Template talk:Infobox Film/Archive 1

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

US bias

Isn't there some bias in putting "USA" in the infobox by default? After all, not all films are made in the USA. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 19:56, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Undoubtedly you're right. A given film has a multitude of release dates. It's obviously not very prudent to list them all. The only reason I can think of that'd make changing it worth it would be for films that are made in english-speaking countries that aren't the US. Otherwise, non-English would have their respective release date on the appropriate language site of wikipedia.
I would assume the US dominates other english-speaking countries in film releases. If I'm wrong, please correct. This is why I don't have much problem with keeping release dates for the US. Perhaps another template Template:Infobox film nonUSA or something that requires you to supply the country of release. Then non-USA films could be migrated to the new template and all rejoice! :) Cburnett 20:28, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Awards and Series fields

I removed the sections for "awards" and "series".

We can't have an "awards" field because very few films have won any awards and many other films have on far too many awards to fit comfortably in the infobox. For instance, see the IMDB awards page for Gangs of New York -- we can't possibly fit all those in the infobox, and it's not fair to limit the awards to the Oscars alone.

As for the "series" field, only a very small number of films actually belong to a series, and an empty field makes the infobox rather ugly. And if they do belong to a series, they could get their own template so if another film comes out in the series, only one update to the series' template would be needed (see Template:Starwars).

Very few film articles used these fields anyway. We should keep the infobox as generic as possible so it can apply to as many films as possible. TheCoffee 11:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then put back a space for tagline and budget. Almost all films have one and that's what I've seen and done with series and awards for films that don't have either. Cburnett 19:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hmm...do you think it's really necessary? I have seen a few films use those fields for budget and tagline, but I just supposed it's a workaround to fix that problem of having empty fields, not fields that were really necessary. What do you think? TheCoffee 07:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I just see "tagline" as a minor bit of advertising information that's not necessary in an encyclopedia. Budget may be more encyclopedic (though it may be unknown for many films). Right now we luckily only have about 100 or so films using this template, so it's still somewhat flexible to changes. I'd be willing to go through them all and fill them up properly (including the "producer" field) :p TheCoffee 07:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think budget is worth while knowledge. The tag line speaks to some part of the plot (though sometimes it takes seeing the film to understand, others it doesn't), but that's not to say an advertising slogan (if you wish to call it that) isn't worth noting. Besides, both budget and tag line don't have good segues into film articles so just putting them in the infobox seems like the easiest way to handle them. Cburnett 07:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Alright then, budget and tagline are in. I'll get to work updating the articles with them. TheCoffee 08:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No tagline! Every film has a budget... not every film has a tagline. – flamurai (t) 09:16, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Such as? Cburnett 10:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Million Dollar Baby, plus numerous old films. – flamurai (t) 10:40, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

User:Rorro came up with an ingenius template hack to conditionally display some parts of templates that we can use here to put back the awards, series, and tagline fields if we want. I'm going to try it out right now. See {{Peru region table}}. Compare the use on Amazonas region and Ancash region. – flamurai (t) 00:53, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Since we're going to have to fill in those variables for every template (even if they're just blank), let's agree on what rows we want to add to the template and what rows we want to be conditional before we add these back to the template. – flamurai (t) 02:06, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)


So should we bother adding any awards information (even though it won't show up)? - Diceman 12:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I say put any new awards information in the article itself, otherwise there's no use unless the field is visibly added. --Poorpete 14:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Guidelines for certain fields

As in the "release date" question above, we need to make guidelines for certain fields. My suggestions:

Release date 
First public non-festival release in any country. This means anything that opened in NY/LA or other limited releases before opening wide should go by the limited release date.
Runtime 
Original theatrical runtime in the country of original release. Not the special edition/director's cut/redux runtime or runtime of a version edited for another country.
Tagline 
Main 1-sheet poster tagline in the country of original release. Not the teaser poster, teaser trailer, or trailer tagline.

– flamurai (t) 02:23, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest a link to these guidelines is included in the infobox somehow, maybe through making links from the headings (director/writer/etc.) to stop the info being changed by someone who doesn't understand the criteria, or who doesn't realise there is one. --HappyDog 00:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I added some of this to the /Syntax Guide and the Template —Fitch 03:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Alternate titles

Many films have alternate titles (especially B-films and "foreign" [i.e., non-English] films), but many don't. Would anyone object if I add an {{alternate-title}} parameter to the template? (I wouldn't do it until I'm prepared to go through every "What links here" article and add at least one alternate title or "none" to each in one fell swoop, based on IMDb data.) If added, where should it go? — Jeff Q (talk) 03:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll second to this. It should probably go on the bottom, just before the IMDb link. Bennyp81, 3 Apr 2005

Multiple languages

There are thousands of films whose original language is not English, but have English-language dubbing, which is of significant interest to en:Wikipedia readers. Two significant categories of these: foreign-language films that have been made popular (in the U.S. at least; I can't speak to other English-speaking countries) by Cannes and other film festivals, and B-films, which are a late-night treat that many people recall fondly from their childhoods, including Wikipedia editors anxious to add articles on them. (A subcategory of the latter is the set of 198 films featured in Mystery Science Theater 3000, many of which were originally in Japanese, Italian, and other languages, and which several conscientious editors are busily adding to Wikipedia.)

I've looked at this template, and I don't see any way to include both the original language and a note on whether English is available, either dubbed or subtitled. Can we make the template flexible enough to add a second language? Should we (ugh!) add another parameter? Should we just assume that it's got some kind of English text if it's here on en:Wikipedia? I'm open to suggestions. — Jeff Q (talk) 04:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think information on additional subtitles or dubbed versions should be somewhere else, but not in the infobox. The infobox has the information about the original language of the film. And there is my problem. I wanted to include French AND Japanese, for Fear and Trembling, but it's not possible at the moment. Is there some easy and elegant way to change the infobox in a way it would be possible? Thanks. Ben talk contr 02:01, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Just removing the [[ and ]] there would do, but this would unwikify all film languages. Any comments? Ben talk contr 02:03, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Although unwikifying it would help remove the plethora of disambiguation links when people put English, as it should instead be English. Jalada

Year

So why isn't the year in a more prominent place? :) Suggestion:

{{{movie_name}}} ({{{release_year}}})
{{{image}}}
Director {{{director}}}
Producer {{{producer}}}
Writer {{{writer}}}
Starring {{{starring}}}
Distributor {{{distributor}}}
Released {{{release_date}}}, {{{release_year}}}
Runtime {{{runtime}}}
Language [[{{{film_language}}} language|{{{film_language}}}]]
Budget {{{budget}}}
IMDb Page

or something like that.... Cburnett 07:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quick quiz: without looking on the Web or in a book, what years were the following films released: The Wizard of Oz, It's a Wonderful Life, and Jaws? Okay, now name at least two stars from each film. ☺ On the other hand, many sources, including IMDb, commonly place the year immediately following the title, especially to provide disambiguation, so Cburnett's suggestion makes sense. — Jeff Q (talk) 15:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
To provide disambiguation, you can still supply a year in the movie_name field which will be displayed in the top panel. Is the year still required to be so prominent when disambiguation isn't a problem? --HappyDog 12:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A more prominent year would be nice:
  • The box would then follow the same format as the lead section (or more factually: "name (year)" is in the process of establishing itself as a convention!)
  • The year would make it easy for the reader to orient himself (for example, he could have followed a link from a page that didn't make any mention of the release date).
  • When more and more images are being added to the filmboxes, the trivia-hungry visitor can compare the release date to the poster design, and postulate whether the design is characteristic of its era! :)
Oh yes, and the release year should most definitely link to the general year, and not to the "year in film" page! 213.250.75.227 09:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Go to just about any book talking about films. Heck, see IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes: Whenever a film or some article or description of it is first referenced, the title of the film is almost always followed by the year the film was released. The year must get more prominence; it should be next to the title as is the practice elsewhere. Bennyp81, 3 Apr 2005

Multiple directors, etc.

I have just replaced director, procucer, writer with director(s), producer(s), writer(s) to deal with situations such as Monty Python and the Holy Grail where there are many of each. An alternative would be to use directed by, produced by and written by. In the latter case the word 'screenplay' should perhaps be used, which would be clearer when a film has been adapted from a novel. Thoughts? --HappyDog 00:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IMO, I don't think it's necessary to add the (s). It's clear when multiple names are listed. --Viriditas | Talk 13:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The (s)'s indeed look irritating. A solution that will be both informative & elegant:
  • Director(s) -> Directed by
  • Producer(s) -> Produced by
  • Writer(s) -> Written by
It's painfully obvious, is it not? :) 213.250.75.147 17:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And while we're at it:
  • I think we should move the "Produced by" credit between "Starring" and "Distributor", so that we would have the 3 "creative" jobs (directing, writing, acting) followed by the 2 "business" things.
  • "Written by" works better than "Screenplay": attribution is usually made clear with the use of parentheses (see Eyes Wide Shut).
  • The above-mentioned suggestion re: more prominant release year looks good to me. Alas, I'm no good with technical stuff, so I will leave the edits to someone who knows what she's doing. 62.148.218.61 17:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What makes you assume it will be a woman who does the edit? --HappyDog 00:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Calm down there HappyDog. I use "he" as a 3rd person pronoun all the time for no reason other than I'm male. Women can do the same for she. It's generally accepted to not have to say he/she all the time. I won't speak for 62.148.218.61, but I suspect the same intended use. Or do you *really* jump the gun and assume sexism? Cburnett 00:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am calm, and of course I don't assume sexism. But why assume 62 is a woman?  :)
I always find the use of 'she' in this manner incredibly distracting, and the least suitable solution to the problem. Either use 'he', which has a gender-bias but is commonly accepted, or 'they', which is gender neutral. For example, I would have used 'someone who knows what they're doing' in the above example. If you don't care about gender-neutrality, then why make it an issue? If you do care, find a way to avoid it.
This aside is, of course, somewhat irrelevant on this page however, so if you want to continue this discussion please use my talk page. --HappyDog 01:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
62 here, under a different guise.
Actually, I'm a guy whose native language doesn't have a gender-specific third-person singular pronoun (how great is that!), but I do tend to use 'she' quite a lot.
I assumed that the usage wouldn't be distracting, what with feminism and all that. "I will leave the edits to someone who knows what she's doing", accordingly, shouldn't be read as some kind of battle cry ("because of course only a woman would know how to do it"), but only as an acknowledgment of my own lack of skill.
(My big question is: if I change "Director" to "Directed by", do I also need to change the {{{director}}} thing accordingly?)
So how about them edits, fellas? 213.250.75.8 08:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Done! --HappyDog 12:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have to admit that I don't like these changes. Currently, there's more width taken up by the title column than the data column (e.g., The Terminal). Particularly from "Distributed by". Can we do anything else? Cburnett 18:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. On my computer the headings are about half the width of the data, and it looks fine. --HappyDog 08:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You're not sure about what? I thought I was quite clear in what I mean. The left column is wider than the right, and because of the above changes. How else do you want me to explain it.... Cburnett 09:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) (aka confused)
I don't like the changes, either. --Viriditas | Talk 09:18, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It depends on how big the browser window is. Although I'm unsure it's a good idea, there's always the chance to change stuff to "direction", "distribution", etc. I didn't mind the original way, as I thought like for "director" not many people would be confused if there was two --Poorpete 19:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Negatory, the width of the table is fixed.
I would move for going back to "Director", "Writer", "Producer" & "Distributor". Cburnett 20:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ahh I see what you mean now, don't mind me. I can go with either "director" or "directed by", as both is 100 times better then "director(s)". "directed by" is how IMDB does it. --Poorpete 21:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If we're planning on using a generic infobox in all film articles then it should make sense in all film articles. It's the same reason we don't have data like 'awards' - because it looks silly for films that don't have awards (most of them). I first came to this page to fix the pluralisation issue, because it looked really wierd on the Holy Grail article, and if I think that's the case then others will too. It may not be the majority of people, but I think it's enough to warrant a better solution than ignoring it.
I'm not too fussed about the exact wording, so long as it works in all situations. 'Direction' is a good suggestion, and is only 1 letter longer than 'Director' (and it's a thin one) so I would recommend that alternative. If no-one objects I will make the change.
Regarding the browser issue, if you have a fixed width table then it will always cause odd-looking layouts on some browsers. Changing the caption length will only reduce the problem slightly, not eliminate it. This is an inherent problem with a vertical infobox. Essentially it makes a three column page, and if your browser window isn't big enough to accomodate this then it will always look wierd. --HappyDog 00:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
See, I have no problems with "Director" with multiple names. I wouldn't have a problem with "Directors" either.
My complaint is a relative problem. The new change has made it worse. A step backward, if you will. Cburnett 01:16, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In your opinion worse, in my opinion better. --HappyDog 12:16, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
So far, it's 2 to 1 with another neutral. Cburnett 16:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'll add a vote to keep "Director", etc., for two reasons: (1) this is a compact table, so short is sweetest and is nonetheless unambiguous; and (2) it if encourages people not to add multiple names where only one is prominent, so much the better. (I'm tempted to suggest deleting the "Producer" credit entirely, since recent Hollywood fashion is to get anyone who had a finger in the production a Producer credit.) — Jeff Q (talk) 09:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I disagree to remove "Producer" as most films have only one or two producers and if there's a bunch of folks it's usually under "Executive Producers" and for that, who cares. The Producer gets the Oscar when the Academy gives out the Best Picture, so it's still considered an important role. Unless I'm taking a joke too seriously heh --Poorpete 14:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It was tongue in cheek (an article that we're surprising lacking in either Wikipedia or Wiktionary, which I'm working on remedying). Jeff Q 23:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Music/Score

I've changed "Music/Score" to just "music" for the sake of simplicity. --Viriditas | Talk 13:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does the music bias against silent films? -- it would also be nice if whoever added this section help fill for "music" in already created infoboxes. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template%3AInfobox_film there's a lot to do to make them look uniform again. If there isn't any major edit of infoboxes (all I can tell is that "Blazing Saddles" is the only fixed infobox so far), I'd say we should remove the music section until someone is up to doing some major editing (I'd help, but I neither want to be the only one to fix stuff from others fleeting ideas) --Poorpete 22:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, although I'm willing to help. Regarding silent films, IIRC many of them do have scores, although they were often played live, in the theatre. --Viriditas | Talk 01:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The addition of "Music" and "Awards" is bound to create a big mess. The Awards things is discussed above (not only are the "winners" in a minority, but the whole idea of awarding/ranking artworks is suspect), and as for music, there are a few big objections:
  • Silent films
  • Films that use mainly pre-recorded music, and use an original score just to patch things up.
  • Yes, the composer is an important member of the crew, but so are editors, cinematographers, sound designers, set and costume designers, etc. Should we include all of them? No, because it is important to "KEEP IT SIMPLE". These other relevant areas of the production can always be addressed in the article itself. 213.250.75.85 08:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Both "music" and "awards" have been removed. --Viriditas | Talk 10:10, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I can take it upon myself, or help, to fill in empty filmbox fields tonight, if empty fields are seen to be troublesome. I was the one who introduced the problem, after all, so i don't mind; sorry to be so vigilante. Also, I concede the point, concerning the awards field, i say remove it for the reasons argued above.
I do argue, though, that music is only slightly less important than writing in some cases (Psycho, Jurassic Park), is on the front box cover and billing of many films anyway, and is at least as important as the distributor, something that changes from time to time. Isn't there some way to make fields invisible if they're unused? It would provide a set of standard fields, without creating the need for them to be filled in. --shuff 23:51, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean, there maybe should be some stuff in the intro pages to Wikipedia that it’s okay to be bold, EXCEPT when you’re thinking about editing templates and other elements which effect a good number of pages all at once. Then the right course of action is discussion.
So we all agree that the ”Awards” field is out because such decorations are not an *essential* part of a film. In fact, they are not a part of it at all!
”Isn't there some way to make fields invisible if they're unused?”
The point about an infobox is that it should be as compact and uniform as possible. (If a reader browses through a number of pages, she should be able to see the wanted info immediately by just glimpsing at the box.) This is the reason why I still think it’s a bad idea to add the ”Music” field. Like it’s said above, there are a whole bunch of other key tasks that should also be included if we think in terms of completeness, but it is crucial to remember that the infobox doesn’t try accomplish that. Completeness, rather, is the goal of the main article.
One solution: a new infobox solely dedicated to the cinematographers, composers, editors, etc. This box would not be placed under the main box, but further down the page to accompany the section of the article which talks about these issues. Sadly, not many (if any) film articles can currently be described as indepth. In this light, this suggestion is not something that should be implemented right away, because the addition of a new box would make the pages harder to read/look messy. 62.148.218.49 07:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A compelling point, 62. If compactness is the key, then music goes somewhere other than the infobox. So uh, if there are no objections by the end of easter sunday UTC (7pm eastern 27 may), i'll delete the music and awards fields. its been fun, thanks for putting up with my rampant vigilantism, i'll do it right next time. is there anything compelling i need to clean up, other than that? -- shuffdog (talk) 10:43, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Film article conventions

Since the people here have an interest in developing film articles, you might want to take part in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject films ("Intro format") about the format for film articles. 62.148.218.183 08:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Extended parameters

People might be interested to read about a possible future feature, meta:Extended template syntax which will make it possible to have certain fields appear only if there is relevant data, e.g. a field for tag line only if there was one, a field for original title only for non-English language films etc. Thuresson 23:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good. Version 1.8 perhaps? ;-) --HappyDog 00:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Latest version is 1.4 so keep your fingers crossed for 2006. Thuresson 03:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This could solve a few of the plural problems we're currently fussin' over --Poorpete 17:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Busted

Just thought y'all might like to know that the infobox on 12 Angry Men is busted (the image field isn't working properly). I tried fixing it, with no luck. Maybe one of you can get it to work. Cheers. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:36, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Good as new. -- Netoholic @ 20:23, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

Length and waste of white space

So in looking at Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, there's a lot of white space because of the lengthy credits for writters and stars.

I tried a simple way by colspan="2" the stars & writers in separate rows but that wasn't nearly as, uh, pretty. Any suggestions? Cburnett 21:24, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you need to write screenplay after those writers, or at least not all of them. MechBrowman 22:10, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, that's 4 lines. Decent, but not significant. Cburnett 22:47, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Image Size

In everyone's opinion, what's the ideal image size? - Diceman 2 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)

10000x10000. :) 200 or 225 or 250 are nice sizes for posters. Cburnett July 2, 2005 20:20 (UTC)
It always seems to be a tossup between legibility vs filling up the infobox space vs the image size dominating the article. My early additions were 250px but looking at them now they seem too big, I'm thinking maybe 215 or 220 could be an easy "default" size to use. - Diceman 4 July 2005 15:27 (UTC)
I like a 300px as the width for the poster, cauz i really think that the poster describes a lot of what's happening in the film.. --Amr Hassan 21:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

What about having a border around the poster ssame as it is around the thumb. Well as far as the size is concerned. I feel best at 250. Vivek 22:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: ratings

Major changes, such as the addition of several fields to an infobox, need to be proposed and discussed on the talk page first before they are implemented; there needs to be a consensus. I would say that ratings information is relevant, but adding it to the infoboxes may not be the best idea because (1) not all shows are shown in the same region, and (2) not all shows are rated. It would probably be best to add a single rating category, that can be edited accordingly for each article.

Either that or, alternately, you can create an alternate box with all of that information included and use that one for your edits.--FuriousFreddy 14:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I have changed my mind on how to attack rating: How about the creation of an MPAA or certification template? Steven McCrary 22:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Show me how to make a template. --Ryanasaurus0077 14:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I just reverted a change to add the MPAA rating. I don't believe consensus has been reached on that. Al 15:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Will, how are we going to reach the consensus? do we make a vote or something?? cauz i think that this field is badly needed--Amr Hassan 19:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
THe field would have to be made optional somehow. American films didn't start getting ratings until 1968, so that'd be hundreds of articles with a blank spot (the person who first added ratings sections added several for various countries). Just one "ratings" section, in which all relevant ratings for various countries can be added should be fine. --FuriousFreddy 20:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
There is a discussion about this on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Ratings_template. Also, a ratings template exists at Template:Infobox_Film_rating. And by simply adding ". . ." to blank fields will enable their use. Steven McCrary 17:08, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
If you like to discuss the rating in the template, read the section and vote. There are very few votes to make a determination. --^BuGs^ 18:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Title on top

I find having the title of the film on the top of the template is somewhat unnecessary, as the template generally apears at the top of the article, where the title is given as the first word of the article anyway. Any objections to just removing it from the infobox? --Fritz Saalfeld 18:08, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I would object, for a couple reasons. The current Wikistyle provides for consistentcy across all media (info boxes for films, albums, singles, etc.) with a title bar across the top that formats and works pretty well. You'd also have alot of reverting to do to go back and change it at this point. Lastly, even though the title of the article should suffice, its nice to give the infobox an appearance that stands on its own, and having the title above the filmbox graphic (which may or may not itself carry the title) gives it a clean look and feel. Consider one may wish to screengrab the box to reuse elsewhere (email, clip to exchange) and its virtually a complete set of basic facts on the film, with its title on top. My thoughts, anyway...:) -- Barrettmagic 11:59, August 10 2005 (UTC)
Okay, agree. But I now moved the title inside the box, this way it's more connected to it and not just floating above. Hope this is okay with everybody... --Fritz Saalfeld 10:31, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
No, I disagree. Strictly, the title iss a caption to the infobox table; it's better Web accessibility to present it as such in the HTML. Compare also with other infoboxes (eg Template:Infobox London place, Template:Infobox Country, Template:Infobox U.S. state). I'm gonna revert it, but feel free to bring it back up here. — OwenBlacker 05:00, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I was trying to make it clearer the title belongs to the infobox (more aproaching it from an visual point of view than from a technical one). Other media-related infoboxes do it the same way: Template:Album infobox. But if you prefer it this way... I just still find it seems unnesseciary to have the title so often at the top of the article (as I mentioned before) and it looks really strange outside the infobox if the infobox appears further down in the article, for example in the article on Kill Bill. --Fritz Saalfeld 11:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Fritz on the last comment - looks like OwenBlacker did revert it back globally - the title looks really clugey outside the box. Like its hanging out there - and as Fritz points out, unlike the other examples noted earlier - film boxes/album boxes may sometimes be found down inside the article. I propose it be reverted back to having the title inside the top of the infobox. -- Barrettmagic 19:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the title should be inside, cauz it looks really silly pointing out like this. the articles already have the title of the films outside in many different places like the name of the article itself..so how many guys should agree to get the title back in ??--Amr Hassan 09:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

After all the recent comments, I changed it back inside for now. --Fritz Saalfeld 09:58, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Looking good!! :) -- Barrettmagic 20:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
yea, it does :) --Amr Hassan 02:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

imdb link

It appears that if no imdb id is given, the infobox produces a broken link instead of no link. Should this be happening? --Alynna 18:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks like the link can be broken even if a reference is given... try Akira (film)
--Spiggot 22:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Enhancements

I've updated the infobox by wikifying the table and implementing dynamic fields. The image field was also simplified. Adraeus 04:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The image field was messed up, so I reverted. The Wookieepedian 05:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
You blindly reverted, so I reverted your reversion. Learn how to fix small problems. By the way, the image field is simplified, which simply means fixing how images are used in the syntax per article. I'm arrogant and stubborn. Don't start a stupid war to protect lame complacency. Look at the example syntax at the top of this Talk page to learn how to place images in the infobox. Adraeus 06:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
If you continue reverting the template and the recent syntax fixes to the many articles I've updated, I'll seek administrative response. Cease. Adraeus 07:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I've started updating the syntax on each article. Since there are plenty of articles to update, we should rely on the fact that each article will be fixed eventually. Adraeus 06:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It (and/or Template:Infobox film rating) has created a gap in Blade Runner, if this can be fixed I'd appreciate it. - RoyBoy 800 07:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

What "gap"? Adraeus 07:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
It was prior to the copy, but now fixed... I believe it was the Title being outside the infobox which caused it. - RoyBoy 800 15:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh yes and how much discussion was there prior to these changes being implemented? - RoyBoy 800 07:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
There were no significant changes requiring discussion. I designed the Template:Infobox Company and Template:Infobox Celebrity. I am extremely aware of the consequences of significant changes to widely used templates. The version that The Wookieepedian continually reverts to is not properly formatted for use on Wikipedia. Use of HTML in infoboxes is deprecated, dynamic fields are recommended and desirable, and simplification is optimal. The previous version's image syntax adds needless bytes to an article and provides information in the inappropriate place. In addition, the latest enhancements facilitate edition of the template and of the articles in which the template is used. Adraeus 07:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, and it does look better, although I could see a case being made on tweaking the poster size a bit larger. However, any change which "breaks" previous syntax qualifies as significant; but you have been diligent in fixing them so little need for a ruckus. - RoyBoy 800 15:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved the title back inside the infobox as consent was reached to have the title within the infobox (see #Title on top above).--11:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that fixed a problem, thanks. - RoyBoy 800 15:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

image update?

So now we have to update EVERY page that uses this template because the template was changed? Then what? It will be changed back and we'll have to edit them again? Who's gonna change the hundereds of pages with this template? I refer to pages like The Wolf Man. See the error on the image? Also, the text looks poor that small. Yuck. Steve-O 07:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  1. Yes. That's the way it is with all templates that are not transcluded. The syntax fixes are simple, and can be done with a bot.
  2. I've already started to fix the syntax in the articles. Because a wiki is used by many people, the editions made by many people reduce the length of time and amount of effort necessary to solve problems. We, at Template:Infobox Company, encountered the same arguments when we removed and added various fields at a point where the template was used on ~500 articles. In fact, I made those same arguments, but I realized that my arguments do not stand up under scrutiny.
  3. The text size looks fine. What resolution is your monitor set at? I'm using both a desktop at 1600x1200 and a laptop at 1280x1024. The text is readable and comfortable to read. The same text size is used on the aforementioned templates.
Adraeus 08:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I, for one, find the "improvements" pretty ugly. There is a note saying that changes for this template needs to be discussed here before they're put into effect. I do not see this here. I admire you're attemt to fix this template, but frankly, I didn't know there was a problem. Can we agree to revert the template and vote on it before it's put into effect? I'm mostly concerned with Text Size and the number of edits it would take to fix all the adversly effected pages. Steve-O 08:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Exactly how I feel. The Wookieepedian 08:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The text size is easily changed. No revert necessary. The position of subject title is easily changed. No revert necessary. Field syntax is easily changed. No revert necessary. Learn how to use the technology; otherwise, you shouldn't even be messing around with templates. If you want to experiment with the template source, copy the source to a subpage of your user page. Don't forget to copy the other fields: Template:Infobox_film/image, Template:Infobox_film/director, Template:Infobox_film/writer, etc. I will not support a blind reversion for either reason. The number-of-edits-required argument is an argument based on laziness and complacency, and is not a valid argument on a wiki. Sorry. Adraeus 09:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
In the time it took you complain, I've fixed the syntax for about 120 articles. Adraeus 09:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Very well. The Wookieepedian 09:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I've now fixed the syntax in around 250 articles. Adraeus 09:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I fixed around 35 articles total with the syntax problem Empty2005 13:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

How is adversly affecting hundereds of pages not a valid arguement? How is discussing before a change is made, which is the rule, not valid? I have no intrest in changing the template so I have no interest geeking around and making so called "improvements". Check out how many edits I have before you call me lazy.. OK? Steve-O 11:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. No pages were "adversely" affected. Moreover, any changes to a template used in many articles are going to affect many articles. That's a simple fact. The latest enhancements do not add or remove content. Your complaint about the workload is mincemeat. Believe me, I tried to argue the same thing at Template_talk:Infobox_Company/Archive001, but we decided to add Revenue anyway. User:Goodoldpolonius2 presented this response to me, "The glory of Wikipedia is that the work is distributed over time and authors." That won me over, as it should you.
  2. No discussion was required since no significant changes were made to the content of the infobox.
Adraeus 23:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, they were adversely effected. As of now, the image field change has only added a mess to the existing images and removed information from them (is it a poster or a dvd cover or whatever). The only resulting improvement is a standardization in size, which could've been achieved by making less changes than someone now has to make. - Bobet 14:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Add a parameter image type, then using switch to chose right way to display it, test it and check if ok, the call a bot job to change all calls to a proper way →AzaToth 14:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
You may have become complacent with bad habits, Bobet, but the information that was being used beneath those images should not be in the infobox. If you want to describe the image, describe the image on its page, as should be done. No articles were "adversely" affected. Adraeus 04:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I think having that information more easily available on the film's page is better (and not just a bad habit). It's more readily available by hovering your mouse over the picture, without having to click on every picture and load the larger files every time you want to know what the picture is about. - Bobet 14:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

image size

I think it'd look better if the posters had awidth of 220px ... any objections? --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoever did their black template magic needs to add back control over the image. Many people gave good information about the image like "original poster" or "promo poster" or "reissue poseter" and set their own width, too. There should be ways to add if statements to have image_caption= and image_size=. Please add these back. —Fitch 07:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I actually like the idea that all images have the same width, that way there's some more consistancy throughout Wiki, but a caption would indeed be nice.--Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Ditto Troy34 12:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
There's now an "image caption" field in the template that you can use. Thanks to AzaToth. - Bobet 20:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

omitted parameters

I added pipe to parameter references to the if defined call-call, so if the parameter is ommited it's just basically the same as if you had the parameter with the value of the empty string. I let the parameter movie_name be left required. →AzaToth 15:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Your edits have been reverted as they seem to have broken a few templates. I hate template black-wizardry. KIS. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 20:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Meh, reverted. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 20:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Variable image size?

I'm not an expert on templates, especially with this newfangled ifdef/subpage stuff, so I'm hesitant to add this. However, some poster shots, etc. may be smaller than 200px, and look awful when blown up to that size. Perhaps we could add another parameter image_size to specify a size other than 200px, and make it optional. An example of what I'm talking about is at MASH. Demi T/C 08:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think a fixed width is nice for consistancy (see image size above)... Maybe this would be a good time to try to find little larger images in the cases where they're too small. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

consistancy...

So will Info film box 2 and 3 be updated to match this one??

I think they should be deleted to keep consistency Troy34 12:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I didn't even know there were any others (and can't find them now; Could anyone post a link?). But I agree with Troy34 here. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
There's actually a fourth film infobox as well. Here's a link to the List of infobox templates instead of giving you 3 other links. I've only seen the Infobox film 2 used somewhere else, but i forgot where it was. Is there a way to find pages that the template is used on? Troy34 13:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
On each template, just click on What links here in the toolbox on the right. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, newbie here Troy34 13:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I think now that this template allows optional arguments, I think we could just add those from the other templates that are currently missing, and then change it so we only have one film template. And before there are any objections to this because one would have to change all the articles that currently use infobox 2, 3 or 4, I'll volunteer to do that. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 13:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I've come upon the other film infoboxes too. The infobox 2 has additional cinematography and editing fields, which could be implemented as optional arguments now (if people think they are useful), infobox 3 is the same but doesn't have an editing field. Infobox 4 is only used for one film. And I'd help in changing them to the standard film infobox.
Also, a lot of the regular infoboxes already have a (rarely used, since it wasn't displayed) music field. The part I don't think should be included is the awards field (it's also been included in some infoboxes). Including that one would just fill the infobox with a ton of data that is, or should be, covered in the other sections. - Bobet 14:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Have Updated this one now so it contains the fine other fields →AzaToth 02:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Why have so many fields for writing? You have writer (which i'm assuming a writer for a film is the screenplay writer), screenplay, original story and new version. I thought the whole idea of the infobox was a short summary. Check out The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe for an alternative. I realize it might be some effort but it looks nice without too many fields. Either that or reduce the four fields to two, original story and screenplay.Troy34 04:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if "Original Story by..." fits the needs of some films

For example: Æon_Flux_(film) ... "Original story by Peter Chung" doesn't really cut it, as that's not what he's credited with in the film. It would be more accurate to quote the film's poster: "Based on characters created by Peter Chung". And given the large number of remakes, sequels and adaptations the modern film industry seems to turn out, I think it'd be advantageous to have more options in this area. 68.104.201.53 06:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this, and don't think any of the "original story" "new version by" and "screenplay" fields should be here, since the "writing" field already covers them all (with qualifiers after the name if needed, in the case of the above example, you would have "Writing by : Peter Chung (characters)", which is the way it's been done in most cases). - Bobet 13:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I just added the field that were in the other film infoboxes per request, please feel free to remove them or reformat them if you think so. →AzaToth 14:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I removed the fields "original story", "new version by" and "screenplay" from the infobox. If you disagree with this, please leave a comment. - Bobet 14:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I understand if you don't want to have a template {{language}} here :) →AzaToth 20:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

IMDb profile

The IMDb profile should not use the InterWiki link. Instead, it should use External Link style to indicate that the link will take you offsite. As discussed on the the Meta Interwiki Map talk pages, the imdbtitle: is a bad idea because of this. This line will fix it:

 |1=1='''[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt{{{imdb_id}}}/ IMDb profile]'''

—Fitch 21:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Done →AzaToth 22:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Image Problem

Has there been a change made recently that is now resulting in odd infobox images like this [1] and this [2]? Each of these infoboxes displayed properly a day ago. - AKeen 00:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, there has been changes, the image should only be specified by it's name, for example |image = VelvetGoldminePoster.jpg →AzaToth 00:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems a lot of boxes will have to be changed, and I'm sure most users are not aware that the template change has occurred - is there any way we can get a bot to facilitate the process? - AKeen 01:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Text Size....

I use Firefox, and the text seems too small. Looks fine for IE...Steve-O 05:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

EP compat patch

added fields preceded by and followed by for compat with EP, if you think they are totally unneccissary please remove them and tell here why you think so (T:IM(EP) is on TfD) →AzaToth 11:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Caption

What is the point of having a hover caption, unless it simply displays tha movie title? What specialized use does caption serve here? -- Netoholic @ 21:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The original request per User:Bobet explicit specified a hover caption, nothing more, please change that if that isn't the consensus →AzaToth 21:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. It's not a caption per se, it's the alternate text, which (if properly used) shows whether the picture is a poster, a dvd cover, a title card or whatever in an easy way. And someone please revert the field name back to 'image caption' (or add that as an alternate name for the field) for now, since that's the only one used in any pages. - Bobet 23:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Bobet, please revert the name back to "image caption". Can we finally agree not to edit the infobox anymore? It looks fine. Either that or elect one person to make edits and if we want a change we put it to a vote BEFORE it's made. Troy34 16:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh man, that's the 3rd time I've had to change that. I wish someone would protect the template page. For someone who's thinking of changing it, at least read this talk page first, even if actually discussing the changes seems unreasonable. - Bobet 16:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

something happen to the IMDB link in the box?

See Seven Up!... Can't seem to get it into the box...Steve-O 04:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed it... too many cooks in the kitchen. Thank you for posting about problems on Talk. -- Netoholic @ 06:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Please look at what you're changing. The field names aren't consistant, and you keep assuming they are. The field with the caption is called 'image caption' in every infobox, not 'image_caption', while the language field is called 'movie_language'. Yes, ideally they should be consistent, but currently are not. This problem should eventually sort itself out since the preferred name for the field is 'caption' now so don't change that. - Bobet 12:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Film title

The film title area needs the font reduced, and the infobox itself needs to be slightly wider. I do not know how to do this myself, so I am suggesting it here. The Wookieepedian 10:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Title field now messed up...

whatever tweak someone did with the title screwed up quite a few infoboxes. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du_rififi_chez_les_hommes. Steve-O 13:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not mess up the title. When looking at it on several film articles, it takes up too much space. You've gotta remember those who view on a lower resolution! The Wookieepedian 13:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
check out Edge of Doom or Rififi to see how the changes have affected some pages. These pages were both fine before. Thanks Steve-O 13:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I fixed it, that was caused by someone changing the movie_name field to just name and someone reverting changes that made using both possible. All of this needs to get sorted out by a bot at some point, the infobox currently has several parameters that use different names for absolutely no reason (name/movie_name, caption/image caption), but just removing them from the template is not the answer, since that just messes up movie pages. - Bobet 13:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I have found that it works, however, on the majority of pages. How about we just fix those that are negatively affected? :) The Wookieepedian 15:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, it currently does work and there are no visible adverse effects. It's just that there are several fields for the same purpose in some cases (sorry if it seems I'm repeating myself). The problem is there's currently no way of finding out which infoboxes have which fields without going through every one of them (which a bot can do). And I'd suggest not removing the redundant fields until that has been done. - Bobet 15:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Protecting

I am going to protect this template. Please work out your differences. it's just not good to edit a template every day. Too disruptive. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Amen. Troy34 16:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I wish there were actual differences that could be worked out. It just seems that there's a new person changing the template every day. - Bobet 16:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Multiple names for fields

As far as I know, the reason for the most recent excessive editing is because of changes in the names of the fields. Minor fiddling around of the template more often than not has resulted in changes in some of these fields which cause information included in a movie's page not being shown correctly.

There are several names for some of the fields, both of which currently (should) work:

  • language/movie_language
  • caption/image caption
  • name/movie_name.

And my proposal is to get a bot to change them all to one version (I'd prefer the short versions), so that the infobox can be made as straightforward to use as possible. The other thing being changed has has been whether the movie's name should appear inside the infobox or on top of it. I'm fairly sure the consensus has been that it should be inside the infobox, correct me if I'm wrong. Please reply here if you agree or disagree with anything I mentioned or have anything to add. Thanks. - Bobet 17:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I've completed this conversion and removed support for them in the template itself. -- Netoholic @ 21:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Visible omitted parameters

Currently, a lot of lines are showing up even when there's nothing in them. E.g.:

Cinematography by {{{cinematography}}}
Editing by {{{editing}}}
Distributed by Universal Pictures
Released December 21, 2001
Running time 135 min.
Language English
Language {{{language}}}
Budget $60,000,000
Preceded by {{{preceded_by}}}
Followed by {{{followed_by}}}

—wwoods 17:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Which pages is that on? I haven't seen it anywhere. - Bobet 18:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
That particular example was taken from A Beautiful Mind, but any movie which isn't in a series presumably shows the "Preceded by" and "Followed by"s.
—wwoods 18:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There are no such things as I can see on that page. →AzaToth 18:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Please revert the infobox to the older version as soon as possible, this is affecting many pages. If another example is needed, check out Groundhog Day, The Princess Bride, Ghostbusters, Singin' in the Rain, and hundreds of others. I would like to suggest that future additions to such a widely used infobox be:
  1. Widely discussed and agreed upon
  2. Documented properly
  3. Backed up with a bot ready to automate all the changes necessary.
Again, please remove the cinematography, editing, language (which is now doubled on most pages!), preceded by, and followed by from the template. Turnstep 02:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand, I can't see any errors →AzaToth 02:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment, perhaps using class hiddenStructure does not work for all →AzaToth 02:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with firefox, but trying it with lynx, I do get the same problem. And there's not much else that could cause that problem besides the hiddenStructure. - Bobet 02:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I am using Firefox 1.0.7, for what it's worth. Changing skins has no effect. Turnstep 04:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
And I'm using Mozilla 1.7.12 on Mac OS X.II.VIII. The hidden parameters on Template:Ship table seem to work well enough. The syntax used is, e.g.:
 {{qif
   |test={{{Ship nickname|}}}
   |then={{Template:Ship nickname table yes}}{{{Ship nickname}}}
   |else=
 }}
—wwoods 07:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
It's been stated that doing it like that should be avoided, because embedding a template for each field causes several harmful effects (see WP:AUM). And the problem with the empty fields showing doesn't appear for me when using the monobook skin, I tried it with several others and got the problem. I guess most of the skins don't use CSS properly in the case of hiddenStructure. - Bobet 13:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
So does any of this move us closer to a solution for those of us not using the default skin? Turnstep 03:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Somebody did something that worked, for me. —wwoods 05:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Looks fine for me now, too. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Thanks for whomever made the changes. Turnstep 13:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/f/Template_talk%7EInfobox_Film_Archive_1_811b.html"