Template talk:Infobox film

Aspect ratio

I am surprised this infobox has no aspect ratio info. Can someone add it, please? Mikus (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Have you reviewed this thread? If so, how would you respond to those who oppose the inclusion of this parameter? DonIago (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The main thing that aspect ratio does for the information about most films is to differentiate between made-for-television films (normally in 4:3) and "silver screen" films. (usually 16:9 or wider) It is also relevant information on certain historic films such as Singin in the Rain and The Wizard of Oz which don't work in widescreen. --2601:300:4080:6230:48F:9E02:9103:AFA2 (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Usually the first sentence of every film article specifies whether the film was made-for-television, but even then most newer made-for-television films are in widescreen. Also, I'm not sure what you mean when you say films "don't work in widescreen". I don't feel you've presented anything that outweighs the concerns raised at the linked discussion. DonIago (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know where we'd even get this information anyway. The AFI and BFI don't seem to document it. Betty Logan (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Doubtless we'd also need to come up with accommodations for films that use multiple aspect ratios. Not insurmountable if we wanted to pursue this, but a consideration. DonIago (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Two things to be aware of. 1) There are a large number of films that were filmed in 4:3 - see Seven Samurai 2) We live in the era of HDTV and almost all made-for-television films are 16:9. Then you have Full Metal Jacket which have had releases in both aspects. I have my doubts that the average reader has an interest in aspect ratio but when it is needed it is better to discuss it in prose in the body of the article. MarnetteD|Talk 16:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

And then there's 2.35 vs 2.39 vs 2.4, 1.85 vs 1.78 vs 1.66, 1.33 vs 1.375, etc... Nardog (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 December 2021

I want to add a separate parameter for Dialogue writter. Please allow me to edit this documentation to add that parameter. Sony R (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of films that have such a credit? The fact that you misspelled "writer" isn't very encouraging to me, and I don't think I've ever seen such a credit before. DonIago (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It occasionally pops up in older films (The Killing (film) is one example I can think of). It may be more common in foreign-language films. Either way, it is still a writing credit and arguably isn't prevalent enough to warrant a separate field. Betty Logan (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. firefly ( t · c ) 14:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 December 2021

Please add another parameter of 'Dialogue by', in the case where Story, Screenplay and Dialogue writers are different. Sony R (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Nardog (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Retire tracking category?

Category:Pages using infobox film with incorrectly placed links has been purged with only a false positive left. Should we remove the tracking module from the template? Nardog (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Isn't that the point of a tracking category? 99% of the time it will/should be empty, but it's always there to catch the 1% of errors. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

In this case the whole point of the category was to fix ill-placed links resulting from the recent change to the order of fields (see RfC). That's why it checks only for |producer(s)= vs |writer= etc. and |music= vs |cinematography=/|editing=. It's not a category to catch generic errors, only ones arising from the order change. Nardog (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

In that case, if the error can't happen from now on, then ditch it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

One question Nardog. In my work cleaning up fields in infoboxes there are some (usually pages that have not been edited in years) that have incorrect fields but they haven't been gathered into the tracking category. Then when someone does edit them they suddenly appear in the cat. This happens most often with |residence= and |home_town= in infobox person. If that could happen n this case we might keep the cat for a few more months. If not I agree with you and Lugnuts that it can be removed. MarnetteD|Talk 17:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The tracking was implemented months ago and it took about two and a half days to complete filling up. Whenever a template is edited, it adds all its transclusions to the job queue, which clears in days, not months, even for a widely used template like this one. If a tracking category "suddenly appears" after an edit to an old revision, that's simply because the edit happened in the time frame between the template being edited and the job queue catching up to update the page cache. So no, even if we sat out for months the category won't fill up except with new errors introduced not because of the field order change. Nardog (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Good deal. Thanks for taking the time to go into this. MarnetteD|Talk 05:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. Category filed for CfD (but not taking the module to TfD just yet, as it seems to have been ported to other wikis). Nardog (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Release date parameter for streaming original films

I woud suggest that the current guidelines for the 'release date' parameter are out-of-date for films that are released as Netflix, Amazon, Apple, etc. 'Original' films. Typically these films have a limited theatrical release in some countries, followed by a wide global release on the distributing streaming platform. I would argue that the latter date is by far the most notable one; it is the date after which the vast majority of viewers will watch the film, and is usually the most prominent release date included on marketing materials. However, under the current guidelines, this date must often be ommitted, with only the limited theatrical release date for producing countries included. I would suggest that for streaming-original films, where the first wide release is on the streaming platform, the streaming release date should be included in the infobox, with the 'country' of the Film date template simply set to the streaming service's name (or perhaps simply 'streaming'). I am on the fence as to whether the dates for the limited theatrical release should also be included, although I'm leaning towards including both. --Jimmio78 (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we should include both. If it's clear it is a Netflix original film with only a limited theatrical release shortly before, then both are at least equally notable, if not more the Netflix release date. —El Millo (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. If there are no objections, I'll update the documentation. Jimmio78 (talk) 03:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't yet. It's too soon and there's not been enough participants yet. —El Millo (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that both should be included since the Netflix date is the actually important one but the earlier theatrical date is also noteworthy for a couple reasons. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Short description tweak needed

If there is no release year or country present, {{Infobox film/short description}} should display "Film" (capital F) instead of "film", per WP:SDFORMAT. I tried to fix it, but I have been editing for too long today to get the logic right. If someone could tweak it, that would be helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

How's this? Primefac (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Partially solved. Now that I've had some sleep, I see part of the problem. The code that processes the country appears to output null if it doesn't get input that it can handle nicely, so An Incident that no one noticed ends up with a short description of "film" because |country=Soviet Union is present but results in no output. Bible Collection and Black Holes (film), on the other hand, work fine with the new code. On a related note, The Cave of the Silken Web (1967 film) shows "1967 film" instead of "1967 British Hong Kong film" because |country=British Hong Kong apparently results in null output from the country-processing code. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe Template:Country2nationality should be replaced with Module:CountryAdjectiveDemonym which doesn't check for valid ISO 3166 entries. Gonnym (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out how to make that module work, but I have inserted some secondary parameter checking to find the situations in which both of the checks return null and capitalize "Film" as the entire short description in those cases. It's somewhat clunky, and I welcome a better resolution, but the 800 or so affected articles should have upper-case short descriptions now. We might want to add tracking categories for pages where the country name is not matched (if we use the module and can add to it) and for release dates without a year in them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Starring

I've boldly revised the wording in the documentation for the "Starring" field as seen here. This was prompted by a content dispute at Fight Club in which Brad Pitt, Edward Norton, and Helena Bonham Carter's names were followed by Meat Loaf and Jared Leto in the "Starring" field. This was based on language in the documentation that seems to me to come off as inflexible. As I outlined at Talk:Fight Club#Starring, the billing block may show "above the title" names as more prominent than those below it. To demonstrate another example of this potentially-usable separation, the poster for Fincher's Zodiac here shows nine names in the billing block, but four are "above the title". In essence, I don't think we should be compelled to use every actor's name in the billing block every single time, when there can be other approaches depending on the film. Editors are welcome to revert or discuss or both. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I've longed argued this with the Marvel films, stick to the big names and not 50 names in the billing block. I did think the wording was already there but it might've been informal discussion to use the top names if available where it includes less names than the billing block. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that for a while, the Star Trek Featured Articles did a different approach where it was an anchor link to the "Cast" section, something that I thought worked well. Agreed that the Marvel films can have too many names straight up, especially outside of the context of characters. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Star Trek articles have done that for a very long time, but it conflicts with WP:INFOBOX which says to avoid links within the same page, the infobox is not a table of contents (or words to that effect). -- 109.77.204.119 (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Your change however, does not address the issues you mention. You could have just added something that mentions limiting the names to only those above the title. Instead your edit makes it seem that editors can decide who they like better, which will lead to edit wars. Gonnym (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

You make a good point. I made the language more flexible, which can mean more discussion or edit warring. I think a good starting point should be the billing block, either all the actors' names or the ones above the title, depending on the film. Beyond that, there can be a local consensus for why a different approach would be appropriate. Like with WP:FILMCAST, I think the idea should be to work with valid rules of thumb. I think sometimes "above the title" could be limiting, like I noticed with the poster for Fincher's Panic Room here that Jodie Foster is the only name above the title. So just one name despite it not being a film like All Is Lost may not represent the "Starring" actors best. I do get that there may be different opinions depending on the topic. Do you think it's not worth having that flexibility? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I have been in enough long, painful discussions about cast lists to know that making this more flexible is probably going to do more harm than good. The suggestion here should make the decision straight forward for 90% of films rather than giving editors license to choose who they think is most important which will always be subjective and lead to disagreements. I think it could be okay if we say use the billing block by default, but you can adjust to the big name poster list or onscreen credit list as long as local consensus agrees it is necessary. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

It should be "use whichever is shortest". Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Why? Shortest does not mean better. Some posters only have one name at the top which is not going to be better than the full billing list. Also, apologies Erik I guess I did not read your initial edit properly because I have just had another look and I think it is fine and pretty much aligns with my thoughts above. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I vaguely recall the past discussions were primarily about finding some way to set a reasonable upper limit because editors were trying to add even minor cast to the Infobox and there was clear consensus that it was excessive. I don't see why including a few extra names bothers anyone so much, but trying to keep the list as short as possible seems likely to cause disruption (I remember the Infobox for Baywatch (film) was a weird one, editors were trying to use the billing block from an entirely different poster because they badly wanted to include a particular actress.) If editors really want to keep the list as short as possible just make it clear what you are doing. Any approach is reasonable so long as editors explain what they doing and other editors can quickly and easily check that it is matches WP:V. Frankly I would prefer the guidelines to be less flexible more consistent stable and more predictable. -- 109.77.204.119 (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)