![]() | 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 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 |
Should we include the composers for both the score and songs in the infobox, since the music parameter in the infobox calls for composers only? RfC relisted by Cunard ( talk) at 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC). Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 06:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Any idea why the reference notation wraps in |film_date=
? Looking at
Shylock (2020 film) and it seems like we have ample room to have the reference directly after the date. I'm not tech minded, BTW.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
19:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
|ref1=
parameter in {{
film date}}. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
19:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Would anyone be opposed to moving much of the text in the |runtime=
documentation to a section below like with release info, and also making the following adjustments (in bold) to the current text: Use a reliable secondary source, such as the
BBFC classification site, to cite the information; do not take it from theater chain websites, home video packaging or time it yourself. If using the BBFC website as a source...
The main addition is to discourage taking run times (at least for current/upcoming features) that trace back to theater chains (AMC, Regal, Cinemark, etc.). In my editing, I've come across fellow editors who feel the same that this should not be done, because various chains could have slightly different times (off by a couple minutes) so in that case, which would you chose? Also, chains could be receiving general info from the studio before the film has been classified to help them start booking out theaters/showings, resulting in times that might turn out to be inaccurate once it has been classified.
The text in the table would reduce to this:
With the section looking like this:
- Favre1fan93 ( talk) 04:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Home video packaging should only be used to source runtimes for direct-to-video films or for films that may not have been classified; reliable secondary sources are still preferable in these instances if at all possible.- Favre1fan93 ( talk) 21:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Per some of the discussion above, here is what the new "Runtime" section prose would look like. I've included the change for home video and made a slight tweak to my wording on theater chains to specify that instance would mostly apply only to upcoming/currently showing releases.
- Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
It appear there is support and consensus to make this change. I'll go ahead and do so. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 04:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Just curious, why does the infobox not mention "prequel" or "sequel"? Is it not easier to add a title in the infobox of the previous or next part of e.g. a movie-trilogy? Sometimes it is not easy to immediately find the link to the next/previous part of a movie in a series. Garnhami ( talk) 20:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal on {{
Infobox television}} to change its |show_name=
parameter to |name=
for consistency with this template. I'd like to propose a change here to change the |film_name=
parameter to |native_name=
to match the usage in {{
Infobox television}}. Using |film_name=
to mean a native name is very confusing as logically the name should mean the same as |name=
. |native_name=
removes any confusion here and clearly states what that parameter is for. --
Gonnym (
talk)
13:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I was wondering if there was a reason for this tracking category? The category has no text explaining what reason there is to track these parameters nor are there any comments in the template code itself. If these parameters should be disabled, why aren't they removed from the template code? -- Gonnym ( talk) 22:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
By using italic title= no
it does not make the page name italic. But it still makes the name=ABC
italic. Is there any way to fix this? or do we need to implement it? This can be useful in YouTube videos pages etc. ~~
CAPTAIN MEDUSA
talk
14:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
|name={{noitalic|ABC}}
-
Favre1fan93 (
talk)
19:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
|name=
, where they should not have italic name. ~~
CAPTAIN MEDUSA
talk
16:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Now that |based on=
is officially deprecated, is someone working on a means to convert all instances of it to |based_on=
?
Gonnym, do you know? --
Kailash29792
(talk)
15:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
|Executive Producer=
(or any other x-producer credits) shouldn't be changed to |producer=
. These are two different credits, with the template currently only allowing for producer credit.|publisher=
and |accessdate=
which seem to be leftovers from a deleted cite template. Can the bot handle these parameters without touching valid cite templates?|website=
, |web-site=
, |Official Sites=
, |trailer_url=
, |amg_id=
, |imdb_id=
, |jmdb_url=
, |rating=
, |awards=
, |preceded_by=
, |preceded by=
, |followed_by=
, |followed by=
, |design=
, |designer=
, |visual effects=
, |graphic design=
, |maintheme=
|location=
, |sales agent=
, |tagline=
, |year=
, |lyrics=
, |Genre=
(and whatever is on
this list).|release=
can be changed to |released=
(make sure the template doesn't end with doubles. It's probably safer/easier to just remove if empty).Just so we're all on the same page here, I am
I am basing these changes only on the pages in Category:Pages using infobox film with deprecated parameters, so there is a chance that there will be spurious pipes that are not touched. However, given that there are almost 3x as many pages in the "deprecated" cat as the "unknown" cat, chances are good the majority of the "blank parameter" pages will be dealt with.
Now as a general point of note, the invalid params (based on TemplateData) are incredibly spread out - of the bottom 330 parameters only three are tripped more than 10 times; only the "Executive producer" variants have more than 30 uses, with the more-used values being the deprecated params. I have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with such low-hanging fruit. Primefac ( talk) 02:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
|preceded by=
(and probably it's counterpart) as can be seen
here and 14.5k using |preceded_by=
(and probably it's counterpart) as can be seen
here. I have a suspicion |website=
might have similar results, but the search results gets other uses as well.Do we also add companies that are credited "In Association With"? The rules are a bit ambiguous on that part. Armegon ( talk) 01:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Re: |based_on=
, if a film is based on another film, who do we attribute as the creator? The director or the writer? Directors are usually considered the main creative in a film, which is why I ask.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
21:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
|based_on=
parameter of the remake.
El Millo (
talk)
23:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Indian films have some differences from Western films and I'm curious how to best format writing credits and music credits so that it makes sense and is generally consistent with community guidelines.
Here are two facts:
Template:Infobox film has |writer=
and |screenplay=
, but no |dialogues=
(Indian trades typically say "dialogues", not "dialogue", if that matters.) The lack of |dialogues=
parameter confuses people, so they typically just format the |writer=
parameter with pseudoheadings so that it looks like:
|dialogues=
parameter with instructions that it's typically only used for Indian films (or for whatever other nations use this style of writing) so that editors of Western films don't get confused.Similar issue to what's above.
Some other solution TBD.
Your thoughts are appreciated in the Feedback section below. Sorry if the columns are weird, please feel free to reformat. It just took up too much vertical space if I formatted it normally. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 19:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
|country=India
. --
Gonnym (
talk)
19:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Infobox film/doc has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the option for the title of Production Designer between cinematography and the editor as is customary in movie credit blocks. 58.178.101.122 ( talk) 23:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
GoingBatty (
talk)
23:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Should nationalities be excluded from captions beneath posters/home media covers in infoboxes on film articles, unless the poster/home media cover in question is not from the film's country of origin? — Matthew - ( talk) 23:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
arbitrary and peculiarto include posters?
We can use any non-free images we like ... movie stills instead of movie postersWhat's the difference fair use-wise between these two? It would certainly add a lot more to argue, given that a movie has literally thousands of different possible stills, while it can have at most around 20 posters.
benefits extremely wealthy movie studios, and studios are still very big (e.g. Disney, Universal, Warner Bros). I don't see how a negotiation could take place, or which
leveragewe might have, since we can't just remove positive information or change the content of the article should they refuse to offer us free and open media, because that would be non-encyclopedic. Many studios wouldn't want people to read the Wikipedia articles on their films anyway, especially close to being released when there's already a Plot section full of spoilers and a full Critical response section which in some cases may be full of negative reviews. El Millo ( talk) 20:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I want you to add the loss to films that were box office failures, for example Mars Meets Moms lost over 111 million dollars, I want it to be below "Box Office". Gamerknowitall ( talk) 18:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I was trying to say for financial failure films that lost a huge amount like Treasure Planet, and Mars Meets Moms. Gamerknowitall ( talk) 23:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Infobox film has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
don't remove article Bikram malati in mb ( talk) 09:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
{{
Infobox film}}
. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned.
Nardog (
talk)
09:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC) You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Adding IMDb & Rotten Tomatoes ratings to articles (wherever possible). {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
19:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I've just discovered that the "| color_process =" field is still active in this infobox. I note that it isn't shown on the template page or in its documentation. I'm not sure when the removal happened or what the WP:CONSENSUS was that brought that about. I think we need to decide if it should a) be turned off completely or b) added back to this page with an explanation in the documentation of when it should or should not be used. If there is another option please feel free to add it to this thread. MarnetteD| Talk 22:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
|color_process=
, a little over 2,000 articles use the parameter, including
Eleventh Hour (1942 animated film). –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
23:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)It may be a good idea to add an Awards box on the template, like the Infobox book template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyMinecart88 ( talk • contribs) 16:08, October 1, 2020 (UTC)
An editor changed the documentation to say that both {{ Plainlist}} and {{ ubl}} are acceptable. [1] Acceptable in that both are semantically the same and neither fails the requirements of MOS:ACCESS accessibility guidelines. But acceptable is different from good, or preferable, and I don't think it is appropriate for this template to actively recommend using {{ ubl}}.
He has not explained why he wants to recommend people use {{ Ubl}}. It seems to be based on nothing more than his personal preference which is what he accused me of doing, and he is reacting by changing the documentation because he chooses not to use Plainlist.
The editors who favor {{ Ubl}} seem to also favor using as few spaces and line breaks as possible. If would be great if no one ever made mistakes but that kind condensed markup without spacing and line breaks makes mistakes harder to spot. If you do want the documentation to say it is acceptable to use both it would be preferable to use the full name {{ Unbulleted list}} which is much clearer to all editors, not just experienced editors who have already learned the short name.
I think it would be best if the documentation was reverted back to recommend only Plainlist as it did before. -- 109.76.209.8 ( talk) 03:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Can you add a parameter for voices. Which tells who was the voice actors for the movies. Yours sincerely, Sondre -- 88.91.100.244 ( talk) 16:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
|starring=
if they are in a lead role. Otherwise they probably don't belong in the infobox.
BOVINEBOY
2008
21:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Hello! Can you add an optional parameter for voice actors. This should only be used when it is an animated movie not in other movies. Starring is used when it is in live-action movies. In animated cartoons they use voices not starring. Yours sincerely, Sondre -- 88.91.100.244 ( talk) 15:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
|starring=
for all actors or voice actors in a film. -
Favre1fan93 (
talk)
19:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)|native_name=
seems to be displayed below the image, instead of at the top of the infobox after the [English] name. I found this in
Unmatta which has an image with no caption, and the native name appears to be a non-English image caption. I think this should be moved up where I believe it is in every other kind of infobox I can recall.
MB
04:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
|native_name=
and |native_name_lang=
and you just specify the raw data. There may be more like the above out there.
MB
23:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated strongly the digitized premieres of the films and the box office label is very partial information in the infobox. A label should be placed in relation to digital reception (POVD sales, streaming viewing, or similar) on streaming platforms such as Mulan via Disney+ and its strategic priority in streaming, The Witches and upcoming Zack Snyder's Justice League via HBO Max, several films from Netflix, etc. Streaming viewing reception data will be an important channel of insight. -- JungleWiki ( talk) 04:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Infobox film/doc has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
'Production Design' should be listed as a credit in the infobox. They are ordinarily the first creative (after than the director) who is hired on a project and are instrumental to realising the story and the world of the characters. Please consult the Art Directors Guild (ADG) or the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Design branch for further information. 90.252.98.7 ( talk) 23:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I’m writing to suggest the addition of a co-director field to the film Infobox. I understand there is a consensus that co-credits not be included, however I think there are some exceptional circumstances where the co-director has a large and significant impact on a film where the trade off between brevity and comprehensiveness swings towards the later. I’m thinking particularly of the film Soul (2020), where the film was co-directed by Kemp Powers who had a major impact ( see here, and I think it’s important this can be seen at a glance in the Infobox. SNMSB ( talk) 02:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Note that I am only advocating using this field in exceptional circumstances where there is a significant contribution, to ensure the box continues to be brief. But Soul I think meets these criteria. SNMSB ( talk) 02:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Apologies the link should be Soul (2020 film) SNMSB ( talk) 02:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Ok. I will create a discussion on the film’s talk page to see if there is consensus for adding Kemp Power’s name below director Pete Docter in the Director parameter, along with a footnote. SNMSB ( talk) 17:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I've seen a lot of edits like
this and
this lately, where, superficially, it appears that random editors are propagating blank |screenplay=
, |story=
, |based_on=
and |narrator=
parameters into
Template:Infobox film. The common theme between these two edits is that they both used Visual Editor.
About a year ago, I noticed Visual Editor doing this with some parameters at {{ Infobox person}}, and the reason why it was happening was, according to editor WhatamIdoing:
"those parameters are added because someone marked them as either "suggested" or "required" in the template's TemplateData ... If you're directly editing the infobox (which is what happened in these diffs), then the visual editor makes the infobox follow the format that's specified on the template's /doc page (which is what it should do).(Relevant discussions here and here.)
Since these parameters are probably not used in the majority of films produced, it seems undesirable for the Visual Editor to be adding them automatically, so unless this is a controversial request, which it doesn't seem like it would be, it'd be nice if someone familiar with template stuff could fix this, please. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 05:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The Designer is not listed in the credits infobox, yet the other heads of department are? There's no film to make unless it is designed first, this credit should be included. The three key creatives on any film are the director, the designer, and the cinematographer - their working relationship during preproduction defines the film. In fact the designer is most often the second creative lead hired after the director. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.205.125 ( talk) 13:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
The creative figureheads of a film production are the Director, the DP (Cinematographer,) and Production Designer. In common vernacular, a compliment toward a films "cinematography" is often in (at the very least partial) reference to its production design; the X-wing or War Room, more so than the camera's relative position to it. That may be a bit hyperbolic but my point is the following:
Missing from film infoboxes across Wikipedia are the entries for those individuals that dictate the visual language of a films setting, and the character of it's framing. The following is a proposed change to the infobox that adds the field for production design below cinematographer and above editor, as is typical in film crediting.
{{Infobox film
| name =
| image =
| alt =
| caption =
| native_name =
| director =
| producer =
| writer =
| screenplay =
| story =
| based_on =
| starring =
| narrator =
| music =
| cinematography =
| production design = <!-- Proposed placement and syntax, accounting for instances of multiple designers -->
| editing =
| studio =
| distributor =
| released =
| runtime =
| country =
| language =
| budget =
| gross =
}}
This edit will help consolidate articles related to achievements in the arts and sciences of filmmaking, as well as a clearer definition of the roles of the filmmaking apparatus. It provides an opportunity to directly link individuals like Ken Adam, William Cameron Menzies (who invented the title,) and Adam Stockhausen to their respective works and the film related wikis overall.
Jpet6823 ( talk) 05:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I in no way have implied that a writer, or any other category listed in the infobox is not a key creative. My assertion is that a Production Designer is the key individual for interpreting the visual language of a screenplay and realizing it on screen. Here are a number of reliable sources: NY Times Article, ASC Mag interview with Dennis Gassner PD: Blade Runner 2049, IndieWire article on David Gassner PD: 1917, Flimmaker Magazine interview with Barbara Ling PD: OUATIH, Filmmaker Magazine's search page for 'production design' featuring countless interviews detailing my points, Collection of industry department heads discussing collaboration with designers, A collection of interviews with Production Designers on their role and process., LiftOff Article covering Production Design
The Times article includes many pertinent supporting claims: "More or less creative individuals trained in the visual arts and who, by the grace of the director, function as visual conceptualists - that is, translating the screenplay from a written document into pulsating, plastic images.", "We come on before the director of photography and actually put the movie together on paper before the editor is on the picture. We are by and large associate directors, in the sense that the director's problems are ours, including casting. Everyone else has a piece of hardware: the cameraman has his camera, the editor his editing machine, the sound man his equipment. We just have a pencil sharpener. We're butting into everyone else's business, but many times we're the only ones on the set trained in the visual arts."
A couple important books on the subject: [g.co/kgs/SBySnM By Design], [g.co/kgs/Lat9bK If it's purple someone's gonna die] Jpet6823 ( talk) 20:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I’d like to add a response to @ Betty Logan: ‘s comment that the Director, Writer, DP, and Composer alone create the copyrighted material of a film (would love to see a source on that) is not accurate when it comes to copyright law. The following article is a great source of insight: UCLA Law Article Herein we see that films are created by multiple authors, each of them typically sign releases of their work or complete their work under a “work for hire” arrangement, assigning ownership to the Producer. This article sheds a lot of light further in about the legal specifics. I myself am not a lawyer, but I am a working Production Designer and our contracts are not only very specific about releasing our work legally, but our department works closest with a films legal team and clearance coordinators throughout production to insure that the production design as a whole meets legal standards. SequentialCircuit ( talk) 18:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
There is a consensus. Why has Production Designer not been added? Add the field FFS. Comtos ( talk) 17:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Now. Comtos ( talk) 17:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Add the field FFS. Now.doesn't help matters nor is it constructive. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 03:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Following a recent discussion on Template talk:Infobox television#Company(s) the decision was made to implement {{ detect singular}} in a number of fields within that template. I believe there is grounds for a similar implementation here; specifically for the Cinematography (Cinematographers), Production company (Production companies), and possibly Language (Languages). I'd like to see if there is consensus for such a change here? -- JascaDucato ( talk | contributions) 16:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Test cases are up here. Using this for Release date doesn't work for two reasons. First, {{ detect singular}} sees a date such as "January 1, 2020" as two items, with "January 1" being the first and "2020" being second. And second (which is also another issue for the other parameters), if you put a singular item into a {{ Plainlist}}, it will think that's more than one. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:22, 8 February 2021 (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 the code in the sandbox seen in this edit to the live template to implement {{ detect singular}} code for certain parameters. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 15:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Should budgets for films that were rereleased with changes (such as 3D conversions, special editions) and Director's cuts be included or mentioned in the film's infobox? For example, Titanic was converted to 3D at a cost of $18 million for its 2012 rerelease according to The Hollywood Reporter while Justice League's director's cut is estimated to be made at an extra cost of $70 million [3]. ~ Rajan51 ( talk) 5:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
How do I add Song Writer into this infobox ? Very important for Indian films. Pritiranjan Tripathy ( talk) 11:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
|music=
parameter which you can use for a film's composer/writer. -
Favre1fan93 (
talk)
17:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
songwriters should not be included", so it might be controversial to include them. In that case, they can always be included in the production section using prose. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 03:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Is there a reason the template in #Usage includes "|narrator="? The information in #Parameters says that it's only for documentaries, so why can't it be an "optional" parameter like "|animator=", "|layout_artist=", and "|background_artist="? Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 17:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
In light of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Technical possibilities of creating an edit filter that targets app users I am proposing and seeing some potential for template improvements here. Firstly, I think the color_proccess parameter should have an if check for the animator parameter. At least the color process would not show if it is not supposed to. Secondly, color_process and animator should in the templatedata be made into a pair. That would prompt the user to add animator info when the color_process parameter is used and vice versa.-- Snaevar ( talk) 00:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Adding a franchise parameter for the Infobox. For example in the Cars (film) infobox the franchise parameter will link to Cars (franchise). Thoughts? Manabimasu ( talk) 14:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
A recent edit to the template has caused sources on the "country" parameter to be numbered before any other reference (see The Imitation Game as an example where the "running time" reference is #3 but the "country" parameter source is #1/#2). Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 23:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I believe an aspect ratio section should be added to the template, as it is an important and relevant detail for some films at the very least. There are a number of inconclusive discussions about this subject in the archives. Falude ( talk) 19:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
If the field is relevant to very few articles, it should probably not be included at all. Conversely, very common fields may be included—and made optional—even if they are not applicable to a few of the articles in questionand
Any field that might reasonably be empty should probably be optional. However, a field that is usually empty may not be particularly useful or relevantIn most film articles, this parameter would and should be empty, therefore it shouldn't be part of the template. — El Millo ( talk) 20:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
relevant to very few articles. — Locke Cole • t • c 20:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree that this parameter shouldn't be added to the infobox, but discussed in article if necessary. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 21:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
While the aspect ratio itself is a terribly geeky thing to note, it's an objectively measurable feature of a film, easily verifiable by anyone with access to the end product, and loosely correlates somewhat with various more nebulous characteristics (era, budget, scope, genre). Flat 1.85:1 often signifies an indie film shot with spherical lenses, whereas 2.39:1 is more typical of a major studio film shot with anamorphic lenses. 1.375:1 was popular with early sound-including films, and 4:3 was common for silent films. Noting the aspect ratio to hint at whether a film is more dialogue or action heavy seems to make about as much sense as using the box office receipts to roughly gauge its popularity, or its critical response to get a feel for whether it's respected. All of these are imperfect measurements of something less tangible, hinting at the subjective by measuring an objective surrogate. ZoeB ( talk) 12:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that when the "Language" parameter for the infobox is filled in as "silent" the "Silent films" category automatically displays at the bottom of the page. However, this has had the unfortunate effect of violating WP:SUBCAT and WP:DIFFUSE because 1200 films contain the category "Silent film" even though the vast majority of these films already contain categories like "American silent films" or "British silent short films." I would edit the template myself to get rid of these redundant categories, but I do not have that right. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 04:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
From WT:SHORTDESC:
I noticed a change recently when adding the Short description. In film articles, where I used to see "(Wikidata Import Edit and import)", I now see "American film (Override Export ?)". As I understand it the "American film" populated part is due to some automatically pulling info from the {{ Infobox film}} template. This seems to be a fairly recent change, and I'm wondering if there was a discussion somewhere that explains this. — Ched ( talk) 12:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
From User talk:Primefac:
I noticed some problems in my updating films with the short description. I see you made this change which seems to be the cause. I asked first here. Anyway - was there a discussion anywhere which prompted this? Were you or others aware that it would break the Import function (via Wikipedia:Shortdesc helper) Which pulls the short description from wikidata? (it instead automatically pulls "American film" from the infobox as I understand it.). Is it something you'd be willing to restore to its previous state? — Ched ( talk) 20:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
To answer both of these questions in a centralized location, I did this because there has been a desire recently to have widely-used templates such as {{ infobox school}}, {{ infobox award}}, etc to automatically generate a short description to save editors the need to manually input (literally) millions of short descriptions; I decided to be BOLD and do the same for this template.
While I will admit that the current short description is not ideal, and there is certainly room for discussion and improvement, my reading of the above comments does not seem to merit a wholesale revert (Shortdesc helper still works, yes? Just not how you expect it) and I'm happy to discuss improving (I've already realized that "<country> film by <director>" is probably a good improvement; again, discussion welcome). Of course, if a discussion does decide that a short description is too problematic (after workshopping potential improvements) I'm fine reverting. (please ping on reply) Primefac ( talk) 10:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
<includeonly>
at the beginning is closed at the end of the infobox.
Primefac (
talk)
13:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)<year> film directed by <director>
assuming the two values are provided.
Primefac (
talk)
16:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)I've never liked the common WD short description of "year, film, director". Unless your are a real film buff, would most people recognize most directors? I think that "American 1942 historical romance film" is much better than "1942 film by Michael Curtiz" (for Casablanca). Are we just blindly following WD here or is there a consensus here? MB 17:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
|genre=
parameter in this template, meaning that it cannot be easily programmed.
Primefac (
talk)
17:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
First, thank you @ Primefac: for your work on this. Second, I agree with MB on including country and genre, but I didn't want to deal with the flak from Lugnuts when I started (he was a regular in the film group, and I wasn't) so I fell into a pattern. My reasoning (nationality): compare British comedy (Monty Python) to American comedy (Beavis and Buthead). My reasoning (genre): compare superhero live action vs animated. Personally I don't usually pay much attention director outside of the greats (Spielberg, Lucas, Hawk), but I think many others do look for that. — Ched ( talk) 02:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The addition of director is a little buggy, the contents of the director parameter is added "as is" which is fine when there's only one director, but some formatting is required when there is more than one director, or if extra info has been added. See examples:
Interlanguage link multi
template and renders as 2016 Japanese film directed by Masafumi Yamada [ja]Any chance of a tracking category etc to see how often this kind of thing occurs? - X201 ( talk) 07:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I do not like the idea of autogenerating short descriptions. I would have responded earlier, but I did not know why this happened until now. This seems to be a giant mess. Specifically, many short descriptions are now longer than 40 characters. The wording is also awkward. Can't we just come up with a system we all agree on.
Would it be possible for Driving Miss Daisy's short description to be "1989 film". Driving Miss Daisy (1989 film) would be "1989 film by Bruce Beresford" or 1989 American film? Scorpions13256 ( talk) 04:23, 28 May 2021 (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 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 |
Should we include the composers for both the score and songs in the infobox, since the music parameter in the infobox calls for composers only? RfC relisted by Cunard ( talk) at 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC). Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 06:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Any idea why the reference notation wraps in |film_date=
? Looking at
Shylock (2020 film) and it seems like we have ample room to have the reference directly after the date. I'm not tech minded, BTW.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
19:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
|ref1=
parameter in {{
film date}}. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
19:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Would anyone be opposed to moving much of the text in the |runtime=
documentation to a section below like with release info, and also making the following adjustments (in bold) to the current text: Use a reliable secondary source, such as the
BBFC classification site, to cite the information; do not take it from theater chain websites, home video packaging or time it yourself. If using the BBFC website as a source...
The main addition is to discourage taking run times (at least for current/upcoming features) that trace back to theater chains (AMC, Regal, Cinemark, etc.). In my editing, I've come across fellow editors who feel the same that this should not be done, because various chains could have slightly different times (off by a couple minutes) so in that case, which would you chose? Also, chains could be receiving general info from the studio before the film has been classified to help them start booking out theaters/showings, resulting in times that might turn out to be inaccurate once it has been classified.
The text in the table would reduce to this:
With the section looking like this:
- Favre1fan93 ( talk) 04:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Home video packaging should only be used to source runtimes for direct-to-video films or for films that may not have been classified; reliable secondary sources are still preferable in these instances if at all possible.- Favre1fan93 ( talk) 21:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Per some of the discussion above, here is what the new "Runtime" section prose would look like. I've included the change for home video and made a slight tweak to my wording on theater chains to specify that instance would mostly apply only to upcoming/currently showing releases.
- Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
It appear there is support and consensus to make this change. I'll go ahead and do so. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 04:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Just curious, why does the infobox not mention "prequel" or "sequel"? Is it not easier to add a title in the infobox of the previous or next part of e.g. a movie-trilogy? Sometimes it is not easy to immediately find the link to the next/previous part of a movie in a series. Garnhami ( talk) 20:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal on {{
Infobox television}} to change its |show_name=
parameter to |name=
for consistency with this template. I'd like to propose a change here to change the |film_name=
parameter to |native_name=
to match the usage in {{
Infobox television}}. Using |film_name=
to mean a native name is very confusing as logically the name should mean the same as |name=
. |native_name=
removes any confusion here and clearly states what that parameter is for. --
Gonnym (
talk)
13:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I was wondering if there was a reason for this tracking category? The category has no text explaining what reason there is to track these parameters nor are there any comments in the template code itself. If these parameters should be disabled, why aren't they removed from the template code? -- Gonnym ( talk) 22:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
By using italic title= no
it does not make the page name italic. But it still makes the name=ABC
italic. Is there any way to fix this? or do we need to implement it? This can be useful in YouTube videos pages etc. ~~
CAPTAIN MEDUSA
talk
14:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
|name={{noitalic|ABC}}
-
Favre1fan93 (
talk)
19:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
|name=
, where they should not have italic name. ~~
CAPTAIN MEDUSA
talk
16:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Now that |based on=
is officially deprecated, is someone working on a means to convert all instances of it to |based_on=
?
Gonnym, do you know? --
Kailash29792
(talk)
15:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
|Executive Producer=
(or any other x-producer credits) shouldn't be changed to |producer=
. These are two different credits, with the template currently only allowing for producer credit.|publisher=
and |accessdate=
which seem to be leftovers from a deleted cite template. Can the bot handle these parameters without touching valid cite templates?|website=
, |web-site=
, |Official Sites=
, |trailer_url=
, |amg_id=
, |imdb_id=
, |jmdb_url=
, |rating=
, |awards=
, |preceded_by=
, |preceded by=
, |followed_by=
, |followed by=
, |design=
, |designer=
, |visual effects=
, |graphic design=
, |maintheme=
|location=
, |sales agent=
, |tagline=
, |year=
, |lyrics=
, |Genre=
(and whatever is on
this list).|release=
can be changed to |released=
(make sure the template doesn't end with doubles. It's probably safer/easier to just remove if empty).Just so we're all on the same page here, I am
I am basing these changes only on the pages in Category:Pages using infobox film with deprecated parameters, so there is a chance that there will be spurious pipes that are not touched. However, given that there are almost 3x as many pages in the "deprecated" cat as the "unknown" cat, chances are good the majority of the "blank parameter" pages will be dealt with.
Now as a general point of note, the invalid params (based on TemplateData) are incredibly spread out - of the bottom 330 parameters only three are tripped more than 10 times; only the "Executive producer" variants have more than 30 uses, with the more-used values being the deprecated params. I have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with such low-hanging fruit. Primefac ( talk) 02:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
|preceded by=
(and probably it's counterpart) as can be seen
here and 14.5k using |preceded_by=
(and probably it's counterpart) as can be seen
here. I have a suspicion |website=
might have similar results, but the search results gets other uses as well.Do we also add companies that are credited "In Association With"? The rules are a bit ambiguous on that part. Armegon ( talk) 01:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Re: |based_on=
, if a film is based on another film, who do we attribute as the creator? The director or the writer? Directors are usually considered the main creative in a film, which is why I ask.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
21:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
|based_on=
parameter of the remake.
El Millo (
talk)
23:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Indian films have some differences from Western films and I'm curious how to best format writing credits and music credits so that it makes sense and is generally consistent with community guidelines.
Here are two facts:
Template:Infobox film has |writer=
and |screenplay=
, but no |dialogues=
(Indian trades typically say "dialogues", not "dialogue", if that matters.) The lack of |dialogues=
parameter confuses people, so they typically just format the |writer=
parameter with pseudoheadings so that it looks like:
|dialogues=
parameter with instructions that it's typically only used for Indian films (or for whatever other nations use this style of writing) so that editors of Western films don't get confused.Similar issue to what's above.
Some other solution TBD.
Your thoughts are appreciated in the Feedback section below. Sorry if the columns are weird, please feel free to reformat. It just took up too much vertical space if I formatted it normally. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 19:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
|country=India
. --
Gonnym (
talk)
19:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Infobox film/doc has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the option for the title of Production Designer between cinematography and the editor as is customary in movie credit blocks. 58.178.101.122 ( talk) 23:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
GoingBatty (
talk)
23:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Should nationalities be excluded from captions beneath posters/home media covers in infoboxes on film articles, unless the poster/home media cover in question is not from the film's country of origin? — Matthew - ( talk) 23:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
arbitrary and peculiarto include posters?
We can use any non-free images we like ... movie stills instead of movie postersWhat's the difference fair use-wise between these two? It would certainly add a lot more to argue, given that a movie has literally thousands of different possible stills, while it can have at most around 20 posters.
benefits extremely wealthy movie studios, and studios are still very big (e.g. Disney, Universal, Warner Bros). I don't see how a negotiation could take place, or which
leveragewe might have, since we can't just remove positive information or change the content of the article should they refuse to offer us free and open media, because that would be non-encyclopedic. Many studios wouldn't want people to read the Wikipedia articles on their films anyway, especially close to being released when there's already a Plot section full of spoilers and a full Critical response section which in some cases may be full of negative reviews. El Millo ( talk) 20:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I want you to add the loss to films that were box office failures, for example Mars Meets Moms lost over 111 million dollars, I want it to be below "Box Office". Gamerknowitall ( talk) 18:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I was trying to say for financial failure films that lost a huge amount like Treasure Planet, and Mars Meets Moms. Gamerknowitall ( talk) 23:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Infobox film has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
don't remove article Bikram malati in mb ( talk) 09:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
{{
Infobox film}}
. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned.
Nardog (
talk)
09:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC) You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Adding IMDb & Rotten Tomatoes ratings to articles (wherever possible). {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
19:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I've just discovered that the "| color_process =" field is still active in this infobox. I note that it isn't shown on the template page or in its documentation. I'm not sure when the removal happened or what the WP:CONSENSUS was that brought that about. I think we need to decide if it should a) be turned off completely or b) added back to this page with an explanation in the documentation of when it should or should not be used. If there is another option please feel free to add it to this thread. MarnetteD| Talk 22:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
|color_process=
, a little over 2,000 articles use the parameter, including
Eleventh Hour (1942 animated film). –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
23:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)It may be a good idea to add an Awards box on the template, like the Infobox book template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyMinecart88 ( talk • contribs) 16:08, October 1, 2020 (UTC)
An editor changed the documentation to say that both {{ Plainlist}} and {{ ubl}} are acceptable. [1] Acceptable in that both are semantically the same and neither fails the requirements of MOS:ACCESS accessibility guidelines. But acceptable is different from good, or preferable, and I don't think it is appropriate for this template to actively recommend using {{ ubl}}.
He has not explained why he wants to recommend people use {{ Ubl}}. It seems to be based on nothing more than his personal preference which is what he accused me of doing, and he is reacting by changing the documentation because he chooses not to use Plainlist.
The editors who favor {{ Ubl}} seem to also favor using as few spaces and line breaks as possible. If would be great if no one ever made mistakes but that kind condensed markup without spacing and line breaks makes mistakes harder to spot. If you do want the documentation to say it is acceptable to use both it would be preferable to use the full name {{ Unbulleted list}} which is much clearer to all editors, not just experienced editors who have already learned the short name.
I think it would be best if the documentation was reverted back to recommend only Plainlist as it did before. -- 109.76.209.8 ( talk) 03:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Can you add a parameter for voices. Which tells who was the voice actors for the movies. Yours sincerely, Sondre -- 88.91.100.244 ( talk) 16:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
|starring=
if they are in a lead role. Otherwise they probably don't belong in the infobox.
BOVINEBOY
2008
21:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Hello! Can you add an optional parameter for voice actors. This should only be used when it is an animated movie not in other movies. Starring is used when it is in live-action movies. In animated cartoons they use voices not starring. Yours sincerely, Sondre -- 88.91.100.244 ( talk) 15:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
|starring=
for all actors or voice actors in a film. -
Favre1fan93 (
talk)
19:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)|native_name=
seems to be displayed below the image, instead of at the top of the infobox after the [English] name. I found this in
Unmatta which has an image with no caption, and the native name appears to be a non-English image caption. I think this should be moved up where I believe it is in every other kind of infobox I can recall.
MB
04:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
|native_name=
and |native_name_lang=
and you just specify the raw data. There may be more like the above out there.
MB
23:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated strongly the digitized premieres of the films and the box office label is very partial information in the infobox. A label should be placed in relation to digital reception (POVD sales, streaming viewing, or similar) on streaming platforms such as Mulan via Disney+ and its strategic priority in streaming, The Witches and upcoming Zack Snyder's Justice League via HBO Max, several films from Netflix, etc. Streaming viewing reception data will be an important channel of insight. -- JungleWiki ( talk) 04:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Infobox film/doc has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
'Production Design' should be listed as a credit in the infobox. They are ordinarily the first creative (after than the director) who is hired on a project and are instrumental to realising the story and the world of the characters. Please consult the Art Directors Guild (ADG) or the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Design branch for further information. 90.252.98.7 ( talk) 23:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I’m writing to suggest the addition of a co-director field to the film Infobox. I understand there is a consensus that co-credits not be included, however I think there are some exceptional circumstances where the co-director has a large and significant impact on a film where the trade off between brevity and comprehensiveness swings towards the later. I’m thinking particularly of the film Soul (2020), where the film was co-directed by Kemp Powers who had a major impact ( see here, and I think it’s important this can be seen at a glance in the Infobox. SNMSB ( talk) 02:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Note that I am only advocating using this field in exceptional circumstances where there is a significant contribution, to ensure the box continues to be brief. But Soul I think meets these criteria. SNMSB ( talk) 02:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Apologies the link should be Soul (2020 film) SNMSB ( talk) 02:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Ok. I will create a discussion on the film’s talk page to see if there is consensus for adding Kemp Power’s name below director Pete Docter in the Director parameter, along with a footnote. SNMSB ( talk) 17:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I've seen a lot of edits like
this and
this lately, where, superficially, it appears that random editors are propagating blank |screenplay=
, |story=
, |based_on=
and |narrator=
parameters into
Template:Infobox film. The common theme between these two edits is that they both used Visual Editor.
About a year ago, I noticed Visual Editor doing this with some parameters at {{ Infobox person}}, and the reason why it was happening was, according to editor WhatamIdoing:
"those parameters are added because someone marked them as either "suggested" or "required" in the template's TemplateData ... If you're directly editing the infobox (which is what happened in these diffs), then the visual editor makes the infobox follow the format that's specified on the template's /doc page (which is what it should do).(Relevant discussions here and here.)
Since these parameters are probably not used in the majority of films produced, it seems undesirable for the Visual Editor to be adding them automatically, so unless this is a controversial request, which it doesn't seem like it would be, it'd be nice if someone familiar with template stuff could fix this, please. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 05:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The Designer is not listed in the credits infobox, yet the other heads of department are? There's no film to make unless it is designed first, this credit should be included. The three key creatives on any film are the director, the designer, and the cinematographer - their working relationship during preproduction defines the film. In fact the designer is most often the second creative lead hired after the director. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.205.125 ( talk) 13:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
The creative figureheads of a film production are the Director, the DP (Cinematographer,) and Production Designer. In common vernacular, a compliment toward a films "cinematography" is often in (at the very least partial) reference to its production design; the X-wing or War Room, more so than the camera's relative position to it. That may be a bit hyperbolic but my point is the following:
Missing from film infoboxes across Wikipedia are the entries for those individuals that dictate the visual language of a films setting, and the character of it's framing. The following is a proposed change to the infobox that adds the field for production design below cinematographer and above editor, as is typical in film crediting.
{{Infobox film
| name =
| image =
| alt =
| caption =
| native_name =
| director =
| producer =
| writer =
| screenplay =
| story =
| based_on =
| starring =
| narrator =
| music =
| cinematography =
| production design = <!-- Proposed placement and syntax, accounting for instances of multiple designers -->
| editing =
| studio =
| distributor =
| released =
| runtime =
| country =
| language =
| budget =
| gross =
}}
This edit will help consolidate articles related to achievements in the arts and sciences of filmmaking, as well as a clearer definition of the roles of the filmmaking apparatus. It provides an opportunity to directly link individuals like Ken Adam, William Cameron Menzies (who invented the title,) and Adam Stockhausen to their respective works and the film related wikis overall.
Jpet6823 ( talk) 05:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I in no way have implied that a writer, or any other category listed in the infobox is not a key creative. My assertion is that a Production Designer is the key individual for interpreting the visual language of a screenplay and realizing it on screen. Here are a number of reliable sources: NY Times Article, ASC Mag interview with Dennis Gassner PD: Blade Runner 2049, IndieWire article on David Gassner PD: 1917, Flimmaker Magazine interview with Barbara Ling PD: OUATIH, Filmmaker Magazine's search page for 'production design' featuring countless interviews detailing my points, Collection of industry department heads discussing collaboration with designers, A collection of interviews with Production Designers on their role and process., LiftOff Article covering Production Design
The Times article includes many pertinent supporting claims: "More or less creative individuals trained in the visual arts and who, by the grace of the director, function as visual conceptualists - that is, translating the screenplay from a written document into pulsating, plastic images.", "We come on before the director of photography and actually put the movie together on paper before the editor is on the picture. We are by and large associate directors, in the sense that the director's problems are ours, including casting. Everyone else has a piece of hardware: the cameraman has his camera, the editor his editing machine, the sound man his equipment. We just have a pencil sharpener. We're butting into everyone else's business, but many times we're the only ones on the set trained in the visual arts."
A couple important books on the subject: [g.co/kgs/SBySnM By Design], [g.co/kgs/Lat9bK If it's purple someone's gonna die] Jpet6823 ( talk) 20:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I’d like to add a response to @ Betty Logan: ‘s comment that the Director, Writer, DP, and Composer alone create the copyrighted material of a film (would love to see a source on that) is not accurate when it comes to copyright law. The following article is a great source of insight: UCLA Law Article Herein we see that films are created by multiple authors, each of them typically sign releases of their work or complete their work under a “work for hire” arrangement, assigning ownership to the Producer. This article sheds a lot of light further in about the legal specifics. I myself am not a lawyer, but I am a working Production Designer and our contracts are not only very specific about releasing our work legally, but our department works closest with a films legal team and clearance coordinators throughout production to insure that the production design as a whole meets legal standards. SequentialCircuit ( talk) 18:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
There is a consensus. Why has Production Designer not been added? Add the field FFS. Comtos ( talk) 17:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Now. Comtos ( talk) 17:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Add the field FFS. Now.doesn't help matters nor is it constructive. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 03:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Following a recent discussion on Template talk:Infobox television#Company(s) the decision was made to implement {{ detect singular}} in a number of fields within that template. I believe there is grounds for a similar implementation here; specifically for the Cinematography (Cinematographers), Production company (Production companies), and possibly Language (Languages). I'd like to see if there is consensus for such a change here? -- JascaDucato ( talk | contributions) 16:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Test cases are up here. Using this for Release date doesn't work for two reasons. First, {{ detect singular}} sees a date such as "January 1, 2020" as two items, with "January 1" being the first and "2020" being second. And second (which is also another issue for the other parameters), if you put a singular item into a {{ Plainlist}}, it will think that's more than one. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:22, 8 February 2021 (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 the code in the sandbox seen in this edit to the live template to implement {{ detect singular}} code for certain parameters. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 15:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Should budgets for films that were rereleased with changes (such as 3D conversions, special editions) and Director's cuts be included or mentioned in the film's infobox? For example, Titanic was converted to 3D at a cost of $18 million for its 2012 rerelease according to The Hollywood Reporter while Justice League's director's cut is estimated to be made at an extra cost of $70 million [3]. ~ Rajan51 ( talk) 5:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
How do I add Song Writer into this infobox ? Very important for Indian films. Pritiranjan Tripathy ( talk) 11:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
|music=
parameter which you can use for a film's composer/writer. -
Favre1fan93 (
talk)
17:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
songwriters should not be included", so it might be controversial to include them. In that case, they can always be included in the production section using prose. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 03:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Is there a reason the template in #Usage includes "|narrator="? The information in #Parameters says that it's only for documentaries, so why can't it be an "optional" parameter like "|animator=", "|layout_artist=", and "|background_artist="? Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 17:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
In light of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Technical possibilities of creating an edit filter that targets app users I am proposing and seeing some potential for template improvements here. Firstly, I think the color_proccess parameter should have an if check for the animator parameter. At least the color process would not show if it is not supposed to. Secondly, color_process and animator should in the templatedata be made into a pair. That would prompt the user to add animator info when the color_process parameter is used and vice versa.-- Snaevar ( talk) 00:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Adding a franchise parameter for the Infobox. For example in the Cars (film) infobox the franchise parameter will link to Cars (franchise). Thoughts? Manabimasu ( talk) 14:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
A recent edit to the template has caused sources on the "country" parameter to be numbered before any other reference (see The Imitation Game as an example where the "running time" reference is #3 but the "country" parameter source is #1/#2). Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 23:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I believe an aspect ratio section should be added to the template, as it is an important and relevant detail for some films at the very least. There are a number of inconclusive discussions about this subject in the archives. Falude ( talk) 19:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
If the field is relevant to very few articles, it should probably not be included at all. Conversely, very common fields may be included—and made optional—even if they are not applicable to a few of the articles in questionand
Any field that might reasonably be empty should probably be optional. However, a field that is usually empty may not be particularly useful or relevantIn most film articles, this parameter would and should be empty, therefore it shouldn't be part of the template. — El Millo ( talk) 20:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
relevant to very few articles. — Locke Cole • t • c 20:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree that this parameter shouldn't be added to the infobox, but discussed in article if necessary. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 21:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
While the aspect ratio itself is a terribly geeky thing to note, it's an objectively measurable feature of a film, easily verifiable by anyone with access to the end product, and loosely correlates somewhat with various more nebulous characteristics (era, budget, scope, genre). Flat 1.85:1 often signifies an indie film shot with spherical lenses, whereas 2.39:1 is more typical of a major studio film shot with anamorphic lenses. 1.375:1 was popular with early sound-including films, and 4:3 was common for silent films. Noting the aspect ratio to hint at whether a film is more dialogue or action heavy seems to make about as much sense as using the box office receipts to roughly gauge its popularity, or its critical response to get a feel for whether it's respected. All of these are imperfect measurements of something less tangible, hinting at the subjective by measuring an objective surrogate. ZoeB ( talk) 12:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that when the "Language" parameter for the infobox is filled in as "silent" the "Silent films" category automatically displays at the bottom of the page. However, this has had the unfortunate effect of violating WP:SUBCAT and WP:DIFFUSE because 1200 films contain the category "Silent film" even though the vast majority of these films already contain categories like "American silent films" or "British silent short films." I would edit the template myself to get rid of these redundant categories, but I do not have that right. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 04:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
From WT:SHORTDESC:
I noticed a change recently when adding the Short description. In film articles, where I used to see "(Wikidata Import Edit and import)", I now see "American film (Override Export ?)". As I understand it the "American film" populated part is due to some automatically pulling info from the {{ Infobox film}} template. This seems to be a fairly recent change, and I'm wondering if there was a discussion somewhere that explains this. — Ched ( talk) 12:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
From User talk:Primefac:
I noticed some problems in my updating films with the short description. I see you made this change which seems to be the cause. I asked first here. Anyway - was there a discussion anywhere which prompted this? Were you or others aware that it would break the Import function (via Wikipedia:Shortdesc helper) Which pulls the short description from wikidata? (it instead automatically pulls "American film" from the infobox as I understand it.). Is it something you'd be willing to restore to its previous state? — Ched ( talk) 20:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
To answer both of these questions in a centralized location, I did this because there has been a desire recently to have widely-used templates such as {{ infobox school}}, {{ infobox award}}, etc to automatically generate a short description to save editors the need to manually input (literally) millions of short descriptions; I decided to be BOLD and do the same for this template.
While I will admit that the current short description is not ideal, and there is certainly room for discussion and improvement, my reading of the above comments does not seem to merit a wholesale revert (Shortdesc helper still works, yes? Just not how you expect it) and I'm happy to discuss improving (I've already realized that "<country> film by <director>" is probably a good improvement; again, discussion welcome). Of course, if a discussion does decide that a short description is too problematic (after workshopping potential improvements) I'm fine reverting. (please ping on reply) Primefac ( talk) 10:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
<includeonly>
at the beginning is closed at the end of the infobox.
Primefac (
talk)
13:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)<year> film directed by <director>
assuming the two values are provided.
Primefac (
talk)
16:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)I've never liked the common WD short description of "year, film, director". Unless your are a real film buff, would most people recognize most directors? I think that "American 1942 historical romance film" is much better than "1942 film by Michael Curtiz" (for Casablanca). Are we just blindly following WD here or is there a consensus here? MB 17:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
|genre=
parameter in this template, meaning that it cannot be easily programmed.
Primefac (
talk)
17:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
First, thank you @ Primefac: for your work on this. Second, I agree with MB on including country and genre, but I didn't want to deal with the flak from Lugnuts when I started (he was a regular in the film group, and I wasn't) so I fell into a pattern. My reasoning (nationality): compare British comedy (Monty Python) to American comedy (Beavis and Buthead). My reasoning (genre): compare superhero live action vs animated. Personally I don't usually pay much attention director outside of the greats (Spielberg, Lucas, Hawk), but I think many others do look for that. — Ched ( talk) 02:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The addition of director is a little buggy, the contents of the director parameter is added "as is" which is fine when there's only one director, but some formatting is required when there is more than one director, or if extra info has been added. See examples:
Interlanguage link multi
template and renders as 2016 Japanese film directed by Masafumi Yamada [ja]Any chance of a tracking category etc to see how often this kind of thing occurs? - X201 ( talk) 07:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I do not like the idea of autogenerating short descriptions. I would have responded earlier, but I did not know why this happened until now. This seems to be a giant mess. Specifically, many short descriptions are now longer than 40 characters. The wording is also awkward. Can't we just come up with a system we all agree on.
Would it be possible for Driving Miss Daisy's short description to be "1989 film". Driving Miss Daisy (1989 film) would be "1989 film by Bruce Beresford" or 1989 American film? Scorpions13256 ( talk) 04:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)