![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
I previously requested Costume Designer be added to the infobox. Girolamo Savonarola thought this was "relatively reasonable," but nobody else responded and nothing came of it. I think Production Designer is a worthy addition as well. Does anyone else agree with these two suggestions? How does one go about adding them if there's a consensus to do so? Thank you. MovieMadness ( talk) 19:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Ed. Since AMG and IMDB can be and usually are listed under "External links," they easily can be removed from the infobox to make space for what I feel are credits more pertinent to the project. MovieMadness ( talk) 13:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose that a "Story by" section be added to the Film Infobox, for it would be a relevant addition to the already provided list of movie specifics and credentials. I am working on the What We Do Is Secret (film) article, and have spoken with its director, Roger Grossman, who feels that it would also be a worth addition. I thank you for your consideration. 6:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC) ( DigitalDaiquiri ( talk))
Hello all. I started the same discussion regarding the German Infobox Film. I simply think that Production Design and Costume Design should be part of the Infobox if you name others like the cinematographer. As a matter of fact their job has as much impact as the one of the cinematographer or the editor to a film. They operate on the same level. The decision of naming some head of departments and others not is not clear to me. What are the parameters? Why leave some creative heads in, and some outs. Either you name none (apart from the director) or you name all those that create the film together, and as such also hold copyrights on the product. What do you think ? -- Breinane ( talk) 10:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
It looks like something "funny" is going on with image_size. This parameter can be used to reduce the image size, but that's sometimes not working now. See for example Montana Sky. That has image_size = 200 px, which was reducing the size to 200 pixels until recently. To make things more confusing, I'm also seeing pages where it's still working, e.g. Black Scorpion (film) — Mudwater ( Talk) 11:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[[Image:{{{image}}}|{{#if:{{{image_size|}}}|<!--then:-->{{{image_size}}}px|<!--else:-->200px}}|]] {{#if:{{{caption|}}}|<br />{{{caption}}}}}
[[Image:{{{image}}}|{{#if:{{{image_size|}}}|<!--then:-->{{px|{{{image_size}}} }}|<!--else:-->200px}}|]] {{#if:{{{caption|}}}|<br />{{{caption}}}}}
I'm not sure if anybody has requested it before, but I think that adding a line for genre might be a good addition. ONEder Boy ( talk) 21:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Besides, genre is almost always mentioned in the lede, and it seems silly to lard up the infobox with material that's going to be repeated just to its left (any more than in the case already). Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 00:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this conversion to use Template:infobox.. I don't see the point. Doesn't this make it harder to edit the infobox, with out any real benefit? It would be far easier to just use normal wikitable syntax and follow some kind of guideline for helping to standardize the template. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
I still think it makes things needlessly complicated in the big picture. Infobox film doesn't have to be "easy to edit" for every single editor, and it's protected from editing anyways. There's tons of editors who easily understand how to edit the template, if an edit is needed. This used to be one of the very few templates that one could even copy onto another installation of MediaWiki without making any modifications, because it was a well crafted template.
We're supposed to be dealing with parser functions, and we're supposed to be making hand-crafted changes (when necessary). Everything else can be covered in the infobox CSS class. This does more to limit future options and possible custom considerations, because we wouldn't be able to have any unique code. This is fixing a non-existent problem. I insist on reverting back to the previous code until we can discuss this some more. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody fix this infobox, please?. It really doesn't look that good, and all the information is much smaller than it needs to be. The old version was the best, in my opinion, and I think we should stick with that one because it's easier to read and understand. -- EclipseSSD ( talk) 13:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm no syntax boffin, but I'm guessing there's a way to stop blank language parameters from automatically adding Category:-language films. — 97198 talk 13:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Could the wikilinking of the language be suppressed when it's the same as the language of the Wikipedia it's on? What we now have in the English wikipedia is an enormous number of film articles with links to English language which are never going to be clicked on, as the readers of the English wikipedia presumably already know what the English language is. Colonies Chris ( talk) 14:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this template copyrighted? If it is, I will take it down from conservapedia. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.122.248 ( talk) 17:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Made-for-television films such as HBO's Recount don't have release dates, they have broadcast premieres. So I propose adding a parameter called "broadcast_premiere" to be used in such cases. I'll turn this into an explicit edit request after waiting a few days to see if its controversial in some way that I haven't anticipated. 67.101.6.13 ( talk) 06:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC).
Maybe there should be a location setting for the film. Mcanmoocanu
Current coding is:
{{#if:{{{image_size|}}}|<!--then:-->{{px|{{{image_size}}} }}|<!--else:-->200px}}
But {{ px}} allows for empty as well as blank parameters, and allows for default values. Hence above can be simplified to:
{{px|{{{image_size|}}}|200}}
If no objections, I can insert the revised code. David Ruben Talk 14:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Why can the film's genre not be specified in the template? Socrates2008 ( Talk) 08:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't get the infobox to work on this article: Miracle Dogs Too Schuym1 ( talk) 23:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)schuym1
Thanks Schuym1 ( talk) 23:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)schuym1
A New York Times podcast review from Cannes 2008 noted the distinctive visuals in 24 City as a result of the use of a digital camera (and in this case, the use of digital projection). I've heard similar things mentioned about the use of 70 mm film. Shouldn't film_format (see List of film formats) be an optional part of the infobox? 67.100.126.110 ( talk) 19:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC).
Change release date(s) to Anticipated release date(s) for confirmed films which aren't yet released? Gnevin ( talk) 20:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I feel like this template should include a film rating. Too many times now I've scoured film articles looking for the rating, and it isn't there. -- Erroneuz1 ( talk) 21:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Can someone find where it says "date(s)" (as in "Release date(s)") and place it inside a {{
nowrap}} template? This will prevent the "(s)" from wrapping onto another line. Cheers!
PC78 (
talk)
15:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Sorry, I meant just "date(s)", not the whole of "Release date(s)", i.e.
! Release {{nowrap|date(s)}}
PC78 ( talk) 19:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I am requesting the following change:
{{#if:{{{language|}}}| ! Language {{!}} {{#ifexist: {{{language}}} language | [[{{{language}}} language|{{{language}}}]]{{#ifeq:{{{language|}}}|||[[Category:{{{language}}}-language films]]}} | {{{language}}} }} {{!}}- }}
to:
{{#if:{{{language|}}}| ! Language {{!}} {{{language}}} {{!}}- }}
The reason I request this is that to my knowledge, this categorization cannot sort film titles that begin with "A" and "The". For example, if it was an English-language film called The Movie, then it would end up in the T section. It would require [[Category:English-language films|Movie, The]] or usage of {{ DEFAULTSORT}} to categorize properly in the M section. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 16:35, 24 July 2008 (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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
I previously requested Costume Designer be added to the infobox. Girolamo Savonarola thought this was "relatively reasonable," but nobody else responded and nothing came of it. I think Production Designer is a worthy addition as well. Does anyone else agree with these two suggestions? How does one go about adding them if there's a consensus to do so? Thank you. MovieMadness ( talk) 19:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Ed. Since AMG and IMDB can be and usually are listed under "External links," they easily can be removed from the infobox to make space for what I feel are credits more pertinent to the project. MovieMadness ( talk) 13:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose that a "Story by" section be added to the Film Infobox, for it would be a relevant addition to the already provided list of movie specifics and credentials. I am working on the What We Do Is Secret (film) article, and have spoken with its director, Roger Grossman, who feels that it would also be a worth addition. I thank you for your consideration. 6:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC) ( DigitalDaiquiri ( talk))
Hello all. I started the same discussion regarding the German Infobox Film. I simply think that Production Design and Costume Design should be part of the Infobox if you name others like the cinematographer. As a matter of fact their job has as much impact as the one of the cinematographer or the editor to a film. They operate on the same level. The decision of naming some head of departments and others not is not clear to me. What are the parameters? Why leave some creative heads in, and some outs. Either you name none (apart from the director) or you name all those that create the film together, and as such also hold copyrights on the product. What do you think ? -- Breinane ( talk) 10:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
It looks like something "funny" is going on with image_size. This parameter can be used to reduce the image size, but that's sometimes not working now. See for example Montana Sky. That has image_size = 200 px, which was reducing the size to 200 pixels until recently. To make things more confusing, I'm also seeing pages where it's still working, e.g. Black Scorpion (film) — Mudwater ( Talk) 11:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[[Image:{{{image}}}|{{#if:{{{image_size|}}}|<!--then:-->{{{image_size}}}px|<!--else:-->200px}}|]] {{#if:{{{caption|}}}|<br />{{{caption}}}}}
[[Image:{{{image}}}|{{#if:{{{image_size|}}}|<!--then:-->{{px|{{{image_size}}} }}|<!--else:-->200px}}|]] {{#if:{{{caption|}}}|<br />{{{caption}}}}}
I'm not sure if anybody has requested it before, but I think that adding a line for genre might be a good addition. ONEder Boy ( talk) 21:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Besides, genre is almost always mentioned in the lede, and it seems silly to lard up the infobox with material that's going to be repeated just to its left (any more than in the case already). Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk / cont) 00:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this conversion to use Template:infobox.. I don't see the point. Doesn't this make it harder to edit the infobox, with out any real benefit? It would be far easier to just use normal wikitable syntax and follow some kind of guideline for helping to standardize the template. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
I still think it makes things needlessly complicated in the big picture. Infobox film doesn't have to be "easy to edit" for every single editor, and it's protected from editing anyways. There's tons of editors who easily understand how to edit the template, if an edit is needed. This used to be one of the very few templates that one could even copy onto another installation of MediaWiki without making any modifications, because it was a well crafted template.
We're supposed to be dealing with parser functions, and we're supposed to be making hand-crafted changes (when necessary). Everything else can be covered in the infobox CSS class. This does more to limit future options and possible custom considerations, because we wouldn't be able to have any unique code. This is fixing a non-existent problem. I insist on reverting back to the previous code until we can discuss this some more. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody fix this infobox, please?. It really doesn't look that good, and all the information is much smaller than it needs to be. The old version was the best, in my opinion, and I think we should stick with that one because it's easier to read and understand. -- EclipseSSD ( talk) 13:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm no syntax boffin, but I'm guessing there's a way to stop blank language parameters from automatically adding Category:-language films. — 97198 talk 13:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Could the wikilinking of the language be suppressed when it's the same as the language of the Wikipedia it's on? What we now have in the English wikipedia is an enormous number of film articles with links to English language which are never going to be clicked on, as the readers of the English wikipedia presumably already know what the English language is. Colonies Chris ( talk) 14:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this template copyrighted? If it is, I will take it down from conservapedia. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.122.248 ( talk) 17:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Made-for-television films such as HBO's Recount don't have release dates, they have broadcast premieres. So I propose adding a parameter called "broadcast_premiere" to be used in such cases. I'll turn this into an explicit edit request after waiting a few days to see if its controversial in some way that I haven't anticipated. 67.101.6.13 ( talk) 06:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC).
Maybe there should be a location setting for the film. Mcanmoocanu
Current coding is:
{{#if:{{{image_size|}}}|<!--then:-->{{px|{{{image_size}}} }}|<!--else:-->200px}}
But {{ px}} allows for empty as well as blank parameters, and allows for default values. Hence above can be simplified to:
{{px|{{{image_size|}}}|200}}
If no objections, I can insert the revised code. David Ruben Talk 14:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Why can the film's genre not be specified in the template? Socrates2008 ( Talk) 08:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't get the infobox to work on this article: Miracle Dogs Too Schuym1 ( talk) 23:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)schuym1
Thanks Schuym1 ( talk) 23:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)schuym1
A New York Times podcast review from Cannes 2008 noted the distinctive visuals in 24 City as a result of the use of a digital camera (and in this case, the use of digital projection). I've heard similar things mentioned about the use of 70 mm film. Shouldn't film_format (see List of film formats) be an optional part of the infobox? 67.100.126.110 ( talk) 19:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC).
Change release date(s) to Anticipated release date(s) for confirmed films which aren't yet released? Gnevin ( talk) 20:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I feel like this template should include a film rating. Too many times now I've scoured film articles looking for the rating, and it isn't there. -- Erroneuz1 ( talk) 21:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Can someone find where it says "date(s)" (as in "Release date(s)") and place it inside a {{
nowrap}} template? This will prevent the "(s)" from wrapping onto another line. Cheers!
PC78 (
talk)
15:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Sorry, I meant just "date(s)", not the whole of "Release date(s)", i.e.
! Release {{nowrap|date(s)}}
PC78 ( talk) 19:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I am requesting the following change:
{{#if:{{{language|}}}| ! Language {{!}} {{#ifexist: {{{language}}} language | [[{{{language}}} language|{{{language}}}]]{{#ifeq:{{{language|}}}|||[[Category:{{{language}}}-language films]]}} | {{{language}}} }} {{!}}- }}
to:
{{#if:{{{language|}}}| ! Language {{!}} {{{language}}} {{!}}- }}
The reason I request this is that to my knowledge, this categorization cannot sort film titles that begin with "A" and "The". For example, if it was an English-language film called The Movie, then it would end up in the T section. It would require [[Category:English-language films|Movie, The]] or usage of {{ DEFAULTSORT}} to categorize properly in the M section. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 16:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)