This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 |
Beyond My Ken ( talk) 09:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The director and writers will almost definitely be listed as much, if not more so, than the cast.So if it is redundant to list cast members in the infobox, then it must be even more so to list the director and writers. So again, by your logic, why don't we just get rid of infoboxes? - adamstom97 ( talk) 05:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Now you guys are starting to miss the point of what an infobox is and why we have them. A read of Help:Infobox may be required. - adamstom97 ( talk) 22:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The problem with Beyond My Ken proposal can be seen currently at the Armageddon and this ensuing talk page debate. To sum up the situation, despite having an ensemble cast only Bruce Willis's name appears above the poster, thus there was an edit war regarding the infobox and everyone's trying to figure the situation out. This is obviously not an ideal situation. The best situation I think of would be to use the the "above the titles" as a tool, but above all else, use common sense. For the vast majority of films the guideline is probably fine to populate the infobox using the tool. but now and then we come across an Armageddon, and we shouldn't all freak out just because a name isn't where it's supposed to be on the poster. -- Deathawk ( talk) 07:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
This is a suggestion. Every film poster contains one tagline. So why not have in the in the { {Infobox film} } template has a parameter which should appear after title of the film. Dunno if it has been discussed before. But what do you admins think?
For instance: { {Infobox film title = Kyon Ki tagline = ...its fate. ... } } Harsh Rathod 13:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Bovineboy2008, why did you restore the long alt text? From
MOS:ALT: "Alternative text should be short ... Very long descriptions can be left for the body of the article."
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 02:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I have updated the page per the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Narrator in infobox. While the discussion did not receive an "official admin" close the bot did remove the RFC which means the thread will soon be archived and I wanted to make the bold edit before the decision recedes into the mists of time. If anyone feels I have erred in this please feel free to reopen the discussion at the thread linked to. MarnetteD| Talk 23:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Can you add the voices part for actors in movies. They use voice actors mainly in animated films and in stop-motion movies. It had been fine that you would have added this. It is important for people to know who had the voices in these movies-- 193.161.216.4 ( talk) 16:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
|voices=
to the template similar to what is found at
Template:Infobox television, for use with animated roles.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 16:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Since line-height
is set to 1.3em
for the data, but not for the labels (they're using 1.5em
from .infobox –
line 405), the stuff on the left and the right ends up being misaligned. Here's a
screencap from
Barry Lyndon, for instance. Was the line-height set to 1.3em to make lists generated via {{
plainlist}} more compact or? At any rate, it'd be nice to fix this by either adding line-height:1.3em;
to labelstyle (although, that would make the infobox look a bit crammed), or by getting rid of it in datastyle (which kind of makes lists look a bit weird with the extra space between the lines, but that could be because I'm used to seeing it the current way), or unless there's a different way I'm missing. –
Srdjan m (
talk) 21:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox film has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please implement this version of the sandbox to the live template, per the above discussion. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
What do we put in the language field for such films? "Silent" may not be the option, since there are sound films which are not really silent, like Pushpaka Vimana and The Thief, which just lack dialogue. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
There does not appear to be any provision for the colour system used in the film's brief details. I believe there should be; Technicolor, Eastmancolor, DeLuxe Color, etc. Unknown if no colour system is credited, and black & white or black & white (Sepiatone), etc. SButler860( talk) 14:21 7 April 2018 (BST)
We have a debate going at the page for Dunkirk. We have multiple RS reporting the budget is $150 million (one official film office report from the Netherlands shows its around $130 million) and multiple sources showing it is $100 million. One or two of the sources first claimed it was $150 million and then said WB claimed it was $100 million. In one case, a source that re-reported it as $100 million still acknowledged the earlier $150 million amount and did not disavow either amount. Like wikipedia, they kept both amounts for a range. No source issued a correction and no source that later added the $100 million budget claimed the other amount was incorrect. And one of them actually re-reported the $100 million as the "net" budget, which means there was a higher gross budget (as the film shot in rebate locations of the UK, Netherlands and France). Finally, many of the sources claiming $150 million always reported it as such, including trade publications TheWrap and Deadline as well as the LA Times, Marketwatch, The Guardian and others. Info box rules are clear that we list the budget range, but two editors feel that the sources who later included the $100 million budget means they somehow disowned the $150 million amount or invalidated the $150 million amount as incorrect. Again, these sources did not disown the $150 million amount or say it was "incorrect". This is the interpretation of the two editors, not the actual position of the sources in question. Edits to include a range have been reverted. Rather than reply to arguments for including the range and address the multiple cited RS using the $150 million or lower (the Netherlands film office report), the two editors who only want $100 million have remained silent. Any thoughts for or against using a budget range on this film would be welcome on the Dunkirk talk page. Foodles42 ( talk) 17:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
So I'm working on the running time for Flesh for Frankenstein. There are two known running times, the US running time, and a shorter Italian running time (the film is an Italian production predominantly, but was heavily edited for its Italian release, which was a later release). The film originally premiered in West Germany, I don't know the running time then. Should the infobox handle the running time here? Or just try to explain it best we can as prose as this is a more complicated issue? Thoughts? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 17:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Should it be used instead of the "screenplay" field if the writer and story writer is the same person? What if the screenplay is based on a work of the screenwriter? (e.g. Oleanna). Tks, Slightlymad ( talk ⋅ contribs) 08:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Currently the guidelines request that the "approximate time duration of the theatrical release of the film in minutes" is added to the infobox, and advises that the British Board of Film Classification is a reliable source. The reason for this is because the BBFC physically measures the length of film in those instances where the film had a theatrical release, and as such its time should be exact (for the version submitted to the BBFC).
However, there have been complications as can be seen at Talk:Ronin_(film)#Runtime_in_infobox and Talk:The_Grand_Budapest_Hotel#Runtime. This is because the BBFC rates every version submitted, and the times can sometimes vary. It is useful to consider the three separate entries for The Grand Budapest Hotel:
There is a difference of over 4 minutes between the "film" and "video" version, so what does this mean, considering that both submitted versions were uncut? The difference is due to a phenomenon known as PAL speedup. PAL is the television system used in some European and Asian countries and runs at 25 frames per second (as opposed to NTSC which runs at 30 frames per second). Synchronised sound films on the other hand observe the worldwide standard of 24 frames per second. Obviously a film playing at 25 frames per second on TV is 4% faster/shorter than the exact same version of the film playing in theaters, playing at 24 frames per second. Bearing this in mind, the PAL format this will shave about 4 minutes off a 100 minute film, explaining the discrepancy between the film and video versions of The Grand Budapest Hotel. The "Feature" entry that the BBFC also has seems to be an amalgamation of the film and video entries, giving an average time and the release dates for both versions. However, for the purpose of this infobox we specifically want the film entry i.e. the time it will take to watch the film when it plays at 24 frames per second. If the guidelines are going to recommend the BBFC as a source it needs to be specific about which entry we actually want. We can't reasonably expect editors to be aware of European broadcast specifications. I suggest the following tweak:
Insert an approximate time duration of the theatrical release of the film in minutes. Do not link to minute. The
BBFC website is a reliable source—the running time is given to the second, so round it to the minute. Do not include any additional run times, such as a
director's cut or an unrated version, without consensus.
Insert an approximate time duration of the film in minutes. In some sources the running time is given to the second, so round it to the minute (and do not link to "minute"). Restrict the entry to the run time 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 run time of the original theatrical version. Run times can vary due to regional censorship, alternative cuts (such as a
director's cut or an unrated version) and different technical specifications across release formats, but do not include any additional run times without consensus. If using the
BBFC website as a source take note that it logs the run time for each release which can lead to variances in the run time, so please take care to source the correct time (all the releases are listed at the bottom of the entry page for the film under "Feature").
The current version is a bit outdated anyway, because the infobox is also used on DTV and television films, so the re-write would help to generalize the guidance. While the BBFC is probably the single best source for run times that we have, I do think the current version reads like we are mandating its usage, and as the discussion directly above this section demonstrates it is not always the most appropriate source. Anyway, this is just a draft, so any changes/suggestions are welcome. Betty Logan ( talk) 14:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Insert an approximate time duration of the film in minutes. If the running time is given to the second, round it to the minute (and do not link to "minute"). Restrict the entry to the runtime 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 regional censorship, alternative cuts (such as a
director's cut or an unrated version) and different technical specifications across release formats, but do not include any additional runtimes without consensus. Use a
reliable secondary source to cite the information; do not take it from home video packaging or time it yourself. If using the BBFC website as a source take note that a film may have been submitted to the BBFC several times for classification and have several different runtimes associated with it depending on format, version and component (such as a DVD commentary), so be careful to source the correct time, which are all listed at the bottom of the entry page for the film under "Feature".
I'm fine with the updated text but to @ Tronvillain:'s question on rounding, at least as I've come to know it for films, anything from 1 second - 59 seconds is a minute. For example, a film that has a runtime of 54 minutes and 12 seconds, would be rounded to 55 minutes, because those 12 seconds entered the 55th minute (even though it wasn't completed). I guess "conventional" rounding practices would say to round this to 54 minutes since 12 seconds is closer to 54 than 55 minutes, so it may be helpful to state how we as a project wish to round. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 03:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Could the text for "alt" be improved to mention that most browsers will show a tooltip containing the alt text if you hover over it? By failing to mention this it makes it seem like the alt description is not a widely used feature but it is.
XKCD frequently uses the alt tag feature to add an extra line to the comic strip rather than actually providing an alternative description of the image. -- 109.77.213.7 ( talk) 23:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
The documentation at various points recommends using {{unbulleted list}} and {{Plainlist}} but the example uses {{startplainlist}}. Would someone please make the documentation and examples consistent. I'd like to use {{Plain list}} in all cases (yes with the space, because it means not being distracted yet another spelling mistake in the wikisource) but I'd settle for the documentation and the example using the same template consistently throughout.
At the very least, please remove the weirdly inconsistent use of {{startplainlist}}{{endplainlist}} from the example. -- 109.76.152.102 ( talk) 15:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
How about something in the doc to suggest that using plainlist for a "list" of two people is really not necessary. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I've seen people use the unbulleted list template for only one item! Also it is strange using a template if you're only going to strip all the spaces out and make the markup as unpleasant to read, but fans of unbulleted lists do it all the time. Wikipedia is a nightmare of inconsistency on so many levels, but this at least seemed like an easy request to get a bit more consistency, and at least have the documentation and the example match. {{Plainlist| }} seems to be the more widely used style.
Personally I don't bother using a list template for any less than 3 items and I understand why you might think the guidelines should tell people that too but I vaguely recall something about the benefits of using lists to logically organize and itemize things, probably because it helps machine readers. I don't remember the details but I'm fairly sure someone will insist they've a constitutional right to make lists with only 2 items, so it's best to ignore those rare lists with only 2 items and move along. -- 109.76.152.102 ( talk) 00:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
{{Plainlist| * [[cat]] * [[dog]] * [[horse]] * [[cow]] }}
Hello. A relevant RfC regarding which companies are to be listed in the infobox for anime films is taking place on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Request for Comment: Is it relevant to list all production companies or just main animation studios in the infobox of film articles?. Input from members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 19:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if it has been discussed before. If it was, then please provide me with a link to that/those discussios(s). I propose for one more parameter called "Executive producer(s)" with given instructions to be used only if the person(s) assinged to this parameter has/have WP articles to wikilink.
Harsh Rathod
Poke me! 16:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
For instance take
My Name is Khan.
Varun Dhawan is one of the executive producer of this film. It is also his only executive produced film.
Harsh Rathod
Poke me! 17:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, after reading all that, now I'm convinced I was doing nothing good with this proposal. That comprehensive discussion shifted from yes to no. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 05:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
Can someone fix this line:
| abovestyle = font-size:110%;font-style:italic;
so that it respects if you have |italic title=no
set? —
Joeyconnick (
talk) 21:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
|italic title=no
is only meant to omit italics on the article name at top of the page. It works as intended. If you want to omit italics in the infobox heading then you can use |name={{
no italic|...}}
.
PrimeHunter (
talk) 00:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox film has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Wrap the tfm notice in <noinclude>...</noinclude>
tags to suppress showing in mainspace –
Ammarpad (
talk) 20:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Seeing as how automatic episode short descriptions at Template:Infobox television episode did not have a lot of issues, I was wondering if an automatic generated short description can be implemented here as well. I've been seeing a few styles:
I think the style which would be less controversial and best match the character limit recommendation, would be the first option - as it does not have to deal with genres and has the most important attributes of the film. Thoughts? Comments? -- Gonnym ( talk) 16:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Following the merge discussion with
Template:Infobox Hollywood cartoon that passed, I've added the following parameters to the
sandbox version: |animator=
, |layout_artist=
, |background_artist=
and |color_process=
. A side by side comparison can be viewed
here. Any comments and suggestions are welcomed. --
Gonnym (
talk) 20:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
All of the writer/producer/artist parameters use the name of the role as the parameter except for |editing=
and |cinematography=
. Unless there is an objection, I would like to add |editor=
as an alias of |editing=
and |cinematographer=
as an alias of |cinematography=
in order to make the template parameters more consistent with each other. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Should credits in the infobox be the official credits or, on a case-by-case basis, include un-credited persons? It would be good to add the answer to this question to the Credits section in the template documentation.— Aquegg ( talk) 06:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release.[1] If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits. Other additions by consensus.
With a view to promoting consistency across the FILM project, it is proposed to modify the Credits section of the Infobox-Film template documentation with the addition of a new initial sentence, shown here in green:
Note that the proposed change is a generalization of existing documentation for cast member credits ('starring').— Aquegg ( talk) 18:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Quite a number of films these days have prequels and sequels. With one film leading to the other and so on. Notable examples include star wars, Lord of the rings, Hobbit, Aliens, Despicable me just to mention but a few. I hereby propose addition of the two options so as to cater for the same. Shadychiri ( talk) 07:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Is there any structured way to include the "genre" of the film? It can be edited on Wikidata, but as far as I know, the template does not provide any way to include genre. Including it in the introduction section does not make it structured.
I'mFeistyIncognito 10:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I was just wondering about how much (mainly science fiction) films and TV productions do have re-releases which differ from their original "selfs" due to digital alteration ( Star Wars films, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, Star Trek: The Original Series,...) and I thought that a modify to the infobox should be made about this versions of the works (I thought to do it similarly to the sub-templates of the Animanga infoboxes, but it can also be done differently). I cannot do this as I am not a template editor, but if someone could, with your authorization, I think it could be a good idea.
-- Aledownload ( talk) 11:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:The Matrix (franchise)/Archive 2#Request for Comment - Crediting The Wachowskis. It partly concerns Template:Infobox film. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
For articles about live-action movies, do I really insert the film stock used here or the technology the movie was post-processed with? For instance, in the Ronin (film) article, I found sources stating that the movie was photographed with Kodak film stock while its color was provided by Deluxe. Which of these should I insert in the parameter? Slightlymad ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I think we should add an executive producer credit in the infobox, as these producers finance the film, and are equally as vital as the producer, writer, and director of the film. ATC . Talk 19:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I've just discovered that PatTheMoron is making edits like thus adding a field to the infobox that does not currently exist. At the moment PtM seems to be adding info about the people that wrote the English language versions of various foreign films films. I know that we tend to reserve the infobox for original theatrical release information. OTOH I don't know if there have been previous discussions about including a "dialogue" field. I feel that a decision should be made one way or the other about its inclusion and then - if the decision is to include the field - it can be added to the infobox rather than shoehorning it in. Also the proper instructions can be included in the documentation section. MarnetteD| Talk 03:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
How the footnote should appear in relevant Wachowski film articles, which covers its appearance in the infobox, is being discussed at Talk:The Matrix (franchise)/Archive 3#Footnote implementation. Please join the discussion and weigh in with your thoughts and suggestions. Thank you. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 16:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I realize that currently the size parameter is left open so that each's users image size preference is used, but what is the actual preferred upload resolution? I'd say it should be 220px as that is the default resolution under the preference settings. Therefore fewer users will experience autoscaling and view a lower quality image. Thoughts?-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 17:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Would just like to make a quick suggestion here that we add an "age_certificate" or "age_rating" line to this template and Template:Infobox television. Its an official measure used globally. I don't see why either template does not currently include this. An age rating would also be something very quick and easy to go back and add to existing articles. Helper201 ( talk) 21:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Often when a filmmaker both writes and directs a film they receive the credit "written and directed by". I think we should consider adding this option to the infobox. 1. From the perspective of the reader, it would make the infoboxes on such films less repetitive and cluttered. 2. The credit "written and directed by" has, to me, a subtle glamor that is lost when you split it up into two separate credits: it conveys a sense that the film is the work of a singular vision. WanderingWanda (they/them) ( t/ c) 03:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
What does Release Date really mean? On The Greatest Showman I see release date referring first to its private premiere onboard the RMS Queen Mary 2. Is a private premiere a release? Or is a public availability of a show it's TRUE release date? Aka released to the public? I feel clarity could be on this template and The Greatest Showman should list its public date its release date. Thoughts? -- Echoniner ( talk) 22:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings. Hope this helps. -- Gonnym ( talk) 23:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox film has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add a title for Camera.. Roshansimon ( talk) 17:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to propose two further entries:
Both would, I think, be pertinent and useful for certain films (including E la nave va, which brought me here). 86.190.132.158 ( talk) 14:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Just like screenplay and story are separate fields (you use the writer field when both tasks are handled by the same person), is it possible to add two new fields called soundtrack and score? For those handling both, the music field may be used. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
In that scenario, I would credit them all. Remeshwar should be first, as the composer of the main music, while they others would follow as the creators of the musical numbers. I would probably list them as "Composer" and "Music" and "Lyrics". The easiest example I can think of is Singin' in the Rain, which has a similar situation as what this film does. Short version, I would avoid saying "Soundtrack" by those people, because "Soundtrack" on most English speaking films means something else. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Doniago, I'm not sure crystal applies here because we already know that they are doing a job, as are just trying to figure out the best way to list them. I don't think the release of the film is going to change how they are credited, as the trailer already credits them. It's a language barrier between how they credit in that country versus others, as far as I can see. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Can you add a new field in the movie infobox concerning voice actors. This is important regarding animated films as such. People would like to know this. Add the optional header with voices with information regarding the voce actors. -- 88.90.220.108 ( talk) 19:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Can someone please add a film series chronology section to this inbox? WikiSmartLife ( talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 04:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Regarding Shin Godzilla, the film had two directors: Hideaki Anno (the chief director) and Shinji Higuchi (the main director). Usually, we list the director of record in the infobox (in this case, it's Higuchi). However, the chief director credit, which I removed, was quickly put back in along with the chief producer (Minami Ichikawa). Per the relevant parameter guidelines for "producer", we don't list executive producers, associated producers, etc., so I removed it. That said, should we list chief directors in the infobox or just the main director (i.e. Higuchi)? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 07:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, should we start a straw poll on whether or not we should include the chief director in the infobox if it's necessary? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 03:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Articles such as Me at the zoo use this infobox, but would really benefit from having the Youtube link be able to be shown in the infobox as well. Perhaps we could add an attribute to this info box for "video link" or something similar? Llightex ( talk) 15:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC) ]
These are the people who literally pay basically for the films to exist: why isn't there a field for these? u v u l u m ( talk) 03:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I think the Studio field needs more clear instructions on the definition of who "produced" the film. Is it the people responsible for staffing, locating and making the film, or does it include people who just put up money? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I constantly find it annoying to have to search for ratings for films. It would be much more convenient if the infobox had a rating item with Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores.
Something like this, for Endgame:
Critics' score MC:
78/100, RT:
94% (8.3/10)
(I think the average score should also be presented for RT. I find it to be more practical, to get an idea of the quality of the film.)
Tooltips could show a short explanation of the aggregator and the scoring system. The "Critics score" text could link to the "Critical response" section when it exists.
-- Dqeswn ( talk) 17:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
There is no consensus to include additional parameters in the infobox. Some editors suggested adding an "animation director" additional parameter but there is no consensus to do this without prejudice against further discussion about this.
Should we include additional parameters (such as character designer, art director, animation director, storyboard, etc.) in the infobox? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 16:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
This has probably been discussed before but I couldn't any discussion for it. So, I'm bringing it up. The percentage of films with sequel or belonging to franchises has increased significantly over the past few years. And sometimes when I'm reading/editing a movie article, I want to be able to easily navigate to the sequel or prequel without the need to search for it. Is it possible to add a parameter for sequel/prequel? It can also use other terms like "preceded by" or "related" etc? I think there are enough movies with sequels or in franchises to justify the need for this addition. Thanks! Starforce13 16:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
There's a lot of information that can be added to the InfoBox but I can't figure out how to cite within that box to say where i'm getting the information from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwcoats78 ( talk • contribs) 03:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
This is a piece of information I and perhaps many others would find very helpful. Thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L d allan ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 |
Beyond My Ken ( talk) 09:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The director and writers will almost definitely be listed as much, if not more so, than the cast.So if it is redundant to list cast members in the infobox, then it must be even more so to list the director and writers. So again, by your logic, why don't we just get rid of infoboxes? - adamstom97 ( talk) 05:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Now you guys are starting to miss the point of what an infobox is and why we have them. A read of Help:Infobox may be required. - adamstom97 ( talk) 22:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The problem with Beyond My Ken proposal can be seen currently at the Armageddon and this ensuing talk page debate. To sum up the situation, despite having an ensemble cast only Bruce Willis's name appears above the poster, thus there was an edit war regarding the infobox and everyone's trying to figure the situation out. This is obviously not an ideal situation. The best situation I think of would be to use the the "above the titles" as a tool, but above all else, use common sense. For the vast majority of films the guideline is probably fine to populate the infobox using the tool. but now and then we come across an Armageddon, and we shouldn't all freak out just because a name isn't where it's supposed to be on the poster. -- Deathawk ( talk) 07:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
This is a suggestion. Every film poster contains one tagline. So why not have in the in the { {Infobox film} } template has a parameter which should appear after title of the film. Dunno if it has been discussed before. But what do you admins think?
For instance: { {Infobox film title = Kyon Ki tagline = ...its fate. ... } } Harsh Rathod 13:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Bovineboy2008, why did you restore the long alt text? From
MOS:ALT: "Alternative text should be short ... Very long descriptions can be left for the body of the article."
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 02:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I have updated the page per the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Narrator in infobox. While the discussion did not receive an "official admin" close the bot did remove the RFC which means the thread will soon be archived and I wanted to make the bold edit before the decision recedes into the mists of time. If anyone feels I have erred in this please feel free to reopen the discussion at the thread linked to. MarnetteD| Talk 23:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Can you add the voices part for actors in movies. They use voice actors mainly in animated films and in stop-motion movies. It had been fine that you would have added this. It is important for people to know who had the voices in these movies-- 193.161.216.4 ( talk) 16:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
|voices=
to the template similar to what is found at
Template:Infobox television, for use with animated roles.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk) 16:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Since line-height
is set to 1.3em
for the data, but not for the labels (they're using 1.5em
from .infobox –
line 405), the stuff on the left and the right ends up being misaligned. Here's a
screencap from
Barry Lyndon, for instance. Was the line-height set to 1.3em to make lists generated via {{
plainlist}} more compact or? At any rate, it'd be nice to fix this by either adding line-height:1.3em;
to labelstyle (although, that would make the infobox look a bit crammed), or by getting rid of it in datastyle (which kind of makes lists look a bit weird with the extra space between the lines, but that could be because I'm used to seeing it the current way), or unless there's a different way I'm missing. –
Srdjan m (
talk) 21:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox film has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please implement this version of the sandbox to the live template, per the above discussion. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
What do we put in the language field for such films? "Silent" may not be the option, since there are sound films which are not really silent, like Pushpaka Vimana and The Thief, which just lack dialogue. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
There does not appear to be any provision for the colour system used in the film's brief details. I believe there should be; Technicolor, Eastmancolor, DeLuxe Color, etc. Unknown if no colour system is credited, and black & white or black & white (Sepiatone), etc. SButler860( talk) 14:21 7 April 2018 (BST)
We have a debate going at the page for Dunkirk. We have multiple RS reporting the budget is $150 million (one official film office report from the Netherlands shows its around $130 million) and multiple sources showing it is $100 million. One or two of the sources first claimed it was $150 million and then said WB claimed it was $100 million. In one case, a source that re-reported it as $100 million still acknowledged the earlier $150 million amount and did not disavow either amount. Like wikipedia, they kept both amounts for a range. No source issued a correction and no source that later added the $100 million budget claimed the other amount was incorrect. And one of them actually re-reported the $100 million as the "net" budget, which means there was a higher gross budget (as the film shot in rebate locations of the UK, Netherlands and France). Finally, many of the sources claiming $150 million always reported it as such, including trade publications TheWrap and Deadline as well as the LA Times, Marketwatch, The Guardian and others. Info box rules are clear that we list the budget range, but two editors feel that the sources who later included the $100 million budget means they somehow disowned the $150 million amount or invalidated the $150 million amount as incorrect. Again, these sources did not disown the $150 million amount or say it was "incorrect". This is the interpretation of the two editors, not the actual position of the sources in question. Edits to include a range have been reverted. Rather than reply to arguments for including the range and address the multiple cited RS using the $150 million or lower (the Netherlands film office report), the two editors who only want $100 million have remained silent. Any thoughts for or against using a budget range on this film would be welcome on the Dunkirk talk page. Foodles42 ( talk) 17:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
So I'm working on the running time for Flesh for Frankenstein. There are two known running times, the US running time, and a shorter Italian running time (the film is an Italian production predominantly, but was heavily edited for its Italian release, which was a later release). The film originally premiered in West Germany, I don't know the running time then. Should the infobox handle the running time here? Or just try to explain it best we can as prose as this is a more complicated issue? Thoughts? Andrzejbanas ( talk) 17:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Should it be used instead of the "screenplay" field if the writer and story writer is the same person? What if the screenplay is based on a work of the screenwriter? (e.g. Oleanna). Tks, Slightlymad ( talk ⋅ contribs) 08:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Currently the guidelines request that the "approximate time duration of the theatrical release of the film in minutes" is added to the infobox, and advises that the British Board of Film Classification is a reliable source. The reason for this is because the BBFC physically measures the length of film in those instances where the film had a theatrical release, and as such its time should be exact (for the version submitted to the BBFC).
However, there have been complications as can be seen at Talk:Ronin_(film)#Runtime_in_infobox and Talk:The_Grand_Budapest_Hotel#Runtime. This is because the BBFC rates every version submitted, and the times can sometimes vary. It is useful to consider the three separate entries for The Grand Budapest Hotel:
There is a difference of over 4 minutes between the "film" and "video" version, so what does this mean, considering that both submitted versions were uncut? The difference is due to a phenomenon known as PAL speedup. PAL is the television system used in some European and Asian countries and runs at 25 frames per second (as opposed to NTSC which runs at 30 frames per second). Synchronised sound films on the other hand observe the worldwide standard of 24 frames per second. Obviously a film playing at 25 frames per second on TV is 4% faster/shorter than the exact same version of the film playing in theaters, playing at 24 frames per second. Bearing this in mind, the PAL format this will shave about 4 minutes off a 100 minute film, explaining the discrepancy between the film and video versions of The Grand Budapest Hotel. The "Feature" entry that the BBFC also has seems to be an amalgamation of the film and video entries, giving an average time and the release dates for both versions. However, for the purpose of this infobox we specifically want the film entry i.e. the time it will take to watch the film when it plays at 24 frames per second. If the guidelines are going to recommend the BBFC as a source it needs to be specific about which entry we actually want. We can't reasonably expect editors to be aware of European broadcast specifications. I suggest the following tweak:
Insert an approximate time duration of the theatrical release of the film in minutes. Do not link to minute. The
BBFC website is a reliable source—the running time is given to the second, so round it to the minute. Do not include any additional run times, such as a
director's cut or an unrated version, without consensus.
Insert an approximate time duration of the film in minutes. In some sources the running time is given to the second, so round it to the minute (and do not link to "minute"). Restrict the entry to the run time 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 run time of the original theatrical version. Run times can vary due to regional censorship, alternative cuts (such as a
director's cut or an unrated version) and different technical specifications across release formats, but do not include any additional run times without consensus. If using the
BBFC website as a source take note that it logs the run time for each release which can lead to variances in the run time, so please take care to source the correct time (all the releases are listed at the bottom of the entry page for the film under "Feature").
The current version is a bit outdated anyway, because the infobox is also used on DTV and television films, so the re-write would help to generalize the guidance. While the BBFC is probably the single best source for run times that we have, I do think the current version reads like we are mandating its usage, and as the discussion directly above this section demonstrates it is not always the most appropriate source. Anyway, this is just a draft, so any changes/suggestions are welcome. Betty Logan ( talk) 14:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Insert an approximate time duration of the film in minutes. If the running time is given to the second, round it to the minute (and do not link to "minute"). Restrict the entry to the runtime 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 regional censorship, alternative cuts (such as a
director's cut or an unrated version) and different technical specifications across release formats, but do not include any additional runtimes without consensus. Use a
reliable secondary source to cite the information; do not take it from home video packaging or time it yourself. If using the BBFC website as a source take note that a film may have been submitted to the BBFC several times for classification and have several different runtimes associated with it depending on format, version and component (such as a DVD commentary), so be careful to source the correct time, which are all listed at the bottom of the entry page for the film under "Feature".
I'm fine with the updated text but to @ Tronvillain:'s question on rounding, at least as I've come to know it for films, anything from 1 second - 59 seconds is a minute. For example, a film that has a runtime of 54 minutes and 12 seconds, would be rounded to 55 minutes, because those 12 seconds entered the 55th minute (even though it wasn't completed). I guess "conventional" rounding practices would say to round this to 54 minutes since 12 seconds is closer to 54 than 55 minutes, so it may be helpful to state how we as a project wish to round. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 03:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Could the text for "alt" be improved to mention that most browsers will show a tooltip containing the alt text if you hover over it? By failing to mention this it makes it seem like the alt description is not a widely used feature but it is.
XKCD frequently uses the alt tag feature to add an extra line to the comic strip rather than actually providing an alternative description of the image. -- 109.77.213.7 ( talk) 23:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
The documentation at various points recommends using {{unbulleted list}} and {{Plainlist}} but the example uses {{startplainlist}}. Would someone please make the documentation and examples consistent. I'd like to use {{Plain list}} in all cases (yes with the space, because it means not being distracted yet another spelling mistake in the wikisource) but I'd settle for the documentation and the example using the same template consistently throughout.
At the very least, please remove the weirdly inconsistent use of {{startplainlist}}{{endplainlist}} from the example. -- 109.76.152.102 ( talk) 15:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
How about something in the doc to suggest that using plainlist for a "list" of two people is really not necessary. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I've seen people use the unbulleted list template for only one item! Also it is strange using a template if you're only going to strip all the spaces out and make the markup as unpleasant to read, but fans of unbulleted lists do it all the time. Wikipedia is a nightmare of inconsistency on so many levels, but this at least seemed like an easy request to get a bit more consistency, and at least have the documentation and the example match. {{Plainlist| }} seems to be the more widely used style.
Personally I don't bother using a list template for any less than 3 items and I understand why you might think the guidelines should tell people that too but I vaguely recall something about the benefits of using lists to logically organize and itemize things, probably because it helps machine readers. I don't remember the details but I'm fairly sure someone will insist they've a constitutional right to make lists with only 2 items, so it's best to ignore those rare lists with only 2 items and move along. -- 109.76.152.102 ( talk) 00:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
{{Plainlist| * [[cat]] * [[dog]] * [[horse]] * [[cow]] }}
Hello. A relevant RfC regarding which companies are to be listed in the infobox for anime films is taking place on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Request for Comment: Is it relevant to list all production companies or just main animation studios in the infobox of film articles?. Input from members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 19:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if it has been discussed before. If it was, then please provide me with a link to that/those discussios(s). I propose for one more parameter called "Executive producer(s)" with given instructions to be used only if the person(s) assinged to this parameter has/have WP articles to wikilink.
Harsh Rathod
Poke me! 16:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
For instance take
My Name is Khan.
Varun Dhawan is one of the executive producer of this film. It is also his only executive produced film.
Harsh Rathod
Poke me! 17:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, after reading all that, now I'm convinced I was doing nothing good with this proposal. That comprehensive discussion shifted from yes to no. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 05:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
Can someone fix this line:
| abovestyle = font-size:110%;font-style:italic;
so that it respects if you have |italic title=no
set? —
Joeyconnick (
talk) 21:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
|italic title=no
is only meant to omit italics on the article name at top of the page. It works as intended. If you want to omit italics in the infobox heading then you can use |name={{
no italic|...}}
.
PrimeHunter (
talk) 00:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox film has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Wrap the tfm notice in <noinclude>...</noinclude>
tags to suppress showing in mainspace –
Ammarpad (
talk) 20:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Seeing as how automatic episode short descriptions at Template:Infobox television episode did not have a lot of issues, I was wondering if an automatic generated short description can be implemented here as well. I've been seeing a few styles:
I think the style which would be less controversial and best match the character limit recommendation, would be the first option - as it does not have to deal with genres and has the most important attributes of the film. Thoughts? Comments? -- Gonnym ( talk) 16:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Following the merge discussion with
Template:Infobox Hollywood cartoon that passed, I've added the following parameters to the
sandbox version: |animator=
, |layout_artist=
, |background_artist=
and |color_process=
. A side by side comparison can be viewed
here. Any comments and suggestions are welcomed. --
Gonnym (
talk) 20:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
All of the writer/producer/artist parameters use the name of the role as the parameter except for |editing=
and |cinematography=
. Unless there is an objection, I would like to add |editor=
as an alias of |editing=
and |cinematographer=
as an alias of |cinematography=
in order to make the template parameters more consistent with each other. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Should credits in the infobox be the official credits or, on a case-by-case basis, include un-credited persons? It would be good to add the answer to this question to the Credits section in the template documentation.— Aquegg ( talk) 06:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release.[1] If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits. Other additions by consensus.
With a view to promoting consistency across the FILM project, it is proposed to modify the Credits section of the Infobox-Film template documentation with the addition of a new initial sentence, shown here in green:
Note that the proposed change is a generalization of existing documentation for cast member credits ('starring').— Aquegg ( talk) 18:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Quite a number of films these days have prequels and sequels. With one film leading to the other and so on. Notable examples include star wars, Lord of the rings, Hobbit, Aliens, Despicable me just to mention but a few. I hereby propose addition of the two options so as to cater for the same. Shadychiri ( talk) 07:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Is there any structured way to include the "genre" of the film? It can be edited on Wikidata, but as far as I know, the template does not provide any way to include genre. Including it in the introduction section does not make it structured.
I'mFeistyIncognito 10:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I was just wondering about how much (mainly science fiction) films and TV productions do have re-releases which differ from their original "selfs" due to digital alteration ( Star Wars films, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, Star Trek: The Original Series,...) and I thought that a modify to the infobox should be made about this versions of the works (I thought to do it similarly to the sub-templates of the Animanga infoboxes, but it can also be done differently). I cannot do this as I am not a template editor, but if someone could, with your authorization, I think it could be a good idea.
-- Aledownload ( talk) 11:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:The Matrix (franchise)/Archive 2#Request for Comment - Crediting The Wachowskis. It partly concerns Template:Infobox film. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
For articles about live-action movies, do I really insert the film stock used here or the technology the movie was post-processed with? For instance, in the Ronin (film) article, I found sources stating that the movie was photographed with Kodak film stock while its color was provided by Deluxe. Which of these should I insert in the parameter? Slightlymad ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I think we should add an executive producer credit in the infobox, as these producers finance the film, and are equally as vital as the producer, writer, and director of the film. ATC . Talk 19:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I've just discovered that PatTheMoron is making edits like thus adding a field to the infobox that does not currently exist. At the moment PtM seems to be adding info about the people that wrote the English language versions of various foreign films films. I know that we tend to reserve the infobox for original theatrical release information. OTOH I don't know if there have been previous discussions about including a "dialogue" field. I feel that a decision should be made one way or the other about its inclusion and then - if the decision is to include the field - it can be added to the infobox rather than shoehorning it in. Also the proper instructions can be included in the documentation section. MarnetteD| Talk 03:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
How the footnote should appear in relevant Wachowski film articles, which covers its appearance in the infobox, is being discussed at Talk:The Matrix (franchise)/Archive 3#Footnote implementation. Please join the discussion and weigh in with your thoughts and suggestions. Thank you. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 16:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I realize that currently the size parameter is left open so that each's users image size preference is used, but what is the actual preferred upload resolution? I'd say it should be 220px as that is the default resolution under the preference settings. Therefore fewer users will experience autoscaling and view a lower quality image. Thoughts?-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 17:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Would just like to make a quick suggestion here that we add an "age_certificate" or "age_rating" line to this template and Template:Infobox television. Its an official measure used globally. I don't see why either template does not currently include this. An age rating would also be something very quick and easy to go back and add to existing articles. Helper201 ( talk) 21:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Often when a filmmaker both writes and directs a film they receive the credit "written and directed by". I think we should consider adding this option to the infobox. 1. From the perspective of the reader, it would make the infoboxes on such films less repetitive and cluttered. 2. The credit "written and directed by" has, to me, a subtle glamor that is lost when you split it up into two separate credits: it conveys a sense that the film is the work of a singular vision. WanderingWanda (they/them) ( t/ c) 03:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
What does Release Date really mean? On The Greatest Showman I see release date referring first to its private premiere onboard the RMS Queen Mary 2. Is a private premiere a release? Or is a public availability of a show it's TRUE release date? Aka released to the public? I feel clarity could be on this template and The Greatest Showman should list its public date its release date. Thoughts? -- Echoniner ( talk) 22:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings. Hope this helps. -- Gonnym ( talk) 23:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Infobox film has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add a title for Camera.. Roshansimon ( talk) 17:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to propose two further entries:
Both would, I think, be pertinent and useful for certain films (including E la nave va, which brought me here). 86.190.132.158 ( talk) 14:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Just like screenplay and story are separate fields (you use the writer field when both tasks are handled by the same person), is it possible to add two new fields called soundtrack and score? For those handling both, the music field may be used. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
In that scenario, I would credit them all. Remeshwar should be first, as the composer of the main music, while they others would follow as the creators of the musical numbers. I would probably list them as "Composer" and "Music" and "Lyrics". The easiest example I can think of is Singin' in the Rain, which has a similar situation as what this film does. Short version, I would avoid saying "Soundtrack" by those people, because "Soundtrack" on most English speaking films means something else. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Doniago, I'm not sure crystal applies here because we already know that they are doing a job, as are just trying to figure out the best way to list them. I don't think the release of the film is going to change how they are credited, as the trailer already credits them. It's a language barrier between how they credit in that country versus others, as far as I can see. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Can you add a new field in the movie infobox concerning voice actors. This is important regarding animated films as such. People would like to know this. Add the optional header with voices with information regarding the voce actors. -- 88.90.220.108 ( talk) 19:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Can someone please add a film series chronology section to this inbox? WikiSmartLife ( talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 04:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Regarding Shin Godzilla, the film had two directors: Hideaki Anno (the chief director) and Shinji Higuchi (the main director). Usually, we list the director of record in the infobox (in this case, it's Higuchi). However, the chief director credit, which I removed, was quickly put back in along with the chief producer (Minami Ichikawa). Per the relevant parameter guidelines for "producer", we don't list executive producers, associated producers, etc., so I removed it. That said, should we list chief directors in the infobox or just the main director (i.e. Higuchi)? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 07:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, should we start a straw poll on whether or not we should include the chief director in the infobox if it's necessary? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 03:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Articles such as Me at the zoo use this infobox, but would really benefit from having the Youtube link be able to be shown in the infobox as well. Perhaps we could add an attribute to this info box for "video link" or something similar? Llightex ( talk) 15:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC) ]
These are the people who literally pay basically for the films to exist: why isn't there a field for these? u v u l u m ( talk) 03:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I think the Studio field needs more clear instructions on the definition of who "produced" the film. Is it the people responsible for staffing, locating and making the film, or does it include people who just put up money? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I constantly find it annoying to have to search for ratings for films. It would be much more convenient if the infobox had a rating item with Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores.
Something like this, for Endgame:
Critics' score MC:
78/100, RT:
94% (8.3/10)
(I think the average score should also be presented for RT. I find it to be more practical, to get an idea of the quality of the film.)
Tooltips could show a short explanation of the aggregator and the scoring system. The "Critics score" text could link to the "Critical response" section when it exists.
-- Dqeswn ( talk) 17:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
There is no consensus to include additional parameters in the infobox. Some editors suggested adding an "animation director" additional parameter but there is no consensus to do this without prejudice against further discussion about this.
Should we include additional parameters (such as character designer, art director, animation director, storyboard, etc.) in the infobox? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 16:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
This has probably been discussed before but I couldn't any discussion for it. So, I'm bringing it up. The percentage of films with sequel or belonging to franchises has increased significantly over the past few years. And sometimes when I'm reading/editing a movie article, I want to be able to easily navigate to the sequel or prequel without the need to search for it. Is it possible to add a parameter for sequel/prequel? It can also use other terms like "preceded by" or "related" etc? I think there are enough movies with sequels or in franchises to justify the need for this addition. Thanks! Starforce13 16:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
There's a lot of information that can be added to the InfoBox but I can't figure out how to cite within that box to say where i'm getting the information from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwcoats78 ( talk • contribs) 03:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
This is a piece of information I and perhaps many others would find very helpful. Thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L d allan ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)