Template talk:Infobox film

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)

Per the template documentation, the poster's billing block list is to be used and that limits the names that could be entered. Limiting the infobox list to only those whose names appear above the title on a one-sheet doesn't offer much information to people referencing the infobox. Only Orson Welles's name appears above the title on the poster for Citizen Kane; the same is true of The Magnificent Ambersons, a film in which Welles doesn't even appear. — WFinch (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The documentation actually states "Insert the names of the actors listed above the film's title. If no actors are listed above the title, insert the actor's [sic] names as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release. If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits." So no, the billing block is not the first choice. I've undone the expansion in Casablanca and The Maltese Falcon as a result. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The documentation only says that because Beyond My Ken dived in and changed it. I have reverted the wording to the long-standing version, and BMK can propose alterations in the regular manner. Betty Logan (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you — I was simply answering the question of what would limit the cast list. I certainly wasn't aware that the documentation had just been changed to limit it to names-above-the-title. Again, thanks for reverting to this far more sensible practice. — WFinch (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I've come here because I saw this edit by Beyond My Ken (BMK), which led me to the following discussion: Talk:The Maltese Falcon (1941 film)#Stars (a WP:Permalink for it is here). That discussion involves BMK and Wrath X so far. I will go ahead and alert WP:Film of this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have reverted this alteration by Beyond My Ken. To some extent I sympathize with him here; sometimes too many names are added to the "starring" parameter, but it is simply not always the case the "star" names always go before the title. Take this Superman poster for example: Brando and Gene Hackman come before the title, and then Reeve is billed after the title as "starring Christopher Reeve". Under BMK's interpretation of billing Reeve would be ommitted, which is ridiculous IMO. The simple fact is there is no strict criteria for determining who is a "star" and who is not. Generally you have to look at how the poster is structured and how the credits are designed to determine just who is the star, but the general rule is that the names shouldn't exceed those in the billing block. Ideally—and I agree with Ken on this—more often than not we should have fewer names in the parameter than what appear in the block. The problem here is the guideline is applied too literally in cases where perhaps it shouldn't be, and ideally the solution is to make it less prescriptive not more. Betty Logan (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

And I've reverted him too. Let's see if a consensus can be reached before the text is updated. I believe that's how things work here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that one size does not fit all. In The Maltese Falcon case, there is no way that Gladys George is one of the stars. (How the heck did she get third billing???) Clarityfiend (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm of the mind that if we're going to change our guidelines, we have to change them with the most problematic examples in mind. In Bollywood cinema, which is under the scope of this project, they don't do movie posters the way Western films do movie posters. There are rarely any billing blocks, and when there are, there aren't usually any actor names in them. Sometimes they'll have actor names somewhere on the poster, but often not. Two examples are Drishyam, a recent film that spawned 5 remakes and PK. I've also learned that many Bollywood films don't always have proper credits with "Starring" roles. How then do Indian films conform to these guidelines, whatever they wind up being? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

These are all good points. We should perhaps all be slightly embarrassed by our Hollywood-centric thinking. Which brings me to my next point: how do editors on the Indian film articles determine who the stars are, or the billing order? If we are going revamp the guideline I would rather we devised one a bit more universal than the one we have now. Betty Logan (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Usually it's decided through sockpuppetry and POV editing. I really don't know. I suppose sometimes you can find articles that describe a film as a so-and-so "starrer". Sometimes I'm sure the content will come from BollywoodHungama's film info lists. I don't know much about Bollywood—I'm a Westerner meself. I'll float a query at the Indian cinema task force. Frankly, the project could use more WT:FILM editors to bring some common sense to Bollywood films. There is rampant corruption, paid editing, smear campaigns, socking. It has everything you'd want in Wikipedia drama! It feels like there are only about a half-dozen earnest editors trying to bring sense to this niche. One guy will stop at nothing to list actor Mohanlal's name before actor Mammootty's. But now I'm just rambling... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal #1

I propose that when there are 2+ stars listed above the title or in a significantly larger font size, that be the cutoff, with exceptional ... err ... exceptions allowed (e.g. Reeve). Blindly including everyone mentioned in a poster is ridiculous. Gladys George and Lee Patrick stars of The Maltese Falcon? I think not. This is right for Casablanca - Roger Ebert wrote in his review, "It was an 'A list' picture, to be sure (Bogart, Bergman and Paul Henreid were stars, and no better cast of supporting actors could have been assembled on the Warners lot than Peter Lorre, Sidney Greenstreet, Claude Rains and Dooley Wilson)."[1] Otherwise, we may have to resort to citing references from reviews. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, most of the time there are 2-4 stars, not 5+, and even 4 is uncommon (okay, Libeled Lady - ack, that infobox has Walter Connolly). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Two stars, three stars, four, no stars—it is this level of prescription which leads to these disputes in the first place. Sometimes we should use the full billing block, other times just part of it or even limit the list to above the title stars. Personally I would just tweak what we already have:

Insert the names of the top-billed actors as they are listed in the on-screen credits. The names should be restricted to those found in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release; usually the stars are listed before the title, but other actors from the billing block may be included if they occupy starring roles.

Given the vast amount of permutations I think we should avoid specifics. In most cases it is obvious who the stars are, but in less clear-cut cases and in cases where there is a dispute then it will just have to be resolved through discussion. Many of those disputes can be avoided though if editors are not under the impression that the MOS mandates the full billing block, or strictly those names before the title. Betty Logan (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I think a numeric limit would be a handy thing to accompany the billing block. Look at Avengers: Age of Ultron. There are EIGHTEEN names in that starring block and most of them clearly ar enot starring roles. I didn't even remember Cobie Smulders was in it. Even if you go strictly by the billing block (someone appears to have added two names) there are SIXTEEN names. It makes the infobox look silly and it's unnecessary. I'd propose a limit of say 8-10 names max, if it exceeds that, revert to the bolded names wherever they are on the poster. It's not perfect since on something like The Expendables 2, that results in 11 names, but better than 16. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the re-tweak would easily cover The Avengers case. If you look at the poster there are eight above-the-title names, so would satisfy the criteria "usually the stars are listed before the title". The problem with setting a numerical limit is that editors will again interpret it is a specification or an "allowance". Also, there needs to be a self-evident reason for the cut-off limit i.e. we can't miss off the 9th guy simply because he's the 9th guy. Betty Logan (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I would be against trying to impose a specific number restriction. As seen just above, 11 was appropriate for The Expendables 2. As we've found with other issues, certain films are going to require case-by-case judgment. I also wouldn't even bother putting references to "above-the-title" status, as many/most films don't use it. The documentation should indicate no one not on the poster or billing block should be listed. (Above-the-title stars are often not in the billing block.) Getting into "Starring" status beyond that is going to be tricky, as billing fluctuates so much. - Gothicfilm (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Going back to Age of Ultron, they're apparently retroactively adding in stars from home video billing as well, exacerbating the problem. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

For context for the Age of Ultron addition, that is based on this discussion at Captain America: The First Avenger, where a similar situation occurred and Atwell and Cooper were added to the film's billing on the home media. (In theory, I feel these actors are always in the billing, and are kept off to preserve appearances in the film as secret, or they retroactively get deals allowing them into the film's billing.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

But five years from now another version might come out billing an additional person. There's no reason and we've watched hte same film Favre, Linda Cardewhatever is not a starring role. It's not by any measurement. There is no reason to be deviating from the billing block on the original poster. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Billing does not always equate starring role. Many times it is a negotiated element in an actors contract that, regardless of the size and/or importance of the role, the actor gets in the billing block. My initial comment was only to give context to your comment about the additions. On the discussion, I don't see a harm in amending the wording to reduce the names in the infobox (and then maybe the lead), when the prose cast section can still cover all actors in the billing block, as the Avenger film articles do currently (if we are sticking with this example). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I added that second paragraph. That was just a comment, not part of the proposal. I'm saying when certain names are emphasized, either by location or font size, it is an indicator of who the stars are, not 100% foolproof but close. Being in the billing block does not serve the same purpose. I defy anyone to show me anything that calls Millard Mitchell a star of Singin' in the Rain, Charley Grapewin of The Wizard of Oz or most absurd of all, Franklyn Farnum, whom everybody of course recognizes immediately as the undertaker in Sunset Boulevard. (If you use a microscope, you can see Farnum's name on the poster in the article.) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal #2

Let's start with a smaller bite:

Being in the billing block does not make an actor a star, and the stipulation that everyone in the billing block be added to the infobox should be deleted. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As per Cyphoidbomb's comments above we perhaps need to move away from the concept of the billing block altogether. It is too Hollywood/English-language centric and the guidelines should embrace all film industries. Betty Logan (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

If we're to eliminate the billing block from the documentation, we'll need something clear and sensible to replace it with - something that won't spawn thousands of quibbling edit wars. The question is, what? My first instinct is to specify something like "only the name or names displayed in the largest lettering on the theatrical poster", which I think would give a concise and accurate "Starring" list for the majority of films, but I've got no idea what to do for ensemble films like The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, which currently lists SIXTEEN actors in the infobox, taken straight from the billing block (thirteen if we remove the ones credited under "featuring"). —Flax5 15:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Listing only the name(s) displayed in the largest lettering on the theatrical poster is going to result in a lot of film infoboxes listing only one actor, and it's highly likely that this will lead to edit wars. The Terminator, for example, would only have Arnold Schwarzenegger listed since his name is the largest. Since "star" does not necessarily equal "main character" this would result in some arguing that Michael Biehn and Linda Hamilton should also be added. This could then prompt others to argue to add Paul Winfield since he's already in the billing block like Biehn and Hamilton. Inception would only have Leonardo DiCaprio listed but some would argue that this is also an ensemble film and the other actors deserve to be listed too. And there would probably be arguments about whether or not Tom Berenger and Michael Caine should be listed since their roles are minimal and whether or not Dileep Rao should be included since, while he does not appear in the billing block and is relatively unknown, he is a member of ensemble team. Wrath X (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we need decreasing levels of priority or an IF ELSE query. IF x USE x ELSE if y USE y ELSE if z USE z, etc. So for the sake of argument let's use Avengers: Age of Ultron as this is one I previously used.

• IF STARRING BLOCK (I don't know what this is called professionally but the section with larger names that don't require a magnifying glass) USE THESE NAMES
• ELSE IF BILLING BLOCK USE THESE NAMES

It requires refinement obviously as we could stipulate do not use people classed as "featuring" or "with" if using the billing block, and in the case of Avengers this wouldn't omit those people as Samuel L Jackson and James Spader are classed as "with" and also appear in the TOP BILLING BLOCK. And I dop think we need to stipulate that you use the original run material, not retroactively adding people in based off home releases or future releases. We'd need to know what is consistent with Bollyoowd/foreign films before being able to defind anything.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:18, 10 August 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!

I'd support this. It does seem arbitrary to not include the production designer. There's an Academy Award for Best Production Design, so there must be a few notable people who have gone unrecognized in the infobox. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you NinjaRobot - in fact there are a TON of production designers who are absolute heavyweights of the film genre in general. Ken Adam, Dante Ferreti, Cedric Gibbons, Henry Bumstead, William Cameron Menzies, Patrizia von Brandenstein, Stuart Craig, Rick Carter and many many more are all very present in film theory and film history. Production design, like cinematography and screen writing, is a mainstay in the curriculum of any reputable film school. The title of Production Designer is not simply given out to anyone but must be requested by the producer and approved by the Art Directors Guild. This is far from a random title and it does not exist outside of film making. DonFerrando (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd also support this inclusion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Why would you support it? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

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? What is the process to changing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonFerrando (talk • contribs) 19:32, 23 July 2015

The discussion you started above did not result in a clear agreement among a wide enough selection of editors. Two or three editors is not enough to effect a change to the infobox. You should notify the Film project at WT:FILM about the discussion (and provide them with a link) and see who supports or opposes the proposal. If it is has strong support them you can request the change then. Betty Logan (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there a record of the discussion these editors had? Who are they? What were their arguments? Is there any transparency to this process? Why is WT:FILM a different group than the anointed keepers of the infobox and how do I notify them, just post on that page or am I gonna disrupt some sort of holy order again? This is hilarious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonFerrando (talk • contribs) 20:13, 23 July 2015

The only concern is that you get more than two to three editors to agree to your request. As this infobox is primarily used for films, WT:FILM is a logical place to go to elicit feedback from additional editors. I might recommend that you choose a less patronizing tone if you truly desire support for your request. DonIago (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'm happy to have this discussion with the editors. I trust that Wikipedia is a facts-based resource and the powers that be are able to look at this objectively but I do admit there has been a certain amount of frustration showing in my comments, I'll work on that. Part of this stems from what I -possibly wrongfully- perceive as a surprising amount of red-tape trying to convince a mysterious group of gate keepers. I'm sure they are all people who take what they do very seriously and I respect that. I also apologize for any procedural or technical errors on my part - I am not someone who has been very involved with Wikipedia and I somewhat naively thought adding or editing information is as easy as one, two, three. I am learning that there is an entire (at first glance overwhelming to the novice) protocol to it.DonFerrando (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

First the request should be amended to Add production designer after cinematographer and editor to infobox. This would match the order used by IMDb. In film credits the cinematographer is almost always listed closer to the screenwriter, producer and director. And while virtually all films have cinematographers and editors, not all have production designers. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Please refer to my comment above and the links I present as to why the production designer credit should come before the cinematographer credit as is done in traditional billing. The production design role is and has been relied on widely throughout the industry for nearly a century and thus is one of the pillars of film making. By your logic the composer credit should be excluded from the infobox because some lower budget productions do not use an original score. Would that be feasible?DonFerrando (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That is not what I said. I did not mention composer placement because you didn't. If there is no original music we don't put in a name in the composer field. The same could be done for production designer if it's added to the infobox, though there will be some who will want to then list an art director, etc, which could become a problem. And I don't know why you talk about "traditional billing" when I said In film credits the cinematographer is almost always listed closer to the screenwriter, producer and director, which happens to be true. Yeah, the production designer is often listed before them all - does that mean the production designer should be listed above the screenwriter, producer and director? - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Aha, I get what you mean. It only makes sense to omit the production designer credit if no production designer was part of the production, same as other credits. I also think it would make sense to not replace the production designer credit with an art director credit in these cases because ever since "Gone with the Wind" (1939) those are considered different roles with different responsibilities and not at the same level (see Wikipedia's own article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_designer). For movies before that date it may make sense to include the art director where no production designer is present as responsibilities were the same, but for simplification this could just be ignored. I also agree that the production designer should not be listed above screenwriter, producer and director.DonFerrando (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Budget with tax credits included/excluded

The Template:Infobox film/doc should be amended as to whether or not budget figures should include or exclude tax incentives. This edit at Southpaw (film) suddenly trimmed the budget Southpaw cost a net $25M after Pennsylvania tax credits (original cost was $30M. It seems to me the term "budget" should refer to the budget, not the cost after tax credits. The amount of tax credits can be mentioned in the article's budget section, with the correct budget total. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

That seems like something that could be better explained in prose? My advice would if its not very clear, ignore it in the infobox and explain it more detail in the prose. This kind of information would probably only be really detailed for really new films anyhow. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty much the convention these days to deduct the tax credit from the budget, certainly in sources such as Variety, The Hollywood Reporter etc. It makes sense to deduct the credit since it is ultimately money that is not spent on making the film i.e. it is simply a rebate that allows the studio to claim back some of their money. The budget should reflect the net expenditure because that is ultimately what the film costs. Betty Logan (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I think something along these lines would be a good compromise: [2]. The bit in the brackets has been removed since last year, but it is the most neutral approach. Betty Logan (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

feature request

Can someone add a section for CGI, it seems important. --1.34.108.230 (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)