Template talk:Infobox film

Korean, Japanese and Chinese film Infobox merges at TfD

Following several discussions, I've raised these at TfD here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

now that these discussions have closed as merge, we should figure out the best way to merge them. the way I see it, we have at least three options

(1) add |traditional=, |simplified=, |pinyin=, |jyutping=, |poj=, |kanji=, |kana=, |romaji=, |hangul=, |hanja=, |rr=, and |mr= to this infobox.

(2) create (or repurpose) the three infoboxes to only generate the language translations, and then use them as subtemplate modules, so you could type

{{Infobox film
| name = {{Chinese film name
  | name = 
  | traditional    = 
  | simplified     = 
  | pinyin         = 
  | jyutping       = 
  | poj            = 
  }}
| director = 
...
}}

(3) create (or repurpose) the three infoboxes the same as (2) but into a single module for all three, so you could type

{{Infobox film
| name = {{Asian film name
  | name = 
  | traditional    = 
  | simplified     = 
  | pinyin         = 
  | jyutping       = 
  | poj            = 
  }}
| director = 
...
}}

the advantage of the second and third option is that it would not require changing this infobox, and would allow tracking the uses by tracking the transclusions of the subtemplates. comments? Frietjes (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Advantages of first is that they could all then be redirected to Infobox film and there would be no need to edit any articles. Note though that Infobox Korean film have |context= & |admissions= and Infobox Japanese film have |artdirector= & |production= as additional params. As to if any of those are worth adding, I don't know. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a preference for the third option, except we could generalize it to accommodate all foreign language titles i.e. Foreign film name. I have no doubt that more of these foreign language templates will pop up if the main template can't accommodate them, so if we had a name template that was openly adaptable for any editor that wanted to add name parameters for their language then hopefully that would be sufficient. Obviously we don't want to add a ton of parameters to the main template when they wouldn't be used in the vast majority of articles. Betty Logan (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Except, what is a "Foreign film"? Non-English language may be a better descriptive title. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is the English language Wikipedia so it probably would be self evident. But to that effect you could simply call it "Film name", since English language films just wouldn't utilise the template. Betty Logan (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

that would work for me. the |context= parameter would be added to this template as well, since that is part of a switch for the name. the other three that WOSlinker mentioned would be added here directly, if they are useful. Frietjes (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Well something like "admissions" shouldn't technically be included because it is not a global metric (we insist on a 'world view' for the main infobox such as worldwide box office, and for this reason MPAA ratings were dropped because they were US centric); 'local' information can be included in the article, but the infobox should be geared to a global readership. In the case of "art director", it is subordinate to the "production designer", and a recent consensus was against adding the production designer on notability grounds, so the art director simply wouldn't make it into the main infobox. I haven't a clue what "production" is for in the Japanese infobox; the documentation doesn't cover it, and I've just opened up half a dozen articles that use the template and none of them set the parameter. Betty Logan (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"Admissions" is necessary as not all countries count box office results in gross USD, Yen, Euros, etc. In Korea the standard way box office success / failure has been counted is in tickets sold and only more recently in gross Won. Hence This is also how the List of highest-grossing domestic films in South Korea has been sorted by. ₪RicknAsia₪ 01:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out above "local" information doesn't go in infoboxes. Korean admissions would go in the article just like US box office goes in the article. The decision was to merge the infoboxes, but the parameters that are merged are still subject to the infobox consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It makes sense to keep the |context= part as this is used for North Korean related articles. Much as the body of water in between Korea and Japan has a disputed name (East Sea? Sea of Japan?), the names and spellings for the Korean alphabet (Hangul/Chosŏn'gŭl) and Korean system of Chinese characters (Hanja/Hancha) is different in the North and the South. By adding "|context=north" to an article it displays the names in the style that the North uses; the official way for materials from that country. For example see this North film with "context=north" Unsung_Heroes_(film) versus a South film My Tutor Friend. ₪RicknAsia₪ 03:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: That single module shouldn't be limited to only East Asian text, but as of now, I'm in favour of the third option. I've a suggestion which may sound far-fetched at the moment: I hope that the module can become a universal one on the English Wikipedia. In other words, we have a subtemplate module within the standard film infobox (as in options 2 and 3) which has many parameters for editors to choose from, so that films with titles in non-Latin text (e.g. Indian, Iranian, Russian, Greek etc) can have those original titles included in the infobox. LDS _{contact me} 05:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Smart thinking as it could be expanded to any language without a Latin-based alphabet. And if that is the case that allows for a host of other languages to be added (I'm all for that) so option 2 or 3 would be much cleaner otherwise the template in general would drown in all these language options :) Would "Unicode" be a better term or is that limited to Asian languages? ₪RicknAsia₪ 05:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't be limited to only Asian languages. What about Russian and Greek? "Unicode" is fine. LDS _{contact me} 06:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"It shouldn't be limited to only Asian languages." Agreed so something like "Film Unicode Name" or "Original language Title" or such would be better. But before adding in additional language groups, for now let's finish this merge and then when the format is finalized contact people in those film group pages to propose (or propose it yourself) additional languages be added. ₪RicknAsia₪ 13:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• What about films with multiple countries that made it? For example Three Extremes. Would each of the 3 choices work for a situation like this? ₪RicknAsia₪ 05:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The merge wouldn't have any impact on the case of Three Extremes since the Korean, Japanese and Chinese infoboxes aren't used anyway. This discussion is purely to determine how to integrate those infoboxes into the main one. Editors have already decided it is best to use the main infobox in that case, and it is beyond the scope of this discussion to overrule that consensus. This discussion is restricted to articles where the Chinese, Japanese and Korean templates are in use. Betty Logan (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not in use in this case because only one template can be used at a time and this movie has three countries that made it. So my question is, in a case such as this movie where multiple countries made a film, which of the three merging option listed above would work to display the "original title" in all 3 languages? ₪RicknAsia₪ 16:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

None of them! Merging templates doesn't alter the functionality of them. Depending on which option you select it would either operate like the Korean template, or the Japanese template, or whichever other template is being merged but it won't do anything that these templates can't already do. That is not what a template merge is for, and not what the consensus for the merge accepted. Adding new functionality to the template is beyond the scope of a merge discussion. If you want to add further functionality to the template you are free to propose it after the templates have been merged. Betty Logan (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I am in favor of Option 3 and also wouldn't have a problem with Option 1. Remember to think for the new users. Which one would be the easiest for them to learn/remember? Jae ₩on (Deposit) 18:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Experimental template

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (with an image)
Theatrical release poster

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (with image missing)

Everyone seems to be reasonably happy with option 3, so I have created a prototype template at {{Film name}}. As you can see, it allows editors to fully customise the main infobox to accommodate their language. I have experimented on each of the four languages:

• Chinese: Before, After, Diff.
• Japanese: Before, After, Diff.
• South Korea: Before, After, Diff.
• North Korea: Before, After, Diff.

It looks identical in my browser (Opera) so I would appreciate it if you check that it looks ok in your browsers. You will notice that the switch function is used in the template: this in effect serves no functional purpose, but I was getting white space between the parameters and the switch function seems to remove it, at least in my browser. Finally you will notice that the template must be positioned after the parameter you want it to appear in the template. This is not ideal, and I will request a positioning parameter is added to the main infobox if this proposal is accepted. Betty Logan (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine on Safari on my iPad and on Firefox on my laptop. No white space. LDS _{contact me} 12:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Why are we adding yet more parameters into the infobox with another template? Surely this should go in the lead of the article, as it does for other languages (French, German, Russian, etc). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Because the outcome was "merge" and not "delete"? It's a valid point that perhaps not all of these parameters belong in the infobox, but the merge discussion doesn't actually give us a mandate to remove them; in fact it gives a mandate to add a shit load of unnecessary parameters to the infobox. This may not be the ideal solution, but it's better than the current situation where the Film project has effectively lost authority over the infoboxes on foreign film articles. The Film name template accomplishes two things: i) it brings the foreign films back under the main infobox, and ii) it doesn't result in adding an extra dozen or so largely unnecessary parameters to the infobox. Once we have one infobox on all the film articles, then we can have a closer look at exactly what should be there and what shouldn't, but let's at least get to the situation where we have one infobox on all the articles, otherwise we are going to end with even more of these pointless infoboxes. Betty Logan (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

the new template looks pretty good, but I am concerned with the usage, since wedging it in the caption field can be problematic if the image is not there. perhaps we could have a default place to hang it that won't depend on the existence of the image? Frietjes (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah it's a hack just to demonstrate the idea. Ideally a Film name parameter would be added to the main template, which would take the Film name template as a value. That way the expense to the main infobox would be just one extra parameter. Betty Logan (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You're removing information found in the first template, if all the same information isn't being conveyed the merge is failure.--114.205.84.126 (talk) 05:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The sole purpose of this template is to allow the addition of foreign film titles to the infobox, and any other parameter is irrelevant as far as this particular template is concerned. If you look at the examples you will see that all the title fields are transferred over, and that is all this template is supposed to do. Betty Logan (talk) 07:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

An extra parameter to the template to accommodate the foreign language title sub-template above, to accommodate the merge.

| data1 = {{{film name|}}}

There is no need for a "label" parameter, these will be set individually by the {{Film name}}. template. Don't forget to re-number the remaining parameters i.e. label1 & data1 will now be label2 & data2. Betty Logan (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Merged

I have completed the merge. All the foreign film titles should show up in the infoboxes, but it's been quite a complex task so I am bound to have missed something, so take a look and let me know if anything is not showing up/ill-formatted etc. In the case of Korean admissions, they will show up in the infobox if there is no worldwide gross present to supersede the local performance, as is customary on American film articles with the US gross. The only parameter that has been dropped to my knowledge is the "art director" from the Japanese infobox, since there is a standing consensus not to include it in the main film infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Production Company vs. Studio

In July 2012, I suggested to add an optional parameter |production= to the infobox (or change the |studio= parameter, to show "Production company" or "Production" instead); I had addeed this parameter to Template:Infobox Japanese film already. Now that "Infobox Japanese film" is merged with "Infobox film", I must address this issue again:
There are (many) examples outside Hollywood, where major production companies that are not studios, are behind a project. I think that a new parameter called "production" or "production company" under "studio" would be useful for such cases. There are films like Gantz, where TV Stations NTV, Yomiuri TV and publisher Shueisha are production companies (members of the Production Committee), while no specific studio is mentioned. IMDb lists these under Production Companies. Furthermore, for animated films from Japan, we have usually a small or medium size animation studio, just doing the animation production, and big companies (TV stations, publishers, advertising agencies etc.) that start the project, invest in it, hire the animation studio, hire the staff, and are copyright holders of the work. Examples that I can mention are Ninja Scroll (Madhouse doing the animation work, while JVC, Toho and Movic are producers and copyright holders); and Metropolis (Madhouse hired for animation production, while Bandai Visual, SPEJ, Toho, Dentsu, Kadokawa Shoten, Tezuka Productions, Imagica, and King Records are the members of the Production Committee, investing in the project and copyright holders).
To list a company like JVC, NTV, Shueisha or Dentsu under "studio" is not appropriate; these are obviously not studios. I recommend to add a new optioanl parameter for production companies (preferable in cases like Ninja Scroll and Metropolis, to separate the animation studio, Madhouse, from other production companies) or find a more appropriate term for "Studio" and rename it. --Raamin (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

In this capacity "Studio" is an all encompassing term for any production facility (even for independents that do not have a studio) but I would support a change to "Production company" since most secondary and tertiary sources use this terminology such as IMDB and the AFI. It would also avoid confusion between production companies and filming facilitis such as Pinewood. Betty Logan (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I support this change. In Template:Infobox television film, the parameter "studio" displays as "Production company". Bede735 (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That's TV. We've had this discussion before, neither says more than the other, just a lot longer and messier. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

There is indeed a difference. To call Shueisha, Kodansha, or Dentsu "studio" is just wrong, and unencyclopedic. --Raamin (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this is a language issue? A "studio" is any structure or building that is engaged in creative output: that may or may not include filming facilities, but in the sense we use it on Wikipedia, "studio" and "production company" are entirely interchangeable. However, the misconceptions about the term are a good enough reason alone to consider the change. Betty Logan (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Caption

If the image is of the theatrical poster, is it really necessary to say that in a caption? On Template:Infobox_television#Attributes it says, "An image with the title logo of the show does not need a caption." Wouldn't an image of the poster equate with that? I mean it's pretty obvious it's the poster. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You raise a good point. I think the field is beneficial for situations that need a more specific explanation, such as the poster coming from a film festival or being designed by a notable artist. Also, don't forget that the image can be a DVD cover or even a title card like at Casablanca (film). Most captions will say "Theatrical release poster" or something similar. It seems easy enough not to be obliged to use that, but at the same time, it seems like a useful enough aid to tell a reader if it is a film poster or a DVD cover. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

For some films there can be an original release poster and a later re-release one that is quite different (I think A Clockwork Orange has a few different ones out there.) In the day and age of VHS and later DVD (whoosh the technology just keeps moving along doesn't it) rental stores there were even posters designed specifically for releases there. As Erik points out there are also title cards and for older films there are also lobby cards. I don't see that there is any harm leaving the captions that we currently have even if it is stating the obvious. MarnetteD | Talk 20:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

"credited at the time"

"Credits in the infobox should not be retrospectively altered to accommodate name changes at a later date. A person should be credited by the name they were using professionally at the time the film was made."

I submit that the restriction to ossifying the names of individuals credited at the time be henceforth removed. Wikipedia should not be a list of film credits. It is a living document describing the work of potentially alive individuals, and therefore, should be a work respecting the names of those individuals at present. If need be, the policy should indicate prior names used professionally, but this should not be listed or bolded as canonical naming.

Wikipedia frankly should be ashamed of itself for this shortsighted, stupid policy. -- anon

Perhaps some editors didn't understand that you were refering here to The Matrix article. It should be explained that a lengthy discussion was already had about that issue [HERE] and consensus was reached. If you wish to add anything you should re-open a new discussion, and there is the place to do it. Jodon | Talk 11:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It is decidedly not just about _The Matrix_; hence I brought the discussion here. The idea that an individual work must only be accessible through the name in which an individual was credited at the time is short-sighted, hinders accessibility, and denies the reality of any individual whose name has changed for whatever reason. Compare -- even though these are books and not films -- that Love Is the Plan the Plan Is Death which credits Tiptree and yet makes absolutely no mention whatsoever that this is just a pen name, or that Little Women is credited not under A.M. Barnard but Louisa May Alcott. Ossifying names like this makes no sense. -- anon

Disagree. In general if the names of those associated with a project have changed, the original names can always be linked to the contemporary ones, and I believe there's value in using the names historically attached to the film. Also, you're not earning any points with your last sentence and I would recommend retracting it. Doniago (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Disregarding your tone argument. Yes, but that's not what the policy says; the policy says that only the name credited at the time must be used. In the spirit of Wikipedian consensus I can tolerate a policy that says an individual's current name must be shown as well as the name at the time; so if there is indeed consensus to make that change, then let's make it. --anon.

The infobox records bibilographic details about the authorship and publication of a work. On a Beatles album we don't stick John, Paul, George and Ringo in the infobox, we record the name of the group that the album's authorship was ascribed to. The Wachowskis authored the film as "The Wachowski Brothers"; that is how they chose to be credited on the work, just in the same way The Beatles chose to be credited as The Beatles. "Wachowski Brothers" even appears on their copyright application: Registration Number / Date: PA0000949615 / 1999-04-16, so the infobox isn't really the place for revisionism. Betty Logan (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

If you think that referring to all names that people use is "revisionism", then I think that's telling of some greater agenda that you're trying to push. People don't relate to authors by their copyright registration, they relate to them by name. Do you honestly think that if Love Is the Plan the Plan Is Death mentions that James Tiptree, Jr. is in fact Alice Bradley Sheldon that is some sort of "revisionism"? Honestly? -- anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.88.97 (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You are completely avoiding the point I have made: the film and copyright registration credits them as the "Wachoswki Brothers"; that is not my agenda, but how they chose their authorship to be credited. There is nothing to prevent them re-registering the copyright under new names, if they so wish. If Lana Wachowski chooses to be credited as Lana Wachowki on future works then that is the name that will be used. Also, you have completely avoided the analogy with The Beatles, where music is regularly credited to a chosen "stage name"; would you advocate replacing group names with those of their members? It also worth pointing out that the British library credits Silas Marner to George Eliot, not Mary Evans. The reason for this is because the bibliographic details are what are important when cataloging works, not the biographical details of the author. You are essentially arguing for a form of cataloging that is at odds with how the wider world catalogs creative works. Betty Logan (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You're putting words into my mouth. I'm not arguing that the article for the Beatles should replace the stage name. I'm arguing that both names should be listed (as a compromise). Do you have a problem with listing the names an individual is most known by, or not? -- anon.

Betty don't waste your breath, it's one of the super PC editors, they aren't interested in encyclopedic information, just being sensitive to the emotional traumas of transgender people being credited by the name they used at the time. You won't convince them otherwise. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You're hilarious. You don't wish to discuss the actual merits of the argument, but think this is about "emotional traumas"? You think listing outdated information for -- and not just transgender people, I have repeatedly _proven_ that this is a problem across multiple articles and multiple media, but you want to dismiss this as political correctness?

This is a problem because this does not allow a reader to correctly associate an article's link to a single individual, whether they're trans or married or using a pen name. The simple fact remains that an individual's name is not a static reference, whether you think that's "politically correct" or not.

The fact that Wikipedians want to avoid discussing this problem on its merits, dismissing this as some attempt at politically correctness, and ignoring the fact that I'm willing to find an acceptable compromise, demonstrates the sense of utter intellectual bankruptness that pervades this "encyclopedia". --anon

Noone is avoiding anything, it's been discussed, people have pointed you to that discussion. Continuing to talk in ignorance of that does not give you a high ground. And instead of being intellectually bankrupt and spineless by calling people intellectually bankrupt and signing all your comments "anon", try registering for an account and having some accountability for the baseless name calling you are throwing around. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Saying it's "super PC", complaining about "emotional trauma", and saying that "it's been discussed" and trying to end the discussion *is* avoiding the issue. Your complaints about "emotional trauma" is irrelevant. The fact that I have or have not an account or whether that should or should not give my argument more weight is irrelevant. Whatever your agenda about trans people is irrelevant. The fact that Wikipedians like yourself are acting so irrationally to this suggests that this is not an NPOV-driven policy, and maybe that should be the next course of action to take about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.88.97 (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone block this troll. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Is that the Wikipedian response to try and change things these days? How things have deteriorated. WP:CONSENSUS must mean little these days. No wonder Wikipedia has a problem with trying to gain a more diverse range of editors these days. 60.242.88.97 (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedian response was telling you how and why it is the way it is, credits reflect the credits used at the time, be it the real or a stage name. The Matrix films are famous for their creation by the Wachowski Brothers, it was under those circumstances that the film came to be, it is how they are known, it is how they are credited. The link leads to the current article which is named based on real time change because its biographical. Slandering every Wikipedian with your broad brush of blame will win you neither support nor friends. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRD says 'You should not accept, "It's policy, live with it."'. I have offered consensus which has been ignored. If I have "slandered" Wikipedians (hardly) it is because they have acted in a dismissive and boorish manner in response to what is a severe problem with this template.

If I'm not seeing any real attempt on the part of other Wikipedians to discuss the consensus in which I have offered, I will take this to the dispute resolution noticeboard; consider this your notification of such. 60.242.88.97 (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with that, no one has said it's policy, live with it, they've said it's policy, and we support the existing policy over the proposal put forward. Many have said that over the one who refuses to budge his/her position, that isn't a dispute, it's a consensus against your proposal, which if I remember correctly was "We should respect a persons up to date name for some reason and reassign credit to works, and you should all be ashamed of yourselves". That was your opening comment. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You perhaps haven't said "live with it" in so many terms, but the discussion has been firmly rooted in "that's what we agreed to, end of discussion" verbiage.

We should respect a person's most current name. It seems that the consensus here is against that -- I think that's awful -- but I have consistently and always been willing to accept the compromise which I have listed, which you're still ignoring. It's really quite simple now: do you have any substantive objection to my compromise, or should it be adopted, or should I raise this with dispute resolution? 60.242.88.97 (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC

Yes, we refute the "compromise". A compromise is an agreement reached by two parties, not an ultimatum put forward by a single editor. You are free to take it to dispute resolution, but since dispute resolution does not trump a Wikiproject I doubt any of us will participate in the process, since any proposed revision to the guidelines would have to be put to the Film project regardless, which would just bring us back to this discussion. The guideline reflects the consensus, and that is to follow standard Western cataloging conventions for film credits. You are free to pursue other routes, but I think this discussion is over as far as the current participants are concerned. Betty Logan (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I see I have come late to this discussion and that it has been contentious, but I would like to add a few (hopefully non-contentious) words in favour of crediting people by their current name. Here are my thoughts.

1. It is accurate, in general, to use a person's current name when describing events that happened before they began to use that name. So, for example, the John Wayne page correctly reports that "Wayne was born in Winterset, Iowa" even though his surname was not "Wayne" at the time.

2. It is common for pages for actors to do the same sort of thing when discussing the career of that actor, even if they changed their name during their career. So the pages for Courteney Cox, Roseanne Barr, Robin Wright, Eva Longoria, and Rebecca Romijn all refer to them throughout those articles by their current surname, even though in some cases they used other names for a great many years. The Rebecca Romijn page says, for example, "In 2000's X-Men Romijn had her first major movie role as Mystique" even though for that film she was credited as "Rebecca Romijn-Stamos".

3. Following the pattern indicated in the above two comments, it is common on film pages when discussing the actors to use their current names, even if they were credited differently. So, for example, on the X-Men page, when discussing the make-up we are told "the makeup department kept Romijn isolated in a windowless room". This use of her current surname in such descriptions is consistent with the similar use on her personal page.

4. While consistency is a good reason to also use current names in infoboxes, there is an even better argument when you consider that sometimes the credited name is just a pseudonym. For example, on the page for Solaris we are told in the infobox that the film was directed by Steven Soderbergh, the cinematographer was Peter Andrews, and the editor was Mary Ann Bernard. What it does not tell us is that the last two names are both pseudonyms used by Soderbergh. He did all three. It would be much more informative if the infobox said "Cinematography - Steven Soderbergh (credited as Peter Andrews" and "Editing by - Steven Soderbergh (credited as Mary Ann Bernard". In fact, the Steven Soderbergh page helpfully does this. Doing the same of the film page would also be useful.

5. Another case of pseudonyms is the infamous name "Alan Smithee". Some films credited to him just list the director as Alan Smithee (The Shrimp on the Barbie). many list Smithee along side the real name of the director, as if Smithee were a real co-director (Morgan Stewart's Coming Home). Some just list the real name of the director without mentioning the "Alan Smithee" credit (Solar Crisis). But some list the real director's name followed by a "(credited as Alan Smithee)" parenthetical (A River Made to Drown In). Of those variations, the last is clearly the most informative infobox.

6. Another case is people who used fronts or pseudonyms during the blacklist days. Dalton Trumbo was often credited this way during this time, but the articles for the films he wrote now put his name in the infobox. Although I would advocate adding a "credited to" where fronts were used and "credited as" where it was just a pseudonym, it seems right to put his real name in the infobox.

There are a lot of cases where the current name / credited name difference does not really matter. Does anyone really care that Michael J. Fox was credited as "Michael Fox" when he made Midnight Madness and Class of 1984? I don't. But in some cases it is different. I like the idea of a policy that makes the infobox informative (especially in cases like Soderbergh and Smithee) and gives credit where it is due (in cases like Trumbo). 99.192.94.9 (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Those are thoughtful comments. I would not put much weight on the cases you mention where a current name refers to a person's actions when they were using a different name because that is a conventional usage for clarity. This situation is well-established in the case of maiden names, and isn't the same as a case where artistic credit is given under name A by a person later referred to as person B. Frequently in those cases the change of reference is mentioned, i.e., "Wayne was born Marion Morrisson (?) in 19xx." That covers cases 1 through 3.

4. Is it better to puncture pseudonyms? Huck Finn by Samuel Clemens (credited as Mark Twain)? I don't think so.

5. Alan Smithee is a special case of 4. If a person doesn't want a work attributed to them -- frequently because they feel their work has been spoiled by someone else -- should we attempt to attribute to them work that they felt was not theirs? That seems to me a seriously high-handed case of arrogant misattribution, a distortion of the record rather than a correction.

6. Fronts are another case of pseudonyms and, as in 5, I think there are more questions raised by trying to correct the record in the infobox than in sticking to the simplest possible rule. If attributions are changed on works, the infobox, too, can change their attributions. Isn't that the clearest way? --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out that the guideline itself allows for discretion in extenuating circumstances, by recommending to use the name that the person was using professionally at the time. In most cases this will coincide with the credits but sometimes it won't: if someone's name is spelt wrong, we won't carry the error, although we may note it if it has bibilographic implications; if someone was blacklisted, we don't deny their authorship if it can be sourced, we simply append their name and tag it as (uncredited); if someone directs a film as "Alan Smithee" that is not a name they were professionally known by at the time, so while we will acknowledge the anonymity it wouldn't be encyclopedic to "play along" and conceal their true identity; on the other hand, if Soderbergh adopts a pseudonym that he uses professionally, then our guideline probably permits both names if he is also still operating professionally under his own name—I certainly wouldn't enforce a rigorous interpretation of the rules in such an unusual case. What it doesn't allow for is retrospective changes: if someone gets married and changes their name, we don't revise all their credits; if someone adopts a stage name such as many pop acts do we don't revise the credits if the group breaks up and no longer goes by the name. Basically what we try to do—and what the sentiment of our guideline tries to lay out—is to be as accurate as possible in recording the authorship at the time. Ultimately there is an important distinction between recording the author's name and the authorship credit, and generally we follow bibliographic conventions and go with the latter. Betty Logan (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I like your last point so much I want to repeat it. We're not trying to put ourselves in the position of determining the true identity of the artist; instead, we are trying to be clear on the credit (i.e. in the infobox). However, what would we do if a credit was misattributed? For example, Director D works on a film and then is disgusted by the studio's meddling. Although she requests her name be removed, it is not, and a work is attributed to D that she wanted to disavow. These kinds of things happen from time to time. Just curious... --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Most of the cases listed by the IP refer to Biography articles which has already been explained do not follow the same guideline as the film articles, or examples like X-Men (film) which is frankly doing it against the guideline so it's not a great example. I counter with Scream 2 which features both Courteney Cox and Jada Pinkett by the names they used at the time, not the names they used now, and both links luckily refer a user to their article. Comparing these with an Alan Smithee credit is a false equivalence, one leads to the actor in question, the other to a completely fabricated identity, one whose use would be discussed within the article, as Betty says, on a case by case basis. Larry Wachowski (which is the case which starts all these discussions) becoming Lana Wachowski has no bearing on the Matrix or the Matrix films, they are famously made by the Wachowski Bros and that is the reality of history, and her personal changes a decade later do not need mentioning, in the same way that the death of Keanu Reeves wife and unborn child AFTER the Matrix but between the Matrix Reloaded did not need mentioning no matter how much the user in question tried because it may have affected his performance. The only time the change would need to be mentioned is a switch from Larry to Lana when discussion actions relating to the film POST-release. So "In 2013, Lana Wachowski (formerly Larry) said the film was still bad ass". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, folks. It seems clear to me that I'm swimming against the consensus, so I will defer to that. But I did want to make a couple of quick parting replies to the comments above. First, to Ring Cinema on point #4 - What I was suggesting would not recommend crediting Huck Finn to "Samuel Clemens (credited as Mark Twain)". There is no "Samuel Clemens" article and that was not his professional name. Here's the difference explained in terms of movie actors. Eva Longoria not only legally changed her name to Eva Longoria Parker (and then back again), but she used the name "Parker" professionally. This required that the name of her Wikipedia page be changed as her name changed. But Demi Moore legally changed her surname to "Kutcher" when she got married, yet professionally she remained "Moore". Thus by WP:COMMONNAME her article name did not change. Some actors, in fact, adopt stage names without ever legally changing their names. In those cases using their common (professional) name is what would be required.

Second, to Betty Logan, you wrote, "Basically what we try to do—and what the sentiment of our guideline tries to lay out—is to be as accurate as possible in recording the authorship at the time." I would suggest that it is more accurate for the infobox of Fast Times at Ridgemont High to list among its stars "Nicolas Cage (credited as "Nicolas Coppola")" than to just say "Nicolas Coppola". My suggestion is 100% accurate in reporting the name he was using and credited with at the time while also providing the useful information about who he is to people who don't know that Cage=Coppola. One cannot worry that it is somehow "revisionist history" when the suggestion I am making is to clearly indicate what name was used in the credits at the time the film was released. All I was suggesting is that the infobox give a little more information than the guideline currently allows.

One final comment: It seems that cases of name changes because of gender identity changes have been more commonly the basis of discussion by others than it has been for me. (I actually have used none of those cases in my arguments.) I think the reason that this has been more contentious is because we are not just talking about the name, but the identity of the person being credited. It is not unusual for a person who has transitioned to refer to their pre-transition self as if it were a different person (as in "Larry did that, not Lana"). So I can see why people are reluctant to change the infoboxes in such cases since sometimes a name might seem like more than just a name. Steven Soderbergh is the same person even when he is credited as "Peter Andrews" or "Mary Ann Bernard". But Larry Wachowski and Lana Wachowski are more like two different people, perhaps even to Lana herself. This makes these tougher cases, which is why I have tried to deal with the simpler ones (where a name change is nothing more than a name change).

But like I said, consensus seems to be clearly going the other way, so I won't push this further. Thanks again for the replies. 99.192.90.12 (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.94.9)

(to Betty Logan) An ultimatum is a take-it-or-leave it option. A compromise is an alternative option. The above discussion shows that this is not a cut-and-dried situation here, you can't encyclopedically state just one name and hope the reader has the wherewithal to actually understand what is going on with an individual credit with naming.

Where is your hostility coming from? Why don't you offer alternatives or come to a mutually acceptable situation rather than just say "it's like that, live with it"? I think the consensus gathered is that this is a difficult situation for many individuals, so we should endeavour to do the right thing and come up with a solution rather than just ignoring a person's other names that they may have used. 60.242.88.97 (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

60.242, I don't think your comments here really are helping. Arguing over perceived ultimatums won't advance the matter. Let me try to summarize where things are. There are three suggested alternatives. they are:

(1) Use only the name they were using professionally at the time the film was made. (Current policy)

(2) Use only the name they are using professionally now (ie; whatever name is considered their WP:COMMONNAME).

(3) Use the name they are using professionally now, but add parenthetically the name they were using professionally at the time the film was made (if it is different).

I suppose there could be a fourth no one has yet suggested which would be this:

(4) Use the name they were using professionally at the time the film was made, but add parenthetically the name they are using professionally now.

You prefer 2, I prefer 3, and everyone else prefers 1 (current policy). You have suggested 3 as a compromise solution (although, in fairness to the others, you did sort of propose option 3 in your opening comment, so it's not really a change of position to suggest it as a "compromise"). I would suggest that others do not see it as a real compromise because they do not accept the argument that you have given for any inclusion of someone's current name, and so see 3 as just as unmotivated a suggestion as 2. I must admit that I, too, do not think that "respecting the names of those individuals at present" is a good reason to change the policy, so if your argument were the only one for making a change in policy, I too would side with the majority. But I have argued that 3 is the best option because it makes the infobox more informative. It makes it clear how someone was credited and it makes it clear who that person is now. Three respondents to my argument have said they still don't think there is any need to add current names. So unless you have a new argument to present I don't think there is much more to say. Arguing over what is or is not an ultimatum or a compromise won't help, so it is probably best just to drop that part of the discussion. 99.192.90.12 (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I prefer 2, 3, or 4. Either of these acknowledge an actual individual rather than an abstract credit that may or may not have any relevance to anything. 1 is a bad policy. It should be changed.

Wikipedia is not about "it's like this, and we've decided on this, and we're not budging"; I have already quoted enough Wikipedia guidelines to support that. The policy (1) as it stands is bad policy. What I find is poor behaviour on the part of Wikipedians here is making comments that suggest that there is no hope in getting this bad policy changed.

I understand consensus is against 2, even though I think it is wrong, but no one has seriously addressed options 3 or 4. Why is that? You acknowledge as well that 3 adds more information to the infobox, which is in line with the stated goals of Wikipedia as encyclopedia, so I'm not the only one who is supporting change. If there is no objection to any of these options, then let's discuss which of these options we should adopt. 60.242.88.97 (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment. In general, an infobox (and indeed the credits section in the article) should reflect the credits of the film. We can link to the individual's article, no matter what their current name is. There may be cases where explanation in prose in the article is required for certain individuals, but these should be taken on a case by case basis. The points Ring, Betty and Dark make above are interesting exceptions and should be considered. However, the IPs are not putting forward convincing arguments for change, and I see no reason for change based on their suggestions. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Rob, I accept that you are not convinced by either the arguments I have made or the one 60.242 has made, and that's fine. But I should point out that you have not given any reason for why you support the present policy. You merely stated what it is and then said you are not convinced by the arguments for a change. When I (and I believe most people) look at an infobox, I'm looking for the answer to the question "Who directed this film?" or "Who acted in this film?" If I walked up to someone who was familiar with of Fast Times at Ridgemont High and asked them "Who acted in the film?" I would expect them to say "Nicolas Cage", not "Nicolas Coppola". They might say "Nicolas Cage, but he was credited as Nicolas Coppola at the time". Saying "Nicolas Coppola" is the least informative answer and saying "Nicolas Cage, but he was credited as Nicolas Coppola at the time" is the most informative answer. If we were talking sports and I asked "Who was the star for those great late-60s UCLA basketball teams?" the best answer is "Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, but he was known as Lew Alcindor at the time." That is also the most informative answer to the question. If the infobox is about being informative on the questions people have when they read it, it would seem that option 3 is the best one.

I think I have done a good job trying to reply to the arguments I have seen made for the current policy. Betty Logan mentioned how Silas Marner is credited and Ring Cinema made a similar comment about Huck Finn. My proposal that credits should go according to the WP:COMMONNAME with a parenthetical if the credited name is different means that in cases like this the credit would go as Betty and Ring suggest they should, so that's not a problem. The worry expressed that using current names is "revisionist history" is a valid argument against option 2, but not against option 3, the one I have been supporting. So while I see that I have addressed the concerns others have, I don't see where they have either argued that option 3 is not actually more informative (which would be a hard case to make) or that the extra information it provides is not relevant.

If you prefer option 1, the infobox as a record of how people were credited rather than the most informative record of who were the people who did the various jobs on the film, that's fine. I just don't yet know why you think that. Can you explain it to me? 99.192.74.43 (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.90.12)

I do give a reasoning - that we should (for the most part anyway) reflect the credits of the film in infoboxes. The links can deal with the rest. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, saying the infobox should report the credits of the film tells me what you believe. It does not tell me why you believe it, so you have not given a reason for supporting that position. In my case, what I support is option 3. Why I support it is because it provides the most useful information that readers want. In 60.242's case, what he/she supports is any option other than 1. Why he/she supports those is because he/she believes it is disrespectful to the people named to not mention their current name. In your case, what you support is option 1 (infoboxes should reflect the credits of the film). Why you support it is still unstated. 99.192.74.43 (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.90.12)

I think Betty and Ring have made a good job of explaining why we do what we do, and I don't feel I have much more to add to their points. However, an infobox is a quick summary of the credits and other vital information, and should not be overly detailed. If we start including excessive biographical information, we end up with infobox bloat. Now I appreciate that there could be extenuating circumstances (pseudonyms, uncredited roles, etc., as Ring and Betty point out above) where this information is VITAL, but these should remain exceptions to the rule, rather the be incorporated in the rule itself. In these cases, it could be decided at the individual article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. The issue of bloat did occur to me as well, but given that parentheticals like "uncredited" are already used I thought it to be a minor issue, but I can see why it would be a concern. Thanks for the reply. 99.192.74.43 (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.90.12)

I suggest that 99.192's "option 3" be adopted, that is, 'Use the name they are using professionally now, but add parenthetically the name they were using professionally at the time the film was made (if it is different).'. If there is any strong opposition to this proposal, please state it.

I believe the amount of cases where there is name variance that would suggest using a parenthetical would be small, so the issue of bloat should also be small and should be discussed on the relevant talk pages on a case-by-case basis. 60.242.88.97 (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If it should be decided on a case-by-case basis as an exception to the rule, then we shouldn't be changing the rule. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Funny how these anon IP editors crawl out from the woodwork with little or no edits on other pages to support their buddies. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Lugnuts, first you have made two one-liner comments in this discussion, neither of them constructive. Please reread Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Your comments are in violation of both policies. Secondly, my comments have been polite and constructive and addressed the issue with reasoned arguments. If you have any responses to them other than ad hominems I'd be glad to hear them. 99.192.74.43 (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.90.12)

All IP editors are scum. I stand by that until my dying days. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. Well whatever you think of me, it still would be a good idea not to violate Wikipedia's policies on civility and good faith. You might consider yourself superior, but the rules still apply to you, too. If scum like me can follow the rules, surely you can as well. 99.192.74.43 (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it can be difficult for experienced editors to take IP users seriously sometimes - especially on talk pages - no edit history, no talk page, etc. I mistook you for the OP on first reading, but you seem reasonable - have you considered creating a user account? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Ahem, Lugnuts: stick to the substance. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Rob, experienced editors who assume good faith should have no problem taking IP users seriously, especially when the comments are civil as mine were. In fact, I have been editing Wikipedia pages for many years now (so I think I can count myself as experienced) and I have no problem judging editors on their individual merits. Whether or not an editor has an account shouldn't matter to anyone. A comment or edit is constructive or it is not, no matter who made it or whether or not they have an account. Responding to content rather than assumed motives is the way all editors, including Lugnuts, should approach discussions. 99.192.74.43 (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

But you've got to admit it's funny that you just turn up as your friend/sock account gets his ass handed to him? You just happened to be passing by? Of course! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Lugnuts, you have made it pretty clear that you have no interest in making a constructive contribution to this discussion, no interest in observing Wikipedia policies like Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and only want to just continue making insults and false accusations, so there really is nothing more to say to you. I will note that it is ironic that your first comment in this discussion was a drive-by comment to accuse another editor of being a troll. If anyone has been a troll in this discussion, it is you. It is, after all, your nonsense that has diverted the discussion from the policy issue in question to a discussion of your name-calling nonsense. 99.192.74.43 (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Acutally I have this page on my watchlist, and pass by when anon IP scum attack it, much like yourself. So, are you a sock of the original user? Yes or no? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think IP 99.192 is a sock; he's posted a few times on the Film Project page on topics unrelated to the one at hand and has always seemed like a good faith editor rather than "scum". In respect to the guideline it is largely designed for general purpose use, not highly irregular situations i.e. we don't want credits being altered every time someone gets married/divorced, we don't want spelling mistakes incorporated etc. The guideline is not overly prescriptive, but part of its function is to stop credits being revised purely because someone has changed their name, although there may be other arguments for adding clarification: many of the Stephen King books he wrote as Richard Bachman have been republished under his own name so Stephen King (as Richard Bachman) would be a good compromise in those cases; Nicolas cage is overwhelmingly known by that name, but since our guideline insists on including the professional credit then Nicolas Cage (as Nicolas Coppola) would be a good compromise. If Tom Cruise reverts to his birth name, then that wouldn't be a good enough reason on its own to revise the Top Gun infobox. In the case of The Matrix, a Google search shows that the authorship is still more commonly attributed to "The Wachowski Brothers" than "Lana Wachowki", with Google Books throwing up ten times as many hits for The Wachowski Brothers as it does for Lana Wachowski. The Matrix is widely identified as being made by "The Wachowski Brothers" so I don't think there is a recognizability argument for adding "Lana Wachowksi" to the infobox; if they had updated their copyright registration that would be a compelling argument but as yet they haven't done. Betty Logan (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It would not be a compelling argument, the infobox reflects the original release, hence why it contains the original publisher, the original runtime and, in something like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs the original poster, not a recent DVD cover. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The infobox essentially serves two purposes: document the bibliograpic details of the work (i.e. director, writer etc) and the publication (publisher, publication date etc). It's easier to think of it in terms of books, where these practises are more established. Mary Evans published all her work as George Eliot, so that is what should go in the infobox as per the British library. On the other hand, something like The Running Man has been published under both Stephen King and Richard Bachman, so ideally both names should be included as per the British library, since that is what is required to fully present its bibliographic history; I would argue the same for The Matrix if there were evidence of the bibliographic details of the work being updated. However, the book can only be published for the first time once, so the publication details i.e. original distributor/ release date, should remain unaffected no matter how many releases across different media it receives. Betty Logan (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Betty, your last two comments sound quite reasonable. In general, I prefer fairly rigid policies where possible to ones with case by case exceptions, since whether or not a given case might be an exception tend to generate arguments. So allowing "Nicolas Cage (as Nicolas Coppola)" as an exception to a rule rather than as being dictated by a rule gives fuel to all those who think others should be similarly counted as an exception. But I'll take what I can get.

By the way, on the question of works being updated, a long time ago in movie theaters far far away, about 100,000,000 people went to see a film called Star Wars. Many of them have never seen a film called Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. Yet we have an article with an infobox claiming that such a film was released on May 25, 1977. If, as Darkwarriorblake says, "the infobox reflects the original release" then this would be an error. Now I don't think the infobox and title of the article should be changed, but that's because I think using the current common name is the best idea in general. So if in six years time there is a 20th anniversary re-release of The Matrix to theaters in 3D and a new corresponding home media release (both quite plausible events) and if the director credit is given then as just "The Wachowskis", that would be a good reason to re-open the question of the infobox credit. But that's a debate for another day. 99.192.54.253 (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.74.43)

I do have several issues with the revisionism of the Star Wars title: it was originally known as Star Wars and that is what it is overwhelmingly known as to most people. These "episode" titles only really came into force when the prequels came along, so I think there is a bit of fan service going on. The problem though is that the Star Wars articles come under more than one Wikiproject, and our guidelines don't trump the views of another project. We would never get a decisive consensus to rename the Star Wars articles, so it basically stays as it is. Betty Logan (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The multi-project issue is something I had not thought of. And in fairness to the history of the title, the SWE4:ANH page does report that, "When the original film was re-released on April 10, 1981, Episode IV: A New Hope was added above the original opening crawl." So the renaming does predate the prequels, but it still postdates the original release, the first 100,000,000 viewers, and the film being nominated for 10 Academy Awards, wining 6. SWE4:ANH was nominated for none. So even a 1981 date for a name change is a bit johnny-come-lately :-) 99.192.54.253 (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.74.43)

THe article should be called Star Wars. The problem is, as I'm sure you;ve found, Wikipedia came AFTER it became Star Wars Episode IV, so people started the article, edited the article knowing it only as that film, and fighting against the Star Wars nerds is a battle that you cannot ever win unless you get an admin to move-lock it to prevent people putting it back to Star Wars EPisode IV. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I have eliminated the Nicolas Cage problem by removing him from the infobox; conveniently his inclusion violated one of our other guidelines, since he is not included in the billing block on the poster. I definitely think his "Nicolas Coppola" credit should have been added though had this not been the case. Betty Logan (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting to me (and a little surprising) that you both prefer the article be called Star Wars. I got curious and decided to check to see what they do with TV articles where a show changes names. I could only think of three shows that became well known under one name and then switched to a different one. Those are Two Guys and a Girl, 8 Simple Rules, and The Hogan Family. In all three cases the article is named by the most recent name with an "Also known as" credit in the infobox and an "originally titled" parenthetical in the opening sentence of the article. So it looks like they go with most recent name, although (in line with Darkwarriorblake's comment about Star Wars) the name change did precede the Wikipedia article in two of the three cases. So it's not exactly a strong pattern. 99.192.54.253 (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.74.43)

The thing is, virtually any user can move an article and amazingly they can do this without a discussion. Aqua Teen Hunger Force now changes its name every season, but it's still known as Aqua Teen Hunger Force. If Roseanne had become Roseanne, we're gonna screw with everything you enjoyed in it's last season, it should still be under the article Roseanne. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, article titles aren't governed by project guidelines either, unless we are disambiguating. They are decided by WP:COMMONAME, which can lead to some strange decisions: foreign language films can end up with an English title or under their original native title depending on the outcome. In the case of "Star Wars" the franchise has bagged the title which is probably the right call, so I don't really oppose the title of the page (since we have got to call it something), but the infobox shouldn't have been subject to the revisionism. It was released as "Star Wars", and we have a poster in the infobox with the original title, but yet we have the revisionist title in there, which doesn't sit well with me. Betty Logan (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we're veering wildly off-topic. The TV shows, films, etc., that are being cited actually changed their names - WP:COMMONNAME for show titles has nothing to do with how we list credits in infoboxes. Bottom line: we shouldn't be changing the rules for the credits, but, as with everything on Wikipedia, we allow for exceptions if absolutely necessary and agreed by consensus on a case by case basis. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Rob, I agree that we have veered a fair bit from the main topic, but just for the record, the TV shows I mentioned are all ones where not only the article name goes with the most recent name of the show, but the infobox names the most recent name, not the original name, as the title of the show (with the original name given as an "also known as" title). So if these examples are representative of TV show page policy (and I don't know that it is) and if movie page policy were the same (and I am not saying they need to be the same) then putting Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope in the infobox would be the right call. But yes, this is getting a bit off topic and the main issue does seem to be settled. 99.192.49.44 (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.54.253)

Distributor

For foreign films, which distributors do we list? Just the original? Or ones for English language countries too? If so, what do we limit to for English-language countries? (US, UK, Australian, etc.). Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

A level of discretion is permitted, but we always include the home distributor as a bare minimum. As a rule of thumb I always try to match distributors to the release dates that are mentioned directly above. If the release in a particular region is notable, then the distribution in that territory is probably notable too. Betty Logan (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)