Template talk:Infobox film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Infobox Film)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Manual of Style    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This template was within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
WikiProject Film (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Infoboxes
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.


I would love if there were a section added for the ratings the film has received. It shouldn't need to be limited to just the MPAA ratings but there should be an optional field for any of the major ratings like the British Board of Film Classification or the Australian Classification Board. Mostly I suggest this because I love coming to Wikipedia to find out everything I want know about a topic and it confuses me why a film's rating isn't included at all, anywhere on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trooperomulo (talkcontribs)

Trooperomulo, hello! The community consensus is that such sections are too indiscriminate and do not provide much context as to why. We have a guideline at WP:FILMRATING explaining this. In a nutshell, we should avoid listing ratings indiscriminately, but if there is coverage about certain ratings, then we can summarize and include such coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@Erik: Ugh, I find this ridiculous. It's not indiscriminate at all, it's a fact about a movie, no less indiscriminate than running time, country, or release date. I was able to find the guideline, but there's not much content or context around its explanation. I'd like to read the discussion the community had to come to this consensus to understand it a little better, but I can't find that anywhere. There's not a single point in the guideline that couldn't also apply to running time, and most also to country, and release date. Yes there are special cases where a movie's rating might change from theater release to home video release, but those are very rare and can be called out and discussed. It's no reason to not have the ratings for the vast majority of movies that get one and have it never change. It's no different than running time in that point. Why call out running time that can change between countries and format releases when it too could be mentioned in the body of an article if there's significant coverage about a film's length? You also don't need context for the rating, the reader can click through to information about the MPAA's rating system and their reasons and flaws. If there's any controversy about a film's rating, it'll surely be called out in the body of the article too in order to provide the needed context. But most films are assigned a rating where there is no coverage or controversy, just like running time. It would also be really helpful if there were categories based on film ratings: "Films rated PG-13 by the MPAA", etc. But I can't find any discussion about why those don't exist either. Onlynone (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
There are over fifty rating systems around the world and it would be impractical to mention them all. The problem with film ratings is that unlike nationality, the worldwide release date and the running time, the film ratings don't really carry any significance outside of the country they are issued. Nobody outside the US will be particularly interested in the MPAA rating, nobody outside of the UK the BBFC rating, Japan the Eiran rating and so on. It is basically a local interest issue. Let's not forget that over half of all the English-language Wikipedia readers live outside the United States, and IIRC about 40% of them don't even live in an English-speaking country so you have to write for a global readership. It is also ephemeral too because ratings are revised over time: Gone with the Wind was released under the Motion Picture Production Code and then was rated G by the MPAA in later years. I think most people accessing the page for film ratings will generally seek the rating for the country they live in and we cannot provide this without adopting an WP:INDISCRIMINATE approach. This is information that is generally available through IMDB or their national ratings body and they would be better of visiting those sites to find the information they want and Wikipedia should focus on providing information that is relevant to a global readership. Betty Logan (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Beyond the concerns raised above, which I agree with (and with WP:FILMRATING in general), I also fear that this would not only bloat the infobox to an unreasonable degree, but also introduce systemic bias, in that I fear American editors would be more likely to include MPAA ratings even on non-American films, where it could be argued that the rating system of the country in which the film was produced should carry greater weight. I might support an argument that the rating of the film in the country which produced it carries some higher degree of significance, but likely not enough to argue for its inclusion in the infobox. Besides, IMDb already offers better coverage of this information for those seeking it. DonIago (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
The policy can simply be use the predominant ratings system in place for the country where the country was produced. Only include multiple ratings if the movie has strong connections to more than one country. Onlynone (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
No one's asking to mention all 50 ratings systems on all films. That's just a strawman argument. Most people are just talking about having the MPAA rating on films that had a large US release, or even just US based productions. British productions can have the BBFC rating attached. The ephemeral argument also fails because the exact same thing can be said for running time with theatrical release, first consumer media release, director's cut, subsequent media format releases (VHS vs DVD vs Blu-Ray). We don't let edge cases get in the way of the vast majority of films whose running time doesn't change, why let it get in the way just for ratings? Onlynone (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
In the same way we do not list all film ratings, we do not list the release dates for all countries in which it was released. We also do not list all cast and crew members for most films. The issue with ratings is that traditionally, readers want to have them like movie times in newspapers, to look up for the purpose of seeing the film. Film articles on Wikipedia are not for that purpose, at least not directly. (E.g., the fact that we include coverage of a film's critical reception does not mean we are trying to promote or demote it or tell readers whether or not to go see it; we include it as a matter of historical record.) Are you looking to list multiple ratings? Or list the MPAA ratings for all films, or just those that are U.S. productions? (The latter is where I could see a case made.) Would you want to see an MPAA rating at Their Finest or not? Or would you want to see an MPAA rating for Warcraft even though most of its box office revenue was outside the United States? I guess my point is that the value of this detail is generally limited and localized to the point of only including it if a secondary source deems it relevant. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
"In the same way we do not list all film ratings, we do not list the release dates for all countries in which it was released. We also do not list all cast and crew members for most films." That would seem to be an argument for including film ratings. We don't let long lists of release dates stop us from including a release date; we don't let long lists of cast and crew stop us from listing the starring actors. If long lists and edge cases aren't obstacles to including the most relevant information in those cases, I don't see why it should be an obstacle for ratings. Onlynone (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Really, my concern is that ratings don't really matter much from a historical standpoint (and sometimes change over time). Like, does it historically matter what The Graduate or American Graffiti were rated when they were released? Things like original release date will always historically matter, but a rating won't. If a rating does importantly factor into the production (ie, the film was edited to avoid an R rating), release (it was released only in certain theaters or at midnight showings due to a rating), or reception (specific complaints about the rating) then it becomes significant to note. Really, a rating also has a context and it needs to be explained WHY it was rated that way (ie, did it receive this rating for graphic violence or sexual content?) that is weighted per historical context and that explanation can't really be done in an Infobox. Noting it in the Infobox isn't something I think should be implemented. It needs explanatory context and this information is something that will lose significance over time, which is why it's garnering the indiscriminate opposition. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Even if infobox bloat, US-centric bias and context explaining the rating were not concerns (which they are), it would still be a bad idea to promote film rating information into a norm for Wikipedia articles. Countless hours of creative output have gone unreleased due to the fact that the market selects against adult rated films. While Wikipedia should be as neutral as possible, one political statement that it must inevitably make by its very existence, is that this should not happen. For as long as there are self-censorship problems that come from ratings, we have an obligation not to propagate the idea that ratings are a fundamental property by which films should be defined. Connor Behan (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
We should include film ratings but only those of Switzerland, the most neutral of film ratings. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Format, color, sound[edit]

Shouldn't there be standard parameters for format (4x3, Panavision, Cinerama, 3D, etc.) color (B&W/color/Technicolor), and sound (silent/sound)? --Macrakis (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I see the appeal, but barring additional input I think I'd be inclined to oppose this on the grounds that it's information that's not typically significant enough for coverage by reliable sources (and if it is, it probably merits some discussion in the prose of an article), and concerns that the infobox is bulky enough as it is. DonIago (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Needs a way to include the actual film in the infobox[edit]

For cases such as King Lear (1916), or other films that are public domain or released under a free license, there needs to be a way to include the actual film in the infobox. You can put it in |image=, but that doesn't display optimally and doesn't let you set a poster frame. --Xover (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

IMO it does not need to be in the infobox. The link can be included (and is in numerous articles) in the "External links" section. MarnetteD|Talk 16:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with MarnettD. The "External links" section is appropriate for this per WP:ELYES #2. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I have seen some embedded in the plot section, and that is ok too. Regardless, I agree it is not necessary to include a full length film in the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hmm. Judging by the comments there appears to be some misapprehension here. The film in question is a silent short from 1916, so it is in the public domain and actually available on Commons. It is thus not appropriate to include in External links per WP:ELNO #1. WP:ELYES #2 applies to things like Youtube or Flickr, not embeddable media from Commons. It would also be awkward to extract a still frame from a video we actually have available to put in the infobox, and then show the actual video later on, especially when we're talking about an article about the specific film (vs., say, an illustrative video in a quantum mechanics article). An article about a painting would clearly show the painting in the infobox, if at all possible, and it would appear equally obvious that an article about a film would include that film there if it is available. Going by policy, it would actually make more sense to say that non-free media like movie posters can't be embedded in the infobox and must instead be just linked in External links. Not that I would make that argument (I kinda like the fair use provisions), but just to plop up a strawman by way of analogy. --Xover (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think WP:ELNO #1 applies. If anything, we would use the {{Commons}} template under "External links" per WP:ELT. I do not find the painting analogy to be accurate either. It is more like a book where we are obviously not going to include all the text, compressed or scrolling, in the infobox. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The painting analogy does not apply unless we are talking about one frame of a motion picture. Please see The Ace of Hearts (1921 film)#External links as an example of the 1000s of Wikiarticles with ELs to films that are in the public domain. Something like this should work for this situation. MarnetteD|Talk 20:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Or, the complete movie from Commons which is immediately below the infobox. --tronvillain (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your post tronvillain I hadn't noticed that there were two different links to the film in that article. As you point out a link could go there as well. Infobox bloat is always worth avoiding. MarnetteD|Talk 20:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

WP:ELNO#1 is the only part of WP:EL that bears on this discussion; we're discussing media and infoboxes, not extlinks. WP:ELNO #1 is pretty clear that content that could be in the article should not be linked in External links. {{Sisterlinks}} and friends are more akin to navboxes than an extlink: they are put in the last section, which is often but not always External links. The painting analogy is apt: you'd put the painting in the infobox and, if relevant, a detailed crop/zoom in the body of the article somewhere (check out the brush strokes on the Mona Lisa!); but the arguments here are that for a film we should put a detail crop (still frame) in the infobox and the full painting (the video) somewhere in the body. An embedded video here is functionally identical to a still frame, except that you can actually also click it to play the video. That is, it has no downside, it only adds information, functionality, and convenience. The same would have been true of a book from, say Wikibooks, if a similar technical implementation had been available (poster frame is the book's cover, clicking it brings up a reader interface for the full book). Absent such functionality in Mediawiki, the book analogy would be akin to suggesting showing every still frame from the video (all 16? per second for the full 30min.-ish video), one after another, in the infobox. In other words: nobody would actually suggest that. --Xover (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@MarnetteD: {{Sisterlinks}} are not extlinks, and a {{commons cat}} link is not actually a link to the video, but to a grab-bag of whatever is there. That is, it is an "inter-project link" akin to an inter language link. And WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a particularly convincing argument in any case. @Tronvillain: Yes, exactly. Do look at it, dangling there. It doesn't strike you as kinda awkward to put it after the infobox instead of where the movie poster goes in the majority of modern-film articles? --Xover (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
That is an odd interpretation of ELNO. It couldn't be shown Frame-by-Frame in the body of the article anymore than it could be in the infobox? That would never work nor would it be useful to a reader. Based on WP:IAR I would oppose adding this kind of link the infobox. MarnetteD|Talk 21:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@MarnetteD: I don't understand your second sentence. Could you rephrase it? Also, all this focus on extlinks and "infobox bloat" makes me wonder if there is a fundamental misunderstanding going on here. I do not propose to add any links anywhere in the infobox or in the article (none, zero, zilch). What I am suggesting is that the |image= parameter of the infobox film template be extended with the necessary functionality that one can, where appropriate, embed a video instead of an image in the infobox. This would display to the reader as a static image—literally exactly like an extracted still frame would!—except that it would also be possible to click the image to bring up the built-in Mediawiki video player. --Xover (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@Xover:It's no more "dangling there" than any other image or video in an article. --tronvillain (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
ELNO1 states "the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article." So my sentence was pointing out that it is not possible for the film to be in the article. OTOH thanks for making clear (an I apologize for missing it before) what you would alter that field in the infobox. Two problems - first, putting one frame of the pic with the arrow that allows it to play is still "dangling" it is just inside of the box instead of outside. Second, I have always preferred a poster or a lobby card from the film in the infobox. I would not like to see those replaced with a link to the film. If consensus is to alter the "image" field I would like the items I mentioned to take precedence. It would be best if this was spelled out in the documentation to avoid edit wars. But that is just one editors comments. I don't know how soon others will add their input but I would mention that it is a holiday weekend here in the US so responses may not be posted as soon as at other times. MarnetteD|Talk 22:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thank you; now I understand your concerns. I agree that the precedence of the various things (posters, lobby cards, the video itself, a short clip from it, etc.; and if the video, what frame should be used as the poster frame) that could technically be used in the infobox should be subject to local consensus at the article in question, WikiProject guidelines (like MOS:FILM), and the project-wide MoS. For the vast majority of film articles the video will simply not be available (this affects a very small number of very old, typically silent, films; mostly from the US; and possibly some tiny number of freely licensed modern movies that are notable enough for its own article). Putting the video in the infobox will not be appropriate for all articles, and there is definitely room for editors' personal preferences to differ. As an example, for a different article about an old silent Shakespeare film where the promotional poster was available, I probably would have preferred to use that in the infobox (it was visually more interesting and advertised a famous actor) even if the technical capability to put the video in the infobox had been available. It would depend on the article and film in question. --Xover (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


Chinese movie ticket sales are expected to increase 22% to $10.4 billion in 2017, according to average projections at IHS Markit Ltd. and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, whereas U.S. sales would see going slightly above the $10.2 billion.[1][2] Is it ok to add a separate runtime in plainlist forms for movies shown in the Mainland China market to indicate communist censorship? I have done so for Logan (film), Love Off the Cuff, Resident Evil: The Final Chapter, Alien: Covenant, The Mummy (2017 film) and The Lost City of Z (film). This should help the world realize what is going on under the rosy picture. I hope we could have rigorous debates here. Thanks.Supermann (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Films are released in many countries around the world so there will be lots of different versions. I think it is WP:INDISCRIMINATE to add lots of different runtimes and Wikipedia would be best served if just the runtime of the "most complete" theatrical version is listed. Betty Logan (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
True, but I have given my arguments in terms of box office receipts. These days, American films are truly buoyed by the Chinese market. I am not suggesting listing out lots of other countries. You see where I am going? Thanks.Supermann (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
We shouldn't be listing different cuts in the infobox. This crops up sometimes on horror films, especially when they are chopped to pieces in various countries. If the censorship is notable, it can be covered in the article's prose. There's no reason to add a Chinese runtime on an American film's infobox. If it's a Chinese co-production, maybe. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I was not referring to director's cut, extended cut, etc. I am referring to theatrical cut in an important country in terms of population, economy, human rights, press freedom, climate change efforts, etc. On a different note, "the running time is given to the second, so round it to the minute." Do we round up or round down? Hacksaw Ridge was censored for more than 30 seconds in the Chinese version. Saying it's 139 minutes in length overlooks this important fact in a plain and simple way.Supermann (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Which is another good reason for not putting that in the infobox. As others have said, such censorship and/or different versions in other countries can be explained in the articles' release section. Most readers won't get the point if it's in the infobox anyway. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
That appears to be a very low confidence in our Wikipedia readers' intelligence quotient. Infobox is such a great summary if readers don't want to drill down further.Supermann (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Betty, Ninja and Gothic, that if there is any notability to the info, the "Release" section is the place for it, not the infobox (unless it is a Chinese [co]production). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I came to this discussion having seen the addition of Chinese runtimes in a couple of movie articles. I agree with Betty et al for all the reasons given; if there is censorship in a particular country of a particular film, and if that censorship has been discussed in reliable sources, it's certainly something that belongs in the Release section, but not in the infobox. Many countries have movie censorship of various kinds, and there are other reasons as well why different country releases may be a little longer or shorter than the original release. We can't add them all, and selecting one country on basis of importance is going to be rather subjective. Finally, American imperialism has nothing to do with it, not when it is a movie made in the US. --bonadea contributions talk 08:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I have looked at the sources given for the Chinese runtime, and they don't appear to mention censorship... --bonadea contributions talk 10:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
When I meant American imperialism, I meant some fellow U.S. citizen should not have done edits on a mobile device without first coming here and seeing if there is any new discussion going on. Granted, the Douban.com source is not the best English-wise, but it is a one-stop shop for Chinese readers to see runtime comparison. Not every censored movie in China gets written about in English in a major Western news publication and that is the sad part due to censorship and the overall media environment. Not to mention, the Chinese Wikipedia is still blocked. English wikipedia had been blocked in China before. If the English Wikipedia don't speak up, who else will? If admin agrees censorship for these movies should be written about in the Release section, then there should be a more clear rule here. For example, in Logan (film)#Outside North America, the censorship was written in the Reception section. I yield my original position.Supermann (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I agree with the other editors on this. There is no need to add various countries run times to the infobox. This is in line with other infobox items where only listing info from the original theatrical release info from the country of origin is the norm. It also aligns with not mentioning various countries ratings for a film. Since mention has been made of listing any info of note in the body of the article there is no "censorship" and your overwrought post smacks of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS which never works as a reason for anything on WikiP. Remember WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. MarnetteD|Talk 17:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The infobox is used to sum up the key info of the film. If the runtime is x minutes shorter in y country, then that would be better suited to be added a prose somewhere in the body of the article. If, indeed, it is important at all. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Hope this new page Film censorship in China enlightens all of you. Supermann (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
While that is a legitimate article to be creating, I, as Marnette already pointed out, am generally concerned with your usage of Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Of course that is a legitimate article to be creating, since I left all the opinions here on this talk page, instead of there. That page only describes facts. Supermann (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Speaking of which, as I came up with that new page, I found out that the runtime info from British Board of Film Classification is off in numerous occasions. I think we need to question it as an RS going forward. That's why I have been relying on AMCTheatres.com more often. For example, both Rush (2013 film)[3] and Hacksaw Ridge[4] were off by 3 minutes, to name but a few. Also, there is a situation on Django Unchained in which BBFC has two versions: [1] vs. [2]. Furthermore, as I had asked for clarification before, do we round up or round down the minutes? thx. Supermann (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
The BBFC times are accurate for the footage that is submitted to them. They even measure the physical length of the film so an exact time can be calculated. The difference for Rush for example is only a minute. It is not unusual for BBFC to list films a minute shorter because they omit distributor logos from the time which can add a few seconds on to the film. Even if a logo plays for only 10 seconds that can result in a 1 minute difference if the running times are rounded to the nearest minute. In the case of Django one entry is for cinema and the other video. Videos have shorter running times due to PAL speedup. Betty Logan (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ "China Box Office Seen Surpassing U.S. Next Year Despite Slump". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 9 June 2017. 
  2. ^ Tartaglione, Nancy. "China Box Office Still On Track To Overtake U.S. In 2017 Despite Recent Slump: Report". Deadline.com. Retrieved 9 June 2017. 
  3. ^ "Rush". British Board of Film Classification. Retrieved 12 June 2017. 
  4. ^ "Hacksaw Ridge". British Board of Film Classification. Retrieved 12 June 2017. 


Why should only a primary language be listed in the infobox? Some time ago, I recall the article for The Revenant including languages also used extensively in the film, such as Pawnee. So long as a secondary language is used significantly, why not include it? The article for Joyeux Noël lists the film's language as French, English, and German, as all three are given notable screen time. I recently edited Kill Bill: Volume 1 and Kill Bill: Volume 2 to reflect the non-English languages spoken in those films, and my edit on the latter entry was reverted. The former entry, at my time of writing this, remains unreverted. The first film makes significant use of Japanese, and the second film contains a lot of Mandarin. Where is the line in the sand drawn? –Matthew - (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the typical reader is particularly interested in which languages appear in a film, but rather which language is needed to follow the film. For example, you don't need to know any language besides English to be able to follow Kill Bill, which makes it an English-language film. Betty Logan (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
If Pawnee is included on The Revenant infobox I can only imagine it's because someone likes Pawnee and was super thrilled to add it there even if it wasn't necessary and noone since has cared enough to remove it. It makes up 'maybe' 15% of the film, so it is not a primary language of the film. It's like saying Die Hard should have German. Then you look at something like Taken (film) and it has 4 languages because those other languages are spoken briefly in the film? Ridiculous. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
In addition to what Betty Logan and Darkwarriorblake said above, it is reliable sources that establish what language or languages are used in the film, and it is this "primary" logic that they pursue and that we follow. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Use for film series?[edit]

Someone has added this template to the Our Gang article, and used it to include composite information for all 220 Our Gang short films and the feature General Spanky. Is this a proper use of this template? Is there another better suited to it, or is this an opportunity for a new Infobox template dedicated to short film series? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Definitely the latter, though I would say it could apply to feature films as well. Many film series articles use the film infobox in a very ugly manner where there should be a separate film series infobox (and guidelines for using it). I suggest posting a notice at WT:FILM to further this discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I think it works quite well for the Our Gang page. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
That's because whoever put it together arbitrarily omitted information: the MGM era producers and distributors, the cast, there's no parameter for the number of series entries, and isn't it more important that we know how long the episodes are versus the entire runtime of the series end-to-end? It's even more of a disaster on the Looney Tunes page. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I think one example of poor use is Harry Potter (film series). The values feel absolutely shoehorned into the parameters. Oftentimes each film can have a different set of crew members, so an ideal film series infobox should be designed to focus on consistent information, like the underlying source material and the studio that produced it. (If there is more than one, then perhaps year ranges can be done.) But that example has ridiculous entries like a combined runtime and budget, though I think there is probably precedent for reporting the total box office. In essence, a film series infobox should have fewer parameters. Not sure about identifying individual films, though.... maybe year-based parameters at the bottom of such an infobox, with the film title next to it? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Personally I think tables are the way to go on film series articles such as the one at James_Bond_in_film#Core_crew. Infoboxes are not particularly well suited to multiple instances of media. The information should be tabulated so readers can easily read off which item of information relates to which film. Betty Logan (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
This is also what I was thinking, that tables would do a much better job. But I didn't say it because I though we were only talking about the infobox here. One thing to add is that without a table all these names in the infobox remain unconnected. No one can know who worked on which films, just a whole lot of names, but in a table you would get a sense of purpose for their inclusion. Hoverfish Talk 23:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree that tables are better suited for cast and crew. But does this necessarily mean no infobox at all? A film series infobox could have the following fields: Based on, Studio, a field reflecting the range of years (not sure what it should be called), Country, Language, and Box office. I would not be unopposed to listing specific films after that in a kind of timeline, like for Harry Potter, a parameter for 2001 followed by the value of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film). Although it could be argued that should be saved to be in the topmost section of a film series article. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I have no objections to a scaled down infobox but even these basic fields can become complicated in certain cases. For example, how many production companies has the Terminator series passed through? We could just use the {{Infobox media franchise}}—in action at Terminator (franchise)—and just fill out the film section for film series articles. Or, alternatively, create a film series wrapper template that just offers parameters relevant to film series articles which then passes them on to the franchise template. Betty Logan (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm wondering what we could do for older short film series (see Our Gang and Looney Tunes discussion above), series that have hundreds of shorts in their collections that sort of need to be handled, at least in some ways, like a cross between the film and TV show templates. You'll want an inbox, as a table that encapsulates the hundreds of Our Gang and Three Stooges shorts, for example (see Our Gang filmography and The Three Stooges filmography) don't work for the quick, at-a-glance info an infobox can give. Moreover, given observations over the years, editors will continue to try adapting either the film or TV inboxes regardless of rules or guidelines. Therefore, I'd suggest making something new. Something that would include Title, Directors (restricted to five, with more designated in a table instead), Producers (restricted to five), Production Companies, Theatrical Distributors, Television Distributors (separated out), First and Last Release Dates, Format (used to designate length, Length also works), Country, Language, and Number of Entries. I'd omit screenwriters, cinematographers, editors, and any other field that's likely to change per entry more commonly than directors or producers will. My main hope os to stop abuse of this template, I don't think the media franchise inbox will satisfy the editors. —FuriousFreddy (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
You may be interested in Template:Infobox video game series --Izno (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Something similar to this might work.--FuriousFreddy (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)