Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

Comparative template usage statistics

I've been looking at the transclusion statistics for several of our templates, and here is what I've been able to discover:

  1. {{Imdb title}} is used in approximately 39000 articles.
  2. {{Infobox Film}} is used in approximately 35500 articles. The percentage of these which does not have an active imdb parameter is unknown. The percentage of film titles which do not even have an imdb page to link to is also unknown. It is not unreasonable to suggest that each of these percentages is small but substantial, especially considering the IMDb's known deficiencies in certain areas such as foreign films, experimental films, low budget films, and older films.
  3. {{Film}} is used in approximately 46500 articles, not all of which require either of these templates. Based on task force tagging statistics, we have 2000 awards articles, 500 festivals articles, 1500 filmmaking articles, and an unknown number of articles on other film topics which do not have IMDb pages (e.g. organizations, theaters, publications). So number of articles on individual films is no greater than 42500, and likely closer to 40000.

What this evidences to me is the following:

  1. Usage of the {{Imdb title}} template, considering the size of the sample and the fact that this is wiki, is very close to saturation.
  2. Film articles are far more likely to lack any infobox whatsoever than to lack an external link to their IMDb page. This does not take into account infoboxes which do not have an active imdb parameter or film titles without an IMDb page to link to, but the existence of each of these occurrences only widens and accentuates the point that articles are substantially more likely to lack an IMDb link in the infobox than in the external links section.
  3. Ensuring that all relevant articles have an IMDb link would be a far less arduous task than ensuring that all relevant articles have an infobox, and what is more, may have already reached "normal maintenance" levels. Furthermore, the infobox provides far more tangible benefits to the article and the readers, and is a requirement for all mature articles, per our MOSFILM. The IMDb link, while acceptable, is by no means incumbent upon the article, and in a substantial number of them (particularly more obscure films) may offer no tangible information not found within the Wikipedia article.

Therefore, I don't find the lack of an IMDb link in the external links section of an article a particularly pressing problem, especially when so many more of our articles (approximately 6000 at the moment) don't even have infoboxes - an omission which I believe is inarguably greater. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Good work. The imdb title template is used in TV show articles as well, though, so those 39,000 aren't all film articles. Flowerparty 00:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A couple of points:
  1. Is {{Imdb title}} used exclusively for films, and not TV series, etc.?
  2. If there is any merit in finding out how many occurances of {{Infobox Film}} use the IMDb parameter, then this is fairly easy to do.
  3. I'm as guilty as the next person fo routinely adding an IMDb link to film articles, but per WP:EXTERNAL, "links normally to be avoided" include "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article". I suspect a lot of IMDb links, particuarly for the areas you mention where IMDb is fairly weak, need not be there in the first place. PC78 (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The weakness of IMDB in certain areas doesn't bother me much. The vast majority of our film articles are mainstream English-language commercially-released films, which is the area that IMDB is strongest. Plus, a link to IMDB for films in other areas isn't a link to a static source -- IMDB is constantly expanding their coverage, so we can expect that more films that are currently less than well-covered will get better coverage in the future. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretty please, can we get rid of the line?

user page transclusion removed

Pretty please with sugar on top? It really doesn't work. The cluster of links at the bottom, without the line, does the job just fine - see the example.Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

On this one, I have to agree. While the discussion is going on about the links, can we at least return it to the way it was or get rid of that line. It shows up even if the links are being used, which looks odd. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Ed and AnmaFinotera. Let's not be too drastic. :) All this external-link talk avalanched into a makeup session for the infobox. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 02:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
As I said above, I have no preference either way. Flowerparty made it a lighter shade of gray, in case anyone missed it. PC78 (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Saw that, didn't help much. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Gone, Flowerparty 14:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


Any suggestions for dealing with the situation of a film having multiple official websites. This isn't too common for big releases where you have one worldwide distributor, but for smaller films, you may well have different distributors in different countries providing different websites. Let the Right One In (film) is an example. I've left the US release website in since it's in English, and consigned the SE website to the external links section, but the SE website could be equally valid for this SE film. There are rumours of a UK distribution deal being made, which could lead to yet another English language website.

I was looking at the discussion above in connection with Ratings and that it isn't included because each conutry can have a different rating and its trivial in an article about the film. By the same reasoning, shouldn't the website field simply be removed from the template? It's not as if it would ever be helpful in an encyclopedic article that is looking for reliable THIRD PARTY sources. Essentially, all you're doing is linking to an advert for the film. GDallimore (Talk) 14:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, WP:ELYES says, "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." I think that official websites would only be an issue if they were the only sources of information for a film article. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 14:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Except that doesn't actually answer my main question or address the question of whether it should be in the infobox. GDallimore (Talk) 14:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
(before edit conflict) You asked about the website= field being removed from {{Infobox Film}}, right? You seemed to touch on two reasons for excluding it... 1) multiple official websites that may be overkill in an article, and 2) official websites are not reliable third-party sources. First of all, I think that the official website in the infobox should be English-language and should depend on the nationality (such as American vs. British). I think what you did was proper; I don't think that it is an issue to have the official website in its non-English language available in the "External links" section. If you put in the French-language website or the German-language website, that would be problematic. Does that get any closer to answering your main question? (after edit conflict, seeing your message) While I've argued for removing external links from the infobox, I think that the official site is the one with the closest ties to the film whereas third-party reliable sources may only touch on a part of the film (cast/crew information, critical reception, box office performance). —Erik (talkcontrib) - 15:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks re: thoughts on best link to include. Have taken the rest of the discussion to RFC above which I have only just noticed. GDallimore (Talk) 15:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as we're all in the mood to talk about what's in the box...

How necessary does everyone feel the "narrator" entry is? I rarely see it used, and not many films (overall) have narrators. It would be easy to deal with the rare occurence of a narrator in the "Starring" box (such as I've done above with the ersatz listing of William Shatner as the narrator of that film). I really think it can go away. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 10:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Documentary films. See March of the Penguins for an example that uses the field for the film's five narrators. None of these would be suitable for the "Starring" field. Steve TC 11:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
While rarely used, I think it should state. Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins is another film with a narrator. Saying it stars Whoopi Goldberg would not be appropriate at all. And there are non-documentaries in which the story may be narrated by someone who isn't starring in the film, and it is important to differentiate, I think.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have no strong feelings about it, it just occured to me while working in the infobox of some film or another. If no one else has any objections to keeping "narrator" in the ibox, I'm willing to let the subject drop. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 16:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that it's a bad item to keep, but perhaps we could discuss the merits of this parameter. Supposing that it is kept, I think that the parameter would fit narrators of documentaries. I think that it is trickier to apply this parameter to narrators in fictional films. I went back to find the discussion that led to this parameter being added, and there is pretty much none... this led to this. For fictional films, I am hesitant to use this parameter because this is a field that will stand out above a lot of existing fields. I used to have Edward Norton in this field at Fight Club (film), but I realized that it was more appropriate that he was the star. Listing his name twice didn't make sense. For another example, Sam Elliott narrates The Big Lebowski, yet I don't think he is quite highly touted as the film's narrator. I suppose the basis of my argument is this: The field is appropriate for documentaries and similar films, but there is much less importance for fictional films. I'm trying to think of an example or two where the narrator was pretty much apart from most of the film... perhaps Anthony Hopkins in Alexander (film)? I can't remember the full capacity of his role. Maybe if we discuss the merits of these kinds of narration, we can find a solution. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 17:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The main example where the narrator is separate from a fictional film that I can think of is The Adventures of Milo and Otis (which is certainly not a documentary :-P). I think in cases where the narrator is also a character in the film, it would not be appropriate to list them in both fields, rather just in the starring field with the plot appropriately noting that character X narrates. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with AnmaFinotera, that only a narrator who is not otherwise a character should be listed -- such as the one in Kubrick's The Killing -- however, I would avoid using it in that circumstance when the narrator is basically a "bit part", like the voice that intros Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove. So in a fictional film the narrator should be seperate from the acting cast (not a character speaking in voiceover), and should be a major element in the film, or at least present throughout. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see any great "existential" problem with including the narrator in the Starring section - do they not count as part of the cast just because we can't see their part? If so, why would you argue otherwise for animated films, then? I think the consideration of whether or not to include the narrator in the starring section should be the same as those appearing in the film: is the part a primary role? Therefore, I don't see what's so controversial about saying that Morgan Freeman starred in March of the Penguins and stating that in the infobox. The fact that it is a documentary is not relevant, IMHO: either he participated or he didn't. The degree of fiction has no bearing. Ed's example of Strangelove, however, clearly is not a major part, and therefore would be omitted from the infobox. Since many narrations are minor or even scant, it doesn't seem to make sense to always list them in the infobox; unfortunately, the parameter's existence will encourage inclusion of that information, even in those cases. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
We can provide some guidance at Template:Infobox Film/doc with this field, perhaps. I think Girolamo has a good point mentioning animated films; the stars are not quite there, but they carry the film. I was wondering, should "narrator" always be filled with documentary films? I'm not familiar enough with documentaries to know if most narrators are important or not. We could write a clearer description for the parameter. A rough suggestion: "If a documentary is voiced by a prominent narrator, use this field. For other works, identify the narrator if the person and narration are prominent and if the person's role is detached from the majority of the film."Erik (talkcontrib) 21:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Use of itallics

The preceeded by and followed by instructions need to be updated to indicate if film titles should be in standard font or itallic. At this point I am not sure which is right. Dbiel (Talk) 20:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Aren't film titles always in italics? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
They should always be in italics. We could either write this in the documentation or add coding that italicizes an item in either field if it is not italicized already. —Erik (talkcontrib) 21:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Probably best to add it to the documentation for now. I think coding it in the template would probably the best in the long term, but simply adding it will just make already italicized film titles look like 'this'. PC78 (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Film titles should always be in italics and the infobox should automatically be doing this (it certainly is on all the film articles I've worked on). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
To be honest I thought the template already did this, but apparently not; italics need to be added manually. I've added a note to the documentation. PC78 (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you point to a specific place it isn't? Because every article I just checked is showing it doing it automatically? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
You are refering to the "preceeded_by" and "followed_by" parameters, aren't you? PC78 (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

How do you add Co Director to Info Box

Hello Wiki,

My movie page Same Old Story (Japanese Documentary) is incomplete to say the least. I am still gathering correct info to be able to share it properly, but I ran into a wall when trying to add co director. Does anyone know what I need to do?

Thanks for your help.Discovery Firm (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The template has a limited set of parameters, so co-director cannot be added. We try to minimize the infobox to the key cast and crew members, though not all may be included. We only include the main director in the infobox and the main producers as well. If the co-director was instrumental in the documentary, then you can mention the person's name in the article body. —Erik (talkcontrib) 01:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
If the "co-director" was really a co-director, significantly responsible for the film, and not simply a glorified assistant director or someone given the title for other reasons, you can add their name on the director's line by putting "<br>" after the director's name and then putting the co-director's name. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The problem with that scenario, Ed, is that it requires personal judgment on the editor's part, which essentially is OR. I agree with Erik - follow the credits and keep the infobox lean; digression should occur in the article text, which is more important anyway. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
No, using your judgment is not "OR" (how ridiculously far are we going to try and stretch that expression, anyway?), it's editorial judgement, the same thing we use everythime we make a correction, move an image and delete or add some text. We are not robotic idiots, slavishly following a preset format that cannot be altered, we are human beings editing an encyclopedia for other human beings. If the editor, in his or her judgment, feels that there are, essentially, two directors, then the name should be added. If someone disagrees, they'll be called on it, and a discussion can ensue. If a citation is requested, it can be found, or the name removed if the claim can't be substantiated. That's the way of the Wikiworld, is it not? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Followed By

See Terminator 2: Judgment Day. An on-going (and very minor) disagreement exists about adding Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles in the Followed By section. There are editors on both sides of the argument. While the TV show does technically follow T2 in the Terminator universe, it's not part of the film series, so my opinion is that it doesn't belong in the T2 infobox. And it may or may not be of relevance, but the TSCC infobox does list T2 in the Preceded By field. Tool2Die4 (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see why the TV series should be deleted at all since Friedman already stated that the TV series was more of an "alternate reality" sequel to Terminator 2. My recent edits already said that Terminator 3 was the main sequel.Dibol (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Meh, these "Preceded by" and "Followed by" fields can be tricky. :) I would suggest bringing it up at WT:FILM for more visibility. —Erik (talkcontrib) 13:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, scratch that... let's try to have discussion on the film article's talk page first. If we can't figure out the best way to resolve this, we can reach the community. Didn't realize you really did mean "very minor"! —Erik (talkcontrib) 13:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
(EC)I don't see any discussion taking part on either page. Could you link to it please. To answer your question, it should NOT be listed. The "followed by" and "preceded by" sections are not for things that continue continuity but for things that follow the production of said topic. It means, Film A was followed by Film B, which was followed by Film C. Not, Film A was followed by Film B, which was followed by TV Show A & Film C. There are only 3 (current) films in the Terminator film series and they are the ones we link to in the box. Yes, SCC does follow T2, but we don't deal in fanboyism (pardon the use of the term), which is what is attempting to put SCC after T2.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I've started discussion at Talk:Terminator 2: Judgment Day#Followed By. Bignole, really, let's not use fanboyism this early... that's for latter, when we get hot under the collar. :P I proposed a possible solution since that beyond the "fanboyism", the intent was to follow the second film. There's a slight redundancy, but I think it could just take care of matters. Unless there's a problem with the statement. —Erik (talkcontrib) 13:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the short answer is that the film infobox is concerned only with the film series. Otherwise, we start getting into things well beyond our intent, like canon. Likewise, if we start accepting TV entries, then why not comics, or books, or video games? Our interest isn't in covering the entire fictional universe, however - just the films; the infobox succession parameters should not be used in the service of a comprehensive cross-media franchise timeline. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Film infobox. Color??

Hi I was wondering what people thought about adding a bit of color to accentuate the title in the infobox in coordination with most other infoboxes on wikipedia like actors etc kind of like the dead actor silver strip. I would suggest a silver strip at the top to highlight the title only, Just a small graphical suggestion that could improve its appearance. Any thoughts anybody? Count Blofeld 18:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Am I having deja vu? Didn't we discuss this subject recently? Or am I thinking of something else? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I could have sworn the same thing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Blofeld is just restarting discussion since I don't think it really quite got anywhere. I for one would not mind a silver strip; just a cosmetic change for film articles. Just no crazy colors like hot pink! :) —Erik (talkcontrib) 16:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah! In that case, I find the type less easy to read against the silver then against the usual white. A light grey would probably be OK. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Just looked again with fresher eyes, and the silver seems OK. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If we want to highlight the title, how about having it float above the infobox rather than adding colour? PC78 (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Request edit of protected page


Following a long discussion, consensus was reached that all of the external links in the film infobox are to be removed because it provides favoritism to specific webpages over others, as well as violations the guideline on external link usage. The coding in the infobox will need to be removed, as well as the description for what section further down the template page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm happy to help, but I'm not all that familiar with the code here. Would it be possible for someone to create an updated version at a sandbox page, such as Template:Infobox Film/sandbox, and then I'll just port things over? Or if not, either another admin can try and figure it out, or I'll take a look when I have more time. --Elonka 03:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I took care of it for you. All you have to do is copy and paste. :D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Aha, easier than I thought! Okay, thanks, and Done! --Elonka 03:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
OK , where exactly do you see consensus?--Termer (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, the fact that there was barely any dissention over removing it in the first place, and when we did an RfC, there was 100% support for removing all the links. Just because YOU continue to argue against their removal does not mean there wasn't consensus to remove them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We are back at the beginning. There never has been 100% support to this move, anybody who would take a look at the discussion above can see it. and I'm just pointing out that this is a second [1] false claim of consensus.--Termer (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Please actually read what I wrote. I said we did an RfC and there was 100% support to remove the links. I didn't say there was 100% support from the first discussion to the last discussion. You challenged consensus the first time, and we got into a long debate that forced us to actually have to go to an RfC. We do an RfC and all of our "outside input" is in favor of removing all of the links. It's clear to me that you're having a hard time letting go of the fact that there is consensus to remove these links. I think that maybe you need to carefully read WP:CONSENSUS, because you seem to think that there is some number value attached to forming a consensus (which, if there was an actual "voting" system, consensus would still be in favor of removing the links). This isn't a policy page so there is no requirement for extensive, half a year of discussion, debate that must take place before a decision is made on what consensus actually is. Are you going to argue till you get your way. I mean, what exactly does it take for discussions to meet YOUR definition of consensus? It must mean that it will take everyone agreeing with you (which they don't, I'm sorry). You can deny it all you want, but the reality remains that consensus WAS in favor of removing all external links.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, I hate to repeat myself all over again, WP:CONSENSUS is not about voting but about actual arguments that have not changed. And anybody who'd take a look at the discussion can see that no consensus has been reached. --Termer (talk) 06:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Whatever dude, I'm not arguing this same shit with you any longer. I'm not sure what twisted logic you're using to say that there is no consensus to remove the links, but you can keep it. Apparently an Administrator (who did not take part in the discussions) didn't see fit to say that the consensus outcome was misplaced. The links are gone, we'll get to see if there is some public outcry for their return, or not.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
OK I can see it now what are you saying. since you don't understand what WP:POLITE is all about, I shouldn't expect you to understand the WP:Consensus either. And filing the false consensus report here for the second time was a some kind of social experiment to see if there is going to be a public outcry once the links get removed and functionality of the infoboxes is gone? You know, I personally don't care really if the IMDB infoboxes are there or not, as a professional filmmaker I can find my way around the sources. The only thing you've accomplished, made WP film articles less useful for an average reader.--Termer (talk) 06:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. Many more felt otherwise. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is nothing to be sorry to me about really since I never used any feelings in the matter but provided evidence by published sources [2] that show why and how for example IMDB is one of the most cited film related source in published media. And therefore removing it from the infobox has been a blow to the WikiProject film. And that is something to be sorry about if anything.--Termer (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
And I pointed out that those sources weren't great. Consensus has been reached because your arguments for keeping the links have been countered on multiple fronts even though you keep on repeating them. GDallimore (Talk) 10:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
You pointed out that more than 1000 printed books [3] that refer to IMDB weren't "great"? That Hollywood Cinema, An Introduction By Richard Maltby, Jr. , The Art Direction Handbook for Film etc. among many who use IMDB for ref weren't "great"? No further comment, whatever the "great" might mean.--Termer (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What about {{Infobox Hollywood cartoon}} and {{Infobox Television film}}? Does this concensus cover those templates as well? PC78 (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What about official sites? Alientraveller (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Since they're barely more than adverts and there may be more than one, it seems sensible to use the EL section not clutter up the infobox with things that aren't that useful. As for the other templates: the reasons given for removing the links have almost nothing to do with the fact that we're talking about films and, from a small selection, most of the articles have appropriate links in the EL section anyway so nothing is lost by changing the templates. GDallimore (Talk) 13:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I would say it should apply to both, particularly Television film which only had them because they were in the Film box (TV box only has the official site links). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
They're also not protected so it could be worthwhile being BOLD and seeing who complains in an effort to get an audience for reaching separate consensus if necessary. GDallimore (Talk) 18:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done the cartoon one. I'm a bit wary of doing the TV film one, though, since it falls under the purview of WP:TV and shares the same EL's as {{Infobox Television}}. PC78 (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, if you go back through the talk archives of {{Infobox Television film}} there's some discussion about ensuring consistency between that template and this one when it comes to external links... GDallimore (Talk) 11:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Start date template

This template has emitted an hCalendar microformat since August 2007. This requires a date to be entered using one of the templates which wraps the date in class="dtstart". The documentation for the template has mentioned this also since August 2007. I have just clarified that and added a skeleton {{Start date}} template to the cut-n-paste boilerplate, but was quickly reverted with the edit summary "Not sure if this is appropriate as it does not provide flexibility, such as linking to "year in film" articles if preferred". I believe that such year-linking is now deprecated in the MoS. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Year-linking refers to something like 2008 in film, which is in more specific context than the very-general 2008 linking. I'm not one to link to them in the infobox, preferring to do so in the lead section and elsewhere in the article body, but other editors may want to do this and direct readers to the relevant time period in which the film appeared. Just so I understand what you were trying to add, all dates in the infobox need to use {{Start date}} instead of writing it out? So at Fight Club, it's necessary to write it as {{Start date|1999|October|15}}? —Erik (talkcontrib) 14:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. To address your first point, it is my understanding that linking four-fugure eyar dates to ...in film and similar pages in that fashion is deprecated. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't think I've ever seen {{Start date}} used. Plain write-outs are far more common. I am wondering, what is the negative outcome of doing the plain write-outs? Also, from what I can tell about the de-linking consensus, it does not forbid links that are related to the context. MOS:UNLINKYEARS points to WP:CONTEXT#Dates, which says that linking to such topics in a specific chronological period are acceptable. However, this is obviously going to clash with the implementation of {{Start date}}. —Erik (talkcontrib) 15:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
There is an outstanding, uncontested, bot request to convert dates to {{Start date}} in this and a number of other infoboxes. WP:CONTEXT#Dates says "It is possible to use piped links to such pages ([[1997 in South African sport|1997]]), but these have the disadvantage that readers do not see where the link is targeted." If {{Start date}} is not used, then the microformat is invalid. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Makes sense. I'm just surprised that this was not clarified earlier. Has the bot already begun conversion of any film infoboxes? Will it be able to adequately handle any odd links like October 15, [[1999 in film|1999]], that sort of thing? This issue could probably use more eyes (and maybe prop more questions), so I'll bring this discussion up at WT:FILM. —Erik (talkcontrib) 15:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
No, the much-delayed bot hasn't started work yet, but when it does it will take into account such links. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse my apparent stupidity, but what does the phrase "Start Date" mean? Is it a reference to the date filming began? The date the film opened? Something else completely? Thanks for the clarification. LiteraryMaven (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the template is for the release date(s) in the infobox, I think it may serve a calendar purpose to sort these. I'm still not quite clear on how this actually works, though. Don't worry, you're not stupid, it's a new thing for me, too. —Erik (talkcontrib) 21:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. If the template refers to the release date, wouldn't it be better to label it as such instead of "start" date? LiteraryMaven (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

IMDB/AMG removal

I've noticed that the IMDB/AMG links have been removed from the template with no explanation or discussion on the talk page. Can someone direct me as to why they were removed?--Marcus Brute (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Discussion is above. —Erik (talkcontrib) 02:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Noo, that's not where the discussion is, it's the point when the discussion had reached a dead end. the discussion itself is over here [4] and parts of it here [5] (has been moved to Archive 11) .--Termer (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC) edited to add link to current archive Dbiel (Talk) 18:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Much thanks goes to Termer (talk · contribs) for providing the links. Since a link to a film's IMDb article has been part of {{Infobox Film}} almost every day since that infobox was created in December 2004, it would be nice if some could summarize the consensus that the roughly two dozen participating editors came to that resulted in a change to this policy. Since we're all unpaid volunteers, editors come and go, so it helps to have clear summaries of long discussions to point to in the future when an off-again, on-again topic comes up another time. Thanks. (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC).
WP:EL is the consensus document. No links except those to an official site should be automatically added to articles. 2005 (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Termer, these discussions preceded the RfC. The two you mentioned led up to it. —Erik (talkcontrib) 21:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
EL is not relevant here. There was no consensus reached in the discussion held here. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
It's the consensus guideline of the entire encyclopedia. It is what is relevant here. 2005 (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not relevant, because adding an infobox to an article doesn't "automatically" add an external link, an editor has to fill in the entry for that to happen, so what you quoted isn't applicable to the situation. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 10:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The consensus was clear. It's biased to pick one website over another, and rather contradictory to be promoting IMDb so heavily when we tell peole not to even use it as a source. Official websites actually hold no real, valuable information to an article - they're typically just advertisements for the films (typically). They were also taking up needless space. There is a substantial number of films whose IMDb/All Movie page is virtually blank because the film is either extremely old or it just isn't well known enough to have any information on it (e.g. a made-for-tv film, or a direct-to-dvd film). It is redundant to have links in the infobox, and then again in the EL section of the article (especially when the jump point to get to the EL section is literally right beside those links in the infobox). That was the consensus of the discussion that started months ago and ended just recently. Since consensus is based on arguments, there wasn't any real argument beyond "it's a valuable source" (actually hard to prove, and it's easy to prove that it isn't for every film) "people will get angry if we remove these links". I see a couple of people that notice them and came here to ask what happened, but didn't appear to come here looking to start a fight in order to get them back. So, so far even that argument is moot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Now that the IMDb link (and others) have gone from the infobox, can a bot be used to add all the IMDb links in the i/box that are now "hidden" as links in the EL section? Lugnuts (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Ed Fitzgerald , there never was a consensus reached on the question, even though the most active supporters of removal:  BIGNOLE  , Erik kept reporting their opinion as WP:Consensus.--Termer (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
That's your opinion. I can easily say the same thing, that there WAS consensus, but the most active supporter of keeping it--Termer-- keepts reporting that there is no consensus. Again, this misunderstanding of what consensus is is getting old. Consensus wasn't strong to remove the links originally, so we discussed it further. We still didn't have a clear idea, so we went to RfC. At the RfC every neutral party that came over to the discussion agreed on its removal. You're acting like it should take the whole of Wikipedia to remove these two stupid links. It shouldn't, and it doesn't. They're gone, and yet, there hasn't been any public outcry over their removal. There has been confusion, as we didn't broadcast the removal over the Wiki airways, but we aren't required to, nor did we need to for such a cosmetic change. All pages seem to be functioning just the same without them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
If that is the case, why is the RFC still open and not closed?[6] or is it a new RFC that is still opened since you failed to provide any link to the RFC, I am not sure if you are refering to the open RFC or a previously closed one. Dbiel (Talk) 18:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The RFC is invalid not only because it has not been closed. In conflict with the idea of WP:RFC requesting outside input all previous participants were encouraged [7] to leave their comments in there and that rendered the RFC meaningless right from the beginning.--Termer (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Looking at WP:RFC, I see no criteria that would invalidate the RFC. Nothing says it is inappropriate for existing participants to weigh in alongside outside participants. Nothing says that because the RFC isn't closed, we can't take any action. RFC is defined as "an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input". We got outside input to establish consensus. Like it has been said, consensus does not mean everyone has to agree -- that would be impossible. —Erik (talkcontrib) 19:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
It is that summary of the supposed concensus that is still missing. Statement like "At the RfC every neutral party that came over to the discussion agreed on its removal. " implying (at least to me) that the RfC has been closed, is very misleading. It is true that action can be taken even when an RfC is open, but claiming an RfC as support for the action when the RfC is still open and no summary of the supposed consensus has been prepared or presented is just wrong. Dbiel (Talk) 19:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
My bad. It will be closed in five days, and it doesn't appear like there is going to be any new responses to it either, given the date of the last "new" comment.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Lugnuts, I agree with your idea. It was something I was hoping to do in the process of removing the external link fields so the transition would be smoother. I have no expertise with bots, though... do we know who we could ask about doing something like that? —Erik (talkcontrib) 18:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Erik. Looking at Wikipedia:Bot requests, it's just a case of posting the request there. Do I need to have a consensus from here and/or WP:FILM before going ahead? Lugnuts (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
No, you don't. It's a simple bot request.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the support! Lugnuts (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I have added instructions for adding imdb and other links in the external links section. More contentiously, perhaps, I've attempted to explain in the template documentation why there was a consensus to remove the imdb and amg and official website fields. I thought this was necessary since, as Termer has pointed out, this discussion has ranged over many talk pages and several months. The language is based on bignole's summary, but includes more detail on the counter-positions but also why those counter-positions were not found persuasive. Any comments, I suggest starting a new talk page section, but I thought it best to announce it here. GDallimore (Talk) 20:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Look, I have no dog in this fight, my eventual stance was that the links should be removed, so the current status is my preferred option and I'm not arguing that it be undone, but to say that there was a consensus arrived it is just not true. Neither the quality of the argument nor the quantity of the !votes was sufficient to establish consensus. Those who disagree with this move are correct that is was done in the face of a lack of consensus. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Deep, philosophical discussion time: I disagree that there was no consensus. From my review of existing discussions, I was only able to find two reasons for keeping imdb in the infobox. Several people expressed these views, in slightly different ways, but there were essentially:
  • 1. IMDb is such an important resource for films it should be there; and
  • 2. Having it in the EL section makes navigation harder.
I believe both of these reasons were adequately countered by pointing out that
  • 1. There are resources that are equally or more useful in some circumstances (particularly for older films) so favouring one website over the others is not appropriate; and
  • 2. Only marginally, and there are corresponding improvements in that the infobox is less cluttered and the EL section can have all the relevant links in one place.
Some continued to argue their original points, but I have found nothing that addresses these counter-arguments directly. Nevertheless, consensus does not mean unanimity - it means judging the position based on the strength of the arguments. Taking the arguments and counter arguments into consideration, there was clearly a better case to move the links and that is what consensus is.
It should also be remembered that where we are now is a compromise situation - some people would prefer to see IMDb excluded from the external links section AND the infobox as not being a reliable source.
I have tried to summarise these points in the documentation and think I have done so fairly. GDallimore (Talk) 14:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see evidence of a wider project consensus on removing the links. To me it looks like the decision of just a few when an equal number, if not more members have stated they disagreed with the change. Count Blofeld 12:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like another case of wikipedia politicking got the IMDB entry removed (made possible by the administrators keeping the template for their exclusive usage). Quite annoying that I have to use Firefox's search plugin now rather than having the direct link I was accustomed to. And as Lugnuts mentioned, they didn't even bother to have the infobox links converted to external links. Schnob Reider (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


I have restored the links, as there does not seem to be clear consensus on removing them in the first place. TheCoffee (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Finally... If something so trivial garners that much discussion, one has to have a great power of self-delusion to see any consensus here. Endorse restoration. EdokterTalk 23:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, silence has equated consensus in the past month, especially considering how much traffic film articles have received. Wikipedia did not fall apart because we trimmed redundancy of external links in film articles. I recommend reverting your restoration because it brings back redundancy that Wikipedia could have done without. —Erik (talkcontrib) 23:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I too am equally mystified as to what brought on this reversion without any discussion immediately preceeding it. If you can point to some recent (ie within the past week) discussion, dialogue, or even a personal request, I at least can understand; unfortunately, however, given the timing and without any such context the admin's action seems rather arbitrary. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Silence never equates consensus; Lack of opposition does. Note that there wasn't any lack of opposition here. There wasn't any silence here, just silencing. EdokterTalk 15:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Support restoration. Since relevant discussions were never evaluated and closed pr Evaluating_the_consensus by uninvolved editors there was no consensus for the removal of the links and it shouldn't have happened in the first place.--Termer (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose restoration. It had consensus and no discussion was started to even discuss possible opposition. Once again a vocal minority has managed to hinder a valid and necessary moving forward to ensure compliance with existing guidelines and neutrality. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "arbitrary" timing... it's just that I went to a movie article and noticed that the IMDB link was not where I expected, so I came to this page to see what happened. There does not seem to have been consensus to make the change, despite the claims of those who oppose the links. What I do see in the post-removal discussion is consensus that there was no consensus. I don't want to be seen as judging a winner in the dispute one way or the other, just reverting a change that seems premature. TheCoffee (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Support the restoration. You are correct in your evaluation: there was no clear consensus for the removal of those links, and I speak as someone who !voted in favor of taking them out.

Since you retored the links in the box, could you also restore them to the documentation? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

TheCoffee, WP:CONSENSUS says that silence implies consensus. Seeing that the change was in place for over a month, and the talk page was not swarmed by multiple editors demanding a restoration of the status quo, it is clear that the change was accepted. I believe that there was consensus before, and the acceptance of the change for such a large time span only solidifies this consensus. We've seen how some systemic changes cause editors to flock to the relevant talk page, but this was not the case here. If there is any complaint that there was not enough attention to this issue at the beginning, and effort was definitely made to reach out, the systemic change itself should have attracted attention if it was so disagreeable. I ascribe the acceptance of the change to the fact that it is only a minor navigational inconvenience, and the same links are already found pooled evenly with others in the EL sections. I ask you to revert yourself in support of the long-term silent consensus of this change. —Erik (talkcontrib) 07:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Restoring these links violates consensus and is staggeringly inappropriate. It's time to move on from this. The links plainly violate the guidelines of the encyclopedia. Guidelines trump any project, but even so the strong consesnus of all comments here are for removal. 2005 (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a bit harsh? That is not how others might see this discussion. Guidelines are reached by consensus... and no mater what a perceived consensus might be, consensus can ALWAYS change. But more importantly, each "guideline" is started with the caveat that "it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

My opinion of the matter is that regardless of the opinion one way or the other regarding the EL debate, this particular action was unjustified given the lack of specific discussion for this particular reversion. If editors want to re-open the debate and then revert/sustain based on such recent discussion, then fine. But for this to have happened out of the blue based on one admin's perception of threads that are over one month old is, IMHO, a misuse of the admin powers. Therefore, I'd request that this be restored to its status as of several days ago, and, if the admin so wishes, then I would invite him to open a new discussion regarding the EL question. My concern regarding this reversion, however, is a matter of procedural appropriateness and not with regard to the pro/con of the actual edit. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that the basis for the action was that the original removal was non-consensual, it is not in any way out of process, it is simply undoing what should never have been done in the first place. Now, what I would suggest, is that because there was no consensus for the removal, those who want the removal can start a fresh discussion, and let's see if a consensus can be arrived at then.

Or, we can all go back to editing articles and forget about it -- it's not very important, and it's already taken up too much time and too many braincells. It's stuff like this that saps the strength of Wikipedia and directs it into blind alleys. Edit articles. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 11:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose restoration. This is a rather dissapointing turn of events, just when this whole issue had died down. There was a clear concencus and weight of opinion in favour of removing these links, and comments from a rather vocal minority—largely just one editor—doesn't change that. I'm inclined to agree with above comments that this is a misuse of admin powers, since this change comes out of the blue and without fresh discussion or argument, and the admin himself freely admits to not having read through the whole discussion. PC78 (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There was no clear consensus! The archives is filled with discussion about the removal; if that is not a tell-tale sign of non-consensus, I don't know what is. Anyone yelling "clear consensus" really needs to re-read WP:CONSENSUS. All I have seen is a lot of wiki-lawyering around WP:EL and people declaring consensus "based on guideline". If this needs to be settled, only a real RFC will help. Until then, this means that the outcome defaults to 'no change'. EdokterTalk 15:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Edokter, do you not believe that with the change being as systemic as it was, it was seen by a lot of people? With this "adequate exposure to the community", previous discussion pales in comparison. The change has existed for a month, and we have not been swarmed with requests to restore the status quo. The removal of redundancy had minimal impact on how film articles function; all ELs usually already existed in their appropriate sections in the article. —Erik (talkcontrib) 16:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
If this needs to be settled, only a real RFC will help. - That's fine, if someone wants to open an RfC, by all means do so. But please distinguish what we are saying - the issue is not what has been done, it's the manner in which it has been done. If TheCoffee had come in here a month ago, looked at the discussion and done this (or claimed no consensus), then this at least would have been an justifiable course of action. Instead, he has come here over a month later with a personal opinion on the matter beforehand, neglected to read over the entirety of the discussion (which includes threads now in the archives), and restores the old edit regardless because he wishes to. Regardless of which "side" you're on, that does not constitute anything other than a unilateral action. Additionally, being as another admin already made the edit last month to remove the EL support, this action can be viewed as a protracted wheel war. So again, please don't view this as if I'm trying to promote a side - I'm not, and I'm all for further discussions if the issue is unsettled - but this action in particular is problematic, and would be in my eyes regardless of which side of the issue it is on behalf of. Continued debating of whether or not the substance of the edit was "right" or not precludes the real issue some of us are concerned with. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
it's the manner in which it has been done? Exactly, the reason the links were restored was the manner in which they were removed. A consensus was declared by an involved editor and an administrator made an edit in good faith believing that there was a consensus like claimed. Such removals should be done "by the book". In case anybody thinks the links should be removed, a clear case should be opened where everybody can either support or oppose it or comment etc. And after it's over, an uninvolved editor needs to close the discussion and determine if there is or is no consensus and act accordingly. Not like what happened that consensus was declared by editors who actually had initiated the removal discussion.--Termer (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of what you believe happened before, it is now in the past. We have seen that the change has not been contested by multiple editors in the past month despite the obvious attention it has garnered. In light of this lack of dispute, we need to move beyond previous discussions and realize that this change has been largely accepted. If you didn't believe that consensus existed before, you can't ignore that consensus now exists with the change having been visible to a large audience and not been seriously disputed by a gaggle of editors. —Erik (talkcontrib) 20:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
As I have said above Termer, regardless of the outcome, the prior decision was made within a period of active discussion. An admin strolling around a month later without any context and arbitrary deciding to restore the parameters without any active discussion is a bad thing regardless - please consider the implications if this sort of behavior were acceptable site-wide. Whether or not you think that there was consensus or not, this out of the blue restoration essentially is one user's opinion, and that user is taking advantage of the fact that he has admin powers. It does not help either side here. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Why do you Girolamo Savonarola and Erik keep ignoring the reality? I said, there was no consensus, so did many others, so did the administrator who reverted the removal because of it. Anybody who'd read the discussin with open eyes can see it. There is nothing else to it really. and regardless what anybody believes has happened is in the past now indeed.--Termer (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Since this is a protected template, and penalty for wheelwarring can be hefty, no-one actually dared revert the final change to remove the links. Yes, discussion has been very extensive. The reason it died is because those opposing the change grew tired talking to deaf ears. The only reason the change stood for over a month is because no-one wnted to take the risk of igniting the entire discussion again... which is happening right now, and which will, just like before, span several pages. There will be those who oppose the revert, and those who support it. One sides will "claim victory" at some point and declare consensus, just like before. What is clear to me however, is that there can be no consensus if a subject generates so much discussion. The original opposers did grow silent in consensus, they grew just tired and were silenced by sheer brickwalling. EdokterTalk 23:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Support restoration. With respects, as consensus was not clear and discussions should have continued and not been quieted. When there is no consensus, a default to keep best serves Wiki. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, Edokter, silence does equate support. If someone doesn't voice an opinion then you must assume that they have no problem with the decision being made. If they did, then they would voice their opposition. I reject this restoration. Apart from a couple of people creating a hissy-fit on this page, there has not been any community outcry over the link removal. I watch several dozen film pages, and I don't see anyone going to the talk pages and asking "where are the IMDb links". Again, apart from the couple of you that came here, there has not been widespread opposition, on the contrary, there has been very little opposition. I don't understand how one can posit that if a couple of people are making a debate last a month then that means there is no consensus for an action. I think that TheCoffee acting hastily, and should have discussed this on the talk page first. The fact that we even went through an RfC that had unanimous support from unbiased editors should tell you something. What I see here is a couple of editors that believe that if consensus does not reflect their opinion then there is no consensus at all - which earns my pity. Since there is so much stubbornness going on, let's do ANOTHER RfC. We'll make this one as wide as possible, to garner the largest degree of opinions. Then, whatever that outcome we will live with. I'm frankly tired that a couple of editors are fighting over something so damn stupid. Do another RfC and be done with it. P.S. If you respond to this then please note that I'm not watching this page (i.e. if you leave some direct question for me, I won't get it), and I have no intention of coming back to this page. I'm leaving town for the holidays and don't need this never-ending drama to follow me. Merry Christmas.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not nice posting a hit-and-run comment like this. It just amazes me that if there were only a "few" opposers, why are there archives filled with discussion? The numers of opposers didn't vary that much from the proposers. The RfC was only concocted because the proposers knew their consensus was thin, too thin. To bring in outside views is OK, but in this case it was clear they were brought in for the wrong reasons; the proposers wanted a !vote becuase they couldnt't win on arguments. The RfC wasn't even closed properly; probably because no admin wanted to burn their fingers on it. If there is another RfC, I hope the arguments prevail over !votes and is closed properly this time. EdokterTalk 23:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
What a wonderfully biased summary of events you've just presented. I'm sure Bignole opened the RfC in good faith to bring in a wider range of opinion, so unless you have evidence to the contrary you'd be as well to retract some of the above. Since you are not privy to the thoughts of others, do you think you can make a few less assumptions about what certain people wanted? PC78 (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Support restore Good work by the admin. Full thumbs up. Lugnuts (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Where there is no consensus to include, the links should be excluded (te onus must always be on those who seek to include disputed content to achieve consensus, anything else is a POV-pusher's charter). But actually there looks to be a decent amount of support for inclusion of IMDB at least. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, wrong. Since these links have been here since the templates conception, it is the change to remove them that requires the consensus. EdokterTalk 17:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
This might be too late, but I definitely Support them being restored. Kuralyov (talk) 07:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
    • And of course, one has had to have stumbled accross the discussion to have ben able to voice an opinion. Oh, it's not exactly a secret discussions in a closed room, but one has to know there is the room and that a discussion is going one before being able to opine to reach a consensus. Is there a solution to this? How can one bring the discussion to the attentions of editors who might wish to participate without falling into the trap of lobbying? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I think there's also a "to hell with it" factor as well. Once the links were removed, on the basis of a claimed consensus, and objections were raised, it was clear that the deed wasn't going to get undone easily, and people may have shrugged and assumed it was (yet another) thing that just had to be borne about Wikipedia, and gone about their business. Their silence did not necessarily equate to agreement, but could easily be an indication of frustration and giving up. (Quite rightly too - it took a deus ex machina from left field to make the change, and who could have expected that to happen?)

On a more universal note, I think that "silence = assent" is quite problematic in this kind of situation (as opposed to an edit in an article), since there are all sorts of reasons why people may not complain, ranging from lack of knowledge about the existence of the debate (as Michael Schmidt points out) to having given up and thrown up their hands about it. It's much safer, and more statistically rigorous, to make no assumption whatsoever about what silence means, and operate strictly on the basis that expressed opinions mean what they say, and unexpressed opinions are unknowable. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

AN/I complaint filed

It would have been nice if GS had posted notice here about this complaint he filed at AN/I. I understood such notifications were generally considered to be part of the protocol. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and apologies for not doing so myself - too much multitasking... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward

This isn't really getting us anywhere. Consensus was determined (though it was by no means unanimous), over several threads, some of which now exist only in the archive. The change was made per this consensus. Hundreds of users did not beat down a bath to this talk page to complain, which would seem to back up that consensus. However, the reversion of the change seems to have been based upon this most recent thread, in which two editors simply asked why the change was made, five editors disagreed with the change, and three editors held the view that the change was a good one. Given that, while a strict reading of policy may construe TheCoffee's reversion of another administrator's decision as a violation of policy, I completely understand why he felt consensus was not present in this case, and it would be best for all concerned if we did not attempt to censure him for his action. LessHeard vanU has kindly offered to clerk another RfC on this, so I propose we sweep the multiple, existing threads under the carpet and after the holidays present the RfC to the community, properly advertised (on WT:FILM or wherever) and after we've all had a chance to imbibe some holiday cheer. It won't hurt to keep the links in for another few weeks until this is resolved. Steve TC 19:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Perfect. As WP:CCC. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
After the holidays?! But I'm mad now! Seriously though, yes, this is the best way forward. Merry Christmas everyone! Lugnuts (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)