Template talk:Film date

Request edit

{{Edit protected}} Please synchronize with Sandbox per Template talk:Infobox film#Film date. BOVINEBOY2008 13:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Although usually you should give a rationale of why the change is needed. However, I think I worked it out form the code diff. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Can and will do, thank you. BOVINEBOY2008 20:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Subtemplates

This template is still using one or more subtemplates of the {{Film}} project banner. They will need to be migrated here at some point. PC78 (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. You are talking about {{Film/Numbered Month}} and this needs to be moved to {{Film date/Numbered Month}} ? BOVINEBOY2008 04:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

{{Film/NumberedMonth}}, but yes, that's what I mean. Perhaps it could just be replaced with {{MONTHNUMBER}} instead? PC78 (talk) 09:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. It works in the Sandbox. BOVINEBOY2008 13:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Browser-dependent line wrapping issue

Currently, this template produces funky line wrapping when the output doesn't fit on one line, but only in some web browsers. Code such as this:

{{Film date|2011|4|15|United Kingdom}}

inside a width-constrained area (such as {{Infobox film}}) yields HTML like this:

April 15, 2011<span style="display:none"> (<span class="bday dtstart published updated">2011-04-15</span>)</span> <span style="white-space:nowrap;"><span style="font-size:smaller; line-height:130%">(United Kingdom)</span></span>

This should work fine and does so in Firefox, but in Safari (version 5.0.3) yields incorrect line wrapping output like this:

April 15,
2011 (United Kingdom)

It seems Safari doesn't treat the space before the nowrap span as a soft break position. Can anyone think of a workaround for this, to avoid this browser inconsistency? (The example is from here.) --Mepolypse (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is how the different browsers are interpreting the   (en space) entity. Some are allowing it to wrap, where others aren't. I'd suggest replacing it with a normal space, or maybe an   and a normal space if you need the increased width (though that gives a pixel or two more width than the en space did). For now, I've replaced it with a normal space. – RobinHood70 ^talk 21:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Mepolypse (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

ISO 8601

It seems very strange and inconsistent that there are no leading zeros in the dates: e.g {{Film date|YYYY|M|D}} instead of consistently using {{Film date|YYYY|MM|DD}}. Why differ from ISO 8601 without some especially good reason? Also it was my understanding that this template was merely a specialization of Template:Start_date which does in fact include the leading zeroes. There are editors actively removing leading zeros based on the template documentation presented here. I urge you to include them. I'd have added them myself but I've had too much bad luck before with changes trying to encourage greater consistency that I didn't even think were WP:BOLD but others objected to. (Also I'll be away and it may be a long while before I reply to any discussion that may result from this.) -- Horkana (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

How location is displayed

Please could the format of the location be made more normal? It looks awful (at least on IE8). I think it's the "line-height:130%" style. --Stfg (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing odd about the format other than being in small print and set to not allow wrapping. Can you give an example of a page where it looks bad? – RobinHood70 ^talk 23:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this. This template's documentation provides an example, in the example with "Latvia" in the syntax section. I fear the problem may be in IE8, as template {{Small}}, which is coded similarly, also gives me the same problem, and I'm wondering whether this all depends on browser support for CSS. I have my browser set to "View-text size=largest" (for accessibility reasons). When I set it back to medium (or lower), the problem goes away. With the view size set to "larger", and even more so when it's set to "largest", these templates actually make the text larger. Why do these templates use "line-height:130%" style? --Stfg (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm on Windows 7 which doesn't support IE8 (or vice versa), so I can't check readily. The problem doesn't occur in IE9 that I can see, but it doesn't seem to have a view size like IE8 did, only a %-based zoom setting. I'll check our old XP machine when I get a chance and see if I can replicate the problem there. As for the line height, if I'm not mistaken, that's the default line height for normal text on Wikipedia. I would guess the setting is there to ensure that the line stays the same height even if the text is smaller. – RobinHood70 ^talk 17:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the good news is that I was able to replicate the problem with a default install of IE8 and changing View Size to Larger/Largest. The bad news is, that's definitely an IE8 bug. One solution that seems to work is to use a fixed percentage (i.e. <span style="font-size:80%; line-height:130%;">example</span> → example), but there may be reasons not to use that...I don't know. Since this template just uses {{Small}}, I'll ask on the Small talk page and see if there's any resistance to changing it. – RobinHood70 ^talk 18:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Robinhood70. I really appreciate this. --Stfg (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Today's change to {{small}} has had the desired effect here. Thanks, RobinHood70, for the time you spent solving this. --Stfg (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I figured it would. Thanks for the update! – RobinHood70 ^talk 23:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Output options

I was expecting something really basic, like:

• Mar. 1, 2012 (UK)
• Apr. 1, 2012 (Canada)

but the country handling does not seem to support that. So we should be doing:

• Mar. 1, 2012
• Apr. 1, 2012

as always? Varlaam (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

New sandbox version

I've created a new sandbox version at Template:Film date/sandbox. The main changes are to allow dates/locations to be easily cited using named refs, and to use {{Plainlist}} to handle the list formatting. I've tried it on a few test cases, and believe it works, but would like to wait for some more testing before it's made "live". Any help would be appreciated.

This template (or rather, its auto-categorization) is currently being discussed at TfD.

--NSH001 (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Template now updated from the sandbox, after testing. --NSH001 (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

a little bug, that probably doesn't matter

If you use this template as part of an item in a bulleted list, it generates incorrect HTML, namely a spurious closing </div>> tag immediately after defining the "plainlist" <div>>. Normally this won't matter, as it's never going to be used within a bulleted list within an infobox, but it did mess up the presentation of the documentation here - now fixed by removing the bulleted list format from the examples. Just noting it here, for the record. --NSH001 (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Miscategorisation

{{film date|2013}} adds articles to the category "upcoming films", even when they have already been released. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It's my view that the auto-categorisation in this, and all the other "film" templates, should be removed completely - see the TfD discussion linked above. If consensus can't be obtained for that, then auto-categorisation should be confined to the infobox only. --NSH001 (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

As this would need wider discussion, you might like to raise it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Sorry not to be of more help, but my time here is limited for now. --NSH001 (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Unreleased films

Is there anyway to use this template to show that a film was unreleased and place it in Category:Unreleased films? Aspects (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Font size

When this template is used inside an infobox - and it's principal use seems to be in {{Infobox film}} - the location is rendered at 85% of 90% of base font size. This produces text too small for many visitors to read comfortably and breaches MOS:FONTSIZE which states "Avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference sections. In no case should the resulting font size drop below 85% of the page fontsize (or 11px)."

It could be easily fixed by removing the five instances of {{Small}} wrapping the location parameters and references. --RexxS (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I noticed this with {{Infobox television}} and counteracted it by using {{big}} before the place name in this edit. Jodosma (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Category addition updates

Per some recent discussions the film project has had (Here is one discussion. There may be more, will continue to link if I find them), it has been determined that for any upcoming film, including the "[Year] film" category on the page is also acceptable. As such, I wanted to propose that this template be updated to include both Category:Upcoming films plus [[:Category [year] film]] when the film is still upcoming. This template should really be handling this, not being added by users. And with this, these two categories would be on the article until the release date hits, at which time, it will once again work as it does now, with the Upcoming films cat being removed from the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I thought it put both there automatically, but it only puts one or the other, with Upcoming films being used over the year if the date is in the future. I did some test edits on this article just to see if for myself. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't, which is where some of the disagreement stemmed from I believed. As of now, if the film release date doesn't equal today's date, only "Upcoming films" is added. Once it is today's date or later, "Upcoming films" is removed and "[Year] film" is added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright, so I have a working version in Template:Film date/sandbox. The current code was a little convoluted in my eyes, but here's the rundown of it now: basically, whenever the template is used in the mainspace, it will always add Category:YYYY films no matter what, while also checking the earliest release date against the current date. If it is not yet the current date, Category:Upcoming films will also be added. It also properly handles the instances for TV films, and if there are multiple release dates and someone wants to change the default category with the parameter "fy". Users should no longer have to add Category:YYYY films to articles, as long at it is using this template in the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I am surprised the template does not do this already. I support this enhancement. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes I was too and had been thinking about it recently and finally decided to fix it. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and make the change. If anyone notices any errors, let me know and I'll see what's happening, but I did testing on Don't Call Me Son for all instances, and it worked. We should also get someone with AWB to go through articles to remove manual inclusions of Category:YYYY films as long as Film date is on it since it is redundant. @AlexTheWhovian: could you help us out with this maybe? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there any reason you're removing the category for the year from the foot of the article? How does this help the average editor who doesn't know the template populates it (IE - they'll add them back)? The language category is also auto-pop'd from the infobox. You best get busy and remove them from 70,000 articles too. 19:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, because adding it manually doesn't actually do anything. It's already on the article and having it again doesn't change it. It still takes the cat from the template usage. Average editor won't likely add it back either, as it's the first cat they'll see, followed by the language cat. And planning to get busy removing them, using AWB. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you point me to the policy that states you can't add a category when it's hard-coded via a template? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe there is one, but it's just common sense. Why take up additional bytes of an article coding a cat in that is already provided by this template? Can you tell me why you want to keep the categories on articles, in instances where they are added by users, duplicating the template's (superior) addition? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:TEMPLATECAT. This gives all the reasons to include them. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Well okay then. I stand corrected, though it still doesn't make sense to me, given that if a user for whatever reason wanted to remove the category in the Wikitext, it still wouldn't be "gone" because this template is handling it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Category amendments

@Favre1fan93: please would you amend it again so that it only puts the film in a (future) year category if that category does exist? 100 Years (film) has a planned release date of 2115 – yes, 100 years in the future – and that category was deleted per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_25#Category:2115_films. To add to the confusion, it was empty at the time of closure due to anon edits (Special:Contributions/2600:8800:301:5900:E1DA:C611:1287:8ABA). Please also update the documentation, which currently says films with a future release date will only be categorised in Upcoming films. – Fayenatic London 20:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: I can't edit it as the template has since received template protection; my earlier edits were done when it only had semi protection. Please fill out an edit request form regarding the edit so a template editor can perform the changes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Like this? – Fayenatic London 07:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done I'm not sure if anyone is asking for a edit request here or not, but if you want one, please make your edits in Template:Film date/sandbox and reactivate. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 12:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I've done some work in the sandbox, but I don't know if it's ready. The test cases are doing what it should, but when trying to use the sandbox in the mainspace on 100 Years, it is not producing correctly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

(tper request stalker) @Favre1fan93: Doesn't look right. Let me have a go at this... — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

See Special:Diff/733887917. The edit does what has essentially be requested uncontroversially: if the date is in the future put it in Category:Upcoming films or Category:Upcoming television films. In addition, check if the category for the film year exists, and always try to put the film in the category. Please ping if there are any issues — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I notice that films with a location but a blank day (e.g. The Dorm That Dripped Blood) are throwing up an error. Is this anything to do with the above change? Pinging Andy M. Wang. TwoTwoHello (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@TwoTwoHello: Thanks so much for the ping, completely on me. needed to check if the given params were empty. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: Thanks for the help. I couldn't get the {{#ifexist}} code to work through my edits, but it looks like you did some general tidy-up as well for it. It all looks good to me and I'll update the documentation as needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all, that seems to have covered everything. – Fayenatic London 08:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Small text

Could you please remove the small text part of the template as MOS:ACCESS#Text says "Avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference sections." --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Done Emir of Wikipedia please don't revert your sandbox changes before submitting your request. The sandbox diff tool in the {{edit template-protected}} box is useless if you do & it just makes more work. Cabayi (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cabayi: Can you please copy over the current sandbox code in this revision? The previous version from Emir had some curly brackets removed from the incorrect spot. The version I linked has been tested and works correct, and still implements Emir's changes. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Done, Thanks to Favre1fan93 for catching the problem. Cabayi (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Nowrap

Could the nowrap be removed from the template? It causes the infobox the to expand. Now that the small text has been removed from the template, the nowrap causes the to infobox expand even more. For example, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2. -- Wrath X (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Support. For another example, The Blue Umbrella (2013 film). --Hddty. (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment: {{nowrap}} seems to still be used here; see Altman as an example. Either that or something else is going on with this particular article's infobox. — Hugh (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. That's odd. I can't see anything in the template or on the article forcing it to not wrap at TIFF... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 January 2018

Per the above discussion, please implement the most recent version of the sandbox (here), which removes the use of the "No wrap" template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Done sorry for the delay — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible bug

See: Carmen Comes Home. The release date table header and date itself have a bullet in between. Opencooper (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@Opencooper: Fixed. It had to do with the template for the infobox not being on a new line from the "expand" maintenance template. Though I'm not sure why that would create the issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it! Opencooper (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Whitespace surrounding parameters

Splitting release info onto different lines fails badly:

wikitext	output
{{Infobox film | ... | released = {{film date |2001|2|3|France |2003|4|5|Ukraine |2005|6|7|Chile |2007|8|9|Kenya }} | ... }}	February 3, 2001 (2001-02-03) (France ) April 5, 2003 (2003-04-05) (Ukraine ) June 7, 2005 (2005-06-07) (Chile ) August 9, 2007 (2007-08-09) (Kenya )

Could we trim outer whitespace and make it not? ―cobaltcigs 14:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Module-based rewrite, see sandbox

Template:Film date/sandbox. I've created a new version which offers the following advantages:

1. Addresses the whitespace-trimming issue above.
2. Formats according to {{use dmy dates}} etc. as directed by the calling page (borrowing some code from Module:Citation in fact). But only when |df=/|mf= are unspecified. In the fullness of time, the latter parameters should probably be removed.
3. No absolute limit on the number of rows.
4. Forces chronological sorting of dates, because maybe they aren't entered that way.
5. Applies class="nowrap" to the entire surrounding div by default. So maybe people can stop writing their goddamn festival names like this. Or maybe nothing will stop them. It's hard to say, actually…

Updated example

wikitext output {{use dmy dates}}<!-- no, seriously, look at this. --> {{Infobox film | ... | released = {{film date/sandbox |2007|8|9|Kenya |2011|||Estonia |2003|4|5|Ukraine |2001|2|3|France |2009|10||Madagascar |2005|6|7|Chile }} | ... }} August 9, 2007 (2007-08-09) (Kenya ) 2011 (2011) (Estonia ) April 5, 2003 (2003-04-05) (Ukraine ) February 3, 2001 (2001-02-03) (France ) October 2009 (2009-10) (Madagascar )

 Done I do need to further improve how it handles degenerate input. Like intelligently coping with words where a number is expected, rather than requiring explicitly blank parameters after "incomplete" dates.

Also, I feel like nobody's really watching this page. @Lugnuts:? What do you think about item #2 in particular? ―cobaltcigs 13:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cobaltcigs: I'm watching here. As long as functionality stays relatively the same (which you've made clear is), I'm fine with changing over to a module. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I like it. Much better than what I came up with when I first created the template :) BOVINEBOY2008 22:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

See testcases. I think it's just about ready. ―cobaltcigs 12:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The testcases do not match each other. Are they supposed to? The "Antarctica" case differs, as do the two "1975 (Italy)" cases. If some testcases are supposed to demonstrate erroneous input, it would be helpful to have them labeled as such. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Italy was a bug, fixed by this edit. Antarctica was, and remains, intentionally blank due to lack of numeric date input. I've annotated the testcases accordingly. ―cobaltcigs 02:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

That looks great. It is useful to have test cases that demonstrate intentionally bad input as long as they are labeled as to how they are supposed to behave. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I suppose the final question would be whether and how soon to remove the |df=y/|mf=y parameters, so that the date format can only be set using the standard templates which affect the entire article (see dmy example / mdy example / diff). Note that {{start date}}, {{birth date and age}}, et al. would benefit from the same functionality (which, as far as I know, is currently only used by citation templates). ―cobaltcigs 03:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

It would probably be easiest to add a Template Data section to the documentation and then wait for the monthly report to be generated. That will tell us how many articles use those parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Rather than a simple number, what would be truly useful is a full list of articles which contain any {{foo date [and foo]?}}" templates, minus those which already contain {{use foo dates}} templates. ―cobaltcigs 11:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 March 2020

Sorry, I can't say "change X to Y", but I can say, this template has two errors that need correcting. To see the lint errors, please install lintHint if you haven't done so already. See WP:Linter for more info on that.

• Correct result but missing end tag and stripped tag for div:

  {{Film date|2011|9|22|Estonia}}

• September 22, 2011 (2011-09-22) (Estonia)

• Spurious bullet point or failure to continue on the same line:

  {{Film date|2011|9|22|Estonia}}:

• September 22, 2011 (2011-09-22) (Estonia)

Respectfully submitted, Anomalocaris (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Anomalocaris, I'm not sure exactly what syntax you are seeing that is causing Linter errors. Can you please link to an article where I can see this template causing Linter errors? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

P.S. If editors of articles are indenting this template using a colon (:), they should not be doing that, per MOS:INDENT. It causes invalid HTML, as noted in that MOS section. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95: The syntax that causes the lint errors is right here my first example above. My second example uses the same syntax within the template, but puts the template on the same line as its code display. I found this while attempting to de-lint Template:Film date/testcases, whose page information lists lint errors:

Misnested tag with different rendering in HTML5 and HTML4	2
Missing end tag	2
Stripped tags	2

On editing Template:Film date/testcases, lintHint doesn't see the errors, but they show up with the help of Expand Templates. Template documentation says "This template is intended to supply a result to the |released= parameter of {{Infobox film}}." It doesn't say that it's forbidden to use it anywhere else, including on a line beginning with bullet (*), number (#) or indent (:) markup. If it is forbidden to use it there, template documentation should say so. —Anomalocaris (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Testcases pages often contain many kinds of errors; some test cases exist explicitly to show how not to use a particular template. It would be nice to exclude them from Linter error checks, but until that is possible, those pages should usually be ignored in lists of Linter errors. I fixed some indented instances of this template in article space, which is the best place to look for actual errors to be fixed (those instances were indeed causing the errors you listed). If you find a template that causes a Linter error when it is (a) being transcluded and (b) being used in conformance with its documentation, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. I love fixing templates and Linter errors. (I have also added a note about indenting to this template's documentation.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95: Yes, I know that lint errors in testcase pages are often inherent. My postings here were based on an old understanding of the behavior of this template. I have discovered that inserting <div></div> before this template can prevent lintHint from seeing the missing end tag and stripped tag. Here is a demonstration, where I will use the template twice. The first has the two lint errors, but the second one doesn't.

• {{Film date|2011|9|22|Estonia}}

• September 22, 2011 (2011-09-22) (Estonia)

• {{Film date|2011|9|22|Estonia}}

• September 22, 2011 (2011-09-22) (Estonia)

I don't understand why <div></div> more completely isolates the template from the indentation and markup, but apparently it does, and apparently the errors I thought were attributable to the template itself are actually attributable to an incomplete isolation of the template from indentation or bullet markup, which still doesn't make sense to me. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Again, your illustrations don't help me understand what you are seeing. Each of your examples shows the template being used properly, and neither one generates a Linter error when I copy the section above to ExpandTemplates. If you think that there is a way to make the template more robust and resistant to people using talk page formatting to the left of it, please make a proposed change in the template's sandbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I am marking this as answered for now. I am willing to make changes, further modify the documentation, or fix articles if there are actual problems caused when this template is transcluded in articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Tracking categories added

In this edit[1], I added some tracking categories, as documented at Template:Film_date#Tracking (permalink).

This was prompted by finding that my bot task WP:BHGbot 5 (as proposed at WT:WikiProject Film#Diffusing_Category:Directorial_debut_films) was not proceeding as expected, because it assumed that all the articles in a "YYYY films" category were there because of direct category markup, e.g. [[:Category:1916 films]]. That assumption turns out to be false in about 10% of cases, which the bot is skipping. I found that the reason down is the use of {{Film date}}, and created these tracking categories to see what use cases I needed to consider doing a second run with bot on these exceptions.

However, I hope hat the tracking categories will be useful for other purposes. I hope that User:cobaltcigs's Lua rewrite is implemented ... but please could it also populate these tracking categories? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Display error

Found an error with this template where the dates are displaying outside of the infobox. It's on both RoboCop and Basic Instinct, and I assume every other article which uses the template. Appears on both mobile and desktop as seen from my phone. May also be an issue with Template:Infobox film rather than this one. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Other discussion regarding this error just opened at Template talk:Infobox film#Released parameter values displaying wrongly. Has more examples with the exact same issue. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted my changes so these should go away for now. Gonnym (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yup, that fixed it. Thanks. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I added some test cases to the testcases page. I recommend adding a tracking category (wrapped in {{main other}}) if this test goes back into production. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)