have been previous discussions about including a "dialogue" field. I feel that a decision should be made one way or the other about its inclusion and then - if the decision is to include the field - it can be added to the infobox rather than shoehorning it in. Also the proper instructions can be included in the documentation section. MarnetteD|Talk 03:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

We do have several writing credits (writer, screenplay, story, based on). If "dialogue" is a proper credit on some films it would seem amiss to leave it out. Betty Logan (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

All I can say is that when I previously included "dialogue" credits for films, I put them under "screenplay", but only discovered that an individual "dialogue" field can be created after reading The Killing - I just started using it because it looks less cumbersome than having to separate the screenwriters' credits with Dialogue:. PatTheMoron (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

We are usually reluctant to add new fields because we are wary of infobox bloat, but the writing parameters are something of a "pick 'n' mix" i.e. we don't use all of them at once. I don't think bloat is something we have to worry about in this case, because the dialogue creator will either go in the screenplay field or in their own field, but either way they are still going in the infobox. I agree with Pat that a dedicated field looks cleaner. Betty Logan (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. In this specific use the field was added to films like The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and Once Upon a Time in the West to indicate who wrote the dialogue for the English language releases but who had nothing to do with the original scripts or films. What happens when there are dialogue writers for other language releases? If the field is to added I would recommend that it only be used for those who wrote any dialogue for the a films original release in its country of origin. MarnetteD|Talk 05:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Surely these films must have had English dialogue in the original versions though? I can't imagine that Clint Eastwood, Henry Fonda and Charles Bronson spoke in Italian so presumably the "dialogue" credit is for the person who provided the English dialogue? Betty Logan (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Betty Logan see this where Knox is listed as dialogue writer for the "English language adaption" while other people are listed as the script writers for the original film. As mentioned in this interview Mickey Knox's work was translating the lines for the voice actors who dubbed the lines for the US release of the film and came after the film had been made. This happened for so many of those delightful spaghetti westerns. I am not saying that this info shouldn't be in the article - just not in the infobox. In fact a mention in prose with sourcing would give more info to the reader. MarnetteD|Talk 17:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

As I have encountered this with numerous Italian genre films, I would suggest trying to explain the situation in the prose. If the infobox can not cover information easily, then do not apply it and explain it in further detail in the prose. Anythings better than a bunch of (American version) (US Cut) (Italian-languge only) type of things that gunk up an infobox and are not what infoboxes are used for. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The footnote credit for "Credited as The Wachowski Brothers"

How the footnote should appear in relevant Wachowski film articles, which covers its appearance in the infobox, is being discussed at Talk:The Matrix (franchise)/Archive 3#Footnote implementation. Please join the discussion and weigh in with your thoughts and suggestions. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Prefered image size

I realize that currently the size parameter is left open so that each's users image size preference is used, but what is the actual preferred upload resolution? I'd say it should be 220px as that is the default resolution under the preference settings. Therefore fewer users will experience autoscaling and view a lower quality image. Thoughts?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: According to Non-free content policy on image resolution, "There is no firm guideline on allowable resolutions for non-free content; images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger. [...] At the low pixel count end of the range, most common pictorial needs can be met with an image containing no more than about 100,000 pixels (0.1 megapixels), obtained by multiplying the horizontal and vertical pixel dimensions of an image." – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 17:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but it maybe beneficial to establish a general consensus here, specifically for images used in this template.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: What's wrong with the 100,000 pixel limit, especially as most film posters are illegible at such a small size? There should be no reason to leave out people with a preference for thumbnail sizes of 250, 300, and 400 pixels for any other reason than the file size is limited by non-free content policy. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 17:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Since there is no defined resolution in this template (some other templates do have a default size), autoscaling for some users cannot be avoided. The point here is to limit as many effected users as possible. Since 220 is the default preference, its only natural that this should be the preferred size. Its not just legibility effected by autoscaling but overall picture quality. As you also pointed out WP:NFC states "images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger". 220 is smaller than 250, and at 300 and 400 most standard one-sheets would be over the 100,000 limit.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: Unless there's a landscape poster. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 23:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The 100k figure is a sensible upper-bound not an actual rule of thumb, and could in theory permit a 300x300 image, a 250x350 or 350x250 image. Now, all of those images are roughly the same area, but you are more likely to max out a 300x300 or 250x350 image in your article than a 350x250 image, especially in an infobox. The rule of thumb is actually "images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger", so personally I would limit an infobox image capped to 300 pixels wide and ensure it doesn't breach the 100k area limit, which would mean 250 pixels wide if it is a portrait poster. That is a cap though, and you could argue that a smaller width such as 240 pixels or even 220 pixels is even more compliant with the FUR. Basically what you have to do is make sure you minimise the chances of commercial exploitation. Betty Logan (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Right in terms of fair use but what about I was speaking more in terms of display quality. Unscaled images display better than scaled ones. So if most users have their preferred resolution set to 220 pixels (220 being the default setting), then wouldn’t it be better if images are uploaded at 220 pixels as well to avoid autoscaling.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I would generally recommend avoiding changing from the default display in this infobox. The 100k rule of thumb is for the resolution of the hosted file, not the file displayed on a particular article. --Izno (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggesting an addition

Would just like to make a quick suggestion here that we add an "age_certificate" or "age_rating" line to this template and Template:Infobox television. Its an official measure used globally. I don't see why either template does not currently include this. An age rating would also be something very quick and easy to go back and add to existing articles. Helper201 (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm unaware of an age rating system that's used globally. Can you please provide a link that discusses such? DonIago (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the OP is talking about a different subject, but if the idea is to put in ratings from different countries, this is a perennial idea that has been perennially rejected. A quick search of this page's archives will turn up many discussions. Maybe there should be a summary of those discussions at the top of this page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I meant that there are age ratings used in the vast majority of countries around the world, not there is one unified age rating system used globally. My point was that it is a very common and prominent feature associated with the film industry on an international scale. Helper201 (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting adding a list of potentially more than 100 different ratings to the infobox? --Gonnym (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

No. There would only need to be one age_rating line and then you could add 15 or M for mature or whatever is relevant for that region. Numbers are often used and are self explanatory. The words 'age rating' in the infobox could link to Motion picture content rating system for a simple breakdown. Helper201 (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I get what you mean now in terms of having so many different age ratings listed per film. I see how that could be an issue. You could have it where you would just list the age rating of the country/countries it was made and produced in, and/or if its released globally the top three populated countries it was released in e.g. India, United States and Indonesia. Helper201 (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I've been informed there is currently an ongoing discussion similar to this. If anyone wants to help take party here is the link - Talk:Motion_picture_content_rating_system#RfC:_Should_we_install_a_color_scheme_with_9_colors_in_the_comparison_table?. Helper201 (talk) 11:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Written and directed by?

Often when a filmmaker both writes and directs a film they receive the credit "written and directed by". I think we should consider adding this option to the infobox. 1. From the perspective of the reader, it would make the infoboxes on such films less repetitive and cluttered. 2. The credit "written and directed by" has, to me, a subtle glamor that is lost when you split it up into two separate credits: it conveys a sense that the film is the work of a singular vision. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 03:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

One downside is that the bold words would wrap, which is usually not desirable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I've always felt that the order of producer and writer needs to be flipped... That'll allow for a more intuitive, cleaner look when a film is written and directed by the same person. That's also the order common in billings anyway even when separate credits are given. And who wrote a film is more pertinent for most readers than who produced it. Nardog (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that as well, and I agree with changing the order. What order should the first few parameters go in? Take a look at Template:Infobox film/testcases for a proposed order (in the sandbox version). – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, technically, for US films, the winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture is the producer, which would mean he would be top of the list. --Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

What's that got to do with our infobox? How is that a reason to show the producer above the writer (and yet not above the director)? (rhetorical) Nardog (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You probably missed the fact that I was commenting on Jonesey95's comment with the proposed order and me saying "top". --Gonnym (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm opposed to combining parameters for a few reasons. For #1, What happens in cases where the person directed, wrote, produced and edited? See Primer (film). Do we combine them all? As for your #2, what you talk about is the Author theory, however that is not a widely accepted way of looking at things, and most see a film not as a "singular vision", but as a collaborative work. --Gonnym (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm opposed to a "Written and directed by" spot. That isn't done for "Glamor" purposes, that's done to save space. Because one person was in charge of multiple roles that happen to come next to each other in the credits. If say they were a producer and director, but not a writer, they would have separate credits because producers are mentioned before writers in standard crediting order.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Bignole, do you have sources for your claim? My understanding is that "written and directed by" is often (certainly in the modern day, at least) meant to convey auteur-ship/singular vision. Much like how on TV shows they now have the "created by" credit usually for the originating showrunner or writer. Yes, writing and directing credits are often listed in close proximity and I'm sure it's not always intentionally meant to signal "you are seeing the writer's story as they envisioned it themselves"... but I can't see how it's only ever just a convenience of the two credits being close in order. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The same could be asked of you. You start with "my understanding", but don't point to anything that says it's anything more than a simplification of credits. The only time you see it is when the director wrote the script themselves. You don't see "Screenplay by John Smith and Alex Idiot, written and directed by Alex Idiot". Even though the "and" part of that signifies that he wasn't part of a writing duo and wrote a separate script based on John's work. The WGA and the DGA are separate and each dictates that credit goes where credit is supposed to go. There is nothing that says a director must be listed as "Written and directed by" if they are the only script contributor, just that they receive a writing and directing credit for their work. There is no rule governing the use of "written and directed by" like there is for the use of "and" and "&" in writing, or the fact that unless you're an identified directing team you cannot have co-directors. It's used for streamlining the credits and as best I can actually find to help with award season to show that the director is the true visionary of the film (i.e., the equivalent of a "A Film by"). But we're not here to pander to award season narcissism, which is why the infobox shouldn't have a section for "written and directed by".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, since you brought it up, maybe we should consider adding "A Film By" credit too... https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/03/vanity-credit-a-film-by WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 06:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Release Date

What does Release Date really mean? On The Greatest Showman I see release date referring first to its private premiere onboard the RMS Queen Mary 2. Is a private premiere a release? Or is a public availability of a show it's TRUE release date? Aka released to the public? I feel clarity could be on this template and The Greatest Showman should list its public date its release date. Thoughts? --Echoniner (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox film#Release dates says among other things Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings. Hope this helps. --Gonnym (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 May 2019

Add a title for Camera.. Roshansimon (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2019 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Izno (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Scenography? Choreography?

I'd like to propose two further entries:

• Scenography =
• Choreography =

Both would, I think, be pertinent and useful for certain films (including E la nave va, which brought me here). 86.190.132.158 (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Infobox bloat is anethma. The first is just an offshoot of writing and the second is mostly confined (with certain exceptions) to musicals. These are the kind of things better suited to prose in the production section of articles.

Soundtrack and score additions

Just like screenplay and story are separate fields (you use the writer field when both tasks are handled by the same person), is it possible to add two new fields called soundtrack and score? For those handling both, the music field may be used. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

What would go into "soundtrack" though? That's typically a mixture of copyrighted songs used in a film, whereas a score is an independently created piece of music specifically for the movie. At best, you'd have someone that just supervised the use of those songs, but it isn't like those people get recognition for basically securing the rights to other people's works.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah right, because I'm from a nation where songs are almost always composed exclusively for films. That is what forms the film's soundtrack, and the background score composer is often different, hence users always write in the music field, " '''Songs:''' ABC<br />'''Background score:''' XYZ". No solution for this, right? Just include one person's name, treat the other as if he didn't participate right? --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The infobox is a generalised description and shouldn't be slanted to one particular country or genre. Somebody wanted to add animators a few weeks ago. In truth there are lots of fields we could add but it is more useful if the infobox is kept short and simple with fields that can be used on most films. In the case of musicals the name of the lyricist can be simply added to the "music" field along with the composer. This is what is done at The Sound of Music (film). Betty Logan (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I never said lyricists should be included (I see many un-monitored Bollywood film articles which include lyricists in the music field); the question was whether both the soundtrack and background composers should be included if they are separate people. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure I'm following what you're referring to. You said in your country songs are composed for their films. That would be a composer and is in the infobox already. I almost think how you are referring to a "soundtrack" is not the most common usage of that term nowadays in film. What you described is the "Music by" or "Composed by" field in film credits. Yes, that is a "soundtrack", but it's covered under "Composer". Films that have a "Soundtrack" and a Composer are typically films with both an original score (what you described) and that feature pop culture songs by other bands that are licensed for the film. For example, Nickelback's "Hero" for Spider-Man is on the Spider-Man soundtrack, but not considered part of the composer that Danny Elfman did (which is a different album). We wouldn't credit Nickelback for that in the infobox, nor would we create the person whose job it was to collect those pop culture songs because it's not a credit that is noteworthy enough for mention in the infobox (or the rest of the article for that matter).

Now, if you're talking about the difference between the person writing the melody for a Bollywood film, versus the person writing the lyrics to the songs they sing, then I would agree with Betty in that they would just be put with the "Music by" field with an identifier that shows what they did.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe something is getting lost in translation here? In The Sound of Music example, Rodgers and Hammerstein wrote and composed the musical numbers (i.e. the soundtrack) while Irwin Kostal scored the movie, and all three are included in the "music" field in the infobox. It sounds to me you are just describing a conventional musical. Is this not the case? If this is in relation to a specific article it may be better if you link to the article so we can see exactly what the issue is. Betty Logan (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

What do I do in the music field at Kabir Singh? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out how those individuals roles are sourced. IMDB only lists Amal Mallik and Harshavardhan Rameshwar as the ones contributing to the music. Typically seen as the actual composers. But you have someone else as a composer. Then this site has those 4 listed as "Music Directors", which isn't a term frequently used in English language films (which is why it isn't in the infobox). I'm not sure if Music Director is the composer, the person overseeing the composer, or what because I'm unfamiliar with the term outside of a music video. According to the film's official trailer. This is the credit: "Music: Mithoon, Amaal Mallik, Vishal Mishra & Sachet-Parampara". Harshavardhan Rameshwar says "Background score". So, what exactly are the other people doing then? Are they writing original music with lyrics, or are they working with Harshavardhan Rameshwar on the score?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Since it is a Bollywood film, it is bound to have songs. The songs haven't yet been released, but those four people are definitely composing them while Harshavardhan Rameshwar focuses only on the background score. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

You say "composing them" and to me, composing is what Rameshwar is doing. So, are you meaning they are writing the beat and lyrics for the performed musical numbers?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes it appears each person (Sachet-Parampara is a duo) is composing a track, while a single man (Irshad Kamil) is writing the lyrics for each track. Meanwhile, Harshavardhan is composing only the background score. Now based on this, who should be credited in the music field at the infobox? Or am I still confusing you? --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to wait until the film has been released, so that we could reference the credits rather than speculating? DonIago (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

In that scenario, I would credit them all. Remeshwar should be first, as the composer of the main music, while they others would follow as the creators of the musical numbers. I would probably list them as "Composer" and "Music" and "Lyrics". The easiest example I can think of is Singin' in the Rain, which has a similar situation as what this film does. Short version, I would avoid saying "Soundtrack" by those people, because "Soundtrack" on most English speaking films means something else.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Doniago, I'm not sure crystal applies here because we already know that they are doing a job, as are just trying to figure out the best way to list them. I don't think the release of the film is going to change how they are credited, as the trailer already credits them. It's a language barrier between how they credit in that country versus others, as far as I can see.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright, it's been nearly a week since Kabir Singh's release. So who should be listed in the music field in the infobox? The BGM composer or the song composer(s)? We know clearly who is who. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Addition of a new field in the movie infobox

Hello! Can you add a new field in the movie infobox concerning voice actors. This is important regarding animated films as such. People would like to know this. Add the optional header with voices with information regarding the voce actors. --88.90.220.108 (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

They're already in the infobox and the cast list, just like any other actor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Chronology

Can someone please add a film series chronology section to this inbox? WikiSmartLife (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 04:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Current WP:CONSENSUS is to not include them in the infobox. This is but one of several discussions Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 19#Preceded By.2FFollowed By. Navboxes are preferable and provide a wider scope for coveriage of a film series. MarnetteD|Talk 04:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Chief directors in the infobox?

Regarding Shin Godzilla, the film had two directors: Hideaki Anno (the chief director) and Shinji Higuchi (the main director). Usually, we list the director of record in the infobox (in this case, it's Higuchi). However, the chief director credit, which I removed, was quickly put back in along with the chief producer (Minami Ichikawa). Per the relevant parameter guidelines for "producer", we don't list executive producers, associated producers, etc., so I removed it. That said, should we list chief directors in the infobox or just the main director (i.e. Higuchi)? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm going by the official press release for this case. In regards to the producer(s), the guidelines clearly state "Only producer credits should be included, not executive producers, associate producers, etc. Ueda, Sato, Shibusawa, and Wadakura are credited as PRODUCERS, per the official press release. Not as executive producers or associate producers. Per the guidelines, they should remain in the infobox since they are indeed producers.

As for the directors, the press release credits Anno as the "writer/director" and Higuchi as the "Co-Director/VFX Director". By your logic, Anno would technically be the "main director", not Higuchi, but still... the directors credit should be shared between Anno and Higuchi in the infobox. Higuchi may have only been a co-director but still a director, nonetheless. There's been cases of two filmmakers sharing the directors credit, see The Nutcracker and the Four Realms, Avengers: Infinity War, and No Country for Old Men. This scenario is no different, aside from titles like "director' and "co-director". Armegon (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought that a co-director was an assistant to the director, so it doesn't go in the infobox. For example, in Cars, Joe Ranft might have been the co-director, but he's not the director; in this case, the director of record (which should go in the infobox) is John Lasseter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far. Many sources, outside of the press release, acknowledge Anno and Higuchi as the film's co-directors, check here, here, and here. Higuchi has equal credit as director as Anno does, hence why both of their names should remain in the infobox. Armegon (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Per the press release, the film's assistant director is Kimiyoshi Adachi, not Higuchi. I see you removed Ichikawa. I can understand why but I personally think he should remain on the infobox since he was a producer. Granted, he was the "chief" producer, which means he had seniority over the other producers but still, a producer nonetheless. Armegon (talk) 08:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Chief director seems to be a Japanese title, likely maps to what the DGA would consider the director, the person responsible. It may be that both would be considered director by DGA rules with the more senior getting the chief title. I suggest ignoring chief and not noting it in the infobox either. Co-directors are not the director, it is a high-level assistant, so shouldn't be listed in the attribute but that is not the issue here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, like I pointed out earlier, various sources acknowledge both Anno and Higuchi as the film's co-directors. Armegon (talk) 07:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Just to add a bit: chief directors within the anime community have always been highly regarded, whether it be Hideaki Anno with his Rebuild of Evangelion series or the directors at studio Shaft, in particular Akiyuki Shinbo, who is almost always credited as the chief director in his works and has had quite a bit of coverage regarding his work. Now, while acknowledging these people simply as "directors" alongside the "series directors" and "directors" that work under them, I would suggest noting who is a chief director and who isn't on these Japanese projects because their role is as a "director", but they hold a more executive position. Shinbo himself, for example, has one of the other Shaft directors do the "actual" direction, while he himself makes sure that everything "feels" like a Shaft production. Shinbo's work with Shaft received some coverage back in 2017 with an [by ANN]. Most of Shinbo's projects are called his projects, despite the fact that he's the chief director, meaning he does have a very important role as a chief director. That doesnt necessarily mean that those with the chief director role are always more... it doesn't mean their views, their direction style, and their choices always shine through more than the director. An easy example of that is Sarazanmai, with Nobuyuki Takeuchi (who worked with Shaft) as chief director and Kunihiko Ikuhara as director. Takeuchi was the man leading the vision, making sure everything went a certain way, sure, but Ikuhara himself recieved far more coverage for the series than Takeuchi (contrary to how Shinbo and Anno usually recieved most of the credit). So, again, while I have no problem with just listing them as directors, the fact that they do have different roles and are constantly regarded as being different roles by the media and fans, I believe it would probably be better to at least have that distinction. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, should we start a straw poll on whether or not we should include the chief director in the infobox if it's necessary? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Website/video link attribute for youtube videos

Articles such as Me at the zoo use this infobox, but would really benefit from having the Youtube link be able to be shown in the infobox as well. Perhaps we could add an attribute to this info box for "video link" or something similar? Llightex (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC) ]

It's already linked at the External links section via {{YouTube}}. --Gonnym (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but it would be much more convenient for it to be in the infobox itself. Or do you think that's not the right place to put it? Llightex (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia should balance convenience and WP:PROMOTION and I think sticking a link in the infobox would be crossing the line. In the case of free work it can be uploaded directly to Wikipedia anyway, as in the case of Me at the Zoo. In all other cases I think linking to the work in the external links section is sufficient. Betty Logan (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Executive producer(s)

These are the people who literally pay basically for the films to exist: why isn't there a field for these?u v u l u m (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Here is a previous discussion; happy reading! For future reference, a quick search of a talk page's archives can sometimes find the answer you are looking for. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Studio field

I think the Studio field needs more clear instructions on the definition of who "produced" the film. Is it the people responsible for staffing, locating and making the film, or does it include people who just put up money? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

A production company is typically the company or companies that mount the film; a financier is typically not. But I don't think there is a cast-iron rule. If the credits themselves don't explicitly identify the film as a "production" by some company or other ("Presentation" and "In Association" can mean many things unrelated to production) then a secondary reliable source should be supplied to back up the claim. Sometimes a tax shelter can be created specifically for the film and folded once the film has been made, but personally I would exclude those if they only produce a single film. Have you got a specific film in mind? Betty Logan (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The Joker film article, particular this edit which was part of a small back and forth between this user and another here. I don't think any of that last sentence should be in the lead to be honest because who cares, but it seemed to be predicated on this particular company providing finances only. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Screen Daily and The Hollywood Reporter usually label production companies explicitly as such in their reviews. It takes a lot of the guesswork out of the equation. There are also several databases at WP:FILM/R that are useful to check. If none of these sources call it a production company, I usually remove it. A lot of the time, I think people indiscriminately copy-paste every company's name or logo that they see and label them all as production companies, regardless of what the company did or what the sources say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

One trend I notice lately is that some sites such as HR list every production company in the opening credits, while Variety will specifically say some bits a bit more specific (labelling others as such co-productions, or "in association with"). I've searched high and low to see what makes certain groups official co-productions, but I can't really find any confirmation. What should we use? I usually lean towards sources that have more specifics, but its tricky. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Why not have review aggregator ratings?

I constantly find it annoying to have to search for ratings for films. It would be much more convenient if the infobox had a rating item with Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores. Something like this, for Endgame:
Critics' score   MC: 78/100, RT: 94% (8.3/10)
(I think the average score should also be presented for RT. I find it to be more practical, to get an idea of the quality of the film.)

Tooltips could show a short explanation of the aggregator and the scoring system. The "Critics score" text could link to the "Critical response" section when it exists.

--Dqeswn (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It's come up before. Not especially recently, but I think the reasoning may still be valid.[1] DonIago (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

There are longer discussions about this, in the archives of WT:MOSFILM and WT:FILM and so on. Aside from the point brought up in the link above, there are many others, including the WP:NOT#GUIDE policy (WP isn't a movie guide or any other kind of reviews publication, nor any other form of subjective "authority" on what is "good", and putting these scores in the infobox, without context, would have us effectively being an review aggregator ourselves (a meta-aggregator of other aggregators and meta-aggregators). Not encyclopedic. If you want to get an idea what the general public and professional reviews think about a film, try IMDb or a major newspaper (or its website), in its review section, or the customer feedback ratings at movie tickets websites. WP isn't every kind of website in the world; it's only one particular kind of website.  — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 07:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

RFC: Additional parameters for anime films

There is no consensus to include additional parameters in the infobox. Some editors suggested adding an "animation director" additional parameter but there is no consensus to do this without prejudice against further discussion about this.

Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we include additional parameters (such as character designer, art director, animation director, storyboard, etc.) in the infobox? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Sjones23: Your wording is too vague to even elicit an answer. What would be the additional parameters exactly? Would it be available only for "anime" (i.e. Japanese animated) films, or all animated films? Are you proposing an extension like {{Infobox name module}} or a direct change to {{Infobox film}}? Have there been discussions on this previously? And where do you stand on it? Nardog (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• No, it is not necessary to include additional parameters to the infobox. If these roles are important to the film, they can be addressed in the article itself. Netherzone (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• I am in favor of adding a parameter for animation director. As animated films are becoming more of a thing, the infobox template should adapt. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• I'm leaning toward No, but without an explicit list of the parameters and ideally arguments presented as to why they should be added (and I'd recommend that each param be given it's own support/oppose thread at that point) it's impossible for me to weigh in. In any case, I don't believe the infobox was ever intended to serve as a stand-in for a list of credits. There may be valid arguments that if anything it needs fewer parameters, not more. DonIago (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Generally no. I could maybe see having one for "animation director" if and only if that's a different person from the director per se, and only for an entirely animated film (not a movie like Better Off Dead that has an animated sequence in it). And it has nothing to do with anime in particular, but with animated features in general. No, we do not need any infobox credits for things like character designer, art director, storyboarder, yadda yadda. The average feature film has hundreds (even over 1000) credited staff, and they all think they should win an award. Just, no. WP is not IMDb.  — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 07:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add sequel / prequel parameters

This has probably been discussed before but I couldn't any discussion for it. So, I'm bringing it up. The percentage of films with sequel or belonging to franchises has increased significantly over the past few years. And sometimes when I'm reading/editing a movie article, I want to be able to easily navigate to the sequel or prequel without the need to search for it. Is it possible to add a parameter for sequel/prequel? It can also use other terms like "preceded by" or "related" etc? I think there are enough movies with sequels or in franchises to justify the need for this addition. Thanks! Starforce¹³ 16:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per previous discussions. Navboxes exist for this purpose and are far more robust because they can link to all the films in a series. Betty Logan (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. We used to have these, I supported the removal of them, and I don't think anything's changed regarding the very valid reasons for removing them (among which, as Betty indicated, are that navboxes work better for such things). DonIago (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • While Navboxes provide more information, they're also not conveniently accessible because they're often at the bottom of the page and they're almost always collapsed by default. I think sequels and prequels are significant part of the film core information to be hidden under Navboxes. It's much more convenient to just search than to navigate to the Navboxes and keep expanding until you get to the level you want. So, it doesn't serve the same purpose. It's no different from categories. Update: I finally found a discussion about it but that happens to be from 2011 and I believe it's outdated because a lot has changed in the film industry since then. For example, the Avengers (2012) hadn't even been released, after which MCU and other shared universes began to dominate the film industry. Point being, a lot has changed since then and arguments that worked in 2011 no longer work today. So, either way, I believe it's time to revisit the discussion. Starforce¹³ 16:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Which arguments do you feel have been invalidated? It's easy to make such a claim, but without seeing specifics I'm disinclined to reevaluate my opinion. Also, there was a link to the discussion of these parameters at the top of this page; sorry if you missed that. DonIago (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
      • I'd say that the release of the MCU has made the argument that these parameters should not be in the infobox even stronger. What film would you put as the sequel to Avengers? Avengers 2? Iron Man 3? What about The Conjuring? Annabelle or The Conjuring 2? These films don't have a linear progression and the infobox is not fit to handle them. --Gonnym (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose because the parameters are too simplistic to handle the increasing lack of parallelism between in-universe story timelines and out-of-universe release timelines. I think the Star Wars films were especially susceptible to this. It seems best to outline a film's placement in either timeline in lead-section prose. I am not sure that the comic-book-movie editors are capable of doing that, though. For example, Black Panther (film) is mum on being after Thor: Ragnarok and before Avengers: Infinity War. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Salient points have been made by the other editors who oppose these. While The Avengers may not have been released in 2011 the Star Trek films, most of the Star Wars films, most of the James Bond films, the Andy Hardy films etc. etc. had been released. The notion that "shared universes" dominate the industry is overblown. One point that is often missed is that only two films get a mention in the infobox while a navbox covers all the ones that are part of any series. The claim that navboxes are not accessible is hard to take seriously. MarnetteD|Talk 19:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, as a reader I have always found navboxes especially useful. They provide effective navigation between a family of article across a whole range of topics. I have never found them inaccessible or difficult to use, although I am a regular user of Wikipedia so there is an argument I have become accustomed to them. If there is sufficient evidence to suggest their location at the bottom of the article is an impediment to their functionality and goals then that is something the navigational project should address in its entirety. Betty Logan (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - As stated before, we have other devices that allow for navigation across films in a film series. Adding it to the infobox is both redundant and unnecessary extension of an already overly long box on the page. Not to mention, as has been pointed out, that a lot of film series nowadays do not necessarily have a linear timeline for film sequels. I recall when the prequels to Star Wars came out and there was debate about whether to list them by story or release (Release is the correct answer, but constant edit wars showed that we were best to just remove it).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Withdrawn: I think this can be closed. When I created it, I hadn't noticed the notice at the top that explains how it's been discussed in length previously, and the consensus is pretty clear. Starforce¹³ 18:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Citing sources of info in the InfoBox

There's a lot of information that can be added to the InfoBox but I can't figure out how to cite within that box to say where i'm getting the information from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwcoats78 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Citations in the infobox are formatted in exactly the same way as citations outside the infobox. However, if the information is cited elsewhere in the article the citation does not need to be repeated in the infobox (see WP:INFOBOXCITE). Betty Logan (talk)

Pls consider adding MPAA rating

This is a piece of information I and perhaps many others would find very helpful. Thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L d allan (talk • contribs) 18:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Please have a look at WP:FILMRATINGS. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)