Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Film chronology on each page to aid navigation and put it in perspective easily?

Please refer to this link: Talk:List of James Bond films#film chronology on each page to aid navigation and put it in perspective easily?

Original post: If you take a random Beatles album (for example, Rubber Soul), you will see on the right side there is a chronology section. This is useful for a number of reasons. Why isn't this implemented for the James Bond series? For that matter, I don't see it on other franchises such as Star Wars or Harry Potter, so is there a reason for this? I think it would be really neat to have, but it seems like chronology is only reserved for music (and possibly other media). Thoughts?

Obviously this could be applied to other series as well. Electricmaster (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I support this. I just made test of this in the infobox sandbox, you can see it at the bottom section of Template:Infobox film/testcases. Feel free for anyone to tweak it or offer feedback Bluealbion (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

These parameters existed until 2011, when their removal was decided by consensus. This discussion can be seen at Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 19#Preceded By/Followed By. —El Millo (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose per previous discussions and the standing consensus that this is not needed, given the prevalence of navboxes that are better suited for this navigation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I have to oppose this too. The challenge is that for films, "chronology" can be either in-universe or out-of-universe. There was a lot of messy edit-warring at the time the parameter existed. The lead section is better for contextualizing films before/after in both ways as needed. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose as in the past. Also remember there are navboxes which fill this need as well as others. MarnetteD|Talk 16:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think that Navboxes do as good a job as this addition would. They don’t appear for mobile viewers at all, and for desktop viewers they are at the bottom of the page and will probably not be seen by most people who view the page. Bluealbion (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

That is as may be. Each individual film article has at lease one link to the "List of" article. That is preferable to trying to shoehorn items into the infobox. MarnetteD|Talk 23:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose per other responses, this was removed for a reason. There are other ways to cover this that work fine now, and film chronology is messier than TV or album chronologies. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose as I've seen how messy it can get, with film series such as Star Wars between chronological and release order, with the MCU with the different franchises and the overall saga, with different iterations of characters such as Batman or James Bond, etc. A proposal in favor of reincluding these paremeters should at least address all concerns that resulted in them being removed in the original discussion. —El Millo (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, as much as I often wish I could quickly navigate through (for example) MCU-films just using the infobox at the top, the reasons above give me enough pause to think it's not something we should turn back on now. Perhaps if there was a way to address the edit warring that took place in the past it could be reconsidered. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Is anyone else starting to think we should have a notice at the top of this page linking to the discussion that resulted in the removal of the preceded/followed by params? This seems to come up frequently enough that a short blurb might be helpful. Otherwise: oppose. Navboxes cover this same territory, and more effectively. DonIago (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

We could add a FAQ section that points to the previous discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

That's a good idea. —El Millo (talk) 04:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

A notice linking to the 2011 discussion is already there. Take a look at the bottom box at the top of the page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It seems it should be made more visible somehow, perhaps adding the names of the parameters |Preceded by= and |Succeded by= there. —El Millo (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Or perhaps an WP:EDITNOTICE? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose I've actually thought of this in the past (unaware of the 2011 discussion), but in the end I came to the same conclusion that it's not worth the edit-warring that will undoubtedly arise. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

OTT details in infobox

Post pandemic, screening of a film has been changed from traditional theatrical release to OTT. Almost all the film has unique details about OTT platform and satellite rights. Can we include these 2 fields in this infobox? -07:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC) Neechalkaran (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:FILMRELEASE seems to indicate that we do not include screening, whether in-person or over-the-top (OTT). Primefac (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

replace the field "Starring" in Infobox_film

Is it possible, for a particular article, to replace the word "starring" in the Infobox template with the word "cast" or "performers"?

For an 1895 actuality, the word "starring" is anachronistic, and hence misleading. orphans (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "1895 actuality", but "starring" is used often in reliable sources, especially focused on the major cast members or performers. If we just put "Cast" or "Performers", it is less indicative of what kind of cutoff there should be. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Request for a new '|cutting=' parameter

Dear colleagues,
Would it be possible to consider adding a new "|cutting=" parameter, to enable Wikipedia editors to name the cutter(s) who participated in a film's production? I am currently working on the network of articles related to Charles Saunders (director), who spent time as a cutter in the earlier part of his career. It is probable that other directors did the same, and it occurs to me it might therefore be interesting for our readers to be made aware of this when they visit a given film's article. If implemented, this new parameter would display the label "Cutting by", in keeping with the existing design. I realise that "cutting" is part of the editing process, but it might be worthwhile emphasizing this when a biography mentions this aspect of a director's career. Thank you very much for your consideration to the present request.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 14:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so. There are tons of roles more relevant than the cutter(s), creative and overarching roles, which we already do not include in the infobox. There have even been discussion to add those roles I'm referring to and they came out in favor of not including any more roles, so cutters wouldn't make the cut either. —El Millo (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Dear El Millo,
That's fine; I quite understand. Thank you for your time and consideration, anyway.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 16:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Add a category for casting directors?

I think casting directors should be a category in the infobox. Recently, there has been interest in recognising the efforts of casting directors (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-56813184), there is now a BAFTA in Best Casting (https://www.spotlight.com/news-and-advice/bafta-announces-casting-awards-for-film-and-television/) and they are equivalent to cinematography etc (which does have a category). Unfortunately, because it is one of the few areas of film dominated by women, it doesn't seem to get the recognition/status it deserves. Jesswade88 (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Not before production designers, costume designers, sound editors, or makeup artists, I'd say. Nardog (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting comment, but the casting director is higher up in the movie hierarchy than production, costume, sound or make-up. Jesswade88 (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Jesswade88, I think Nardog mentions these credits because there are long-established award categories for them. Honestly, the general consensus of editors long involved with film articles is to not let the film infobox grow any more. Any additional credit could have some justification, and I think we're wary of having a super-long sidebar in every film article. However, I think it's possible to have a "Crew" section or a crew-based embedded list within the "Production" section provide a fuller list of credits. After all, the infobox is supposed to summarize the article body, so to me, it makes sense to have a crew list. We already do that with a "Cast" section and the "Starring" parameter being a subset of that cast list. So I wouldn't oppose listing the casting director (and other credits that don't appear in the infobox) in film articles if there is some real-world justification for them. Meaning it may be too indiscriminate to make it a universal practice. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

MPA number

Wanted to suggest adding the MPA number to the film infobox. this number can be found on imdb or during the credits of most films. Sho73 (talk) 09:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

We do not need to replicate IMDB. WP:NOTDATABASE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Add parameter to display the full film

I think that any film that has fallen into the public domain (or is otherwise free content) should be fully shown in its article, for obvious reasons. In fact, this is already the case for most well-developed articles on PD films (The Gold Rush, The Jazz Singer, Night of the Living Dead, et cetera): they typically contain a media file with the full film. I suggest that this file be moved into the infobox—ideally, I think, directly beneath the poster image. Shells-shells (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it's better to have that kind of content in an external links section. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the information in the infobox is to supplement information within the article. I think in the past we used to have links to films IMDb article and even their AllMovie article, but they were removed too. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Surely a reproduction of the work of art being discussed is a key piece of supplemental information, no? I don't suppose, for example, that {{infobox artwork}} would be better without a parameter to display the artwork itself. It's the same way with films. Shells-shells (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, it's generally not what the infobox is for (see the Manual of Style from above), it's to help recognize the key factors of the film. I've seen other article that have some copyright free films in the prose (and even then, i'm not sure how grand of an idea that is). I'm not sure about your example for the infobox artwork, as it displays an image and the main point of images in the infobox is to help confirm to users that they have stumbled upon the correct film they were looking up. I don't think adding video or links to video would help in this case. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

One concern I'd have about putting this kind of parameter in the infobox, though I don't know whether my concern is particularly valid, is how we'd be able to avoid having it abused to link to illegally released copies of the film. DonIago (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with adding this option. I think to prevent potential copyright infringement concerns we should only link in the infobox to wikisource (similarly to what is done to infobox book). Wikisource material is supposed to be in the public domain and the community over there does a great job at policing that. There collection of movies is also growing with each year. Bluealbion (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The reality is that most sound-era films are still under copyright, so I don't really see the point of adding a parameter to catch exceptions. I have never been a fan of embedding films in articles (serious question: who wants to watch a film embedded in a Wikipedia article, anyway?) and links to public domain copies can go in the external links section. Betty Logan (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  Serious answer: I first watched Sita Sings the Blues (to give just one example) via the version embedded in its article, and I found it very convenient. Shells-shells (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  At least in the United States, all films to 1928 are now in the public domain, with hundreds added every year. I think a quick link in the info box would be very helpful to casual readers, who may not even know about or scroll to the external link section. if the option to link to the source material in the infobox is available for books, music videos, and documents I think we should include it for films as well. Bluealbion (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support I agree that we should surface the full feature film in some standard way on Wikipedia articles. Even if it is not the ideal place — "who would want to...", etc — I think it's highly valuable to provide access to people where they are looking for it. Additionally, I think it is important to demonstrate that free media is free and expose people to the idea that it belongs to us all and we can use it as such. Carlinmack (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose placement in infobox. They are bloated enough as it is. Support their placement in the EL section. MarnetteD|Talk 18:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

native_name suggestion

In the blank infobox template, users are told to use {{Infobox name module}} for the |native_name= parameter. As this template is deprecated, should the commented instructions in the blank be updated? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

There are over 6,000 tranclusions, so while it is in use the instructions should remain. It appears to be deprecated for Japanese films, so ideally the template should be replaced in those cases and the instructions covering Japanese films should be updated to provide new instructions. Deleting the instructions entirely would not be helpful if some languages are still dependent on it. Betty Logan (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Inserting parameters manually

I came across this edit [1], where the editor added the following code after the |screenplay= parameter:
{{Infobox | decat = yes | child = yes | label1= Dialogue by | data1 = {{Ubl |[[Sai Madhav Burra]]}}}}
which has the effect of adding "Diaglogue by Sai Madhav Burra" to the infobox.

Is this an acceptable alternative to adding a person to the |writer= parameter and postpending (dialogue)?  — Archer1234 (t·c) 23:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's another example: [2]. Not getting any feedback, so I'll just assume this is fine.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 22:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it is acceptable provided the extra parameter is just being used to structure an existing parameter. For example, some film credits also incorporate a "Dialogue" credit, which is part of the overall screenplay credit, so it is fine in the examples you have provided. It should not be used as a hack to extend the infobox, for example by adding an "art direction" credit. Betty Logan (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not an accepted way of adding a parameter. If such a parameter is wanted, it should be proposed here and if consenesous is met, it will be officially added to the infobox. Gonnym (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

What about adding two new parameters for OTT details..?

Suggesting adding two new parameters are 'OTT PLATFORM' and 'OTT RELEASE DATE'. Wishing it should be added after existing parameter 'run time' Shravanpillai (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

If that is the only or primary release of the film, that can all be covered by the other existing parameters. We don't cover subsequent appearances of the film after its initial release date and method/platform. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a catalog, it is an encyclopedia. The primary date from an encyclopedic and copyright perspective is the publication date i.e. the first showing at which members of the public are permitted, anything else can be covered in the release section. Betty Logan (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Write, screenplay, and story explanation additions

So a while back me and some editors debated about writing credits, and I realized the descriptions for the writer, screenplay, and story parameters weren't as crystal clear as I had thought. So I propose we add the following statements within their approapiate positions; the statement(s) in italics are the proposed additions, and the ones following are the explanations:

1. Written for the screen [and directed by; this a mutually exclusive credit] equates to a screenplay by credit/parameter. - Films with on-screen written for the screen credits are officiated by the WGA, who are the final say on writing credits, under a screenplay by credit (ex. If Beale Street Could Talk, Little Women, Inherent Vice). The purpose of the written for the screen and directed by credit was to avoid repetition of the person(s)'s name.

2. Screen story and screenplay by credits equates to a written by parameter; some instances it is simplified to the latter form onscreen. - A written by credit is essentially the combination of a story by and screenplay by credit, so it is a rough equivalent. Most recently Black Adam was given screen story by and screenplay by credits with the exact same names and ordering, but was simplified on-screen as written by.

3. (optional) Films with screenplay by and story by credits that share the exact same writers BUT in different ordering should remain separated in their respective paramaters. - this one people have actually gotten without problem, but I just wanted to add it just in case. It's for films like The Lone Ranger and The Legend of Tarzan. IAmNMFlores (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I personally don't find this ambiguous, but if there is to be a section on writing credits, it should inclue a paragraph on the most common credits as well (i.e. screenplay by, story by, and written and directed by). InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Well what I mean is in the explaination of the film's parameters, #1 would be put with the "screenplay" parameter's explanation, and #2 would be put with the "writer" parameter's one. I think people got the jist of #3, and it would feel weird to repeat it in both "screenplay" and "story" parameters. I've just seen a plenty of times where the wrong parameters are put regarding the first two. IAmNMFlores (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Then why not just add those two credits to the existing sentences, i.e. (underline denotes changes) This field is primarily used for films where the writer(s) are credited under "Written by" or "Screen story and screenplay by". and Use this field instead of the normal writer field if films divide writing credits between screenplay and story writers such as when the writer(s) are credited under "Screenplay by" or "Written for the screen by".? InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

"Music" field in infobox for a musical film

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Removal of music composers from infobox. Please feel free to join in. Thanks. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0: I think we should actually carry on this discussion here as well because it needs to change as soon as possible. The thing is, unlike what we are used to in American cinema, in Indian films the songs are just part of the background score. Songs are of the most prevalent characteristic features of Hindi/Indian films, all of which are either musicals or, off late, have original songs presented in them in other ways. To be more precise, in Indian films, the songs are, indeed, part of the musical score. It just happens that in Hollywood there are often songs in films which are not original (known as soundtrack albums) and have not been composed specifically for the film. In Indian films songs are always original and composed for the film. Film composers appear exactly under the title "music director" in Indian films. We would therefore want to ask for help with making that change in the infobox because right now there's an ongoing debate. I would suggest that infoboxes include both "background_score" and "music_director" parameters. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0, @Shshshsh, please, discuss this in one place and leave pointers to that. Asking fellow editors to read multiple discussions and comment in both isn't helpful, leading to fragmented discussions and incomplete decisions that aren't always compatible. I don't care if it's here or WT:FILM, but just one, please. Ravensfire (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Consolidating this discussion on one page with this rfc.

To summarise the matter briefly, we want to hear what the community has to say about the inclusion of song composers in the infobox for a musical film, particularly in Indian cinema, in which songs are the integral part of a film's music score. For example, for a musical film such as The Greatest Showman, the "music by" parameter should include both Benj Pasek and Justin Paul (who composed the songs) and John Debney and Joseph Trapanese (who composed the background score). The current wording of including only "film score" is ambiguous at best, and makes no mention of musical films. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• My vote would be to include both original song composers and background score composers for a musical film (which most Indian films are). Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) So to be clear this is basically a proposal to remove Composers credited for "additional music" and songwriters should not be included from the documentation? It looks like it was added by Gothicfilm back in 2016, with an edit summary referencing this discussion. The case which sparked that discussion was Sully (film) (not a musical), and a quick scan of the thread shows people mainly are talking about non-musicals. It makes sense to me to include other music credits beyond the score in a musical's infobox, but don't know if the best approach is to modify the current parameter or introduce another. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, no, that's not exactly it. It's not about "additional music and songwriters", but the inclusion of music composers who have composed the songs in a musical film, particularly in Indian movies which have original songs composed directly for the film. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

In the case of Bhool Bhulaiyaa 2, the poster mentions "music by Pritam" (who composed the songs in the film), but some people believe that the parameter is "for the background score" only, and are removing his name from the infobox. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Include both for Indian/musical films. In the case of Indian cinema, the one who composes the songs is credited as "music by" and the score composer is credited as "backgroundscore by." This is because original songs are considered integral to the film, and more often than not, the score is derived from songs itself. Therefore, it makes sense to include both and specify the credit as songs and score. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Create two separate parameters - one for "original music" (for what is known in Indian cinema as music directors and elsewhere original song composers) and another for "background score". It is the simplest solution which will accommodate all films, and I believe those who've (Krimuk2.0 and Ab207) voted above wouldn't mind it either or would they? Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Any solution that prevents these outrageous removals works for me. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Include some songwriters I think we should be updating the documentation to differentiate between songwriters for musicals and songwriters for one or two additional songs. For instance, we still would not want to include Rihanna in the Black Panther: Wakanda Forever infobox for her end credits song, but in the above example of The Greatest Showman I think including Pasek and Paul makes sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment If the songs are integral (i.e. the plot would not make sense without them) then I have no objection to including the song-writer/lyricist. Indeed, this is already done on many articles about Hollywood musicals, such as The Sound of Music (film)—it would be a bit weird if we dropped Hammerstein from a Rodgers and Hammerstein musical! However, I should clarify that musicals are distinct from films in the "music" genre (e.g. Cabaret, A Star is Born) where the songs are not a plot device. So in essence, I would support the inclusion of a lyricist where the songs function as musical "dialog" performed by the actors, as opposed to songs performed by the characters. Betty Logan (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
• Treat musicals differently.. I came across exactly this problem today. The Wizard of Oz (1939 film), under "music", had Harold Arlen and Yip Harburg. Following the suggestion the infobox provides, an editor removed Harburg, with the summary "Only the main composer should be listed in the infobox as per Template:Infobox film." To make this correct, I replaced that with Herbert Stothart, the guy who actually received the Oscar for the film's score. But Arlen and Harburg are of primary importance to this film; the songs are far more important than the background music, and should be presented in the infobox given their importance. Whether this should be under "music" or there should be an entry in the box for the songwriters of musicals, I don't know. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2023

Please add Costume Designer to the list of credit options for films. They are equally as important to the body of film as the director or cinematographer. 136.55.51.205 (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. Betty Logan (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

BBFC runtimes

There's an ongoing discussion regarding the runtime of 2001, which currently has 143m listed at the article using the BBFC as a source. Given that this doesn't match with either of the cinema release runtimes (roadshow with overture, entr'acte and exit music and general release) I contacted the BBFC to query the figure.

The response I got was "Approximate runtimes are calculated based on all the classified versions, they are not designed to be representative of a single version."

"All the classified versions" includes the versions classified for UK PAL video releases, which run 4% faster than the cinema versions, so it's a meaningless figure. The same problem has occurred at Lawrence of Arabia (film), where the 210m runtime listed does not correspond with the runtimes of either of the cinema releases.

There's already a note in the template documentation which states "be careful to source the correct time, which are all listed at the entry page for the film under "Cinema". I think we need to add a note that emphasises that only the runtime under the "Cinema" tab should be used and the "Approx. running minutes" in the sidebar is not to be relied upon. Barry Wom (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I am happy support such an ammendment. I am actually quite impressed that the BBFC replied so promptly. Betty Logan (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to point out, this caveat should only apply to films that had a theatrical release. In the case of a British straight-to-video release, a BBFC video runtime would be acceptable. Betty Logan (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd also support that wording! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Support as well. We could add other sources as well here, such as the Irish Film Classification Office. —El Millo (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

"Genre"

There should be a parameter included for a film's genre, similar to {{Infobox television}}. The blanket genres included in articles' intros usually aren't descriptive enough for films that mix a lot of different genres, and they would excel in properly listing those of extremely multi-genre such as Everything Everywhere All at Once (whose genre[s] alone have started a flame war on this wiki). —theMainLogan (t•c) 12:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

You might want to review the existing thread on this page regarding including genres in the infobox. DonIago (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

What/where is the existing thread? —theMainLogan (t•c) 12:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing Doniago is referring to #Genre section above, though if you want to get into the weeds there are at least 18 other times this issue has been discussed and shot down. Primefac (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

A genre section just invites idiocy such as "the film incorporates elements from a number of genres and film mediums, including absurdist fiction, comedy drama, science fiction, fantasy, martial arts films, immigrant narrative, and animation." It takes 2 seconds to check IMDb, Metacritic, and Rotten Tomatoes and cross reference the consistent top-level genres, which are action, adventure, and comedy. The end. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Usage of Box Office Mojo for non-US movies

I find it very annoying that Box Office Mojo numbers are used so often. Especially for non-US movies they are notoriously incomplete. For example for the Japanese-French movie Like Someone in Love (film) they have no numbers for Japan und for France the opening weekend only. A lot of other countries are also missing. Nonetheless their "worldwide" number is often used in Wikipedia and some movies are even called box-office bombs at Wikipedia articles only on base of the incomplete numbers of Box Office Mojo. So please don't add numbers that are obviously incomplete and thus misleading. --88.78.235.81 (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Labeling films as box-office bombs based on seeing budget and box office numbers alone constitutes original research, reliable secondary sources must refer to the film as such in order to call it that. You're welcome to remove any such label you find without proper sourcing. On the general use of Box Office Mojo, if a country's figures are absent there, especially if it's the film's country of production, the figure should be available somewhere else, and both the general international figure by BOM and the local figure can be listed separately in the infobox. See Argentina, 1985 as an example, whose domestic box office gross is absent from BOM. —El Millo (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Argentina, 1985 is exactly an example where Box Office Mojo should NOT be used. They only have the figures for Spain and Italy, but according to IMDb the movie has been released in many more countries theatrically, e.g. Mexico. So the international gross is likely several times higher than stated. In such cases it is absolutely misleading to use the Box Office Mojo "worldwide" or "international" gross since it is by far incomplete. --88.78.235.81 (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, for that film only the figures for Spain and Italy are sourced from BOM. Barry Wom (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I just corrected it. Before it said "International", I changed it into "Spain and Italy". --88.78.235.81 (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies! Barry Wom (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not just "foreign" films, BOM and to some extent The Numbers are incomplete for older American films too. In such cases it is necessary to look to other sources, but occasionally you get editors who treat Box Office Mojo like scripture and replace comprehensively sourced data with incomplete BOM numbers. I recently had to correct such a situation myself. Even when BOM is incomplete it can still be useful, however. It's just important to recognize that no source is infallible, and it is important to not misrepresent incomplete data. Betty Logan (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2023

I'm requesting access to edit the page name of "Bloody Hell (2023 Film)" to "Fitting In (FKA Bloody Hell) (2023 Film)" I work for the Canadian Distribution company, Elevation Pictures, that is taking care of the film's Canadian release. We've recently changed the title of the film, and need to change the Infobox film template to update the name. I have received this request by the film's screenwriter and director, Molly McGlynn. Sbirdelevation (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Infobox film}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. – Recoil16 (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Genre section

Because I'm getting tired of every marvel and dc movie getting the blanket genre "superhero" slapped on it when the first "Ant-Man" is basically also a heist movie and "Guardians of the Galaxy" is also a space opera. Americanfreedom (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

You may want to clarify your concerns and ideal resolution. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean a genre parameter for the infobox? —El Millo (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't really see how a genre parameter would address the situation. Per MOS:FILMLEAD and WP:DUE we should not be listing outlier genres—only the primary genre or sub-genre that the majority of sources support. Even then, if we had a genre parameter in the infobox then it would be expected to match up to the lead, unless you are proposing to remove the genre from the lead (which I wouldn't support because it is helpful introductory information). On the issue of adding a parameter to the infobox, I don't think this would gain much support; it is subjective and relates more to somebody's perception of the film rather than a fact that is innate of the film itself. IMO the infobox best serves readers if it sticks to straight facts. Betty Logan (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, So how come the television show infobox gets a genre section with room for multiple genres? I mean I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but come on. Americanfreedom (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

First, the TV infobox probably shouldn't have that either. Two, adding a genre parameter is just going to start extending an overflowing infobox. We're constantly in battle over how long the infobox has gotten and people coming along wanting to add more inconsequential categories. I don't see a benefit to adding that to the infobox. I can't recall the last time I cared what the "genre" was for a film that I needed Wikipedia to answer that question.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a "Genre" parameter as this is a subject worth noting. Especially in the 21st century, not every film can have its genre(s) summed up in six words or less. Take Everything Everywhere All at Once for example. —theMainLogan (t•c) 13:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC) I'm sorry I started this discussion at all. Films don't have so-called "genres"—whatever the hell a "genre" even is. All movies are just movies, without "genres", which don't actually exist. It was very wrong of me to assume that they do exist. Please forgive me. —theMainLogan (t•c) 20:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

As Betty Logan noted above, we shouldn't be listing outlier genres in any case, whether it's the infobox or in the lead of the article. As to the question of the infobox repeating a limited number of genres, I agree with Bignole that there's little reason to add the genre as a parameter when the vast majority of the time it's discussed within the first sentence of the article for the film. I think if you want to make a persuasive argument you'll need to establish how adding it will address a need that's not currently being met that doesn't involve trying to capture every possible genre that a film might be construed as belonging to. DonIago (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

What even is an "outlier" genre? —theMainLogan (t•c) 04:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Either weirdly specific genres or genres that only vaguely apply to the film in question. —El Millo (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Like the ones that are put in TV show and video game articles without question? —theMainLogan (t•c) 05:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"Without question" is the problem at those articles. If you look at some film listings on IMDB or at Allmovie, some have half a dozen genres listed. Indiscriminate listing is unencyclopedic and Wikipedia discourages it. If we added a parameter to the infobox, indiscriminate genre listing would increase dramatically. By forcing editors to integrate genres into a grammatical sentence helps put the brakes on genre cruft. Betty Logan (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever heard of an "Allmovie", but I understand that IMDb's got a lot of issues. However, I don't think half a dozen is really that long of a list. 8 or 10 definitely, but not like 6. In fact, I think 5 or 6 should be the limit. I hate ludicrously long lists just as the next guy. —theMainLogan (t•c) 09:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You feel it should be five or six. I feel it should be two or three. Another editor might feel it should be eight or ten. Hence the consensus to focus on the primary genres most frequently discussed by reliable sources rather than all genres listed. DonIago (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Why two or three? I mean, what if a film has more than that? —theMainLogan (t•c) 09:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

If you wish to re-engage on this subject, please unstrike your previous comments. DonIago (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. —theMainLogan (t•c) 10:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I say two or three because I concur with the current wording of MOS:FILMLEAD that we should only be focusing on the genres listed by the majority of sources as being the primary genres to which a film belongs, and that trying to list every genre ascribed to a film is not only unwieldy but could introduce fringe perspectives. If a source calls Citizen Kane a comedy, should we include that because a single source described it as such? DonIago (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe there could be a genre parameter with a two- or three-genre limit, matching those of the intro. (Kinda like how sitcom articles just say "Sitcom" in the Infobox, or drama series "Drama".) And possibly another genre omitted from the lead paragraph to shorten its length. —theMainLogan (t•c) 20:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that's sort of the opposite to how the infobox should work. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, they're intended to summarize information from the article. If it's not in the lead (or elsewhere in the article), then it shouldn't be in the infobox. DonIago (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to note, the TV infobox probably should remove their genre section (and thus we shouldn't add one here). But that's a different conversation for a different place. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Why should it be removed there? —theMainLogan (t•c) 15:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

For the same reasoning it was removed and excluded from the film infobox: the genres can many times be unsourced and create exhaustive lists within the infobox that categories or other means could cover better. But again, this is not the place for such discussion the TV infobox or TV project is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

If this isn't the place to discuss that template, what even was the point of bringing it up here? —theMainLogan (t•c) 16:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The fact the TV infobox has them was used as arguments here. I was just pointing out that even though it currently has them, they probably shouldn't either. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Released parameter values displaying wrongly

I noticed that the values for the Released parameter are currently displaying outside the Infobox, at the top of the articles. See for example Loving Vincent, also verified randomly for The Elephant Man (film). AllyD (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Found the same issue on other articles. Appears to be related to Template:Film date. Left a notice at Template talk:Film date#Display error with other examples. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Gonnym fixed it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

MPAA Ratings

Add a ratings piece to this template where you can type the MPAA rating. NZStyleDeckSealant (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

You should probably take a look at WP:FILMRATING. DonIago (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Image upright value

I recently wrote the article for Transition (film). Its unusually tall poster makes the infobox take up too much vertical space in the article. Would it be desirable to introduce an image_upright parameter to allow scaling the image down? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste: you can use |image_size=. Setting it to a px value between 150px and 200px might work for what you need. The infobox is coded so the images has its |upright= default to 1, which by default for many users, renders images at 220px. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I was told that said field is deprecated. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Aspects: Where or when was |image_size= depreciated here or on Wikipedia? It's still a functioning parameter for Module:InfoboxImage and is in use here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The documentation there at "size" points to WP:IMAGESIZE which says that. I haven't researched it so no idea how valid that claim is and how we should move forward with that. I hate when editors deprecate fields with no roadmap on how things should move forward. Gonnym (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not interpreting the wording at IMAGESIZE correctly, but what is the wording that says it's depreciated? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Use is discouraged per WP:THUMBSIZE which then leads to Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. |thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width measured in pixels, disregarding the user's image size preference setting. In most cases upright=scaling_factor should be used Gonnym (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Image_size and Border fields were removed almost ten years ago in March 2014, [3], and the tracking category Category:Pages using infobox film with image size parameter, has been practically empty for years. Aspects (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

They are still available in the infobox. It's not a good idea to remove documentation from parameters that are available to use. If they should be removed, then they should be removed from the code itself and not just the documentation (and then possibly an upright parameter should be added to allow image fixing). Gonnym (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The parameters were deprecated in 2014. I only updated the documentation to reflect the change. Betty Logan (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, that makes more sense. It seems it was reverted here. Gonnym (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we should adjust and allow |image_upright= to be used instead. I see you already have that in the sandbox Gonnym. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste: you can now use |image_upright= to adjust the scaling factor of the image size if you desire for Transition (film). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 November 2023

Include the title Lyrics by in the template Montoo Bassi (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. DonIago (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

And Production Design by: 200.68.186.212 (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Production Design

Can someone add a Production Design box into this template? I don’t know how to do it, but as a PD myself I would love to see this information first hand ok each film’s wikipedia page. 200.68.186.212 (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you're going to need to provide more detail as to exactly what you'd like to see added, but I would also advise that many editors who work on film articles feel that the infobox is already bloated and that adding more fields wouldn't be an improvement. DonIago (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Full film in infobox

The full short film Steamboat Willie entered the public domain today and thus can be added into article. Should a full film parameter in infobox be added? (in the style similar to "voice" in Joe Biden infobox for example; in songs infobox we already link the music video) Hddty (talk) 08:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

In this specific instance, the full film is already in the article. In general, I do not think we should have entire films in an infobox. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

See also Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 33#Add parameter to display the full film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I fully support facilitating access to works in the public domain, but I think the infobox should be retained for essential encyclopedic information (which I wouldn't count the full film among). As Primefac points out, Steamboat Willie already enjoys prominent placement in the plot section. But wow, Mickey Mouse is finally in the public domain—a watershed moment. Betty Logan (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I support adding a parameter like this to the infobox. I might suggest adding a link to wikisource (similar to what is done for the books infobox). They have a growing collection of movies as well as the scripts listed Bluealbion (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Should we change "Distributor" to "Presented by"?

Differentiating production companies and distributors has long been a pain in the rear for film articles. This article by the New York Times which I 'think' @Betty_Logan gave to me (but apologies if it was someone else and I'm mis-remembering) really helped me understand the situation better, in that distributors are normally credited as "Presented by". I've found a similar article which breaks it down as well. Are there situations where this wouldn't work or could it be a benefit? It might be totally the wrong thing to do but I thought I'd raise it since it's always an ongoing issue. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

For some Disney films, including those from Marvel and Lucasfilm, Disney does not get the "presented by" credit and instead gets a "distributed by" credit at the end of the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

But some of posters says "Disney and Lucasfilm Ltd. present ... a Lucasfilm Ltd. production", "Disney presents a Pixar Animation Studios film", "Marvel Studios presents" etc. That's not a big deal. 2001:D08:2940:EDE2:17AC:6949:24B9:8B9D (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I feel like renaming it to "Presented by" has a lot of potential to be very easily confused with the similar |presenter= field in {{Infobox television}} that has a cast member who serves as a presenter or host in which the display value is "Presented by", i.e. Whose Line Is It Anyway? (American TV series), Wheel of Fortune (American game show), The Twilight Zone (1959 TV series), Beyond Belief: Fact or Fiction. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it, the distributor always "presents" the film, meaning "presented by" and "distributed by" can be used synonymously (I don't think it's necessary to account for the few exceptions). I agree with TenTonParasol that "distributor" is the better option out of the two because it's less ambiguous than "presented by". Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Would it be worth clarifying under the instructions in that case that a "Presented by credit" can typically indicate the distributor and the "A [insert name] production" the production companies? And that in Association is usually to do with financing and does not immediately mean a production company credit? These two fields have been a nuisance for the many years I've edited on here and it was only recently with those links above that it's become clearer to me so I imagine the same issue is present for others. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I would definitely support that. Maybe also provide the sources as references in the instructions if that's possible? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Presented by is not always the distributor and we should not just make a lump assumption that way. Per Deadline, the Presented by credit can be "given to a distributor, exhibitor and/or financier that provides a majority of the budget." So it could be, but its not necessarily the case. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

That quote is from the Documentary Producers Alliance (source) and as such only applies to documentaries specifically. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, please remember that this infobox is not for US films only. I really doubt that each country uses a "Presented by" credit. Gonnym (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

If "released by" credit must be great. 2001:D08:2920:EC18:17AC:B62D:A8F2:2914 (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Would readers and editors know or care how to distinguish between Presented by and Distributed by? It appears they mean the same. We have so many edit wars now involving what and where to put companies, I feel this may complicate things more.

One of my pet peeves that is similar to this: if we do not list executive producers, then why do we list the "In association by" companies, which are usually the executive's banner? Sometimes it can be many, non notable ones.

Thanks for that NYT piece about the breakdown of a billing block, very informative. Mike Allen 14:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Present is typically a distributor credit usually. But opening credit for James Bond films says "Albert R. Broccoli's Eon Productions presents". 113.210.105.224 (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

We usually add that company in the "studio" field. They apparently put a lot of money in the film, but they are not a distribution company. Mike Allen 16:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I think the issue with the proposal is that "Presented by" can be ambiguous, and I'm not sure what it means half the time without checking. For example, Steven Spielberg presented Back to the Future, but he served as an executive producer (and there is another example of an ambiguous credit!). In the case of the "distributor" parameter, we know exactly what the function of the company is. I appreciate the sentiment driving the proposal, but it opens up a can of worms. Betty Logan (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• No, because "XXX Studio presents" is a marketing buzzword/jargon. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well I guess there's recent discussion at Talk:Mission: Impossible – Fallout#Production company/Distributor. 2001:D08:2923:B68B:17AD:F346:ABF8:F0F8 (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Starring

Hey, the starring section rules need to be changed. The opening and ending credits to a movie are more important than a poster. While I agree that we should use the poster billing block before the movie comes out, after the movie comes out, there is absolutely NO excuse to NOT use the opening or ending credits of the film itself. Loservilleas (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you're going to need to present a stronger argument than "I don't like it!", especially as your change would make an infobox that many feel is already too long even longer. DonIago (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, although I think it might be worthwhile adding a note to MOS:FILMCAST to make it clear that the infobox cast should be based on the poster billing block. Barry Wom (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The current wording is deliberately ambiguous so editors can decide whether to follow the poster billing block or the main titles. Most articles go with the former, and that should not be changed without consensus (MOS:VAR), but this should continue to be left to editors' discretion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The wording at MOS:FILMCAST is indeed ambiguous, but that's guidelines for the "cast" section of the article. The OP is referring to the "starring" field of the infobox, the guidelines for which explicitly state that the poster billing should be used. Barry Wom (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Following the main titles is allowed, but you'll need to gain consensus on the talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

For the vast majority of modern films, the main title credits are virtually identical to the poster's billing block, hence why that being used is accepted. If there are major differences between that than what happens on screen, then yes, a change can be made. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

But like, say for Argylle, there's not only an actor that wasn't listed on the billing block on the poster that was listed in the billing block in the actual movie itself. Also, Henry Cavill, who was listed first in the poster billing block, is listed 5th in the actual movie billing. Would that need to be changed?Loservilleas (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The template instructions says "An alternative approach may be determined by local consensus." You need to get consensus at the individual film article. Start a discussion at Talk:Argylle about whether that specific article should use the billing block or the screen credits. A discussion here will not determine that. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The reason the poster billing block is used is because we often create these articles before the film comes out, and ideally we need to be able to source the billing order. Even after the film comes out, it is easier to verify the details on a poster than it is the film. However, posters can have variations and the film reflects the true billing order. If the credits are different in the film itself I have no problem at all deferring to the film credits, provided the billing order is clear and not obfuscated by highly stylised credits. One example that springs to my mind is Gone with the Wind: Vivien Leigh is second-billed in the film, but she has an "introducing credit" after the other stars on the original poster; this was subsequently corrected on all the re-release posters. Please remember our choice of poster is functional: we want the credit order to be correct and sourcable. If the credit order on the poster is demonstrably and verifiably incorrect then that is an appropriate reason for applying WP:IAR and forming a local consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)