Template talk:Based on

Multiple authors

Can someone create a field that will list multiple authors that looks something like this? --TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

{{based on|title of work|author1|author2}} will produce

title of work by

author1

author2

I agree that the above is needed; but the output should use {{Plainlist}}; this will require putting "by" on the end of the first line. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this discussion, but I just did this – and I used a workaround to allow "by" to stay on the second line, because I think it's an useful visual separator when both the work and the first writer is linked, at least when the "work" it's based on is not italicized or quoted, like at Luke Cage (TV series). nyuszika7h (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

For the record, have also posted a request at WT:ACCESS § Template:Based on for a mass update of existing transclusions. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm too tired right now to think this through properly, but if we're revising the template, might it also be a good idea to accommodate works with more than one source material? Take the 1931 Dracula for example - the current infobox seems a bit clunky, and it'd be good to have a standardised way of collating all this stuff. —Flax5 17:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. I'm going to boldly close this as no consensus for the time being. It's been open for a few weeks now, receiving very little input. Both sides pose good arguments for and again the page move. If you think I've stepped outside the realm of what's allowed as WP:NAC, send me a message on my talk page. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

---

• Template:Based on → Template:Work by author
• Module:Based on → Module:Work by author

– I just realized this can be used more than just the |based_on= parameter in infoboxes, such as |opentheme= and |endtheme= for television series/movies, like at Invisible Sister (permalink). Therefore I suggest moving it to a more generic title. I'm open to any better name suggestions as well.

Note to closer: If moved, the template must be immediately updated to use the new module name, as there are no redirects in the Module namespace. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. @Nyuszika7H: Module moves will not leave a redirect (regardless if the editor has suppressredirect), so there is potentially a brief length of time when the template's own module is invalid/unavailable. Wonder if it's worth it to restore the template version for at least a little while to avoid this kind of breakage? — Andy W. (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Andy M. Wang: That's exactly what I said, that it doesn't leave a redirect, but didn't think it's significant enough if the template is updated quickly. Could restore the template version temporarily I guess, though the template version would always just list the first writer on pages using the new method. It shouldn't be that long either way I think. Or maybe something like this would work?

{{#iferror:{{#invoke:Based on|main}}|{{#invoke:Work by author|main}}}}

nyuszika7h (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Ahh, oops. Don't know the best way... it's juggling job queue/errors/transclusions. I suggested reverting to the template version to alleviate 10K module transclusions. iferror looks all right if we're okay that both titles could have transclusions for a while. But yeah maybe it's not significant enough (or if it's fussy) for template changes pre-move. Oh, and I mildly support the move for scope increase per nom — Andy W. (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nyuszika7H, I believe the following could serve as a module "redirect" to Module:Work by author:

return require('Module:Work by author');

According to the gerrit attached to phab:T120794, the syntax might also be return require [[Module:Work by author]]; but I might be wrong. Jackmcbarn or GeoffreyT2000? — Andy W. (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

That change isn't live yet, so nothing will look like a redirect yet. You're right about what the future syntax will be, but please don't use it now, because when that change does get merged, it won't retroactively affect old pages. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: Thanks. I'm assuming then that there isn't a way to move the module without the template breaking for a second then, unless the template doesn't invoke the module? — Andy W. (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: There's one way to do it, but it's sort of hacky. What you'd do is create the new module as a pseudo-redirect to the old one, then update the template to point to the new one, then move the old one over the new one, deleting the pseudo-redirect in the process (so an admin would have to do it). I personally don't think it's worth it though, since the job queue takes time to run and any transient errors would show up in Category:Pages with script errors anyway. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

To folks watching RM discussions, I think this has moved outside of typical RM scope. Doesn't look like the move (for the template at least) is contested at all. If this is to be formally closed, suggest moving only the template for now. The module move can follow outside of RM purview. — Andy W. (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Move is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. In the "Template:" namespace, redirects are fine if they function as they should (as it does here since the proposed move for the "Template:" namespace page already exists as a redirect towards the page proposed to be moved.) Moving pages in the "Module:" namespace, as the nominator even points out themselves, immediately breaks things since redirects in that namespace are not able to exist for technical reasons. (I really hope that gerrit:146608 gets implemented someday, and have even said so on my user page for quite a while.) The move causes too many possible breaks just for a cosmetic change of names. Steel1943 (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Display issue

It has been brought to my attention that this template has been displaying incorrectly in places (not sure on all the details, but Bluerules may be able to give more). I left it because I haven't seen any issues myself, but I've started seeing it in a few places myself now. The problem is that sometimes there is no space between "by" and the author. Since this doesn't appear to be consistent, I can't give a reason for the problem, but hopefully somebody who knows more about templates is watching this page and can try figure out the issue. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to note I'm currently seeing this on Google Chrome but have never noticed it previously. Sock (tock talk) 18:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like it is happening again. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed -- Alex^TW 02:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

"Do not use <br /> to separate writers per MOS:UBLIST"

I clickd that link. It does not say anything nearly as such. It offers plainlists and more to replace br-separated lists. It doesn not talk about writers at all. Removed. CapnZapp (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 January 2020

Can an |indent= parameter be added, that would change the module's use of {{Unbulleted list}} to {{Unbulleted indent list}}? This will be particularly helpful in instances where "based on" is used multiple times to help differentiate the work versus the author. See Captain Marvel (film) as an example, where the film is based on both the Captain Marvel character and the Carol Danvers character. Using the indented list in this instance would clear up the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now. Adopting the style of {{Unbulleted indent list}} will not really address your problem as that template only indents the wrapped portion of the same line. Nardog (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: D'oh! You're right. I completely overlooked that. Well in that case, could the |indent= parameter still be implemented, but just have it become a boolean flag to actually indent the content? Is that formatting possible to achieve in Lua? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this can be solved by employing inline-block. I'll see what I can do. Nardog (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: What do you think of this (last example)? Nardog (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: That's on the right path, but the "by John Smith" should be indented as well. Because if you have a work by only one person, the issue would still be there using multiple instances of this template. And then again, the hope is to create the indent is a new parameter, because indentation isn't needed when there is only one instance of the template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: any luck? Alex 21 any chance you could see how to make this happen? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I know what you mean, and I don't think it's a good idea. As noted by Nyuszika7H above, "by" already serves as a demarcation and it would make little sense to indent it too. It is also at odds with the syntax the template currently employs: to the visually impaired, web crawlers, etc., it reads as something like "Lorem Ipsum by (list starts) (list item starts) John Smith (list item ends) (list item starts) Jane Doe (list item ends) (list ends)", which is more semantically preferable than "Lorem Ipsum (list starts) (list item starts) by John Smith (list item ends) (list item starts) Jane Doe (list item ends) (list ends)", which your proposal would likely result in.

In addition, I don't find it wise to add an option for something the module can theoretically figure out on its own. If anything, I think the template should add support for multiple works. Nardog (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: In reading your answer, I'm confused why you feel the change would be an WP:ACCESS issue (in assuming the same code as the {{Unbulleted indent list}} employs, that is ACCESS compliant). Also simply using "by" as a demarcation when using more than one instance of the template isn't entirely clear (hence what I'm looking to do). Here's a wikitable example below that will at least help me convey my answer.

Current (singe use, two authors)	Proposed (singe use, two authors)
Captain Marvel	Captain Marvel
by Stan Lee	by Stan Lee
Gene Colan	Gene Colan
Current (multiple uses, two authors)	Proposed (multiple uses, two authors) UPDATED
Captain Marvel	Captain Marvel
by Stan Lee	by Stan Lee
Gene Colan	Gene Colan
Carol Danvers	Carol Danvers
by Roy Thomas	by Roy Thomas
Gene Colan	Gene Colan

Current (singe use, one author)	Proposed (single use, one author)
Captain Marvel	Captain Marvel
by Stan Lee	by Stan Lee
Current (multiple uses, one author)	Proposed (multiple uses, one author)
Captain Marvel	Captain Marvel
by Stan Lee	by Stan Lee
Carol Danvers	Carol Danvers
by Roy Thomas	by Roy Thomas

I hope that is clear and/or me not just repeating myself. And again, the indent would only be used should multiple instance of the template be needed. Though as you said, would it just be a better solution at this point to make the template support multiple instances? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: You said "by John Smith" should be indented as well. Have you changed your mind?

Looking at your illustration, I don't know why you don't think "Gene Colan" in the first example (single use) should be indented as well. Wouldn't indenting it be more visually intuitive as it signals it's an author of the work in the first line, rather than another work? It would also be simpler as a solution, without having to figure out whether it lists one work or more. Nardog (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nardog: I am so sorry. I got completely turned around in trying to articulate my desired outcome, that I did not properly convey my ideas in that table. Please forgive me. That said, I have adjusted the table to correctly reflect my thinking. As to having "Gene Colan" indented in the first example, I don't see the need. When you have a single work with multiple writers, I think that is quite clear simply listing as it currently does. Would I be opposed to indenting multiple writers, no. But then my conundrum still would exist if you have multiple works, each by a single person, the "by X" would still need indentation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I have added a second table above as well for when single authors are in play. As you can see, the multiple use, single author still presents an issue in my eyes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

If anything, I think the template should add support for multiple works that could also be a good idea. --Gonnym (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I'm having second thoughts about it actually. Suppose we do it, then what do you think the syntax should be? I'm starting to like the simplicity of the current syntax. It would be much simpler if we just wrapped the entire content the template produces in <div>...</div>, as consecutive uses of the template would have the desired effect.

(Speaking of which, why we don't simply attach the plainlist class to all <td>...</td>'s of {{Infobox film}} so that we wouldn't have to call {{Plainlist}} each and every time is beyond me.) Nardog (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

what do you think the syntax should be - haven't giving it too much thought, but it seems it's obviously less "nice", however if it helps make behind-the-scene structure better than it's worth the extra characters: {{Based on|work|author}} for single work and {{Based on|work1=work|w1_author1=author|w1_author2=author2|work2=work|w2_author1=author|w2_author2=author2}} for multi-work.

Speaking of which [...] I completely agree, but that and the infobox code itself which is very outdated compared to at least the fr.wiki is a whole different issue :) --Gonnym (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

That syntax approach would be the easiest. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Easier than {{Based on|work|author|author2}}{{Based on|work|author|author2}}? Nardog (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

For what its worth, Adamstom.97 came up with a solution that can be used in the interim with this edit. To get the desired results I was looking for in my initial request, {{Indented plainlist}} and {{quad}} can be used, as seen in their edit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Characters by...

At A Quiet Place: Part II, there have been a couple of attempts to use the {{Based on}} template with "Characters by Bryan Woods and Scott Beck". This template's focus is on titles, and it looks wrong for "Characters" to have its own line as if it were some official title or label. If there is no objection, I will update the documentation to reflect that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Due to another instance of this attempt, I've updated the documentation to state not to use it for "Characters by". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with this change. What is your solution for when a work is based on a character? Just not include it? Manually write it? What's the point? It's not like the template automatically italics the title. --Gonnym (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Gonnym. If the concern is that the template gratuitously occupies multiple lines even when the content can fit into one line, we can replace <br /> with inline-block, but that doesn't seem to apply in the case Erik mentioned, in which multiple authors are listed. Nardog (talk) 09:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Gonnym, the problem is that the line break is inappropriate. "Characters" does not warrant standing alone because it is not a title of any sort. With the line break, it implies some kind of formality where one is not needed at all. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I object too. Even though it is not a title of a specific work, it needs a line to seperate the work from the creators. I think it will be better if we link "Characters" to either the page of the franchise/series, or the previous work if a page of the franchise/series doesn't exist. Using Toy Story 2 as an example (LOOK AT THE SOURCE TO UNDERSTAND), on an infobox we would put Characters, but if the franchise page didn't exist, we would have to put Characters. Iamnoahflores (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Linking to "Characters" with a hidden piped link violates WP:EGG. It looks like over-linking of a common word.

If a line break is used to isolate "Characters" from "by so-and-so", it implies a formal framing where none is warranted at all. The formal framing is supposed to be applied to proper nouns, like italicized titles or titles in quotes. The framing is not applicable to common nouns. To use another common-noun example, it's like saying "Written works," line break, "by so-and-so". "Written works" is not a proper noun at all. All the words in these instances need to tie together without line breaks. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't really like it either, but if the credits of a film say that it is based on "Characters by someone", what would you suggest we change it to? El Millo (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Simply writing that without using line breaks. Here are versions to compare: line break versus no line break. It is more properly a sentence fragment. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

That's the thing. It looks like a sentence. It shouldn't look like a sentence. That's not what the infobox is for. We don't put sentences in infoboxes, we put credits. Iamnoahflores (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It is appropriate for it to look like a sentence fragment. It is inappropriate to insert an arbitrary line break because "Characters by" is not the same thing as "Foo by" or "'Foo' by". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing Jurassic World, I realize that it actually says "Based on characters 'created by Michael Crichton". We're failing to credit properly by excluding "created". Doing that and having a line break between "Characters created" and "by" makes it look even more ridiculous. It's time to put all three words together across the board. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, we don't need to put it exactly as the credits say it. Most times "Characters" could by changed by something else, that suits just the same. El Millo (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, it's like "written for the screen" translates to "screenplay by." Also, the "by" already implies something by a creator, so in the "created" in "characters created by" could be removed, and not make a difference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamnoahflores (talk • contribs) 15:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Is a film “by” the writer or director?

If a work is based on a film, is it typical (or preferred) to list the work as “by” the director of the film, or the writer of the screenplay? Question inspired by this edit: [1] — HTGS (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Go with whoever is credited, I'd say. Nardog (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)