Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

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)
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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_film/Archive_1&oldid=1138701570"