![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
I think that the Rotten Tomato meter rating should be kept, since it is reflective of the opinions of professionals. .... 03:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it should go under where the imdb is in the infobox. The second one you did looks ok to me (without all the .........).
So something like.... Rotten Tomato Rating 100% {{stars|*}}
All we need is something basic for now, just to communicate the main information so we don't have to go into the whole Fresh/Rotten stuff. Also, in regards to the Tomato picture. I haven't a clue. I think it should be ok though. (But I'm not a lawyer). It's easy to make an image of our own, certainly. (We could just have a red blob with a green dot.) :) -- P-Chan 22:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
One possibility...
-- P-Chan 22:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is the code that I have come up with at the moment I haven't tested it out yet but there would have to be 3 variables for this to work. rotten_id (for the weblink), rotten% (freshness rating) & rotten_fr (image if fresh). It would be better to have the Fresh/rotten image chosen by the rotten% but I would have to do some experimenting to get that to work and I don't want to mess with this heavily used template. Does anyone have any ideas? Freshness is decided on the rotten% being >= 60%
Well I'm game if people want the Metacritic review site added also.
-->{{#if:{{{rotten_id|}}} | <tr><th style="font-size: 100%;" align="center" colspan="2">[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/{{{rotten_id|}}}/ Rotten Tomato Rating] {{{rotten%}}}% [[Image:{{{rotten_fr|rotten_tomato.png}}}| | 15px | Freshness}}]]</th></tr>}}<!--
| rotten_id = v_for_vendetta
| rotten% = 75
| rotten_fr = Tomato-Torrent-Icon.png
-- UKPhoenix79 23:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with adding this to the infobox. If someone wants to add it some other way to the article, like in the external links, then that's fine (that's a different discussion), but I think we need to start drawing the line somewhere. The infobox gets longer almost by the week around here. Adding this to the infobox not only makes it longer, but also shows favoritism to that website. Even IMDb in the template, to a lesser extent IMHO, is bad and truthfully unneeded. A lot of older films do not have sufficient amount of reviews to even take RottenTomatoes as a credible source. K1Bond007 23:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to open a related issue based on K1Bond007's and Esn's comments.-- P-Chan 00:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Tomatometer 93% If, on Rottentomatoes, the rating was certified (meaning that it had had over 40 reviews, with the meter coming in at 75% or above, I would simply place (certified) after the rating. Also, the link from the rating would go to the film's actual entry on Rottentomatoes. .... 06:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Metacritic stinks to high hell. They don't even have Gone With The Wind. ....( Complain)( Let us to it pell-mell) 08:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I would refrain from adding RT and Metacritic scores to the film infobox. As I mentioned on the
Talk:Rotten Tomatoes page, RT reviews are heavily weighted towards North American reviews, which would be in violation of
WP:NPOV. There are rarely international reviews (save the single BBC review or so) that represent a broader critique of films. I find the N.American-centric bias troubling when
And I was just thinking about the recent screening of Marie-Antoinette at Cannes. While the French press generally panned the film, reviews from North American outlets (such as A.O. Scott of NYT) gave it a more lukewarm to warm review. When Marie-Antoinette is released later this year, RT and Metacritc's reviews won't reflect the geographical disparity in the critical response. Historically, there's the memorable example of how Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was well-received internationally, but regarded as a sterotypical wuxia film among Chinese audiences.
-- Madchester 16:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Instead of having simply a rating system... what are people's opinions of having additional (OPTIONAL) film sites linked inside of the INFOBOX. For the longest time, there was only IMDB (then recently AMG was added). Now, if I'm not mistaken some people really like having IMDB there, but some people don't like it due to POV issues. Would including the option of AMG, Rotten tomatoes, and metacritic sites in the INFOBOX help this? Would there be benefit in having these sites as alternatives in IMDB?-- P-Chan 00:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that the infobox should only list credited input, hence resembling the credits of it's respective film. I think that if you start to list uncredited input, it gets messy. Leave the uncredited info for the article body. .... 05:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that in the infobox, it would be good to have little thumbnails of Oscar statuettes, one for each win, a faded out one for each nomination ....( Complain)( Let us to it pell-mell) 08:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)--></nowiki>
I strongly feel that the MPAA Film Ratings should be put in the infobox for each film. Mollymoon 01:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I want to add an "alt text" parameter for infobox images, but I'm not sure of the syntax. Is
{{{image|[[Image:IIH.png|200px|<!-- -->{{#if: {{{alt text|}}} | {{{alt text}}} | {{#if: {{{caption|}}} | {{{caption}}} | {{PAGENAME}} }} }}]]}}}
going to do it? I want it to use the "alt text" if specified, failing that the "caption", failing that the article name. (In most cases, there is no reason for the image to have a caption.)
—wwoods
19:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
How about an entry for the Art Director? In some films (especially animation), this is a very important role, much more important than editor or cinematographer, and often even more important than the cast members ( Triplets of Belleville (2003), for example, has almost no dialogue). Esn 02:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It appears that some editors have different opinions on which country abbreviation is best (I've noticed someone changing instances of " USA" in a film infobox to " U.S."), so I thought I'd put this up to a vote in order to hopefully settle this issue (I hope this the right place). I myself prefer "USA", the reason being that "USSR" is prefferable to "U.S.S.R." (it takes up less space). It's best not to use an abbreviation for another country that does have periods (like "U.S.") if we are to be consistent. Also, are there any other countries besides those two that are typically called by abbreviated forms of their names? DPRK might be one, but I think it's usually called North Korea. Esn 02:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Should every name that appears in an infobox be linked, even if they are already linked within the text of the article itself? Wiki's Mos states that a page is overlinked if a link appears more than once, yet I find myself doing a lot of reversions where people insist on duplicating the links within the infobox. Which is correct? Chris 42 14:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I notice that User:68.4.159.26 has been adding an Executive Producer and Associate Producer field to the infobox and User:Ned Scott has been removing them; what are people's opinions on whether they should be included or not? Ziggurat 02:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
“ | An executive producer of a motion picture is typically a producer who is not necessarily involved in any creative or technical aspects of production. They generally handle business issues, and may even be a financier of the film. Some executive producers act as representatives of the studio (which releases and/or makes) or production company (which makes) a film, occasionally being credited as executive in charge of production.
Many times someone will receive Executive Producer credit because of their prior involvement with a property that has since been optioned into a film, even if they had no direct input into the production of the film itself. Some instances of this include authors of optioned literary works; people who had previously owned or currently own a property's movie rights; or, someone who had produced, or been involved in the production of, a previous version of the film. |
” |
I would say that associate and executive producers shouldn't be on this template. gren グレン 06:15, 9 July 2006 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
I think that the Rotten Tomato meter rating should be kept, since it is reflective of the opinions of professionals. .... 03:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it should go under where the imdb is in the infobox. The second one you did looks ok to me (without all the .........).
So something like.... Rotten Tomato Rating 100% {{stars|*}}
All we need is something basic for now, just to communicate the main information so we don't have to go into the whole Fresh/Rotten stuff. Also, in regards to the Tomato picture. I haven't a clue. I think it should be ok though. (But I'm not a lawyer). It's easy to make an image of our own, certainly. (We could just have a red blob with a green dot.) :) -- P-Chan 22:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
One possibility...
-- P-Chan 22:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is the code that I have come up with at the moment I haven't tested it out yet but there would have to be 3 variables for this to work. rotten_id (for the weblink), rotten% (freshness rating) & rotten_fr (image if fresh). It would be better to have the Fresh/rotten image chosen by the rotten% but I would have to do some experimenting to get that to work and I don't want to mess with this heavily used template. Does anyone have any ideas? Freshness is decided on the rotten% being >= 60%
Well I'm game if people want the Metacritic review site added also.
-->{{#if:{{{rotten_id|}}} | <tr><th style="font-size: 100%;" align="center" colspan="2">[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/{{{rotten_id|}}}/ Rotten Tomato Rating] {{{rotten%}}}% [[Image:{{{rotten_fr|rotten_tomato.png}}}| | 15px | Freshness}}]]</th></tr>}}<!--
| rotten_id = v_for_vendetta
| rotten% = 75
| rotten_fr = Tomato-Torrent-Icon.png
-- UKPhoenix79 23:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with adding this to the infobox. If someone wants to add it some other way to the article, like in the external links, then that's fine (that's a different discussion), but I think we need to start drawing the line somewhere. The infobox gets longer almost by the week around here. Adding this to the infobox not only makes it longer, but also shows favoritism to that website. Even IMDb in the template, to a lesser extent IMHO, is bad and truthfully unneeded. A lot of older films do not have sufficient amount of reviews to even take RottenTomatoes as a credible source. K1Bond007 23:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to open a related issue based on K1Bond007's and Esn's comments.-- P-Chan 00:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Tomatometer 93% If, on Rottentomatoes, the rating was certified (meaning that it had had over 40 reviews, with the meter coming in at 75% or above, I would simply place (certified) after the rating. Also, the link from the rating would go to the film's actual entry on Rottentomatoes. .... 06:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Metacritic stinks to high hell. They don't even have Gone With The Wind. ....( Complain)( Let us to it pell-mell) 08:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I would refrain from adding RT and Metacritic scores to the film infobox. As I mentioned on the
Talk:Rotten Tomatoes page, RT reviews are heavily weighted towards North American reviews, which would be in violation of
WP:NPOV. There are rarely international reviews (save the single BBC review or so) that represent a broader critique of films. I find the N.American-centric bias troubling when
And I was just thinking about the recent screening of Marie-Antoinette at Cannes. While the French press generally panned the film, reviews from North American outlets (such as A.O. Scott of NYT) gave it a more lukewarm to warm review. When Marie-Antoinette is released later this year, RT and Metacritc's reviews won't reflect the geographical disparity in the critical response. Historically, there's the memorable example of how Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was well-received internationally, but regarded as a sterotypical wuxia film among Chinese audiences.
-- Madchester 16:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Instead of having simply a rating system... what are people's opinions of having additional (OPTIONAL) film sites linked inside of the INFOBOX. For the longest time, there was only IMDB (then recently AMG was added). Now, if I'm not mistaken some people really like having IMDB there, but some people don't like it due to POV issues. Would including the option of AMG, Rotten tomatoes, and metacritic sites in the INFOBOX help this? Would there be benefit in having these sites as alternatives in IMDB?-- P-Chan 00:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that the infobox should only list credited input, hence resembling the credits of it's respective film. I think that if you start to list uncredited input, it gets messy. Leave the uncredited info for the article body. .... 05:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that in the infobox, it would be good to have little thumbnails of Oscar statuettes, one for each win, a faded out one for each nomination ....( Complain)( Let us to it pell-mell) 08:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)--></nowiki>
I strongly feel that the MPAA Film Ratings should be put in the infobox for each film. Mollymoon 01:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I want to add an "alt text" parameter for infobox images, but I'm not sure of the syntax. Is
{{{image|[[Image:IIH.png|200px|<!-- -->{{#if: {{{alt text|}}} | {{{alt text}}} | {{#if: {{{caption|}}} | {{{caption}}} | {{PAGENAME}} }} }}]]}}}
going to do it? I want it to use the "alt text" if specified, failing that the "caption", failing that the article name. (In most cases, there is no reason for the image to have a caption.)
—wwoods
19:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
How about an entry for the Art Director? In some films (especially animation), this is a very important role, much more important than editor or cinematographer, and often even more important than the cast members ( Triplets of Belleville (2003), for example, has almost no dialogue). Esn 02:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It appears that some editors have different opinions on which country abbreviation is best (I've noticed someone changing instances of " USA" in a film infobox to " U.S."), so I thought I'd put this up to a vote in order to hopefully settle this issue (I hope this the right place). I myself prefer "USA", the reason being that "USSR" is prefferable to "U.S.S.R." (it takes up less space). It's best not to use an abbreviation for another country that does have periods (like "U.S.") if we are to be consistent. Also, are there any other countries besides those two that are typically called by abbreviated forms of their names? DPRK might be one, but I think it's usually called North Korea. Esn 02:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Should every name that appears in an infobox be linked, even if they are already linked within the text of the article itself? Wiki's Mos states that a page is overlinked if a link appears more than once, yet I find myself doing a lot of reversions where people insist on duplicating the links within the infobox. Which is correct? Chris 42 14:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I notice that User:68.4.159.26 has been adding an Executive Producer and Associate Producer field to the infobox and User:Ned Scott has been removing them; what are people's opinions on whether they should be included or not? Ziggurat 02:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
“ | An executive producer of a motion picture is typically a producer who is not necessarily involved in any creative or technical aspects of production. They generally handle business issues, and may even be a financier of the film. Some executive producers act as representatives of the studio (which releases and/or makes) or production company (which makes) a film, occasionally being credited as executive in charge of production.
Many times someone will receive Executive Producer credit because of their prior involvement with a property that has since been optioned into a film, even if they had no direct input into the production of the film itself. Some instances of this include authors of optioned literary works; people who had previously owned or currently own a property's movie rights; or, someone who had produced, or been involved in the production of, a previous version of the film. |
” |
I would say that associate and executive producers shouldn't be on this template. gren グレン 06:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)