Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30→Archive 33

Starring (revisited again)

The perennial problem of list entire casts as stars is still with us. Isn't it time we replaced this with "cast"? It's been discussed to death and it's still a problem. The Dissident Aggressor 21:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Genuine question, what would limit the cast to not include very small roles? --Gonnym (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Per the template documentation, the poster's billing block list is to be used and that limits the names that could be entered. Limiting the infobox list to only those whose names appear above the title on a one-sheet doesn't offer much information to people referencing the infobox. Only Orson Welles's name appears above the title on the poster for Citizen Kane; the same is true of The Magnificent Ambersons, a film in which Welles doesn't even appear. — WFinch (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The documentation actually states "Insert the names of the actors listed above the film's title. If no actors are listed above the title, insert the actor's [sic] names as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release. If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits." So no, the billing block is not the first choice. I've undone the expansion in Casablanca and The Maltese Falcon as a result. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The documentation only says that because Beyond My Ken dived in and changed it. I have reverted the wording to the long-standing version, and BMK can propose alterations in the regular manner. Betty Logan (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you — I was simply answering the question of what would limit the cast list. I certainly wasn't aware that the documentation had just been changed to limit it to names-above-the-title. Again, thanks for reverting to this far more sensible practice. — WFinch (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I've come here because I saw this edit by Beyond My Ken (BMK), which led me to the following discussion: Talk:The Maltese Falcon (1941 film)#Stars (a WP:Permalink for it is here). That discussion involves BMK and Wrath X so far. I will go ahead and alert WP:Film of this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I have reverted this alteration by Beyond My Ken. To some extent I sympathize with him here; sometimes too many names are added to the "starring" parameter, but it is simply not always the case the "star" names always go before the title. Take this Superman poster for example: Brando and Gene Hackman come before the title, and then Reeve is billed after the title as "starring Christopher Reeve". Under BMK's interpretation of billing Reeve would be ommitted, which is ridiculous IMO. The simple fact is there is no strict criteria for determining who is a "star" and who is not. Generally you have to look at how the poster is structured and how the credits are designed to determine just who is the star, but the general rule is that the names shouldn't exceed those in the billing block. Ideally—and I agree with Ken on this—more often than not we should have fewer names in the parameter than what appear in the block. The problem here is the guideline is applied too literally in cases where perhaps it shouldn't be, and ideally the solution is to make it less prescriptive not more. Betty Logan (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
And I've reverted him too. Let's see if a consensus can be reached before the text is updated. I believe that's how things work here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that one size does not fit all. In The Maltese Falcon case, there is no way that Gladys George is one of the stars. (How the heck did she get third billing???) Clarityfiend (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm of the mind that if we're going to change our guidelines, we have to change them with the most problematic examples in mind. In Bollywood cinema, which is under the scope of this project, they don't do movie posters the way Western films do movie posters. There are rarely any billing blocks, and when there are, there aren't usually any actor names in them. Sometimes they'll have actor names somewhere on the poster, but often not. Two examples are Drishyam, a recent film that spawned 5 remakes and PK. I've also learned that many Bollywood films don't always have proper credits with "Starring" roles. How then do Indian films conform to these guidelines, whatever they wind up being? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
These are all good points. We should perhaps all be slightly embarrassed by our Hollywood-centric thinking. Which brings me to my next point: how do editors on the Indian film articles determine who the stars are, or the billing order? If we are going revamp the guideline I would rather we devised one a bit more universal than the one we have now. Betty Logan (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Usually it's decided through sockpuppetry and POV editing. I really don't know. I suppose sometimes you can find articles that describe a film as a so-and-so "starrer". Sometimes I'm sure the content will come from BollywoodHungama's film info lists. I don't know much about Bollywood—I'm a Westerner meself. I'll float a query at the Indian cinema task force. Frankly, the project could use more WT:FILM editors to bring some common sense to Bollywood films. There is rampant corruption, paid editing, smear campaigns, socking. It has everything you'd want in Wikipedia drama! It feels like there are only about a half-dozen earnest editors trying to bring sense to this niche. One guy will stop at nothing to list actor Mohanlal's name before actor Mammootty's. But now I'm just rambling... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal #1

I propose that when there are 2+ stars listed above the title or in a significantly larger font size, that be the cutoff, with exceptional ... err ... exceptions allowed (e.g. Reeve). Blindly including everyone mentioned in a poster is ridiculous. Gladys George and Lee Patrick stars of The Maltese Falcon? I think not. This is right for Casablanca - Roger Ebert wrote in his review, "It was an 'A list' picture, to be sure (Bogart, Bergman and Paul Henreid were stars, and no better cast of supporting actors could have been assembled on the Warners lot than Peter Lorre, Sidney Greenstreet, Claude Rains and Dooley Wilson)."[1] Otherwise, we may have to resort to citing references from reviews. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
In my experience, most of the time there are 2-4 stars, not 5+, and even 4 is uncommon (okay, Libeled Lady - ack, that infobox has Walter Connolly). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Two stars, three stars, four, no stars—it is this level of prescription which leads to these disputes in the first place. Sometimes we should use the full billing block, other times just part of it or even limit the list to above the title stars. Personally I would just tweak what we already have:
Insert the names of the top-billed actors as they are listed in the on-screen credits. The names should be restricted to those found in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release; usually the stars are listed before the title, but other actors from the billing block may be included if they occupy starring roles.
Given the vast amount of permutations I think we should avoid specifics. In most cases it is obvious who the stars are, but in less clear-cut cases and in cases where there is a dispute then it will just have to be resolved through discussion. Many of those disputes can be avoided though if editors are not under the impression that the MOS mandates the full billing block, or strictly those names before the title. Betty Logan (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I think a numeric limit would be a handy thing to accompany the billing block. Look at Avengers: Age of Ultron. There are EIGHTEEN names in that starring block and most of them clearly ar enot starring roles. I didn't even remember Cobie Smulders was in it. Even if you go strictly by the billing block (someone appears to have added two names) there are SIXTEEN names. It makes the infobox look silly and it's unnecessary. I'd propose a limit of say 8-10 names max, if it exceeds that, revert to the bolded names wherever they are on the poster. It's not perfect since on something like The Expendables 2, that results in 11 names, but better than 16. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the re-tweak would easily cover The Avengers case. If you look at the poster there are eight above-the-title names, so would satisfy the criteria "usually the stars are listed before the title". The problem with setting a numerical limit is that editors will again interpret it is a specification or an "allowance". Also, there needs to be a self-evident reason for the cut-off limit i.e. we can't miss off the 9th guy simply because he's the 9th guy. Betty Logan (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I would be against trying to impose a specific number restriction. As seen just above, 11 was appropriate for The Expendables 2. As we've found with other issues, certain films are going to require case-by-case judgment. I also wouldn't even bother putting references to "above-the-title" status, as many/most films don't use it. The documentation should indicate no one not on the poster or billing block should be listed. (Above-the-title stars are often not in the billing block.) Getting into "Starring" status beyond that is going to be tricky, as billing fluctuates so much. - Gothicfilm (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Going back to Age of Ultron, they're apparently retroactively adding in stars from home video billing as well, exacerbating the problem. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
For context for the Age of Ultron addition, that is based on this discussion at Captain America: The First Avenger, where a similar situation occurred and Atwell and Cooper were added to the film's billing on the home media. (In theory, I feel these actors are always in the billing, and are kept off to preserve appearances in the film as secret, or they retroactively get deals allowing them into the film's billing.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
But five years from now another version might come out billing an additional person. There's no reason and we've watched hte same film Favre, Linda Cardewhatever is not a starring role. It's not by any measurement. There is no reason to be deviating from the billing block on the original poster. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Billing does not always equate starring role. Many times it is a negotiated element in an actors contract that, regardless of the size and/or importance of the role, the actor gets in the billing block. My initial comment was only to give context to your comment about the additions. On the discussion, I don't see a harm in amending the wording to reduce the names in the infobox (and then maybe the lead), when the prose cast section can still cover all actors in the billing block, as the Avenger film articles do currently (if we are sticking with this example). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry I added that second paragraph. That was just a comment, not part of the proposal. I'm saying when certain names are emphasized, either by location or font size, it is an indicator of who the stars are, not 100% foolproof but close. Being in the billing block does not serve the same purpose. I defy anyone to show me anything that calls Millard Mitchell a star of Singin' in the Rain, Charley Grapewin of The Wizard of Oz or most absurd of all, Franklyn Farnum, whom everybody of course recognizes immediately as the undertaker in Sunset Boulevard. (If you use a microscope, you can see Farnum's name on the poster in the article.) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal #2

Let's start with a smaller bite:

Being in the billing block does not make an actor a star, and the stipulation that everyone in the billing block be added to the infobox should be deleted. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
As per Cyphoidbomb's comments above we perhaps need to move away from the concept of the billing block altogether. It is too Hollywood/English-language centric and the guidelines should embrace all film industries. Betty Logan (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
If we're to eliminate the billing block from the documentation, we'll need something clear and sensible to replace it with - something that won't spawn thousands of quibbling edit wars. The question is, what? My first instinct is to specify something like "only the name or names displayed in the largest lettering on the theatrical poster", which I think would give a concise and accurate "Starring" list for the majority of films, but I've got no idea what to do for ensemble films like The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, which currently lists SIXTEEN actors in the infobox, taken straight from the billing block (thirteen if we remove the ones credited under "featuring"). —Flax5 15:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Listing only the name(s) displayed in the largest lettering on the theatrical poster is going to result in a lot of film infoboxes listing only one actor, and it's highly likely that this will lead to edit wars. The Terminator, for example, would only have Arnold Schwarzenegger listed since his name is the largest. Since "star" does not necessarily equal "main character" this would result in some arguing that Michael Biehn and Linda Hamilton should also be added. This could then prompt others to argue to add Paul Winfield since he's already in the billing block like Biehn and Hamilton. Inception would only have Leonardo DiCaprio listed but some would argue that this is also an ensemble film and the other actors deserve to be listed too. And there would probably be arguments about whether or not Tom Berenger and Michael Caine should be listed since their roles are minimal and whether or not Dileep Rao should be included since, while he does not appear in the billing block and is relatively unknown, he is a member of ensemble team. Wrath X (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I think we need decreasing levels of priority or an IF ELSE query. IF x USE x ELSE if y USE y ELSE if z USE z, etc. So for the sake of argument let's use Avengers: Age of Ultron as this is one I previously used.
  • IF STARRING BLOCK (I don't know what this is called professionally but the section with larger names that don't require a magnifying glass) USE THESE NAMES
  • ELSE IF BILLING BLOCK USE THESE NAMES
It requires refinement obviously as we could stipulate do not use people classed as "featuring" or "with" if using the billing block, and in the case of Avengers this wouldn't omit those people as Samuel L Jackson and James Spader are classed as "with" and also appear in the TOP BILLING BLOCK. And I dop think we need to stipulate that you use the original run material, not retroactively adding people in based off home releases or future releases. We'd need to know what is consistent with Bollyoowd/foreign films before being able to defind anything.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Voting time

Proposal: Remove the stipulation that being in the billing block affords automatic inclusion.

Just to be clear on what you are advocating here, would the guideline then just read "Use the top-billed actors from the screen credits. Other additions by consensus. Use the {{Plainlist}} template for multiple entries, and link each actor to his/her article if possible. Don't add additional text (such as "with" or "featuring") or punctuation to the list."? Betty Logan (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I need to point out that simply removing the sentence still doesn't actually deter editors from adding the entire billing block, it just moves away from mandating it. If that is all you want then fair enough, but I think we need to be a bit clearer that we want to limit the list to the actual stars of the films. How about this slight ammendment: "Use the top-billed actors from the screen credits that are identified as the stars of the film by reliable sources. Other additions by consensus. Use the {{Plainlist}} template for multiple entries, and link each actor to his/her article if possible. Don't add additional text (such as "with" or "featuring") or punctuation to the list." Is that a go-er? Betty Logan (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I prefer your first suggestion. It's difficult to find reliable sources even for well-known films. I wasn't able to track down any for Sunset Boulevard, for example, even though it's colossally obvious. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The way I see we still face the problem of identifying the stars of the film. Usually guidelines don't need to be invoked if everyone is agreement, but if there is a disagreement between two editors as to who are the stars then the guideline should offer some guidance on how to resolve the situation. If editors agree about which names to include then the guideline permits a consensus based solution; if reliable sources do not identify the stars the guideline still permits a consensus based solution; however, if two editors disagree then the revision would favor the editor who can back their position with reliable sources. If the ammendment is not included then it effectively put us in the position where every single name could effectively be vetoed unless there is a consensus for including it, which I don't think is practical. Betty Logan (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
It's usually pretty clear from the screen credits who the stars are. Also, sources themselves can disagree. For example, some say Claude Rains was a star of Casablanca; others say no. How about "Use the top-billed actors from the screen credits. Reliable sources may be used as well, especially if there is no clear-cut consensus."?

Oppose: "Top billed actors" is too vague, which can lead to edit warring. Also after reading through the comments there seems to be some misunderstanding of the terminology. The terms "Star" and "starring" are jargon invented by the film industry, and therefore are the only ones who determine who are the stars. Placement of names on the billing block, marquees and screen credits are all determined through contractual negotiations with the actors. So if a studio wants to have 20 stars in their picture then its their prerogative. I fear this going to end in some subjective POV determination of the stars by editors rather then reliable sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: The billing block contains the list of actors the studio has decided to officially advertise for its film and is therefore the closest thing to an objective listing. Moreover, listing only the stars would result in a large number of infoboxes having only one actor in the starring field, and the entire supporting cast being omitted. Supporting actors are just as famous as leading actors and are certainly important enough in the film industry to have their own Best Supporting Actor awards, and thus should be notable enough to listed in the infobox (provided they are in the billing block). Another issue is that "star" does not necessarily equal "main character" (e.g. Superman, The Terminator, Dreamgirls) and this will most likely lead to edit wars. -- Wrath X (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: per TriiipleThreat and Wrath X. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is there no parameter for a Tag Line? Or inflation?

I hope this hasn't already been discussed ad nauseam, but why is there no parameter in the template for the movie's tag line? (For example, Alien's, "In space no one can hear you scream.") It seems like such an obvious thing to include - is there some logical reason why it isn't?

Also, I'm probably the only person who thinks this, but shouldn't Box Office also include an entry to show the amount adjusted for inflation? If you read that a movie made $10 million it means nothing until you know that that amount is equivalent to $100 million in today's dollars. Right?

Also, in the sentence under Usage, shouldn't "lead" be spelled as lede? Hope this helps... __209.179.0.121 (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


It was discussed many years ago and tag lines were deprecated. Included among the reasons were that they were only a marketing item and they varied from country to country. While many of us use the term "lede" it isn't universal and the proper spelling for the term is preferable. As to the "adjusted for inflation" others will be able to give you the reasons that it is not used in the infobox. MarnetteD|Talk 20:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Related AfD discussions on taglines:

In AfD no-one can hear you !vote. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I can see why box office inflation would be a problem. It's just that if you write that a movie from 1950 grossed "only" 20 million the reader won't realize that that amount is equivalent to 200 million in today's dollars. Failing to report the difference is actually deceiving the reader. As for the tag line, some are not only iconic now, but can actually sum up the movie quite well. It's also true that a large number of them aren't worth a bag of hot air. Come to think of it, if it makes sense to not use them because they are part of the marketing operation, then should the movie posters also be depricated? If not, why not? __209.179.0.121 (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I think that people are smart enough to understand that $20 million in 1950's dollars has a different value now. Inflation is a common concept. We have templates that do conversions for this stuff, (if they are updated consistently) but I don't think the data belongs in the infobox. The infobox isn't where the bulk of our article's content belongs, and constantly adding parameters only clutters stuff up. If presenting the gross in today's numbers is so important, that should be done in the article's box office section. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Inflation-adjusted figures really belong in the box-office section where they can be contextualised. The adjusted value depends on the measure used, and even then it doesn't tell the whole story: adjusted figures don't really account for market growth, and some films like Gone with the Wind have benefitted from multiple reissues too. I don't think adjusted numbers tell us a whole lot; for instance, Gone with the Wind earned $3,400 million adjusted, but the key to understanding that number is that on its initial release it doubled the standing record and due to its reissues it was also the 4th highest-grossing film of the 1960s too. Betty Logan (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

REQ: Please add alias for "film_name" (note underscore)

Hi, can someone who is familiar with template editing please add an alias (isn't that what it's called?) so that the use of |film_name= works the same way as |film name= (note the underscore). I'm proposing this for consistency across various templates, since many infobox template use underscores between words. Ex: Template:Infobox musical artist, Template:Infobox person and Template:Infobox television use parameters with underscores, like |death_place= and |followed_by=.

Real-world example: at Sangolli Rayanna (film), |film name={{langx|kn|ಕ್ರಾ೦ತಿವೀರ ಸಂಗೊಳ್ಳಿ ರಾಯಣ್ಣ}} results in the display of Kannada: ಕ್ರಾ೦ತಿವೀರ ಸಂಗೊಳ್ಳಿ ರಾಯಣ್ಣ in the infobox. But if you add an underscore to the parameter, that information does not get displayed. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done I don't see this as controversial so I've made the change. I also changed |based on= for consistency. Either an underscore or space can be used now for either parameter. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Aussie! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Production companies in Anime films

There is an RFC regarding the use of the "production company" parameters in anime articles at WT:ANIME#RfC: Anime films and production companies. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata property mapping

At d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Movies/Tools#Wikipedia_infobox_mapping, I attempted to map the various infobox fields to Wikidata properties. Jura1 (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Infobox question

Why plainlist over br ? There must be a rationale? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bzuk. Someone here will probably know the answer to your question but I think that the decision on these was made in a discussion about infoboxes in general rather than just about this film one. If you don't get an answer here you might try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). MarnetteD|Talk 23:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Bzuk, Template:Plainlist says, "This template provides a WCAG/ISO-standards-compliant accessible alternative to <br /> separated lists, per WP:UBLIST and WP:PLIST." Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

UK quad or not UK quad

Is there a policy regarding which UK release poster should be used in the infobox? I myself have uploaded quite a lot of quad posters in the past but have come to an impasse regarding Absolutely Anything. The other uploader is of the opinion that as it has the UK release date then it should be used rather than the quad. I have made the point to them that the majority of James Bond posters are quads to no avail. Quentin X (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that it is in the spirit of MOS:TIES to use the UK poster for British films since it is the originating territory. Correct me if I am wrong, but most UK posters tend to be quads? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
This is true, but the other uploader does seem unable to grasp this. I've pointed out other films to them, to no avail. I'll try MOS:TIES. Thanks. Quentin X (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Choreographer

I was recently shocked to see that Michael Kidd was not listed as the choreographer of Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, but was then more shocked to see that it was because this infobox does not support a choreographer tag. For a musical, the choreography credit is as important as that of director, and sometimes more so. It should be simple to add (almost a duplicate of the cinematographer tag) and won't break anything. Can someone qualified please add this tag? ubiquity (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The infobox doen't include genre specific jobs. There are also other fields which would considered ahead of choreographer if the infobox were to be extended. Betty Logan (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
It should be noted that not all musicals have dance sequences though most do. IMO infoboxes should not become a long list of credits. Some editors want more in there - others less. While I understand your diesire to add this field I would be against it. MarnetteD|Talk 00:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Actor movement is an important - and sometimes dominant - characteristic that deserves substantial credit, independent of genre. For this reason, I support the inclusion of choreographer as an optional tag in the Film InfoBox. As Larry Billman points out in his book, Film Choreographers and Dance Directors[1], choreographers also add movement and dance to non-musical films, such as Star Wars' Nick Gillard, Crouching Tiger's Yuen Woo-ping, and even Dan Kamin in Mars Attacks. While I generally agree that the infobox should not become all-encompassing, the choreographer role is not a minor one in many films; in fact, in ubiquity's example above, Michael Kidd is billed prominently on the movie poster for Seven Brides. algocu (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

If someone does add it, I volunteer to "fix" the more prominent films with important choreography, such as the ones mentioned above, Singing in the Rain, On the Town etc. --ubiquity (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Support for use in films where the choreographer is listed among the opening/main crew credits but not for ones that have an incidental dance number or where it does not play a major part of the film. The latter stuff is comparable to Stunt Coordinator. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
There's only a small number of films this would benefit, so it's not really a universal change that I can support. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
There are more than 750 unique films in Category:Musical comedy films. ubiquity (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
And IMDB lists nearly 30,000 films with the keyword "musical," many of which are likely to have had choreography. One could say that makes the omission a widespread problem. algocu (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Not a problem at all since that is still small number compared to the total number of films. No one has said that the choreographer can't be mentioned in the body of the article. There is not a pressing need for it in the infobox.
As I pointed out before not all of those 30,000 musicals are going to have dance sequences. MarnetteD|Talk 21:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ McLellan, Dennis (21 February 1998). "Corrective Steps: Brea Author Uncovers Choreographers Who Put the Motion in Pictures". LA Times Collections: Movie Industry. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 17 February 2016.

Language parameter minor rename proposal

I suggest renaming the Language parameter to display as "Main Language" instead of just "language". I know the Infobox guidelines already states that only main or primary languages should be placed in that parameter. This is to at least reduce unhelpful edits by I.P.s or inexperienced editors adding every language spoken in the film.

This is particularly a problem in Philippine films, where every film is assumed to be English and Filipino as primary language while it is usually the upper class characters who utter some English dialogue, or even Taglish. Also when one character speak one line of any other foreign language such as Italian, French, Spanish, or German, it doesn't stop users from adding these languages to the parameter.

I suspect this is also a problem in countries where most people are bilingual. This remedy may not be perfect but at least it gives some "hints" to editors who are too experienced to get to the Infobox page itself.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

From recent experience, Filipino films attract the worst kind of fan-boys. I don't think the change is needed, as it's explained in the template instructions. If there's a particular article with issue, remind the involved editors of the instructions and proceed to page protection if the issue persists. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Lugnuts on this. We should only consider renaming the parameter as a last resort and only if the problem is widespread. Betty Logan (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Concur with the others about not changing it. We have guidelines to point to about how to use this field. We can't clarify every single thing under the sun, and I have not found this field to be that abused. An alternative possibility is to include a commented-out note in the problematic articles mentioning the guidelines. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, I am only proposing to change what is displayed in the infobox, not the parameter itself (e.g. "|language="). The "Cinematography" parameter is already long character-wise. But alternate solutions are noted.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. There's a dispute over at Talk:The Mermaid (2016 film) over the language(s) to be included in the infobox. Since (I think) it relates to how the parameter is used/suposed to be used, it would be useful to have more opinions. Thanks, --Cattus talk 20:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add a |website= parameter

Please add a

| website=

parameter to the infobox film. Allow it to be populated from Wikidata or with the URL template parameter. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

We used to have parameters to link to the official website and the IMDb page years ago. We removed them as redundant to what exists in the "External links" section, though. I recall the consensus being based on Wikipedia's content being more important than giving top-tier access to off-Wikipedia resources. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Starring

The consensus is that actors in the billing block are to be listed in the infobox. This is also stated in Template:Infobox film: "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release." However, recently there has been an editor (Beyond My Ken) who ignores this and edits the starring field the way he wants (removing billing block actors and listing only the actors who's names are above the title). When I list billing block actors in the infobox he continuously reverts my edits. This happened previously in Titanic and it's currently happening in On the Waterfront.

What's frustrating is that this matter was already settled in previous discussions (see Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Stars in the infobox), and yet BMK ignores this and still continues to edit how he wants. One time, BMK even changed the rules in Template:Infobox film to suit his edits (see here). He reverts my edits and accuses me of not paying attention to people despite the fact that he's been ignoring the template rules and previous discussions. Comments from editors are appreciated. -- Wrath X (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No, the consensus is that the "starring" parameter is only for a film's stars, but it seems that editors such as WrathX cannot seem to understand that not everyone listed on a poster is a star of the film. The example of On the Waterfront could not be simpler and more obvious, since Brando is listed above the title in a type size that is significantly larger than that ueed for any other actor. Ergo, he -- and only he -- is the star of the film; the other billed actors can be listed as co-stars or as featured actors, but they are not the film's stars.
There is no room for doubt in this particular situation, and anyone with the tiniest bit of knowledge about show business would understand this. After money, billing is the thing that is most important to actors, and the relative value of billing placement, position and size are known to every agent, producer, studio, distribution company, and advertising agency, and is subject to intense negotiation when contracts are being worked out. It is only on Wikipedia that you find people who, arguing from a complete lack of knowledge, support a non-real interpretation of what a star is. This kind of crap needs to stop - we are an encyclopedia, and we present reality to our readers; making up a system of evaluating who is and isn't a star without regard to what pertains in the real word is the ultimate in WP:OR. BMK (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
That's not consensus BMK. See Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 28#Starring (revisited again) for the discussion, of which there was no consensus to force a limit in the infobox to just the actors listed in the top billing. If the billing block is either unavailable or there is strong consensus for the film in question not to use that, that's fine, and allowed per the current wording. However, users can't make the determination who is a "star" and "co-stars" or "featured actors". If they are in the billing block, they are the stars of the film. - 05:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
While I sympathize BMK's position, the billing block is the most universal and neutral way to determine a film's stars. Not every film lists names above the title. Lawrence of Arabia, Aliens, and Selma for example do not. This is because the names above a poster's title are subjectively determined by the studio's marketing department and are not a required part of the advertising. Whereas, placement in the billing block is negotiated by the actors themselves and are contractually obligated to be included. This is not to say that every film poster has a billing block either, but they appear far more frequently.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
It should be recognized that "starring" does not have a definitive meaning. Looking up this film in Google Books, there are sources that say "starring" only Brando, "starring" those on the billing block, and "starring" Brando and Eva Marie Saint. There has been a lot of edit warring over this field in the past that the billing block was determined to be the best starting point. I find the field to represent more often than not the most noteworthy group of actors from the cast, as an infobox summarizes "key facts" of the film. To only list Brando in the infobox seems to me to frame the film as a one-man show, which is not the case here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I will point out that there is no "biling box" in the On the Waterfront poster, as the billing box was a later innovation, which you can see on almost every film released now. It enabled producers etc. to keep the stars above the title while still having a full list of star and featured actors billed on the poster. Take a look at any film poster now, if there are names above the title, they are the stars, and their names are repeated in the billing box. We're talking about a film that is pre-billing box, and the situation is as I described it above - Brando is the star, the rest are co-stars (bigger letter) and featured actors. Again, anyone who knows anything on this subject understands that. BMK (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
If the poster isn't helpful, then the actual onscreen end credits should be used, as those generally list the "billed" actors first before then showing the title of the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I would say, that the use of the poster as a sole source as to the notability of the actors is dangerous. The interpretation of a poster is completely subjective; the poster itself cannot be a WP:RS. They are / were designed and composed with many things in mind- none of which are the requirements of a twenty-first century online encyclopedia! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
In May 2015, a fairly extensive discussion on the topic of billing order developed at Talk:To Kill a Mockingbird (film)#Cast listings and, although it did not directly concern that film's infobox, it may be instructive to note that while the sole name above the title in the on-screen credits is Gregory Peck, the infobox "starring = " field lists 8 names, with the order of the 7 additional names taken directly from the poster appended above the infobox. Each of those 7 names on the poster [and in the infobox] is out of order with the listing of names as it appears on-screen as well as under section header "Cast" and under Talk:To Kill a Mockingbird (film)#For the record: on-screen opening credits indicating cast of To Kill a Mockingbird. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Are Puerto Rico and Hong Kong countries?

Maybe the word "territory" would be a better label? Timmyshin (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Rather than changing the label, simply update the documentation to take into account the two examples and others that would fall under this (Greenland, Kosovo, Palestine, etc). Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Film credits as primary source

User:Beyond My Ken is repeatedly putting in a producer credit that does not appear in the film or on the poster for Point Blank (1967 film). He has already passed WP:3RR with this. He is using AFI as a souurce. I pointed out AFI is usually good for this, but when it disagrees with the film and the poster, we go with the latter. He reverted it again. The AFI also is listing the novel as being published in NY in 1963. That may be true, but its article has long shown the original date as 1962. And BMK is also insisting on putting the novel's year in the infobox - where it looks quite awkward - even though it is usually put in the lead. It is long standing practice to put the year of novels in film article leads, not infoboxes. Some input from others at Talk:Point Blank (1967 film)#Secondary sources versus primary sources would be appreciated. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Gothic film brought this here, since I opened a discussion giving my argument on Talk:Point Blank (1967 film)#Secondary sources versus primary sources. If he was simply alterting people about it, he should have posted a neutral pointer on the order of "More input needed at X", instead, he chose to outline his position, which is, of course, a violation of WP:Canvassing. BMK (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I wrote most of the above before I saw your Talk page post. Then I added in the link without editing it down. Not a big deal. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, canvassiing is generally considered to be a fairly big deal, since it has the potential to distort consensus. BMK (talk) 04:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Gothicfilm. The infobox should match the film credits as it is the primary source. The film credits say "Produced by Judd Bernard and Robert Chartoff" (see here) so that's what should be in the infobox. And the details of the source material ("1962 novel") would be better in the article than in the infobox. Also, Beyond My Ken should refrain from insulting/name-calling other editors. -- Wrath X (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Of course you agree with Gothicfilm, I wouldn't expect anything less. Now, have you got any policy to cite to back up your opinion? If so, you should post it on the discussion on the talk page. BMK (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Transferring to Talk:Point Blank (1967 film)#Secondary sources versus primary sources. -- Wrath X (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

"film date" template and automatic categorization

It took me a little work to figure out why a particular film was being automatically added to the "Upcoming films" category.

My first guess was that was a function of the infobox, but there was no mention in the doc. I finally realized it was {{film date}} that was actually doing it, and that it has an additional implicit feature that if the release date is given as just the current year, it will be considered "upcoming".

Since this template appears to be most commonly used in this template, I'd like to add a brief mention of this behavior in the doc here, for other people who may be trying to puzzle this out in the future. Any objections?--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No objection from me. Seems like a sensible addition to make. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Me neither, though I don't think anything indepth needs to be added here. Something like this should be fine (bolding the addition): "{{Film date}} should be used for the film's release dates, which automatically categorizes the film by release year. Please see that template's documentation for more info." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks -- done. Basically what Favre1fan93 suggested, with a little more verbiage for clarity.--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

This RfC was closed because consensus was reached. Editors agreed on using reliable, secondary sources (as opposed to primary sources) to corroborate budget figures in infoboxes, and any supporting or clarifying details may be handled in article prose and/or in footnotes if warranted. Editors also agreed that, instead having two "budget" fields in the infobox (one for "gross" budget, another for "net" budget), "gross" and "net", when applicable, should be parenthetically added beside the figure(s) in the existing budget field, using the {{Plainlist}} template. --Lapadite (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC) [non-admin closure]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the "budget" field in "Infobox film" contain:

  • A) the figure generally reported in reliable secondary sources such as trade publications and aggregators like Box Office Mojo, or
  • B) a figure derived from editors' computation of tax rebates, subsidies, etc. from primary sources. This figure may or may not agree with those reported by secondary sources. —11:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I would disagree. In what way is the question biased? I use the term "computation", which is allowable, rather than a term such as "analysis" or "interpretation", and everything I say about secondary and primary sources, with links to the relevant background, is neutral. That a computed figure may or may not agree with secondary sources is both factual and pertinent. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The main substance of the various debates, as I read them, was "which figure (net vs gross) is more important in documenting a film?", not "do we use reliable sources or synthesis?" I realize you didn't use the s-word, but it doesn't take a great leap to arrive there. I think Depauldem has on several occasions made it clear that they're choosing a secondary source based on whether or not it matches what they believe to be correct based on calculations from other sources, not solely using their own calculations, so I find option 'b' to be a slight misrepresentation of the opposing position. Apologies if I've misinterpreted your wording. --Fru1tbat (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Survey

  • BOTH - and/or others, as appropriate. Basically I read the template guidance to say preferrence is a dedicated aggregation website The Numbers (website) which pulls in from open press as well as trade press, and preference means sometimes the other way. Then it says that if there are conflicting estimates to list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range, so sometimes 'Both'. ( p.s. I think the other sources in B you're mentioning are also 'secondary', not 'primary'.) And always depends on the context and best available data varies so 'as appropriate'. Mostly by that I mean try to just follow the cites and if there is a story about disagreeing numbers then cite that, or if there are significant differences then cite them all. Markbassett (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
A point of clarification: some of the figures come from the actual audited financial filings of production companies that are posted on a UK government website. The language on the reliable sources page states: "Accounts and Notes to the Accounts in an annual report, which have been independently audited, can be considered secondary sources about the organization, and have some level of reliability. The process of audit provides a degree of editorial oversight although the statement by the auditors may contain caveats which should be borne in mind when using the material." Can we clarify if audited accounts hosted on a government site are a reliable secondary sources? Depauldem (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Depauldem - that seems WP:RS to me. Whether primary, secondary, or WP:Tertiary are all possible I think in the WP:OR sense. It just depends on whether the content being pointed is direct info like financial filing, or an analysis of primary data such as the accountant opinion, or a summary of multiple secondary sources such as the accountant summary or government comment on the items. Markbassett (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Option A WP:SECONDARY expresses a preference for secondary sources over primary sources so the answer to the question posed by the RFC is obviously A. However, as Depauldem points out the real debate is not whether we prefer secondary sources or primary sources (policy has already settled this question for us) but rather what constitutes a secondary source. This is why the Reliable Sources noticeboard requires that you post the actual source and the context of its usage, because the same source can be regarded as a secondary source or a primary source depending on the claim it is being used for. Betty Logan (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, my preference for Fru1tbat wording was deleted by User talk:Tenebae, who claimed it violated the rules. I was relying on the following: "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template." My deleted comment was meant to improve the wording. Depauldem (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
It wasn't your comment. It was someone else's who, if he had wanted to do that, would have done so. Your actions have been disruptive.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I think I objected to the wording sufficiently clearly, in two different places. If you feel so inclined, you can change it. If not, I'm not going to make an issue out of it, but I don't know that this conversation will be as constructive, and that disappoints me. --Fru1tbat (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Option A - Aside from the policy-and-guideline issues Betty Logan rightly notes, Wikipedia loses credibility if we make outlier claims not supported by reliable-source journalistic and academic sources. And we're speaking strictly of the quick-scan figure in the infobox; no one has said anything whatsoever against tax-rebate, etc. details in the article body --Tenebrae (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
    • An issue with giving that kind of range is that it's lumping together two different things: a range that goes from net (the actual budget, which is what most secondary sources give) to gross (what the budget would have been without tax rebates, subsidies, etc.). People normally give a range of similar, comparable objects — for example; Box Office Mojo says $250 million and By the Numbers says $260 million. Thats apples-to-apples. A range of net to gross is apples-to-oranges and misleading. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Tenebrae - 'Just follow the cites' -- the budget element wants to show the Cost. But when cites differ you would report all the numbers, not pick a winner. You cannot necessarily tell the method a source used to come to it's conclusion and it doesn't need to because that there are multiple figures out there is what is being shown, with cites. Markbassett (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Option A: Infobox clutter should be avoided, and once you start getting into a film's microfinances, you're granting license for the addition of cruft. When guidelines are established or changed, editors should consider the extreme scenarios, not just the easy films. This proposal would be a headache for Indian cinema articles. Indian cinema trades, for instance, are obsessed with financial data. They report gross income, they report nett income, they report nett gross income, they report budget, they report regional entertainment taxes, they report distributor shares, marketing expenses and satellite revenue. Take these edits that introduce excessive financial detail like music rights. Check out the sweet collections breakdown in the box office section. Then, you have some editors who feel that the numbers should be adjusted for inflation. Should all this go in the infobox? It's not only far too much data to go in the infobox, but it creates an inconsistency between articles. Sourced budget and sourced gross are sufficient. If any further detail is warranted (i.e. not crufty) it could be included in prose to present a more complete perspective. Any additional data requires additional labels, which adds clutter, and while this discussion seems to only care about budget, it's not going to take much a leap for a casual editor to start fluffing out the gross parameter citing the budget guidelines as a precedent. We are not here to play accountants. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Option A seems the best option for the infobox. It's possible more detail could go in the body, but we'd have to be careful about not overwhelming readers with excruciating detail. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Comment Here is an example: Don Grove Forbes Contributor article (which has been unanimously held as a reliable source, including by Tenebrae) wrote "producers of Thor: The Dark World spent £ 164.6 million ($237.6 million) and claimed a rebate of £25.6 million ($37 million)." Following Option A above, we would list the budget as $237.6 million. And since it conflicts with the BOM amount of $170 million, we would list a range of $170-$237.6 million, correct? Does anyone disagree with this? Depauldem (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Technically it would be $170–237.6 million (since Thor didn't cost 170 dollars) but as I have indicated at other discussions I am happy to use a range when sources conflict. It is the fairest way to represent differences of opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Understood. I bet Disney would have loved a $170 cost :). So it would be $170-236.6 million. Works for me. Depauldem (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Again, that is misleading. Ranges need to be ranges of the same thing: apples-to-apples, i.e., either net to net or gross to gross. What you're proposing is like giving a range saying that a car costs a range that includes both wholesale and retail prices. That's misleading.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
For that film, who said the $170 million is the net budget? None of the articles I can find mention the $170 million as a net number. It's only listed as an estimate, i.e. gross cost. Even if you subtract the rebate, it's still just over $200 million. But since you prefer Option A, we won't be subtracting that rebate. Depauldem (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
RE "we won't be subtracting that rebate": I have no idea what you mean by that. Disney's cost is what it paid with the rebate. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, here is a BBC article that states that "the films total budget budget was $235M". Are you really going to keep up this protest?Depauldem (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Wait, so you are agreeing the cost, per this source, is $237.6 million? If so, why won't you let it be in the infobox with the other estimate (the $170 million, which you can't prove is a net calculation)Depauldem (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I can't speak for other editors, but I'm finding your posts more and more confusing. My point is that Wikipedia states only what reliable secondary sources state. If four secondary sources independently say $150 million and one source says $275 million, that's a fringe claim — the same as a source that says $10 million. If four secondary sources independently say $150 million and one source says $200 million before rebates, then the other four sources must be after rebates, what you call a net calculation.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The other four "must" be basing their number after rebates? Says who? You? You are making a gigantic assumption. For Thor, we now have two reliable sources saying $230+ million and one (or a couple) saying $170 million...and NONE of those using the $170 million mention any rebate whatsoever. So can we please list the range as $170-237.6? Depauldem (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
That article's link to BoxOffice.com is dead, and the article appears to be saying the £137m is before the £22.4m tax rebate, which would mean the film did not cost Disney £137m. Also, as I recall, you were arguing very early on in the debate that these weren't tax rebates but "subsidies." [2] I assume we're all using the same terminology now.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Lord, why are you trying to distract. Call them whatever you want, rebates, subsidies, free money, incentives...whatever. The effect is the same, someone or something else is covering a portion of the cost. And you are being completely hypocritical if you are arguing that the BBC didn't account for the rebate. You voted for Option A because option B involves you deriving your own figure from your own computation. You can't have it both ways. Dead link or not, it IS the BBC reporting a number that had been there...a number that also matches almost identically to the Forbes Contributor article. Depauldem (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
See my post above at 23:01, 12 April 2016. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

And for the record, Mathew Vaughn calls the UK film incentive a subsidy. KPMG calls them subsidies. The Tax Foundation calls them subsidies, as does the LA Times among hundreds of other sources. So can we dispense with the debate about whether they are thought of a subsidies? Because they are.Depauldem (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment If I am asked what my salary is by a person or on an application, I would list my salary as $50k. That is my gross pay. I would not list what my net was after taxes. Shouldn't the cost of making a movie reflect the gross cost to make it? The amount spent to produce is the gross budget, before any discounts or rebates. I would only report the net budget if the source only gave the net cost after rebates and failed to specify what the exact amount of the rebate was. If the rebate amount is given in addition to the net cost, I would add the two together as it would be the gross spend. But that's just my opinion. FilmGuy4444 (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – Agree with FilmGuy. It is common to interpret a film budget as the gross cost required to produce a film, not the net cost. In my mind, tax credits and incentives are a form of revenue to help offset expenses. While technically a part of the budget, they're one step removed from the initial cost, much like the profits or losses a film experiences. This is just my opinion, but the gross cost is more helpful when comparing film budgets with one another, simply because I like to know what it took to make the film. If I care to know more about the revenue streams, I'll read the budget and box office sections for more details. Maybe that's not the case for everyone, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case for most. If we're really concerned about what goes into the infobox, then consider splitting the "Budget" field into "Gross cost" and "Net cost" (or gross budget and net budget). This would clear up any confusion and help us avoid unsightly ranges that can turn into apples-to-oranges comparisons. And really, we should be more focused on the prose content within the article, where such details can be widely expanded upon. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I can understand wanting to know the gross figure for curiosity's sake. But since many people, including the industry, judge a movie's profitability by its budget (plus P&A costs), it seems misleading to me to inflate the budgeted amount and give the misimpression that a film cost $50 million more to make (and to be recouped) that it actually, factually did. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
It's possible I have misunderstood the common practice in the industry. Let me ask this. What do most sources report: the gross or the net? I originally thought it was gross, but perhaps I was mistaken. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Judging from the fact that Box Office Mojo and other aggregators / trade sites generally give figures much lower than those resulting from computation, it appears as if those aggregators and trade sites are mostly reporting net. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Tenebrae is correct. I have spent teh last week looking extensively at budget reporting. Sources generally favor the net but trades usually clarify how it breaks down. Pretty much everywhere is reporting that the budget for Batman v Superman is $250 million, but as The Hollywood Reporter reports this potentially goes up to $325 million (plus another 150-160 for marketing) if you don't account for the tax credits. Similar situation with John Carter: sources universally reported it cost $250 million (and Disney confirmed this figure) and that is most likely the tax deducted figure since costs submitted to HMRC indicate a total cost of over $300 million and a net budget of $263 million (subject to currency conversion). Similar story for Age of Ultron.the budget was generally reported in the $250 million range and accounts submitted to HMRC indicate a total cost of $300.3 million against a rebate of $45.9 million, so a net cost of $254.4 million, which is generally in line with the widely reported $250 million figure (allowing for currency fluctuations). Personally I am amenable to a compromise of having both figures in the infobox, but as editors we shouldn't be rejecting the figure that the bulk of the sources favor solely because we are stuck in particular mindset about what the budget is. Betty Logan (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The common practice is to report what they are told. If they are told net, they report it. If they are told gross, they report it. If they are given an estimate, they report the estimate and estimates reflect gross, as exact rebate calculations are impossible to determine. Since the vast majority of films over the last century were shot without a rebate (incentive schemes are relatively new), the bulk of reported budgets are gross numbers or gross estimates. Betty did find a few mentions of net, but they are far from the majority. And many of those examples did provide the gross number for us to use:
1. For John Carter, the headline to the link she gave reads: "The $307 Million Cost of Disney's John Carter"--emphasis on cost.
2. For Fast 6, the link says: "The latest in the series cost close to $200 million, according to a person close to the production."
3. For Godzilla, the link states: “Godzilla,” powered in part by strong Imax and 3-D screenings, cost a reported $195 million to make."
4. For Dark Knight Rises, the link states: "The Dark Knight Rises cost between $250 million and $300 million to produce."
5. More recently, LA Times Company Town Editor Richard Verrier wrote about the feature films awarded CA tax credits, and gave their gross budgets (but did mention tax credit award amounts) for many films: "The list includes at least two large-budget movies, Whale" and "Overnight" — both from Disney — budgeted at $86 million and $95 million, respectively, according to state records of planned California expenditures. Disney was approved for $6.8 million and $11.6 million in tax credits for the films. Twentieth Century Fox received a $4.9 million tax credit for "Avon Man," budgeted at $65.9 million; and $5.4 million for "Why Him," which is budgeted at $52.2 million."
6. Saving Mr. Banks has a reported budget of $35 million on BOM, despite the fact it got $2.4 million in tax credits on that budget.
7. Likewise, Insidious Chapter 2 has a reported budget on BOM of $5 million, despite getting a $1.2 million tax credit on that same budget
8. Ditto for The Conjuring, which had a reported $20 million budget on BOM, despite getting over $4 million in tax credits.
I would point out that 6-8 above still get reported as gross even though the exact amount of the rebate is given. Historically, gross is overwhelmingly the number used. And at present, despite a handful of examples, the net number is still uncommon, which makes sense as studios prefer the subsidy amounts stay secret. Depauldem (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
9. One more example, The-Numbers (the preferred option over BOM per the infobox template) is reporting $306 million for The Force Awakens, following a report from Politico.

PS--I also agree with Betty that both numbers can be included in the infobox as a range. I disagree that it's apples to oranges. We are talking about the budget. If one end of the range is potentially a reported net and the other end of the range is gross, we can add a note or flesh it out in the article. The other alternative is giving gross and net as separate entries in the infobox, but I think range is better as it's less clutter and less confusing. As someone else said, those extremely interested will read the notes or body for more. With the exception of Tenebrae, all editors that have commented have been satisfied with giving the range. Depauldem (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow, you've got a lot of time on your hands. I'm afraid net to gross is very much apples-to-oranges. The price range of a car is not wholesale-to-retail. If we say the price of the same new car is "$12,000 to $35,000" ... well, I think that's crazy. The comparison has to be wholesale-to-wholesale or retail-to-retail. Treating net and gross as if they're the same thing when they're as different as retail and wholesale ... that serves no useful purpose at all. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Your opinion is noted. As of now, it does not seem to be the prevailing one. And no disrespect, as I see the point you are making. But I don't think it matters. For price, I would be fine seeing retail vs. wholesale in the same line, but that's just me. FilmGuy4444 (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
We're all welcome to give our opinions of the RfC topic. But claiming to speak for other editors and making sweeping generalization is inappropriate, and I've seen this used as a tactic when one side feels it's not "winning." I'm seeing nothing here saying we should be doing our own computations that are at odds with secondary journalistic sources, or making retail-to-wholesale, apples-to-oranges ranges. If you think it's useful to say a car costs "$12,000 to $35,000", that's fine. I don't think that's useful in the least, and I don't think that's a range anybody would give when someone asks, "What's it cost to buy a car?" --Tenebrae (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
And as you've curiously only been on Wikipedia two days, yet already are weighing in on a complicated policy RfC, you'll forgive me if my suspicions of sock-puppetry/meat-puppetry are raised. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Of course you are entitled to your opinion. Heaven knows I feel entitled to mine, as I am sure you will agree :). Look, I voted for the option in Betty's poll that would accommodate all of our positions. I hope you will join in forming that consensus. (sorry for the outdent, I was experimenting) Depauldem (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The price range of a the same new car is not $12,000 to $35,000. Wholesale to retail can't be in the same range, since that makes the range meaningless.\
Additionally, it is misleading to claim film budgets are higher than they were since it can suggests films were financial failures when they were not. Betty Logan is a conscientious editor who does not believe we should mislead people.--Tenebrae (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
You're right that putting a range of numbers, where one end is net and the other is gross, is comparing apples to oranges, i.e. is not really appropriate. I do not believe, however, that net is the appropriate figure to use, if sources are available to support both - I agree with those that prefer gross, as I feel it is much more of interest to most readers (who are not accountants?). As an alternate compromise/solution, what about splitting the current single "budget" parameter in the infobox into one for "gross production cost" and one for "net budget"? Deprecate "budget", and from now on, fill in whichever specific one a source is available for. Thoughts? --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
How would you reconcile that with WP:WEIGHT which explicitly says we should represent all prominent points of view? As an example, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and Variety all put the cost/budget for Batman v Superman at $250 million, but The Hollywood Reporter says this is after tax credits are factored in and the pre-rebate cost may have been as a high as $325 million. It seems you are suggesting editors impose their own interpretation of what a budget is on articles, and one that is at odds with an interpretation that is found in respected publications such as the NY Times, the WSJ and Variety. Betty Logan (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I think adjusting the parameter to have two lines when necessary, one for gross budget and one for net, is a reasonable middle ground. In instances where it's not specified, we simply use the existing parameter, "budget."
Whatever we decide on the parameter front, I caution that we should not use our own computational WP:SYNTH. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: I suppose I'm assuming that if a source uses "budget" as an unqualified term, they're not being sufficiently precise, but I'm not sure it should be a major sticking point. I'm not sure how WEIGHT quite applies here - both the gross production cost and net budget are factual and clearly figures of interest (and, evidently, alternately reported by various sources), and my proposal just aims to make it obvious which one is which, not define what "budget" means when used without additional qualification, or give one definition weight over another. To that end, I'm fine with Tenebrae's suggestion of falling back to "budget" when it's not obvious which is being reported, or when a precise figure cannot be established by reliable sources. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
To bring this debate to an end, I am in agreement with Tenbrae and Fru1tbat on splitting the budget in the info box to one for net and one for gross. Depauldem (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Fru1tbat stole my thunder!  ;)
Yes, count me in favor of gross and net budget fields in the infobox, retaining "budget" for the reasons mentioned above. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@GoneIn60: Oops - just saw that comment now (or possibly saw it before but completely forgot)! Well, timestamps and edit history don't lie, so credit where credit is due, then. :) --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Haha, no worries! I was just messin'. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

That's not quite how RfCs end, but I'm glad that through all this we were able to reach a compromise solution. Believe it or not, that's exactly how Wikipedia is supposed to work.

And while I'm glad we and I hope others agree on adjusting the infobox template, the RfC is actually about using secondary versus primary sources. That's barely been debated while we all dealt with this related side-issue, and still needs to be discussed.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

My bad. I will allow you to let me know when it ends. As for the use of primary sources, I don't think we are in disagreement. The feedback I got on the UK filings was that they are too complicated to allow an editor to interpret them. Hence, we should always rely on a reliable secondary source. You and I agree on Option A. I think all my arguments were based on these secondary sources, but we have been going at this for so long, I could be mistaken. If you are ever in LA, I owe you a beer. Depauldem (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
That's very gracious, and I do believe you and I are in agreement in having two budget fields, I presume titled "gross budget" and "net budget", retaining simply "budget" for cases where it's not clear. I see Fru1tbat and GoneIn60 agree as well. I'd like to hear from our good and venerable colleague Betty Logan — who, trust me, is one of the most careful and meticulous editors in WikiProject Film. And then we can all go to the Forbes-contributor discussion!   : ) --Tenebrae (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
You presume correctly. And LOL on the Forbes discussion. My, how far we have come. Depauldem (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I am fine with putting total and net on spearate lines. Maybe two separate fields is overkill though. It can be handled like the release field i.e. for The Dark Knight Rises
Budget: $250–300 million (gross)
0000000 $230 million (net)
Perhaps something like that? Betty Logan (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
That works for me. Depauldem (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I think that would be fine. Less work and less complicated. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm for that — a very elegant solution it is, since it doesn't require changing the infobox coding. Brava, Betty! Brava!
I think that as the one who called the RfC that I can ask an admin for an early close, telling him/her that we've reached a consensus solution, which he/she will see. Once we have that, we should be able to make the change on the WP:FILM Manual of Style, and on the talk page point other editors to the RfC close. I think we're all good, so I'll do that now and return here with a ink to the request so we can all see it. If something comes up in the meantime and someone asks me to rescind the request, I'll of course do that. Here goes nothin'...! -- Tenebrae (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

OK. Request is in at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Template talk:Infobox film#Request for Comment.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is what the admin said: "If you've agreed on a consensus, there's no need for formal closure. ~ RobTalk 13:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC). Now, according to WP:RfC, "The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time," whether a resolution was reached or not, and that "it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor", whether admin or not (though since closings can be challenged, I've often found in practical terms it's better for an admin to do it).
It goes on to say that we can choose to enclose the RfC discussion in a box "with or without a closing statement." Since our consensus affects a Project-wide template; since it might also affect Project:Television; and since we might like to be able to point to a single, proper, clearly labeled discussion in case there are challenges, I believe we should take the option of enclosing the discussion, using the following template that the WP:RfC makes available:
==RfC: Is the photo in the History section relevant?==
{{Archive top|result= This RfC was closed because consensus was reached.  ~~~~  }}
.... here is the entire RfC discussion...
{{Archive bottom}}
I would suggest that if there are no objections in the next, say, two days, that I and another of us ask an uninvolved editor to enclose this RfC discussion. I hope this sounds OK. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good to me.  :) Nice work. Depauldem (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I think even an involved editor can close the discussion provided there is no internal dissent. It seems like we arrived at a natural conclusion. Betty Logan (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
You're probably right. I'm only thinking that if we present this to WikiProject Television that everything be as neutral and unimpeachable as can be. My thought is to go the WikiProject Film talk page and ask the first uninvolved editor on the History who has edited in the last day to do the close. I'll get a couple of names — one and a backup — now, and if no one objects in, say, a couple of hours, I or someone else can make the request and hopefully this'll be done today.
In the meantime, given the essentially unanimous consensus, we could probably start editing the Film infoboxes right now, if no one objects. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The first two editors who fit are User talk:Lapadite77 and User talk:Hughmandeville. But, really, I'm OK with anyone. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
It's been a few hours, so I'll ask the first of those two editors if he or she will do the close.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Wait, this discussion is confusing, what is the agreed upon proposal here? Because if it is this thing - "Budget: $250–300 million (gross) $230 million (net)", I don't see why when we are so strict on what goes into the infobox we need two separate figures where one will suffice, and an entire article body to discuss minutiae like tax credits. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, the consensus seems to be that one doesn't suffice,. Nobody is reporting the budget for Batman v Superman as $325 million, they are all going with the $250 million figure, so readers expect to see the 250 figure in the infobox and they shouldn't really have to read the entire article to find out why our figure doesn't match up to everybody else's. Betty Logan (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
And honestly, my good and old colleague Darkwarriorblake, if you read through the entire lengthy discussion, you'll see all the reasons why editors of good will through an enormously detailed debate reached a compromise consensus. It can always be reopened in a new RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Okie dokie Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Coda

Re: "each in a separate line (similar to the release field)" the correct - and more accessible - method for doing this is to use {{Plainlist}} (see MOS:PLIST). @Lapadite77: Please amend your closing statement accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

"Chronology" addition proposal

Just wanted to get some input from the community on the possibility of adding a "Chronology" section to this template, with the intention of being similar in nature to the one present in Infoboxes such as Template:Infobox album. Its use here would be to indicate sequels or prequels in the film series; I've set up a subuser page for a visual example of the intended result.

It can often be frustrating or difficult for casually-browsing users to find links to sequels or prequels in film articles without browsing the article randomly for a link, or typing it out in the search bar. I think the addition of a chronology section to the Infobox would greatly alleviate this, and provide some very relevant information to readers. Thanks in advance for participating in this discussion. Crumpled Fire (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Please see the information box right at the top of this page, which links to this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Interesting, I will review that discussion. Thank you. Crumpled Fire (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed update of template to allow use of wikidata

As part of the Wikidata Phase II effort (discussed here), I propose that this template be updated, as many templates are now doing, to allow it to fetch data from Wikidata using Module:Wikidata. (You can see an example of a template that supports this functionality at {{infobox telescope}}.)

Note: This does not interfere in any way with manually entered parameters, either existing or future, which always override wikidata. Parameters entered on Wikipedia, including blank entries, will not change (either in how they are invoked, or in how they are displayed). Only parameters which are not invoked on Wikipedia, but have values in Wikidata, will be fetched, thereby improving the completeness of those pages.

I've created a mock-up of the revised template at Template:Infobox film/sandbox2. Notes:

  • "Release dates": Wikidata does not (yet) have a parameter for location of film release; if you want to include that information, simply enter it manually as always (no change).
  • "Based on": I couldn't work out the syntax to fetch the author (P50) from the item representing the source (P144) rather than the film, from which all the other data are fetched. Again, if you want to include the author of the source work, enter it manually as always.

—swpbT 20:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

There having been no objection after 7 days, please implement the revision at Template:Infobox film/sandbox2 as identified above. —swpbT 12:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice work. I compared versions on Blade Runner and the only differences I could spot:
  • 117 minute instead of 117 minutes. You may be able to use some variant of {{convert|input=P2047}} to get the correct plural.
  • Linking of countries e.g. United States of America and languages e.g. English which is suppressed in current version.
— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@Swpb and MSGJ: The recent RFC at WP:VPPOL#RfC: Wikidata in infoboxes, opt-in or opt-out? might be considered objection. I happen to support Wikidata in general, and in infoboxes, and even in the opt-out format, but there are ongoing discussions now that we're starting to get into the details. --Izno (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Until and unless there's a closed discussion reversing the earlier consensus to start integrating wikidata, then that consensus stands. There are always going to be compaints, but they don't seem to have produced anything. Certainly what matters is that no one has raised any objection to the changes on this template. I vehemently reject the idea that the mere existence of discussions elsewhere about wikidata use in general should have any effect at all on whether this template is updated, now, as proposed and not objected to. —swpbT 15:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
As to the suggestions made by @MSGJ: I've de-linked country and language by using the "getRawValue" parameter for the Wikidata module. I'm looking into how to pluralize "minutes", but I don't think it will be possible – the fetched string includes the unit, even when "getRawValue" is used, and I don't think we have the MediaWiki extension needed to parse the string. —swpbT 15:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@Swpb: You can either parse the string with {{convert|input={{#invoke:Wikidata|getRawValue|P2047|{{{runtime|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}}}}|minute|0|disp=out|abbr=off}} or just assume that all movies are longer than one minute and do {{{runtime|{{#invoke:Wikidata|getRawValue|P2047|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}s}}}. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, the sandbox has been updated as you suggest. Always nice to learn something new! —swpbT 12:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
To editor MSGJ: WADR, what discussion? There's been one reference to a general discussion of wikidata that was 1) not specific to this template, 2) was already closed, and 3) was closed inconclusively, leaving the prior consensus standing. Otherwise, there has been one question (not an objection) raised here. As far as I can tell, there have been zero objections to this proposal. I have no problem waiting longer to see if any appear, if you want to be cautious, but this template cannot be held hostage to the mere possibility of a future change in consensus. —swpbT 12:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I'd prefer we keep this opt-in at this time until some of the broader details of Wikidata are figured out. There is a substantial verifiability problem at Wikidata, and we really shouldn't be inserting data into the English Wikipedia just because it was imported to Wikidata from the Swedish Wikipedia (or elsewhere). We need to figure out a way to only import data that has been verified. Right now, that seems to be opt-in, although I'm open to other possibilities (i.e. figuring out a way to only automatically insert data with a non-Wikipedia reference on Wikidata, if that's possible). ~ RobTalk 17:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Generic template demo correction

In the generic template demo, would someone please be so kind as to change "Release dates" to "Released", the actual title of the field? I'm afraid I can't figure out how to do that.—DocWatson42 (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 June 2016

Please add a parameter "website" such that the left-side label is "Official website" and the data is a url that fills in {{url|...}}.

The purpose of this would be to allow a link to a movie's official website. This is a very common thing for modern films to have associated with them, but is sorely missing from the infobox. Thank you. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 02:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Betty Logan (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Parameter addition proposal

I propose adding a parameter "website" such that the left-side label is "Official website" and the data is a url that fills in {{url|...}}. The purpose of this would be to allow a link to a movie's official website. This is a very common thing for modern films to have associated with them, but is sorely missing from the infobox. Please discuss. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 06:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose this has been requested on at least five occasions, and the consensus is always not to include it in the infobox, as it's redundant to the external links section (which does a better job at handling it). Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support every parameter in the infobox is supposed to be redundant to other parts of the article. Adding the official website of a movie is really no different than adding the official website of a country or a populated place, which are included in their infoboxes. Things have changes since 2008/2009, when those discussions took place, and films now almost always have official permanent websites. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 18:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I would say the vast majority of films don't actually have official websites. They tend to be limited to Hollywood tentpoles for the most part and they tend to die after a few years. Betty Logan (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The purpose of the infobox is to document essential information about the film, not to provide advertising links i.e. we put information in the infobox to provide readers with a brief overview of the most pertinent information, not to send them on their merry way to another website. Website links currently go in the external links section as recommended by WP:ELYES, and I don't see the point of promoting one particular link over the rest when in many cases the official site provides less useful information than IMDB, for example. Betty Logan (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per previous discussions. All too often these are merely sales sites. Also I work with these in the "External links" section and I see no evidence of "permanence" for them. MarnetteD|Talk 19:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all of the reasons that are being raised now and have been raised before. I wish the editor who started this thread had read those discussions and responded to the points raised therein rather than, presumably unintentionally, simply pummeling a dead equine. DonIago (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all who oppose as well above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons of who come first. --Almicione (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose A film's official website is not an intrinsic part of it, unlike a web service, so there is no reason to give it prominence in the infobox, especially since it would not impart more information than if the article was a featured article. Infoboxes are already cluttered enough, no need to add more unessential parameters. Opencooper (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all the above. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose – Infoboxes can include external links per WP:ELPOINTS, and in fact, other WikiProjects such as WikiProject Amusement Parks have elected to use them. For this subject matter, however, I agree with the others that typically official film sites tend to fade over time, typically within a few years of the film's home media release. Cluttering infoboxes with dead links wouldn't be very beneficial. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unnecessary, and liable to be either abused or confusing. An official site belongs in the ELs. Many films do not have official sites, or have more than one official site. Additionally, official sites often are abandoned, go offline, or become dead links within a fairly short amount of time after the film's initial run, making it a very bad idea to add a site link to the infobox. Softlavender (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Gross and Net

Where did we get the terms "gross" and "net" to describe competing budgets? That's not what those terms mean in financing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

This was described and discussed in the RfC above. Normally, these terms are applied to the evaluation of income. However, they can also be applied to budgets, particularly an organization's operating budget. In the film industry, this directly translates to the production budget. The gross production budget would be all expenditures without taking any deductions, tax reimbursements, etc., into account. The net production budget, on the other hand, would. I didn't major in finance, but my understanding is that these terms can certainly be applied to budgets as well as income. The reason for the use here is that we sometimes see reliable sources report on the production budget before tax deductions and incentives, while others report on the figure after taking those into account. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
To me, the infobox should include the final budget while the body of the article should be discussing the "net" budget or "gross" budget idea. You lack context in the infobox and adding multiple budgets with "gross" and "net" just makes it confusing for readers. The average reader isn't likely to understand what that means without context. Hell, I didn't realize what you meant without the context and I've been doing this for 10 years. The infobox shouldn't confuse readers, or force them to read a section just to understand what we're saying.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I can certainly understand that viewpoint. I think the RfC was started as a result of edit-warring over whether the net or gross should go in there. The result was to include both. However, if the side effect of that is causing more confusion for the average reader, then perhaps the proposed solution is overkill and counterproductive. What alternative solutions can you think of? I'm open to revisiting this, considering you've brought up a possible issue that wasn't previously considered. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
My first question is: How often is this actually used? Are we placing more importance on something that may only affect a dozen film pages (probably the high end films, like comic book movies)?
With that, I would think that what they actually paid should be what's in the infobox itself. That's the "final" or "net" budget that they had. Then, in the production section of the article, it should be discussed that a film was originally greenlit with a budget of $325 million, but with tax incentives and rebates in "Australia", the studio was able to reduce the overall cost to $250 million." I mean, we're talking about a sentence or two (unless there is actually a lot of information on it) to provide context to a reader about a film having a large budget than what they actually ended up paying. I just think that including both is going to confuse readers and probably make them assume that we're include "marketing" and the like in the "gross" budget. This in turn could cause people to include more marketing costs in that section, which is against what we say to do.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
All good points. Hopefully others involved in the previous discussion will weigh in. Pinging Fru1tbat, Tenebrae, Markbassett, Depauldem, Betty Logan, Cyphoidbomb, NinjaRobotPirate, FilmGuy4444, and Darkwarriorblake.
Note: This is not necessarily an effort to change/challenge the previous consensus, but instead the intent here is to clarify that consensus and possibly consider any new arguments being raised by Bignole. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I've become a big fan of the note[a] thing. You could put that next to a budget to immediately take you to an explanation of it. I missed much of the previous discussion but much like Nole, I don't see the necessity of showing a before and after budget in the infobox. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Which ultimately brings us back to the original problem though, doesn't it? Take Batman v Superman for example: The Hollywood Reoprter reported that the budget was $250 million "after rebates and incentives", and without them $325 million. So which figure is the "final" budget in this case? Box Office Mojo and pretty much every other source goes with the $250 million figure in this case. If we go with the 325 figure on its own I absolutely guarantee we will have a perennial fight on our hands with IPs changing it back to the BOM figure. Betty Logan (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
That's what sparked this and even that source is vague. It says "sources put it significantly higher" or "325". Betty, you and I have worked long enough for you to know my feelings about anyone saying "sources". Not to mention that it isn't a confirmation that 325 mill was the original budget, but an estimate based on the knowledge of what taxes and rebates they get where they filmed. That said, the only thing confirmed is that the actual money spent on the film was closer to $250 million, rebates or not. That is the figure that should be in the infobox. Everything else could be explained in the body of the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed "what the final cost of the movie is" proves impossible to define, judging by the long and occasionally heated discussion last month that resulted in the RfC above (after initially spanning several different articles' talk pages). One side argued that the final cost was the actual out-of-pocket expense that the studio physically paid. Another side argued that it was the total cost including any rebates etc. that the studio received. Which is the correct figure? Different people of good will legitimately disagreed. So in this framework, I do think "gross" and "net" are probably the best terms we could use, though if anyone can suggest others, that would be great, too. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Further complicating matters is the fact that some states pay tax incentives up front, while others pay it in the form of a rebate after spending has occurred in their state (source). When it's paid up front, there is no "net budget"; both net and gross are the same in that scenario. Perhaps we are stretching things a bit to accommodate a handful of articles where this is an issue. Perhaps the best option is to only state the net budget in the infobox, and allude to the gross budget in the body of the article when applicable (as Bignole suggests). At least in the case of B v S, the net was the figure most often reported, and perhaps this is true across the industry. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Given the $325 million is only mentioned in the Hollywood Reporter article, using the more widley reported $250M is better and using a note here to indicate that THR's "sources" put the actual budget much higher. As for [User:Tenebrae] points above, he is quite right. I think what we failed to recognize in that prior debate is that both sides were right, for what they were arguing. The net budget to the studio is accurate for what it is--their out of pocket cost. And the gross budget is accurate for what it is--the full amount actually spent to make the project (regardless of who is footing the bill). The question becomes--what goes in the infobox? Since passions were strong for each, the compromise of including both was reached. That said, [User:Bignole] makes good points about confusion. It seems to me that people who really want to know the budget will not be confused by mentioning both. But perhaps listing the gross budget first followed by a parenthetical mentioning the incentive amount is better? Depauldem (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure, since that gives primacy to the gross figure. In any event, I would suggest that editors either accept the RfC — the whole point of which is prevent further arguiment — or start a new RfC. Suggesting, in essence, that one doesn't like the RfC's conclusion and so doesn't want to abide my it isn't really how it works. Start a new RfC if so desired. Otherwise, proper protocol is to abide by the closed consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I think a case has to be made that this is indeed causing confusion (backed by evidence), and some general agreement among editors who participated in the last RfC that a change is warranted, would be enough to justify a new RfC. Per WP:CCC, this would be an acceptable approach. However, it doesn't appear we're at that point (yet). --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Budget figures with/without tax incentives consensus

Over a week ago Depauldem changed the budget figures of several films from BOM to state or local boards like louisianaeconomicdevelopment.com or FilmL.A. Several were reverted. Today he reverted those pages back to his preferred version. For example, at Dawn of the Planet of the Apes he removed the commonly used $170 million figure from BOM and replaced it with the significantly higher figure of $235 million, with no explanation to the reader. Is the consensus from the RfC above to give both figures still holding? If both figures are not to be used, what is the current consensus? - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

If I recall a compromise was reached to provide both the gross and net figure, if sources provide both figures. The rather lengthy debate boiled down to the fact that sources were not consistent: some used the gross figure and others tended to go with the net figure (BOM commonly goes with the net which is why its figures tend to be lower than the FilmLA figures). For example, the 250m figure that BOM has down for Batman Vs Superman is the net figure, but it actually cost $325m before you factor in tax credits. Betty Logan (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The consensus is that if we know it, we can include it. BOM is increasingly unreliable because they don't list their source, if any. The trades or major publications are great. Info from Louisiana Economic Development is ideal because they actually audited the film and saw the numbers. What they report is the actuals. Depauldem (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Also the Planet of the Apes number of $170 is not even close to what the net would be, even after the rebate. We could include the range of $170-$235 if you feel the BOM number is valid. Depauldem (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
If the consensus is to give the budget both with and without the incentives, then that is what should be done. It should not just say $235 million. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem with BOM is that they don't tend to update the figures when further information comes available, so I am not stuck on using it, especially if exact figures are available from HMRC. Do we actually know what the rebate for Dawn of the Planet of Apes was? Betty Logan (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 July 2016

I want to edit IMDb, AllMovie and other external links section I want to add Bollywoodhungama in the list of this section this edit is necessary.

Tuheermeri (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Betty Logan (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment Some of those fields were in the infobox (at least IMEb was) last decade. They were removed through WP:CONSENSUS though you will have to search the archives to find the discussion. Please note that they should not be put back in unless and until a new consensus is reached regarding them. The "External links" section is the proper place for them. MarnetteD|Talk 18:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Ratings

I just read WP:FILMRATING. Basically it says that showing MPAA ratings in the Infobox would make Wikipedia more United States-centric; and if we can't show MPAA ratings, we can't show any ratings at all!

This is very shortsighted. A great many people would benefit from seeing MPAA ratings in the Infobox. This policy should be reversed, as it is a classic example of Cutting off the nose to spite the face. 23.31.68.26 (talk) 04:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hardly. There are more appropriate places for people to find this information, rather than forcing American-specific information on all our readers just because of a few stubborn individuals who continue to insist that we should be doing this. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
It would be pointless and indiscriminate to list all ratings for films on WP. It would add no value to the article. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Film name parameter seems a bit limited

|film_name= seems a bit limited to me in scope, with the instructions indicating that Template:Infobox name module should be used, but that template only seems to be relevant to a few Asian langauges, like Japanese, Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese. There's no instruction for how to deal with other languages, like the myriad of Indian languages (Hindi, Telugu, Tamil, Gujarati, Punjabi, Malayalam, Marathi, Kannada, and so forth.) Typically I wind up using the lang templates (At Premam, {{langx|ml|പ്രേമം}} yields Malayalam: പ്രേമം), which seems like a reasonable use of the parameter. Any thoughts? Can we expand the instructions a little? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The "Film name" parameter is supposed to be limited; it was designed as a holder field for Template:Infobox name module. If you want to add further languages then you need to extend Template:Infobox name module. Betty Logan (talk) 05:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Betty, expanding the module would ultimately be a fruitless pursuit, because absolutely zero casual editors are going to go through the effort of figuring out how to format an obscure template-within-a-template, and that places the burden onto all the regulars to invest the time to make the changes, and to invest the mental energy to remember the template name and its various parameters. Unnecessary busy work on top of our unnecessary busy work.
Often an Indian film's native name will be added to a film article's lead, but per WP:NOINDICSCRIPT, the Indian film community doesn't want Indic script in the lead. A simple fix is to paste these into |film_name= with minor formatting tweaks rather than deleting them entirely. If having a film's native name in the infobox is of value to the film community, (I find them useful for locating references in the mother tongue) then maybe having a few ways to communicate the information would be beneficial, ranging from bunny slopes to double-black diamond difficulty. Ex: we're tolerant of <ref>http://yourreferencegoeshere.com</ref> but prefer {{cite web}}
While I'm raving, I also think |film_name= is not a great choice for a parameter title because it's easily confused for |name= -- |native_name= would be more intuitive. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Templates are often used in conjunction with infoboxes, such as {{Based on}} and {{Film date}}, so {{Infobox name module}} is no different to that. You seem to be proposing a solution that bypassess the need for a template, but the only way I think that could be done would be to fold all the parameters at Template:Infobox name module into the main infobox. This would have several disadvantages: i) The infobox would be swamped by parameters that are rarely invoked; ii) it would be more difficult for editors to add further parameters because they would need to get an admin to do it (due to the infobox being protected); iii) foreign-language taskforces would no longer be able to maintain the parameters relevant to their editing interests. There is no way I know of to turn the "film name" meta-parameter into a single-use "catch-all" field because each language parameter has its own formatting requirements. If you take Spirited Away as an example, how would you format the titles with just one parameter and without using a template? Betty Logan (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, I think I have found a potential solution, or at least a compromise. I still think it is impossible to bypass the template altogether, but I have added a hack so the parameter can be used like the lang-xx templates. The Film name template can now take three parameters: the language (either as a name or iso code) as the first parameter, the title as the second and there is an optional "links=no" if you want to turn off the automatic linking. As an example see Premam test 1 and Premam test 2. This solution would allow editors to use the template without having to add further languages. We could update the infobox guidelines to promote this option. If you still want a solution that does not involve an intermediary template then we need to look at ways we can build similar functionality directly into the main infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Betty, thanks for that. I think I can work with it. Hopefully when/if editors become familiar with it it'll be an easy adjustment. If someone could update the docs, that'd be much appreciated as well. A pleasant week to you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I have updated the guidelines here and at the template. If something is unclear or not working correctly then let me know and I will try my best to fix it. Betty Logan (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_film/Archive_28&oldid=1256603876"