Template talk:Infobox film

Ratings

Is there a reason why the film's rating isn't included ? For me this is a key bit of information if I want to see if a film is suitable for my kids to watch. I can understand that there might be challenges in doing this, for example if you include the Us rating, you'd get accused of being too US-focuses etc. But it seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to include the rating given by the film's country of origin for instance. I just find it odd that you're discussing minutiae like the rounding of the film's length up time to the nearest minute, while this template seems to be missing some very basic info... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.254.190 (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Please see WP:FILMRATING. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

If a film's rating is a significant concern to you, I would recommend checking at IMDb. DonIago (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

(section merged--100.34.130.86 (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)) I was editing The Matrix Reloaded and was disappointed to find, after looking at the no-include information for this template, that I could not add the rating information for the movie (in this case, it's rated R, presumably due to the explicit scene at about 29 minutes in). Could a template editor or administrator add this change? I'm sure it would be useful on other movies and it doesn't seem particularly controversial... --100.34.130.86 (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Erm...as Lugnuts said, WP:FILMRATING discusses why we don't include ratings in general. DonIago (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

yeah, I figured that out before I even logged in (that's my IP address above...) the only reason I even said anything is because I didn't initially realize there was already a section concerning ratings on this talk page. To be fair, mediawiki doesn't make it easy to see the most recent section when it puts new sections at bottom...--Macks2008 (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

film name

When the "film name=" parameter is used, shouldn't the value automatically be displayed in italic? --82.136.210.153 (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The "film name" template takes the {{Film name}} template which does all the formatting. It should only be used in conjunction with the template. You can read more about its usage at Template:Infobox film#Parameters. Betty Logan (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hm. Well, then I suggest the Usage section of the documentation for {{Infobox film}} should include <!-- {{Infobox name module|...}} --> or something similar next to the "film name=" parameter. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Filming

I think the addition to Infobox film/doc of a new section about the filming could be great. For instance, with the "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" article, it could sum up the filming period in a brief manner: "April–November 2014". One could read the information at first glance...! HurluGumene (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

But what purpose would the filming date serve? Readers generally care about when the film comes out, not when it was filmed. Betty Logan (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Precisely! HurluGumene (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Starring (revisited again)

The perennial problem of list entire casts as stars is still with us. Isn't it time we replaced this with "cast"? It's been discussed to death and it's still a problem. The Dissident Aggressor 21:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Genuine question, what would limit the cast to not include very small roles? --Gonnym (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Production Design

I think "Production Design" should be added to the InfoBox on all movie pages after the Cinematography credit (as it is traditionally placed on all major features). The Production Designer is responsible for the look of the film and runs the art department. It is a huge role, though little known. It would be great if Wikipedia could include it in the InfoBox. User:DFrank0821 (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.250.81.14 (talk)

I second the above comment. Film is first and foremost a visual experience and the production designer is essential to the look of a production and thus is part of main billing. If composer and director of photography are included then so should the production designer. If the sentiment is to arbitrarily exclude the production designer from the Infobox in order to keep it brief then there should be a discussion whether any of the main billing past director and producer should be included in the Infobox at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonFerrando (talk • contribs) 22:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a previous discussion about this at Template_talk:Infobox_film/Archive_20#Production_Designer. As you can see it has some support but not unanimous support. Personally I think it should be in there if we have the editor and cinematographer; if any more parameters are added to the infobox then the production designer should definitely be among them. Betty Logan (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid if every sensible change required unanimous support chances are not a lot would get done in this place. Film is first and foremost a visual experience. The production designer is essential to the look of a production and thus is part of main billing. That should not even be a question here because it certainly isn't in the industry. I would like to correct the respective comment in the archives in that a film production's three crucial stages are defined as preproduction, production and postproduction. Unlike some of the other key personnel (e.g. writer, composer, editor) production designers have historically been involved in the key visual role in TWO of these stages (preproduction and production). In modern days this role extends into post production as well with many sets now being created digitally and added after the fact. I would also like to strongly object to the aforementioned idea (see archives) that the amount of production designer-Wikipedia pages somehow reflects on the importance of the role. If anything this showcases a deficiency of Wikipedia where popular subjects tend to attract more contributions than less popular ones. Do a google search on "famous production designers" and see an extensive list of past and present professionals pop up in a strip slideshow. At least in this case google certainly one-upped Wikipedia as the more thorough informational resource. In movie production a huge deal of importance is placed on the order people are being credited and who receives top, equal, diagonal, etc. billing. Matter of fact in most cases the production designer tends to be credited BEFORE the director of photography. Clearly the Infobox should reflect this consequently: either all main billing in or all main billing out. If composer and director of photography are included then so should the production designer. If the sentiment is to arbitrarily exclude the production designer from the Infobox in order to keep it brief then it only makes sense to not include any main billing at all. Simply put: any billing that is included on a movie poster -and the production designer clearly is- should be included in the info box as well, or no billing at all. It's really not that hard. Here is how it's done by the pros: http://newenglandfilm.com/magazine/2012/08/credits. Shame that this essential role has been omitted for years and now needs to be added to thousands of articles...

Note that the above editor is updating text in a closed archive and updating template documentation without consensus. This, of course, has been reverted. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I apologize if I violated some kind of protocol, not sure who needs to consent to what. To be honest the technicalities, source language, rules etc. are not immediately clear to those who do not have the time or opportunity to dive into Wikipedia semi-professionally or just want to correct information as they as readers come across it and it can all be a bit overwhelming. The process isn't exactly "straight forward". Sorry again!

Template-protected edit request on 23 July 2015

Add production designer before cinematographer to infobox, see discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_film

DonFerrando (talk) 05:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• There's no consensus on doing this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Simply saying "there is no consensus" isn't good enough. Consensus by who? This cannot be left like this. What is the process to changing this?