Template talk:Infobox film

Ratings

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

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

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

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

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

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

film name

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

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

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

Filming

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

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

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

Starring (revisited again)

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

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

Production Design

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)