Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Choreography

I was wondering why there is no line in the infobox for choreography. It seems to be a glaring omission,obviously, for musical films in which the director is not the choreographer (such as Seven Brides for Seven Brothers). Coretheapple (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Because most films don't have choreographers. They do usually have production designers, but like it or not, they aren't listed in the infobox either. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You will find a related discussion here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Some possible new parameters for Infobox Film. MarnetteD | Talk 00:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Not anymore. That discussion was archived eight minutes after you posted the above link...! - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

This again points out how strange it is that an encyclopedia doesn't have a Crew section for films. It's as peculiar as leaving out the cast. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for making crew sections more commonplace. I've been implementing them where I think there are numerous notable crew members. Too many red links or non-links may make such a section look too indiscriminate. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Possibly your thinking is a little circular. If there was a crew section with red links, editors could write an article about those people. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right that showing the crew can open up possibilities, but one can gauge notability based on awards as seen at IMDb. When I add a crew section, I strive to make red links blue (as I did for Panic Room), or to improve the blue links (as I did for Interstellar). For something like About Last Night (which I'm currently working on), it did not seem like crew members not in the infobox were notable. Still, I guess I could add a crew section that would be redundant to the infobox's credits. Do you think that should be done regardless? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That is the wrong standard. Notability is the standard used to determine if a subject should have its own article. It is not the standard to determine if any particular fact belongs in an article. Almost all the facts in almost all the articles are not notable by themselves, but they are there to tell the reader about the article subject matter. Another incorrect standard is to say someone shouldn't be mentioned in a film article if there is not a WP article on them. So what is the reason not to include a Crew section including at least the main members of the crew? Perhaps there is a reason but it needs to be stated. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

What I was thinking is that most editors are reluctant to have crew sections because it can appear indiscriminate. I experienced resistance at Interstellar for this reason. In the long run, I endorse the idea of having crew sections as staple sections, but right now, I have just focused on inserting crew sections where most names are linked. (And I mention awards to that end because of WP:ANYBIO.) One argument that I've seen to not list crew members is to just mention them in context of what they did for the film. While I can see this point, it requires a lot of article writing across the board to just mention a key crew member. Do you essentially think that crew sections should be staple sections? And do you want to have a wider discussion to encourage that? I do agree with you, but I am just not making a big push for that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, crew sections should be as commonplace as cast sections. For comparison, it is useful to check the NY Times on this, where they list the major people, actors and production, then link to longer lists of full credits for "Acting" and "Production". Interstellar in NYT. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't know this was such a controversial topic. Anyway, isn't there some way of customizing these infoboxes so that, if the choreographer is relevant (which he/she wouldn't be in most film nowadays), a line can be added so it can be plugged in? I tried that and it wasn't visible. It is possible that in some other films it would be relevant to add special effects people and others who ordinarily are not significant. In dozens of older movies, choreographers are definitely relevant and their omission is noticeable. Coretheapple (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Dozens of older films are somewhat meaningless against the millions of total films. And crew sections should not be commonplace, per WP: INDISCRIMINATE, comparing cast and the recognition they receive to largely unnotable and interchangeable crew members is a false equivalency.DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 18:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Ring Cinema, see what I mean? :) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't find Blake's point accurate when compared to the facts. First of all, notability is not the standard; if it were, most actors wouldn't be in film articles. That's been explained but perhaps it bears repeating if it's a difficult point. Secondly, it's not true that crew members are more "interchangeable" than actors. That's probably some variation on the media's cult of personality rather than knowledge of whose work on a movie is significant. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Ring. The rigidity of the infoboxes concerns me, and I think that the articles that brought me here (the fact that the notable choreographer whose article I'm expanding is in zero infoboxes) points up the problems with the infobox. While choreography is not as important as it was in the fifties, it is vitally important to a host of historical movies. Perhaps the solution is to have specialized infoboxes for specialized movies - movie musicals, horror movies, sci-fi movies, in which persons not in the current infobox could be included. That would give appropriate weight to appropriate persons. I disagree that it is sufficient to mention such people in the body of the articles. Many readers will just scan the infobox for pertinent data. In a slam-bang action movie, so common nowadays, the makeup, special effects and other technical personnel would be at least as important as the actors. By "important" I'm not referring to my judgment but to the judgment of the industry. I think that this is not some narrow issue for the film project but an NPOV issue that requires broader input from the community. Coretheapple (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I just took another look at the policy on WP: INDISCRIMINATE cited by DarkWarriorBlake. Blake, it seems you are inventing a violation that the policy does not address. Please explicitly tell us exactly which part of the policy you might like us to believe is violated by listing the crew on a film, taking care to explain why we would think differently about the cast list. Thank you very much. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Narrated by

Why is the Narrated by parameter put above Starring in the infobox? I've seen many articles where this is obviously out-of-place, such as Spartacus (film). On many films like this the narrator is only heard from once, at the beginning for less than a minute. On some, like Beneath the Planet of the Apes, the narrator is only heard once at the end for a quarter minute. I see no instance where the narrator should be positioned this way. Perhaps someone thought the narrator was linked to the Writing credits currently positioned directly above, but that's not valid. Actors work from a script as well.

I propose Narrated by be moved below Starring in the infobox. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Well the Narrator field is not meant for people who provide a disembodied voice at all in a film. Morgan Freeman is not the narrator of the Shawshank Redemption, he providers internal dialogue as he is essentially the main character providing an external perspective of Andy Dufresne. Morgan Freeman is however the narrator of March of the Penguins. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That's true, but we already fixed that problem earlier, as seen in the archive Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 23#Narrator. The guideline now says Note: do not include actors with a role in the film; this is not a place for in-character voiceovers. I've used that a number of times since to take out twice-billed actors. This is a different issue that shows up on every page with a Narrator credit. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but in your particular example you can just remove the narrator anyway, providing an introduction doesn't merit a narrator credit. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I think people would contest that. They thought it was legit to put it in to begin with. The guideline needs to address this. I'm not advocating removing narrators from the infobox if they only provided an introduction. I doubt a consensus could be found for that. But let's move Narrated by down below the Starring field. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Do we have access to the original reasoning for placing the Narrator field at its current location within the infobox? DonIago (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, my guess is someone thought the narrator was linked to the Writing credits currently positioned directly above, but that's not valid.

Can we get some action/further comment on this? Or do people agree with the suggestion to just delete a narrator who was only heard briefly in the film, as in the examples given at the top here? I'd rather move the Narrated by field down below Starring, but something should be done. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should clarify that "Narrator" is just for documentaries in the guideline, and not voiceovers in feature films. If an actor narrates a story as a fictional character then that is voiceover rather than narration since they are still playing a part, and does not belong in the narrator field IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Such as Goodfellas, for example. What do you mean I'm a funny guy...? Back on topic - yes, agree with Gothicfilm that the field should be placed below the starring field in the infobox. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Betty. My impression was that "Narrated by" was for documentaries. I would support a more explicit definition of that. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I would support that as well. But we still have the many fiction film pages with a Narrator entry. Unless someone removes them all - which I don't support, since some are legit, such as at Barry Lyndon - the Narrated by field still should be moved down. This would do no harm to documentaries. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Can we do whatever is necessary to implement this change? No one is against it, it would do no harm to documentaries, and the issue of whether to include brief narration can be addressed later, as it stands regardless of where the narrator is listed. But in the meantime, more than four months after this was proposed, "Narrated by Vic Perrin" is still listed above "Starring Kirk Douglas" at Spartacus (film), even though the narration is only heard once, at the beginning for less than a minute. Even legit, proper use of the Narrated by parameter, such as at Barry Lyndon, should be listed below the Starring field. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it needs moving, a narrated by credit shouldn't really be being used if there are stars should it? Who are the stars in March of the Penguins? Though I confess I am struggling to think of a film with both a narrator and a star cast, so I might be missing the obvious. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, Barry Lyndon is an example. Used extensive narration. There are a number of other films where a not-on-camera actor was legitimately given the credit Narrated by. And all of them position the narrator below the cast. WP infoboxes should do the same. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This has been dormant long enough to be archived. I'm reviving it as a last chance for some action. I've given good examples above as to why this should be implemented. No one's opposed to Narrated by being moved below Starring in the infobox. Can we ask an admin to make the change? - Gothicfilm (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to request an edit by an admin you need to to add the {{Edit protected}} template to this page (full instructions at the template) with a brief request of what you would like changed. Betty Logan (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Is that the best course to change the order of fields in the infobox? - Gothicfilm (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It's the only way on a fully protected article as far as I know. Betty Logan (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I'm posting the

request here, specifically that Narrated by be moved below Starring in the film infobox. As discussed above, this change in the order of the infobox fields is uncontroversial and sensible. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. You may want to update the documentation to reflect the change. Cheers, LittleMountain5 02:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Who says it's sensible and uncontroversial? There was inconclusive discussion, right? --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I undid my edit for the time being for further discussion, per your request on my talk page. I do believe a consensus was achieved here; the discussion began over five months ago and involved six editors, two of whom supported the change and none of whom opposed it. The rationale for change seems logical: in the few film infoboxes that list both stars and narrators, the stars almost always play a more significant role than the narrators, as can be seen in the examples above and elsewhere. Also, the vast majority of infoboxes list one or the other, and therefore are unaffected. Thus, narrators should be listed after stars as proposed. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to see it.

For reference, the "narrator" parameter was originally added with this edit following this discussion, which provides little insight on the issue. LittleMountain5 07:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake seemed to take exception to the proposal and his objections weren't answered. Then it was dropped for a month and someone says it's "dormant". Nine days later Gothic says it's uncontroversial. For those of us who watch these discussions, the assumption is that objections stand unless more is said. Saying nothing for a month and then claiming you had a consensus back then leaves something to be desired. I'm not speaking to the merits of the proposal at all. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

My only claim was that this change in the order of the infobox fields is uncontroversial and sensible. As Little Mountain 5 said, the discussion began over five months ago and involved six editors, two of whom supported the change and none of whom opposed it. That includes DWB, who talked about other uses or misuses of the field. And now you have raised no actual objection to the change either. Yet you go to LM5's Talk page telling him to undo the change he implemented. You're demanding more discussion yet you admit in your edit summary Perhaps it isn't controversial. Why should even more time be spent on this? I have given clear reasons above why this should be implemented, and LM5 agrees as well. I have other things to do and suspect others on this page do as well. As there are no actual objections, I propose the change be reinstated. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest you argue the merits of your case instead of offering a tendentious summary of DWB's non-support. I'm pretty sure that inaccurately summarizing another editor's words is frowned upon. Little Mountain reversed himself so we can't really rely on his earlier reasons. We are discussing this because there is clearly no consensus to make the change, the same as six weeks ago when you gave up on it. I give you credit for knowing that consensus doesn't spontaneously germinate after six weeks. Your statement that it is uncontroversial seems like wishful thinking. Maybe DWB wants to weigh in, as you should have invited him to do absent an effort to respond to his simple objection. As an alternative, I'd like to suggest that we eliminate the Narrator field and change the Starring guidelines to include the narrator when there are no actors. Would that work? --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No. How is that better than something that is clear as is? Films don't Star narrators. As I said before, Barry Lyndon is an example of a film that used extensive narration. There are a number of others where a not-on-camera actor was legitimately given the credit Narrated by. And all of them position the narrator below the cast. WP infoboxes should do the same. Why do you write I would suggest you argue the merits of your case when I clearly laid it out above? Did you bother to read the opening paragraph? I do not want to rewrite all the points I have already made. You are demanding that others spend more time on this, including DWB, when they are obviously not inclined to do so. If there's no more comments on this, I will be requesting the admin edit again in due course. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned with your attempt to circumvent the WP policy on consensus. Repeating that mistake would not be a confidence building measure. In the case of Barry Lyndon, the narrator could be left out of the infobox under my proposal, if not listed in the credit block of the poster. Would that be a bad outcome? --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I never gave up on this, I was giving people a chance to weigh in. I gave as much time as could possibly be expected. Anyone reading the above discussion can see I answered everybody who posted. No one objected to my actual proposal, including DWB or yourself. You never posted anything until the change was made. Then you proposed an alternative that had already been answered. Removing the Narrated by field is a different issue that would be controversial and would require support it hasn't gotten here. That is in contrast to switching the order as I proposed, which does no harm to documentaries or anything else, so it is uncontroversial. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be sensible to ping @Darkwarriorblake: to get his direct opinion on the matter rather than attempting to interpret his perspective. Oh, I just did that... DonIago (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Budget and other dollar figure formatting

Per this edit to Jaws (film), when listing a large number in the infobox is there a preference for listing the full figure or abbreviating it as, for instance, $9 million? I've seen numerous edits of this type made but am not aware of a consensus either way. If there is one, it might be useful to state in the documentation. DonIago (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I personally round such figures. I think it is more to the point, and I don't think it is necessary to report specific numbers in the tens of thousands and below. (This is meant to apply to films that cost and gross millions; I am fine with greater precision for films with lower figures.) I don't think there needs to be documentation, though. We can just apply MOS:RETAIN so editors don't fight over it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, missed your response. My actual question was regarding, "$8 million" versus "$8,000,000". Is the former acceptable or is the latter preferred? Based on the above I'm guessing you consider the former reasonable, which works for me as well; I've just seen it handled either way. DonIago (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I actually find "$8,000,000" more inaccurate because it suggests that the film cost precisely that much. A rounded figure like "$8 million" is more a ballpark figure that is also more straightforward to read. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'll take this into account going forward. DonIago (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Starring

It seems that the guidelines for the "Starring" field in the film infobox is being treated as policy, especially with the way it is worded. My impression is that the billing block is useful as a rule of thumb to resolve disputes about where to cut off a list of names, which is most applicable for films with larger casts. I realize that posters promote certain celebrities despite there being more major roles than just theirs. However, there are going to be films where there is a sensible combination of "starring" actors in both story-wise and real-world contexts. For example, in both contexts, Fight Club focuses on the top three actors, and Apt Pupil (film) focuses on the top two actors. Per WP:IBX, the purpose of an infobox is "to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears". So I suggest that we temper this billing block guideline with this summarizing where applicable. Could we reword the guideline to do this? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

If I recall, the principle motivation behind the billing block was to set a limit on editors who installed entire cast lists in the infobox. There's nothing to say we can't have fewer names, since sometimes posters can have up to a dozen names in a billing block. Here is the related discussion: Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 22#Starring parameter: criteria? Betty Logan (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Do you think it would be fair to say that the billing block is a generally appropriate cutoff point and that depending on the film, there could be less names? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That is certainly my take on it. The problem always was that sometimes too many names were added to the infobox, but just having two or three names in there isn't a problem if there are obvious "stars". Sometimes it isn't that clear cut with films such as The Usual Suspects, so in such cases the billing block is a good guide (and I would stick to it in that example), but with something like Apt Pupil it is pretty obvious that Ian McKellen and Brad Renfro are the stars and I have no problem limiting it to those two names. Betty Logan (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The Expendables 2 poster eleven billed names at the top of people who are not necessarily in the film a long time, but who are the stars of the film, like Schwarzenneger, Willis, et al. While the billing block includes an additional 3 names of people who, if you've seen the film, are not starring roles, one of them is in it for like 30 seconds if that. So I think making a qualifier for when you have an extensive star billing like that is to stick to that star billing, if it falls short of the billing block. Now I'm sure there is at least one film poster out there filled with a ridiculous amount of star billing on it, though I can't think what it is. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

All right, this is gonna be really long. I proposed the same discussion over at the documentation talk page, so I blanked that and I'm going to paste it here:

"I've had numerous bouts with varying editors involving which actors should be included in the infobox. As per this template, the guideline is to "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release." Now, when I do this, I'm frequently reverted, and usually with good reason. Often, the billing block contains a large amount of actors that clutters the infobox. So in order to prevent myself from getting in any more arguments, I wanted to propose a change to the wording. Instead of what's above, why not this?

"Insert the names of the actors as they are listed at the top of the poster for the film's original theatrical release. If no actors are listed, use the cast list on the poster's billing block."

I don't know if I'm wording this well at all, but I'll give an example. Say you go to the page for A Beautiful Mind. You'd currently see a cast list consisting of Russell Crowe, Ed Harris, Jennifer Connelly, Paul Bettany, Adam Goldberg, Judd Hirsch, Josh Lucas, Anthony Rapp, and Christopher Plummer. Now while this is consistent with the documentation, it's cluttered as all get out. It's even worse on Heat. So to use those posters as examples, the new guideline should somehow convey that the actors listed should only be Russell Crowe and Ed Harris, in the case of A Beautiful Mind, and only Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, and Val Kilmer in the case of Heat.

However, there is an alternate option. Most billing blocks contain some actors before the title, and then contain more actors after it. For instance, in the billing block of Cast Away, (which I'll link right here) it reads "Tom Hanks Helen Hunt "Cast Away" Nick Searcy", even though the poster only highlights Tom Hanks' name. In this case, we would list Tom Hanks and Helen Hunt in the infobox. On a related note, a decision was recently reached over at The Butler to include only Forest Whitaker and Oprah Winfrey in the infobox using this reasoning. I would say using this would be a better source of actor listing, because sometimes films like Olympus Has Fallen has a large amount of actors listed on its poster, but the billing block only lists a few before the film's title.

Whatever the decision, I believe that it should be clear that it must be done, so there's no room for any different interpretations like there are now.

I apologize if this is insanely cluttered or hard to follow, but feel free to ask for any questions or clarifications. I have some trouble wording things sometimes. Thank you!" Corvoe (speak to me) 23:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I've got to laugh a little that you think Heat's starring field is bad. Behold! The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the billing block works well if the actors are starring both in a celebrity sense and in a story sense. One bad application of the billing block guideline is Moonrise Kingdom (which Corvoe has seen) where we don't even mention Gilman and Hayward in the "Starring" field because they're not in the billing block. I think that we need to have rules of thumb here like we do with WP:FILMCAST. The billing block should be a primary rule of thumb, but there should be secondary ones where it does not work fully. I'm fine with another rule of thumb being names above the poster title like for Cast Away or Fight Club. Yet another possibility to consider, especially for Lord of the Rings films, is what the Featured Articles of the earlier Star Trek films do; see Star Trek III: The Search for Spock as one such example. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm still in favour of partially using the block, only listing the names in front of the title, if applicable. But I think whatever the decision is, it's most important that it's worded definitively so we don't have different interpretations. Also yeah, Moonrise Kingdom's infobox not being able to include Heyward and Gilman right now is ridiculous. Corvoe (speak to me) 16:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Corvoe, with the possibility of a small modification. My reason is that many edit wars are avoided by having a strict rule, despite a few occasional anomalies like Moonrise Kingdom. I think above the title actors belong in the infobox, but think we could routinely include three from below the title, giving priority to honored performances, larger roles, and higher billing, in that order. The exception: frequently the last actor mentioned is someone special and that person essentially has high billing. Not sure what to do about that, though. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm unclear on what you agree with. Can you give an example of a poster that shows what you mean? Corvoe (speak to me) 03:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Caché_(film) is an example. Auteuil and Binoche above the title. Below the title, Benichou's performance was honored for best supporting actor somewhere. Five others are listed below the title -- none currently in the infobox, which seems about right but if two more were, it wouldn't be a crime. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a really weird mixing of ideas. In this case, the billing block isn't traditional, so I would say Auteuil and Binoche should be the only ones included. Putting Benichou above the other actors listed in the infobox is inconsistent, as it should be all of them or none of them in that case. If the infobox had him and then said "Caché" followed by the other actors, I think that would be fine. But that isn't the case, so I'd say that Benichou should be removed.

Also, we need to decide on a wording for the new policy at some point. I'm still thinking the actors listed before the title in the billing block should be used, but that might be just me. Corvoe (speak to me) 18:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release. If the billing block contains [x] or more names, use any names presented before the film's title in the same section, or [whatever header billing is called] if available, whichever is the lesser. If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits. Other additions by consensus. Use the {{Plainlist}} template for multiple entries, and link each actor to his/her article if possible. Don't add additional text (such as "with" or "featuring") or punctuation to the list."

Pushing this forward because stagnation is the death of many a cause on Wikipedia. A rough idea, feel free to adapt but let us move forward. I prefer, if possible, having SOME names rather than a link to the cast section, but some of the lists get ridiculous. In the same vein some of them are too difficult to adapt, like the Expendables 2 one, where the star billing is superior to the billing block because the billing block lists at least one person who is in the film for 30 seconds and I can't even remember if they spoke, and you aren't going to get around them being ensemble stars. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe make [x] = 10? Simple enough, not horrendously overcluttered. Looking at The Place Beyond the Pines (which has nine) it seems to look all right. Corvoe (speak to me) 02:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

If you look at that poster though, the 4 people with top billing aren't even included IN the billing block, so I think it'd be fair to say that those 4 are the stars.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I forgot about that. I think in that case, that would be considered the actors listed before the quotations. Note how "The Place Beyond the Pines" is shown, followed by Mendelsohn, Byrne, etc. So I agree that those four should be the only ones in there under this new guideline. If the actors in the graphic design aren't in the billing block, they are still considered the stars. Got a good way to word that? Corvoe (speak to me) 02:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we have to accept that, if we make a bright line rule, sometimes the infobox won't come out to our liking. This is a tradeoff between simplicity and some kind of Platonic ideal. So be it. At least there aren't edit wars over it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

For that reason, I'd suggest we leave the guideline unchanged. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

As a supporter of the rule-of-thumb guideline that's already implemented, I think what Darkwarriorblake quoted above ("Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster...") is a perfect way to solve the "starring" parameter, if we do go ahead and change the guideline. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

So what's the plan then? Are we wanting to implement or not? And I definitely agree with Darkwarriorblake's wording. Corvoe (speak to me) 02:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Official proposition of changes

So, due to this conversation more or less dying off, I'm going to try to breathe new life to it and say we put it to an actual vote. The changes to be added to the current guideline's wording are in bold.

"Insert the names of the actors listed before the title in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release. If there are less than three, list all the actors as they are listed in the billing block. If no billing block is available, use the actor names above and/or below the main title. Apply the same standard to the screen credits, up to ten actors. Other additions by consensus. Use the {{Plainlist}} template for multiple entries, and link each actor to his/her article if possible. Don't add additional text (such as "with" or "featuring") or punctuation to the list."

More wording changes are welcome (as I had to fill in little areas Darkwarriorblake didn't fill out), but I think this is a solid foundation. And obviously, I support this change. Corvoe (speak to me) 17:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm against making a change, but if we were to change it, I'd prefer this:

"Insert the names of the actors listed before the title in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release. If there are less than three, list all the actors as they are listed in the billing block. If no billing block is available, apply the same standard to the screen credits. Other additions by consensus. Use the {{Plainlist}} template for multiple entries, and link each actor to his/her article if possible. Don't add additional text (such as "with" or "featuring") or punctuation to the list." --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I actually like your wording considerably more. Instating. Interesting that you've helped me out a lot and you aren't even in support, but to each his own. Corvoe (speak to me) 00:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. There is a little problem with my draft that is in the current draft: if no billing block is available and the screen credits are used, how many actors should be listed? As written, apparently all of them, but that's not right. So something would have to be done about that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I've revised it again. That work better? Corvoe (speak to me) 14:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Pinging editors who participated in the previous conversation. Erik, Darkwarriorblake, Betty Logan, Jedi94. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm still against making a change, but if it must be changed, I'd suggest: "Insert the names of the actors listed before the title in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release. If there are less than three, list all the actors as they are listed in the billing block. If no billing block is available, apply the same standard to the screen credits, but restricted to three actors listed after the title. Other additions by consensus. Use the {{Plainlist}} template for multiple entries, and link each actor to his/her article if possible. Don't add additional text (such as "with" or "featuring") or punctuation to the list."

Looking at it, I'm not keen on wording that prioritizes star billing over billing block or vice versa. Take for example Batman (1989 film), which by that rule would be just Nicholson and Keaton, though I think some would argue that Basinger was a starring role to, she's the female lead. I think the guideline needs some nuance and perhaps some example situations to cite, like if the billing block is excessive (featuring X amount of names) insert the names before the film's name in the billing block, or revert to star billing. I think that film posters in general are too inconsistent to create a single one-fits-all guideline. I'd also insert something about "if disputed, the status quo should remain without discussion" to prevent "well this way is equally valid and I prefer it" style arguments. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 22:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Any suggestions? Corvoe (speak to me) 17:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think either of the suggestions makes sense, since I think there should be some guidelines and suggetions. Template:Infobox film "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release". This phrasing is unclear: Does it man all the names in the billing block must be included [as some insiste] or does it simply mean that all the names that are in the blilling block should be no matter what? I think this needs to be made clear. I think the current guideline suggests we can we limit the list (no more than the names on the poster), but it is not clear that just being on the poster does not mean they must be included in the infobox. I think a target of 2-3 names is optimal but should not be a hard and fast rule, but should be dicated by the billing.

I found a few examples that demonstrate issues to possibly keep in mind when clarify the guidelines, so we can discuss and come to a consensus of some new wording. The film Lifeboat (film) lists 5 actors on the poster. The "star" with the largest billing is clearly Bankhead and she should be in the infobox. I can see just having her, but since it is only 1 name, also including Bendix since he has the next largest typeface and it keeps it < 3 names. The remaining 3 on the poster, I think should all be included or (better) none of them included since there is no need for 5. Similarly Gambit (1966 film) has larger billing for 2 stars Maclaine and Caine (both before title), then next Lom after title but larger typeface and then by Carmel and Moss. I can see an argument for 2 but also 3 of the names. Including Lom is probably the better, since he is credited in the film as "also starring". Again, I don't see a need to include all 5 in this case. With Ruggles of Red Gap there are 4 primary actors listed in larger typeface with 2 secondary actors. In this case I think making an exception to 2-3 should be done, but I don't see a need for all 6 names as the last 2 clearly aren't billed equally as the other 4.

In ensemble pictures it gets more difficult. In the poster for The Big Chill (film), none of the actors listed are in a different typeface or are pre-title. In this case, even though it takes a lot of room all 8 names seems justified. Similarly with both The Godfather and The Godfather Part II, there are 9 actors with the same size typeface, though clearly there is one standout in each, Brando in the first and Pacino in the 2nd as they have their name all alone on a line followed by a "with". So I could see justifying listing only the "star" or having to include all 9 siince there is no demarcation between the 2 choices. But with the The Godfather Part III it is a little different since you have 4 actors (Pacino, Keaton, Shire, and Garcia) all pre-title and the other 4 post-title. in this case I think 4 actors not 8. The last example I dug up is the Fast and Furious 6. Diesel, Walker, and Johnson are clearly stars with names in large letters on the poster. They also have their names in the Billing block, with those 3 names before the title and then followed by 8 others. If the policy is all the names there are 11 names for this film in the infobox, which seems clunky. But for me, I think one can clearly delineate the list and justify just including Diesel, Walker, and Johnson. They are justified in 3 ways: larger typeface, listed 2x on the poster (top of poster + billing block), and listed in the billing block before the title. This to me makes them the "stars" and the other 8 don't need to be listed in this summary box. I do think if one justifies any of those 8, then all the 8 should be included.

But I don't know how we can set guidelines based on these examples.AbramTerger (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting that you mention The Godfather. You say it's obvious Pacino is 2, but that is a highly debatable point that would never be resolved with a different guideline. Pacino's character's story is the main narrative and he has more screen time than Brando's. He's not the title character and was not as big a star, but his role was arguably the center of the film. Fortunately, we just follow the billing block and it's case closed. Secondly, I don't agree that my proposal -- which I favor only if a change is going to be made -- includes anything about star billing except when it is the only billing available. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Based on billing in the first Godfather, Pacino is 2nd but of equal status with the other 8, all 8 lower than Brando. I think the infobox is about credit. Comments about how much they may have starred, the politics, etc, can be handled in Prodn section. For the infobox, the discussion would be about including all 9 or just Brando. Personally, I think all 9 should be listed as it is more ensemble than a star vehicle for Brando, but I could live just Brando in the starring portion of the infobox and just Pacino in the sequel but prefer all 9 in that film as well. The question is what is the policy and the intent of the policy and how much wiggle room is there for exceptions.AbramTerger (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course no one can stop editors who don't want to follow guidelines -- as it should be. My point above is that a hard and fast rule is necessary to avoid endless warring, since in the case of Pacino there will always be a very compelling case that he is the lead. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Aggreed. And a similar argument can be made for Superman (1978 film) where Brando and Hackman are before the title, then one could list Reeve, but anyone else is ina group of 10. Beatty, Cooper, Ford, Howard are all billed higher than Kidder. On some level, it is OR to try to define the "star", when the source material gives you something different. To me, some of that is just academic, I am happy doing it based on billing, but I think we need some guidelines/rules and where to cut off the number. Must we take them all, or can we chose some logical demarcation point to get a reasonable number. I think even cutting "equally billed" actors (as the last 8 of 9 in GF and GF2) could be done in some fashion. I think it should be based on billing in the infobox as the best criteria. But that would mean a Margot Kidder in Superman would not be in the infobox unless we went to 8 people, even though an argument could be made that she should be before Brando.AbramTerger (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Any problem with the language I proposed? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Not from me. I thought you were opposed to the change, though? Corvoe (speak to me)

Quick question

Just out of curiosity, what do we do with films that are in a foreign language? I was looking at The Tale of Zatoichi and I the infobox has way too many cast members, but I can't read Japanese and am not sure how many should be in the infobox based on the poster. Any suggestion on how to handle things like this? Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Found this, with a much smaller billing block (cuts off at Shigeru Amachi). Stuff like that could work, if there isn't an English poster. Corvoe (speak to me) 03:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Image size/border not needed

Would there be any opposition to deprecating the |image size= and |border= parameters? It seems that most articles that use the image size parameter are doing some nominal stretching of the default 200px width to 250 px, which is wholly unnecessary. And the border parameter I could see being automatically implemented as it is helpful to light-background posters and would do no harm to include with dark-background posters. BOVINEBOY2008 10:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with this. Good spot. And as per WP:IMAGESIZE "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I recall using image_size for images that were smaller than the default width, but it does not seem to stretch automatically to that. However, there may be cases where we would want the image to be wider, especially if it is a title card or a horizontally-presented poster (UK style). For example, A Field in England has such a horizontal image and uses 250px to widen it a little bit. It can be compared to this. (Granted, we could go ahead and replace that with a vertical image, but it wouldn't be an original image.) I assume that the articles that use 250px are vertical posters and should not be using it for the most part? As for the border field, I'm fine with its removal as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I could see replacing it with a landscape parameter that would allow some automatic stretching as an alternative. However, such a small width change would hardly make a difference: see here for comparison. BOVINEBOY2008 12:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the difference is enough. The title is much more legible in the second image. I don't know if others think that is significant or not. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The title is also in the infobox. If the reader wants to see the full size image, they can always click on it to take them to the File page. For identification purposes, I think the size is negligible enough to discard it. BOVINEBOY2008 13:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I do understand that. I am just thinking that certain images could suffer from being compressed so much in the infobox. The title isn't very legible, IMO, but the art is still reasonably legible. I can't think of any other examples offhand. I'm fine with making sure we don't overuse it. Just trying to figure out if there are any rare exceptions where it can apply. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support I am going to support the removal of the parameters. I am largely ambivalent about the image border, but as rightly pointed out there is no harm in making it a permanent feature in all boxes. As for the image size, I appreciate Erik's point that sometimes the titles are not legible in some posters, but I'm not convinced this is a good enough reason to permit manual override for the following reasons:

1. The title is clearly visible in the lede and in the infobox anyway, so readers are not dependent on being able to read the title off the poster to identify the film.
2. There is an assumption that setting the image to a larger size solves the issue for everyone. This is simply not the case however; it solves the issue at that particular resolution, which will and will not be used by other readers. If you increase your resolution by just 10%, then the large poster effectively becomes the size of the smaller poster on a reader's screen.
3. The FUR is invoked on the principal grounds that the artwork is necessary to help identify the film to the reader. We don't need to include a non-free image to tell the reader the name of the film. Therefore, it needs to be large enough so that the artwork is clear, but by increasing the size just to make the title clear we are potentially violating the FUR. In the case of non-free images, I think there is a strong argument for sticking with Wikipedia's defaults

Betty Logan (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If there are no other comments or opposition, I'll put in the edit request. BOVINEBOY2008 14:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Please replace

| image = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{{image|}}}|size={{{image_size|{{{image size|}}}}}}|sizedefault=frameless|alt={{{alt|}}}|border={{{border|{{{Border|}}}}}}}}

with

| image = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{{image|}}}|sizedefault=frameless|alt={{{alt|}}}|border=yes}}

14:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Could you update the documentation please? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I've sorted it. Betty Logan (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: add parameter for official website

Please add parameter for the official website of the movie. This is the best source for how the production represents itself. Readers should not have to go the very bottom of an article when searching for this information. And increasingly every movie has one. The links to official websites are common and uncontroversial in info boxes for other mass culture items like shows, music, books, artists, etc. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 02:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. This is a deprecated parameter. There is a request for this in just about every archive of this talk page. You will need to gain a strong consensus to re-implement this parameter (and other deprecated parameters: {{#if:{{{1|}}}{{{imdb_id|}}}{{{amg_id|}}}{{{website|}}}{{{imdb_rating|}}}{{{mpaa_rating|}}}|[[Category:Film articles using deprecated parameters]]}}). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Default infobox image size

The default infobox image size seems to have changed from 220px to 200px width. Also the font appears larger. Were these intended changes, or is there a technical problem? Bede735 (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The infobox uses the default image size from Module:InfoboxImage, but I do not see any recent changes to the module. I feel that the size difference is due to the typeface change that occurred throughout the project. BOVINEBOY2008 12:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Images are still coming up as 220px in my browser. Is it possible to get an article where the image is 200px? Betty Logan (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

After comparing the widths of an infobox image with an image in the body of an article, it appears they are both 220px. The infobox width may have widened due to the recent typography changes, making the infobox image appear smaller. Bede735 (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• It's not that, or not only that. We can't force infobox image sizes anymore. Gagak Item and Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI had forced image sizes owing to the infobox image's orientation, but it's not working anymore. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Distributor(s)

Reading over The Wolf of Wall Street (2013 film), I noticed that its infobox contains three distributors: Paramount Pictures (North America/Japan), Universal Pictures (select Europe countries), and Roadshow Entertainment (Australia & New Zealand). Personally, I take issue with the inclusion of all three of these. The film is an entirely American production: why are these other distributors even worth mentioning? I feel like the "Distributors" section should read like the "Release date" section, in that it should only include the country of production's distributors. Additionally, we could include an international distributor if it's only one company. Thoughts? Corvoe (speak to me) 16:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree. It should mirror the release date rationale. The infobox is there to be a summary of the data, not to include every last piece of trivia. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

In this case, I think it is appropriate to just identify Paramount in the infobox. (The other distributors can be mentioned in the article body if there is good context, like this.) However, what do we do if the film is a multinational collaboration? For example, The Grand Budapest Hotel isn't a production central to any one country. It mentions Germany and the United Kingdom as the key countries, yet the distributor is Fox Searchlight Pictures, which I believe is US-centric. The film appears to be distributed in Germany and the UK through 20th Century Fox's international arms, which are distinct from Fox Searchlight. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I think if there are just two (a domestic and foreign one like you get with many studio films) then you can include both, but other than that I support Lugnut's general point: we should focus on significant releases (i.e. date and distributor in conjunction) rather than treating them as separate concepts. Ultimately though the distributor who releases the film first should always be included since they are the de facto publisher of the work. In the case of something like Grand Budapest Hotel, Fox Searchlight should probably be replaced by the general 20th Century Fox company if Fox Searchlight is just a local division: the UK distributor is certainly credited as the main Fox company, and if that is the case for Germany too that is porbably what we should go with it. That article is certainly becoming a rigorous test case for our guidelines! Betty Logan (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiments presented so far. especially the sentiment that "The infobox is there to be a summary of the data, not to include every last piece of trivia." And don't even get started on the DVD/Bluray info. MarnetteD | Talk 21:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Appears that there's no opposition thus far. Should we go ahead and figure out a new wording? The TemplateData currently reads "Insert the company name(s) of the distributor(s) that first released the film, separated using {{Plain list}}. In addition, link each distributor to its appropriate article if possible". I'd say that the "first released the film" portion definitely needs to go. I suggest this wording: "Insert the company name(s) of the distributor(s) that theatrically released the film in its country of production, separated using {{Plain list}}. If a single distributor released the film in most international markets, include that distributor as well. In addition, link each distributor to its appropriate article if possible." Obviously a rough version, and wide open to revision and critique. Corvoe (speak to me) 22:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Well no, because I think the distributor that first releases the film anywhere regardless of country of origin is important. It is the publisher of the film from a copyright standpoint. Betty Logan (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have an alternate wording suggestion? I can't figure out a rework. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I would keep it simple and just reiterate what Lugnuts suggests above: "Follow the same rationale that is applied to release dates." Betty Logan (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

So is that the outcome to this? Any objections if the text is updated to reflect this? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any objections, although I would add the caveat that if there are only two distributors in total (a domestic and foreign) then it is ok to include both. Betty Logan (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No objections here. Are we using the "Follow the same rationale..." wording? Corvoe (speak to me) 02:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Draft wording to add

OK, how's does this draft read: "Using the same rationale as the release date, the distributor(s) should be restricted to the country or countries that produced the film and (if different) the country where the film is first released. If there are only two distributors in total (a domestic and foreign) then include both of them." Please feel free to make any adjustments and then I'll update the text. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC) EDIT: Betty Logan (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Betty. I'll leave the draft here for a few more days, and if there's no objections, I'll update the template documentation. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Now updated. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

False precision in gross figures

Some people seem to be blindly copying gross figures from Box Office Mojo or the like although they obviously display false precision. For example: "Frozen has earned $399,619,073 in North America as of April 13, 2014, and $713,100,000 in other countries as of April 13, for a worldwide total of $1,112,719,073." It's obvious that the $713,100,000 is an approximate figure; as such, it makes no sense to combine it with the North American gross given to the nearest dollar and give the result as the worldwide gross. This was of course in the prose of the article, but the same figure appears in the infobox.

I think we need a guideline in this documentation on what degree of precision should be used, in the hope that this silliness'll stop. My inclination is: If domestic and foreign gross are known to the same degree of precision, then give the figure as given in the source. If one is known to a lesser precision, then give the total gross only to that precision. So the above figure would become $1,112,700,000. Or maybe "$1,112.7 million" if you want to make the approximateness of it clearer.

OK, so even if we have both to the nearest dollar (or other currency unit), it's still not perfect, as it can still be actually one more or less by round-off error. And in the above example, if the foreign gross is actually $713,140,000 then the total to -5dp will actually be $1,112,800,000. But giving $1,112,700,000 as the gross is still better than giving a figure to the last dollar the last five digits of which are in all probability completely wrong. — Smjg (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Obviously when you combine figures, you do so to the precision of the least precise component. Isn't this something kids are taught in schools? Do we actually need a guideline for this? Betty Logan (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say it's not commonly pursued. Like Smjg stated, people blindly copy Box Office Mojo and don't think it through. My preference is that we just round all such figures, even there are no approximations. There's no value to report in showing the tens of thousands, thousands, etc. on top of the millions and hundreds of thousands. Sources like the trade papers don't write out the full numbers either, and Wikipedia does not have to write out that indiscriminately, either. I don't know if there would be a consensus behind this approach, though. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

If it's a perpetual thing across the board and editors are just copying the figures in I'm not sure there's much we can do to address that. In some cases the problem isn't even obvious: the issue with precision is evident with BOM but not with BoxOffice.com. Obviously I don't mind tweaking the MOS to that effect but if this is a problem that isn't isolated and affects hundreds of articles the only way to overcome it would be to completely change the culture of how grosses are documented i.e. round to the nearest million for every film. Again, I don't object to that but as we've seen with "universal acclaim" and "mixed to positive" in reception sections, changing the MOS is easy, getting editors to comply is nigh on impossible. Betty Logan (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 April 2014

The infobox displays "Release dates" in the plural, but the preferred form according to the documentation is singular. I personally find this jarring. Using "Release date" would lead to much fewer clashes, and encourage using the preferred form. Choor monster (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"preferred form according to the documentation is singular" - no it isn't. The documentation, both on this page and on Template:Film date, is very clear that normally up to two dates are acceptable. However, using "Release date(s)" as the label would be fine. --NSH002 (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right, it is clear. Some days I can't read English. Thanks. Choor monster (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. This change has been discussed previously and the discussion didn't result in a consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC:Should an "Official website" parameter be enabled in the Infobox film template?

There is an obvious consensus that Opposes enabling an official website parameter in the template. This official close is per the request at WP:AN/RFC. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should an "Official website" parameter be enabled in the Infobox film template? Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 02:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)]

Survey

• Support, This is the best source for how the production represents itself. Readers should not have to go the very bottom of an article when searching for this information. And increasingly every movie has one. The links to official websites are common and uncontroversial in info boxes for other mass culture items like shows, music, books, artists, etc. I can see the reasoning to relegating unrelated film websites to the external links section, but a film's website is a part of their production. And I suspect that many readers seek to know what is a film's official website and hope the editors here will help determine that. I also suspect the majority of readers don't really scroll down much so would look to our helpful info box to impart the basic information on the production, and the official website is a part of that basic information. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 02:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)]
• Oppose Simply not necessary to have them placed so prominently in the article. The infobox is there to provide an overview of the most essential details of a film's authorship, and there are many parameters that would be eligible for inclusion ahead of the official website, which basically just exists to promote the film. There is a place for official websites in Wikipedia articles and that is the external links section. Betty Logan (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose An EL is all that is needed for these. As Betty Logan points out they are all too often a promotional website. Many of them turn into a sales site for a DVD or Bluray. Also, as time passes, many of the links go dead. MarnetteD | Talk 18:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, haven't we already had this discussion? They're often worthless at the best of times, filled with the most base of details, fleeting at the rest of times. There is no need to have such a thing. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 18:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, already discussed (although WP:CCC so it's fine to ask again, but listing the previous discussions would have been good, so...) archive 5, archive 11, 12, 13, 14, and 17, archive 16, archive 17. The only threads I can find in the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film archives are mere pointers to the discussions here. HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Per the reasons given by Betty Logan. And also see the lenghty previous discussions in the archives not to restore this parameter. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Betty Logan and Lugnuts. Corvoe (speak to me) 18:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. That would benefit the film's promoters, not Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Betty Logan and MarnetteD. —jameslucas (" " / +) 18:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - don't need it. That's what the well-established "External Links" listing at the bottom of the page is for. ("Readers should not have to go alllll the way to bottom of the page"? - How lazy can one be?) - ^theWOLFchild 18:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's just a marketing website. Thus, it doesn't need to be so prominent on the page. We want to keep people reading our pages, not send them away as soon as possible.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. As others have pointed out, we already do this for a variety of other articles. Hot Stop talk-contribs 19:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, essentially per Bignole and Lugnuts, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: Most "official websites" of movies are only active for the first few months or so, after which they are either converted into redirects to the distributor's page or just abandoned entirely (for instance, see where http://www.thedevilwearsprada.com gets you today, almost eight years after the film's release). There is thus no reason to have them in the infobox. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: If we decided we don't want ratings in movie userboxes anymore, then why should the website go there? Put the ratings back first, then we can worry about the websites. Tom Danson (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, There is a very special place dedicated for external links only that is called "External links" section. Such link is also often used in the reference section. Such links became dead links too soon. Such duplicate placement in infobox would only promote the film, that does Wikipedia do not per policy WP:NOTADVERTISING and per guideline WP:LINKSPAM. Snek01 (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support, per Sportfan5000. Dead websites should be removed from articles in any case; I see no reason why official URLs shouldn't be in the easy-to-find summary in an infobox, but removed should they become "redirects to the distributor's page or just abandoned entirely". It's a valid concern, but easy to resolve, surely? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: 'Official' ELs should be removed from most finished/static media infoboxes. Most books don't have them. Most television shows don't have them. Most bands do have them, but bands are more likely to be an ongoing project, whereas films/books are finished projects and their sites are unlikely to have fresh info. Also per comments above, and comments in prior discussions (listed above). –Quiddity (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Daniel Case. I would support a discussion however to add (readd?) a parameter for movie ratings. CRRaysHead90 | ^#WelcomeHome 20:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, Primarily because those kinds of website links go dead after a year or so. The "External links" section is the appropriate place for them. On the other hand, I would support (re)adding the imdb link to the infobox, since those pages are historical in nature, and do not go dead. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, for most the reasons already statedAbramTerger (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly encyclopedic information about a film, and clearly important enough for inclusion, Outdated information should be removed in the usual way; and a bot could be employed to detect redirects to distributor's main sites; or tag borderline cases for human checks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support – We put the official website in all sorts of Infoboxes, some of which could have the same promotional and other objections. However, the "pros" seem to outweigh the "cons" there, as I believe they should here. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Betty Logan and Lugnuts, Plus most end up as dead links anyway!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The External Links section is ample for this kind of thing. If the Infobox is expanded or customized, it should reflect worthy crew members who are sometimes crucial to a movie and excluded (like choreographers and special effects people) and not promotional websites. Coretheapple (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose 1) External links do the trick. 2) Most URL are short-lived. Stephane mot (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose These links die rather quickly and their content is either a trailer, or no better than a trailer. In fact, I am thinking infoboxes do not need to have external links at all; their subjects almost always live shorter than the article itself. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose... albeit weakly. As the link may be put in the external links section under WP:ELYES, there is no need to clutter up the infobox. While I initially opposed its removal from the infobox some years back, I have come to see the facility of keeping the box clean. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, An official website is not the most essential information that readers want to know about the film. Also, most official websites die after one or two years. External links are still doing an excellent job. Quenhitran (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The infobox should be limited to objective facts about the film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - An external link should be in the external links section. There is no good reason to put it in the infobox. Garion96 (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Keep it in external links where it belongs. – Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 07:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm noticing a lot of people who are supporting this change using the defence that we include official websites in other infoboxes (presumably, such as bands and musicians). Firstly, other stuff exists. Just because it exists doesn't mean it might not be encyclopedic to include. But in the circumstances of bands and musicians in particular, their websites don't go dead until well after they break up, if even then. Movie websites are different. They are entirely promotional, and frequently vanish after a few months on home release. Secondly, countless films that get a theatrical release, wide or limited, do not have official websites. It's largely the huge budget movies, or the awards movies. Therefore, I think external links should more than cover it. Corvoe (speak to me) 11:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose – I see no reason to include that in the infobox when we have a dedicated section at the bottom of the page. —Vensatry _(Ping) 17:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support – I was neutral; since the official status makes the link noteworthy, but (in my personal experience) official film websites have little to offer that is not better communicated by the Wikipedia and IMDb pages. Having said that, the Metadata details explained below by Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing) seem pretty clear on good reasons to include said link in the infobox. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 17:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose External links is just as good a location for the film's advertising. Metadata is a nonsense argument: there is no site-wide consensus that there is a benefit to including information solely to generate it (and there is evidence that metadata keeps readers off the site in the first place, which is hardly a sensible step). – SchroCat (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I am against external link in infoboxes. I would like to see all infoboxes moving their external links to the "external links" section. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
• Tally so far seems to be 6 people in support, 28 who oppose. Hope this helps! (Came across it while perusing the RfC/A board, and I'm neutral on the subject). GRUcrule (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Promotional sites for films are ephemeral, and disappear after a time. Maintaining these "short shelf life" links in infoboxes will put a burden on WP editors. Leave to the bottom, where it can be added, and later removed, without introducing a short-lived link at the top of the article. -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 22:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - An EL is sufficient. BMK (talk) 06:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia. Online presence of subjects of articles is to be strongly presented. Most films made nowdays have a website dedicated to them. Many films before the internet age also do. If a film does not have an "official website", the relevant parameter in the infobox will simply not show up. -The Gnome (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - it is promotional, but at the same time, an infobox is what it is...information.

Threaded discussion

• It's worth noting that the film infobox used to have parameters that would link to the film's official website and to the film's IMDb page. These were removed years ago as redundant to what existed in the "External links" section. Reviewing WP:ELPOINTS, it looks like an external link can be included in an infobox "if applicable". However, I think many films' official websites are promotional in nature, and any objective substance it can offer (synopsis, cast, production notes) would be used in the article body already. Such websites have media (trailer, images, videos) but I do not think that this warrants a position heightened from the "External links" section. It's best relegated to that section. Wikipedia best maintains an encyclopedic focus on films in this way. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The film is a product though, and their official website is how they present themselves, whatever we may think of that presentation, and other websites like IMDB, Mojo, etc. have their own standards, and reasons, and those links are often just removed. Perhaps the argument should be made that no info box should have an official website parameter? Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 02:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)]
• @Lugnuts: Could you link to the lengthy discussion? Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 02:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)]
  • I've listed some that I found via a simple search, above. –Quiddity (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
    • quoting Quiddity, "Yes, already discussed (although WP:CCC so it's fine to ask again, but listing the previous discussions would have been good, so...) archive 5, archive 11, 12, 13, 14, and 17, archive 16, archive 17. " Having looked through those discussion they all centered on IMDB is the info box, which apparently was there from the beginning of the box's usage. Even the last request cited the previous discussions without really addressing an official link might be an exception to the reasoning people held years ago about external links as general, which are now commonplace, and considerations for official links, which are unquestionably more common. Thus I think this is the first time that official links themselves are the focus of discussion. I had considered just closing this as repeating previous ground but it makes sense to let it go as the topic has been swept up in a disdain for external links in general, and IMDB as a source, in particular. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 02:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)]
• @MarnetteD: If a website goes dead, we could link to an archived version or just remove it, I don't see why all the films that have perfectly functioning websites should be prevented from having an info box link because some eventually go dead? Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 02:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)]
• For other commenters, I'm not sure I see the problem with a film's website promoting the film, isn't that the point? Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 02:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)]
  • I don't think we can say with a straight face that any of the purely informational material on a film's website is already covered in the article. Our guidelines frequently restrict for purposes of brevity the scope of the content we offer. Cast lists are not comprehensive, crew lists are strangely nonexistent. As an encyclopedia, we could take the view that we should cover all the facts, but we don't. So we are insisting that our readers get that information elsewhere. Why hide it if we're not going to include it? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)The films website is perfectly free to promote the film but that is not a reason to have the link in the infobox. Please remember we aren't saying the links should be removed (although there are some grounds for the like item #1 in WP:ELNO) just that they do not merit a place in the infobox. MarnetteD | Talk 18:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• No-one is really saying the official webiste isn't relevant, just questioning whether it's important enough for the infobox. The infobox covers things that are integral to the film itself i.e. the people and companies involved in making it etc. Every piece of information in the infobox tells us an important fact about the film, but a website link in itself doesn't really tell us anything. Ultimately the infobox is there to tells us important facts about a film while the external links section is there to provide useful/important links to other websites, and I don't think a convincing case has been made that the external links section is not serving its purpose in this capacity. Betty Logan (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree that is the relevant distinction. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I think by relegating the official website down to the external links section, we are judging it as on par with any other external link that might be placed there, even though it's relationship to the film seems undeniable. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 02:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)]
• Question, on the basis of the logic presented so far, shouldn't the official image also be relegated outside of the info box, after all it's unquestionably decorative, promotional, and not really conveying any facts about the film not already covered. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 02:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)]

WP:NFC is the logic that applies to use of the poster while WP:EL applies to external links, so different arguments certainly apply in regards to their usage. While a poster is promotional (like a website link) its primary purpose here is identification: sometimes films have the same or similar titles which can be confusing, and one third of our readers come from non-English speaking countries where films are commonly retitled into a native language, so poster art is much more universal than word titles in identifying a film. If there were a better means of identifying films to readers then the poster would fail our NFC criteria, and would not only be relegated from the infobox but also removed from Wikipedia servers. Betty Logan (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Another question, why should this one info box prohibit a website parameter when it seems most others in arts and entertainment do? Perhaps this is really a discussion that all websites should be removed from all info boxes. I don't think that's the case but i am trying to understand the logic that applies here but not on like content in similar articles. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 02:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)]

• Other infoboxes, such as {{infobox television}} and {{infobox musician}} have space for an official website. Why should {{infobox film}} be treated exceptionally? These links can be quite helpful, without requiring the reader to scroll to the end. —sroc 💬 19:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I suppose you can turn that question on its head and ask why the official website should be treated exceptionally? There are a few things that need to considered:

1. The implicit assumption that the official website is a more useful/important link than other external links and deserving of being elevated above all others. In practise I have not found this to be the case. Sometimes it is but not always or even usually. On film articles I think the IMDB is often a more useful link than the official website, and from personal experience it is the one I often follow the most.
2. Is there any evidence that readers seek out the official webiste more than other websites linked to from the article?
3. It is true that editors have to go to the end of the article to retrive the link, but is there any evidence that its position in the article makes it unreasonably difficult to find? The external links section is linked to in the table of contents, so presumably any reader who is actively seeking the official website will have no problem in finding it.
4. Obviously content at the top article is more visible than content at the bottom, but are we under an obligation to make finding information as easy as possible, or is easy enough sufficient?
5. Assuming we don't thwart our readers unreasonably, is it acceptable to balance the requirements of the reader with our own interests? By this I mean it could actually work against us by placing external links at the top of the article since a percentage of readers will click the link and leave Wikipedia. By leaving external links until the end we encourage readers to click internal links first. At the moment I think the official website is easy enough to find in the external links section for anyone who is looking for it, and at the same time we are not encouraging people who are not looking for it to passively follow the link before reading the article.

Betty Logan (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Good points to consider. I think Pigsonthewing's statement below about how Els are not treated equally in metadata speaks to part of the reasoning of why we re doing a disservice. I believe we can also take studies on how most readers don't read beyond the introduction of an article as an indication that they will almost never see the bottom of a page. As as a person who regularly uses Wikipedia to confirm which of many spammy sites is an official page, I look to the info box to confirm that information. I also counter the idea that official sites are promotional with the fact that that is exactly the point. They are created to inform on the product, there are the defacto experts on their product and their view on what is important about their vilm, and whatever content they share speaks to their views on the product. I seriously doubt many studies have been done that would definitively prove what readers hope to see in presenting film information on Wikipedia, but I still see know good reason to prevent this information being presented prominently. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 02:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)]

• @Snek01: You allude to redundancy, and spamming. As I see it an official link in the info box would replace it being anywhere else in the article, so really would not be spamming, or an extra hit of some kind. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 02:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)]
  • The primary spot for an official link is at the top of the ==External links== section. If it exists, it should always be the first item in that section. Having it anywhere else is a possibility, but would always be a duplicate. Per WP:ELOFFICIAL. –Quiddity (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
    • If it's removed from the external links section, and placed only in the info box, it would not be a duplicate. In that case the one in the external links section would be a duplicate as happens on most other articles. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 02:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)]
      • Not all articles have infoboxes, so that would create inconsistency. Changing the primary location of external links, from the EL section, to infoboxes, would require an MoS-wide discussion (otherwise Film articles would be inconsistent with all other types of article). –Quiddity (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
        • That seems a bit disingenuous, of course if there is no info box, the link could not go there. I think you're misreading things a bit. No one has suggested that all external links should go in the info box, only the official website, which is the default for info boxes as far as I can tell. So it's actually this info box that is inconsistent with all other info boxes. I do think a MoS-wide discussion would make sense though since apparently dozens of request for comments have gone out to past users of just this template page. So we seem to be in more of a localized spiral of feedback. Perhaps with wider input we would see more people wonder why this info box should be exceptional to standards well accepted on the project. There does seem to be some valid concerns, but also reasonable counters to those, like employing a bot to watch for dead links. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 02:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. The Television Infobox is an abomination, the video game infobox, while not including a URL, is an abomination. These things doing something different is not an excuse to emulate them. The reader has to scroll to the end of the article to view the film's website? Oh no. If only they'd clicked on the link at the TOP of the google page above the Wikipedia article when they searched for it in the first place. If you are on WIkipedia, you're not here for this, and if you are? Well tough, it isn't the duty of the encyclopedia to funnel you off site to marketing material. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 20:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not the end of the world if this doesn't happen, but it does fly in the face that we are here to inform and this is a simple request to address that, with a lot of Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 02:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)]

Arguments to the effect that "External links do the trick" are factually incorrect; any URL included in an infobox may be passed in metadata emitted by that box; and read by infobox parsers such as DBpedia. The same is not true of the external links section. Furthermore, there is some confused thinking here: While the primary purpose of putting the official website, like others, in the EL section is to provide our readers with a (hopefully) useful source to read; the primary purpose of putting it in the infobox is to include it as a key piece of data about the film. We only make it a clickable link because it would be silly to display a valid URL and not do so; but that's a secondary matter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I would compare our presentation of the actors in the film to this issue. We could, for the sake of brevity and completeness, forget about any cast lists and instead give a link to the cast list on a film's web site. I don't think we would consider that because WP has its own purposes or ethos, even though for something objective it might seem like wasted effort. The same seems to apply to the film's web site standing in as a quasi-primary source for a film. In fact, it may or may not be a reliably encyclopedic compilation because it is "official" only to the extent it is funded by a copyright holder. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not clear in what way this is a response to my comments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I grok the metadata argument, but doesn't {{official}} cover that angle (and if not, shouldn't it?). Not all articles have infoboxes. –Quiddity (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That is true Q. Also, not all films have "official sites" and there is scant evidence that those that do have anything of value to add to our articles. MarnetteD | Talk 02:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't; and no it can't. And not all articles use {{Official}}. I'm not sure why we'd worry about articles without infoboxes, in a debate about what to include in the infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

What is covered by "official"? I don't follow that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Generally it is the, usually one, website, controlled by the production, or owners of a film. It does not refer to the official IMDB website, for instance. It would also not include an official fan club website. And if a movie's official website went dead, reasonable editing would dictate removing it, or linking it to the archived copy so those interested could see how the movie was presented by those who were in charge of its promotion. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 02:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)]

Sorry, I was referring to Quiddity's comment above. Some "angle" he says is covered by "official". Not sure what he means. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ring Cinema: I was replying to Andy's comment: "any URL included in an infobox may be passed in metadata emitted by that box; and read by infobox parsers such as DBpedia. The same is not true of the external links section." - I meant to allude to the fact that: the {{URL}} template is used by itself in other infoboxes for the "website" field. In contrast, {{Official}} currently wraps the link in <span class="official website">...</span>, and also in {{URL}} which uses <span class="url">...</span>, hence the {{Official}} template should also be a completely reasonable place for DBpedia et al to extract this data-point from. HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I would expect such a discussion among the editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica but not among Wikipedia editors. An online encyclopaedia doubting the merits of offering to its users the full benefits, in the easiest manner, of internet information? Amusing. -The Gnome (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@The Gnome: "internet information" in this case, varies considerably in quality. The actually useful "Official sites" for movies are seemingly the exception, rather than the norm. Especially once they age more than a year or two after the release. Eg. we're definitely not going to move the "official link" from the EL to the infobox, at Spiderman (2002 film) ("fifteenth highest-grossing film of all time") or etc.

Be clear: We're not just "doubting the merits". Wikipedia editors examine ALLLLL the angles (eventually). That's why this place works. :) –Quiddity (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Quiddity wrote: "The actually useful 'Official sites' for movies are seemingly the exception, rather than the norm." That is a judgment call which is not for us to make.-The Gnome (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for change in template i.e. addition of field to allow the name of lyricist (Song writer)

Editors, I've noticed that the current template does well for Hollywood films and for other World Cinema. However, in the context of Indian cinema, song, dance and music are integral to the film's success. Even before the movie is released, the song videos are used widely and aggressively to promote the film. Not only is the music composer critical to the film but equally important is the lyricist (the songwriter); there may or may not be a choreographer for all the songs. The current Wikipedia InfoBox template for films currently allows name of music composer, but it does not allow for the name of lyricist. This is my earnest request to please make room for lyricist/s - who play a very important role towards the success of Indian Films - and to be allowed on the template. Indian cinema is just as popular in the world outside of South Asia. Songs are not songs without the words, right? I feel due credit should be given to those who write these songs hummed by millions. I'd really appreciate your help in this matter. Thanks a bunch. Pictowrit (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)pictowrit

@Erik: Hope this request will help. Please let me know. In fact, just after my request I also looked at the Slumdog Millionnaire page. While the music composer's name features within the infobox, the notable, awarding winning songwriter's name does not feature as prominently, precisely for the reason I elaborated on. This is just one example. I'm sure you and other editors will see where I'm coming from. :) Thank you. Pictowrit (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC) pictowrit

Lyrics

Pictowrit, this is where you need to make a request for the "Lyrics" field to be added to the film infobox. However, this will not be done until there is consensus to add this field. You'll need to make the case to other editors for adding this field. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, for initiating this thread here for me. I've already responded to your previous message. Thanks a bunch. Pictowrit (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)pictowrit

To the other editors, this is what Picowrit wrote on my talk page: "Now, especially in the context of Indian cinema, the songwriter plays a critical role in the success or failure of a film. Since the template is currently skewed towards Hollywood films, it does not currently allow for the name of lyricist on the infobox template. I'd like to make the request to make room for this on the template." Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it is unnecessary to add a separate parameter since it won't be utilized on most articles. However, I think Pictowrit has a valid point in regards to musicals, and this does affect some big Hollywood films like The Sound of Music and so on. Personally I would just relax the condition for the "music" parameter on musicals, and permit the inclusion of a lyricist in those cases. We wouldn't even need to change the template then, we can just adapt the documentation. Betty Logan (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Are "Lyrics" and "Songs" descriptors equivalent? For instance, in the case of a film like Labyrinth, David Bowie wrote several songs for it and was credited in the opening credits. Would we list him as lyricist or songwriter? Corvoe (speak to me) 21:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Betty Logan, hi. Thank you for your suggestion of relaxing the condition without adding a separate parameter. It's a good suggestion generally. But given that largely all Indian cinema, has a substantial focus on music, song and dance, much as I've elaborated in my thread below. In fact, the exception there is the film that does not have songs. In Indian cinema, songs are written specifically to suit the situation within that specific film, befitting the characters, the locales, the dialects. They also serve as a connecting thread across the film. Since the 1930s until present day, the role of song-dance is critical to every film. There are may be 700-1000 films made annually in various languages catering to the vast population in India, and now also made especially for the Indian diaspora. I sincerely feel that the lyricist (songwriter who takes time to understand the specific requirements - the brief - of the film) merits a special position. Now as for your query about David Bowie, I'd say you could refer to him as Lyricist. (Just my two cents on that). As far as I understand, songs written especially for a film, are lyrics and the writer who penned those is known as the lyricist. But a songwriter need not necessarily be a lyricist. The lyricist may write poetry or songs - non-film related. Hope this helps. Thanks. Pictowrit (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC) pictowrit