Template talk:Infobox Film/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

Box Office

Adding a field for Box Office revenues/gross would be a good idea. Yours, Smeelgova 21:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC).

I disagree. Box Office information can come in a variety of forms (what was the opening weekend? what was the worldwide gross? what form of currency?). Box Office performance is the sort of thing that is best covered by a "Critical reaction" or "Film performance" section of the article, where it can be expanded upon. EVula
Yes, I agree with EVula, the box office should be in the article not in the infobox in a sub-section of Reception entitled Box office. Cbrown1023 14:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Smeelgova. Gross is as discreet a data point as budget, when available. There should be a field for both or neither. Films released since 2000 almost always end up with reliable box office figures for initial theatrical run. Making it an optional field accomodates earlier films. No harm done if figure is qualified with "domestic" or "worldwide". Leaving it to body of article forces maddening hunting and pecking on reader looking for this crucial number. JDG 07:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The gross is another figure that isn't useful in the infobox, since you'd need to discuss it in more detail to be useful (which means it's more useful in the body of the article). When it's in a reception section, you can include figures for each country as well as a total, and can even tell the reader at which date the figure is accurate. Furthermore, you won't be stuck with gross, you can also put in an amount of viewers, which is a lot easier to come by for many countries. And you can also tell the significance of the gross: was the movie considered a success or a bomb. The infobox is still not a replacement for the article body. - Bobet 09:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that gross and budget should be mentioned only in the relevant section of an article. Yet who is willing to go through all the films and check whether such info is given in each article? Removing it from the template could lead to the information simply missing from some some articles... Hoverfish 17:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Awards & AMG in infobox

See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/archive5#Awards_in_.7B.7BInfobox_Film.7D.7D

Also, please, take a look in other languages' infobox templates, so we can be as consistent as possible. Hoverfish 07:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

IMDb

Neither AMG or IMDB should be infobox. Only official links should be placed in an infobox. We should not be showing such obvious bias to these companies. If the coverage on that site is deemed a worthy reference then we can place a link in "External links" (which the majority of pages have as well). Offering up one site as so more informative is anything but NPOV. ed g2s • talk 15:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As in the above section, I would agree to remove them both from the template, IF this information IS given under External Links in all articles in which they will no more be visible. Is anybody able to check how many films will remain without other reference? If there is an automatic way to check if all film articles with an IMDb and/or AMG entry in the infobox have another external link to these reference sites, we could get somewhere. Else it will be a data loss sending some users to search on their own instead. If the template can be designed in a new way to have outside the infobox another box suggesting searches, where this information may appear, it may also be a compromise. Please note that a while ago AMG was removed and some user simply put it right back in. To me this means that some users need this convenience easily available. Maybe in fully developed articles it's less important, but a huge number of stubs have nothing better than these link to offer. Hoverfish 17:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
See {{Infobox Television}}, {{Male adult bio}}, and {{Female adult bio}}. They all include links to IMDb. Cbrown1023 20:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Then offer the link in the external links section using {{imdb}}. The majority of films should link to IMDb, but none should have that link in the infobox. Not many articles use it on its own, and these will over time be fixed. ed g2s • talk 02:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Tons of infoboxes i've seen, for actors, boardgames, etc. use the outside links. I don't see the big deal since most pages on movies anyways will have links to imdb at the bottom of the page. Andrzejbanas 02:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Because external links go in the "External links" section of a page. We shouldn't be showing such an obvious bias to one company by giving them a link at the top of every film article page. ed g2s • talk 11:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's my reply from two months ago. I don't think my feelings have changed since then:"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 22:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with the above. AMG is in no way notable or useful enough to be in the infobox. In terms of IMDb, we would need a usability test to see if most users click the IMDb link in the infobox, or in the External links section. I myself have never went to the IMDb page from the infobox. It could be redundant. Prolog 13:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It should definately be in the infobox as well as the External links section. I just looked and out of the 26 foreign language' wikipedia's that use a version of this infobox, 22 of them have a link to IMDb in the infobox. I'm sure that this has been discussed before, but don't have the time to bring up the links right now. You can probably check Wikipeda talk:WikiProject Films/Archives. Cbrown1023 14:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how the 22 other boxes in other languages have anything to do with what is the right thing to do. You can't just cite precedent without explaining why the decisions were made before. I think you'll find the first time the imdb_id was added it was just somebody being bold, and not the result of a great discussion. ed g2s • talk 01:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
It has a great impact because we should be as consistent as possible with the other languages. Cbrown1023 15:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
It's usefull for users to have one of the links (IMDB or AMG) in the infobox. It can be a long way to scroll down to the links section, and sometimes a user would want to check the data on one of these sites (particularly to see what other people think or to talk about the film on its IMDB forum). Also, it doesn't exactly take up a lot of space. You could argue that it's pointless to list the cast in the infobox, since a user could just scroll down to see the "cast" section. It's the same thing - you don't need it there, but it's convenient. I think that if you took a poll of people who actually use the articles rather than just edit them, you'd find that most of them like the IMDB link there because it makes it easy to find. And our purpose after all should be to please the readers. Esn 09:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I second both Cbrown and Esn's points. While I like the amg website, most infoboxes don't have that included and I don't think that link is as useful as the others. However: I think it was inappropriate to remove it from the template before the debate was over. -Elizabennet 19:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
After further thought: is there a way that we could include a link to the movie's own website in the film infobox? If people have a big problem with showing preference to imdb, then we could use a link to the movie's own website (since almost everything has a website today). However, as to the bias towards imdb, it is (if I recall correctly) the most popular/most regularly visited of the movie websites, so there is a basis for that bias (vs. one towards amg, which is not as commonly used as imdb). -Elizabennet 21:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Parameter for an official website doesn't really make sense since most of the films here don't have one. For films that do have an official website, usually only the ones made during the Internet era, the link can be listed in the External links section. Prolog 22:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

When we say that a dadabase link in the infobox is rudundant it misses the point that most of the information in the infobox is redundant. What I like about the infoboxes containing the database link (either one) is that a film professional or researcher using Wikipedia for quick referencing knows exactly where to grab that info without scrolling through the article. The database in the infobox is also nice because articles don't require a full filmography as you can simply quicly click the database. This makes articles more streamlined and keeps such lists outside where they can be found quickly. The problem with only having databases mentioned in external links is that this requires scrolling down and searching for it in each case. By being in the infobox, such access to that kind of info is nearly instantaneous, which makes Wikipedia's film articles much more user-friendly and convenient. Chris 12:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

VOTE AT Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#VOTE

The above link no longer works, as the debate has been archived and moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/archive6#VOTE. The consensus was to keep both AMG and IMDB links in the infobox.

Infobox and example...

By the way of the last two sections (and others further up), has anybody notidced that on the 12 August 2006 User Passive has modified the example of the infobox so as to display also eproducer, aproducer, awards, and gross? This may be quite a confusing combination to find up top in this page. Either the template has to agree with the example or the other way round. As it is, it suggests that one can add extra fields in infoboxes. Hoverfish 18:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Country

What's the country field for? Where filmed? Where funded from? Where edited? Where production company is based? Ta. Frelke 13:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the only way of looking at it, but I take it that country refers to where a film was originally released. I know others prefer more the IMDb data, but an easy way is to look up for it in AMG. It always states country and I think it always refers to first release. Hoverfish 16:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC) It states also "produced in". I just bumped into a film produced in France and Italy, with original titles in both languages...Hoverfish 16:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Country is what country the movie was produced in. So if it is a Hollywood film, then it is USA. If it is a Bollywood film, then it is India. It can also be other countries, but those two are the most common. More information on different countries film productions can be found at World cinema. Cbrown1023 03:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it should be where the money came from. Let's use the IMDB system, it just makes everything simpler. Although... if the entire crew was from one place and all of the funding came from another, perhaps both should be mentioned. For co-productions (where the money comes from different places), all countries should be mentioned (see The Triplets of Belleville). Esn 07:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
If it needs to be clearer, change it in Template talk:Infobox Film/Syntax Guide —Fitch 18:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

VOTE

Main article: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#VOTE

Vote there on whether or not you want IMDb or AMG in the infobox. Cbrown1023 15:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You were one hour and three minutes late in removing it. I'm surprized! Hoverfish 00:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Official Site

I added a field for the Official Site. It is optional in case a film does not have one. It is definately warranted because we have one for IMDb. Cbrown1023 22:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine since a person can choose to fill it in or not. But most of the film articles I work on don't have websites, as I work on old German films and silent films that are long out of circulation. Chris 12:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the official site field. I think its a good idea because it serves as another source/reference. -Elizabennet 19:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Should there be something that says the way it was released (ie Theatrical, Direct-to-video)?

Something just came to mind, and I was wondering what others think. Should there be something in the infobox that says how the movie was released, such as Theatrical, Direct-to-video, or Made for TV? It seems like pertinent info that would be appropriate in the infobox. Joltman 12:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that information should just be applied in the article. The infobox is already huuuuugeAndrzejbanas 13:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree it's huge and it gets hugger with Starring (when more than 3 actors). But in the case of mentioning Distributor and not Production company, in some films where it is important, the infobox gives the wrong idea. To put bold text within distributor to state production is silly, but sometimes there is no other choice. As per guidelines, release should specify when and where. IMO, "theatrical" is not so necessary in the infobox and "direct to video" can be put as (VHS) and further explained in the article. Hoverfish 16:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggested addition of "Narrator"

Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films, I have suggested the addition of "Narrator" to this template. Please discuss it there; not here. I'm just leaving this notice to let everyone who is watching this page know. Thanks. --Czj 10:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Distributor

Any thoughts as to how we can standardise distributor information? Some films will be globally distributed by one company, others will have local distirbutors. Also, especially for older films, the distributor for DVDs will be different. I know the instant reaction is "ignore the DVD release" but if it had no theatrical release we'd end up with no information. I personally feel we should go for completeness and if there is too much info in the infobox it should be omitted completely and the information included in its own section. Any other thoughts? Mallanox 02:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It is my opinion that distributor should be replaced by production company, which I think is a much more essential piece of information for a film. Distributor(s) can be mentioned in the article either under its own section or under production or whatever. Hoverfish 08:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Hoverfish. -Elizabennet 18:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

MPAA

An anonymous user (204.180.205.82) has added the MPAA ratings back into the template image. Although they didn't actually add in a spot on the template itself... I'm loathe to remove it because I'm not familiar enough with the coding and am afraid I might mess up the whole thing. So... could someone else fix it? And if you're reading this, anonymous user, and wondering why its being removed, you need to discuss all changes on this page or on the wikiproject films page before making them.  :) The MPAA rating has been discussed several times before, and it was decided that we wouldn't use it, as it is not an international rating system. -Elizabennet 18:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Cbrown1023 20:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/f/Template_talk%7EInfobox_Film_Archive_3_1b1e.html"