Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

"box office"?

According to the Oxford Dictionary a box office is "the place at a theatre, cinema, etc. where the tickets are sold". Why do you call worldwide gross revenue as "box office"? If you love idioms, please, use them in your private blogs etc., but not here. Think about millions of non-native speakers. Wikipedia should be for everyone, and the mere existence of Simple English Wikipedia should not be an excuse to make our articles hard to understand. After all, for someone who writes a PhD dissertation, Wikipedia is not a reliable source anyway. Are you afraid that something can be too easy for native speakers? Will they feel offended? Keep in mind that there are now more non-native speakers of English than native speakers of English (check it out) . English itself is very illogical and ambiguous, so let's do something to make communication easier and more effective. 85.193.252.19 (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is. You're saying that we're using an English speaking term to describe a worldwide figure. If non-English speaking people are looking at the article for a film, I would assume they are using one of the other Wikipedias that are in their language (not a simple translation, but like Germany has their own version, which is maintained separately. They do move information, but they control their templates and the words that are used. In primarily English speaking countries, the term "box office" is pretty common language (which is what we tend to use when writing articles or naming things). I imagine that in German, Japanse, Arabic, etc. that they use whatever term makes better sense to them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Worldwide gross revenue" is too vague because films can make money in other ways than at theaters or cinemas. Furthermore, the term "box office" is widely used in reliable sources. Perhaps you can make a case for "box office revenue" or "box office gross", but the shorthand seems to have been readily understood by readers in all the time it has been used. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bignole: @Erik: Then what exactly is "box office"? Do you have any definition, supported by a reliable source? Ok, I've just found the definition that explains everything: "total amount of money paid by people worldwide to watch a movie at cinemas/movie theaters". But is the Wiktionary a reliable source? And why can't I find this definition in "normal" dictionaries, like Oxford? 85.193.252.19 (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Because you're not looking hard enough? It's right there in the definition you linked to: "Used to refer to the commercial success of a film, play, or actor in terms of the audience size or takings that they command." Here's Merriam-Webster: "income from ticket sales (as for a film)". – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Just because something is "used to refer to the commercial success of a film, play,[...]" etc., does not mean that it is a sum of money, even if it directly translates to money. 85.193.252.19 (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Please re-read my entire response above. Do you have an issue with Merriam-Webster's definition? If that is not a reliable source, I don't know what is. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: The definition in Webster does relate to our template, but I referred to the definition I had linked to before. In my opinion "box office" as a sum of money is probably a very informal phrase that over time turned into a business jargon, which is far from plain English, recommended for Wikipedia. Anyway, thank you for not ignoring me. You have improved my English. 85.193.252.19 (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Blank "name" parameter

Is the {{PAGENAMEBASE}} default function for the name parameter not working anymore? Obviously, I could populate the name where I am using it, but this seems like it might affect a large number of articles. If it has been depricated, the documentation has not been updated. -2pou (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

2pou I tried it on Black Widow and no dice. There are no recent changes to the PAGENAMEBASE template or the module it uses, so maybe its the coding here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

You have to remove the name parameter entirely. If you leave it blank, you get a blank name. I will fix the template momentarily. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonesey95. That seems to have done the trick! -2pou (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Single release date

For a clarification edit to WP:FILMRELEASE: If there is only one notable release date for a film produced by a single country, does that country need to be listed in the release parameter? For example, should Crawl (2019 film) have "July 12, 2019" or "July 12, 2019 (United States)"? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

It's an American film, so you don't have to do that. If it had a specialty release somewhere else that was earlier (i.e., Cannes Film Festival), then you would include that qualifier so a reader knew why it was separate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Over the years I've come to consider including these film festival dates as unnecessary. They can be mentioned in the body but I think we should use the first mainstream release. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm just explaining a scenario to illustrate when you would put a country or another qualifier in the release date.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, if the release date matches the country of production, there is no real reason to duplicate it in the parenthetial. BOVINEBOY2008 20:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Movie type

Hello! Can you add an optional parameter for movie type?. I mean such as short films, made for television movies, silent movie or animation?. Yours sincerely, Sondre --88.89.103.4 (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Starring credits

Hello! Is it possible to create a parameter for voices. To be more exact the voice actors they use in animated pictures and stop-motion pictures?. The parameter text should be voices of. Yours sincerely, Sondre --88.89.103.4 (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

|starring= is neutral in its wording that it can cover physical appearances as well as voices. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Films with multiple directors

Moved from Template talk:Infobox film/short description

As this template functions, it sometimes puts out very long SDs, often because a film has multiple directors. (I suspect there may be other possible problem cases, but I haven't explored them yet.) I suggest the simple solution would be to limit the director to something like 25 or even 30 characters. A more complex solution might search for line breaks and replace them with commas etc. An even more elegant solution might be to substitute the directors for something else.

Example: The documentary film About Baghdad would have read 2004 American film directed by Sinan AntoonBassam HaddadMaya MikdashiSuzy SalamyAdam Shapiro (92 char, not including the line breaks) but has been corrected to 2004 American documentary film. — HTGS (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I've actually removed that functionality (as of about 30 seconds ago) as I never did follow up on the talk discussion above that indicated that having the director in the shortdesc might not be as useful as the rest of the information included. Primefac (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I did or checked all the American films from 1915 through 1992, so they should all be fine. I stopped progressively going through each year once the process became automated. Primefac, just to clarify: You've simply removed the Directors from automated process of films, correct? Or have you removed the whole automated functionality completely? If it's the later, I suppose I could resume going through each year again (if so desired). — Ched (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Primefac just removed "directed by X" from the end. I would suggest that there is certainly a utility to going through every film, as the autoSD can't do many things. For a lot of films they won't need changing, but for many, the genre might be important, and for others the director will be. (Eg: 2002 American horror film for The Ring would be better than 2002 film directed by Gore Verbinski.) It's my impression that the infobox's autofill just speeds up the task for editors like you or I to go through and correct them where needed.

And thanks for that, Primefac. Apologies for putting the comment in the wrong place, I clearly wasn't thinking enough to check the main talk. — HTGS (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

No worries. And yes, the point of having the infobox add an auto shortdesc (and this is far from the only one) is to reduce the number of pages that need to be edited manually. Primefac (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Minor aesthetic changes

I have made some aesthetic changes in the sandbox to harmonize the text styling with the other major media infoboxes (television, video game, book) and the general infobox style. Here is the diff from live: diff. There are no functionality changes, and the test cases look correct (see here; MOS:SMALL requirements are followed with a smallest size of 88%, which is the default infobox bodytext size). If there aren't objections, I will implement the change in a week or so. — Goszei (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I've seen you make these adjustment to the TV-related infoboxes and there have been no issues, so you have my support to implement. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Other than the title being a bit larger which I'm fine with, I don't see any other visible changes. I'll also take your word on it that your changes make this template consistent with others, which for me is always worthwhile. Gonnym (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done I have copied the changes from the sandbox in this diff: Special:Diff/1034306743. — Goszei (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Poster billing block

Is it acceptable to use the billing block on a film poster as a source without having to cite it? Talk:Kidnap (2017 film)/GA1: The last four producers and the editor mentioned in the infobox are not mentioned in those roles (or not mentioned at all) in the body nor are they cited in the infobox. To this comment, could I simply state that the information/credits are in the billing block, or do I have to cite a source? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's outright unacceptable to use it, but it would be much better if you found a reliable source to back it up. Then, you can either put the source in the infobox parameter, or mention the producers and the editor in an appropriate place in the body of the article and have the source there. —El Millo (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

If the poster is there, then it should be easy enough to verify. We don't tend to be sticklers about older films when it comes to production roles because places like IMDB have been acceptable for sourcing those post release.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The only problem with the poster is that, being non-free, we only have a very low-res version here in Wikipedia, so in order to verify it one should have to look for the poster elsewhere. —El Millo (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's the review from The Hollywood Reporter that backs up all producers and the editor. —El Millo (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I think what I see in the GAR is that the reviewer expects that anything listed in the infobox is discussed the body. While that's true for 90% of it, there are roles that get filled that are not discussed in the body (like the editor or the producers) unless it's significant. Again, roles in the infobox are typically not required to have an in-line citation (we don't require in-line citations period, only that things are referenced). As for the low res of the poster, you click the image and go to the source that is required on that page. There, you will get a high res version of the poster where you can see those roles very clearly (I checked).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

"s"

Following recent edits to the template, are "| production_companies =" and "| distributors =" necessary? Using the "plainlist" template, several inputs under "studio" or "distributor" will already change the wording on the infobox so are the alternative parameters still needed? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Really? If that's happening, then they aren't necessary anymore. —El Millo (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Many of the parameters have plural parameters, not just |distributor=/|distributors=. {{Detect singular}} is used for three parameters: Production company, with the parameters |production_companies= or |studio=; Country, with parameter |country=; and Language with |language=. So really, there aren't extra "plural" parameters at this time, though many do have them as aliases. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Order of writing credits

I believe that the rder the writing credits appear in the infobox should be changed.

• "Story by" should come first, because it is the origin of the film's basic plot

• "Screenplay by" should come second, because these writers actually wrote the working script for the film

• "Written by" should come last because it is used under two circumstances:

• When "written by" is the only credit, in which case there is no "screenplay by" or "story by", since the one name (or names) is responsible for all the writing

• In films -- especially older ones -- on which there are multiple writing credits, for "adaptation", "dialogue", "additional dialogue", "titles" and so on, all of which are subsidiary to the screenplay writing credit.

The credits now appear in the order

• Written by (adaptation, dialogue, titles, etc.)
• Screenplay by
• Story by

whereas I'm proposing

• Story by
• Screenplay by
• Written by (adaptation, dialogue, titles, etc.)

which in the case of a single author, simply becomes

• Written by

Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense to me Beyond My Ken. You might want to give some thought to where "based on" fits into your scheme. MarnetteD|Talk 00:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I have thought about that. "Based on" should be at the end, because there is frequently a serious disconnect between the instigating material and what appears on the screen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

In films and TV, screenplay/teleplay is usually credited before "story by". So, I think the current order should remain for consistency with credits order. The infobox is not meant to follow chronological order but rather mirror the regular credits order as much as possible. — Starforce¹³ 00:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Starforce. There's no need to order them chronologically and the Screenplay and Written by credits are generally given more prominence than the Story by credit. —El Millo (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I do realize that traditionally a "Screenplay by" credit will be shown before a "Story by" credit, and for that to continue wouldn't particularly bother me. Zeroing in on my concern, the problem is "Written by". When it is used for a single creator, it appears alone, so there's no other writing credit for it to compete with, but because there's no other place to put "adaptation", "dialogue" etc., those credits have to be put in "Written by", and when those credits appear first, before anything else, the logical progression is skewed and there's too much emphasis placed on those credits, which are really ancillary in nature.. That could be solved with having another parameter for additional writing credits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, those are valid concerns, but there are always exceptions. The infoboxes try to accommodate the majority. If we added a parameter or reordered the params for each possible scenario, it would be a mess.... especially if it's to mostly accommodate an old format that's rarely used anymore. — Starforce¹³ 02:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thirded, and there's some logic to the current order especially if "Based on" is also used. The closer to the end product the work, the earlier the credit.

Rather, if we were to tweak the order at all, I'd move producers to after writers first. For a long, long time I've felt this change is in order. It's jarring to see "Directed by" and "Written by" shared by the same person interrupted by producer credits in the article about an auteur-driven film. And for the vast majority of readers trying to quickly learn about a film, who wrote it is far more relevant information than who produced it. Nardog (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Nardog. Writers and Directors credits always go together. It doesn't make any sense to introduce producers in between them. So, this is one thing that definitely needs to be changed. — Starforce¹³ 03:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Glad I'm not alone. To be fair, producer credits sometimes do precede (or follow, in case the director comes last) writers, but it all has to do with inside baseball like who's got the best agent. But not having to split "Written and directed by" and relevance to readers are enough reasons IMHO. Nardog (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Reorder parameters

I'm starting a new subsection here based on Nardog and Starforce13's comments above about |producer= placement. I wanted to expand on that and suggest, if that change is going to be made, should we reexamine the rest, so they are in a quasi reverse billing block order? Looking at this NY Times example (which has always been helpful to me) I would suggest the following infobox order:

• Directed by
• Written by
• Screenplay by
• Story by
• Based on
• Producer
• Starring
• Narrated by
• Cinematography
• Edited by
• Music
• (Production companies and remaining parameters stay the same)

The two that change placement are Producer and Music, both moving lower than they currently are. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Yes, this is the standard order based on most films and per the NYT article you linked. We should adjust the infobox parameters to follow this as well. — Starforce¹³ 03:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Looks good, but since such changes in the template will result in MOS:DUPLINK violations because writers are often also producers (although the composer move probably wouldn't require much change except for John Ottman's works ;)), which will probably be too many to fix manually, we'd probably be better off with a concrete consensus to point to. And I suggest you make a separate venue for each change (producer and music) so the discussions won't get muddled. Nardog (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nardog: just to be clear, are you referring to the altered order making many infoboxes provide the link in the second occurrence of the name instead of the first? —El Millo (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
    • @Facu-el Millo: Yes. If we only changed the template, we would be linking the second occurrence of "Grant Heslov" in Good Night, and Good Luck, for example. Nardog (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
      • @Nardog and Facu-el Millo:, I think there's probably a bot that can be used to swap the links between the producer and writer parameter, if we were to reach a consensus. So, I don't think we would need to manually update all the affected articles. If we agree on this, we can request for such a bot.— Starforce¹³ 05:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Of course. Which is why I think a more robust consensus seeking like an RfC (or two RfCs) might be called for. Nardog (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
        • ...so I'm on it. Nardog (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• I think I'm kinda neutral on this change, I'm not sure if it should be done but I'm not outright opposed to it. Anyway, I reordered them as proposed in the template's sandbox, the difference between the current and proposed orders can be clearly seen at Template:Infobox film/testcases#Casablanca. —El Millo (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• @Nardog: Please note that this discussion ended several weeks ago and resulted in the infobox being changed, but so far no bot has switched any of the article links between the producer and writer parameter. I think this change should be reverted until the bot is fully ready. Jordanmiller335 (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  The code to do this is not the easiest thing in the world to write, and in my opinion a few wikilinks in the "wrong place" is not the end of the world. Primefac (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  When reading the infobox for thousands of movies, one gets the initial impression that the writer is of little note since they don't have their own page, only to find that they're linked further down in the box. Obviously not every film has a writer who also serves as producer, but plenty of them do. Having this be wrong on such a high quantity of pages wasn't given enough consideration when the change was made and even several of those who supported the change noted this issue and how a bot should be prepared to fix it before implementation. Jordanmiller335 (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  Guess it's a good thing there's a bot that's replacing all of these instances... Primefac (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  Is there any evidence that this is the case? Anecdotally, every article I've clicked on where the writer served as a producer it's not been fixed. In the earlier posts it says that a bot would be requested, but nobody in particular has volunteered to make one or noted that it's on its way. The change should be reverted until the bot is ready, unless there's some evidence the bot is already running. Jordanmiller335 (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. I finished the coding about half an hour before you replied to me here. Primefac (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Jordanmiller335: The change should be reverted until the bot is ready - this template is used on approximately 146,000 pages. Every time the infobox is altered, all of those pages are put in the job queue, which can take hours, days or even weeks to clear. If a revert occurs, outstanding job queue entries don't get removed - they are added all over again. So an edit-revert-redo sequence can result in a given page having three job queue entries, anything up to approximately 438,000 entries in total. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  The bot is already up and running, it has made quite a bunch of edits regarding this issue already, so there's no longer a need for this to keep being discussed. —El Millo (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Am I missing something, but why does a bot need to change the articles? Surely it's a display order in the template (infobox) which is replicated on the article when the template is updated. For example, in this edit, I moved the director parameter to the very bottom of the infobox, but it is still rendered at the top of the infobox on the article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: How an editor implements the parameters on a wikipage of an infobox doesn't really matter per se, since the order is set within the template code. One can randomly put the order in. However, reordering on the parameter on each page to reflect the visual order is helpful in linking instances as has been discussed, to realize if something needs to be linked, or moved from one parameter to another. I hope that answered your question. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. It does seem pointless though to go through and change this on all the articles, as this is a WP:COSMETICBOT change. For argument's sake, if we only had three fields (A, B, C), it wouldn't matter if one editor put them in order or the next editor placed them CBA, as the visual result would still be the same. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

It isn't a cosmetic change though. If currently A is linked and B and C aren't. Switching them to be B C A would mean that the first and second occurrences of a name aren't linked and only the third is. Gonnym (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The bot is changing the order of parameters only in articles where moving links is desired (Category:Articles using Infobox film with incorrectly placed links). Nardog (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Essential work. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nardog: Is that tracking info also checking articles in the draft space? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

No. Should it? Nardog (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I would think so. I've very active in the draft space for future films, and those drafts are likely using the infobox code copied from the documentation or other article before these changes were implemented, and come when they move to the mainspace (if they do), they'd be "incorrect". Unless the bot is going to constantly run every so often, then it newly moved drafts would be adjusted then. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: Are you willing to run the bot in the draft space too? Can I edit the module? Nardog (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm running the bot off the cat, not particularly bothered which pages are in it. Primefac (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Drafts are now included, unless I screwed something up. Nardog (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for comments

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to move 'produced by' (proposal #1) and 'music by' (proposal #3). No consensus for proposal #2. The primary argument cited for the proposals was to match the common billing order. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

---

In {{Infobox film}}, should "Produced by" and "Music by" be moved so the fields appear in the following order?

• Directed by
• Written by
• Screenplay by
• Story by
• Based on
• Produced by
• Starring
• Narrated by
• Cinematography
• Edited by
• Music by
• (Production companies and remaining parameters stay the same)

11:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Produced by

• Support Not only is this the more common order as seen in the NY Times infographic, it will particularly be a welcome change in the articles about films where the same person gets both writing and directing credits. Consider Moonlight, The White Ribbon, etc. It's been jarring to see auteurs' "Written and directed by" interrupted by producer credits, which are of little use to most readers. For those trying to quickly learn about a film (which the infobox is all about), who wrote it is far more relevant information that informs the film's potential quality, themes and plot than who produced it. Nardog (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per my recommendation in the above discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support - per my comments above. Writing and directing credits usually occur next to one another and are hardly ever separated by the producer. — Starforce¹³ 20:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose due to limited evidence of need to change away from the status quo. There should be better evidence than the New York Times infographic, which just breaks down what is essentially a primary source. And if we were to actually follow the infographic, we would put the companies first. So it seems to be cherry-picking here to support preconceived notions, like finding it "jarring" as if there aren't studio films with no-name directors-for-hire where some who-cares name "leading" the list of credits. Also consider the Best Picture nominees' names. At the Oscars and the BAFTAs, the producers are the specific individuals nominated. No writers in the mix there. That prioritizing should be unpacked before making a widespread change. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Since in most films the director also writes the script/screenplay, it is better to have the parameters "Directed by" and "Written by" behind each other.--FMM-1992 (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  @FMM-1992: in most films the director also writes the script/screenplay Er, take a look at this list and tell me how often the Best Director and Best Screenplay are the same. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Redrose64: the Academy Awards are very high class, my mean was normal/popular films, for example just see Tyler_Perry#Filmography, all the films he has directed were written by him and also produced / co-produced by him; another examples are James_Cameron_filmography#Film and Stanley_Kubrick_filmography#Films. -- FMM-1992 (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  Many films by both Cameron and Kubrick have been nominated for Academy Awards. See James Cameron#Awards and recognition and List of accolades received by Stanley Kubrick#Academy Awards. Popular films aren't primarily written by their directors either, most Steven Spielberg films haven't been written by him; out of the 23 released Marvel Cinematic Universe films, only 8 (The Avengers, Iron Man 3, Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers: Age of Ultron, Doctor Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, Black Panther, and Captain Marvel) have been at least in part written by their directors; out of the 10 released DC Extended Universe films, only two (Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman 1984) directors have received screenwriting credit; the Lord of the Rings trilogy was written by its director; only the first Back to the Future was written by its director; 12 out of the 24 Pixar films released were written by their directors (Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Ratatouille, WALL-E, Up, Brave, Monsters University, Inside Out, Finding Dory, Incredibles 2, Onward, Soul). You'll see it's pretty mixed, but there's definitely not a clear majority of films written by their directors. —El Millo (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  I knew that many films by Cameron and Kubrick have won or nominated for Academy Awards, when I said "normal/popular films" my mean was those films that haven't won or nominated for Academy Awards per what User:Redrose64 asked me for:

  take a look at this list (List of Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees) and tell me how often the Best Director and Best Screenplay are the same.

  "in most films the director also writes the script/screenplay" maybe not "most films", "there's definitely not a clear majority of films written by their directors that's right, I was wrong, but if "pretty mixed" means 30% ~ 50% I think it is a good reason for this change; another notable and good example is Joe Carnahan#Filmography, regards. -- FMM-1992 (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Opposed The infobox is not a billng box, it has its own logic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken: And what's that logic? How does it favor the status quo? Nardog (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

"Produced by" behind "Production company"

@Nardog, Favre1fan93, Starforce13, Erik, Beyond My Ken, and Facu-el Millo: I have a suggestion, how about putting the parameter "Produced by" behind the parameter "Production company"? in many cases they are the same or close to each other, for example, Jerry Bruckheimer's films have also produced by the production company "Bruckheimer Films".--FMM-1992 (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The main reason for the move is to mainly match the most common credits order. "Produced by" is for the person/human producer, and it's usually next to writer/director credits, unlike "Production company" which is for the companies responsible, which tends to be close to the distribution company at the end. Some producers have companies named after them, so that's why you may see similarities, but it's not always the same. — Starforce¹³ 15:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think this change should happen. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thirded – I too see little motivation for this change. Nardog (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I also am opposed to this change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Music by

• Support per my recommendation in the above discussion, though I would say I'm a bit more neutral on this change than |producer=. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support - for consistency with majority of credits order. — Starforce¹³ 20:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per the common billing order. I assume the composer was given precedence over other below-the-line roles because a score is often an accessible element to consumers, but I'm surprised to be reminded that we list it even before the cinematographer, who is often most responsible for the film's aesthetics. (Also while scores are typically made at the tail end of post-production and are absent in some films, cinematography and editing are rather essential parts of the process—remember the whole Oscars controversy?—but the same could be said about sound etc. so my rationale remains that it's just the common order.) Nardog (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per User:Nardog's comment.--FMM-1992 (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2021 (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.

I've initiated a request for a bot owner to help implement the changes: Wikipedia:Bot requests#Film infobox order change. To minimize disruption, I plan not to implement the changes to the template until a bot is ready to take on the task. Nardog (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Executive producer(s)

Does anyone really think that executive producers should be credited on this infobox or is it rather excessive? I believe that their credits matter just as much as the other jobs, but what do you think? Do you agree? We should be really thorough in our discussions. I believe the credit should be listed like so:

| executive_producer =

• YES
• NO Maxbmogs (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The RfC statement, whilst reasonably brief, fails WP:RFCNEUTRAL in several ways. I also see no indication that the suggestions described at WP:RFCBEFORE have been tried. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a long-standing consensus to exclude executive producers from this infobox. Maxbmogs should have looked in the archives of this page before posting this RFC. Please withdraw it and start a discussion about what has changed since all of the previous discussions, with links to those discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not even clear what !vote the OP is casting (or whether they are casting one). Nardog (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unlike producers, that have a specific job on a film project, "Executive producer" could be a legitimate job, or simply a credit given to people for money contributed or having a tie to a source material. Good example is that Stan Lee frequently gets executive producer credits on Marvel films, but has no direct involvement (outside of cameos) in the making of those films. This happens a lot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: The producer has a central job that essentially makes them the glue of a production. The executive producer, though credited, could refer to an investor or a crew member/rights holder foregoing conventional compensation, in exchange for a credit. BOTTO _(T•C) 15:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bignole and Botto. As both stated, in the vast majority of times, EPs are largely ceremonial credits and the person credited may not have actually had any involvement in the film's production (ie Bignole's Stan Lee example). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bignole and Botto. The role of the exec producer is so diverse that the title is generally meaningless. If somebody has an essential role in the production of the film (such as George Lucas with Star Wars) readers are best served if this articulated in the body of the article itself. Betty Logan (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Generally no, but a case by case call, clearly. There's really no need for rule creep here: in the majority of cases, an executive producer is unlikely to have a role sufficient to warrant mention in the lead. Or more to the point, they are unlikely to have such a role as recognized in reliable sources. However, it makes little sense to presume there will not be exceptions and to foreclose the option in those circumstances. However, if the OP's proposal was to add this parameter in each use of the infobox by default, that I regard as a non-starter. But at the end of the day, this is an issue that should (and by policy, must) be answered via the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of each individual article, since it pertains to the content of those individual articles and their respective sourcing. Trying to create a one-size-fits-all rule here is both ill-advised and inconsistent with our standard procedures with regard to such content inquiries. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  "If you build it (create the parameter), they will come (it will be filled)". Then, edit wars galore. We don't create "just in case" parameters for "exception" cases. If there was an exception that an executive producer needed to be mentioned, then prose would suffice as it would add context for what this was important.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  You'll have to clarify who "we" is in this context, since clearly very many templates do employ just such practices. If "we" references some sort of informal agreement at WP:WIKIPROJECT FILM or a similar space, you should really give WP:ADVICEPAGE a read, because (by longstanding community consensus, codified more than once by ArbCom) WikiProjects are not entitled to establish their idiosyncratic/pet rules to apply to all content of a given sort (article or template) that their members perceive as being in the Project's purview. For numerous reasons, that would be disruptive. Every discussion (whether it pertains to whether to have a parameter in a template to begin with, or whether to employ it in a given article) proceeds on its own independent line of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. On the other hand, if your use of "we" was more general, the generalization does not fit standard practice with regard to templates across the project: many do in fact reserve parameters for uncommon scenarios. Context is very much king when it comes to this sort of question.

  Then again, there's another part of your argument that does track with me: I might have to buy your "allowing it begs a flood of use" argument, at least partly. Mind you, I'm not 100% sure that's compelling reason to omit the parameter entirely. Afterall, there's a process for deciding whether an inclusion is excessive: it's called WP:BRD. And the editors working on those individual articles really are the ones to whom policy reserves the right to decide on content matters (again, local consensus being the rule that it is). So I'm tempted to ask if there is sufficient reason to abrogate that general principle and get in the way of the local editors here by deciding by fiat that they might not have a legitimate reason to note an "executive producer" credit in the infobox, even in a scenario where the importance of an individual (in that position for the relevant film) is given considerable WP:WEIGHT in some WP:reliable source? But considering your argument, I have to concede to the reality that inexperienced editors do sometimes view parameters as invitations/requirements, rather than options.. And film articles, as a class, do probably invite a lot of first time/novice editors.. Hmmm, it's a pickle! I'll reconsider my position. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per all the above. Un-needed infobox bloat. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is hardly the credit necessary in the infobox, especially when far more pivotal creatives like production designers, costumers, art directors, set decorators, and casting directors are not included. I'm not pushing for their additions either—personally I believe the current list is ideal—but executive producers are far more relevant to television than film, and would absolutely create unnecessary bloat. Sock (tock talk) 16:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per the cogent comments above. MarnetteD|Talk 17:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bignole and Botto. Sea Ane (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The title "Executive producer" could mean a number of things and mostly not related to the actual involvement with production hence not worth the mention in the infobox. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Related question

The above discussion exemplifies how things will not change, with regards to infobox content. On a related note, does the same apply for categories for "films produced by x"? I'm just checking that my understanding that films EP'd do not receive such a designation. BOTTO _(T•C) 06:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I think so, those categories refer to producers, not executive producers. —El Millo (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:CATDEF. I would be hard pressed to name an executive producer who was a defining characteristic of a film. MarnetteD|Talk 15:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

George Lucas, Raiders of the Lost Ark. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I would imagine that Steven Spielberg was a more defining characteristic of those films. Lucas may have contributed some ideas (which is why he has a story credit on that film), but the guiding light would have been Spielberg. Most people don't look at Indiana Jones and think George Lucas.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The fact he also received a story credit makes the example invalid. You'd need to find examples of people only credited as executive producers who are considered a defining characteristic of the film. —El Millo (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

George Lucas is probably the best argument there is. A story credit probably doesn't do justice to his input on the original Star Wars sequels and Indiana Jones, but then again an "executive producer" credit doesn't either. Betty Logan (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Inflation adjusted Bugdet and Box Office parameters

Would it be useful and possible to automatically show the present day inflation adjusted value underneath the "budget" and "box office" parameters? This would have to only happen for movies made (let's say) 20 years ago and whose budget is given in USD or the other currencies supported by {{Inflation}}. Akeosnhaoe (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so, because then you're getting information that isn't historically accurate. If it is relevant, then it should be provided in context down in those sections.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Runtime - BBFC

I request an update to Documentation text in section 1.2.5: the "Runtime" sub-subsection under the subsection "Additional parameter usage explanation" of the main "Usage" section. Text suggesting use of BBFC as a source now reads: be careful to source the correct time, which are all listed at the bottom of the entry page for the film under "Feature".

As of today (9/1/21) the BBFC display of studio release runtimes for a given movie is shown at mid-page (not the bottom) under the clickable heading "Cinema", which drops down to show multiple entries by studio. A separate clickable heading, "Home Entertainment," shows runtimes by "physical media" and "VOD/streaming" from various studios. The BBFC page does not now include a heading "Feature", as stated in template Documentation subsection 1.2.5. Thanks. DonFB (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed. —El Millo (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Plainlist and Unbulleted list

I really feels like a lot of editors are using Ubl more and more, as if brevity and acronyms are preferable to clarity and more easily understandable markup for beginners. I brought this up before Template_talk:Infobox_film/Archive_31#Plainlist_and_Ubl after an editor changed the documentation to make it look like Ubl was recommended and despite several editors agreeing that Plainlist was preferable the documentation was not reverted or even changed to put Plainlist first to at least suggest that it was preferred. If some editors want to use Ubl that's one thing but the docs should not actively recommend it.
Please change the docs to put Plainlist first, or preferably remove Ubl entirely. -- 109.78.202.99 (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not see why one should be favoured over the other. Both of them wrap a normal bulleted list inside <div class="plainlist">...</div>. Whether you use markup like this:

{{ubl|One|Two|Three}}

or this:

{{plainlist|
*One
*Two
*Three
}}

the emitted HTML is the same, apart from a few insignificant newlines. There may be circumstances where one of them looks "neater" in the wikimarkup source, but that is a purely subjective judgement and you should not be altering one to the other purely on those grounds. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the point they were making is that an editor added to the documentation their preferred style without discussion, which is ok-ish, but also added it first to make it seem the more legit style, which is less ok-ish. Gonnym (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Release date order

Is there a particular reason for the display order, particularly, the value of |release date=, to not be near the top? Presumably it even could be displayed as part of the title in parens, perhaps. My impression is that it should likely be one of the first fields otherwise. I did an archives search for "release date", but that didn't show any directly related suggestion. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 07:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

It's always been there in the ten years I have been on Wikipedia, and I have never seen it discussed. I had always assumed that it was simply grouped with other distribution info as part of the thematic structuring of the infobox i.e. principle authorship, then some key technical info, and then distribution details. Betty Logan (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I think Betty's assessment is correct in that it should be grouped near the relevant info to its release, which is the studio/distributor, as well as being towards the bottom as that is a part of the film that comes towards the end of its development in similar regards to box office gross. A recent discussion here was had on reordering some parameters of the infobox (mainly in regards to writing), and there was not an discussion to move where |release_date= is and I doubt there would be consensus to do so. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Starring section of the infobox

I would like to have an opinion about the number of actors/voice actors that should be on the "Starring" section of the infobox. Me and Link20XX discussed this when we are editing the article My Hero Academia: World Heroes' Mission. I uploaded the film's billing poster with 14 credited voice actors on the bottom, but Link20XX insisted to have three voice actors on the list as it will make it long to read for him on his mobile. Link20XX also mentioned that there are GA-nominated articles that do not list all despite the billing (to be honest, I doubt that they follow what is stated on this template in regards to the Starring section). Link20XX invoked the WP:BURO and WP:IAR so I decided to left his edit on the article (to have three actors on the Starring section instead of what is on the billing poster), but it will affect my creation or editing of articles for upcoming films in the future. - Centcom08 (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Avengers: Endgame, a GA, has 16 names. Avengers: Infinity War, another GA, has 19 names. Gonnym (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Mushishi (film), Looking for Magical Doremi, and Howl's Moving Castle (film) are all also GAs and they don't have more than 4 names. I admit that this is just probably me not wanting to get screwed-over as someone who almost always uses mobile to edit. Link20XX (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Why would you get screwed over by editing in mobile? Gonnym (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Things that appear small on PC appear much larger on mobile, which can make it harder to navigate some articles. Link20XX (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I did check the sample films you provided, Link20XX. Mushishi correctly provided the four credited voice actors on the list based on the poster, while Howl's Moving Castle also correctly listed the three voice actors on the infobox despite not showing on the image in the article (I checked the actual billing poster). However, Looking for Magical Doremi article is missing 8 credited voice actors that are on the billing poster in the infobox so I am waiting for another veteran opinion in regards to the rule of "Starring" in infobox. - Centcom08 (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The billing block is a very useful guide, but blindly adhering to it can produce some anomalous results. Sometimes the names in the billing block don't match up to the actual screen credits, and occasionally there are so many names in the billing block as to be impractical. If a film has names before/above the title that form a subset of the billing block then I would recommend deferring to those instead. - Betty Logan (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

If what you said is true in some of the articles then should we change the rule stated on the infobox's Starring, like adding a statement "Excessive names should be considered to not include on the list despite their presence on the billing block if they don't match with the actual screen credits"? - Centcom08 (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I would be ok with the infobox guidelines suggesting that editorial consensus on an article can impose a sensible limit on the number of names in the starring parameter. The key point though is that you can't really have an arbitrary size limit, there needs to be some other sensible criteria when there is an excessive number of names. Betty Logan (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film § Where should videos of public domain films go in the article?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film § Where should videos of public domain films go in the article?. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Subtitle parameter

Birds of Prey
(and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn)
Theatrical release poster

Just to be clear: I am not talking about the text which appears at the bottom of a film. By subtitle, I am, of course, referring to the second part of a film's name. Usually, but not always, it's the part that follows after a semicolon; less frequently, it's in brackets.

Anyways. I was looking at the Birds of Prey (2020) article and was immediately put off by its clunky infobox title, which as of this moment includes the film's sizeable subtitle: (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) – as well as a semantically incorrect <br /> tag which is another pet peeve of mine. There's a hidden text comment in the article's source that requests editors do not change the title/name.

I can imagine something as simple as a film's infobox title/name has been—and probably will remain—a point of contention in some articles about films with somewhat lengthy titles/names. To prevent this, how about adding a simple subtitle parameter? It will position a film's subtitle below its common name in a smaller font size, as can be seen in the example on the right.

| subheaderstyle = font-size: 110%; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;
| subheader    = {{{subtitle|}}}

What are your thoughts? Jay D. Easy (t • c) 23:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. There are plenty of templates that use the subheader. Primefac (talk) 07:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that specific instructions for their use be added to the documentation for the infobox and MOSFILM so things like WP:OR don't get out of hand. I'm also not sure about the use of parenthesis since those aren't used on film credits, adverts or posters. MarnetteD|Talk 17:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

First for Birds of Prey specifically I would argue that the WP:COMMONNAME was perfectly acceptable for the Infobox. It seems the long name was included in the infobox more through exhaustion than true consensus (see the archived discussion [1]) and you could restart that discussion. It might be simpler to slog through a consensus discussion than changing this template and any unforeseen effects it may have.

The suggestions itself seems reasonable enough for an edge case like "Birds of Prey (with longname that sounds funny at first but less and less the more you hear it)", but from MarnetteD's comments I can also see it being over-applied in many cases that do not need it. At the time of writing for example "Borat! Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" seems fine as it is, and Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) seems fine too. If this was implemented the documentation would need to be very clear so that people do not try to apply it to films like Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo. -- 109.76.200.55 (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree that I can see this going all sorts of sideways. I get that it is a well-meaning suggestion but going this route, I could see all sorts of battles over films like "X-Men: The Last Stand", "X-Men Origins: Wolverine", "Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones" (is the subtitle "Episode II – Attack of the Clones" or is is "Attack of the Clones"?), etc etc etc. I think the answer here is as suggested above: on an indidivual basis, push for the common name to be used in the infobox. So "Birds of Prey" and "Birdman". For Birds of Prey in particular, even the studio realized how silly the super-long title was and released it as "Birds of Prey" in many instances. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I personally think that the title, first lead bold and the title of the infobox should match. As a reader when it doesn't, I feel confused as to what the actual title is. Borat gives the longer title first and then at least explains that the short title is used, while Birdman (film) doesn't do even that and Birds of Prey (2020 film) gives a note about a completely different title. All 3 of these examples in my opinion are currently not properly written. Gonnym (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Additional Literary Material

WGA Members Approve Change In Movie Credits To Better Reflect All Writers' Contributions – Deadline Hollywood (November 15, 2021)

"Additional Literary Material" is the new screen credit from the Writers Guild of America. It was created to "accurately reflect the contributions of all writers employed on movie projects". So, what now? Should this be added to the infobox? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm all for giving due credit, especially to writers, but "this new credit would denote employment or sale of material, not authorship." makes it sound like this could be applied to things like pitches that are scrapped for an entirely different approach or maybe something similar. Additionally, there are dozens of IATSE folks satisfying "employment" at aren't getting due in the infobox. Might be a fine line to draw, but it miggt be best to see how the practice gets rolled out in reality first. -2pou (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to adding this credit to the infobox. It's great that they get credit and sites like IMDb will have that information, but since our infobox is a short summary of the information, it is completely undue to give this credit a place in the infobox. Gonnym (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this does not belong in the infobox. The subtleties and nuances of why such and such received a credit from the WGA would need explanation - with sources - in the body of the article. MarnetteD|Talk 01:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

This isn't necessary for the infobox, but is usefully if necessary to denote additional writers in the prose should a situation that this is needed comes up. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Production company for anime films

I often see the production company in anime films listed as the Animation studio who made them, opposed to the film production studio. Other than most of these are added without sources, I often see them added by people more associated with WikiProject anime who are surely more interested in the animations studio than the film people (granted, film production info rarely helps people when it comes to more obscure and indie/fly-by-night productions). Can we add some rules to the infobox that it should reflect the films production company and not the animation studio? There was a discussion in the past [Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 71 here] in the WikiProject Anime about it, but I feel like it should probably have been held here in the infobox so we can actually set out the rules within the infobox itself. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Addition to the runtime instructions

It is worth considering adding a sentence to the runtime guideline regarding the theatrical release versus home media. Home media can be affected by several things like commentary tracks and info about restoration techniques at the beginning or end of the film etc. I've seen several edit summaries along the lines of "I just watched it and my player read 147 minutes." Now, I know this is sorta there already but more specific instructions might clarify things. Suggestions for the wording will be appreciated. OTOH if others are okay with how it reads now that is fine. MarnetteD|Talk 21:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Has this been an issue? I'm not saying it isn't, just that it isn't one I've seen personally. Usually if I see a runtime edit and I have any doubts, I check the (admittedly not beyond reproach) IMDb, and I don't think I've ended up in any edit wars in such situations. DonIago (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

For me yes. As I said I've seen that edit summary often. Not every day but more often then I did years ago. Also my post isn't about edit wars - it is about stating things clearly up front. MarnetteD|Talk 22:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I know this isn't what you asked, but I'll just add my thoughts on this, I find the runtime parameter totally useless in our (Wikipedia) context. The time is totally trivial and there are so many variations of the timeline - regular, director's cut, VHS, DVD, extended edition, edited edition, per country, etc. The runtime is great of places like IMDB which can note which version the runtime value is for, but when we have (and should have) one value, it is totally useless. Gonnym (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I think there's no harm in adding it, but I thought it was obvious to being with. —El Millo (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It may be obvious to you but not to others. This happened today. I guess the only thing I would add is sentence saying "do not use any home video release to determine the theatrical runtime" to the first paragraph. Having said that Gonnym has a good point of the complete arbitrariness of the number. MarnetteD|Talk 23:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I like the runtime parameter quite a lot. I find it to be useful, and not arbitrary. And I think the current guideline on the template page is quite good. "The runtime for the film should be for the primary release; this will usually be the format the film premiered on, so for films that have had a theatrical release insert the runtime of the original theatrical version. Runtimes can vary due to...", etc. Admittedly, real world situations are often complicated or messy, and this is not reflected in the infobox. But that's okay, the body of the article can explain it all. As far as the template page specifically asking editors not to use times from video releases, I would not be opposed to adding that if others think it would be helpful. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

That's fine but I am telling everyone that a) the time is rarely sourced and b) home media is being used more often than you might think. The current wording should be firmer as to what is and is not allowed. MarnetteD|Talk 21:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 December 2021

I want to add a separate parameter for Dialogue writter. Please allow me to edit this documentation to add that parameter. Sony R (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of films that have such a credit? The fact that you misspelled "writer" isn't very encouraging to me, and I don't think I've ever seen such a credit before. DonIago (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It occasionally pops up in older films (The Killing (film) is one example I can think of). It may be more common in foreign-language films. Either way, it is still a writing credit and arguably isn't prevalent enough to warrant a separate field. Betty Logan (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. firefly ( t · c ) 14:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 December 2021

Please add another parameter of 'Dialogue by', in the case where Story, Screenplay and Dialogue writers are different. Sony R (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Nardog (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Retire tracking category?

Category:Pages using infobox film with incorrectly placed links has been purged with only a false positive left. Should we remove the tracking module from the template? Nardog (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Isn't that the point of a tracking category? 99% of the time it will/should be empty, but it's always there to catch the 1% of errors. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

In this case the whole point of the category was to fix ill-placed links resulting from the recent change to the order of fields (see RfC). That's why it checks only for |producer(s)= vs |writer= etc. and |music= vs |cinematography=/|editing=. It's not a category to catch generic errors, only ones arising from the order change. Nardog (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

In that case, if the error can't happen from now on, then ditch it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

One question Nardog. In my work cleaning up fields in infoboxes there are some (usually pages that have not been edited in years) that have incorrect fields but they haven't been gathered into the tracking category. Then when someone does edit them they suddenly appear in the cat. This happens most often with |residence= and |home_town= in infobox person. If that could happen n this case we might keep the cat for a few more months. If not I agree with you and Lugnuts that it can be removed. MarnetteD|Talk 17:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The tracking was implemented months ago and it took about two and a half days to complete filling up. Whenever a template is edited, it adds all its transclusions to the job queue, which clears in days, not months, even for a widely used template like this one. If a tracking category "suddenly appears" after an edit to an old revision, that's simply because the edit happened in the time frame between the template being edited and the job queue catching up to update the page cache. So no, even if we sat out for months the category won't fill up except with new errors introduced not because of the field order change. Nardog (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Good deal. Thanks for taking the time to go into this. MarnetteD|Talk 05:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. Category filed for CfD (but not taking the module to TfD just yet, as it seems to have been ported to other wikis). Nardog (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Aspect ratio

I am surprised this infobox has no aspect ratio info. Can someone add it, please? Mikus (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Have you reviewed this thread? If so, how would you respond to those who oppose the inclusion of this parameter? DonIago (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The main thing that aspect ratio does for the information about most films is to differentiate between made-for-television films (normally in 4:3) and "silver screen" films. (usually 16:9 or wider) It is also relevant information on certain historic films such as Singin in the Rain and The Wizard of Oz which don't work in widescreen. --2601:300:4080:6230:48F:9E02:9103:AFA2 (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Usually the first sentence of every film article specifies whether the film was made-for-television, but even then most newer made-for-television films are in widescreen. Also, I'm not sure what you mean when you say films "don't work in widescreen". I don't feel you've presented anything that outweighs the concerns raised at the linked discussion. DonIago (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know where we'd even get this information anyway. The AFI and BFI don't seem to document it. Betty Logan (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Doubtless we'd also need to come up with accommodations for films that use multiple aspect ratios. Not insurmountable if we wanted to pursue this, but a consideration. DonIago (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Two things to be aware of. 1) There are a large number of films that were filmed in 4:3 - see Seven Samurai 2) We live in the era of HDTV and almost all made-for-television films are 16:9. Then you have Full Metal Jacket which have had releases in both aspects. I have my doubts that the average reader has an interest in aspect ratio but when it is needed it is better to discuss it in prose in the body of the article. MarnetteD|Talk 16:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

And then there's 2.35 vs 2.39 vs 2.4, 1.85 vs 1.78 vs 1.66, 1.33 vs 1.375, etc... Nardog (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Release date parameter for streaming original films

I woud suggest that the current guidelines for the 'release date' parameter are out-of-date for films that are released as Netflix, Amazon, Apple, etc. 'Original' films. Typically these films have a limited theatrical release in some countries, followed by a wide global release on the distributing streaming platform. I would argue that the latter date is by far the most notable one; it is the date after which the vast majority of viewers will watch the film, and is usually the most prominent release date included on marketing materials. However, under the current guidelines, this date must often be ommitted, with only the limited theatrical release date for producing countries included. I would suggest that for streaming-original films, where the first wide release is on the streaming platform, the streaming release date should be included in the infobox, with the 'country' of the Film date template simply set to the streaming service's name (or perhaps simply 'streaming'). I am on the fence as to whether the dates for the limited theatrical release should also be included, although I'm leaning towards including both. --Jimmio78 (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we should include both. If it's clear it is a Netflix original film with only a limited theatrical release shortly before, then both are at least equally notable, if not more the Netflix release date. —El Millo (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. If there are no objections, I'll update the documentation. Jimmio78 (talk) 03:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't yet. It's too soon and there's not been enough participants yet. —El Millo (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that both should be included since the Netflix date is the actually important one but the earlier theatrical date is also noteworthy for a couple reasons. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Short description tweak needed

If there is no release year or country present, {{Infobox film/short description}} should display "Film" (capital F) instead of "film", per WP:SDFORMAT. I tried to fix it, but I have been editing for too long today to get the logic right. If someone could tweak it, that would be helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

How's this? Primefac (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Partially solved. Now that I've had some sleep, I see part of the problem. The code that processes the country appears to output null if it doesn't get input that it can handle nicely, so An Incident that no one noticed ends up with a short description of "film" because |country=Soviet Union is present but results in no output. Bible Collection and Black Holes (film), on the other hand, work fine with the new code. On a related note, The Cave of the Silken Web (1967 film) shows "1967 film" instead of "1967 British Hong Kong film" because |country=British Hong Kong apparently results in null output from the country-processing code. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe Template:Country2nationality should be replaced with Module:CountryAdjectiveDemonym which doesn't check for valid ISO 3166 entries. Gonnym (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out how to make that module work, but I have inserted some secondary parameter checking to find the situations in which both of the checks return null and capitalize "Film" as the entire short description in those cases. It's somewhat clunky, and I welcome a better resolution, but the 800 or so affected articles should have upper-case short descriptions now. We might want to add tracking categories for pages where the country name is not matched (if we use the module and can add to it) and for release dates without a year in them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Starring

I've boldly revised the wording in the documentation for the "Starring" field as seen here. This was prompted by a content dispute at Fight Club in which Brad Pitt, Edward Norton, and Helena Bonham Carter's names were followed by Meat Loaf and Jared Leto in the "Starring" field. This was based on language in the documentation that seems to me to come off as inflexible. As I outlined at Talk:Fight Club#Starring, the billing block may show "above the title" names as more prominent than those below it. To demonstrate another example of this potentially-usable separation, the poster for Fincher's Zodiac here shows nine names in the billing block, but four are "above the title". In essence, I don't think we should be compelled to use every actor's name in the billing block every single time, when there can be other approaches depending on the film. Editors are welcome to revert or discuss or both. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I've longed argued this with the Marvel films, stick to the big names and not 50 names in the billing block. I did think the wording was already there but it might've been informal discussion to use the top names if available where it includes less names than the billing block. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that for a while, the Star Trek Featured Articles did a different approach where it was an anchor link to the "Cast" section, something that I thought worked well. Agreed that the Marvel films can have too many names straight up, especially outside of the context of characters. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Star Trek articles have done that for a very long time, but it conflicts with WP:INFOBOX which says to avoid links within the same page, the infobox is not a table of contents (or words to that effect). -- 109.77.204.119 (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Your change however, does not address the issues you mention. You could have just added something that mentions limiting the names to only those above the title. Instead your edit makes it seem that editors can decide who they like better, which will lead to edit wars. Gonnym (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

You make a good point. I made the language more flexible, which can mean more discussion or edit warring. I think a good starting point should be the billing block, either all the actors' names or the ones above the title, depending on the film. Beyond that, there can be a local consensus for why a different approach would be appropriate. Like with WP:FILMCAST, I think the idea should be to work with valid rules of thumb. I think sometimes "above the title" could be limiting, like I noticed with the poster for Fincher's Panic Room here that Jodie Foster is the only name above the title. So just one name despite it not being a film like All Is Lost may not represent the "Starring" actors best. I do get that there may be different opinions depending on the topic. Do you think it's not worth having that flexibility? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I have been in enough long, painful discussions about cast lists to know that making this more flexible is probably going to do more harm than good. The suggestion here should make the decision straight forward for 90% of films rather than giving editors license to choose who they think is most important which will always be subjective and lead to disagreements. I think it could be okay if we say use the billing block by default, but you can adjust to the big name poster list or onscreen credit list as long as local consensus agrees it is necessary. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

It should be "use whichever is shortest". Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Why? Shortest does not mean better. Some posters only have one name at the top which is not going to be better than the full billing list. Also, apologies Erik I guess I did not read your initial edit properly because I have just had another look and I think it is fine and pretty much aligns with my thoughts above. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I vaguely recall the past discussions were primarily about finding some way to set a reasonable upper limit because editors were trying to add even minor cast to the Infobox and there was clear consensus that it was excessive. I don't see why including a few extra names bothers anyone so much, but trying to keep the list as short as possible seems likely to cause disruption (I remember the Infobox for Baywatch (film) was a weird one, editors were trying to use the billing block from an entirely different poster because they badly wanted to include a particular actress.) If editors really want to keep the list as short as possible just make it clear what you are doing. Any approach is reasonable so long as editors explain what they doing and other editors can quickly and easily check that it is matches WP:V. Frankly I would prefer the guidelines to be less flexible more consistent stable and more predictable. -- 109.77.204.119 (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says to "summarize... key facts that appear in the article" and, "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance," which I think suggests a form of brevity. So for film, I think the "Starring" field should have "key" actors. But I do get your last point about being less flexible. At the end of the day, this is like a guideline and not a policy, so I think the language supports the billing-block use first but says there can be exceptions with other approaches as determined through local consensus. I think an editor would need to make the case as to why just using the billing block straight-up would not work. I tried to make that case with Fight Club based on not considering Meat Loaf and Jared Leto as "key" as Pitt, Norton, and Carter. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

As the IP points out above, the main point of the billing block was to impose an "upper-limit" and to prevent ad hoc re-ordering of the names. If there is a sensible division between "above the title" names and others in the billing block then the guideline alone should not prevent the names from being curtailed. Likewise, sometimes the actual film credits present a different order to the billing block and I consider it reasonable to adopt the film credit order too in such cases (the billing block is often convenient because it is available before the film is released). Betty Logan (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the documentation should clarify a little more on this. "An alternative approach may be determined by local consensus" sounds like editors are free to determine their own order, thus legitimizing edits like this. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

"Local consensus" would never mean one editor deciding how it should be. "Consensus" means collective agreement. In the example you give, that editor would need to defend their edit to others (especially why following the full billing block and its particular order should be ignored) and get a local consensus on talk page for that edit. If they don't get one, that edit can't be made. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Probably but the new wording may encourage editors to be bold in changing the order, rather than sticking to whats on billing block or screen credits. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Betty Logan, the other thing is that having the poster there makes it easy to point to as a reference, instead of saying "go check out the end credits of the film." Sometimes I think it takes common sense as well. The initial end credits of Ghostbusters: Afterlife list Bookeem Woodbine when its listing those limited roles it considers stars I guess, who's in the film for like 90 seconds as a forgettable character. Presumably he once had a larger role that was cut so was due a credit but it's pointless having him in the main cast list. I didn't even know who it was referring to. So I used the actual credits list that comes after which had him further down but was otherwise no different. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata integration

The Wikidata-integrated version of this template has been proposed for deletion here. I'd love to see this infobox become better integrated with Wikidata by default, so if anyone wants to work on that, now might be a good time to take it up. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Film gauge

Film gauges - 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, 70mm, etc. - are pretty commonly defined characteristics on many movie pages, especially those concerned about the production. Would anybody object to adding that as a parameter to the infobox? Kire1975 (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that doesn't need to be included in the infobox. Film stock, if any directors actually still use that these days, or even for older films, if there is some notable reason for such a choice, can be noted in the body of the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it does not need to be included. There are many potential fields that we could include in the film infobox, but we can't include them all. There can be arguments for and against many such fields (including this one). I think it's more appropriate to keep the film infobox as it is, and cover any other items in the article body. I wouldn't object to a small technical specifications box under the "Production" section, for example. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

These days there is usually good reasoning from the director and cinematographer for using specific film stock, cameras, lenses, etc., that can be included in the filming section, so this could be grouped with that sort of content. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Border

A number of IPs have begun adding the "border=no" parameter to a whole bunch of articles and removing alt text. Is this a real parameter (asking since I don't see a description at Template:Infobox film) and if it is, when should it be used? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

From what I remember roughly 15 years ago the border was needed to give an edge to film posters that were mostly white. As the software went through various changes at some point that was no longer needed. Though others will correct me if I'm wrong I don't think the field works anymore. MarnetteD|Talk 00:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

|border= is still an acceptable parameter to use, though I don't know if actually still does anything like MarnetteD said. I tested it at Deadpool (film) in preview mode and couldn't see a noticeable border added. Alt text most definitely still exists and should be retained if it is already there (and in theory all images should have it added it, but in practice that might not happen as often as it should). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Realized I did the test wrong. Borders are added to posters by default, and one can in theory remove it with |border=no. However, you really shouldn't need to do that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes alt text still works and is important for the visually impaired to have access to information about whatever is pictured in an infobox. A couple questions come up 1) Wasn't the border field completely deactivated? 2) If not why would we ever want to remove the border around the pic of a poster? If it has been deactivated it serves no useful function. I've been a part of a couple large projects to remove deactivated fields in the past. Even if it hasn't been deactivated IMO the border field should be removed to avoid confusion, but, I guess it is also true that they don't really do any harm so I can understand if others feel it is okay to leave them in. MarnetteD|Talk 04:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The only real reason to suppress the border IMV is when a logo is being used that has a transparent background. The border then looks like a random rectangle. I think otherwise it doesn't really matter but it is definitely wrong to remove alt text. We should be working to build more inclusive articles by adding alt text to every image. This is also necessary if an article wants to be GA status. BOVINEBOY2008 22:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Writer parameter - Written by

Regarding the |writer= parameter in the infobox. As somebody recently pointed out to me, in the WGA screenwriting credit system, "&" is used to indicate a writing team. Meaning that if a screenplay is credit to "Jim & Bob and Steve" it means that Jim and Bob worked together as a team, and Steve also contributed to it but separately from Jim and Bob. We probably should mention something about this somewhere, no? Debresser (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

While I sympathize, good luck in getting editors to write that correctly. But sure, you can add to the /doc to follow the country of origin's credit system with a link to the US one. Gonnym (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Generally, that makes sense, but I'm not sure if ampersands are used in a dedicated manner on Wikipedia. Category:Screenwriting duos shows only three articles using the ampersand, and MOS:AMP discourages the general use. Is there an example we can work with, that has three or more writers, where two of them are a pair? I'm not quite sure if it happens that often, and even if it did, it may be that reliable sources just list the names together without indicating team-ups. We can use the article text to lay out how the contributions worked out. We only list official credits in film infoboxes because it is usually straightforward, but if there are odd situations, a note can be added for clarity. A note could perhaps be used to indicate a writing team, but I'm not sure if this particular matter is so important to warrant specific inclusion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

This is very common Erik. The writing credits for Thor (film) for example are: screenplay by Ashley Miller & Zack Stentz and Don Payne, and story by J. Michael Straczynski and Mark Protosevich, while our article makes no distinction. Gonnym (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, it helps to work with an example. (I couldn't think of one offhand.) So in the case of Thor, do databases bother with the ampersands or not? I'm not sure if we need to make that distinction in the infobox itself, but it can be done in the article text. Do you still think the infobox should reflect it somehow? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should include that in infoboxes, which don't need to follow the credits to the letter. When mentioning writing teams in article body we should use the &, but it would make infoboxes awkward. —El Millo (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

It's probably less relevant to the infobox and more useful as an explanatory note at MOS:FILM and MOS:TV. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

IMDb follows the credit style, AFI does not. Not sure about other databases. If we decide to use it anywhere in the article (either the infobox or body of the article) MOS:FILM and MOS:AMP should be updated to mention this. Gonnym (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe so because "Bob and Steve" are not the same as "Bob & Steve". "&" indicates a writing duo/team, not two separate individual writers. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it's perhaps most useful, if at all in the article (maybe the lead and that's it?) but definitely more so in tables. Infobox shouldn't have the "&" and "and"s. I would make notes at MOS:FILM, MOS:TV, and then something very brief at MOS:AMP. Perhaps the following (for any of the three locations): In the WGA screenwriting credit system, an ampersand (&) is used to indicate a writing team or duo, while "and" is used to separate multiple writers who are not part of a team. Such distinctions are useful to note in tables and in the lead of articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Before changing anything at MOS, suggest opening a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and summarizing this discussion. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd simply add it there, with a link to this discussion in the edit summary. Debresser (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Lovely. AFAIAC, go ahead. Debresser (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Debresser a discussion linking back here should be made at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style about the change there. I can add this text to MOS:FILM and MOS:TV, but what I suggested isn't exactly what I feel the necessary text at MOS:AMP should be. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

MOS:FILM and MOS:TV adds. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Favre1fan93 Nice. Why did you mention "in tables and in the lead of articles" at MOS:FILM, but only "in tables" at MOS:TV? Debresser (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

This applies to episodes and their tables mostly, and the vast majority of television episodes don't receive articles, so it really doesn't fit to state about the lead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Distributor(s)

We should only mention the domestic distributor of a film right in the infobox? But what if the same film has different distributors for different states? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it would depend entirely on how many there are. If there were three or four the infobox could accommodate that, but if there were 50 then it would not be reasonable to add them all. I think we would need the specifics to comment any further on such an unusual situation. Betty Logan (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Some big-budget Indian films have around 4-5 domestic distributors for different linguistic territories (RRR, K.G.F: Chapter 2). These distribution companies are mentioned on the theatrical release poster as well, so I'm inclined to say that they can be added in the infobox. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

If there are too many distributors, they can be listed in the body of the article, using either a See below link in the infobox or just leaving the parameter empty. —El Millo (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

In the case of Beast, a pure Tamil film, it is distributed by Red Giant Movies in Tamil Nadu, but by others in different states and countries. Others are adding the other distributors too, only to be reverted. What do I do? Kailash29792 (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a trade off between duly mentioning the information vs cluttering the infobox. In the case of Beast, I don't think mentioning several distributors is necessary as comparatively it would make less outside of Tamil Nadu. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm gonna stick to Red Giant Movies as the other distributors are for the dubbed versions, and we shouldn't mention overseas distributors anyway. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Ticket sales in Infobox/Gross Column?

Ticket sales belong in the body, not in gross column of the infobox, right? Only gross revenue? Or are there exceptions? My issue pertains to this (1). French ticket sales are already covered in the body (Theatrical and box office section) but the user insists on adding it to the gross column of the infobox as well. Armegon (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Worldwide box-office gross is the preferred metric, but if that is not available then other metrics can be considered such as the native box office (which may be measured in admissions in some countries), distributor rentals for older films etc. In this particular case I am unsure why we would be adding admissions in France to the infobox for a Japanese/American film. I would have though the Japanese box-office would be far more relevant in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Exactly! I don't see the point since ticket sales are already covered in prose. Armegon (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of mentioning the European ticket sales is to provide a more complete picture of how well it performed worldwide. Otherwise, the infobox gives an incomplete picture of how much it actually grossed. Alternatively, what if we gave the combined Japanese and European ticket sales in the infobox? Maestro2016 (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The admissions in France are not the European admissions; it is a random country in Europe. The data is incomplete whether you include France or not. There are many instances where we know the box-office for a handful of countries but we don't add them all to the infobox, because they don't really tell us that much about a film's international performance. Betty Logan (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay. But what about combining the admissions from multiple countries? The admissions of a single country may not be representative of international performance, but the combined admissions of multiple countries is a pretty good indicator of international performance. Maestro2016 (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

For Godzilla, King of the Monsters!, we only have the France ticket admissions. I'm sure the Japanese ticket admissions can be found in the Japanese books but I don't have direct access to them nor speak Japanese. And there's little to no information available about the film's ticket sales from other international countries. 18:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Consistency, posters

I like to have consistent captions in the infobox. Some editors have been changing "Official release poster" for streaming releases to "Release poster" on a lot of articles. Should the word "Official" be included? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. We would never have "unofficial" posters. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts on editors changing "Release poster" to "Official release poster"? Special:Diff/1083735722. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason to add that word. Wikipedia doesn't deal with unofficial posters, like fan posters, and whatnot. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree, it can be assumed that a poster is "official". MB 15:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The only distinctions I generally use are "Teaser poster" for the first one released, which then gets updated (mostly) to "Theatrical release poster" with the final one released. That last one I adjust to just "Release poster" if there's a hybrid release model on the film's first run ie a lot of COVID films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Camera type

Can someone add a "camera" property to this infobox? Granted, often more than one camera is being used, but in many cases it is just one. The info I want to see is film vs video, and type and name of the camera, like 16mm Aaton XTR or a consumer-grade Hi8. Mikus (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. It would make the infobox a bit crowded. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Parent, label companies

A number of IPs, this one most recently, have started changing the listings for a film's distributor. For example, they changed Searchlight Pictures with Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures and moved the former to studio. Is this correct/relevant? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 May 2022

Dear Reader

I would like to try and submit a Fairer policy and remove the "Cite Secondary Sources for Production Companies if necessary" Part as an admin is using it as an excuse to cite unreliable sources and cause disruption to Wikipedia and these are "reviews" and "Box office" and "catalogue webs" which either makes credits up or credits the company falsely and incorrectly. It is to add a New Rule taking out the Secondary Sources on Prod Companies which are Not Reliable and instead an admin is taking a HUGE advantage on this. So this should be replaced with a "Wikipedia Film Prod Company Credits Rule" Which Strictly limits only adding Prod Companies as seen exactly as they are on Screen Credits. I am doing this because this is causing Wikipedia Readers a confusion and because that i don't want film people to look at the screen then go to the sourced credits and say that Wikipedia is Unreliable because 1 Admin is reverting people who try to fix a mistake and is also punishing them for fixing a mistake. also if you could submit this rule on my behalf because i am an IP then that would be excellent. 60.240.94.60 (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Removing the requirement for secondary reliable sources would contravene WP:PSTS which is Wikipedia policy. If you believe a source is incorrect you should raise the issue on the article talk page. If you believe that a source is inherently unreliable then you can get a second opinion at WP:RSN or WT:FILM. Betty Logan (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The film itself can be used as a source (which we almost always do for plots) as far as primary sources are allowed in general. If a source is contradicted by actual credits, I suggest leaving a note both on the talk page and in the summary for your edit to the infobox, though finding and citing another, more accurate source is preferable. Nardog (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The film itself serves as a primary source only, and any interpretative claims should still be cited to secondary reliable sources. Many companies are listed in the film credits and it is not always clear in which capacity. So whilst you may be able to confirm a company's involvement in a particular film, sometimes a secondary source is necessary to confirm they served in a production capacity. Betty Logan (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

"Franchise" field

Given the ever increasing number of flims created as part of a shared universe, or some other form of franchise, I am wondering if it makes sense for us to now include such an identifier in this template? The most obvious example of where this might be useful is the MCU, but there are also other films franchises, like Wizarding World and MonsterVerse, where there are connected films which are not, technically speaking, prequels or sequels to one another. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 11:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Strong oppose: The lead for each film article can easily include this information, and the infobox is arguably already too extensive. This can also be handled (and likely often is) via navboxes, and in a more useful presentation style at that. It's still the case that the vast majority of films are not part of a franchise in any case. DonIago (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Given that we've already moved away from "Preceded by" and "Followed by", this seems unlikely. Nardog (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

These are both valid observations, but the Infobox is by-design a summary of the information present in the article; all of the information covered in the infobox is also covered in the mainspace, so I don't think that should be an exclusionary factor. On the subject of the already remove "Preceded by" and "Followed by" field, as I mentioned above, in a lot of these cases, the linked films are not, strictly speaking, sequels or prequels to one another, hence the reason for the suggested new field. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 10:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems the same as the Series field in the Video games infobox. That field has actually been the one that caused the least problems historically. Its just a link to the series article that covers the franchise. I can't see a problem with adding it for films. - X201 (talk) 10:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• There isn't much call for such a parameter on the overwhelming majority of articles, and where there is the franchise navbox covers relevant links much more comprehensively. Betty Logan (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 May 2022

Add IMDB ID to the template. I already did this in the sandbox, but the idea is to add

| label25      = [[IMDB]] ID
|  data25      = {{{imdbID|}}}

to the end and imdbID to the tracking function.

imdbIDs are unique identifiers to every film and would help researchers/wikipedia bots to essentially merge data from other sources (e.g., the OMDB API) with data on the wikipedia page for a movie. For example, if each move already have an imdbID attached, and we want to add the imdb rating to the infoboxes, one can imagine writing a bot that does all of that. AI coolTIM (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey, there's been various discussions here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=imdb&prefix=Template+talk%3AInfobox+film%2F&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&searchToken=bq1z662lf4rhf9xgm1w57pegi. Indagate (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Per past discussions and consensus on this. IMDb is fine for the External Links section, not the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikisource link

Enough time has passed that large numbers of movies are starting to be automatically entered in the public domain. For example works in the United States enter the public domain after 95 years. As more and more movies are going to be free use in the coming years more are being added to wikisource. I propose we create a parameter like Template:Infobox book, Template:Infobox religious text, Template:Infobox document has for texts give editors the option to link to wikisource within the infobox. Bluealbion (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I added the parameter to the sandbox and testcases to demonstrate how it would come up. Its the latest section. Anyone have an opinion if this would be a good addition or not? Bluealbion (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Film is still a relatively new medium and most films are still under copyright, so the parameter would not be invoked on the majority of articles. The infobox is overloaded as it is so I would oppose adding more parameters unless they would be used on most of the articles. Editors often to prefer to integrate film files into articles in other ways anyhow (see The Birth of a Nation and Night of the Living Dead). Betty Logan (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 July 2022

I would like to add an additional role named 'Promotions Editor' who works on Movie promotions and part of main team. OMGSiddharth (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Not a significant enough role (and as far as I'm aware not a standard title with regards to American films at least) to merit inclusion in the infobox. DonIago (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose adding that as well. There are so many more notable individuals that could be added before this insignificant credit. Gonnym (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Redundancy in categories added by template

Category:English-language films is added when one has "English" in the language field of the infobox, but this makes the category redundant with language categories by decade, such as Category:2010s English-language films for Lady Macbeth (film). — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Per this thread, I think it would be good to remove the hard-coding here too, as per the top-level country categories. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:41, 18 July 2022‎ (UTC)

If "[Language]-language films" cats should be diffusing, then yeah, the hardcoding should be removed, so long as other subcategories for such language exists and film can be sorted into them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Remove "language films" category coding. In present Bengali film is produced in India and Bangladesh. I created Category:Bengali-language Indian films and Category:Bengali-language Bangladeshi films for them. So we don't need this hard coding now. The category Category:Bengali-language films has 1400+ articles and that is unnecessary for Bengali-language films. Mehedi Abedin 19:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Per the above discussion, and the related consensus about top-level country categories, please can the language parameter be changed so it DOES NOT populate an article with a category. For example, if you place "Spanish" into the language parameter, the article automatically gets Category:Spanish-language films added to it. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

For any template editor, I think this change is fairly straightforward, but if not, implement this version of the sandbox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 18:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)