Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Template:Infobox_Film/doc#History

I just read Template:Infobox_Film/doc#History. I didn't participate in the apparent consensus that led to the infobox change, so I have no basis from which to judge its accuracy, but assuming it is accurate, I think GDallimore (talk · contribs) produced a well-written summary that can be pointed to in the future when this off-again, on-again topic comes up another time. I like the way it highlights the applicability of WP:CCC, a particularly relevant policy given the fact that IMDb had been in the infobox ever since the infobox was created four years ago. 72.244.207.57 (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it true that "IMDb is not deemed to be a reliable source for verifying content in Wikipedia articles?" I looked around for a guideline or other WP: article that says that, and couldn't find one, not even Wikipedia talk:IMDb. I know that IMDb gets WGA writing credits, MPAA ratings, Grosses, Film Statistics, and Production Notes from partners (see this), and since for other areas it has been getting community-generated content for about a decade longer than Wikipedia, it seems odd to question IMDb's reliability 72.244.207.57 (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC).
Reliability is based on a history of editorial oversight. Besides film grosses, MPAA ratings, and film credits, a good portion of the information is submitted (notice I say submitted, and not added) by users just like the ones here on Wikipedia. IMDb actually has a history of being wrong. There are more reliable sources for film box office grosses. Given that the WGA doesn't release writing credits, nor the SAG release acting credits, till after a film is released, using it to verify upcoming films is unreliable. If by "Production Notes" you mean the trivia related to the production of the movie, then that's user submitted as well, and we cannot verify where any of it comes from (and many times it's inaccurate itself). Saying it's been getting community-generated content longer than Wikipedia doens't mean anything, because we don't cite ourselves. Wikipedia wouldn't even be considered a "reliable source".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Most editors, I think, will tell you that it is true. The issue with IMDb is that it depends in part on user-submitted content, so it cannot be guaranteed beyond a reasonable doubt that the content is valid. The website has been repeatedly rejected as a reliable source in Featured Article nominations. We accept it as an external link, though, since it is very well-known and has some uses. I think that it can be treated as a springboard to other sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
You may want to look at IMDb's "Where our information comes from" page, as it's slightly different than the one you linked above, and explains a little better about how they get their information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I hate to see that you keep returning to this. Nothing on this Earth is guaranteed or 100% accurate as long as it has anything to do with human nature. In that sense IMD doesn't differ from any other source out there. The only thing, it's the most comprehensive source on movies available that gets cited by film historians like already pointed out 100 times with appropriate citations from secondary published sources above. And again, as long as anybody keeps bringing up the subject, my opinion is that removing it from the film infobox was not a reasonable idea.--Termer (talk) 05:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
First, please don't confuse Google Scholaring the words "internet movie database" with "Film historians cite it all the time". There is a difference between mentioning IMDb and actually citing it as a source. Please note that just because you see "According to IMDb" in a brief abstract in a Google search does not mean that they are citing anything more than IMDb's cast listing. If you have no context for what you're claiming, then please stop claiming it as these overreaching arguments are getting old. You're absolutely right that nothing is 100% guaranteed, but IMDb doesn't have a history of editorial oversight given the amount of errors they actually publish. They also don't identify any of their sources, so you're left to assume who was giving what information to that website, and that is why they are unreliable. Regardless, their "reliability" was not the only, or even primary reason for its removal from the box. I believe that GDallimore summarized the reasoning for its removal quite well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Please note there is no need to lecture me on the subject (FYI I've already got paid education and have graduated magna cum laude from a leading art-film school in the US and have about 20 years of experience in the industry working for studios in LA and elsewhere in the world).
Only one thing that would need a comment "They also don't identify any of their sources" is in conflict with the link you provided "Where our information comes from" ...the bulk of our information is submitted by people in the industry...and I can confirm this from my personal experience. All my credits on the films I've worked on during the last 20 years have been submitted directly by the studios to the IMD. So as a professional I trust IMDB, exactly like the film historians who use the source for reference among many Hollywood Cinema, An Introduction By Richard Maltby, Jr.. The bottom line, so far I haven't seen any valid reasons for dismissing IMD or removing it from the infobox. And as long as anybody tries to claim anything different, I intend to respond to this from time to time.--Termer (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Termer: I just want to point out that the reliability of IMDB, about which I agree with you, is a different subject then whether it should be in the infobox. I totally disagree with those who believe that IMDB is unreliable, and no one has yet to show me any proof that it is, aside from a few anecdotal instances. My take is that it is certainly as reliable as a major newspaper such as the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Times of London or the LA Times -- in fact I suspect that it carries fewer mistakes than those sources, which are indisputably "reliable" as far as Wikipedia is concerned. But whether external links should be in the infobox in the first place is a different argument entirely, which may or may not rest on the reliability of the sources. I happen to think the arguments for removing the links were pretty poor in quality, but I also happen to arrive at the personal conclusion that if we couldn't include all three of what I think of as the major online sources of film information (IMDB, TCM and AMG), then perhaps we'd better have none. That's more of a tactical choice than a statement about IMDB's reliability. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 11:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Termer, I'm glad that that paid education taught you to eliminate things from sources that contradict what you're saying, like the part in IMDb's description that says, "...visitors like you." Now, I'll break this down since it was that hard to follow originally: IMDb does not identify what they get from "the industry" and what they get from "visitors like you". That's the problem with IMDb. When you don't identify your source, especially when you admit to getting information from regular 'ol people who aren't connected to the film in any regard, you lose your reliability. I'm not going to argue the reliability of IMDb any longer, and again Termer, you have managed to start this stupid dispute over IMDb's existence in the infobox here as well. Thanks for lettings us know that you plan to basically troll yourself into every conversation related to IMDb and assert that you feel it shouldn't have been removed from the infobox (it lets me know that you don't plan to actually take part in any real discussion, so I can ignore your responses from now on). You act like you're on IMDb's payroll or something, with the way you're defending their structural position in an article. *Cringes* It's gone, you'll just have to deal. Auf Weidersehen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

BIGNOLE, anybody who can read, and that should be covered by publicly funded grade school education, and have actually clicked on the link you provided can see that your construction of "how IMDB works" is based on your own theories that has very little to do with what the text actually says. And sure, as long as anybody keeps misrepresenting anything, I'm going to have something to say about it. And in case you think that wp:attacking me personally by calling me a Troll and an IMDb employee adds weight to your opinions, I'm afraid you got it all wrong.--Termer (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Re: (11:29, 17 November 2008) Ed Fitzgerald, you don't think the discussions are related, I do.--Termer (talk) 03:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

More on Infobox_Film/doc#History and IMDb

(eliminating indentation)

Thanks for the replies. I've started a new section unrelated to the Bignole/Termer discussion.

First off, thanks for the pointer to "Where our information comes from" (that link highlights the accuracy issues "especially on yet-unreleased films"); the comment about IMDb being rejected as a reliable source in FA noms was also helpful. The latter prompted me to look around at the FA process guidelines and related links, but I still can't find any WP codification of the IMDb reliability issue mentioned in History.

To answer two questions: (1) "Production Notes" is information that the IMDb partner Exhibitor Relations says it provides (see the partner link I mentioned before). (2) I mentioned "getting community-generated content longer than Wikipedia" because the two communities have some similarities: both depend upon the community for page content, both have added processes over the years to make their page content more reliable, and both get more and more reliable (on average) on pages unrelated to current events. The decade-long head start, the large (compared to Wikipedia) paid staff, the subscription-based pro version, the focus on just a subset of pop culture instead of our encyclopedic charter, the partners they have, seem like reasons why IMDb reliability shouldn't be a major issue. 72.244.207.57 (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC).

P.S. After googling I found some FA discussions about IMDb (a handful) and I found this: Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, a failed proposal from July 2007 that includes links to this 15-0 vote in favor of keeping the IMDb link in {{Infobox Film}} and this assessment of IMDb's reliability. I looked at Wikipedia:FILMR#FAR and it doesn't mention issues with IMDb. I also found this at Box Office Mojo, which on the surface looks similar to what IMDb says about the reliability of its box office data. These factors are leading me to think that if there isn't a guideline or other WP: article about IMDb's reliability, the reference to IMDb in Template:Infobox_Film/doc#History ("Irrespective of the fact that IMDb is not deemed to be a reliable source"...) should be changed to something more narrow, like "Irrespective of the fact that some editors deem IMDb's community-contributed contents to be an unreliable source"... Thanks. 72.244.207.57 (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC).
Your suggestion seems to me to be a more precise description of the situation, and I endorse it. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 11:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
You won't find it in FA film articles, which means that it's more than just "some editors", it's actually a community. The use of IMDb as a source is deemed by the majority to be unreliable (the "some" is applied to those that want to be able to use it). Also, IMDb is a source (though not useable), and we don't create guidelines specifically for a source. We'd have thousands of guidelines out there for all the sources that we cannot use, and that isn't what a guideline is for. It's not including in WP:RS, again, because we'd have to include all the sources that we cannot use (which is far to great a list). Oh, that "15-0" discussion is two years old (far passing the time when a new consensus can be formed).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Again, Bignole just keeps misrepresenting his/her own personal opinions as WP:Consensus and now even has taken it as far as claiming it to be "actually a community". The claims like You won't find it in FA film articles made by BIGNOLE are simply not true: Anybody who can read can see that even the very first film on the featured articles list: for example 300 (film), the very first source provided for reference in this article is the IMDb.--Termer (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The article, when it was promoted to Featured Article status, did not reference IMDb. It should never have had IMDb. I've removed it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Removing valid refs that back up the facts in an article is not exactly what I'd call a reasonable move. I'm sure you're going to reconsider once you think through what exactly did you do just a minute ago. And if not, the whole thing around IMDb is beyond reason and that's why the discussion never gets anywhere.--Termer (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought it through. I think that if you want to provide evidence, you should provide the revisions of articles that recently achieved Featured Article status. Obviously, articles can change over time, either for better or worse. I don't think that this discussion will get anywhere, though... we are two anthropomorphic brick walls. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
brick walls? Things are getting more like silly. Removing anything that is proved to be factually incorrect would make sense. Removing the source even though factually correct but just because it's IMDb , perhaps it's just me, it simply doesn't make any sense. Why don't you do the article a favor and at least provide an alternative source instead to the one you removed [1], in order to back up the production budget of $65 million. For example it's also available @ Time.--Termer (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
PS.A quick look through showed that at least every second-third FA film article uses IMDb as a source in the references section. So the claim made by BIGNOLE "You won't find it in FA film articles" has no basis. On the contrary there is WP:CIMDB, a failed proposal showing that "an attempt to address valid concerns about the usage of the IMDb as a reference source" has been dismissed by WP community.--Termer (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
This argument about whether imdb is a reliable source isn't really relevant here since it wasn't the reason for removing the link from the infobox. I suggest taking this discussion to WP:CIMDB - I'll copy some bits over to the talk page and will canvass opinions from the village pump, WP:Film, WP:RS and from FA reviewers. GDallimore (Talk) 11:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I have seen that some editors would like to keep the discussions separated. however, the way I see it, the only reason to remove IMDb from infobox would have been it's "reliability" and therefore the discussion about it is as connected as it can get. The reason IMDB has been part of the infobox is due to holding the status of the most comprehensive source on movies out there. Since no WP policy says such a comprehensive source on related subjects should not be part of infoboxes as an external link, the only excuse to remove it has been questioning it's reliability.--Termer (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Please read the summary I have added to the template documentation where you will see the reasons for removing the link. Reliability of IMDb was not one of them. Reliability was raised, but was not a persuasive reason to remove the link because it was and continues to be so heavily disputed. GDallimore (Talk) 15:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
PS You can't state as fact that IMDb is "the most comprehensive resource for films" since it depends what information you're interested in. If you want to look at links between modern films and film-makers, yes, IMDb is the best. If you're interested in critical reaction, IMDb is of almost no value whatsoever so you turn to RT or Metacritic. If you're interested in box office success, Box Office Mojo is a far better resource. For older films, I'm told that IMDb is not necessarily the best. Conclusion: one link is not enough to provide all the information and, since you can't have them all of the necessary links in the infobox, it's best to put them all in one place at the end of the article. GDallimore (Talk) 15:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but you got it all wrong. The only REASON the links were removed was due to the second false report of "consensus was reached".--Termer (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
So you claim. And it is perhaps our position that this is just a filibuster attempt on your part. Now, I think everything that we've all wanted to state on each side has been said, usually several times over. I have no interest in continuing what clearly is a voluminous but unproductive conversation, so I'm walking away, and I'd like to encourage all editors to do so as well. If Termer wants to shout into the sea, I'm certainly not going to stop him. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Who exactly is shouting here? I haven't made a big deal out the use of personal WP:Attacks against me, like the comments made by BIGNOLE and now by you, Girolamo Savonarola, nor have I used personal attacks as arguments myself. It's because there is nothing personal about it for me, unlike it seems to my opponents who I suspect have a some kind of personal axe to grind with IMDb. The bottom line, it is my understanding that the removal of IMDb from infobox has been unproductive indeed , something that has not served the interest of WP readers.--Termer (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to step away from this just yet, but I would ask that everyone attempts to be a bit calmer and avoid grandstanding or attacks. In particular, it's important to recognise where people are correct in what they say and not just deny everything for the sake of opposition. For example, I entirely agree with Termer than removing the IMDb link from the Infobox is a loss of something that is useful. However, as a number of people have recognised, it is a minor loss since it is ridiculously easy to click on the "external links" button in the table of contents and find IMDb down there. In addition, there are gains in that (i) the infobox is slightly less cluttered and (ii) people are directed to the EL section where numerous other links can be found all in one place. The reason there was consensus was because the minor nature of the loss was more than offset by these gains. If you look at the individual comments hidden between the arguments about reliability, this is what you find, and this is why there was consensus for the change. Merely because most of the discussion has been about reliability does not make this the key point in the discussion. GDallimore (Talk) 17:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Termer as much as I agree with you that the change needed more discussion and that the link was useful, it isn't helping by over reacting to it and misinterpreting the good faith of other editors. Nobody is attacking you but it does come across as if you are very angry about it and I'd ask you to try to calm down a little. I don't see any wider project consensus for the change, to me it looks as if more editors actually opposed the move than supported it. Nothing is irreversable. I suggest we contact each member of the film project and request them to comment and also pick several people at random fomr outside Wp:Films in unrelated topics to see which they prefer. Count Blofeld 12:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Blofeld, you may want to look back over the last two archives as well - many of the original editors involved in the discussion have since left (and I can't blame them). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
You know Blofeld, I'm really sorry if I come across as "over reacting" and "very angry" :-D. However, there have been a number of editors who have commented not content, but the contributor during this dispute and that is something I don't intend to tolerate no matter if it might look like "over reacting". And I see no reason for anybody questioning my good faith for pointing out that there was no consensus [2] that was confirmed after Reading the discussion by Edokter. Since then, the thing has gone in circles and the discussion has not provided anything new.--Termer (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to throw my opinion in there, but I've been finding the removal of IMDb links in the infobox highly frustrating. I vastly prefer the IMDb links in the infobox to the external links.--Remurmur (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Mmm it looks to me like it should be reopened and a consensus which involves all of WP:Film editors and some others outside the project at random to make a decision. there seems like to many discontented people with the new change to consider it satisfactory. Personally I have quickly got used to the change and am not overly objective either way but as a preference I thought it was quicker to flick between sites via the ifnobox rather than at the foot of the page. But note that this was only because it is useful and convenient which is not really a valid justification for keeping it. I fully understand why it was done to avoid a leniency on imdb. Imdb is not a reliable source but it useful as a check and support system not a reference. The include two links does seme a little hyopcritical in the circumstances where we try to assert imdb must not be used. If I had a choice to remove one or the other I'd keep the one in the infobox and remove the external. A request for comment from all of WP:Film members to make a decision? Count Blofeld

I agree with Dr B, that this should be re-opened for further debate. Lugnuts (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's been debated to death over the last two months, and project members have had ample opportunity to offer their thoughts (many have); further debate would seem to be flogging a dead horse. If we were go give more weight to the opinions of WP:FILM members (not that I think we should), can I point out that Termer—the main voice of opposition here, I think it's fair to say—isn't listed as one. PC78 (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it needs a further active debate, so long as people understand that it is not a closed issue. If people come here and add something new to the discussion, then great - maybe something better will come of it. But, recently, I've not seen any comments that haven't been made before: I like it, it's useful, etc. People making such comments need to say more than that and explain why the fact that IMDb is useful means that it should be in the infobox when other links of similar usefulness (eg Metacritic, RT, BoM) are not and how, if all those links are to go into the Infobox, the Infobox is expected to survive under the strain of too much information. GDallimore (Talk) 09:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Nice argument, except that those other links are not of similar usefulness - not even close.

It's rather bizarre to me the extent to which folks aqround here can't seem to acknowledge the plain and simple fact that IMDB is, by far, the best source for basic factual information about films on the web. It's almost as if they willfully blind themselves to it.

Really strange. Can't figure the psychology of it. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What? For the purposes of writing an encyclopedic article, which requires not just factual information but also reliable sourced opinions on a film, of course MC and RT are going to be important - and probably more important than IMDb. IMDb is useful when you're first making an article, yes, but once the basics are in, you're unlikely to ever look at it again but will regularly turn to review sites and box office sites for updates on the film's success and reception. GDallimore (Talk) 10:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll add my thoughts here. I think it's odd that one project on WP has elected to remove links to external sites in its articles infoboxes. Other projects (WP:ALBUM and WP:CRIC spring to mind) abound with ex. links in the infobox. Albums are full of external links to online reviews. One of the arguments against the IMDB/AMG links was to avoid promoting/favouring sites. Rolling Stone, Q Magazine, etc are often included in album articles. Why is it OK to "promote" those sites, and not IMDB/AMG? How is one person's opinion (which all a review is) deemed to be better than a link to site with solid, basic info about films?
The same with the cricket project. It uses cricinfo.com as a source for its cricket stats. Now I know that it's a very reliable source (certainly compared to IMDB, or so it's claimed - again, can anyone actually give multiple examples of IMDB not being correct on basic info?), but to the average browser, they probably wouldn't know about the reliability of cricinfo vs. IMDB. Those are just two other projects on WP. I'm sure there are plenty of others. Lugnuts (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
First: just pointing out that the claim made by PC78 regarding "Termer isn't listed among WP:FILM members", is not true of course. last time I've checked, my username is listed at least in 2 workgroups. [3][4]. Not that it should give my voice more weight because of it.
Now, I don't think anything needs to be reopened, the case should be closed first: since the Evaluating the consensus procedure was ignored, a procedure that requires a relevant discussion(s) to be evaluated and closed by an uninvolved editor, instead a consensus was declared by involved editors and no links to relevant discussions were even provided [5] at the time when the links from the infobox were removed as a result of the requested edit. Therefore, what needs to happen, related discussions [6] [7][8] and [9] need to be evaluated first by an uninvolved editor/administrator, and after the discussions about the proposal to remove the links from the infobox have been closed either with Promote, No consensus, or Failed, depending on the outcome, the edit made by User:Elonka -> [10] needs to be either reverted or stay the way it is in case any of those discussions indeed gets closed with: "Consensus".
Finally, this should not be about what do WP:FILM members prefer but about what is the best for WP every day users.--Termer (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
You really need to change the record; nothing is likely to change here unless someone can bring something new to the table, and you saying the same thing over and over isn't getting anybody anywhere. Regarding my comment above, your name isn't on WP:FILM's list of active members, which is where I looked. PC78 (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about repeating myself. It's a bad habit of mine from the times when I was teaching and some students brought up the same question again and again and I had to go over the answer once more until the idea was clear to everybody. I'm fully aware of this bad habit of mine an promise to work on it. But it would help me to get rid of this bad habit if my opponents in this discussion could also avoid bringing up the same arguments again and again, especially claims like "the case is closed due to a consensus" AKA flogging a dead horse at the time when there are a number of editors above asking to reopen the case.--Termer (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
As stated above this is not a closed issue, so there is no need to "reopen" anything as such. But if you want another RfC then feel free to start one. Or if you want an uninvolved admin to have a look at this issue, then feel free to go and get one. If this bothers you so much (as it apparently does), then why don't you do something about it yourself besides repeatedly telling others "what needs to happen"? PC78 (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not WP:OWN the Infobox and WP:There is no deadline to open or close anything on Wikipedia. The reason I'm telling others "what needs to happen" should be self explanatory: the question was raised above once again. However, how to proceed with the gridlock depends not on my opinion only but on a wider consensus. And that could result with opening another RfC like you suggested or getting an uninvolved admin to evaluate and close the original discussions etc. whatever way seems more reasonable. So the question how to proceed remains open and even though I've taken steps according to Wikipedia:Deletion review in order to start the process of evaluating the actual consensus by an uninvolved administrator, there are still many options left how to go about it.
Just another idea, in order to determine if the links are valuable for users, a temporary questionnaire should be added to the infobox itself asking the reader if following links should or should not be part of it. The questionnaire should be linked to a special discussion page where everybody can express their opinions. The thing is that an average reader never was able to find their way to the related link-deletion discussions but once such a discussion would be temporarily linked to the infobox, it would give us much better and broader overview about the necessity to have the links included or not. And then in coupler of months or so the discussion should be closed and WP:consensus evaluated and the film infobox edited accordingly.--Termer (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

And to repeat part (sorry) of what I wrote halfway up this page and in response to PC78's remark "It's been debated to death over the last two months, and project members have had ample opportunity to offer their thoughts (many have); further debate would seem to be flogging a dead horse"... that "debate" was only among the few who knew it existed. One has had to have stumbled accross the discussion to have been able to voice an opinion. And though it's not exactly a secret discussion in a closed room, one has to know there is the room and that a discussion is going one before being able to opine to reach a true and informed consensus. Thre is there a solution to this. With respects to the debate between editors who feel the removal was as a result of consensus and those who feel a true consensus was never reached, no one of us can bring the discussion to attention of editors without falling into the trap of lobbying. So... since the links were included far longer than they were not, and since there was a pre-existing 2006 strong consensus for their inclusion, wouldn't best serve Wiki to keep them there for now, and then include a form of Termer's questionaire for a few weeks? It would seem that those editors who see them in the box, whether they use them or not, would be the community that should best make a true consensus. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Width!

The width of this needs to be adjusted to fit all the other infoboxes. I'm not sure how to do this so some else needs to. Bovineboy2008 (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you trying to add an infobox within this particular one? —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I mean that if you want to add another infobox under it, they are different widths. It is a purely asthetic alteration but sometimes those are necessary. Bovineboy2008 (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Infoboxes come in all shapes and sizes; there is no standard width. I'm curious, where are you trying to add another infobox beneath this one? PC78 (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I am specifically talking about the {{Infobox movie certificates}}. If you look, for example, on High School Musical 3: Senior Year, the width doesn't agree. I have already posted this on that template talk page but, according to Chris Cunningham (not at work), it is this width that isn't "standard". Bovineboy2008 (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
D'oh. I meant "default width". Regardless, I don't see why this template should arbitrarily deviate from all three suggestions (300px, 22em, 25em). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The MOS merely suggests a width of 300px/25em, and 22em would itself seem to be arbitrary. In practise, infoboxes seem to come in variety of different widths and styles. Perhaps this will become less so if templates are being converted to {{Infobox}}, but AFAIK there is no requirement for this, and as I recall conversion of this template was contested and reverted. PC78 (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
So if this value is arbitrary, why not make it an arbitrary 22em, which matches the {{infobox}} default, instead of 20em, which matches nothing? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Why exchange one arbitrary value for another? There is no need to make this template match {{Infobox}}. A more pertinent question would be: why is the default width of {{Infobox}} not MOS compliant? Personally I don't think the extra width would be a bad thing, but let's see if anyone else has any thoughts and not change things on a whim. PC78 (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
For the reason specified at the start of the thread; {{infobox movie certificates}} uses the default infobox styling, so this would allow for the templates to align nicely. This will also be the case with any other {{infobox}}-derived templates. Better to change one template than many. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
{{Infobox movie certificates}} only uses the default infobox stylings because you converted it the other day, and then reverted attempts to narrow the width. The template is used far less than this one, and the two have never really been intended for use in such a manner anyway. I'm not even sure it was in the interests of that template to convert it to {{Infobox}}. But if it is desirable to make one fit the other, then it should be the other that is changed, not this one. PC78 (talk) 10:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I could have put money on you giving that answer. If you "don't think the extra width would be a bad thing", why do you think the other template should adopt this width and not the other way around? The conversion to {{infobox}} makes maintenance of these templates far easier (partially because it halves the amount of code), and it's easier to leave the defaults where possible. It's no more code to change this template to match the {{infobox}} default - it is more code to change that one. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with you converting the other template to use {{Infobox}}, but you have gone and arbitrarily changed the style (width, font size, bold text, etc.) of that template and now seem to expect this one to conform. As I said, I don't think that the extra width will necessarily be a bad thing here, and if others agree then that's fine. But to change it merely to accomodate a lesser used template which isn't meant to used alongside this one anyway, and which has itself only recently been changed, then that is far from being an adequate reason. PC78 (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Meh. Objection noted. By my reckoning this is a pretty trivial change to fix a pretty trivial issue, so I'm happy to wait for commentary from others. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to invoke silence=consensus at this point. Does anyone have a specific objection to this change? If not I'll make the edit in a day or so. Flowerparty☀ 10:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No real objection from me, just as long as it isn't being done solely out of some misguided notion that the current width is "wrong". I've tested the 22em width in my userspace and it's going to result in less text wrapping (which currently occurs with longer names such as Arnold Schwarzenegger), and I think that's a good thing. Perhaps it might be an idea to increase the default size of the image as well, but that's more of a side issue that should be dealt with seperately. PC78 (talk) 11:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, it's worth pointing out that the original concern was dealt with by reducing the width of {{Infobox movie certificates}} to 20em. PC78 (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
That was because it was the path of least resistance (that template not being fully protected); not because it was a better solution. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

After reading this lengthy discussion, I went to High School Musical 3: Senior Year to see what the fuss is all about. The difference in the length of the widths is a mere fraction of an inch, barely perceptible, and hardly worth discussing for twelve days! Personally, I'd rather discuss whether or not an infobox for ratings is necessary at all, since I don't think this information is all that encyclopedic in nature. LiteraryMaven (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! I have yet to see why we even have {{Infobox movie certificates}} when it seems it has been discussed numerous times that such information is neither encyclopedic nor desired for film articles. I remove any such thing from any film article I've ever worked on. It adds nothing at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it's worth considering antother TfD? PC78 (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Widened. You could try tfding the ratings box but judging by the last discussion I wouldn't be confident of getting rid of it. Wouldn't it be easier to make it collapsible. Flowerparty☀ 13:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Contested change

{{editprotected}}

Can someone please revert this undiscussed change, which was not part of the above proposal. A reduction in text size has been rejected before, so this change is not uncontroversial. Indeed, the reduced size of the text in conjunction with the increased width of the box is resulting in an undesirable amount of whitespace. PC78 (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that this is exactly the same styling as every {{infobox}} on the project, I can't see what's so controversial about it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
You'll have to point me to the discussion where {{Infobox}} was accepted as the standard across the whole of Wikipedia. Since this template does not use the meta, there is no need whatsover for it to conform to the default sylings of the meta, and as you well know those defaults are not even mandatory for those templates that do use it. Conversion of this infobox to the meta earlier this year was opposed and reverted, with one of the complaints being the reduced text size. So clearly, this undiscussed change is not uncontroversial. PC78 (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The font size has to match that of the movie certificate box for the widths to be the same, presumably because the length of an em dash changes with font size. Flowerparty☀ 10:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
So? The two infoboxes are not meant to be complimentary. I supported the increased width only because it was beneficial to this template. The other changes you made have had a highly visible impact on some 45,000 pages – this in itself makes the change controversial, and all the more so considering that such changes have been opposed before. If it is truly desirable to make the two infoboxes harmonious, then common sense alone dictates that the supplementary and far lesser used box be adapted to fit the primary one (i.e. this one), not the other way around. PC78 (talk) 10:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
This argument could just as well be used to ask why {{infobox Film}} doesn't use the same styling as the extremely popular {{infobox}}, which has a greater number of overall transclusions. As for the previous discussion regarding the font sizes, are you referring to this discussion? IIRC Ned Scott has changed his mind of the general issue of infobox conversion from that point, and the other primary dissenter in that case was, ummm, you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
May I chime in to say that I do not favor the change in font size, and don't understand why it was piggybacked onto the width change. If we have to discuss a change like altering the width before it's done, I see no valid reason why such a fundamental alteration as font size shouldn't require the same level of discussion and consensus. The change of font size should br rolled back, and only the change that was actually discussed here, to the width of the box, should be kept. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed! Also agree, the width should not have been changed to match a minor league infobox that has little valid purpose. Both should be discussed as to how they would be beneficial to this template, not just "oh, but it should match this bad template." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
While the direct purpose of the change was parity with the "minor league infobox", the greater goal is to get this template to use {{infobox}} directly again, to match the prevailing style instead of using its own. In fact, it can use its own fonts and styling with {{infobox}} if it wants now - I'll cook up an example in the sandbox at some point. The ultimate aim is to make this template simple and standard, precisely because it eliminates parochial discussion of CSS in individual template talk pages when there are bigger issues such as content to be discussed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Save yourself the trouble. As I've already said, this was done earlier this year and was soundly rejected. Now that three individual editors have opposed this change, I expect Flowerparty to do the decent thing and revert. PC78 (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't "soundly rejected" at all - I already linked to the discussion in question, and it was reverted due to two editors now knowing that the font size could be increased in {{infobox}} (you and Ed) and one editor disagreeing with {{infobox}} in principle at the time (Ned Scott). That's nothing like a "sound rejection". It should be possible to satisfy both parties pretty easily here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Nobody who commented in that discussion (including the one immediately below it) was supportive of the change; the main opposition was to the change in font size, which is the exact same thing we're opposing now. If you want to sell us the benefits of using {{Infobox}} then fine, but you'd be best doing so a fresh discussion because it's not what we're talking about here. PC78 (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Because, as I just said, it's trivial to adjust an {{infobox}} to change its font sizes if required - it doesn't require reverting the whole thing. So I wouldn't be "wasting my time" with such a move at all, except to have to keep repeating myself apparently. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Now you're not making any sense. I fail to see how the meta would make the oh-so labourious task of changing a few digits any easier. PC78 (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
In that case, you needn't concern yourself with it. I'll propose it once it's ready. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Chris Cunningham: Well, i's quite straightforward of you to admit to the motivations behind this change, but, in fact, this change was never discussed and does not, in fact, have the community's consent, so it should be reverted, please. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 11:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the admin who made the change seems not to be responding, I've requsted assistance at WP:ANI/I Ed Fitzgerald t / c 11:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This would have been better-placed at WP:RFPP, for the future. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Why? I'm not requesting a change in the template's protection status, just a reversion of an administrator's actions. That seems to point to AN/I or AN, not to RFPP. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 12:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
RFPP has a dedicated section for such requests, which shortcuts the inevitable drama of bringing something to WP:DRAMA. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
CC(naw): Thanks, I had never seen that section and was unaware of its existence. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. I don't see what all the fuss is about myself, but if you want to discuss this then discuss away. Can we please try and check the sarcasm, though. It's quite tiresome. Flowerparty☀ 15:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Christ... we should rename this template to {{Dramabox}}; Every time a change is made, there will be someone demanding revert because "there was no discussion". Please don't be so quik te revert in the future, unless the objection actually applies to the change instead of procedure. — Edokter • Talk • 19:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The complaints here were about both the change and the procedure. The change looked bad, and it was never discussed, so the revert is a good one. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_film/Archive_14&oldid=1139981694"