![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
How can I implement an infobox of my own at my own wiki site?
Any attempts ive made have failed.
I had a thought, I don't know what others would think, but I thought I'd throw it out there. What about putting a link for the soundtrackto the film in the infobox? Joltman 12:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Has there been any discussion about adding categories to this infobox? I've been adding films to Category:English-language films. This is a slow process, even using AWB. I could do it in one step for EVERY film by adding the following line to the template:
[[Category:{{{language}}}-language films]]
The same thing could be done for nationality, director, year released, etc... Any objections? -- Samuel Wantman 00:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Anyone think it would be a good idea to include "Tagline(s)" optional field? I think nearly every film using this probably has one, and currently, they're usually included in the article in a very unprofessional/messy mannor (i.e. abruptly at the end of a section you just see Tagline: Whatever) or in some cases like this it's got its own section, for only ONE tagline. Or maybe it could be put under the image (i.e. change the Syntax Guidlines to allow for taglines in the caption area? - RHe odt 14:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I found that on some movie articles the author has put more than one title in the followed_by and the preceded_by variables, like in Blade: Trinity and Blade (film).. now, should this be edited to have only one title or is this okay!? -- PASSIVE ( Talk| E-Mail) 01:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
We should not be showing such obvious bias to two film databases. External links go in the external links sections of their pages. The only external link in the infobox should be to the official site. ed g2s • talk 18:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Some discussion is needed on the preferred usage of a non-English film name (in the local writing system) in the infobox. The FA Ran (film) has "乱 (that is question marks for some of You) Ran" in the infobox as the film's title, the article was featured ( revision) with "Ran" in infobox. Also other titles like The Seven Samurai have their name in Japanese writing (see discussion), but Tokyo Story is in Western encoding. Doing a random sampling we get: Shiri has the English name not Korean, Wheels_on_Meals has the English name not Chinese, Los olvidados has the original Spanish name, Amélie has the English title, The Battleship Potemkin has the English not the Russian name etc. Generally "Article name" --> same name in Western encoding in the infobox.
Currently the Syntax Guide just says: Film Name (Variable: name) "Use: the full name of the film including punctuation and style." There is a problem with using the non-English name in the local writing system of Hindi/Tamil/Greek/Russian/Japanese/Korean/Chinese/etc. to put the film's name in the infobox as it gives lots of ???? for most users. So what kind of guidelines can be given on this matter? feydey 12:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The way I understand it, is to use the name as given in the article's title. Optionally the foreign or english name can be added in parenthesis, if it is considered very important. Example The Blue Angel is given as Der blaue Engel and so it should go in the infobox, maybe -but not necessarily- followed by (Blue Angel). Hoverfish 12:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to propose to apply the pattern described at Wikipedia:template doc page pattern for this template. This has the benefit that changes to the documentation, categories, interwikis don't ripple through to transcluding articles. Although I see you already do transclude documenataion partially here. But the mentioned pattern would be a more complete solution. An example usage can be seen at template:cite web. -- Ligulem 12:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I noticed someone adding an alternate sleeve to the foot of a music album infobox, and this can be a good way to display reissue sleeves or other alternate pics. Is there a reason why this should be avoided with films?
The syntax used was:
Gram 15:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Please add "Based on" too. ♔BADMIN♛ (आओ✍) 21:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Adding a field for Box Office revenues/gross would be a good idea. Yours, Smeelgova 21:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC).
See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/archive5#Awards_in_.7B.7BInfobox_Film.7D.7D
Neither AMG or IMDB should be infobox. Only official links should be placed in an infobox. We should not be showing such obvious bias to these companies. If the coverage on that site is deemed a worthy reference then we can place a link in "External links" (which the majority of pages have as well). Offering up one site as so more informative is anything but NPOV. ed g2s • talk 15:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
It should definately be in the infobox as well as the External links section. I just looked and out of the 26 foreign language' wikipedia's that use a version of this infobox, 22 of them have a link to IMDb in the infobox. I'm sure that this has been discussed before, but don't have the time to bring up the links right now. You can probably check Wikipeda talk:WikiProject Films/Archives. Cbrown1023 14:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
When we say that a dadabase link in the infobox is rudundant it misses the point that most of the information in the infobox is redundant. What I like about the infoboxes containing the database link (either one) is that a film professional or researcher using Wikipedia for quick referencing knows exactly where to grab that info without scrolling through the article. The database in the infobox is also nice because articles don't require a full filmography as you can simply quicly click the database. This makes articles more streamlined and keeps such lists outside where they can be found quickly. The problem with only having databases mentioned in external links is that this requires scrolling down and searching for it in each case. By being in the infobox, such access to that kind of info is nearly instantaneous, which makes Wikipedia's film articles much more user-friendly and convenient. Chris 12:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
VOTE AT Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#VOTE
The above link no longer works, as the debate has been archived and moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/archive6#VOTE. The consensus was to keep both AMG and IMDB links in the infobox.
By the way of the last two sections (and others further up), has anybody notidced that on the 12 August 2006 User Passive has modified the example of the infobox so as to display also eproducer, aproducer, awards, and gross? This may be quite a confusing combination to find up top in this page. Either the template has to agree with the example or the other way round. As it is, it suggests that one can add extra fields in infoboxes. Hoverfish 18:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
What's the country field for? Where filmed? Where funded from? Where edited? Where production company is based? Ta. Frelke 13:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Vote there on whether or not you want IMDb or AMG in the infobox. Cbrown1023 15:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
You were one hour and three minutes late in removing it. I'm surprized! Hoverfish 00:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I added a field for the Official Site. It is optional in case a film does not have one. It is definately warranted because we have one for IMDb. Cbrown1023 22:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
That's fine since a person can choose to fill it in or not. But most of the film articles I work on don't have websites, as I work on old German films and silent films that are long out of circulation. Chris 12:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Something just came to mind, and I was wondering what others think. Should there be something in the infobox that says how the movie was released, such as Theatrical, Direct-to-video, or Made for TV? It seems like pertinent info that would be appropriate in the infobox. Joltman 12:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films, I have suggested the addition of "Narrator" to this template. Please discuss it there; not here. I'm just leaving this notice to let everyone who is watching this page know. Thanks. -- Czj 10:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Any thoughts as to how we can standardise distributor information? Some films will be globally distributed by one company, others will have local distirbutors. Also, especially for older films, the distributor for DVDs will be different. I know the instant reaction is "ignore the DVD release" but if it had no theatrical release we'd end up with no information. I personally feel we should go for completeness and if there is too much info in the infobox it should be omitted completely and the information included in its own section. Any other thoughts? Mallanox 02:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
An anonymous user (204.180.205.82) has added the MPAA ratings back into the template image. Although they didn't actually add in a spot on the template itself... I'm loathe to remove it because I'm not familiar enough with the coding and am afraid I might mess up the whole thing. So... could someone else fix it? And if you're reading this, anonymous user, and wondering why its being removed, you need to discuss all changes on this page or on the wikiproject films page before making them. :) The MPAA rating has been discussed several times before, and it was decided that we wouldn't use it, as it is not an international rating system. - Elizabennet 18:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the users below. This infox box certainly needs to be updated to include Gross Receipts, Awards and a more concise release date. These would greatly improve the functionality of this template. Finally, the light blue suggestion certainly makes it quicker to find browse the info. Pepto gecko 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this has been brought up before, but wouldn't it be a great idea to include gross profits in the infobox? This information is available for most pictures at Box Office Mojo, and to me it doesn't really matter whether it is domestic or worldwide that is included (though worldwide probably would be the best for non-US movies). To me, it seems unnecessary to have to browse through the entire article in order to find general and concise information like that.
Sebross 16:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
. . . {{#if:{{{budget|<noinclude>-</noinclude>}}} | ! Budget {{!}} {{{budget}}} {{!}}- }} {{#if:{{{gross|<noinclude>-</noinclude>}}} | ! Gross profits {{!}} {{{gross}}} {{!}}- }} {{#if:{{{preceded_by|<noinclude>-</noinclude>}}} | . . .
-- Stratadrake 23:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm just wondering if anyone thinks it would be a good idea to add a light blue colour such as that used over here (it is "#DBE8F2"). I think it makes the infobox slightly easier to read and nicer to look at. Esn 01:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone has suggested the use of this field to differentiate between the uinderlying score and songs/lyrics. algocu 14:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I know this been brought up before, but I think it is worthy of more scrutiny than it has been getting. Why is there no "ratings" section in the infobox? I know Wikipedia is supposed to be "international" so inclusion of just the MPAA would not be acceptible, and inclusion of every country's rating would take up too much space, but isn't some kind of compromise possible? It's pretty ridiculous IMHO that this fairly significant aspect of film is not even mentioned in the great majority of movie articles. -- Grandpafootsoldier 21:05, 20 December 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
How can I implement an infobox of my own at my own wiki site?
Any attempts ive made have failed.
I had a thought, I don't know what others would think, but I thought I'd throw it out there. What about putting a link for the soundtrackto the film in the infobox? Joltman 12:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Has there been any discussion about adding categories to this infobox? I've been adding films to Category:English-language films. This is a slow process, even using AWB. I could do it in one step for EVERY film by adding the following line to the template:
[[Category:{{{language}}}-language films]]
The same thing could be done for nationality, director, year released, etc... Any objections? -- Samuel Wantman 00:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Anyone think it would be a good idea to include "Tagline(s)" optional field? I think nearly every film using this probably has one, and currently, they're usually included in the article in a very unprofessional/messy mannor (i.e. abruptly at the end of a section you just see Tagline: Whatever) or in some cases like this it's got its own section, for only ONE tagline. Or maybe it could be put under the image (i.e. change the Syntax Guidlines to allow for taglines in the caption area? - RHe odt 14:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I found that on some movie articles the author has put more than one title in the followed_by and the preceded_by variables, like in Blade: Trinity and Blade (film).. now, should this be edited to have only one title or is this okay!? -- PASSIVE ( Talk| E-Mail) 01:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
We should not be showing such obvious bias to two film databases. External links go in the external links sections of their pages. The only external link in the infobox should be to the official site. ed g2s • talk 18:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Some discussion is needed on the preferred usage of a non-English film name (in the local writing system) in the infobox. The FA Ran (film) has "乱 (that is question marks for some of You) Ran" in the infobox as the film's title, the article was featured ( revision) with "Ran" in infobox. Also other titles like The Seven Samurai have their name in Japanese writing (see discussion), but Tokyo Story is in Western encoding. Doing a random sampling we get: Shiri has the English name not Korean, Wheels_on_Meals has the English name not Chinese, Los olvidados has the original Spanish name, Amélie has the English title, The Battleship Potemkin has the English not the Russian name etc. Generally "Article name" --> same name in Western encoding in the infobox.
Currently the Syntax Guide just says: Film Name (Variable: name) "Use: the full name of the film including punctuation and style." There is a problem with using the non-English name in the local writing system of Hindi/Tamil/Greek/Russian/Japanese/Korean/Chinese/etc. to put the film's name in the infobox as it gives lots of ???? for most users. So what kind of guidelines can be given on this matter? feydey 12:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The way I understand it, is to use the name as given in the article's title. Optionally the foreign or english name can be added in parenthesis, if it is considered very important. Example The Blue Angel is given as Der blaue Engel and so it should go in the infobox, maybe -but not necessarily- followed by (Blue Angel). Hoverfish 12:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to propose to apply the pattern described at Wikipedia:template doc page pattern for this template. This has the benefit that changes to the documentation, categories, interwikis don't ripple through to transcluding articles. Although I see you already do transclude documenataion partially here. But the mentioned pattern would be a more complete solution. An example usage can be seen at template:cite web. -- Ligulem 12:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I noticed someone adding an alternate sleeve to the foot of a music album infobox, and this can be a good way to display reissue sleeves or other alternate pics. Is there a reason why this should be avoided with films?
The syntax used was:
Gram 15:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Please add "Based on" too. ♔BADMIN♛ (आओ✍) 21:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Adding a field for Box Office revenues/gross would be a good idea. Yours, Smeelgova 21:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC).
See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/archive5#Awards_in_.7B.7BInfobox_Film.7D.7D
Neither AMG or IMDB should be infobox. Only official links should be placed in an infobox. We should not be showing such obvious bias to these companies. If the coverage on that site is deemed a worthy reference then we can place a link in "External links" (which the majority of pages have as well). Offering up one site as so more informative is anything but NPOV. ed g2s • talk 15:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
It should definately be in the infobox as well as the External links section. I just looked and out of the 26 foreign language' wikipedia's that use a version of this infobox, 22 of them have a link to IMDb in the infobox. I'm sure that this has been discussed before, but don't have the time to bring up the links right now. You can probably check Wikipeda talk:WikiProject Films/Archives. Cbrown1023 14:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
When we say that a dadabase link in the infobox is rudundant it misses the point that most of the information in the infobox is redundant. What I like about the infoboxes containing the database link (either one) is that a film professional or researcher using Wikipedia for quick referencing knows exactly where to grab that info without scrolling through the article. The database in the infobox is also nice because articles don't require a full filmography as you can simply quicly click the database. This makes articles more streamlined and keeps such lists outside where they can be found quickly. The problem with only having databases mentioned in external links is that this requires scrolling down and searching for it in each case. By being in the infobox, such access to that kind of info is nearly instantaneous, which makes Wikipedia's film articles much more user-friendly and convenient. Chris 12:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
VOTE AT Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#VOTE
The above link no longer works, as the debate has been archived and moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/archive6#VOTE. The consensus was to keep both AMG and IMDB links in the infobox.
By the way of the last two sections (and others further up), has anybody notidced that on the 12 August 2006 User Passive has modified the example of the infobox so as to display also eproducer, aproducer, awards, and gross? This may be quite a confusing combination to find up top in this page. Either the template has to agree with the example or the other way round. As it is, it suggests that one can add extra fields in infoboxes. Hoverfish 18:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
What's the country field for? Where filmed? Where funded from? Where edited? Where production company is based? Ta. Frelke 13:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Vote there on whether or not you want IMDb or AMG in the infobox. Cbrown1023 15:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
You were one hour and three minutes late in removing it. I'm surprized! Hoverfish 00:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I added a field for the Official Site. It is optional in case a film does not have one. It is definately warranted because we have one for IMDb. Cbrown1023 22:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
That's fine since a person can choose to fill it in or not. But most of the film articles I work on don't have websites, as I work on old German films and silent films that are long out of circulation. Chris 12:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Something just came to mind, and I was wondering what others think. Should there be something in the infobox that says how the movie was released, such as Theatrical, Direct-to-video, or Made for TV? It seems like pertinent info that would be appropriate in the infobox. Joltman 12:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films, I have suggested the addition of "Narrator" to this template. Please discuss it there; not here. I'm just leaving this notice to let everyone who is watching this page know. Thanks. -- Czj 10:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Any thoughts as to how we can standardise distributor information? Some films will be globally distributed by one company, others will have local distirbutors. Also, especially for older films, the distributor for DVDs will be different. I know the instant reaction is "ignore the DVD release" but if it had no theatrical release we'd end up with no information. I personally feel we should go for completeness and if there is too much info in the infobox it should be omitted completely and the information included in its own section. Any other thoughts? Mallanox 02:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
An anonymous user (204.180.205.82) has added the MPAA ratings back into the template image. Although they didn't actually add in a spot on the template itself... I'm loathe to remove it because I'm not familiar enough with the coding and am afraid I might mess up the whole thing. So... could someone else fix it? And if you're reading this, anonymous user, and wondering why its being removed, you need to discuss all changes on this page or on the wikiproject films page before making them. :) The MPAA rating has been discussed several times before, and it was decided that we wouldn't use it, as it is not an international rating system. - Elizabennet 18:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the users below. This infox box certainly needs to be updated to include Gross Receipts, Awards and a more concise release date. These would greatly improve the functionality of this template. Finally, the light blue suggestion certainly makes it quicker to find browse the info. Pepto gecko 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this has been brought up before, but wouldn't it be a great idea to include gross profits in the infobox? This information is available for most pictures at Box Office Mojo, and to me it doesn't really matter whether it is domestic or worldwide that is included (though worldwide probably would be the best for non-US movies). To me, it seems unnecessary to have to browse through the entire article in order to find general and concise information like that.
Sebross 16:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
. . . {{#if:{{{budget|<noinclude>-</noinclude>}}} | ! Budget {{!}} {{{budget}}} {{!}}- }} {{#if:{{{gross|<noinclude>-</noinclude>}}} | ! Gross profits {{!}} {{{gross}}} {{!}}- }} {{#if:{{{preceded_by|<noinclude>-</noinclude>}}} | . . .
-- Stratadrake 23:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm just wondering if anyone thinks it would be a good idea to add a light blue colour such as that used over here (it is "#DBE8F2"). I think it makes the infobox slightly easier to read and nicer to look at. Esn 01:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone has suggested the use of this field to differentiate between the uinderlying score and songs/lyrics. algocu 14:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I know this been brought up before, but I think it is worthy of more scrutiny than it has been getting. Why is there no "ratings" section in the infobox? I know Wikipedia is supposed to be "international" so inclusion of just the MPAA would not be acceptible, and inclusion of every country's rating would take up too much space, but isn't some kind of compromise possible? It's pretty ridiculous IMHO that this fairly significant aspect of film is not even mentioned in the great majority of movie articles. -- Grandpafootsoldier 21:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)