Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Starring (revisited)

This was a discussion that myself and many other editors participated in back in March. We came near a consensus to change the wording of the "Starring" documentation, but the conversation dwindled and then stopped. You can read the varying opinions and suggestions here.

Now, I'm thinking this is considerably less of an issue now, due in large part to the fact that other editors—like myself, I admit— have stopped pushing so hard for all actors on a billing block to be included. The primary reason for this revival, though, is that I believe the infobox for Guardians of the Galaxy is absurdly cluttered. It sports 12 actors right now, where the five main characters (Pratt, Saldana, Bautista, Diesel, and Cooper) should do just fine, as they are listed above the title. ~

I personally still think the wording could use an update, and stand by all of my comments in the link below (except for the part where I call it a guideline, which I now know is incorrect). Thoughts, everyone? Corvoe (speak to me)

Pinging editors from previous discussion: @Erik:, @Betty Logan:, @Darkwarriorblake:, @Ring Cinema:, @Jedi94:, @AbramTerger:, @Andrzejbanas: Corvoe (speak to me) 12:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally I don't feel 12 actors is all that long, especially for an ensemble cast. Some films have larger casts than others and as result they may more starring performances. The length of the list shouldn't be based on any arbitrary number that we come up with. The current wording is divisive decisive and neutral. I fear changing it may add some ambiguity leading to edit warring. Besides the 5 names at the top of that particular poster are just the "heroes" and we all know it takes more than to round out a complete film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"The current wording is divisive and neutral." This may be my one hour of sleep talking, but isn't that an oxymoron? If something is neutral, how is it being divisive also be a positive? That's got me stumped, but like I said, I'm running on very little sleep. Corvoe (speak to me) 13:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Damn autocorrect.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

And I wasn't suggesting we come up with a number (I realize now that was included in the original discussion), but more so that we go for actors listed either in the poster's design (with special font and whatnot) and/or before the title in the billing block (like in my Cast Away example). I think ensemble casts cause a bigger problem, such as at The Butler where there were 14 cast members listed. Consensus there was to only include Whitaker and Winfrey, as they were the two featured before the title in the billing block. I think this is the best method to lead with, but if no actors appear before the title, we should go with the ones featured on the poster. I could also be totally wrong, I don't know. Corvoe (speak to me) 13:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why not use the WP:FILMCAST language for "Starring"? Talk about rules of thumb rather than stating that it must be based on the billing block. The Featured Articles on Star Trek films don't even use this field, deferring to the article body instead. Anyway, my impression was that we could either use the names above the title in the poster or use the full set of names in the billing block—whichever makes more sense. Did we reject the above-the-title approach entirely? By that approach, I think that five names is sufficient. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"Starring" has a very specific meaning, in the American film industry, anyway. Only those named either above the title or in larger type in the billing block are the "stars" - the rest are featured actors. The only exception would be for those billed with an "and" at the end of the billing block, if their names are also in larger type. There really is no defensible reason for including everyone in the billing block in the "starring" field, unless all the names are in the same size type and there are no names above the title. BMK (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

For many years now, actor names have been equal size in the billing block. I was more referring to the ones listed before the title is. For instance, it might read: "Kenny G RZA 'Film Title' Laurence Olivier other people" In this instance, we would include Kenny G and RZA only.

I actually like Erik's suggestion, though. The information as it is presented now, though it is decisive, caused quite a stir back in February/March. I think there would be few who think anyone other than Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman need to be listed in The Shawshank Redemption, but there are actually five more actors named in the billing block, and it should technically look like this. That edit was reverted, and I never really argued, because it made sense; Robbins and Freeman are the stars.

In short, I agree that something along the lines of WP:FILMCAST's wording would be our best option. Corvoe (speak to me) 13:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's try another example. I saw Gladiator mentioned when Googling around for billing block details. The poster shows only Russell Crowe above the title. Does this mean he should be the only name in "Starring"? There are six actors in the billing block (I just removed one actor from the infobox that was not in the block). It strikes me as awfully narrow, though I can't articulate why. Maybe it seems off to say there is one star, though I find the Shawshank Redemption example more palatable with two names. Three in the case of Fight Club (with two other names in the billing block) also seems fitting. I know this seems opinionated... just thinking out loud. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No sweat, think away. I noticed he is also the only one mentioned before the title. This would be an instance where I could see it going either way. He is undoubtedly the star of the film, the main character without a doubt. So I could see an argument for both sides, but in this case, I would say the whole billing block could be used. But that's exactly why these discussions would be better, just reach an agreement on what everyone thinks is the best listing to reflect the cast. Then we have Heat, where I think using only the three on the poster would be uncontroversial as well. Or In Bruges. Or Adaptation. I really think it should be a case-by-case basis to prevent clutter or emptiness. If it were case-by-case, that Moonrise Kingdom issue could be solved (feature the two main characters in the billing block) and the world would be a better place for it. I'm agreeing with you that we should tweak and transpose WP:FILMCAST into this new wording. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If Russel Crowe is the only actor above the title, then he is, by definition, the star of the movie. The advantage of this rubric is that it's easily defined, and the question of who is or isn't the star is not a matter of our opinion (which would be OR), but the outcome of the give-and-take of the film-making and promotion process, decided by experts, the people who actually make films possible. BMK (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Billing (filmmaking) itself is not consistent, so it would be difficult to craft specific rules for the infobox regarding number or inclusion, etc. Probably best to go case by case. The only one we might spell out is it's usually best to go by the film's main title billing for the Starring field and lead, and the end credits cast list crawl for the article's Cast list. But who to include in the infobox still needs case-by-case judgment - and so does where to cut off the Cast list. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Main title billing, as opposed to promotional billing, is not a good guide, as it is subject to more inconsistencies, such as title design and directorial control. Promotional billing (billing boxes), however, are purely contractual based on who's got the pull. You can be certain that if Jack Nicholson thinks he's the star of a film, his name is going to be above the title, whereas his name could conceivably appear in any number of different placements in the film itself. BMK (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually contracts cover the film's onscreen billing explicitly, and they try to with the poster though it's impossible to be comprehensive because of the different versions, different territories, etc. Directors don't overrule contracts. But the film is more reliable than the poster, which can have different versions over the years, and the billing is sometimes altered, as with Gone with the Wind (Vivien Leigh's name placement was changed.) Generally the poster is a good source, but the film itself is best if you have easy access to it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course contracts cover everything, but it's much more likely that the billing within the film will be adjusted because of something the filmmaker wants to do, and the contract is written with that in mind. Promotional billing, however, is rarely affected by outside considerations, and therefore is a much purer indication of who the star is. (Foreign promotional billing is something else entirely, I'm talking American first theatrical release billing, and nothing else.) BMK (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what your point is in pursuing this. A contract is a contract, whatever might have influenced it. And the star has more long term control over how his/her name is placed in the film itself, as it represents what was agreed to at the time. Looking at posters of older films in particular, it's often not obvious when exactly they came out. If they have different billing, which poster is more reliable? For me, the film is primary. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

My point in pursuing this is that your conclusion that "the film is primary" in determining who is and isn't a star of a film is erroneous. A film is more than just a film, it's also a commodity, and who is and isn't a star is primarily a question of the promotion of that commodity, a matter of commerce, not of art -- which is why promotional billing information is more informative that main title billing. Main title billing is influenced by both commerce and "art" (for want of a better word), promotional billing almost entirely by commerce -- anyone who knows anything about the industry knows this. BMK (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You're really going to go there. I can't believe you're still pushing this. This is an assertion of your opinion as fact. Calling my post erroneous was quite unnecessary, as was your insinuation about knowledge of the industry. You could have made your point without that. And BTW, there are a number of people who consider posters to also be art, as well as commerce. Not that it matters to the subject of this thread. The infobox reflects the film's credits. It's not a statement on how much of a commercial star the film's leading actors are. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Geez Louise, are you intentionally being dense? The question is how to determine who is and isn't the star of a movie. You've offered one theory, and I've offered another. Yours happens to be mistaken -- is that why you keep bringing up totally unrelated shit, like whether posters are "art" or not, to distract from that? The plain fact of the matter is this: whether an actor is the star of an American film can be determined with almost 100% accuracy by some simple rules based on the American first release billing box. It's not a judgment call, it's a simple formula anyone can follow: ABOVE THE TITLE = STAR, LARGER TYPEFACE = STAR, "AND" BILLING (USUALLY) = STAR. No yarrow sticks have to be thrown while viewing the movie main title credits (in which the star/featured distinction is often collapsed), no speculation has to be made. Cut-and-dried. Period. Full stop. End of (my part) of this discussion. I now return you to your regular programming. Carry on. BMK (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You're the one who brought up whether or not posters are art. I responded to it. As I said, Billing (filmmaking) itself is not consistent, so it would be difficult to craft specific rules for the infobox. Your rule would not work anywhere near 100% of the time. There are numerous occasions of actors not listed above the title who do belong in the infobox. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The poster approach was adopted largely out of convenience: it settled debates in the case of upcoming films and capped the number of names being added to the infobox (although we now have the opposite problem with it causing infobox bloat in some cases). I still largely stand by the approach because it works most of the time; it is just the slavish adherence to the guideline that is the problem. I don't think we need to specify that we should approach each instance "case by case" because that is how guidelines are supposed to be used: we follow them because they are a good rule of thumb for improving articles, and we don't apply them when we have a valid reason not to i.e. they are not policies. One such valid reason is if the film itself has a clearly defined billing order (as opposed to alphabetic/order of appearance etc) and the poster doesn't match up. Marketing literature can sometimes elevate a more famous person while contracts might dictate their placement in the film's credit order but ultimately while there may be many posters (or even none in the case of a TV film) there is usually only one film, so if I had to choose I would go with the film's actual billing order. Gone with the Wind is a good example: Vivien Leigh got second billing after Clark Gable but on the original poster she was shunted into fourth place since it was her first American film and she was unknown to American audiences. For later releases her poster placement matched her billing. We should be focusing on the principal actors in the correct billing order, and using the poster in conjunction with the film is usually sufficient to establish this in most cases. Betty Logan (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The billing block has two significant virtues: it doesn't change and it involves the agreement of the artists. This approach has reduced the disputes quite a bit. It's not easy to find editors who use common sense compromises so in case there is a dispute, the guideline is tantamount to policy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I've seen billing blocks change dependent on poster version. This poster for Titanic includes Gloria Stewart (possibly in response to her oscar win) whereas this version doesn't. Same film, two different billing blocks. In view of that which do you go with? Presumably the credit order in the film involves the agreement of the artists too, but that remains constant. I think the billing block is useful to refer to but I don't think it necessarily trumps the film's credits if the posit a different order. Betty Logan (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I prefer just using stars over the billing block. Often billing blocks contains co-stars and featuring [in older posters this was sometimes explicitly mentioned] instead of currently using the guidelines in the template to justify adding all the billing block actors. Pre-title, font-size, etc are all ways to judge who is starring and who is not, but that is often ignored which bloats the summary aspect of the infobox. I would also prefer using the film's billing, there are different posters and the one in the article may not always be the original release poster in the origin country. Often teaser posters are used.AbramTerger (talk) 11:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahave any suggestions for wording? I personally agree with AbramTerger's note that the pre-title and font size are good indicators for starring. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Pre-title and font size might be good indicators but they do not always equate. Billing/starring is oft a contractual decision, while placement and font sizes is a marketing one. They do not always compliment each other. I agree with Ring Cinema, leave the wording as it is, and let common sense compromises on a WP:LOCALCONCENSUS level handle specific cases.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Betty that film credits ought to trump the billing block. Usually, they agree, so the billing block is a pretty good starting point if the film itself is not available. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Please update the Template:Infobox film documentation as soon as possible. I was confused and quickly disappointed after seeing an article already using this new parameter. At first I thought it was an error (like all those times people added "executive producers" to the infobox) but to be safe I checked Template:Infobox film and it was not listed and I was ready to delete it from the Infobox. It was only because I went even further and checked this Talk page that I discovered that this was a new parameter and not junk. It is very disappointing that you would add a new parameter and fail to properly document it at the same time as it is turned on.
Also if while you making various changes would you please get rid of the ugly and unnecessary parentheses in "Release date(s)" (you didn't choose "production companie(s)", Country is singular even though the Infobox often lists several Countries, etc. etc.) or simplify it to Release date. -- 109.77.216.23 (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Starring (how formal a parameter)

While I do appreciate and agree with the stated goal of AbramTerger to reflect the film's onscreen credits as the primary source, I think he is taking the Starring parameter too literally. A good example is Planet of the Apes (1968 film). Seven actors are in the poster's billing block, and those seven got single card credit in the film's opening titles. AT wanted to list only Charlton Heston in the lead and infobox and removed the other six, because "Co-Starring" was used for them. To me this is unwarranted. The Starring parameter is not used that formally on most WP film pages, and it shouldn't be because credits are inconsistent. Only listing Heston is also inconsistent with the sequels (on which no one had above the title billing). It looks very out of place. The film was not a one man show. Five of the actors have been restored to the lead but AT insists they be listed as "co-starring", which looks unnecessary and clunky to me and Cuchullain. And currently only Heston is in the infobox. I believe it should be restored to how it was. There are numerous occasions of actors not listed above the title who do belong in the infobox, and this is one of them. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting and intriguing question, and I can honestly see both sides. Regarding this particular film, Heston is the unquestionable leading role, but does that mean that McDowell and Hunter are not also stars? Another film with a similar issue, imho, is Rocky, where Stallone is the unquestionable lead, yet in that infobox there are 4 others listed as stars (and honestly, I don't see why Weathers is there at all, since he is clearly a subordinate character). Another one would be Silver Streak (film), in which Wilder and Pryor are clearly the leads, but that doesn't mean the love interest, Clayburgh isn't in a starring role (again, I would question the inclusion of McGoohan as a star of the film, particularly since he is even separated on the film's poster). I think the only way to reach a consensus is on a film by film basis, in which folks who know more about the individual film can reach an agreement. In the case of PotA, I think I would have to agree with Gothicfilm. The film's producers clearly delineated Heston as the star, and listed the others as "co-stars", however, the very definition of a "co-star" is someone who is starring in the film along with other stars, it is not a subordinate term, as "featuring" is. If the group feels that an overall consensus is needed, I would vote to include all those who regularly appear on advertising materials (again, in agreement with Gothic-although in that instance Harrison would also be included).Onel5969 (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Linda Harrison was included until AT took her out with the other five a week ago. Again, I would like to see it restored to how it was. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I had put back the "co-stars" in the lead as a compromise, but the WP:FILMLEAD is specific about star or stars (explicitly indicating that a film can have one star) and these are co-stars, not stars, as I think the credits make it clear that the film stars Heston and no one else. I disagree with Onel5969's definition of co-starring in this context (though it is confusing since it sometimes used to mean "jointly starring" but it is more often used in credits as a subordinate term between starring and featuring). PotA has starring, co-starring, introducing and then with. The subordinate use is not as clear since there is only 1 "starring role". It can be seen from producers of this series when one looks at the credits for the other films in the series. For example in Beneath the Planet of the Apes the film lists lists "starring" and then 4 stars each with their own screen, then it lists "co-starring" and has 2 screens each with 5 actors, followed by the "and Charlton Heston as Taylor" credit. If we follow the logic being proposed then, then BtPotA would have 15 "stars": every actor who is billed in the film should be considered in the "starring" for this film. With film credits, you will get sometimes get the onscreen "also starring" and then "co-starring" to differentiate the subordinate co-star. If one looks at the credits for all the films in the PotA series, onscreen you have the stars, listed one per screen (with a starring) and then a co-starring with multiple actors per screen. And it is typical that we do limit listings that are including in the "advertising material": Executive producers, line producers, casting, etc are frequently on the posters and not included in the infobox and lead. We only list particular parameters and the parameter for the lead and infobox is "Starring": the fully billed list is in the cast section. [And if are going to discuss posters, we need an original 1968 image not the one from re-released material.]AbramTerger (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That link goes to a teaser poster. It has no billing block, so it cannot be used. WP:FILMLEAD does not say that literally only those listed as "Starring" can be included. With the POTA films and others of this era, I would generally keep it to actors who got single-card credit in the opening titles. That's how it is currently with all the sequels, and that leaves well under 15 per film. Less than half that. The 1968 film should be consistent with the sequels. The "co-starring" for McDowell and Hunter, etc., does not mean they are any less important than the second and third billed actors in the sequels. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, that is not my definition of co-star, that is the definition of co-star, both in the dictionary and in the industry. Look it up. It is used in the industry solely for contractual obligation purposes, in terms of "top billing". And while we do limit what is in the advertising material in the infobox, only in terms of entire categories. And one star per screen is not accurate, either, especially when you have two stars of equal stature (e.g. Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau for The Odd Couple). So, I'm not sure how you can make the "single-card" rule apply across the board.Onel5969 (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That's why I wrote "I would generally keep it to actors who got single-card credit in the opening titles". Most of the time this works very well, but there will always be instances where case-by-case judgment is required, as discussed in the above thread. Let's not get hung up with the definition of "co-starring", a credit which is much less used today. The point of this thread is not to strictly limit the lead and infobox to above-the-title or "Starring". The 1968 POTA film demonstrates how excluding all but one actor because of a "co-starring" credit is clearly not appropriate. If you took away the "co-starring" and just had the six single-card credits play after the title (as it would most likely be done today), there would be no question of whether or not to include them. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gothicfilm: I have edited the article to have an alternative lead, which seems less clunky. Can you accept it? Also, yes that teaser poster has no billing block but it still has a credit for Heston. Strictly speaking the one in the article has 2 problems: it is not a theatrical poster from 1968 so its billing block is less useful for this purposes and film credits should take precedence and, strictly-speaking, it does not have a billing block either. it has some credits at the bottom, but if we judge that as the billing block to use per the template standards, then Heston would not be included as he is not in that listing at all in the billing block, only on the poster. I don't see the issue with a film having only 1 star so I don't see the issue of putting only one star in the infobox. @Onel5969: I was suggesting it was your definition (implying no one else's). I indicated that the definition for co-star you gave does not match the usage in credits that I have seen. There are stars and then there are co-stars. Do you have examples of films where the stars are listed as co-stars in the credits (with no stars listed)? A recent example I saw was The Man in the Net) where Ladd is listed pre-title, then the title is given, then there is "also starring Carolyn Jones", then followed by Co-starring with 4 per screen. I can't recall any examples of credits with the stars billed with a "co-starring" and not a starring. The credit usage differs than some of the co-star meaning. This film lists Heston, the title, then skips the "also starring" and goes right to "co-starring". As mentioned earlier in BtPotA, they list the 4 stars then list multiple co-stars (all other billing is as a "co-star"). If co-star is equivalent to "star" then all should be in the lead and infobox.AbramTerger (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Onel5969 regarding Rocky all those actors are listed as "starring" on the poster, not co-stars. If I were editing Silver Streak I would actually add Ned Beatty and Clifton James in addition to McGoohan since they are also listed as "starring". But in this case we are not discussing your opinion of removing people who are explicitly listed as starring, but whether we should include names of actors explicitly indicated as Co-starring and not starring, when the parameter is "starring". We exclude co-producers, executive producers, when they are listed also in the billing block.AbramTerger (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Everyone participating in this discussion may be interested in a similar discussion at Talk:The_Godfather#Al_Lettieri. There are a few parallels between the two debates. Betty Logan (talk) 08:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@AbramTerger: Your latest version is much the same, except it takes up more words and breaks it into two sentences. My larger objection is I make it a practice to avoid putting actors between the director and the writers, which you have now done. The order everyone was listed in the lead was deliberate. The director and the screenplay/novel should be linked together, even though they're often in different sentences. And again, the main point of this thread is that the "Starring" parameter is not to be taken this literally. I explained above the 1968 original should be consistent with the sequels. The "co-starring" for McDowell and Hunter, etc., does not mean they are any less important than the second and third billed actors in the sequels. As for the poster, it looks consistent enough with the 1968 posters I've seen. And billing blocks were not fully used until later decades, so having a star like Heston only named in the art above the credits was common practice from the silent days on for fifty years. I already agreed well above that the film itself should be used as the primary source. But that does not mean when "co-starring" is put above the second single-card listed actor, only one actor should be included in the infobox. That is taking the term "Starring" way too literally, and I do not believe that was the intention of the parameter. It is not that formal. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

per WP:FILMLEAD:"The first paragraph of the lead section should also identify the director and the star or stars of the film. If any writers or producers are well-known, they can also be identified in the paragraph. If the film is based on source material, that source material and its creators should be identified." That is the order they are in. My opinion is different than yours about starring and co-starring. It is that formal for other parameters, so why not this one? And as pointed out before, the producers of this film series make the distinction between starring and co-starring. If you are think there is too much text to keep it accurate, I have no problem with eliminating the co-stars from the lead (the style guidelines suggest to me that we should), but I think this is a reasonable compromise if you really want them in.AbramTerger (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Why not this one? For the third time, the "co-starring" for McDowell and Hunter, etc., does not mean they are any less important than the second and third billed actors in the sequels. You keep reading things into WP:FILMLEAD that are not there. It doesn't say elements have to be given in that order or that 2nd billed actors with single-card credit and "co-starring" are to be excluded. Other parameters don't usually have qualifiers in their onscreen credits, so that is a moot point. I see no reason to believe this parameter is meant to be taken that formally, and at least one other here agrees with me, so you do not have consensus. Nevertheless, I would appreciate it if others voiced an opinion on this thread's title - how formal is the "Starring" parameter? - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

There has been a lot of ink spilled here, but I think the distinction between the infobox and the lede is getting lost. My understanding has been that the criteria are different. The highest bar is inclusion in the lede, I thought: the lead role or roles only, narrowly defined. If a role is thought too small by someone to be in the lede, it's probably too small. The Godfather is a good example; Brando and Pacino, despite a lot of other great actors and performances, belong in the lead. Infobox, I thought, was the next most restrictive, drawing on those above the title or included in the billing block, whichever seems to work. I don't see what the guidelines on the lede have to do with the infobox. It's not the same standard. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I think they were conflated here, since both issues were brought up here. The question relevant for the infobox, is whether actors listed explicitly as "co-starring" as opposed to "starring" belong in the infobox under "starring". The billing block does not seem appropriate as there is no formal block (as most newer films have). For this film, what approximates a billing block, does not include the star of the film. For the lead, where more verbiage is allowed, I see no issue adding them, if desired (especially with only one star) as long as we indicate that they are co-starring and not starring in the film (which is how the lead for PotA now reads). If the term "co-starring" isn't relevant, why was it added to the film's credit and the poster? The producers use it as well in other films of the series, listing the "starring" and then the "co-starring". And other parameters do have qualifiers. Producer excludes, executive producers, associate producers, and even co-producers. ADDED: and as to consensus, it would seem to me that you would need a consensus to include "co-starring" actors in the "starring" parameter, I don't think a consensus is needed to NOT include actors not listed as "starring". We already exclude some actors listed as "starring" as to long lists and only include "lead actors" (pre-title) when the list is long.AbramTerger (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

With only seven at the most, the list here is not too long, is it? Comparing second-billed Roddy McDowell to an executive producer is ridiculous and shows the hollowness of your arguments. Only you have this weird obsession with identifying actors as co-stars on WP, when, for the fourth time, the "co-starring" for McDowell and Hunter, etc., does not mean they are any less important than the second and third billed actors in the sequels. There is no reason to believe the producers you refer to intended for only Heston to be listed in encyclopedia infoboxes for the film. It was a contractual matter strictly for that film's credits, not a standard of exclusion. All contemporaneous reviews of the film in 1968 listed actors beyond Heston. You were reverted by an editor at the page itself and another sided with me here. No one supported your one-man-only version. Under WP:BRD, this has been discussed, and your narrow reading of WP:FILMLEAD is not in the text or being practiced on the majority of film pages. So I will be restoring the page back to how it was shortly. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything in the guidelines or in reality that would exclude a co-star from inclusion in the infobox. There is just so much variety in practice and usage to attempt the application of a rule based on that. Normally, anyone who stars with a star is a co-star, since they are each other's co-star, literally. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, I would say that only Heston should be included in the lede. The others are clutter at the top of the article, in my opinion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not common practice to list only one actor in the lead for a film with a cast like this. The reason the lead looks cluttered now is because AbramTerger inserted the words Co-starring with Heston are - which is overly verbose, repeats Heston twice and looks unnecessary and clunky to me and the other editor who tried to take it out. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with you but opinions are allowed to differ. For me, I think the lede paragraph should mention the roles that are not supporting, to put it one way. Maybe an actor that wins a major award in a supporting role could merit inclusion in the lede. I suppose my thinking is that supporting actors just aren't as important as the producer, director, cinematographer, screenwriter so they shouldn't be mentioned alongside them. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gothicfilm:I created an alteration in the lead removing the redundant Heston.@Ring Cinema:But "Co-star" in credits is rarely used to designate "starring with". It is more typically used to segment the billing [eg pre-title "lead" starring, then starring, then co-starring, this film is atypical that it has no "starring" roles: it goes from pre-title starring right to co-star. A more typical usage from these producers is the sequel Beneath the Planet of the Apes which has no pre-title stars, but has starring roles and then the co-starring roles.] As mentioned earlier, we don't include co-producers in the producer area only those listed as producer. I would rather add the co-stars to the lead rather than the infobox since the infobox is more of a summary, the lead allows editors to add verbiage. I can live with listing only Heston in the infobox and the lead. I re-added the co-stars to the lead as a compromise.AbramTerger (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The standards for lede and infobox are different. For what it's worth, only Heston in the lede might be right (I don't know the film). Only Heston in the infobox is almost certainly wrong. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd go with poster billing (the list at the bottom) which should be about 5-8 names, and not separate lead roles from supporting roles, otherwise you lose accessibility to actors who might have won awards for Best Supporting. The article and the lead paragraph itself can discuss the distinctions. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Seven actors are in the poster's billing block, and those seven got single-card credit in the film's opening titles. I am restoring them to the infobox. No one has supported AbramTerger's removal of them from the infobox, and at least three beyond myself have specifically said they should be included. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

If the consensus is to use the billing block at the bottom, then it seems to me that Heston's name should be removed from the infobox as he is NOT listed in the billing block. This is one of the reasons that I do NOT think the billing block is appropriate in this case. Heston is the ONLY actor in the film given a "Starring" credit, the others are billed as "co-starring" at the most (even in the poster) despite having a single screen credit. And as pointed out with other films [See for example {{u|Betty Logan]] reference to the discussion at Talk:The_Godfather#Al_Lettieri where a role listed as starring was not added into the infobox since it was not in the billing block (and this is relatively standard practice when the billing block and not the film is used for "starring".] I personally think it is a bad decision to decide to list the co-stars in the infobx and NOT include the star, but if that is the real consensus, then I think we should do what the consensus is, not the current edit, despite my disagreement with it (though I guess that is the nature of compromise: neither GothicFilm or I would be happy with the consensus). I think in a sense outside PotA, a decision that co-stars should be included in the "Starring" parameter will result in getting longer infoboxes and move away from being summaries. But no sense continuing the proverbial beating of the proverbial dead horse.AbramTerger (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

As can be seen in the thread above this one, the consensus, such as it was, was to use the film's onscreen credits as the primary source, while acknowledging the poster is more quicly accessed, and if used the billing block is usually best. There will always be instances where case-by-case judgment is required. Undiscussed was the fact that until the 1970/80s most posters did not use full billing blocks and the top stars' names would only be displayed in the art above the credits on the bottom (the equivalent of today's billing block). Common sense says they should be included in the WP film infobox. But the film's onscreen credits are more reliable than the poster, which can have different versions over the years, and the billing is sometimes altered, as with Gone with the Wind (Vivien Leigh's name placement was changed.) Generally the poster is a good source, but the film itself is best if you have easy access to it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at the poster and as expected, Heston is listed in the billing block. He's at the end, which was probably his preference for prominence. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

On some posters, Example even if Heston were not in the billing block at the bottom where it says "Co-starring", the fact that he is listed in the poster is sufficient to include him. Let's not split hairs about that. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. If one really wanted to split hairs, Heston shouldn't be included because he is not listed as "Starring". He is above the title. Which is part of why I am against the idea of this dubious stricture that we should include only those explicitly billed as "Starring". The parameter is not that formal, and if it is taken that literally, it leads to all sorts of problems, as we have seen with Planet of the Apes (1968 film). Thankfully (hopefully) that debate is now over. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

french & italian templates

french fr:Modèle:Infobox Cinéma (film) & italian it:Template:Film templates have more entries~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 06:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Language linking

Why is the template automatically linking the language of the film? For more obscure languages this might be justifiable, but for something like French or German it's overlinking. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the original discussion was back in 2010 as seen here. We agreed to have an exception not to link to the English language, but we did not have an issue with linking to non-English languages. However, I think it would be a bit much to keep adding exceptions to the code. Do you think we should not automatically link any languages at all? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that would make more sense, as there are more instances where we should not link than where we should - and links are quite easy to add where needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I would be fine with that. I added a notice on WT:FILM so others can weigh in. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

We could just link to languages in the lead when appropriate. I don't think we need an automatic link in the infobox. This would allow for better links, too; we could link to Telugu cinema instead of Telugu language. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support removal of auto-linking in the infobox. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support removal of auto-linking. WP:OVERLINK. Template:Infobox television discourages the use of wikilinks for language and country as overlinking. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Per discussion above, please remove the automatic linking of the "language" parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Please complete your edit in the Template:Infobox film/sandbox and post back when ready to merge to the main template. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

done. Frietjes (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 October 2014

In many black-and-white films of the early 20th century in the opening credits is the position of "Sound Engineer", who usually appears in the credits above both Music and Lyrics, and Film Editor. I would like to see "Sound engineer" as one of the labels in this infobox. Jodosma (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done You need to gain consensus before you request the edit. BOVINEBOY2008 12:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how to do that. Any advice? Jodosma (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Seek consensus by beginning discussions like you have. Don't use the edit requests template until you have support. BOVINEBOY2008 20:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"Sound Engineer" was never a common credit. Fifty plus years ago, most films simply used a "Sound" credit for the sound supervisor. Today we have multiple credits, most prominently Supervising Sound Editor and Re-Recording Mixer. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to move the film name parameter

I think this parameter should be moved above the image parameter, so it's abit more clear that it's another title for the film in question. Take a look at this article as an example. Anyone else think it looks odd to have the Czech title underneath the field for the poster caption? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a sensible request. I'm fine with making this move. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. To have both titles above the poster I have seen "| name = Film <br> Foreign film name" in some articles (though I can't find one at the moment) but moving the field will allow editors to use either. One question - should the "film name" field be coded so that it automatically puts the title in Bold lettering? MarnetteD|Talk 18:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The "film name" parameter was added specifically for the purpose of porting in the extra parameters from dedicated infoboxes on foreign language films when we merged those infoboxes into the main one. This parameter was introduced to host the {{Infobox name module}} template which holds all the extra parameters, so we wouldn't have to add a load of parameters to the main infobox that are irrelevant to English-language films. You can see the effect of it adding extra parameters to the main infobox at Spirited Away and Shaolin Soccer. In short, if we change the location of this parameter then it will cause massive disruption to all the articles that had an infobox merged into this infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you expand on what you mean by "massive disruption"? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that's a good point. I see how the "film name" parameter is generally supposed to be used, implementing the {{film name}} template. Basically, it was never meant for purely romanticized languages, right? I'll hold off on supporting the move for the moment. I see how in the Czech example how the original foreign-language title is displayed below the English-language title, but I don't think it was supposed to be utilized this way. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is an example of the way to move the foreign language title above the film poster that I described earlier. This may be the way to go if the "film name" field can't be moved. MarnetteD|Talk 20:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lugnuts. Massive disruption = Template:Infobox_film/testcases#Moving_Film_name_parameter

Remember all those old foreign language film infoboxes such as Infobox Japanese film, Infobox Korean film etc? There was a consensus to merge all of those templates into Infobox film (see Template_talk:Infobox_film/Archive_23#Korean, Japanese and Chinese film Infobox merges at TfD). A straight merge would have meant dumping 16 extra parameters into the main infobox, such as the "Japanese" and "Hepburn" fields at Spirited Away (basically all the parameters listed at {{Infobox name module}}. That would have seen a huge surge in parameters at Infobox film that would never have been used in anything but Japanese films, or Korean films i.e. a fairly small subset of all the film articles. To get around this, Frietjes suggested creating a "module" to carry all these surplus parameters so we would just need to add a single "name" field to Infobox film which could then activate the module on just foreign film articles. Now...if you reposition the location of the film name parameter you will end up with all the extra parameters used in the naming module above the poster image, which I suspect would be most articles that use the film name parameter since this is its original intended purpose. Betty Logan (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Agree, the original title of the work should be moved. Many non-English language feature films distributed worldwide are not released with international, or else English theatrical posters (as pictured). Even though subtitled, the name of the work is not transcribed/translated into foreign languages, no matter audiences.
  As for the {{Infobox name module}}, I myself have been aware of the template which might holds some extra parameters as mentioned, but, with exception of the one for the native language title of the work. The "film name" parameter itself doesn't work below enough as obvious. Besides, you don't have to really use it, the same result may be reached within the "caption" field of the infobox by manual adding the original film title while using Italic font. So either the {{Infobox name module}} should be updated, or a new "module" created/added.
  PS: Another example how it could work above the film posters. MiewEN (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The "film name" parameter was expressly created for the purpose of hosting the name module and the name module is transcluded to over 2000 articles using it. If we moved the "film name" parameter that would leave 2000 articles that would need fixing. Clearly, it would be absurd to move this parameter simply because it is being used incorrectly on a handful of articles. If editors want to add an extra parameter to host the native title then they should make their case in the usual way for adding a new parameter, rather than trying to hijack an existing one which was created for a very specific purpose. Betty Logan (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

If the "film name" parameter was expressly created for the purpose of hosting the name module, then this information should had been included in the usage of the {{Infobox film}} template in the first place. Reading the text of the discussed field, it speaks for itself: "Insert the native language title of the film. This parameter is for the native title only, and it should not be used to add translated titles to the infobox. If the original native title of the film is in Chinese, Japanese, or Korean, multiple writing systems can be added to the infobox using - please see that page for full instructions.". Well, sorry for those "handfuls" who are not privileged to be Chinese, Japanese, or Korean, so they may use the {{Infobox name module}} only themselves. As a matter of fact, I find that twice that much absurd than fixing 2,000 articles hijacked by some other coincidence yet. For my part, thanks in advance to those who are to come with an extra parameter to host the native title as suggested. MiewEN (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You make fair points, but this was clearly explained at the time. The instructions were altered in July without discussion. I have reverted the guidelines to their original state where hopefully the instructions for the parameter are clearer. This only happened four months ago so with any luck the misuse is minimal. Betty Logan (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree that it seems odd we're pandering to the needs of approx. 2000 articles which could have an issue out of more than 100,000 film articles. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

What is odd is why we are pandering to instances where articles use the parameter incorrectly. We know that at least 2000 articles that use the parameter correctly will be negatively affected, unless you actually want infoboxes on 2000 articles to look like this. How many articles use the parameter incorrectly? So far all I have seen is one case. If instances of the parameter's misuse are isolated then the obvious course of action is to fix those articles and make the infobox instructions clearer. The alternative is to transfer the 16 parameters in the name module to the main infobox and then reposition the parameter. Betty Logan (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I have added a general "catch-all" parameter to the name module, so any non-English-language film should be able to invoke it, such as Lugnuts' Czech example from above. Hopefully this will discourage editors from "hacking" the parameter when they don't find their language. Betty Logan (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You've just reverted your own edit. I don't see anything wrong with the test case you've linked to either. Looks quite good TBH! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You link to the article above so I didn't want to lose your point by leaving my edit in place. Anyway, if editors choose to have a bunch of parameters above the image then fair enough, provided they appreciate that is what will happen on the 2000 articles transcluding the name module. Betty Logan (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate updating the {{Infobox name module}} with the leading "original title" parameter, so thank you for sharing your time and work, Betty Logan. Still, if anybody has anything to add to the table, have your say please. I mean, the title of a work is quite essential to ignore regardless of a language. Else how one finds a certain title unless they know the word(ing). Thanks heaps again... MiewEN (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 November 2014

I've had an idea for this for a while, but never got around to asking it: can an admin/template editor add a "rating" parameter which would have answers such as "PG" or "R"? Because this template has about 93,000+ transclusions, I think there should be also be a backlog for any pages that don't have that parameter if this request is accepted. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 01:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Betty Logan (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay! Thanks for telling me that. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Filmatic Fimatic, we have some guidelines about film ratings at WP:FILMRATING. Basically, we should only cover ratings when there is the appropriate context for them, otherwise just identifying the ratings is indiscriminate. Not to mention that listing only the MPAA rating is inappropriate because this is the English-language Wikipedia, not the U.S. Wikipedia. See WP:BIAS for more information. :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Erik: Thanks for the info! Also, my username is fimatic, it seems ironic that you misread it as that while on this template's talk :P -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 18:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Haha, whoops. Obviously my head is about film when I am on Wikipedia. :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

xD -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 18:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Box office / gross

We could do with an instruction to fill in this field only after a year (or agreed period) after release. When the film is freshly released this figure is changing day by day, it does not need to be updated daily as "Wikipedia is not news" and it leads to futile edit wars: Noyster (talk), 13:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

What kind of edit warring takes place? I see nothing wrong with updating the infobox like we would update the same figure in the article body. That dynamism is part of Wikipedia's appeal. Is it a matter of conflicting sources? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Well Erik if you take a look at the recent history of Kick (2014 film) and Happy New Year (2014 film) you will see what I mean. The followers of Bollywood are keen to establish that their fave film is doing better than the rest. Sure, Wikipedia needs dynamism but I think this is not quite the kind we would like to see: Noyster (talk), 19:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Content on Wikipedia must be verifiable from reliable sources. If editors want to update box office figures, they should be verifiable in reliable sources, otherwise their edits can be reverted as unreferenced. Some aspects of Wikipedia require diligence. Unless I am missing something unusual about Kick and Happy New Year. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Bollywood articles are of notoriously dubious accuracy because of the lack of honest, reliable sources. Even the Times of India stopped reporting box office totals citing widespread corruption between films to one-up each other by inflating/deflating gross totals to do so. Short of prohibiting the inclusion of box office totals from these articles entirely, I'm not even sure how to reasonably manage the content. Plus, the sockpuppetry runs high in the world of Bollywood articles. I'm dealing with two payasos at Twenty:20 who keep edit warring over whether Mohanlal should be listed before Mammootty or vice-versa. But I digress... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox run times

I was combing through my watchlist when I saw an edit by Betty Logan on the page for The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. In her edit, she explained that "Just the theatrical runtime is included in the infobox". While I fully agree with this, I can't seem to find any information that confirms that this is a standard. I'm assuming it's de facto, but there are plenty of films and articles that include various cuts in their infoboxes. Alexander comes to mind as being a huge offender.

So I have two questions: 1) Is there anywhere that it's stated what runtimes we use? 2) If not, shouldn't we add one? I would suggest adding it to the parameter portion of this template, but that's just me. Thoughts, everyone? Sock (tock talk) 13:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems a loophole that needs to be closed. Exceptions can be drafted at WP:BLADERUNNER... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This was proposed already back in 2006 and apparently it has been used as a de-facto standard since then. Although there was a somewhat inconclusive talk about runtimes in 2011. There's also a discussion about the runtime for silent films which might be useful for the draft below. De728631 (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft (it feels necessary)

Changes are in bold.

"Insert an approximate time duration of the theatrical release of the film in minutes. Do not link to minute. The BBFC website is a reliable source - the running time is given to the second, so round it to the minute. Do not include any additional run times, such as a director's cut or an unrated version, without consensus." Sock (tock talk) 13:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with this clarification; I agree that it has been the de facto approach. Though perhaps a caveat for TV films? :) I like the idea of determining a consensus because I've seen some articles in the past that include a "director's cut" runtime, which is just basically new footage added in the home media. Blade Runner, as Lugnuts mentioned, is a good example of including the director's-cut runtime. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You both said that, but Blade Runner only includes the theatrical film's run time, at least right now. There's a hidden note that even says it isn't the Director's or Final cuts. Sock (tock talk) 14:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Meh, you're right; I didn't actually go to the article and just assumed. Maybe it's not the best example since it has had so many cuts. I don't know what would be a better example of an exception. Kingdom of Heaven? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think both films would work for it, since the recuts received additional praise rather than just existing without much impact. But that'd be the consensus discussion. Also, what additions would need to be made for TV films? Sock (tock talk) 14:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You said "theatrical release", so maybe something like "theatrical release (airing if TV film)"? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, good catch. Maybe "first public release" or something? Yours would work fine too, of course. Sock (tock talk) 15:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support (more or less) I almost suggested this myself yesterday when I was reverted on a Hobbit article. I was under the impression this was already in the MOS but when I checked the other editor was indeed correct, but in the end I decided it wasn't worth the hassle. I'm happy to support such a guideline though, since I think extended edition details, directors cuts, unrated versions, final versions etc can all be covered in the home video section in the prose. I think we should take care to not paint ourselves into a corner though; for instance, a festival print would technically be the first "public" release but could be recut at a later stage so I would just go with the "primary version" (and make it clear this refers to the main theatrical version if one exists). In practice this will generally mean a theatrical release or a television premiere but allows us to defer to home video for DTV. Betty Logan (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC) EDIT: I think we should add a clause for silent films too favoring the number of "reels", since it was not unusual for films to play at different speeds. I'm not a fan of using home video running times where you get a bunch of silent stars whizzing around like they are on a Class A substance. Betty Logan (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support and expand. I think that all items in the infobox should be about the original release. I know that "runtime" but other sections like "Distributor" wind up getting filled with any company that provides a VHA, DVD or bluray release in various countries. MarnetteD|Talk 22:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support I agree with Betty Logan. I would say that even Blade Runner should only list the original theatrical release in the infobox. And the term original theatrical release should be understood to exclude any previews or early cuts. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Nice work, Sock. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You may recall my earlier posting here, which I'll rescue from the archive - If we're changing the wording, can we say round it up to the nearest minute or words to that effect? I have continued to find examples where this is necessary beyond those mentioned below. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Running time - Proposal to round up to the next full minute

While otherwise being very reliable, I've noticed the British Board of Film Classification often does not include the opening company logo in its runtime database. This is very surprising, as it's a part of the film, technically speaking. Perhaps they do this as it can vary in different territories if a film has different distributors. Because of this I propose we amend the documentation to say every film's runtime should be rounded up. I believe this would be good policy even without the BBFC issue, since if you cut off a 123 min 05 second film at 123 minutes, you've lost the last five seconds. Not a big deal, but that five seconds is technically part of the film. I noticed this because I saw that the runtime for a film was a full minute longer than what the BBFC listed. The only cause I could guess at were the opening company logos. There were three or four of them in succession, and they took up nearly a minute. Then I checked other films and saw it again. This may be original research, but there's no reason not to make it a guideline to always round up the runtime to the next full minute. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Does this occur on every film? The BBFC will only measure what they classify, so if they have cut the film that may explain the shorter length. It would help if you could give us some examples so we can get to the bottom of it. Betty Logan (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I first noticed this a few weeks ago. If you really want I can look at the articles I've edited in the last month and try to track them down, but I can assure you they were all listed as being passed uncut by the BBFC. I routinely check the credits, runtimes and other issues as I see films and correct them as necessary on WP. It's easy to check runtimes since DVDs and DVRs give them to the second (just make sure you have the correct start/end point). Like I said, I was quite surprised when one was a minute off (until then, with rounding there was no problem. I believe it was Bullet to the Head, which was listed as This work was passed uncut, and is what sparked me to post this now. Someone reverted my rounding up the BBFC runtime.) Usually company logos don't take up quite that much screen time. If it's possible to track down the BBFC policy on including/not including logos I'd be all for it, but the issue is resolved in simplest fashion if we just agree to always round up the BBFC's listed minute/second to the next full minute. We should be doing that anyway for films listed at X minutes/30(+) seconds. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If this is one of those little details that changes between prints or countries, wouldn't we most commonly use the original theatrical print as the basis? (And rounding up seems like a good idea.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The Internship is the latest example I've found of a film with a longer runtime than indicated by the BBFC. This case is more minor, but it is still illustrative of the issue: BBFC lists 119:15, but that is about 15 seconds short. As said above, anything 30 seconds or more should be rounded up to the next full minute, so The Internship should be listed as 120 minutes. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 December 2014

Please can we have a website section in the Template? Nabin K. Sapkota (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

See Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 25#RfC:Should an .22Official website.22 parameter be enabled in the Infobox film template.3F -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Also Template_talk:Infobox_film/Archive_26#add_.22website.22_parameter.3F Sock (tock talk) 16:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Does "box office" include gross across ALL media?

Is the gross/box office paramater supposed to include only takings from theatrical screenings (which "box office" suggests), or other formats too (eg DVDs, rental etc)? Popcornduff (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It includes is intended for solely the gross from theatrical screenings. The "gross" label is because the field itself actually used to say "Gross", but there was a discussion a few years ago that decided to change the label to "Box office" to avoid this kind of confusion. :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! ...but I'm still confused by your use of the word "include". To confirm, this is ONLY for theatrical screenings? Popcornduff (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he meant that it only includes the gross from theatrical screenings. Sock (tock talk) 13:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I've amended my statement to be clearer. :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. In that case, I have an edit request: can the template guidance be updated to clarify this? Popcornduff (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've updated the documentation as seen here. Can others review the wording to see if it is alright? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Went ahead and removed the period before the parantheses. I think this wording is fine, but I think it could warrant its own sentence. Perhaps something like "If home media and/or video on demand sales are available, include them in the article body rather than this field." That's really bad wording, but something that reflects that. I'm completely fine with the current wording if my suggestion can't be made to sound better, though (or if people disagree with it). Sock (tock talk) 16:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding movie review rating

Professional ratings

Review scores
Source	Rating
IMDB
Rotten Tomatoes
XYZ

How about the Idea of adding movie rating from different rating systems in one template.

Template:Album ratings is already exists for rating albums.

Something like this in the info film box will be useful for all users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasulnrasul (talk • contribs) 17:54, December 30, 2014‎

Rasulnrasul, we do not include user ratings in film articles per MOS:FILM. In addition, the consensus is to write out Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic aggregate scores in prose, especially since each website has their own distinct methodology. Putting the scores in that kind of template derives it of that kind of context, such as the number of reviews, the breakdown, etc. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for an "awards" parameter in this template

This parameter would be useful for Academy Awards (Oscars), Bafta awards etc. It could include all the awards for the film (for the movie itself, the director, the script, the actors, etc) or alternatively just for the movie itself (Academy Award for Best Picture and similar awards).SoSivr (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

SoSivr, I think we try to keep the infobox pretty limited. For certain films, this parameter would get very long for all the awards and nominations it gets. Even if we focused on just Oscars/BAFTAs, I feel that this would still be too many rows added to the parameter. I'd instead prefer to keep awards to the lead section and the related "Accolades" section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Along with the infobox bloat that Erik mentions it should also be noted that there were discussions last decade to avoid awards in infoboxes due to WP:POV concerns. It is hard to argue that one award is more important to mention than another. The "Actor infobox" (later merged into infobox person) wound up with more than a dozen award fields. A brief mention in the lede and an "awards' or "accolades" section in the body of the article is the way to go. MarnetteD|Talk 22:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Technical question

When I used the infobox on the article Benjaman Kyle, it seems to have italicized the title of the article, can someone help me change this back? Also, how can I de italicize the title of the film in the infobox, it's a short film so it should be in quotation marks.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Prisencolinensinainciusol, per MOS:FILM#Article italics, you can add the parameter italic title=no to the infobox. As for the italicizing of the film title in the infobox, MOS:TITLE says that short films' titles should be italicized too. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Went ahead and fixed this. Sock (tock talk) 12:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

What an interesting article - "He is the only American citizen officially listed as missing despite his whereabouts being known". Wow! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for a "Genre" parameter in this template

Hello all, I am a non-Wikipedian but love this place. I am requesting a Genre parameter be added to this template. Was this simply overlooked or deliberately left out. (Mike) 76.206.219.252 (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Since it's in the very first sentence of every article, it was deliberately left out. It has been discussed many times before, with most agreeing that it prevents the genre-warring that plagues music articles. Including the genre solely in the lead keeps arguments fairly concise and infrequent. Why do you think it should be included, if I may ask? Sock (tock talk) 14:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I have periodically campaigned to have the genre parameter removed from the Infobox television template for pretty much the same reasons mentioned by Sock above. Genre is a very tricky and oft-subjective classification that a lot of people get really weird about. I've seen kids ascribe to comedic animated TV series the "dramedy" genre, because they mistakenly think that if a comedy uses dramatic elements (which all comedy does), then it must be this new hybrid genre. That's my acecdotal reply to you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both S and C. The ambiguous nature of genre classification leads to endless edit wars in the infoboxes where the field exist. There is no need to bring that to this one. MarnetteD|Talk 18:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Language parameter and automatic categorization

I recently tried to diffuse the Hindi-language films category (which has over 5,000 pages) and was unable to do so because of Infobox Film's automatic categorization using the language parameter. I'm wondering why it does this when WP:TEMPLATECAT advises against this. It also seems to conflict with WP:SUBCAT, because several of the language categories have more fitting subcategories. I also noticed that Category:English-language films has over 48,000 pages, which I assume is because of the template. Is there a reason for the autocategorization? I'd like to request that this categorization feature be removed. Nocowardsoulismine (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

TEMPLATECAT states it is recommended not forbidden to do this. WP:FILMCAT states that all films should be in categories for Country, Language and Year. The question is why should Hindi-language films be sub-cat'd by decade? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

If the consensus here is to keep the template as is, then I certainly won't argue with that. I was pointing out what I thought was a conflict against the Wikipedia manual of style.Nocowardsoulismine (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Tagging gross values

Howdy, films that are recently released like The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water have gross values that are constantly being updated. Is there any benefit to indicating in the infobox that the number is developing and isn't an indication of a final total? For example |gross=$52.5 million (developing) or maybe a better adjective? This came up in this edit and I thought I'd raise the question here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox run times

I was combing through my watchlist when I saw an edit by Betty Logan on the page for The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. In her edit, she explained that "Just the theatrical runtime is included in the infobox". While I fully agree with this, I can't seem to find any information that confirms that this is a standard. I'm assuming it's de facto, but there are plenty of films and articles that include various cuts in their infoboxes. Alexander comes to mind as being a huge offender.

So I have two questions: 1) Is there anywhere that it's stated what runtimes we use? 2) If not, shouldn't we add one? I would suggest adding it to the parameter portion of this template, but that's just me. Thoughts, everyone? Sock (tock talk) 13:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems a loophole that needs to be closed. Exceptions can be drafted at WP:BLADERUNNER... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This was proposed already back in 2006 and apparently it has been used as a de-facto standard since then. Although there was a somewhat inconclusive talk about runtimes in 2011. There's also a discussion about the runtime for silent films which might be useful for the draft below. De728631 (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft (it feels necessary)

Changes are in bold.

"Insert an approximate time duration of the theatrical release of the film in minutes. Do not link to minute. The BBFC website is a reliable source - the running time is given to the second, so round it to the minute. Do not include any additional run times, such as a director's cut or an unrated version, without consensus." Sock (tock talk) 13:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with this clarification; I agree that it has been the de facto approach. Though perhaps a caveat for TV films? :) I like the idea of determining a consensus because I've seen some articles in the past that include a "director's cut" runtime, which is just basically new footage added in the home media. Blade Runner, as Lugnuts mentioned, is a good example of including the director's-cut runtime. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You both said that, but Blade Runner only includes the theatrical film's run time, at least right now. There's a hidden note that even says it isn't the Director's or Final cuts. Sock (tock talk) 14:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Meh, you're right; I didn't actually go to the article and just assumed. Maybe it's not the best example since it has had so many cuts. I don't know what would be a better example of an exception. Kingdom of Heaven? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think both films would work for it, since the recuts received additional praise rather than just existing without much impact. But that'd be the consensus discussion. Also, what additions would need to be made for TV films? Sock (tock talk) 14:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You said "theatrical release", so maybe something like "theatrical release (airing if TV film)"? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, good catch. Maybe "first public release" or something? Yours would work fine too, of course. Sock (tock talk) 15:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support (more or less) I almost suggested this myself yesterday when I was reverted on a Hobbit article. I was under the impression this was already in the MOS but when I checked the other editor was indeed correct, but in the end I decided it wasn't worth the hassle. I'm happy to support such a guideline though, since I think extended edition details, directors cuts, unrated versions, final versions etc can all be covered in the home video section in the prose. I think we should take care to not paint ourselves into a corner though; for instance, a festival print would technically be the first "public" release but could be recut at a later stage so I would just go with the "primary version" (and make it clear this refers to the main theatrical version if one exists). In practice this will generally mean a theatrical release or a television premiere but allows us to defer to home video for DTV. Betty Logan (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC) EDIT: I think we should add a clause for silent films too favoring the number of "reels", since it was not unusual for films to play at different speeds. I'm not a fan of using home video running times where you get a bunch of silent stars whizzing around like they are on a Class A substance. Betty Logan (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support and expand. I think that all items in the infobox should be about the original release. I know that "runtime" but other sections like "Distributor" wind up getting filled with any company that provides a VHA, DVD or bluray release in various countries. MarnetteD|Talk 22:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support I agree with Betty Logan. I would say that even Blade Runner should only list the original theatrical release in the infobox. And the term original theatrical release should be understood to exclude any previews or early cuts. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Nice work, Sock. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This garnered nothing but support, then nothing happened. I just rescued it from the auto-archive. Can we get some action here? - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You may recall my earlier posting here, which I'll rescue from the archive - If we're changing the wording, can we say round it up to the nearest minute or words to that effect? I have continued to find examples where this is necessary beyond those mentioned below. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I just had an IP edit war over this exact issue at American Sniper (film). It would help if we could have the below addressed as well. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Running time - Proposal to round up to the next full minute

While otherwise being very reliable, I've noticed the British Board of Film Classification often does not include the opening company logo in its runtime database. This is very surprising, as it's a part of the film, technically speaking. Perhaps they do this as it can vary in different territories if a film has different distributors. Because of this I propose we amend the documentation to say every film's runtime should be rounded up. I believe this would be good policy even without the BBFC issue, since if you cut off a 123 min 05 second film at 123 minutes, you've lost the last five seconds. Not a big deal, but that five seconds is technically part of the film. I noticed this because I saw that the runtime for a film was a full minute longer than what the BBFC listed. The only cause I could guess at were the opening company logos. There were three or four of them in succession, and they took up nearly a minute. Then I checked other films and saw it again. This may be original research, but there's no reason not to make it a guideline to always round up the runtime to the next full minute. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Does this occur on every film? The BBFC will only measure what they classify, so if they have cut the film that may explain the shorter length. It would help if you could give us some examples so we can get to the bottom of it. Betty Logan (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I first noticed this a few weeks ago. If you really want I can look at the articles I've edited in the last month and try to track them down, but I can assure you they were all listed as being passed uncut by the BBFC. I routinely check the credits, runtimes and other issues as I see films and correct them as necessary on WP. It's easy to check runtimes since DVDs and DVRs give them to the second (just make sure you have the correct start/end point). Like I said, I was quite surprised when one was a minute off (until then, with rounding there was no problem. I believe it was Bullet to the Head, which was listed as This work was passed uncut, and is what sparked me to post this now. Someone reverted my rounding up the BBFC runtime.) Usually company logos don't take up quite that much screen time. If it's possible to track down the BBFC policy on including/not including logos I'd be all for it, but the issue is resolved in simplest fashion if we just agree to always round up the BBFC's listed minute/second to the next full minute. We should be doing that anyway for films listed at X minutes/30(+) seconds. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If this is one of those little details that changes between prints or countries, wouldn't we most commonly use the original theatrical print as the basis? (And rounding up seems like a good idea.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The Internship is the latest example I've found of a film with a longer runtime than indicated by the BBFC. This case is more minor, but it is still illustrative of the issue: BBFC lists 119:15, but that is about 15 seconds short. As said above, anything 30 seconds or more should be rounded up to the next full minute, so The Internship should be listed as 120 minutes. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I can see this proposal was made in good faith but attempting to "correct" sources seems out of step with Wikipedia policy, weird as it may sometimes be to go with exactly what the source says even if it is not the whole truth. BBFC provides a level of clarity and consistency for the runtime over what other sources like Rotten Tomatoes or Box Office Mojo provide (also helping to avoid some of the confusion over Theatrical cuts versus Home release cuts). Either way please decide and update the template documentation, to be clear and unambiguous and indicate whatever the consensus. I wasn't impressed by Gothicfilm accusing me of edit warring because I wasn't following his mathematically incorrect suggestion to round up. If there is a consensus to always round-up then it should be in the Template proper. -- 109.76.129.126 (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Two small passing notes, as I don't have a strong opinion on this either way: The link used in the article for The Internship's runtime is dead, and the current BBFC listing actually says 117 minutes. Changing the runtime feels a little bit like WP:OR to me, but I'm not really sure, so I'll just drop that nugget and leave. Sock (tock talk) 14:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The runtime on top is listed as "APPROX. RUNNING MINUTES 117". If you scroll down, under the dropdown for "Related Work" for the feature, it says 119m 15s (which, as I said above, is about 15 seconds short, but two minutes closer than the 117 on top). I've noticed they do this on some of their listings. Whenever the BBFC says "approx" on top, we should be sure to scroll down and check the specific stats below. As for OR, once you have the digital form of a film the runtime becomes an easily observable objective fact, as most players have to-the-second runtime displays. But all I'm asking for here is agreement on rounding up to the nearest minute. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem though is that we don't know what you are measuring and what the BBFC is not. If the film is consistently 30 seconds longer than the runtime there must be a reason for that. Prior to digital film-making, the BBFC would actually measure the length of the film, so their figure would be accurate for whatever was submitted to them. Maybe the distributor's logo is added on at a later point and they don't time that, while you do? I'll confess, I don't sit down and time films so I am happy to take your word that the times don't match up, but it's difficult to support anything unless we know exactly what the BBFC are timing and why they are doing it. Maybe you could email them and see what they say? Betty Logan (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps when I have more spare time... Gothicfilm (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that the BBFC gives a runtime for Birdman (film) of 119m 12s, but it is actually 119m 39s. Those extra 27 seconds are, as usual, taken up by the opening company logos. And, as with a number of other films, those company logos use music and/or sound effects (and even offscreen dialogue) along with those logos - at the same time - that then blend in to the sound of the film after the logos. That sound on Birdman is where its distinctive drum score begins, and while the logos are not unique to it, that particular drum score is. So one cannot take the position that the opening logos are not part of the film, but apparently that is what the BBFC is doing. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Sequel support

Hi please add Sequel support since some films have a sequel to the original film. 151.229.250.233 (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Sequel support is provided by other means, such as a {{Navbox}} or a {{Succession box}}. Betty Logan (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not really fitting for film. I would also like to see sequel support similar as to {{Infobox album}} --1Veertje (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see why. It is not the purpose of the infobox to provide navigation utilities; that is what navboxes exist for. A navbox is far better suited to the task where you can provide links to all the films in the series, as opposed to just its immediate successor or predecessor. Betty Logan (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The decision to not have a sequel field was a wise one. There were incessant edit wars over what was and was not a sequel. The field also wound up being used for films that were not sequels at all. Mentions in the lede and in navboxes (which, as Betty points out, provide far more info than the sequel field can) are more than sufficient. MarnetteD|Talk 00:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW the album infobox does not list sequels in the way the word is used for films. It simply lists the last and next album released. MarnetteD|Talk 00:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Support non-inclusion. Maybe we should put some text at the top of this page linking to prior discussions about this matter, given how frequently it arises. DonIago (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, something like the FAQ on the recent deaths talkpage would be a good idea. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm I thought a FAQ about this had already been created but I must have it confused with another talk page. To be fair it isn't as often as it used to be. I think we are down to once a year :-) I would say you should go ahead and create one Doniago unless there are any objections. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 13:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope you'll remember that you said that. :p DonIago (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. I welcome improvements. :) DonIago (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Ratings

Is there a reason why the film's rating isn't included ? For me this is a key bit of information if I want to see if a film is suitable for my kids to watch. I can understand that there might be challenges in doing this, for example if you include the Us rating, you'd get accused of being too US-focuses etc. But it seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to include the rating given by the film's country of origin for instance. I just find it odd that you're discussing minutiae like the rounding of the film's length up time to the nearest minute, while this template seems to be missing some very basic info... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.254.190 (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Please see WP:FILMRATING. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

If a film's rating is a significant concern to you, I would recommend checking at IMDb. DonIago (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

(section merged--100.34.130.86 (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)) I was editing The Matrix Reloaded and was disappointed to find, after looking at the no-include information for this template, that I could not add the rating information for the movie (in this case, it's rated R, presumably due to the explicit scene at about 29 minutes in). Could a template editor or administrator add this change? I'm sure it would be useful on other movies and it doesn't seem particularly controversial... --100.34.130.86 (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Erm...as Lugnuts said, WP:FILMRATING discusses why we don't include ratings in general. DonIago (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

yeah, I figured that out before I even logged in (that's my IP address above...) the only reason I even said anything is because I didn't initially realize there was already a section concerning ratings on this talk page. To be fair, mediawiki doesn't make it easy to see the most recent section when it puts new sections at bottom...--Macks2008 (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

film name

When the "film name=" parameter is used, shouldn't the value automatically be displayed in italic? --82.136.210.153 (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The "film name" template takes the {{Film name}} template which does all the formatting. It should only be used in conjunction with the template. You can read more about its usage at Template:Infobox film#Parameters. Betty Logan (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hm. Well, then I suggest the Usage section of the documentation for {{Infobox film}} should include <!-- {{Infobox name module|...}} --> or something similar next to the "film name=" parameter. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Filming

I think the addition to Infobox film/doc of a new section about the filming could be great. For instance, with the "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" article, it could sum up the filming period in a brief manner: "April–November 2014". One could read the information at first glance...! HurluGumene (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

But what purpose would the filming date serve? Readers generally care about when the film comes out, not when it was filmed. Betty Logan (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Precisely! HurluGumene (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 July 2015

Add production designer before cinematographer to infobox, see discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_film

DonFerrando (talk) 05:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• There's no consensus on doing this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Simply saying "there is no consensus" isn't good enough. Consensus by who? What is the process to changing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonFerrando (talk • contribs) 19:32, 23 July 2015

The discussion you started above did not result in a clear agreement among a wide enough selection of editors. Two or three editors is not enough to effect a change to the infobox. You should notify the Film project at WT:FILM about the discussion (and provide them with a link) and see who supports or opposes the proposal. If it is has strong support them you can request the change then. Betty Logan (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there a record of the discussion these editors had? Who are they? What were their arguments? Is there any transparency to this process? Why is WT:FILM a different group than the anointed keepers of the infobox and how do I notify them, just post on that page or am I gonna disrupt some sort of holy order again? This is hilarious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonFerrando (talk • contribs) 20:13, 23 July 2015

The only concern is that you get more than two to three editors to agree to your request. As this infobox is primarily used for films, WT:FILM is a logical place to go to elicit feedback from additional editors. I might recommend that you choose a less patronizing tone if you truly desire support for your request. DonIago (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'm happy to have this discussion with the editors. I trust that Wikipedia is a facts-based resource and the powers that be are able to look at this objectively but I do admit there has been a certain amount of frustration showing in my comments, I'll work on that. Part of this stems from what I -possibly wrongfully- perceive as a surprising amount of red-tape trying to convince a mysterious group of gate keepers. I'm sure they are all people who take what they do very seriously and I respect that. I also apologize for any procedural or technical errors on my part - I am not someone who has been very involved with Wikipedia and I somewhat naively thought adding or editing information is as easy as one, two, three. I am learning that there is an entire (at first glance overwhelming to the novice) protocol to it.DonFerrando (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

First the request should be amended to Add production designer after cinematographer and editor to infobox. This would match the order used by IMDb. In film credits the cinematographer is almost always listed closer to the screenwriter, producer and director. And while virtually all films have cinematographers and editors, not all have production designers. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Please refer to my comment above and the links I present as to why the production designer credit should come before the cinematographer credit as is done in traditional billing. The production design role is and has been relied on widely throughout the industry for nearly a century and thus is one of the pillars of film making. By your logic the composer credit should be excluded from the infobox because some lower budget productions do not use an original score. Would that be feasible?DonFerrando (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That is not what I said. I did not mention composer placement because you didn't. If there is no original music we don't put in a name in the composer field. The same could be done for production designer if it's added to the infobox, though there will be some who will want to then list an art director, etc, which could become a problem. And I don't know why you talk about "traditional billing" when I said In film credits the cinematographer is almost always listed closer to the screenwriter, producer and director, which happens to be true. Yeah, the production designer is often listed before them all - does that mean the production designer should be listed above the screenwriter, producer and director? - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Aha, I get what you mean. It only makes sense to omit the production designer credit if no production designer was part of the production, same as other credits. I also think it would make sense to not replace the production designer credit with an art director credit in these cases because ever since "Gone with the Wind" (1939) those are considered different roles with different responsibilities and not at the same level (see Wikipedia's own article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_designer). For movies before that date it may make sense to include the art director where no production designer is present as responsibilities were the same, but for simplification this could just be ignored. I also agree that the production designer should not be listed above screenwriter, producer and director.DonFerrando (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Production Design

I think "Production Design" should be added to the InfoBox on all movie pages after the Cinematography credit (as it is traditionally placed on all major features). The Production Designer is responsible for the look of the film and runs the art department. It is a huge role, though little known. It would be great if Wikipedia could include it in the InfoBox. User:DFrank0821 (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.250.81.14 (talk)

I second the above comment. Film is first and foremost a visual experience and the production designer is essential to the look of a production and thus is part of main billing. If composer and director of photography are included then so should the production designer. If the sentiment is to arbitrarily exclude the production designer from the Infobox in order to keep it brief then there should be a discussion whether any of the main billing past director and producer should be included in the Infobox at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonFerrando (talk • contribs) 22:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a previous discussion about this at Template_talk:Infobox_film/Archive_20#Production_Designer. As you can see it has some support but not unanimous support. Personally I think it should be in there if we have the editor and cinematographer; if any more parameters are added to the infobox then the production designer should definitely be among them. Betty Logan (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid if every sensible change required unanimous support chances are not a lot would get done in this place. Film is first and foremost a visual experience. The production designer is essential to the look of a production and thus is part of main billing. That should not even be a question here because it certainly isn't in the industry. I would like to correct the respective comment in the archives in that a film production's three crucial stages are defined as preproduction, production and postproduction. Unlike some of the other key personnel (e.g. writer, composer, editor) production designers have historically been involved in the key visual role in TWO of these stages (preproduction and production). In modern days this role extends into post production as well with many sets now being created digitally and added after the fact. I would also like to strongly object to the aforementioned idea (see archives) that the amount of production designer-Wikipedia pages somehow reflects on the importance of the role. If anything this showcases a deficiency of Wikipedia where popular subjects tend to attract more contributions than less popular ones. Do a google search on "famous production designers" and see an extensive list of past and present professionals pop up in a strip slideshow. At least in this case google certainly one-upped Wikipedia as the more thorough informational resource. In movie production a huge deal of importance is placed on the order people are being credited and who receives top, equal, diagonal, etc. billing. Matter of fact in most cases the production designer tends to be credited BEFORE the director of photography. Clearly the Infobox should reflect this consequently: either all main billing in or all main billing out. If composer and director of photography are included then so should the production designer. If the sentiment is to arbitrarily exclude the production designer from the Infobox in order to keep it brief then it only makes sense to not include any main billing at all. Simply put: any billing that is included on a movie poster -and the production designer clearly is- should be included in the info box as well, or no billing at all. It's really not that hard. Here is how it's done by the pros: http://newenglandfilm.com/magazine/2012/08/credits. Shame that this essential role has been omitted for years and now needs to be added to thousands of articles...

Note that the above editor is updating text in a closed archive and updating template documentation without consensus. This, of course, has been reverted. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I apologize if I violated some kind of protocol, not sure who needs to consent to what. To be honest the technicalities, source language, rules etc. are not immediately clear to those who do not have the time or opportunity to dive into Wikipedia semi-professionally or just want to correct information as they as readers come across it and it can all be a bit overwhelming. The process isn't exactly "straight forward". Sorry again!

I'd support this. It does seem arbitrary to not include the production designer. There's an Academy Award for Best Production Design, so there must be a few notable people who have gone unrecognized in the infobox. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you NinjaRobot - in fact there are a TON of production designers who are absolute heavyweights of the film genre in general. Ken Adam, Dante Ferreti, Cedric Gibbons, Henry Bumstead, William Cameron Menzies, Patrizia von Brandenstein, Stuart Craig, Rick Carter and many many more are all very present in film theory and film history. Production design, like cinematography and screen writing, is a mainstay in the curriculum of any reputable film school. The title of Production Designer is not simply given out to anyone but must be requested by the producer and approved by the Art Directors Guild. This is far from a random title and it does not exist outside of film making. DonFerrando (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd also support this inclusion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Why would you support it? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Budget with tax credits included/excluded

The Template:Infobox film/doc should be amended as to whether or not budget figures should include or exclude tax incentives. This edit at Southpaw (film) suddenly trimmed the budget Southpaw cost a net $25M after Pennsylvania tax credits (original cost was $30M. It seems to me the term "budget" should refer to the budget, not the cost after tax credits. The amount of tax credits can be mentioned in the article's budget section, with the correct budget total. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

That seems like something that could be better explained in prose? My advice would if its not very clear, ignore it in the infobox and explain it more detail in the prose. This kind of information would probably only be really detailed for really new films anyhow. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty much the convention these days to deduct the tax credit from the budget, certainly in sources such as Variety, The Hollywood Reporter etc. It makes sense to deduct the credit since it is ultimately money that is not spent on making the film i.e. it is simply a rebate that allows the studio to claim back some of their money. The budget should reflect the net expenditure because that is ultimately what the film costs. Betty Logan (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I think something along these lines would be a good compromise: [1]. The bit in the brackets has been removed since last year, but it is the most neutral approach. Betty Logan (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

feature request

Can someone add a section for CGI by, it seems important. --1.34.108.230 (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Script errors

In the past couple of days, there have been script errors related to the film infobox and possibly other templates. There is a discussion at WT:FILM here. The easiest way to resolve the matter is to do a null edit. Thanks, Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)