Template talk:Infobox film

Infobox run times

I was combing through my watchlist when I saw an edit by Betty Logan on the page for The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. In her edit, she explained that "Just the theatrical runtime is included in the infobox". While I fully agree with this, I can't seem to find any information that confirms that this is a standard. I'm assuming it's de facto, but there are plenty of films and articles that include various cuts in their infoboxes. Alexander comes to mind as being a huge offender.

So I have two questions: 1) Is there anywhere that it's stated what runtimes we use? 2) If not, shouldn't we add one? I would suggest adding it to the parameter portion of this template, but that's just me. Thoughts, everyone? Sock (tock talk) 13:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems a loophole that needs to be closed. Exceptions can be drafted at WP:BLADERUNNER... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This was proposed already back in 2006 and apparently it has been used as a de-facto standard since then. Although there was a somewhat inconclusive talk about runtimes in 2011. There's also a discussion about the runtime for silent films which might be useful for the draft below. De728631 (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft (it feels necessary)

Changes are in bold.

"Insert an approximate time duration of the theatrical release of the film in minutes. Do not link to minute. The BBFC website is a reliable source - the running time is given to the second, so round it to the minute. Do not include any additional run times, such as a director's cut or an unrated version, without consensus." Sock (tock talk) 13:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with this clarification; I agree that it has been the de facto approach. Though perhaps a caveat for TV films? :) I like the idea of determining a consensus because I've seen some articles in the past that include a "director's cut" runtime, which is just basically new footage added in the home media. Blade Runner, as Lugnuts mentioned, is a good example of including the director's-cut runtime. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You both said that, but Blade Runner only includes the theatrical film's run time, at least right now. There's a hidden note that even says it isn't the Director's or Final cuts. Sock (tock talk) 14:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Meh, you're right; I didn't actually go to the article and just assumed. Maybe it's not the best example since it has had so many cuts. I don't know what would be a better example of an exception. Kingdom of Heaven? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think both films would work for it, since the recuts received additional praise rather than just existing without much impact. But that'd be the consensus discussion. Also, what additions would need to be made for TV films? Sock (tock talk) 14:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You said "theatrical release", so maybe something like "theatrical release (airing if TV film)"? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, good catch. Maybe "first public release" or something? Yours would work fine too, of course. Sock (tock talk) 15:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support (more or less) I almost suggested this myself yesterday when I was reverted on a Hobbit article. I was under the impression this was already in the MOS but when I checked the other editor was indeed correct, but in the end I decided it wasn't worth the hassle. I'm happy to support such a guideline though, since I think extended edition details, directors cuts, unrated versions, final versions etc can all be covered in the home video section in the prose. I think we should take care to not paint ourselves into a corner though; for instance, a festival print would technically be the first "public" release but could be recut at a later stage so I would just go with the "primary version" (and make it clear this refers to the main theatrical version if one exists). In practice this will generally mean a theatrical release or a television premiere but allows us to defer to home video for DTV. Betty Logan (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC) EDIT: I think we should add a clause for silent films too favoring the number of "reels", since it was not unusual for films to play at different speeds. I'm not a fan of using home video running times where you get a bunch of silent stars whizzing around like they are on a Class A substance. Betty Logan (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support and expand. I think that all items in the infobox should be about the original release. I know that "runtime" but other sections like "Distributor" wind up getting filled with any company that provides a VHA, DVD or bluray release in various countries. MarnetteD|Talk 22:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support I agree with Betty Logan. I would say that even Blade Runner should only list the original theatrical release in the infobox. And the term original theatrical release should be understood to exclude any previews or early cuts. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support Nice work, Sock. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This garnered nothing but support, then nothing happened. I just rescued it from the auto-archive. Can we get some action here? - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You may recall my earlier posting here, which I'll rescue from the archive - If we're changing the wording, can we say round it up to the nearest minute or words to that effect? I have continued to find examples where this is necessary beyond those mentioned below. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I just had an IP edit war over this exact issue at American Sniper (film). It would help if we could have the below addressed as well. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Running time - Proposal to round up to the next full minute

While otherwise being very reliable, I've noticed the British Board of Film Classification often does not include the opening company logo in its runtime database. This is very surprising, as it's a part of the film, technically speaking. Perhaps they do this as it can vary in different territories if a film has different distributors. Because of this I propose we amend the documentation to say every film's runtime should be rounded up. I believe this would be good policy even without the BBFC issue, since if you cut off a 123 min 05 second film at 123 minutes, you've lost the last five seconds. Not a big deal, but that five seconds is technically part of the film. I noticed this because I saw that the runtime for a film was a full minute longer than what the BBFC listed. The only cause I could guess at were the opening company logos. There were three or four of them in succession, and they took up nearly a minute. Then I checked other films and saw it again. This may be original research, but there's no reason not to make it a guideline to always round up the runtime to the next full minute. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Does this occur on every film? The BBFC will only measure what they classify, so if they have cut the film that may explain the shorter length. It would help if you could give us some examples so we can get to the bottom of it. Betty Logan (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I first noticed this a few weeks ago. If you really want I can look at the articles I've edited in the last month and try to track them down, but I can assure you they were all listed as being passed uncut by the BBFC. I routinely check the credits, runtimes and other issues as I see films and correct them as necessary on WP. It's easy to check runtimes since DVDs and DVRs give them to the second (just make sure you have the correct start/end point). Like I said, I was quite surprised when one was a minute off (until then, with rounding there was no problem. I believe it was Bullet to the Head, which was listed as This work was passed uncut, and is what sparked me to post this now. Someone reverted my rounding up the BBFC runtime.) Usually company logos don't take up quite that much screen time. If it's possible to track down the BBFC policy on including/not including logos I'd be all for it, but the issue is resolved in simplest fashion if we just agree to always round up the BBFC's listed minute/second to the next full minute. We should be doing that anyway for films listed at X minutes/30(+) seconds. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If this is one of those little details that changes between prints or countries, wouldn't we most commonly use the original theatrical print as the basis? (And rounding up seems like a good idea.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The Internship is the latest example I've found of a film with a longer runtime than indicated by the BBFC. This case is more minor, but it is still illustrative of the issue: BBFC lists 119:15, but that is about 15 seconds short. As said above, anything 30 seconds or more should be rounded up to the next full minute, so The Internship should be listed as 120 minutes. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I can see this proposal was made in good faith but attempting to "correct" sources seems out of step with Wikipedia policy, weird as it may sometimes be to go with exactly what the source says even if it is not the whole truth. BBFC provides a level of clarity and consistency for the runtime over what other sources like Rotten Tomatoes or Box Office Mojo provide (also helping to avoid some of the confusion over Theatrical cuts versus Home release cuts). Either way please decide and update the template documentation, to be clear and unambiguous and indicate whatever the consensus. I wasn't impressed by Gothicfilm accusing me of edit warring because I wasn't following his mathematically incorrect suggestion to round up. If there is a consensus to always round-up then it should be in the Template proper. -- 109.76.129.126 (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Two small passing notes, as I don't have a strong opinion on this either way: The link used in the article for The Internship's runtime is dead, and the current BBFC listing actually says 117 minutes. Changing the runtime feels a little bit like WP:OR to me, but I'm not really sure, so I'll just drop that nugget and leave. Sock (tock talk) 14:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The runtime on top is listed as "APPROX. RUNNING MINUTES 117". If you scroll down, under the dropdown for "Related Work" for the feature, it says 119m 15s (which, as I said above, is about 15 seconds short, but two minutes closer than the 117 on top). I've noticed they do this on some of their listings. Whenever the BBFC says "approx" on top, we should be sure to scroll down and check the specific stats below. As for OR, once you have the digital form of a film the runtime becomes an easily observable objective fact, as most players have to-the-second runtime displays. But all I'm asking for here is agreement on rounding up to the nearest minute. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem though is that we don't know what you are measuring and what the BBFC is not. If the film is consistently 30 seconds longer than the runtime there must be a reason for that. Prior to digital film-making, the BBFC would actually measure the length of the film, so their figure would be accurate for whatever was submitted to them. Maybe the distributor's logo is added on at a later point and they don't time that, while you do? I'll confess, I don't sit down and time films so I am happy to take your word that the times don't match up, but it's difficult to support anything unless we know exactly what the BBFC are timing and why they are doing it. Maybe you could email them and see what they say? Betty Logan (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps when I have more spare time... Gothicfilm (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that the BBFC gives a runtime for Birdman (film) of 119m 12s, but it is actually 119m 39s. Those extra 27 seconds are, as usual, taken up by the opening company logos. And, as with a number of other films, those company logos use music and/or sound effects (and even offscreen dialogue) along with those logos - at the same time - that then blend in to the sound of the film after the logos. That sound on Birdman is where its distinctive drum score begins, and while the logos are not unique to it, that particular drum score is. So one cannot take the position that the opening logos are not part of the film, but apparently that is what the BBFC is doing. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Language parameter and automatic categorization

I recently tried to diffuse the Hindi-language films category (which has over 5,000 pages) and was unable to do so because of Infobox Film's automatic categorization using the language parameter. I'm wondering why it does this when WP:TEMPLATECAT advises against this. It also seems to conflict with WP:SUBCAT, because several of the language categories have more fitting subcategories. I also noticed that Category:English-language films has over 48,000 pages, which I assume is because of the template. Is there a reason for the autocategorization? I'd like to request that this categorization feature be removed. Nocowardsoulismine (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

TEMPLATECAT states it is recommended not forbidden to do this. WP:FILMCAT states that all films should be in categories for Country, Language and Year. The question is why should Hindi-language films be sub-cat'd by decade? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

If the consensus here is to keep the template as is, then I certainly won't argue with that. I was pointing out what I thought was a conflict against the Wikipedia manual of style.Nocowardsoulismine (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Tagging gross values

Howdy, films that are recently released like The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water have gross values that are constantly being updated. Is there any benefit to indicating in the infobox that the number is developing and isn't an indication of a final total? For example |gross=$52.5 million (developing) or maybe a better adjective? This came up in this edit and I thought I'd raise the question here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Sequel support

Hi please add Sequel support since some films have a sequel to the original film. 151.229.250.233 (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Sequel support is provided by other means, such as a {{Navbox}} or a {{Succession box}}. Betty Logan (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not really fitting for film. I would also like to see sequel support similar as to {{Infobox album}} --1Veertje (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see why. It is not the purpose of the infobox to provide navigation utilities; that is what navboxes exist for. A navbox is far better suited to the task where you can provide links to all the films in the series, as opposed to just its immediate successor or predecessor. Betty Logan (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The decision to not have a sequel field was a wise one. There were incessant edit wars over what was and was not a sequel. The field also wound up being used for films that were not sequels at all. Mentions in the lede and in navboxes (which, as Betty points out, provide far more info than the sequel field can) are more than sufficient. MarnetteD|Talk 00:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW the album infobox does not list sequels in the way the word is used for films. It simply lists the last and next album released. MarnetteD|Talk 00:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Support non-inclusion. Maybe we should put some text at the top of this page linking to prior discussions about this matter, given how frequently it arises. DonIago (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, something like the FAQ on the recent deaths talkpage would be a good idea. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm I thought a FAQ about this had already been created but I must have it confused with another talk page. To be fair it isn't as often as it used to be. I think we are down to once a year :-) I would say you should go ahead and create one Doniago unless there are any objections. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 13:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope you'll remember that you said that. :p DonIago (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. I welcome improvements. :) DonIago (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

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)