Template talk:Infobox Film/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Expansion

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

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

Autogroup distributor

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

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

Since it's protected, I'll ask here

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

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

Choice of image

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

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

Aspect ratio

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

The following comment has been received: "I think this would be a useful addition to that template. This would be better than categorisation. I'm not sure many people would search for aspect ratio via the categories system." by User:Valiantis. Shawnc 22:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with adding this. There is much confusion to aspect ratio, particularly in classic film post-1953 where open-matte films play on TV full-frame so long that people think that that is the original aspect ratio. Definitely for.The Photoplayer 03:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Triplets of Belleville

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

Certificate rating

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

That's been talked about both in here and in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. The consensus seems to be that ratings definitely shouldn't be in the infobox, but some people feel they might be useful somewhere else in the article. - Bobet 19:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the MPAA rating belongs in the info box. I do not understand why it would be excluded. --Blue Tie 00:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
See the discussion entitled 'MPAA Ratings' further down on this page. Ziggurat 00:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Include a trailer field

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

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

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

Include a Cinematographic Process field

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

The template is crowded enough: I'd like to see a stronger reason than "help in making informed purchasing decisions" before adding yet another field. Turnstep 13:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Super 35 cinematographic process causes the most confusion to consumers in purchasing decisions involving aspect ratio if the original-aspect-ratio and 1.33:1 pan-and-scan versions are sold separately. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 00:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
That may be, but 1) this information can be put into articles as needed, and 2) Wikipedia is not a shopping guide. Turnstep 01:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The field would be called "Film format" in the template. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 06:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Must agree with this. Most writers might overlook this, and it's hardly the basis for a "shopping guide", it's an important fact about the film. For example, while you may know that The Robe (1953) was the first film shot in CinemaScope, were you aware that it was simulaneously shot in the Academy Ratio? Valuable information such as that should be listed. The Photoplayer 03:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrapping of multiple entries

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

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

includeonly/noinclude magic

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


Movie ratings

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

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

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

As you said, it's been discussed before, and as far as I know, each time, the conclusion has been "Not a good idea". I personally think your idea is particulary "not a good idea", mainly because you said "at least the American and Canadian ratings" which isn't NPOV (to focus on those ratings). Seriously though, you'd either have to restrict the countries that could put ratings in (again not NPOV) or you'd have to put up with enourmous rating lists for popular films (with all the fans/contributors on this Wikipedia alone, imagine how long Harry Potter films would be!). So in short "why not?" cause its too messy. - RHeodt 19:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, what you said was kind of true; checking the motion_picture_rating_system page, there are over 34 ratings systems! It would be a better idea for the TV ratings system, as there are only around 6. --FlyingPenguins 23:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Example: [1] We clearly don't want that. Shinobu 21:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion from SIMPLE version: Country of production?

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

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

I strongly agree. Other language editions of Wikipedia do this already - the English Wiki is showing a clear bias by not following suit. IMDB does this too - why doesn't Wikipedia? Esn 23:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I've done this now. (Well not now, last night!) - RedHot 08:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

IMDB Ratings

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

I agree that it's not a good idea as the information will go out of date, and it's of no benefit for editors to be regularly checking the score on the IMDb (to which there is already a link in the infobox if anyone wants to know the score) and updating the page just to change the score. Nor is it what the caption field is for... —Whouk (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This is the user of an IP address you refer speaking. Since I saw the ratings in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King—in which I was NOT responsible for that, I thought I could do an inspiration by adding IMDB ratings in lots of articles. But I see your point in disagreeing with this since it would be a matter of wasting our time updating it frequently. Here's this: rather than updating it frequently, how about updating it for every 1~3 months? If not, how about either every week or every New Year's Day? 69.227.173.21 12:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Almost forgot, here are someone's (or my) instructions of this:
[[Internet Movie Database|IMDB]] [[Image:{{{n}}} out of 5.png]] #.#/10 (##### votes)
Example: If the rating is 6.5~7.4, it could be [[Image:3hvof5.png]] (Image:3hvof5.png). If 8.5~9.4, [[Image:4hvof5.png]] (Image:4hvof5.png). In other words, round the IMDB rating into nearest unit (8.5 = 9), divide it into 2 (9/2 = 4.5), and type the image link that equals to the amount of stars. I'll be more specific later on if you don't know my logics. 69.227.173.21 12:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
While I admit the idea of seeing the rating is not a bad idea the fact that some films can drastically change ratings if there is not many votes make me think it would be a hard thing to keep up. Unless there was someway to have update automatically I think it may be worth putting it on hold for the time being. --Lummie 14:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
If you're going to do it, I'd say take the number of votes off, as they're not that relevant to the film information, and are going to change most often. --duncan 16:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Given the fluidity of the score and the need to check it in future, there should really also be a note (although I realise this isn't great for the formatting) of when the count was taken, as with any cited web source. —Whouk (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'd think that the number of votes is important - it lets you know how long ago the wikipedia movie page was updated by comparing it with the number of votes at the actual IMDB site. In fact, the number of votes is a better reference number than the date in my opinion, because how the score changes depends on the number of votes, not on the date. I for one think that this feature is very helpful - most movies don't change scores very quickly, after all, and it wouldn't take much effort to change them. It's a nice visual guide when browsing wikipedia of how "good" a movie is. It's not like they have to be changed CONSTANTLY... however, it would be a lot better if it were automatic. Esn 23:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
There's a cool template for stars, too, {{stars}}. {{stars|*|*|½|-|-}} → **½-- —Fitch 14:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm against it

  • The Internet Movie Database ratings system is not a valid way of asserting how good a film is. For instance, many people will take up multiple accounts on the website, just to drive the ratings up. Studios have hired people to vote "10" on titles they are releasing in order to drive the ratings up. Many of the actual voters are extremely gullible, or will not give critically-acclaimed films (such as This Island Earth and The Lord of the Rings (1978)) a chance and instead give these films negative ratings because other people tell them to do so, not because these films are truly bad.
The IMDb is not a valid representation of what the general public thinks of a film. It represents a limited number of people in North America and the United Kingdom, 50% of which are biased net nerds who think that certain people, such as Peter Jackson, are the greatest living specimens on planet Earth and beyond the stars.
Furthermore, Wikipedia advises against having an article represent the POV of a select group of people. It is a rule of thumb for editing that each article maintain a neutral point of view. When you insert the Internet Movie Database overall USER rating, you are going against this policy and you thereby make these articles biased to a select group, not all of which everyone is going to agree on.
It is perfectly all right to quote licensed critics and well-known offers in order to provide Wikipedia readers with an idea of how a certain film was recieved, but to allow them to make up their own minds. It is not all right to try and brainwash people by telling them that the Internet Movie Database user rating system is the be-all and end-all way of determining how these films are either good or bad. That is bullshit. (Ibaranoff24 03:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC))
Well said. I agree with its removal purely on the grounds that the field is completely unmaintainable, but the rating is clearly not a very useful piece of information to be quoting. Flowerparty☀ 15:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I too also agree with this stance, just to be on the record here due to its reintroduction by another editor. K1Bond007 03:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


image size too big for some posters

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

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

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

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

I've added an image_size parameter (you specify width in pixels, so for example image_size = 150px) which defaults to 200px. I also modified the article you provided as an example to use this and it seems to work okay. I'll wait for some more discussion before adding it to the docs to see if anyone thinks it's a bad idea. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think that we shouldn't have an extra parameter. Seeing a stretched image should be an impetus to find one at least 200px wide. That's not so big and won't be hard to find for just about any film. It's going to look ugly streched or too small... so, why not minimized the code excess? gren グレン 06:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's kind of what my feeling was as well. Hence why I waited for comment before advertising it too much, heh. =) Feel free to remove it if you like (just make it so it says "200px" instead of "{{{image_size|200px}}}"). Articles that use thed parameter won't matter, the parameter will just be ignored. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. You can as easily say "seeing a small image will be impetus enough to go find a bigger image. Surely we should not deliberately set out to post a degraded image on a page when we have the option of not doing so. Spoiling the wikipedia merely to provide a whip to encourage improvement is a strange medicine. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Music

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

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

AMG_ID?

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

All Movie Guide: http://www.allmovie.com/ Can't say I'd ever heard of it before, and not sure it deserves to be part of the template; imdb is obviously better known and more widely recognised; do we need to link to a 2nd (3rd, 4th...) film listing site? What does AMG offer that IMDB doesn't? --duncan 20:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It was added at the request of others I know, and I think it could be a nice addition to IMDb. It can be useful when trying to find some information not on IMDb like "Box office gross", "Flags" (content some might find offensive), etc. But like I said this is in no way ment to replace IMDb but to be used as an optional adition to it. -- UKPhoenix79 19:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Why do we even link to imdb here? It's an infobox, not an external links section. Flowerparty☀ 20:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I would say that the IMDb link is almost a must when talking about movies on the web. It helps the page expand its encyclopedic qualities. I doubt that there are but a handful of movies using this template that don't use the provided IMDb link. -- UKPhoenix79 20:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that a link to IMDB is an absolute must. It is incredibly useful for too many reasons to list. I suppose that the AMG link is fine too, if it really does have info that IMDB does not... although I'm a bit unsure. Still, I don't really care too much either way. Esn 03:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not knocking imdb, but it justs feels like the external links section is being gradually migrated into the infobox (or rather duplicated there - {{imdb title}} is already used on most of the film pages I come across). And it seems POV to link to only imdb from the infobox, like we're endorsing it as the only film site worth visiting. Flowerparty☀ 02:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Well an All Movie Guide link option has been added also so there is a choice... but you really should use IMDb whenever you use this templte since it is the standerd on the net. -- UKPhoenix79 04:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
IMDb is "the standard on the net" only to the extent that it has almost no competition. It's just the fattest kid on a block where only 4-5 kids live, so to speak. It is still fraught with errors and is incomplete for much of world film, and limits what it will accept by way of information (e.g. complete synopses, which could *only* be put up on Wikipedia, to the best of my knowledge, and would have to be based on actually watching a film). AMG is, BTW, IMDb's biggest competitor, is far behind it in accuracy, and is even less amenable to correction. Neither site should be treated as anything more than a reference source 12.73.195.203 00:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The option to allow users to either use IMDB or AMG hasn't really been communicated properly in the INFOBOX. By adding the amg option under the imdb one, it looks like there is a policy in effect to include both the imdb and amg. And as mentioned before, this should not be encouraged. At the very most, there should be a section on the project page stating that AMG is an alternative to IMDB. That way, there would be no confusion. --P-Chan 06:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan... Where do you think that should be mentioned? -- UKPhoenix79 06:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
One option could be to include it into the infobox section, either above it or below it. Stating what was said here... that AMG can be used as another option to IMDB. I have yet to thoroughly compare the two in anymore than a few cases, so I really can't comment on the quality. But I think that it is entirely possible that AMG could have a better entry than IMDB on some films (although I think this would be uncommon). Choice is good. Cheers. --P-Chan 06:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Seems to me the AMG links no longer work

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

A change was made to automatically add a prefix of "1:" to the amg_id and this ended up disabling the amg link for existing film articles. I have restored the previous version. It is only my opinion, but I think changes to the template that alter how a link works should be discussed first because it can potentially affect and disrupt hundreds to many thousands of existing film articles. Alan Smithee 09:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't add this to my watchlist and therefore didn't see this, so I'm sorry. When I added a link, it never worked due to the incorrect format. I didn't realize this because I hadn't been checking all of them, assuming that the format was correct. When I did check them, I tested the format carefully, before figuring out the problem was the omission of the correct prefix. If you would rather have pointed out in the syntax that one should manually add the "1:", I suppose that is a solution as well, but there was no indication of that either. It is now irrelevant, however, as apparently consensus has been reached that the amg link should not be included on the template. Shannernanner 11:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Rottentomato/Metacritic meter rating

I think that the Rotten Tomato meter rating should be kept, since it is reflective of the opinions of professionals. .... 03:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you propose a link to the main article or just listing the Freshness/Rotten ratings along with the percentage? -- UKPhoenix79 06:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
(This comment was moved from another thread). Question for users: Does a similar INFOBOX rating system exist for Rotten Tomatoe reviews? (I've heard about it, but I've never seen an INFOBOX entry for this before). If it doesn't exist I recommend this be developed soon.--P-Chan 15:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
someone else just asked that question below. What do you propose? A link to the article or the rating given by it? -- UKPhoenix79 19:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Definetly a rating, to me this is far most important, than simply having a link. I agree with the other users who have said that the IMDB star system is prone to POV.... and thus by placing the IMDB star system into Wiki, we could be POVing the articles. Most people seem to respect the Tomato Freshness rating though (%), and we should be able to add the % Freshness rating into the info box. Does anyone know how to do this??? UKPhoneix, do you know how to? Maybe the person who designed the imdb star system would know... Who knows. Main thing is, is that this needs to be done. It's a professional opinion and it looks cool. --P-Chan 22:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Yea I can do it. Were you thinking of the ##% followed by the Fresh/Rotten tomato image? Are the tomato images copyrighted? If they are what would you suggest as a replacement? Should it have text saying Fresh/Rotten? Do you think it should go below the poster, under the caption or a different location? Something akin to below with a star standing in for the tomato?
Rotten Tomatoes 100% *
Or should it be something that is in the main body of the template?
Rotten Tomato Rating.............100% *
As much feedback or any ideas that you have would really help. -- UKPhoenix79 22:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it should go under where the imdb is in the infobox. The second one you did looks ok to me (without all the .........).

So something like.... Rotten Tomato Rating 100% *

All we need is something basic for now, just to communicate the main information so we don't have to go into the whole Fresh/Rotten stuff. Also, in regards to the Tomato picture. I haven't a clue. I think it should be ok though. (But I'm not a lawyer). It's easy to make an image of our own, certainly. (We could just have a red blob with a green dot.) :) --P-Chan 22:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

One possibility...

Rotten Tomato Rating 75%

--P-Chan 22:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well actually the .... thing was in place of spaces. I was trying to imply that it could be put in the main body of the template below and similar to Followed by {{{followed_by}}}. I will come up with a way to do it but do you want me to use stars for now or should I upload the tomato images and do it from there? I was thinking of making it default to the rotten image and requiring an extra value added to show that it is fresh.
ok you added a great image while I was typing. Have you found a rotten tomato image also? -- UKPhoenix79 23:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
This will be a major change. In regards to whether or not we have a fresh/unfresh distinction... I really can't say at the momment. Fresh/unfresh is a marketing tool very specific to their website. Off the top of my head, I don't know all the factors to consider. I will message the other contributors to the info and invite them into this discussion as to what they think about having a rotten tomato % in the infobox, and maybe they can comment on the freshness concept as well. (For balance purposes, we may also want to have a Metacritic % score as well.) (I'll start messaging people now).--P-Chan 23:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Metacritic % score? I'm not sure what that means, but I do think that some way to symbolize the freshness is a good idea. I plan on having this optional like everythng else on this template and the code is pretty much finished. I only need a rotten image now! -- UKPhoenix79 23:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Metacritic is also highly respected for ratings. We could include it to counteract some of the POV issues of just having Rotten Tomatoes... optional of course. (We might as well talk about metacritic now while we're already on the topic of Rotten Tomatoes.)
I think an INFOBOX change like this is big enough to warrent some community discussion on the use of external meta-reviews in Wikipedia. Thus, I've invited the people who participated in the IMDB discussion earlier to comment on this issue. (If we don't get consensus early, I think it would just cause problems later.)--P-Chan 23:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I was called over here from my userpage (being a contributor to film articles). I personally do not see the rationale for adding the Rottentomatoes % if the reason for deleting the IMDB scores was POV. Many critics that I've seen on Rottentomatoes have as much if not more POV than a typical IMDB user, and many of the reviewers on IMDB are actually more qualified to review the films (especially the more obscure ones, which are outside most professional critics' traditional areas of expertise. In these cases, the professional critics become reporters trying to pass off as being educated about the subject, and frequently getting the information wrong). I have no objection to the Rottentomatoes link being included somewhere, but I do not think that the percentage should be up there unless the IMDB score is also there. It quite simply does not make sense to me to allow one and not the other. Esn 23:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Esn on this; if IMDB is POV, then all external reviews must be POV. Using data from more than one of them in the infobox doesn't stop it being POV. I'd rather just retain links to the relevant review sites in the main body, no mention of their ratings.--duncan 07:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is the code that I have come up with at the moment I haven't tested it out yet but there would have to be 3 variables for this to work. rotten_id (for the weblink), rotten% (freshness rating) & rotten_fr (image if fresh). It would be better to have the Fresh/rotten image chosen by the rotten% but I would have to do some experimenting to get that to work and I don't want to mess with this heavily used template. Does anyone have any ideas? Freshness is decided on the rotten% being >= 60%

Well I'm game if people want the Metacritic review site added also.

-->{{#if:{{{rotten_id|}}} | <tr><th style="font-size: 100%;" align="center" colspan="2">[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/{{{rotten_id|}}}/ Rotten Tomato Rating] {{{rotten%}}}% [[Image:{{{rotten_fr|rotten_tomato.png}}}| | 15px | Freshness}}]]</th></tr>}}<!--

| rotten_id = v_for_vendetta
| rotten% = 75
| rotten_fr = Tomato-Torrent-Icon.png

-- UKPhoenix79 23:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Rotten Tomatoes scores do not belong in the film Infobox. The website combines the opinions and review of professional film critics and reviews from websites for a very unfair advantage. Consider that Plan 9 from Outer Space (considered by many to be a leading contender for worst film ever made) has an outrageously high score of 52% on Rotten Tomatoes. Seriously. (Ibaranoff24 23:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

I disagree with adding this to the infobox. If someone wants to add it some other way to the article, like in the external links, then that's fine (that's a different discussion), but I think we need to start drawing the line somewhere. The infobox gets longer almost by the week around here. Adding this to the infobox not only makes it longer, but also shows favoritism to that website. Even IMDb in the template, to a lesser extent IMHO, is bad and truthfully unneeded. A lot of older films do not have sufficient amount of reviews to even take RottenTomatoes as a credible source. K1Bond007 23:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The comments so far sound very reasonable. I think it is generally agreed upon that having an optional rating system regardless of whether it is IMDB, RT, MC, etc... is generally considered a bad idea. Even if we were to leave it simply as an optional feature to put into the INFOBOX (is this last inference correct)?

I'm going to open a related issue based on K1Bond007's and Esn's comments.--P-Chan 00:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Upon dwelling on this issue a little further... I've come to a conclusion. Notice that very objective data on a film's performance.... like Box Office earnings, # of theaters, etc are not included in the INFOBOX. If those figures aren't there, then it would probably not be a good idea to include such qualitative measures like RT, IMDB, etc. Although, they seem to be unpopular in the INFOBOX, it is generally quite common to find these measures used in the main reception text. One possibility is to simply organize these three ratings IMDB, RT, MC into a chart format within the reception section, and leave it up to the readers to decide.--P-Chan 00:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
What I had set up, which was rightfully reverted, i didn't quite know the chain of procedure, was to place in the infobox another listing, a la Director, Writer. It looked like this

Tomatometer 93% If, on Rottentomatoes, the rating was certified (meaning that it had had over 40 reviews, with the meter coming in at 75% or above, I would simply place (certified) after the rating. Also, the link from the rating would go to the film's actual entry on Rottentomatoes. .... 06:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Metacritic stinks to high hell. They don't even have Gone With The Wind. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 08:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


I would refrain from adding RT and Metacritic scores to the film infobox. As I mentioned on the Talk:Rotten Tomatoes page, RT reviews are heavily weighted towards North American reviews, which would be in violation of WP:NPOV. There are rarely international reviews (save the single BBC review or so) that represent a broader critique of films. I find the N.American-centric bias troubling when

  • A) many blockbusters have international release dates during the same week. So it would be very easy for RT to find reviews from international reviewers
  • B) RT reviews foreign films. For example, when films like Bend It Like Beckham or Hero finally get shown in North America it would be helpful to have a look at the local and international reviews from critics during the films' original release dates.

And I was just thinking about the recent screening of Marie-Antoinette at Cannes. While the French press generally panned the film, reviews from North American outlets (such as A.O. Scott of NYT) gave it a more lukewarm to warm review. When Marie-Antoinette is released later this year, RT and Metacritc's reviews won't reflect the geographical disparity in the critical response. Historically, there's the memorable example of how Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was well-received internationally, but regarded as a sterotypical wuxia film among Chinese audiences.

--Madchester 16:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to Adding Rotten Tomatoes

Reading through the above comments, it doesn't seem like there is a consensus at all to add Rotten Tomatoes to the INFOBOX. I'd like to add my opposition along with Ibaranoff24 and K1Bond007. Of the recommended review sources mentioned (IMDB, AMG, Metacritic), I find Rotten Tomatoes to be the most unreliable of all. For one, it only takes a sampling of a very small percentage of film critics, few of whom are particularly well known or notable in any particular way. Worse, that site will frequently list a review as favorable when the actual critique can be mixed or even negative in tone. I'm personally against linking to any of these mass-review sites because they are inherently POV due to the selective nature of the chosen reviews. I think both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic can easily give a deceptive overview of a particular film's general critical consensus. I'd much rather have a link added to All Movie Guide, which offers brief, starred reviews of films; their sister site, All Music Guide, is frequently used as a source for CD reviews in wiki album INFOBOXES. Other reviews (both negative and positive) can be sourced in the film's article to give the reader a feel for the critical response the film received. If the reader wants to read further reviews, he/she can research the Movie Review Query Engine ([2]) if so inclined; unlike Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, that site can list hundreds of reviews, from all sorts of different sources (from the New York Times to obscure bloggers).Hal Raglan 15:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
AMG is ridiculously error-ridden, and much less amenable to correction than IMDb. Neither one, nor any other movie website, however, should be treated as anything more than just additional reference resources, since none are in any way reliable about how or where they accrue their "data". Much of it is fan provided, and often can be found to have been taken from earlier, print works, not necessarily accurate themselves. 12.73.195.203 00:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

IMDB, AMG, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic

Instead of having simply a rating system... what are people's opinions of having additional (OPTIONAL) film sites linked inside of the INFOBOX. For the longest time, there was only IMDB (then recently AMG was added). Now, if I'm not mistaken some people really like having IMDB there, but some people don't like it due to POV issues. Would including the option of AMG, Rotten tomatoes, and metacritic sites in the INFOBOX help this? Would there be benefit in having these sites as alternatives in IMDB?--P-Chan 00:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have only ever frequently visited IMDB and Rottentomatoes of all of those sites, so I cannot give an educated opinion just now. But I do know this much: the question facing us is not whether or not to include those sites in the infobox - it is, "where do you stop?". I am strongly in favour of keeping the IMDB link in the infobox - it provides a lot of useful information that is often not available on Wikipedia (many of the film articles over here are still relatively sparse). Having it near the top of the film pages in an infobox is just convenient. I have nothing against adding in Rottentomatoes either, as long as it is simply a link without the percentage added beside it (as I explained previously, I would include it only if the IMDB rating is also included - including one rating but not the other does not make sense to me). But about these other sites - I just do not know. AMG seems to be similar to IMDB in some ways, and Metacritic seems to be similar to Rottentomatoes (except that their category of films only goes back to 1999, with a few exceptions for well-known classics). So how do we decide which to keep in the infobox? As someone stated earlier, sometimes AMG may have more info than IMDB about a film (not sure how true this is).
Perhaps one solution might be to add all of these to the template, but allow only one of IMDB or AMG, and one of Rottentomatoes or Metacritic to be included in the infobox for each film article. Which one it is could be decided on the discussion pages for that film. I realize that this is a somewhat unwieldy solution, but what bothers me is that in the future a LOT of different review/info sites similar to these may pop up, and we'll need some kind of system to decide which to include and which to keep off. Therefore, I suggest grouping sites that provide similar services together, and allowing only ONE from each of these groups to be present in the infobox for a film. Esn 07:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


I think you have to have something like that to give readers an idea of the consensus opinion.
In fact, the way I found myself here was from reading what was written about Last of the Mohicans (1992). It is obvious the person that wrote that has a negative opinion of the film because they only quoted from negative reviews even though it got mostly positive reviews at the time of its release and still is viewed mostly positively (e.g., 80% of IMDB voters rate it 7 or higher).
I don't even particularly like the film but I knew it wasn't the way the majority responded. Unless you want this to become yet another review site, something is needed.
While they did include a positive comment from those reviews, they pretty much explicitly say the negative comments are correct: "style-over-substance nature was not lost on Desson Howe"; "Rita Kempley also recognized the heavy drama".
This shows how an author can essentially review the film by selectively choosing reviews and comments that match their own opinion even if it is the minority viewpoint.
Because film quality is subjective, there is no way to really get an objective view. The closest you can come is an overview and possibly consensus via RT, IMDB, etc.
On my own review site, I include the RT, IMDB and Metacritic ratings in the infobox. While none by themselves can be taken as gospel, taken together they can give a good idea whether the consensus is generally positive or generally negative or generally mixed.
What you DON'T want is for the viewpoint that the film snob consensus is the correct view. The more broad-based views the sites mentioned give is vastly preferable to that in my opinion. EvanMinn 19:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no major issue with the links being in the infobox, although it would still be better to include them in the External Links section only, but it seems like a terrible idea to include subjective evaluations of ratings such as IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes etc. in the infobox. Ziggurat 00:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Listing Un-credited input.

I think that the infobox should only list credited input, hence resembling the credits of it's respective film. I think that if you start to list uncredited input, it gets messy. Leave the uncredited info for the article body. .... 05:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I oppose this. What about when the "uncredited" person actually contributes a significant amount to the film, and is only uncredited because of space or political concerns? I've seen films where the main composer was uncredited in order to save space in the credits (let's not forget that until Star Wars, all credits had to come at the beginning of a film). Esn 05:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Otherwise, you ignore the realities of who really made the film, like IMDb does. Their preoccupation with second-classing uncredited people borders on the pathological. 12.73.194.79 14:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
But it makes the infobox untidy. I think it would be best for the infobox to list credited input, but to elaborate on uncredited input in the body. There are varying degrees of uncredited unput. For instance, listing George Lucas as a director of The Empire Strikes Back, alongside Irvin Kershner is not really telling the truth: Lucas only directed new special effects shots for the re-release. If we're going to do that, then we have to list all the second unit directors and all that mumbo-jumbo, because they directed scenes, didn't they? And, for instance, Laurence Olivier's Hamlet. Olivier wrote the line : This is the tragedy of a man who could not make up his mind. But I have removed him from the list of Writing credits on that film. You know why? Because ITS ONE LINE! There are endless examples, but seriously, let's just put the credits in the infobox. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 09:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
If you're worried about space in the infobox, why not simply abbreviate "uncredited" to something shorter like "unc", with a note in small print at the bottom of the infobox that "unc=uncredited"? This is a measure that I'd support.
I see what you're saying about having to list EVERYONE, but you're not addressing my point about films where some very important people remained uncredited because of space or political concerns. I think the real issue here is this: the infobox shouldn't really be for listing everyone in the first place - it should only list the more important people, and the rest should be listed in a "cast/crew list" at the bottom of the article. It just so happens that in a lot of films some rather important people were uncredited, and some less important people were credited. Perhaps you and I just visit different pages on Wikipedia, but I know of a lot more movies that would be hurt by what you're proposing than those that would be helped. Esn 05:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oscars

I think that in the infobox, it would be good to have little thumbnails of Oscar statuettes, one for each win, a faded out one for each nomination ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 08:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)--></nowiki>

MPAA Ratings

I strongly feel that the MPAA Film Ratings should be put in the infobox for each film.Mollymoon 01:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an international encyclopedia, not an American one. However, ratings can be found on some pages. See Halloween (film) and Richard III (1955 film) for ideas as to how to put the classification in the article ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 04:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
He might have a point... but if we put in MPAA it is our obligation to include all of the other ones as well. I'm not sure that this is necessary, though, since there's already a link to IMDB in the infobox, and you can find all of the ratings over there. Esn 05:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh the irony this is for me. I came across an orphaned template and put it up for TfD, but somehow ended up improving it, and now it looks like it will go for a keep. Sure though, seems there is a demand for it.. It's a template for international film ratings: Template:Infobox movie certificates. See Cowboy Bebop: The Movie for an example of it in action. Hope that helps. -- Ned Scott 06:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Now, that's a good template. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 00:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, that's a good template. Although the font size at the very top might be a bit too big... in any case, though, it's definitely prefferable to having it in the main infobox, I think. Is there any info on your template on the WikiProject Films page yet? Esn 01:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I have another comment... why are only certain countries and not others hyperlinked, and what if a film has a different rating in the different regions of Belgium (there are French/English/German-speaking regions, I think)? Esn 01:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It was a bit of an orphaned template when I found it. I only edited it so it wasn't so chunky and the variables were optional (as in, it only displays countries when you input a rating for it). Other people, long before me, put in hyperlinks to articles that were about that countries movie ratings. I haven't yet taken the time myself to look for similar articles for the rest of the countries. As for countries with more than one rating system, Canada is actually on there twice, once as "Canada" and again as "Quebec", so I guess that would be ok to do it for other countries as well. And I just left a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films about the template, I'm not sure if they knew about it before (probably not, since, like I said, it was an almost-orphan before). -- Ned Scott 05:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Alternative text for images

I want to add an "alt text" parameter for infobox images, but I'm not sure of the syntax. Is

{{{image|[[Image:IIH.png|200px|<!--
-->{{#if: {{{alt text|}}}
        | {{{alt text}}}
        | {{#if: {{{caption|}}}
               | {{{caption}}}
               | {{PAGENAME}}
          }}
   }}]]}}}

going to do it? I want it to use the "alt text" if specified, failing that the "caption", failing that the article name. (In most cases, there is no reason for the image to have a caption.)


—wwoods 19:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Art Director

How about an entry for the Art Director? In some films (especially animation), this is a very important role, much more important than editor or cinematographer, and often even more important than the cast members (Triplets of Belleville (2003), for example, has almost no dialogue). Esn 02:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Strandardization of country abbreviations (USA, U.S., etc)

It appears that some editors have different opinions on which country abbreviation is best (I've noticed someone changing instances of "USA" in a film infobox to "U.S."), so I thought I'd put this up to a vote in order to hopefully settle this issue (I hope this the right place). I myself prefer "USA", the reason being that "USSR" is prefferable to "U.S.S.R." (it takes up less space). It's best not to use an abbreviation for another country that does have periods (like "U.S.") if we are to be consistent. Also, are there any other countries besides those two that are typically called by abbreviated forms of their names? DPRK might be one, but I think it's usually called North Korea. Esn 02:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Some ideas:
Bisco 21:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox links that are already in the article

Should every name that appears in an infobox be linked, even if they are already linked within the text of the article itself? Wiki's Mos states that a page is overlinked if a link appears more than once, yet I find myself doing a lot of reversions where people insist on duplicating the links within the infobox. Which is correct? Chris 42 14:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Just as a point of reference, here is the argument that I provided to Chris (after his posted here) in favor of "redundant" linking in the infobox:
"I consider the infobox content to be both supplemental and separate from the article (for example, movie infoboxes tend to have IMDB links, even though they are usually in the "External links" section, and will cite release dates, regardless of whether they are already mentioned in the article)."
Also, I just realized that, as the infobox floats above all the content in the article, its links would be "proper", and all the links in the article itself would be the redundant ones. I might be confused, but I'm pretty sure that's right (and, might I add, lame). EVula 21:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The Manual of Style just says, "may be considered overlinked" (emph added). The infobox is effectively a section; I don't see any reason not to have links in both the box and the running text. It saves having to hunt around for the linked instance of a name. —wwoods 00:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that sentiment. Some people will read the infobox first, while others will start with the article proper. It's best to try and accomodate both of them. Esn 02:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Executive Producers

I notice that User:68.4.159.26 has been adding an Executive Producer and Associate Producer field to the infobox and User:Ned Scott has been removing them; what are people's opinions on whether they should be included or not? Ziggurat 02:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

While we're at it, what about adding an entry for "art director"? In many films this is a very important role - sometimes even more important than the actors. Esn 03:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I remember attending a lecture by Craig Harrison in which he suggested that everyone involved in the making of a film considers themselves to be the most important part of the process. An infobox isn't supposed to contain all the same information as the credits, so there has to be an upper limit on who is listed here. Directors, producers, and main actors are usually most prominently displayed, so they should be a given. Writers, editors, and cinematographers have a strong case for inclusion. Music, costume designers, and art directors I'm not so sure are essential here, as it seems to be more dependent on the individual film whether they're important or not. Of course, that's just my opinion; hopefully we can all reach an agreement on what's up and what's on the chop! Ziggurat 03:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Why can't there just be a section on this? Making the template much longer kinda tears down the purpose of the infobox IMHO - quick and easy information - if the thing is long as hell it no longer does a service for that purpose. It's already bigger than it should be, but that's just my 2 cents. K1Bond007 03:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Aye, including in the infobox or not doesn't make anyone less or more important. From the article Executive producer:
Template talk:Infobox Film/Archive 2
 An executive producer of a motion picture is typically a producer who is not necessarily involved in any creative or technical aspects of production. They generally handle business issues, and may even be a financier of the film. Some executive producers act as representatives of the studio (which releases and/or makes) or production company (which makes) a film, occasionally being credited as executive in charge of production.

Many times someone will receive Executive Producer credit because of their prior involvement with a property that has since been optioned into a film, even if they had no direct input into the production of the film itself. Some instances of this include authors of optioned literary works; people who had previously owned or currently own a property's movie rights; or, someone who had produced, or been involved in the production of, a previous version of the film.
Template talk:Infobox Film/Archive 2
So, even if they're important, they're usually not directly involved with the creation and such, thus it's not very useful at-a-glance info. -- Ned Scott 05:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
On second thought... I agree with Ziggurat in that the point of an infobox should be to point out the most important people associated with a film. In most cases these are the actors and director(s), etc. I'd say that the composer is also rather important for many films (can you imagine "Star Wars" or "Jaws" without the music? I cannot). In animated films, I think that the Art Director holds one of the more important roles. Therefore, if it IS put in, perhaps it could come with a stipulation that it is only to be filled in for films in which the role of "Art Director" is an important one (all animated films would fall under that, as well as some visually-reliant live-action ones). Esn 07:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say that associate and executive producers shouldn't be on this template. gren グレン 06:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Self Implementation

How can I implement an infobox of my own at my own wiki site?

Any attempts ive made have failed.

Do you mean another website running a Wiki or your user page at this Wiki? If the former, it depends on what wiki software you are using; some support templates and some don't (for a comparison, see comparison of wiki software). If the latter, the best place to ask would be Wikipedia:Help desk. Regards, Ziggurat 23:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I found a solution. You need a recent mediawiki (1.7), the ParserFunctions extension (for #if: support), and HTML tidy. The tidy program fixes some breakage in the parser(?), without it, you get HTML table garbage in the output. After that, you can export the Template:Infobox Film page and import it into your project. You also may want to transfer the cascade style sheets for the infobox from MediaWiki:Common.css to your project's style sheet.--Marcus 87.123.167.102 01:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Link for soundtrack?

I had a thought, I don't know what others would think, but I thought I'd throw it out there. What about putting a link for the soundtrackto the film in the infobox? Joltman 12:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

the link to go where exactly? --duncan 16:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I meant to go to the Wikipedia's soundtrack entry, ie Titanic would have a link to Titanic (soundtrack). I realize not all (not many?) film soundtracks have their own article, but when they do I think it would be good to link it in the Infobox. Joltman 16:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Categorization

Has there been any discussion about adding categories to this infobox? I've been adding films to Category:English-language films. This is a slow process, even using AWB. I could do it in one step for EVERY film by adding the following line to the template:

[[Category:{{{language}}}-language films]]

The same thing could be done for nationality, director, year released, etc... Any objections? -- Samuel Wantman 00:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't work. Just looking at Jaws (film), you'd get [[Category:[[English language|English]]-language films]], which renders like this: [[Category:English-language films]]. Flowerparty☀ 05:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
How many films are disambiguated like this? If it is just a few, the template could interperet the language as [[{{{language}}} language|{{{language}}}] . If some languages don't work this way, redirects could be created to handle them. -- Samuel Wantman 06:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Tagline?

Anyone think it would be a good idea to include "Tagline(s)" optional field? I think nearly every film using this probably has one, and currently, they're usually included in the article in a very unprofessional/messy mannor (i.e. abruptly at the end of a section you just see Tagline: Whatever) or in some cases like this it's got its own section, for only ONE tagline. Or maybe it could be put under the image (i.e. change the Syntax Guidlines to allow for taglines in the caption area? - RHeodt 14:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --DrBat 02:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Taglines are the jurisdiction of Wikiquote. Cbrown1023 20:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Can the preceded_by and the followed_by variables have more than one title??

I found that on some movie articles the author has put more than one title in the followed_by and the preceded_by variables, like in Blade: Trinity and Blade (film).. now, should this be edited to have only one title or is this okay!? --PASSIVE (Talk|E-Mail) 01:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

imdb_id / amg_id

We should not be showing such obvious bias to two film databases. External links go in the external links sections of their pages. The only external link in the infobox should be to the official site. ed g2s • talk 18:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with this, especially about the amg_id. The reason that the imdb_id is a tougher call is because it's used in so many infoboxes, and you'd have to go through thousands of film articles to move it to the external links sections. The amg_id is really silly to have in the infobox and arguably anywhere in the article, since it's just a second rate imdb, with neither the size nor the popularity (it gets less than 1% of the traffic imdb gets), and therefore adds nothing to the article here. -Bobet 10:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Film's name in the infobox

Some discussion is needed on the preferred usage of a non-English film name (in the local writing system) in the infobox. The FA Ran (film) has "乱 (that is question marks for some of You) Ran" in the infobox as the film's title, the article was featured (revision) with "Ran" in infobox. Also other titles like The Seven Samurai have their name in Japanese writing (see discussion), but Tokyo Story is in Western encoding. Doing a random sampling we get: Shiri has the English name not Korean, Wheels_on_Meals has the English name not Chinese, Los olvidados has the original Spanish name, Amélie has the English title, The Battleship Potemkin has the English not the Russian name etc. Generally "Article name" --> same name in Western encoding in the infobox.

Currently the Syntax Guide just says: Film Name (Variable: name) "Use: the full name of the film including punctuation and style." There is a problem with using the non-English name in the local writing system of Hindi/Tamil/Greek/Russian/Japanese/Korean/Chinese/etc. to put the film's name in the infobox as it gives lots of ???? for most users. So what kind of guidelines can be given on this matter? feydey 12:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The way I understand it, is to use the name as given in the article's title. Optionally the foreign or english name can be added in parenthesis, if it is considered very important. Example The Blue Angel is given as Der blaue Engel and so it should go in the infobox, maybe -but not necessarily- followed by (Blue Angel). Hoverfish 12:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Technical proposal: template doc page pattern

I would like to propose to apply the pattern described at Wikipedia:template doc page pattern for this template. This has the benefit that changes to the documentation, categories, interwikis don't ripple through to transcluding articles. Although I see you already do transclude documenataion partially here. But the mentioned pattern would be a more complete solution. An example usage can be seen at template:cite web. --Ligulem 12:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Alternate sleeve

I noticed someone adding an alternate sleeve to the foot of a music album infobox, and this can be a good way to display reissue sleeves or other alternate pics. Is there a reason why this should be avoided with films?

The syntax used was:

| Misc = {{Extra album cover
| Upper caption = Alternate cover
| Background = Darkseagreen
| Cover = nocover.gif
| Lower caption = Re-mastered edition sleeve
}}

Gram 15:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is best kept compact without adding additional images. feydey 19:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Space for the literary on which the movie is based=

Please add "Based on" too. ♔BADMIN♛ (आओ✍) 21:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, you don't need to put every detail about the film into the infobox. This is something that is much better discussed in the article body itself. A single line in an infobox usually won't be enough to explain something like this and to what extent the film is based on it, especially if there isn't an article for the book, novel, play, etc. in question. Plus the infobox is long enough already. - Bobet 09:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea - more films than most people realize are based on prior literary works. It would serve as a way to connect the Films and Novels wikiprojects, which is after a big part of what wikipedia is about - connections. This certainly seems like it should be part of the infobox to me, probably near the top, separated from the cast somehow (maybe by a slightly different colour). The connection between films and literature is often very strong, and a literary source is something that many films have in common. It's one of those things that I imagine people would want to find in the infobox, rather than having to search the article. Esn 11:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm against this for the same reasons Bobet gave.
You can have a "literature connections section" in the article. The reader can follow a link to the article for the literature. In the literature article could be a "movie connections section" complete with all films that are somehow related to it. This way you have all corresponding media in the respective article. Of course, I see that often articles for the literature don't exist yet, but you could always create a stub with at least the information that there is a corresponding film.
Another thing: there are often novels written after a screenplay, so there is a strong connection with a book but "based on book" doesn't apply and the connection must be ommitted in the infobox. An entry in the infobox would be too short and therefore not accurate enough. --Bisco 13:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/f/Template_talk%7EInfobox_Film_Archive_2_7f15.html"