Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

The "Country" field

If there is one field in the infobox that causes more disputes than any other, this is it. One of the problems is it's not at first clear what it means. It is often interpreted to be the national identity of the film , but this at best is ambiguous. Is the national identity decided by the copyright country? Where the film is made? The nationality of the participants? Where the funding comes from?

The infobox instructions gives us some guidance:

Insert the home country or countries of the film's main production companies. Do not use flag icons, as this places an unnecessary emphasis on nationality; see MOS:FLAG for a detailed rationale. Do not link to Cinema of XXXX; see WP:EGG.

This at first glance this makes it look clear cut for the editor. But even this turns out to cause confusion. For instance, Avatar (2009 film) has only the United States listed, despite a UK production company (Ingenious Media) being involved in the production. The grounds for the exclusion of the UK is that the "Ingenious Media is not a main production company". A completely arbitrary judgement made on the basis of no clear criteria. The film's poster begs to differ, listing Intermedia along with Fox and Dune Entertainment, so on what basis do we determine what is is or isn't a "main production" country? The Avatar article now bizarrely lists Intermedia in the production companies, but the nationality of the company is omitted.

Even if we could make the rules for what countries should be included impartial and objective, we still have the problem of what the field "Country" means to the reader. Again in the discussion at Talk:The_White_Ribbon#Italian2 I had to explain to editors that "Country" didn't mean the nationality identity of the film (a vacuous concept in itself for pan-national productions) i.e. Bond is a UK-US co-production, Harry Potter is actually a US production. All the editors on both sides of the argument have strong cases, simply because the infobox instructions don't give clear criteria and as one editor puts it, "Country" is a misnomer. It gives a false interpretation of the information it offers.

The suggestion there is simply to list the countries after the production companies to make it clear the nationalities mentioned are explicitly the nationalities of the production companies. Personally I think this is a good resolution to the problem, and the "Country" field should be scrapped. We list countries next to release dates, so why not do the same with production countries rather than separating the information into something that could mean anything?

I don't want to get sidetracked into arguments about the nationalities of particular films, these issues only arise due to vague criteria. If we address the root problem then these debates become non issues. There are other alternatives such as listing only the copyright country, for instance. My preference is for the proposal put forward in The White Ribbon debate, to list countries next to the production countries. It's an easy, clear solution, and only requires minor work to implement.

Either way, I think the criteria needs to be explicit for the editors, and clear what is meant to the readers. Betty Logan (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if there is such a call to trim the fat out of the infobox, why not start cutting categories that are often confusing or cause conflict because of they require some arbitrary definition that no one really knows?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Betty's suggestion a good first step in that process? I agree with her, mainly because readers are certain to misread the meaning of the field. Plus, I see no reason in principle to give primacy to production companies when denoting a film's country; stronger cases exist for other criteria. Since it's the nationality of the production companies, it's sensible to parenthetically mention that in that field. The readers will instantly recognize the meaning. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bignole, we could cut this field altogether and not lose any necessary information for the reader. The interpretation of the field is odd; the instructions declare it as "country of the main production companies", but if I were a reader not knowing that I would assume it meant "country in which it was filmed" or "country from which it originated". In my experience the country of a film is either obvious (and often stated in the lead sentence), or ambiguous (it crosses multiple national boundaries as far as the director, production companies, country of origin vs. film locations, etc.). Thus we end up with cases like The Terminator being listed as a UK film on the basis of the production company, even though there's nothing British about it in the slightest: it was written & directed by a Canadian, stars Americans, was filmed & first released in the United States, & is preserved in the National Film Registry of the Library of Congress which seeks to "represent a stunning range of American filmmaking" and "stand among the finest summations of American cinema". Even mentioning nationality in the lead sentence is unnecessary, unless national identity is somehow intrinsic to the film (like with The Patriot or Australia). WP:IBX#Purpose of an infobox advises "the purpose of an infobox [is] to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. [...] wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." Most other infoboxes about creative works (ie. {{Infobox album}}, {{Infobox video game}}, and {{Infobox artwork}}) function just fine without a Country field. I don't think there's any point to putting the countries as parentheticals next to the production companies. If the companies are notable, they'll be linked, and a reader can learn about their nationality at the separate article. It's not like we'd put parenthetical countries next to anything else (director, writers, etc.). Why do we need it for the production companies? --IllaZilla (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I don't like this idea of putting countries next to the production companies. I appreciate some of what Betty says, but we routinely describe a film as being "French" (or whatever) in the opening sentence of an article, and add the article to the corresponding category; the field in the infobox is merely an extension of this. If there's a problem then it doesn't begin with the infobox, consequently we shouldn't be looking for a solution here. PC78 (talk)

I recommended putting the countries next to the companies as a means of retaining the information we have now, but making it explicit. I can easily go along IllaZilla's suggestion and drop the production countries altogether. The problem here is that "country" clearly isn't just an extension of what goes into the lede. A "French" film invariably describes a French language film, which is documented in the infobox anyway. The problem here is that the infobox sets criteria that leads to a counter-intuitive reading i.e. Harry Potter is US, Superman:The Movie is UK. If "country" is a mere reflection of what goes into the text body then there shouldn't be any criteria. For instance, Avatar sources the claim it is an "American film" in its lede in accordance with WP:V. If the infobox "country" simply followed on from that we would request that nationality claims are sourced in the text, and the country field would simply reflect this. That's not a bad way to go actually, but at the moment that's not how it works because the infobox explicitly requires us to list production countries, which leads to some bizarre entries. Betty Logan (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Then the problem is with the documentation, not the template. The field should be an extension of the category and what goes in the lead; in fact, it shouldn't be anything else. You're wrong when you say that a "French" film invariably describes a French language film. Perhaps my "French" example wasn't ideal, but we often describe films as being "British", or "American", or "Australian" etc. PC78 (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

PC78 seems to me a little off base, since this proposal isn't about trying to find the source of any particular problem. The field itself is a problem because it's equivocal. The reasons why we call a movie "Swedish" doesn't derive from its production company, I'm pretty sure. Fellini's films are Italian, Bergman's are Swedish, Ray's are Indian, and Coppola's are American. There are lots of reasons why that seems obvious, and we don't need to get into that. Suffice it to say it has nothing to do with the production company that put together the deal and provided the support staff. I, too, think that Illazilla's suggestion is perfectly acceptable. Betty's idea is good, too. Either way the readers will be well served. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

"The field should be an extension of the category and what goes in the lead; in fact, it shouldn't be anything else." (PC78) I don't know what this means. Are you using the logician's meaning of 'extension'? Seems to me we all know how a table like the infobox works so we shouldn't be trying to define that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

As yet no-one has actually come out in favor of retaining the current criteria for the country nationality, and I think we would all like to see this changed. As it stands, the information put into the field is counter-intuitive, arbitrary and misleading. If we all accept that, the issue isn't so much as acknowledging or determining the problem, it's how we address it. The three options so far:

1. Scrap the countries from the infobox
2. Scrap the "country" field and parenthesise the countries next to the companies (this proposal isn't finding much favor though, and the proponents seem to be happy to ditch it in favor of the preceding option)
3. Retain the field, and have it match the nationality claim in the text a'la PC78's suggestion.

The first two are self-explanatory, the third would need some consideration. If the country field simply matches the claim (i.e. an American film, British film, French film etc) then that would mean the country field in the infobox becomes a formality: it would just match any nationality claims in the text body. The issue then becomes one of determining nationality for the text body. The simplest solution, I think, would be to not set criteria for nationality: this always tends to be a cultural statement rather than a factual claim, so varies from film to film. The best solution perhaps would be to invoke WP:V and ask for such claims to be sourced. If we want to proclaim a film French, or American or whatever we simply find a reliable source that describes the film as French or American, source the claim and use that in the country field. If you think about it, this is the way it should work: setting our own criteria constitutes original research. We have violated that principle, and this is the sort of mess it creates. Betty Logan (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

For me, all are reasonable tries but it seems best for the readers to adopt the first approach. Scrap it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ring Cinema. Go with option one. As with so many other things the film business (especially the financing end of it) has become international and trying to find a single defining answer for this field will remain elusive. Kudos to all for your efforts in this. MarnetteD | Talk 20:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Option 1 all the way. A well-reasoned step in the direction of reducing the length of this infobox. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to reply to Ring Cinema's comments earlier, but was having trouble with my connection. I don't think my comments were too cryptic: the infobox summarises what's in the article, not vice versa, so if we can say a film is French, or British, or whatever, and if we can add the corresponding category, then we should be quite capable of adding the same to the infobox. The problem, so far as I can see that there is one (and there is scant evidence on offer here), is not the field per se but the definition we have in the documentation. In short, I oppose removing this field from the infobox. It's not a problem, therefore removing it isn't a solution. PC78 (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm for removing it not just because of the confusion it causes for editors, but for readers. It tells us almost nothing about the film, at least on the surface. If the average reader sees "Country: France", what are they going to say? Oh, it must be a French film...ok. Doesn't necessarily tell them the language of the film, where the film is primarily shown (e.g., is it a french film that takes place in Mexico?), it doesn't say that the film is french because of the people/studio involved, it doesn't explain that it is french for any reason that any average reader would know or probably even care about. If the infobox information isn't cut and dry, whree a seventh grader could read it and understand what each category represents then the information itself probably isn't for the infobox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that the country field is sometimes contentious, but there are many more articles in which the country is easily defined than it is not. We should make an effort to refine the definition of this field, especially with contemporary films that are the result of international collaboration. For example, if the content of a country field is so contentious in a given instance, why not just remove it from that particular instance altogether? We can put together documentation reflecting this. Most films, especially older ones, would only have one country in the field, and the removal of the field from the template seems overly severe. There are similar nationality disputes in the lead sentence, but that has been addressed by explaining the full context of certain countries' involvements. We cannot do that in the infobox, obviously, so it may be that for particularly difficult instances, we remove the country field and do our best to explain the context in the lead section. (For example, we use the lead section to explain the full context of adaptations.) It may be worth discussing a limit of countries in the field. For example, if it's easily from one country, filling it is not a problem. If it's a co-production of two countries, I believe there tends to be discussion about such a pairing, and it's usually not a problem to fill. If it's more than two, than we may need to consider removing the field and focusing on context in the lead section. For example, with The White Ribbon, with four countries in the field, it may not be worth listing them with such varying context. I see that the lead section says "international co-production", which is a good start. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not responsive to the discussion so far. The problem is that the Country field does not serve readers because it's misleading. "Country" is not the same as "Home Country of the Main Production Company or Companies as Best as We Can Determine without Access to the Production Documentation and the Budgets and Bank Accounts of the Parties." However, that's what it really means. It's just misleading and there is almost unanimous agreement that it is a misnomer. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"Country" simply means "country", i.e. where the film is from. As I said above, you're commenting more on the definition in the documentation than on the actual field. PC78 (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

How is a reader supposed to have any idea what "country" refers to. If its "Where the film is from" do you put in the country field for a film like The Fall or Powaqqatsi? They are "from" multiple countries. As to the "Its not a problem" assertion - since when. Edit warring over this field goes on all of the time. I see one set of countries get put in with one edit and then a month or more (lets not even get into what happens after a couple of years pass and when an enthusiastic info changer shows up) and another set gets put in. The bulk of some editors entire edit count is built up around changing these. As to it not being a problem with older films we can go back to, at least, the 1950's to find multiple country production and financing examples. One question that always comes up for me is do we want readers to only get their info from the infobox? Reading the articles is where a person can actually learn something and that should be encouraged. That personal opinion aside, there is no way to get a set criteria that won't change six months or a year from now when a new set of editors want alter the consensus (look at what happened to the actor infoboxes where longstanding consensus was washed away with no thought to the edit wars and POV that would ensue.) Anything that minimizes future edit wars is a plus. I don't expect those of you who like this field to ever agree with this so I post it only to have it on the record. On a humorous note the pic that somebody created here [1] is always worth a look whenever I get into heated discussions over infoboxes. I hope that some of you enjoy it and I definitely apologize to any of you that are offended. MarnetteD | Talk 01:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"Country" simply means "country", i.e. where the film is from. (PC78) Unfortunately, this is not accurate. Check the guidelines. However, I agree that readers of Wikipedia will believe that "Country" = where the film is from. It's the same reasoning Betty outlined in her excellent summation at the top. --Ring Cinema (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The documentation says "film's main production companies" especially to clarify what countries are relevant if multiple ones are involved. These guidelines attempt to be more nuanced for trickier cases since we all recognize that there are a set of films whose "country" is readily evident. Should we talk about using "Nationality" instead of "Country"? After all, the country field has been where we had "Cinema of" links before. If we use "Nationality", it may be more definitive and more targeted. As I suggested earlier, being more targeted might help us not worry about convoluted cases. If a film like Blindness (film) is the result of multiple countries, it does not have a clear-cut national identity and would thus be excluded. I don't find there to have been enough centralized discussion about the country field, so the call to remove it strikes me as premature. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't yet understand the problem. A film's "nationality" is not defined by some facts about the production companies. If Fellini made a film with a Korean production company, it would not be a Korean film. If for some reason it is important to list the (vaguely defined) country of the film production companies, they could be listed with the production companies like this: XYZ Productions (USA). And just to be clear, listing the production company's postal address is not more important that listing the home country of the director, producer, screenwriter, cinematographer, actors, production designer, sound man, etc. I am open to a good argument, but first of all, it doesn't seem to have any special importance, and, secondly, as has been mentioned several times, it misleads the readers and frequently the editors. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

A film's "nationality" is not defined by some facts about the production companies. The point of the current guidelines is to look to the home studio of the film, the so-called "main" production company, to determine the country/nationality. If a country's home studio produces a film in another country, it is typical that the studio would work with other companies there. The guidelines were intended to avoid listing every country's relationship with the film, by the way of funding or filming location. Talking about "production companies" is confusing, though, so we should consider identifying a film's nationality when it is easily identified. If a film is frequently called "American" or "French" in reliable sources, then we can lock the nationality in as such. If it's more ambivalent, we avoid locking anything in and flesh out the context. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to lock in a film's nationality at all. That's the great thing. I don't think we should consider identifying a film's nationality, if you're trying to suggest another guideline. The editors can handle it without special "guidance" from the same group that produced the current fiasco. The current guideline is at best confusing; I agree and most everyone else who's contributed here does, as well. Nothing will be lost when that field is out and the readers will be helped. If the nationality of the production companies seems important, put the information where it belongs: next to the name of the company. That way, readers will understand. Agreed? --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

One of a film's characteristics is its country of origin. In addition to other categories, we categorize films by country. Why do you think the infobox should not mention the country at all? Why not leave out the country field where it is contentious? There are far more films with a straightforward country fields than those with troublesome ones. Why should we remove all these valid fields to fix the instances that don't work? I'm all for removing instances of the field where it is troublesome. Also, please keep your comments focused on the topic, not the editors. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Out of interest Erik, how do you define something as clear cut? We still need a criteria for making something clear cut don't we? Would you advocate that these "clear cut" cases are still defined by their production companies? If that is the case then it would still be better to make the presentation of the information explicit and put the countries with the companies. If all we're saying is that a film is American because it's made by an American studio then lets just say what we mean. If you're suggesting a break from linking the nationality from the company, then what exactly would you like to see done? Also, I don't think categorisation is a decisive factor here because we're going to end up with many films without a country category anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

We need to exclude companies as criteria at this point. It was originally intended to help identify the country, but it's clear that it leads to too much analysis. When I suggest "clear cut" labeling, I mean a universal acknowledgment of the film being from said country. If the acknowledgment is not universal, then we would not use the country field so readily. If multiple reliable sources call a film American in context, they're most likely basing such a label on the home studio. With all the difficulties we've had, it should not be for us to judge. If sources are consistent with a film's nationality in general discussion, we should go with that. If there tends to be inconsistency, like with The White Ribbon, let's not use the field if the nationality isn't basic and obvious. We all remember the articles with disputes over the country field, but I believe we fail to acknowledge how many articles do not have such disputes. That's why I can't find the universal removal of the country field to be helpful. Why not just exclude it in disputed instances? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so I believe you're proposing that we find a universal understanding of what is "basic", "obvious", "clear cut", "universal", "contentious", "consistent", "multiple", "reliable" and "disputed". I don't think that is even a little bit practical. And since there is a perfectly good alternative that has widespread acceptance among this page's contributors, what is really the issue? There is nothing lost and much gained by listing production company nationalities parenthetically. And the readers will not need a special course in infoboxology to understand what we mean. Are you yourself still persuaded of your own position, Erik? Why do you want to maintain a guideline that is so clearly both erroneous and problematic? Please explain. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ring Cinema: I'm well aware of what the documentation currently says, I would have thought that was a given. And you're wrong with what you say about Fellini. Had he made a film in Korea with a Korean production company, then the film would have certainly been Korean. We don't derive the nationality of a film from that of the director: Top Gun is not a British film; Elizabeth is not an Indian film. As for your examples, The Fall is categorized as an Indian/British/American film, so if we can say that for the categories, it's no more difficult to say it in the infobox. But if the field poses a genuine problem in an article, then the answer is simply not to use it. We need to get past this idea that all fields in the infobox must be filled in. PC78 (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

We tend to make a distinction between Hitchcock's "British" and "American" films, and Blow-Up is often referred to as Antonioni's "British" film, so while directorial authorship is important it's certainly not definitive. Erik's proposal seems to be in line with my option 3. If there is a claim for describing a film as American, or French etc, then we source it as we would any other claim, and it solely becomes a perfunctory operation to fill in the country field. In fact, if we have the field I see that as the only viable scenario—we put the emphasis on verifiability. Obviously that might not be acceptable to editors who want rid of the field altogether, but I think it's important to outline the alternative. Betty Logan (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You said it well: emphasis on verifiability. I think universal removal is too sudden for the field. It's not something easily undone, especially if a movement picks up to remove all instances of the parameter. I think it's worth revising the guidelines to use the country field only when it is verifiably straightforward. It would help defuse situations where there is too much back-and-forth about that one field with no room for context. I ask those who seek the field's universal removal, is there interest in excluding only the contentious instances for now? Universal removal can still remain an option if the more limited approach does not suffice (such as too many people trying to add contested countries regardless). Erik (talk | contribs) 18:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Erik, I'm surprised you want to maintain misleading material. There are readers out there and you seem to maintain a very editor-centric view. The information in the infobox currently is not what it says it is (if guidelines are followed). That means it's wrong. It's incorrect and false. So of course the mistake has to be corrected. The simple correction is also the most useful: eliminate the Country field (no good guideline exists for it any more, as you seem to concede); move the information there to the place where it means what it says. For the sake of accuracy, there's really no other choice, is there? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Revised criteria for the country field

Even though the majority preference is to remove the field, there clearly isn't a consensus for it at this point. Both Erik and PC78 have made their stance clear. However, we do have an opportunity to ditch the barmy criteria for the field—in reality I want to get rid of the criteria more than I want rid of the field. The danger here though is that everyone digs in and we end up with no resolution and the worst possible outcome is that the criteria stays in place. What Erik proposes is to ditch the criteria, and to only invoke the field when the case is clear cut. A clear cut example would be where we can verifiably source a descriptor of the film's nationality within the article text i.e. the film must be decribed as a French film, or a British film or whatever in a third party reliable source. The field would then simply reflect this. In theory this addresses the problem of setting criteria, it stops putting the emphasis on the production companies, and the field simply reflects what is contained within the article. This isn't a perfect solution. If a source calls a film a "French film" then the opponents of the field will still argue it is ambiguous (which it is) because we don't know if this based on some form of factual criteria such authorship, corporate identity etc or some form of cultural judgement. However, while such a solution doesn't address the problem on ideological grounds, it addresses the practical problems which are at the root of most disputes. It would allow us to remove the countries from The White Ribbon, unless sources grant it a cultural identity. I doubt there are many sources that would consider The Terminator a British film, so that counter-intuitive example would be resolved. Avatar often has its country altered, but already includes a sourced claim that it is an American film so the problem becomes self-solving on that article. This seems to be a way forward that is acceptable for editors who are determined that the field should stay. I don't expect everyone to be happy with it, but the pertinent point is that it will most likely improve the situation from where we are now. If it doesn't stop the disputes, then the status of the field can be reviewed at a later point. Betty Logan (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I was too bold, but I went ahead and updated the documentation. It now says, "Identify the nationality of the film where it is straightforward, meaning being consistently identified as such in reliable sources. If the film's country of origin is not straightforward, avoid using the field and instead use the article body to detail various countries' involvement." We can tweak the wording, but I think this can help steer clear of unnecessary disputes. I would still like to hear from those who supported the field's universal removal to see if this could work for now. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

My version would run something like this: "Fill in the nationality of the film as identified in the lead of the article. The nationality of the film should be backed up with a reliable source. The source must clearly identify the nationality of the film, as in describing it as American or a French film/movie etc. Sources that simply identify the country of origin as France, or the production country as U.S. etc such as is the case with resources such as Allmovie and IMDb is not sufficient identification of the film's nationality. If there is a conflict between nationalities, there must be consensus between the editors to select one or use both otherwise a nationality should not be stated and the country field should not be filled in." I think it's important to distinguish nationality from country, otherwise it takes us back to the IMDB/Allmovie method of simply setting teh nationality through teh production countries. Betty Logan (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying there! How about saying that the nationality of the film should be consistently identified by reliable sources when the film is discussed in context? That's where we will see so-and-so called an American film or a French film, anyway. I think you want to avoid referencing the database because it's indiscriminate. (For example, Fight Club at IMDb has Germany listed, and I cannot figure out why.) Regarding the "conflict" sentence, though, it seems a bit much since it suggests continuing the debate. Even when two editors could agree on the country on the talk page, if it's still contentious, then an outsider will come in and change things up. It seems better to avoid the field if there's a decent chance of the country or countries being challenged. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well if you want to scrap the conflict part that's fair enough. It would certainly discourage endless arguments on talk pages about who has the "consensus". I agree that nationality claims can be contextual. For instance, a list of the 100 greatest American films would be okay. An essay on French film would be ok. The key phrase of course is that French/American are an adjective form, France/US are not, and ideally we're after the former. Attempt 2: "Fill in the nationality of the film as identified in the lead of the article. The nationality of the film should be backed up with a reliable source. The source must clearly identify the nationality in a descriptive capacity, as in describing it as an American or a French film/movie etc, or in a contextual capacity such as the BFI's list of top 100 "British films" or as an example in a published work on German film etc. Sources that simply identify the country of origin as France, or the production country as U.S. etc such as is the case with resources like Allmovie and IMDb is not sufficient identification of the film's nationality. If there is a conflict between nationalities, then the nationality should not be stated and the country field should not be filled in." Betty Logan (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm alright with Erik's proposal. I think that there are going to be quite a few pages that we'll have to look at to see who have a history of debates over what country should be there. Also, should we just delete that section for articles that tried to "compromise" by just listing all countries that IMDb lists? I see that still as contention, just on where people decided to stop arguing and just list every possible choice.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think certainly in the cases where the country field doesn't bear any relation to what is mentioned in the lead, then we can just pull those countries. I don't think we have to work through the articles aggressively though, lots of editors have "pet" articles and will get around to addressing it in their own time. If there are any current disputes then we'll just nip those in the bud. Betty Logan (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The new wording looks ok, more or less. If I can make one crit, the part that says "If there is a conflict between nationalities..." tends to suggest that we can't have multiple nationalities, which isn't true; it would perhaps be better to say something like "If the nationality of the film is unclear or disputed...". Also, I'm inclined to think that this is more the territory of MOS:FILM, since it applies to the article as a whole and not just the infobox. PC78 (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with using "disputed" instead of "conflict". You may be correct that we are stepping beyond the remit of the infobox though. Should we transfer this part of the discussion over to MOS:FILM to get further input over the wording? If we can settle on the wording it will be best to add the instructions to both the article and infobox guidelines. Betty Logan (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

MOS:FILM#Lead section says, "Ideally, the nationality of the film (based on its home studio) should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is ambiguous, clarify the circumstances at a later point in the first paragraph." We can cut out the statement in parentheses as we're leaving behind company criteria, but I think these guidelines are sufficient for the article body. In the infobox, the difference is that we lack context to explain the inclusion of countries, so if it's not straightforward, save it for the article body. I think that it's easier to resolve nationality disputes in the article body, most especially the lead section and the lead sentence. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that's fine Erik. To be fair this revision actually takes us much closer to the directive in the lede. Obviously the text body of the article leaves a lot more scope for clarification, whereas the infobox is pretty much a decision to list a country or not, so no grey area. Betty Logan (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I'll reiterate the new guidelines here. If people want to make adjustments, just alter the text and post it directly under:

"Use the nationality of the film as identified in the lead of the article. The nationality of the film should be backed up with a reliable source. The source should clearly identify the nationality in a descriptive capacity, as in describing it as an American or a French film/movie etc, or in a contextual capacity, such as a list of top 100 "British films" or as an example of German film etc. Sources that simply identify the production country or country of origin as in the case of resources like Allmovie and IMDb are not sufficient identification of the film's nationality. If there is a dispute over what a film's nationality is, then the country field should not be filled in."

Erik's draft should get the nod here, primarily because his thinking on this is so bad. He's distinctly in the minority, he doesn't answer his critics, he doesn't care about the readers, he's comfortable creating the conditions for edit wars, it doesn't bother him to ignore the obvious contrary consensus, he's not concerned about creating problems for other editors, and he's happy to hold everyone else hostage to his stubborn mistakes. That's real leadership. We should give his views a go ahead so he loses credibility completely. What I don't want to do is take out the Country field completely for about 30 days and return to the issue again to see if that created problems. That would be a reasonable compromise and Erik doesn't want that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This revision is going to see the criteria dropped and the field removed from good a proportion of articles, which includes "The White Ribbon". It also removes the emphasis from production companies which really was the starting issue for this discussion. If more editors join the discussion and it becomes clear that the overwhelming view is to remove the parameters then that can be done, but the current discussion is limited to just a few editors so at this point we either do nothing or improve the situation as much as we can. Betty Logan (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Lugnuts had mentioned this discussion at WT:FILM a couple of days ago, and I updated the thread with an invitation for additional editors to join. I had also messaged IllaZilla, MarnetteD, and Bignole about their thoughts about this approach. Bignole responded above, and hopefully the other two can respond as well. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are the thoughts that have run through my head since receiving Erik's message. First, why do we even have this field? I speculate (though I could easily be wrong) that it came to our infoboxes because it is an item at IMDb. Don't forget that website was not considered unreliable until somewhere around 05-07 and a great number of our film articles were using IMDb as the starting spot for their creation. Next, while I think that all of you have done good work trying to hammer out a use for the field there sheer size of this thread shows how unlikely it is that a final set of criteria can be reached. There will always be grey areas for some films and if you make an exception to the criteria for one set of circumstances then other editors will have a right to claim that exceptions should also be made for their ideas. Next, since even the most congenial consensus is fluid I think that within the next six to twenty-four months we will be back here hammering out what this field is about again with new or long term editors. Lastly, even if we were to achieve a temporary or long term consensus how do we inform the reader of our film articles what the term country is covering. I just think that information for the "production" v "location" v "whatever else" countries in the body of the article is the best way to go. Thus, I am still for removing the field. Having said all that my praise to all of you for trying to work this situation out and if you come to a consensus that you are all happy with I would not stand in the way of it. PS any chance of someone throwing in a section break for editing convenience, since I've been away from the discussion I'm not sure where a good spot would be but it would save much scrolling for future editing on this thread. Thanks ahead of time for anyone being bold and taking care of this. MarnetteD | Talk 21:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, you commented in the right place! :) To return to basics, the purpose of the infobox is "to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears". The nationality of a film is usually a key fact. Many films will have a clear-cut nationality, and it can be easily reflected in the infobox along with its language. Regardless of the country field's origins, I think that the field is frequently a key fact of films. There is a lot of context out there that identifies a film as being from this country or that country. When it is not a key fact or not easy to explain in the infobox (the gray areas), the field does not need to be used. What are your concerns with exceptions? Exceptions should not arise; if the manner of filling the field is disputed, we can instead identify the countries in the article body itself. I'm not sure if the guidelines will be abused, but they will at least preserve these key facts of films where the countries are straightforward. This approach is not the opposite direction from universal removal. It's progression toward that end, attempting to only address the disputed fields first. If we do come back here to talk about the field, it will likely be because the guidelines were insufficient and universal removal is more definite. Do you not think that's worth a try? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This method is going to be highly misleading to the readers and a disaster for the editors. One of the first sources editors will turn to will be Variety, which lists countries. But they use the home countries of the production companies. And that will be cited as a verifiable source. Then there will be a discussion about how production companies are only one part. Etc. This is going right down the path to edit wars, but it's going to drag them into the article instead of just being about the infobox. Why? Because Erik has a fantasy that everyone will magically agree on what each film's nationality is, or be perfectly fine with dropping the field when there's a dispute. Complete rubbish. Erik, what does it take for you to admit you made a mistake? I don't think you're up to it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It bears mentioning that every other field in the infobox is a fact that can be unambiguously referenced, with the exception of Budget, perhaps. So when Erik makes the argument that the infobox should include any and all "characteristics" of the film, he's mixing apples in with the oranges. Obviously a film's nationality is not something one can simply check; rather, it's something people will disagree about without being able to agree on how to resolve it. But no matter. Well done, Erik! --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, someone appears to have misplaced their good faith and civility. I'd suggest taking a time out while you go and look for them. PC78 (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Those are valid points, but Erik has made it very clear that to agree to scrapping the parameter he will have to be proven wrong. If the new criteria results in a train wreck then he clearly can't stick to the same stance. I guess if the parameter really is that much of a sticking point for some of the editors then they'll have to file an RfC and get some outside input into this discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Erik's lack of respect for other viewpoints is very clear. He's happy to ignore the readers and waste the time of the editors. Should we maintain the fiction that he's not abusing the process for no good reason? Sorry, I don't come here for fiction. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Still not found them, then? Stamping your feet, abusing others and claiming there is a concensus when there plainly isn't doesn't reflect too well on you. This discussion is barely two days old and has had limited participation. Betty seems open to compromise, and it's a shame you don't. PC78 (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're being inaccurate again. We have overwhelming support already for a compromise that, in fact, there is no reason for anyone to refuse. So why are we paying attention to the viewpoint that is held by exactly one person? (No, it is not selfishness!) --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Betty, I am probably a bit optimistic about these guidelines. Up to now, we've had a compulsion to fill the country field and have had too many long discussions about it for certain films. It is a new development to have guidelines to drop the field if it is too contentious. It's entirely possible that certain editors may engage in edit warring to retain the country field with what they think are the right countries instead of accepting that we can just cover the countries in the article body. I do not think it would happen nearly as often as some expect; the article body gives enormous flexibility in being able to explain everything about a film and the countries involved in making it. The key contention of this discussion is not that the country field exists in the first place, but that we have a set of circumstances where it is difficult to define the countries for the field. I am trying to take a page from when we avoid the nationality or even the genre in the lead sentence when neither case is straightforward. I'm just one person suggesting a middle-of-the-road solution. My impression from editing film articles is that the country field is clear-cut in the majority of film articles, and that frustrations lie in the handful of film articles that we remember being contentious. Is this the wrong impression to have? Erik (talk | contribs) 02:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a tall order reducing complex information to one field. I'm not ideologically against the concept of national identities for film—you have the French New Wave, Gialli, personally I'm a huge fan of 60s Brit film and 70s American film—and I don't think anyone would argue that Casablanca isn't an American film, so it would be churlish to ignore the national identity of a film where it clearly exists, but the problem is always going to be the grey area and how we isolate that. Will the new criteria go some way to addressing the problem or will it merely shift the grey area? I'm prepared to be open-minded on this which is why I've played a positive role in trying to put together new criteria. I'm optimistic that the new criteria will give better direction in resolving disputes, but as Ring points out the vast majority will still look up Variety or IMDb and still just fill in the country from there. The new criteria easily caters for that by explicitly stating that sources that simply identify the "country" is not enough, but how many editors are going to check the criteria first? We can direct editors to the criteria, even leave notes on articles that get targetted a lot, but I suspect the problem may not be the disputed cases in the future, but rather with good faith editors who simply aren't aware of the guidelines. Enforcing rules is different from awareness of them. The reason I support trying out new criteria though is because something like "Casablanca" can be called an American, just like "Carry On" and "Hammer" films are as British as you can get, so if there is a chance of finding that divide then I'm prepared to reserve my judgement and see how things pan out. Betty Logan (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's be accurate. The status quo includes, in fact, the following information: the production company names and their countries of origin. Nothing else, if the guidelines are followed. Is it necessary to include other information or define other fields? That is far from clear. Now, what is the problem? The status quo presents misleading information to the readers and edit wars to the editors. That's not good. Things should mean what they say. So, what type of solution is right? Do we want to open new vistas of edit wars? No. Do we want to retain the information from the status quo? No reason not to. Therefore, why are taking this time to cobble together new definitions? Shouldn't we solve the misleading part first? Seems sensible. That's the gist of Betty's proposal. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This is just going to be dreadful. The mix of information is not ideal and sure it could be better explained but clearing it out completely is not going to help WP:IMPROVE things. Editors making a good faith effort to improve articles are going to have to deal with others saying their efforts are not good enough and just deleting them.

It seems particularly odd when editors insist on blanking the country field for the fourth part of a series. The consistent thing would be to remove the country field from the whole series, but that doesn't really improve things. WP:IMPROVE is a far more important principle than avoiding a bit of ambiguity.

Blanking - as advocated now, not even asking for citations or explanation - is a very hostile attitude to take considering how many existing articles have a mix of information in them at the moment. -- Horkana (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The status quo is dreadful. If it was only ambiguous, that would be one thing. It's actually misleading and false. Nothing hostile about wanting the information to be correct and trying to avoid edit wars over categories that may not even exist. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Resident Evil series is a prime example of where it is impossible to define nationality. I don't see the point of ambiguous information—if you're not actually saying something then don't say it! Betty Logan (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Blanking is not hostile. Making a claim like that is too POV and adds unnecessary friction to the discussion. How does it WP:IMPROVE an article to have misleading info in it. Constant edit changes (sometimes spilling into edit warring) also does nothing to improve wikipedia. You like that item that is fine - others do not. Please do not amp up the rhetoric by making false claims of hostility. MarnetteD | Talk 21:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

After reading this entire discussion I have a question about the new guideline and how it is written. As of this writing it states, "The source must clearly identify the nationality in a descriptive capacity, as in describing it as an American or a French film/movie etc, or in a contextual capacity such as the BFI's list of top 100 "British films" or as an example in a published work on German film etc."

My question is based on what IllaZilla mentioned above, "...National Film Registry of the Library of Congress which seeks to "represent a stunning range of American filmmaking" and "stand among the finest summations of American cinema". My question: Is the opinion of the US government placing a film on this list enough to warrant it being called on American film? Would it still be adhering to the current guideline if so? DrNegative (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it qualifies in a contextual capacity. The point was to try and come up with a criteria that relied on cultural identity rather than corporate identity, and notable national registries/collections are probably the best types of sources for this type of thing. Its mission statement of seeking to represent "American film-making" is really the essence of the new guidelines. It's notable, it's an RS, and establishes a context of "American film-making" so it seems to tick all the boxes. Betty Logan (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It probably bears mentioning that the view Betty is defending was actually the minority viewpoint. Most editors who commented agreed the category was worthy of elimination but for some reason.... There were several observations to the effect that this new effort would lead to a lot of edit wars, and here we have a good example why. It seems like we should be following the majority view or hear a compromise from the minority that is acceptable to the majority. This procedure is out of bounds and we should recognize that. If someone from the minority doesn't offer a better solution in a week, I will be happy to write their proposal for them. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I supported removing the field, but some of the editors made it clear they didn't share that view. The issue simply doesn't get addressed if editors stick to their guns for months on end. Someone with admin permissions has to alter the infobox, and I don't think an admin would deem a majority view among half a dozen editors as consensus. In view of that what would you have the project do? Do you think we should just retain the old system and hope that maybe one day one side wins out? It's not that I don't agree with your points, but you're not really suggesting anything that would take us forward. Betty Logan (talk) 06:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI A dozen editors input is about average (if not a little more) for infobox changes (and article, category, template changes/deletions etc.) The elimination of actor infoboxes was decided 12-15 editors. MarnetteD | Talk 12:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. It's positively shocking that a single editor would even try to overrule an overwhelming majority of interested editors based on, um, well, uh, nothing. What is that game called? Consensus means a lot of things, but I'm sure it doesn't mean dictatorship. People who don't want to follow the usual procedures can be given an opportunity to comply. Another week is reasonable for the dissenters to try to offer a proposal that gains more acceptance than yours, Betty. Let's see how they do. It wouldn't be fair to prejudge their efforts. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm more than happy for other editors to put something forward. At the moment I think the current criteria is better than what we had—it at least breaks the dependence on production companies which was my main problem with the field and gives us a clear default of dropping countries from disputed cases, so as a worst case scenario it's an improvement—but if you have something better which you can get by the dissenters then that's fine by me. Betty Logan (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Director Country = Film Country

I'm not claiming director nationality determines a movie's nationality, but it's probably the single most important criterion. I would point out that Hitchcock moved from England to the US, so it's hardly surprising that we'd divide his films that way as a useful shorthand.... I would love to know which of Fellini's films would be considered Korean if it had been produced by a Korean company. Please let's have the title. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's not, because this is entirely hypothetical. Instead, you can comment on the examples I gave. Do you regard Top Gun as a British film? PC78 (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about Top Gun, but it's no skin off my position to allow for exceptions. If you think it's American despite a non-American director (my assumption) that makes the point rather well that designating nationality for a movie is simply a fool's errand. We don't have to do it, so we shouldn't pretend we're doing it correctly. Do you agree? On the other hand, since you can't name a Fellini film that would be Korean if it was produced by Koreans, I take that as confirmation that all Fellini's movies are Italian. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't prove your point at all; I don't recall anyone but you suggesting that the nationality of the film should be the same as the nationality of the director. Did Fellini make any films in Korea? How can I name something that doesn't exist? That was your example and it seems entirely hypothetical, so I have no idea what point you're trying to prove. This line of questioning from you is not productive. PC78 (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(Just to catch a mistake: I didn't say director's nationality = film's nationality. I said it's the leading criterion among the many criteria. On this point, I believe you and I see eye to eye, since I believe you agree with me that a film's country, properly construed, is a function of several variables.) The purpose of the exercise on Fellini is just this: if it's true that the company's country dictates the film's country, then we should be able to take a film from, let's say, Italy, change only the production company to Korean and transform it into a Korean film. However, that doesn't seem to work; any actual Fellini movie, if it had been produced by a Korean company, would still be Italian (so I claim). Therefore, we have a demonstration of the poverty of the idea that the current guideline is correct. You can falsify my claim with an example of a Fellini film that would not be Italian if produced by a Korean company. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Leading criterion, then, that's more or less the same thing. And I don't agree with you on this point; in fact, I think it's far less of a factor than the production companies. I won't waste any more time on your Fellini scenario. I gave you two actual examples, an American film by a British director and a British film by an Indian director. It would be more helpful if you could comment properly on those, but to be honest I don't really see where this part of the discussion is going. PC78 (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

More or less the same thing? No, you were simply wrong. Sorry. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

And in the end you had nothing constructive to say; I'm sorry too. I'll be returning to the proper discussion now. PC78 (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is with the definition, but to resolve the problem requires that there is a definitive criteria for a film's nationality, and I don't think there is. It's easy to identify a film like "Jurassic Park" or "Raging Bull" as American, where the film is an in-house production but there are so many examples that lie outside of such an easy definition. Let's face it, "The Terminator" is an American film—the creative impetus is American and it was made there but executive control lies with a British outfit. We have the reverse situation with "Harry Potter". "Lord of the Rings" is to all intents and purposes a New Zealand work—it was put together by a NZ production team and filmed there despite being a Newline production. This doesn't always hold true though: the new "Batman" films are put together by a British production outfit but I don't think anyone could argue with any conviction they are British films. They are essentially a studio production put together by a British production outfit. If we go by where the production is based where does that leave "Star Wars"? I don't think it's possible to produce a definitive criteria without violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV either. The only objective criteria I can think of is to use is the nationality of the company that copyrighted the film—after all, this is really the only legal criteria for nationality that doesn't depend on a viewpoint or perspective, but then that leads us back exactly where we started with counter-intuitive nationalities: "The Terminator" is British and "Harry Potter" is American. We all know what "country" implies, but in reality there are many factors that determine it and they are given different weighting from film to film. There simply isn't a one-size-fits-all solution. Betty Logan (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC) (refactored)

BTW, The White Ribbon is Austrian. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Country -- the current guidelines

My understanding is that the current guidelines on using Country in a film's infobox call for editors to use the country or countries where the main production company or companies are located. Some contributors to the above discussion seem to have the view that Country refers to something else, like "where the film is from" (whatever that means). I think we should be clear on this. I don't think we're talking about where the films are from. We're talking about what the guideline currently says, which has to do with the main production companies and either its postal address, office location, or its place of incorporation. So according to the current guidelines the editors who follow the guidelines should learn (1) the country of (2) the main production company. Please use this space to discuss what the guidelines currently say. Thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

One section that might be able to be trimmed

When we've discussed trimming the infobox of unnecessarys because of its length, I don't recall us ever throwing "runtime" out there. What purpose does this criteria actually serve? It's rarely talked about beyond the infobox and when it is it's accompanied by prose and since we don't include any other runtime except the theatrical version, do we really need this category?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see what other editors think. BTW I have seen numerous infoboxes that include multiple runtimes; including initial theatrical release, theatrical release by country, subsequent theatrical release and directors cut to name a few. At the moment I lean towards preferring this info in the infobox. For many films it is such a small piece of info that it does not need prose. Only when you get different length releases of a film does a section in the article to explain why these are differences exist make sense. Blade Runner seems to be a good example of the second typr. On the other hand the eternal problem of sourcing still exists. IMDb is the usual starting place and we know their reliability problems. I have seen articles where the DVD or VHS runtime was used but then you can have the same film have different runtimes due to the technology differences between the US and the UK and Europe (frames per second and all that). I do know that the info is useful as I often look for it so that I know how much time I have to set aside for watching a given film be it at the theater or at home. Having typed all of this I do feel that we need to have the info in our articles be it infobox or in the article itself. Lets see what others prefer. MarnetteD | Talk 02:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think runtime is useful and informative. It gives an idea of the kind of film and it's usually objective. Sometimes I look for this information before watching a film. I don't think "necessary" is exactly the standard for inclusion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(To Marnette) If articles are including Director's Cut runtimes and that Director's Cut wasn't released in theaters then it needs to be removed, because the infobox info is based on theatrical release information. We don't include DVD release dates in the infobox. I think you hit it on the head, "it's such a small piece of information"...not only is it small but it tells us basically nothing about the film itself. Being "useful" because you want to know what the runtime for a film is for your personal benefit doesn't necessarily make it "useful" to an encyclopedic article. If there is something noteworthy about a runtime it'll be presented in prose format, like with Blade Runner. If not, then it's just an arbitrary number that doesn't hold actual value. Any basic film database, or cinema listing will have the runtime presented. One could have argued that the external links in the infobox were useful as well, but, like those external links, the runtime doesn't hold any actual value to an already overly long box.

(To Ring Cinema) How does runtime provide any idea as to what kind of film you're watching? As far as I know, there isn't some guide that says "101 minutes = Dramatic film". Again, it seems you're basing its inclusion on what you get out of it, and not what the article itself gets out of it. If that was the case, I get a lot out of trivial information that I typically read on IMDb.com, but that's not in our articles any longer.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong about directors cuts not being released in theaters. The directors cuts of Blade Runner, Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and Amadeus have all had theatrical releases to say nothing of the 5000 versions of Star Wars IV, V and VI. Comparing DVD release dates and runtimes is comparing apples and oranges - they are two totally different things. As to the comment that it is only useful to me I would hazard a guess that I am not the only reader on the planet that it helps. Saying what matters is what is useful to the article is almost meaningless because an article without readers might as well not exist. When readers come to wikipedia for info why should they then have to go to other websites for info as simple as run time. Oh and by the way just because you don't find it "useful" doesn't mean that others won't. You have presented your case for removal and that is fine. On the other hand there is no need to attack the reasoning of others who comment here just because they disagree with you. Especially since, so far your reasoning seem to be that we should remove it because "you" don' get anything out of it being in the infobox. MarnetteD | Talk 03:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Bignole, I think on a common sense level it matters that two of us seek out runtime information. That is evidence that it is not so very trivial. I'm not sure of the contrast you make between "what the article itself gets out of it" and what the reader gets out of it. The article is for the reader. When the reader finds the information sought in the article, both are satisfied. Does that seem fair? --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I said, "if it was NOT released in theaters", thus for films like Aliens, Blade Runner, or say Star Wars that have seen those cuts releasted in theaters then it would be appropriate to mention it. Readers also come to Wikipedia looking for trivia, so to argue that they come for minutia like a runtime would be irrelevant. I never stated that I don't find the runtime useful. So please do not put words in my mouth simply because I didn't say ahead of time that I actually look up runtimes on Wikipedia. What I'm saying is that it doesn't benefit the article in any such way and is easily the most removable object in the infobox. There is a difference between "I find it useful" and "It's essential to understanding the article". Also, to say an article without readers you might as well not have an article is like arguing if you don't have a runtime listed that no one will read the page. That makes little sense. It's amazing that people (not saying you) would argue for the removal of specific individuals and roles from the infobox, but something as irrelevant as a runtime would garner more dissention than a proposed removal of Cinematographer or Editor. BTW, I'm not "attacking" anyone's argument. The entire idea behind a debate is to challenge what others say.

How does two (or even 3 if you include me) seeking out runtime minutes somehow make it not a trivial piece of information? There is no logic behind that. Again, if 20 people sought out bloopers from a film does that somehow make bloopers non-trivial information that we should start including (again).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

My feelings on the the infobox are that it should contain intrinsic data—that is data we can fill in once the film is locked. I'd prefer to get rid of things like gross, distributor and release dates because they're not really about the film, they're more to do with the release of the film. Runtime is borderline for me because it's not universal with national censors ordering cuts etc, but I look runtimes up a lot so wouldn't want to discourage this information being added. However, these discussions are circular because someone suggests dumping something and someone comes along and disagrees. Maybe the key to this is to stop thinking about dumping stuff and perhaps thinking about distinguishing information and the presentation of it. For instance, some information about films is less prominent than others: no-one ever suggests dropping director or the star etc, so I think we can all agree that some information is absolutely central while some of it is peripheral. I don't know what the guidelines are on this, but would there be any scope in making the infobox partly collapsable, so that only part of it shows by default and readers have to choose to see it all? That way things like 'director' and 'star' would be displayed automatically but readers have to expand to see stuff like the gross and distributor and runtime—basically any type of information that isn't available when the film is "locked" ready for release. Betty Logan (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The film infobox serves more than just being a summary of what is normally in the article. It provides information about the film at a glance, and I find the runtime in particular to be worthwhile referential data. It strikes me as tacitly useful information; its value is not apparent on its own, but as other editors have indicated, they find having the runtime useful. I can understand that its importance is not reflected in the article, but we need to use editorial discretion here to determine if a set of information is indiscriminate or not. I do not believe that the runtime is indiscriminate to the point of exclusion. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

As much as I regularly use the runtime myself, I have to respectfully disagree with everyone about its "importance" to an article and relevance to the infobox. That's my suggestion for one way to start trimming the infobox given that that's been such an issue for several months. If something as miniscule as the runtime is getting such protection, it strikes me that no one really wants to trim the infobox, just keep out anything else that may actually be helpful but would certainly extend it to an unreasonable length. So, I'm stepping out of any future conversations regarding this infobox and will just allow the pages I watch to be adjusted by a BOT for whatever is decided in the future. Cheers to all (and nothing insulting or personal was meant by any of my previous arguments toward Marnette or Ring Cinema).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your interpretation, BigNole. Your views are welcome. Erik has mentioned in the past that the infobox should give an "at-a-glance" idea of the article's main points and that seems about right. Like Betty, I privately interrogate the fields that are almost by definition incorrect: box office literally changes every day so who are we kidding. We should do what we do best as Wikipedia editors, if that's not too vague. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the problem here. "Important" may be too strong a word, but this does nevertheless provide useful, verifiable, factual information about a film. And it does tell you something about the film. There is nothing else in the infobox to distinguish feature films from shorts, and it's useful to know at a glance whether or not we're dealing with a five minute short or a three hour epic. I also don't understand this compulsive need to try and trim the infobox. The length really isn't a problem, so let's stop trying to find the solution. But I for one will always welcome Bignole's input here, even if I don't always agree, so I hope that comment above was only made in the heat of the moment. PC78 (talk) 07:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It's as useful as most of the other fields in the infobox. Is the film 87 minutes long or 157 minutes long? Was that film release on the 5th September 1935, no it was the 8th September 1936. And so on. Lugnuts (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Writer Parameter

I would be interested in hearing the rationale for listing the writers of previously published material along with the writers for the script of the film in the same section. To me it would make more sense if there was another section tilted "Adapted from" or something listing these sources (or perhaps putting an adaptaion section in the main body of the article if the goal is to keep the infobox length down). When the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences presents writing Oscars, authors of the original works are not included. Additionally, movie scripts often have little resemblance to the works they were adapted from (Disney's Jungle Book, Blade Runner, Witness for the Prosecution, etc.). It just looks odd to include Thomas Mallory as a writer for the film Excalibur when he died over 500 years ago. Any thoughts? Dohhh22 (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm someone inclined to agree that the author of the original work really shouldn't be listed with the author, particularly when the infobox does not even include the adapted from work itself. I'd favor updating the instructions to specifically state that the author of the original work should not be included in the infobox, or for added a specific "adapted from" parameter where the title/author would be properly listed. The argument I could see against that, though, is where a work is "based on" rather than adapted from, or if it is adapted from multiple works. I think it would probably be best to cover it just in the article's prose, as most films are not adaptations, and just discourage listing the original work's author in the infobox at all. If a work is an adaptation, it is usually noted in the lead and the production section. I don't think an adaptation section would be quite appropriate for the film article, though the process of doing the adaptation could be, and hopefully is, covered in the production section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't based around who gets an award (though the writers that win those awards win them for "adapted screenplay" so it's clear they didn't write some original piece), it's based on attributing appropriate credit to the authors. It doesn't matter if Film X bears no resemblance to Novel Y, so long as it's clear that the screenwriters based their script on previously published material. If you remove that, you might as well remove any writer who didn't write the final draft of the screenplay, because often times when you have multiple writers working on multiple drafts they don't all resemble each other...though they all get proper credit for their contribution.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

True, but the infobox is describing the film, not the material it was based on. Attributing appropriate credit to the authors strengthens the argument that it should list the screenwriters only. If a writer publishes a book about Abraham Lincoln, he is listed as the auther, not him and all the authors he used in basing his work. I agree with Anma that it is better suited to being discussed in the article and left out of the infobox all together. Dohhh22 (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If he adapted his work on Abe from something already published, then he does actually credit those writers (not if he's merely using them as a resource material). The rule should be, if they are credited in the film then they should be credited in the infobox. Obviously, the film producers find the need to credit these people in the opening of the film (which they are not required to do, they can regulate them to end credits), so why are we minimizing the importance of such contribution? We should not be cherry picking author credit. What's the difference between saying "Screenplay by" and "Story by"? By your definition, we shouldn't include anyone that came up with the story for a film, because they didn't actually write the finalized screenplay.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying that the "story by" should be removed at all. It is a contribution to the FILM. And I also agree that the original works can be credited in the infobox. The point is to separate them out. The template states that they should have the {{small}} parameter to distinguish this, but often times is not done. Maybe the answer is to do a cleanup for consistancy. In Betty's case below, all three entries do site the original work, but in a separate entry, not all lumped together as "The Writer". Dohhh22 (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Three film info sites I checked all document the author of the source material. Take Harry Potter for instance, the NYTimes [2], Allmovie [3] and the British Film Institute [4] all credit J K Rowling. All three sites register the author immediately after the screenplay writers. It's obviously a universal precedent so in view of that I think Wikipedia should follow the example. Betty Logan (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that they should have their text "smallerized" in the template. It's still diminishing their contribution to the film. Regardless of whether it's a direct contribution or not, it's still a contribution to the film if you provide the characters for the bases of a movie. Again, the rule should be if the film itself gives them credit then so should we. Removing this one category, which is not that common to begin with, is not somehow going to make the infobox smaller or more concise.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Dohhh's suggestion to "split" the parameter is possibly a good one. The three examples above all make a distinction between the screenwriters and the source. "Screenwriter" is a proper film credit like a director or producer, and the WGA for example has specific rules for who can be credited as a screenwriter (which governs most Hollywood output). It's important to retain the original author in the infobox, but perhaps we can add a "source material" parameter for novels, plays etc, and any other writing contribution that is credited in the film but isn't assigned a script writing credit by the WGA. Betty Logan (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate, technically the original author of a work (or film, for film remakes) may or may not have really contributed anything. If they are long dead, they likely had no say in having their work adapted to a film and may or may not even approve. I do think it is wrong to lump them with the screenplay writers, as they really did not "contribute" to the making of the film. They wrote a book or made a film. Someone else decided to adapt or remake it. If the author was alive, maybe they had a say, maybe they helped write the screenplay, etc, but most of the time, that isn't the case. If the publisher owns the film rights, the author may have gotten nothing more than an FYI notice (again, presuming they were alive). As I noted above, I don't think it really needs noting in the infobox at all, since it is already well handled in the prose. As for film's giving credit - its a legal requirement, and it is frequently put in smaller print than the rest, almost like a footnote. If it is going to be in the infobox, though, I do think it should be in a separate film. Putting them equal to the screenwriters, who are the ones who actually wrote the film, seems diminishing those who did the actual work. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

So did we ever get anywhere with this? How are these types of things usually sorted out?Dohhh22 (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the only remote consensus was to just create a new section for "original work by" (or something similar) so as to remove the "Original..." credit away from the screenwriter credit.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the difficulty with this approach is that we're identifying the author of the source material without identifying the source material itself. I have to agree that the infobox should identify writers for the film. In any case, the lead section of all films based on adapted screenplays always, always identify the source material and its author(s). We may exercise some redundancy between the infobox and the lead section, but based on the degree of adapting ("loosely based upon", "satirical take"), the lead section provides room for context. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead section also lists the screenplay writers, so if it's redundant to list the adapted from writers then it's true for the others. In addition, we generally put "Original characters" or "1978 screenplay" or some other thing that indicates what is taken from the original work. I don't see a problem if the lead is providing additional details about what the title of the adapted work is, but I don't think that it's a redundancy that's anymore unnecessary than an infobox that lists the exact same names directly beside a lead paragraph that lists the exact same names.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes are supposed to be redundant in that they summarise the article. In the NYTimes, Allmovie and BFI articles JK Rowling is credited in the credits as Source material/book author without namechecking the title of the book. Betty Logan (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

After some consideration, it makes sense to credit both whenever possible. Should we split "Written by" into "Screenplay by" and "Story by"? We will always be able to fill "Screenplay by" but can leave "Story by" blank if the context is not clear-cut. For example, we would not fill "Story by" for The Passion of the Christ. Also, "Screenplay by" is ambivalent; it could be original or adapted. That would be up to the article body to explain. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Check out the James Bond template at Goldeneye - they already split the story/screenplay credit, so maybe we could just use the same terminology and then the infoboxes will be consistent. Betty Logan (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think labeling the entry as "Novel/Story by" will cause additional problems. I think a better solution may be to label the entry as "Adpated from" or something similar, then the entry could read "A play by Murray Burnett and Joan Allison" (Casablanca), "A novella by James M. Cain" (Double Indemnity), "A compilation of stories by Sir Thomas Malory" (Excalibur), "A story by Bob Israel" (Bachelor Party), etc.Dohhh22 (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Betty is endorsing the split in general, not necessarily "Novel/Story by". Why are you proposing lengthier descriptions for the infobox, though? "A compilation of stories by Sir Thomas Malory" does not fit comfortably in the infobox at all; we should use the article body for such detail. Why not "Screenplay by" in all cases and "Story by" in cases where it's straightforward? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I like that.Dohhh22 (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool. :) Since this would be a pretty big change, we should gather more input. For example, I'm trying to remember why this was not done in the first place? It seems too easy of an answer and makes me think I'm overlooking some historical argument against the split. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Egads! I'm a bit late to the party, but I agree that we should have a separate parameter for the original author. Oftentimes, when the author of a source novel is credited alongside the film adaptation's writers, it can lead to confusion amongst readers who might misinterpret that as having contributed to the screenplay themselves. (In some cases, naturally, they do. But these should be separate distinctions, much like Woody Allen being mentioned in both director and writer...and producer...and actor.) And adding a mention in parentheses, i.e. J.D. Salinger (novel), only clutters the infobox up. So I hope this comes to pass.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 03:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Erik, note that you also have "Characters by" in the writer field sometimes (and possibly even more "writing tasks", though I can't think of any at the moment) and then there's movies where there are screen stories created from the original novel/story etc., so splitting "Written by" up into "Screenplay by" and "Story by" does not feel right to me.

Personally, I think the best solution is a new separate field producing "Based on" or "Adapted from" (is there a difference between the two wordings?) with the wikified original work behind. For example... Based on: Contact

I'm leaning slightly towards using this method instead of crediting the author of the original work in a new field, but I can't say I care much about which of the two it will be.

And I'd keep "Written by" as is and use the format for screenplay, screen story, and characters that will result from the current discussion. Prime Blue (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we should go with Erik's proposal for now. The most common format for film authorship is in the form of original screenplays and screenplays adapted from novels. "Screenplay by" and "Story by" would cater for such cases. The key is to not get caught up in trying to standardise everything. We can keep the "Written by" parameter and break it up into sub-headings like we do now for any case that doesn't fit easily into the screenplay by/story by structure. If there is a need for further parameters down the line we can come back in 6 months and resurrect this discussion if we want. But I think it's time to wrap up this particular discussion, adding the two extra parameters would give a bit more slack in how the information is presented, so if all editors would welcome that let's just get on with it. If not, let's fail the proposal and concentrate on standardising the current method being discussed below. Betty Logan (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

But what if the screen story is separate from the original work the film was based on, like Contact or The Curious Case of Benjamin Button? I still think a separate "Based on/Original work" field that links to the original work is better, as per the points made by AnmaFinotera and Dohhh22 above: That part of the writing process is not an active participation in the making of the film, but a "Based on/Original work" field will still signify that this film is not an entirely original work. I think this is the best solution for a new template. Prime Blue (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Prime Blue, I edited your template slightly to include the name of the writer instead of the title of the source material. This is WGA standard, after all. Also, I don't think it's necessary to have this discussion in two pages since it now concerns the same thing. Let's keep it here or continue it here.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 15:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep the discussion separate. Adding separate parameters is very different in nature to just formalising a style. Betty Logan (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say let's determine the fields here first, then have a discussion on the style for everything that's left. Prime Blue (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, these are exceptions that can continue being done as they are now, but the vast majority of adapted work can be split into screenwriter/novelist which is what the proposed solution addresses. All this does is give you an extra option, but I don't think Erik is prepared to go further and I certainly don't want to see lots of superfluous parameters added that will hardly be used so it's a take or leave thing really. The proposal is to add the "Screenplay by" and "Story by" parameters, so we either accept or reject that because we're not going to add lots of extra or vague parameters to the infobox. This discussion about two extra parameters has been going on over a month, so if we don't get a consensus to go ahead and add the extra parameters we may as well drop the idea, and focus our attention on how the information will be structured within the current existing "written by" parameter. Betty Logan (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is a major change that will affect thousands of articles if implented – it'll take some time to work things out; everyone's viewpoints need to be taken into consideration. I think it's better to do it right than to do it fast. We're definitely getting somewhere, let's not rush to a decision now. The snag with adding "Screenplay by" and "Story by" fields without an "Original work by" field, as Prime Blue mentioned, is that there are story credits that are not related to any source material. As I see it, if we want to add the new fields to the infobox — which we definitely should — we need to add three fields, not just two. Is everyone agreed on adding the "Screenplay by" and "Story by" to the infobox, as Prime Blue suggested? (Like this). If everyone's agreed on that, we can focus on the major point of contention: how to credit source material writers. Shall we, then?

My own proposition, to repeat what I was saying earlier, is to add an "Original work by" field with the source material writer credited by name. Prime Blue suggests displaying the title of the work in the infobox, linking to it if a Wikipedia page exists. I believe it to be advisable to retain this information in the lead section of the article.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 15:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This post comes after an edit conflict with Funkyvoltron, so please excuse if I repeated some of his points. :/

I am very uncomfortable with having the original work creator in a "Story by" field. The Writers Guild of America, West "Screen Credits Manual" Funkyvoltron referred to is here. While this does not dictate what we should do on Wikipedia, it gives a good explanation of what our field titles mean.

• "Written by": for films where writers could be credited individually with both "Story by" and "Screenplay by"
• "Screenplay by": self-explanatory
• "Story by": "distinct from screenplay and consisting of basic narrative, idea, theme or outline indicating character development and action", so only if a writer participated in the film or if a writer's work came to be used straight in a film without any prior release (e.g. not published as a novel)
• "Screen story by": "when the screenplay is based upon source material and a story, as those terms are defined above, and the story is substantially new or different from the source material" – for the sake of making the infobox not too complex, we do not have to create an additional field for this and just include it in "Story by"
• "Based on / Original work/Source material (by)": "Source material is all material, other than story as hereinafter defined, upon which the story and/or screenplay is based."

That's it. Based on this, we would have to add only three fields: "Screenplay by", "Story by" (those two used optionally if one of the writers did only one of the two tasks), and a third field for the original work (by). I still don't care too much whether this third field is "Based on" or credits the author with "Original work/Source material by", as long as we keep this field separate from "Story by". Prime Blue (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What's the difference between "original work" and "source material"? "Source material by" seems like a good catch all after "written/story/screenplay by". Betty Logan (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no difference between the two. I just saw that the WGA called it "source material", so I included that term here as another option for the title of that field. Prime Blue (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

See, we're actually getting somewhere now. Prime Blue expanded on what I was saying very well. I didn't catch that the proposition was to credit source material writers under the "Story by" field – I, too, am very uncomfortable with that. As for the source material field, I still believe "Original work by", or possibly "Source material by", is the best way to go, with the source material being mentioned early in the lead of the article.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 16:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's make this sub-section more open-ended. I find the addition of these fields to be a reasonable start. In situations where just these do not apply, we can fall back on the "Written by" field. There are so many ways to break down the writing credits. Regarding, the "Based on" field type, I don't recall most scrolling credits using anything like this; it stays pretty film-centric. Does "Story by" not go both ways in terms of writing for the film and writing the source material on which the film is based? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As Funkyvoltron said, it might be better to take one issue at a time, just to have a more structured discussion. That is why I created this section as "objections only" to this particular sub-consensus. Discussions on whether to split off "Based on / Original work/Source material by" from "Story by" or not should be kept here for the moment and will be decided on when there are no objections to the two fields mentioned below. Prime Blue (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been following this and I like what has come out of it. As I said back when I brought this up, my problem was the inconsistancy and giving film writing credit to someone like Sir Thomas Mallory who obviously had nothing to do with the film. I like the proposal of the two fileds as the strart.Dohhh22 (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Progress on reaching consensus

Okay, judging from all the comments the "Screenplay by" and "Story by" fields have received above and below, it seems that their addition is universally accepted. IllaZilla ‎and Cinemaniac86 ‎have not answered although they have made edits since their notification, so I think they do not have any objections either. If someone stumbles across the discussion (I linked to it on the film project talk page) and does not agree with these fields, they can still make a statement. Save for the case that this happens, I think we can take this sub-consensus for granted (if someone feels this is a little too quick, just raise your hands and we'll wait a few more days until we continue the discussion).

I'll make a little progress list here to see which issues have been resolved and which still need to be discussed. If I forgot anything, feel free to add it.

• addition of fields "Screenplay by" and "Story by" ( accepted)
• original work credits ( no. 5 accepted, see discussion)

• what should that field be called? ( no. 1 accepted, see discussion)
• what format to use for the contents of that field (pending, see ongoing discussion)
• should that field be used for characters a work is based on? (pending, no discussion section yet)
• should the cast be moved above the writers? (pending, will be discussed here once the other issues are decided)

• where to place other writing tasks and which format to use (pending, no discussion section yet)

The next issue up are the original work credits. Follow the link to continue the discussion there. Prime Blue (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

We've come to a conclusion quickly, but the discussion has been going on for over a month so I think anyone who really cares has probably posted their opinion at some point. It might be worth contacting everyone who has participated and give them a week to voice their objections, and if none are forthcoming we then stick in these two parameters. Betty Logan (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've already notified all people involved so far and left a link at the talk page of the WikiProject (that was some days ago). But I don't know if we will annoy administrators when we come to them with a new template update every few days (that is, if we demand the template to be updated with every sub-consensus reached). Prime Blue (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess once we add the parameters people will complain pretty quick if they don't like it. My recommendation is to give it a week, and then once they are added perhaps give it a couple of days before we start using them just in case we need to revert. Betty Logan (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. A week then. Prime Blue (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear on what we're doing here: we're keeping "Written by" and adding "Screenplay by" and "Story by", but we're only supposed to use either the old parameter or the two new ones, not all of them. Is that correct? PC78 (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That's how I would use it. However, I don't think we should stipulate that though, it would be better for us to just supply the parameters and let a consensus arise on how they are utilised. Some editors might prefer a combination on certain articles, so its best for those sort of issues to be determined within the context of an article discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's not something I agree with. The new and the old should be kept seperate IMO, because "Written by" becomes vague and confusing when you put it alongside the others. Preferably I think it should be coded so that you can't use them together. User preferences shouldn't be a factor here. PC78 (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"Written by" is "Screenplay by + Story by", so all three parameters will not be used together (this is also mentioned in the documentation). Prime Blue (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am pleased these fields have now been added to the template, but I find part of the documentation unclear. The last sentence in the instructions for both fields is:

If the film is an adaptation and the original author did not have a formal role as a screenplay or story writer, then they should come last in the list.

This isn't clear to me. Surely the whole point of having the "story by" field is to credit writers who didn't have a formal role in the authorship of the screenplay. So for instance, Tolkien authored Lord of the Rings, which was adapted into a screenplay; these instructions make it sound like he should still go in the screenplay field. I thought the screenplay field was explicitly conceived here for writers who were formally involved (although possibly uncredited) in the authorship of the screenplay. If we don't want Tolkein or Rowlings or Fleming in the screenplay field (which I assume we don't) this needs to be cleared up. An author should only be included in the screenplay field if they were involved in the authorship of the screenplay.

I would re-write those as:

If the film is an adaptation and the original author did not have a formal role as a screenplay writer, then they should not be included in the list.

''If the film is an adaptation and the original author did not have a formal role as a story writer (such as in the case of Excalibur which was based on the writings of Thomas Malory but where the story was conceived by another writer) then they should come last in the list.

Betty Logan (talk) 10:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. The guidelines need to be overhauled. I do believe this is a by-product of the "Screenplay" and "Story" fields being added to the infobox without the Source material field. We're working on that; when that is implemented, the guidelines will be re-written.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 12:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed a mistake I added when I updated the documentation (and that I fixed now). Before the original work credits field is added, the original writer would of course go into the story field. But this is as temporary as it gets: The last sentence from the story field documentation will be removed as soon as we have the third field. Prime Blue (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Objections to the addition of the fields "Screenplay by" and "Story by"

As per Funkyvoltron's suggestion, I made a split here for everyone that might not agree on adding these two fields. For that purpose, I notified all of the other users who commented here but do not seem to follow the discussion anymore. If no objections are being made here for some time, we can take at least this addition for granted and focus on the other stuff then. Prime Blue (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally do not have any objections to the two fields, though I still feel that a separate "Original work" category would help as well. I feel that if this works then that would work just the same. If it isn't necessary then it isn't filled out, simple as that. The same for the "Story by" field.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There's going to by a further discussion about the "original work" field. Some people don't agree on that one, but we all seem to agree on the screenplay/story field so we're just trying to get the things we agree on moving. Betty Logan (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Original work credits

Discussion continues here. We are trying to determine what original work credits the infobox should give. There are several possibilities (click below to see how it would look). We can...

• 1. credit the writers of the original work in a separate field
• 2. credit the writers of the original work in the "Story by" field
• 3. give a link to the original work
• 4. not include original works and writers in the infobox at all
• 5. give a link to the original work and credit its writers, both in one separate field

If I forgot another possibility (disregarding what potential additional fields are called, e.g. "Original work/Source material by"), add them and I'll make an example on the sandbox to go along with it. Prime Blue (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I object to 4.: I think an infobox should be clearly distinguishable if a film is not an entirely original work (meaning, it was directly based off of something). Also, I strongly object to 2.: Mixing original work writers and screen story writers together can give the wrong impression that the original work writers participated in the creation of the movie – which seems especially inappropriate for writers that have been long dead, as noted above.

Now, both 1. and 3. have their merits, but I am still leaning towards 3. (giving a link to the original work) for a specific reason: Crediting original writers raises a whole set of problems that a link to the original work does not, especially for the many, many film remake articles. In that case, if we credit the original film's writers in those remake infoboxes, should we credit only those responsible for the original film's screenplay, or those for the original film's story and other tasks as well? Do we have to show that distinction in the infobox for the remake? And if the original film had uncredited writers, would we have to include those as well? Will we have to give references for their participation as well? I don't even want to think about what we would do for remakes of films that were based on novels or other materials (whoa!).

In normal cases, like for Contact, I have absolutely no problem with method 1. But it seems to me that for all the articles with issues like those I mentioned above, possibility 3. is more "fail-safe". Prime Blue (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, thanks to Prime Blue for doing all of this organization and creating the examples. Great job! I personally like number 4. My reasoning is that the infobox is about the film itself and not the origins of the story. I think that should be discussed within the text of the article. That also keeps us from having to come up with a title for every known source of origin ever made into a movie. Also, I do like number 3, but again within the context of the article. Maybe as part of the overall template for a movie article that could be a section.Dohhh22 (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I also have to commend Prime Blue for his organization of this discussion - great work. Now for the actual discussion, I object to 2. and 4., is fine with 3. and still feel 1. is the way to go. Here's an idea, though: what if we include both 1. and 3? That is, we add one "Source material" field and one "Source material by" field – that way we get both the title and the writer(s) in the infobox, with the risk of the box becoming cluttered (I personally don't think it will). As for remakes, they are definitely problematic. But going with 3. doesn't necessarily solve all of these problems, as I see it. Take Planet of the Apes (the 2001 version) for instance – it's based on a book and a screenplay (as are many other films). The easy solution would be to utilize captions in bold or parentheses for these particular cases. And yes, I think every writer involved with writing the screenplay a remake is based on should be credited, displaying the screenplay by/story by division if applicable and providing references if needed.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 21:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's what my proposed amalgamation of styles 1. and 3. would look like, using just one field. I know that is possible to achieve with some basic coding (i.e. the name is automatically placed there).–FunkyVoltron ^talk 21:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm generally supportive of adding such a field to the infobox, and of the options above I like 3 and 5 the best. For films based on a work of literature (or such) like the examples given above, I think 5 works best. But for remakes I don't think we should be concerned with crediting every writer involved with the original film; in these cases a link to the original film should be sufficient. I'm also wondering how people see this field being used in other situations, e.g. films based on comic book characters, films based on video games, parody films, etc. PC78 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm for "3" and "5", obviously. I think that as far as characters are concerned, you credit the creators. For example, Spider-Man 3 you see credits to Steve Ditko and Stan Lee for creating the characters, but the film does not credit the creators of Venom (there were multiple people) in the opening credits. They do the people that started it all (i.e. without Spider-Man you wouldn't have Venom).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to PC78: Possibility 3, as I imagined it, would only include the field if the film was directly based on a work's story (e.g. Contact), so for example, it would not be there for Catwoman (original story based on a character) – because most cases in which films reuse popular characters are self-explanatory. However, I have no idea what to do in the case of Jurassic Park III, where in addition to the characters, some film scenes were directly based on scenes in the novels Jurassic Park and The Lost World (while the film itself still uses an original story). I would lean towards dropping the field in the latter case. Prime Blue (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Funkyvoltron: I have to admit that I favor even 1 over 5: While 5 (in simple cases like this one) is a good compromise between the editors who like 1 and the editors who like 3 (as said, personally, I would not even care if it's 1 or 3 in such a case), it only worsens the problems with films based on works that had multiple writers, in that the infobox gets even longer. A particularly drastic example is You've Got Mail where going the full remake route would end in a first-class credits orgy. It is a very drastic and also an overdramatized example as I don't know if it was really based on the previous films as well, but that very issue gives me the idea that 3 alone opens a can of worms as well: For every remake of a film based on another work, we would have to determine if the film was based on the original film, or on the novel, or on both. More and more, I wonder if it might just be easier to go with 4 and let the prose handle these issues. Or an alternate idea...we could go with 1, 3 or 5 in simple cases and drop the field for ambiguous cases or where the original work(s) has/have more than one writer. But we also have to be careful not to make the infobox documentation too confusing, with too many special cases and such. Prime Blue (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, wow, that really is an extreme case. I think your suggestion (dropping the field for ambiguous cases and just credit the screenwriters) is reasonable.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 16:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What do the others think about dropping the extra field in these cases? Prime Blue (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been a couple of days now with no activity – I think it's time we settle on one of the proposed styles. It seems like 3 and 5 are the favorites. Any thoughts?–FunkyVoltron ^talk 14:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's up to you now: If you want the original writer included, we'll go with 5, otherwise with 3. If Dohhh22 is fine with it, that is. Prime Blue (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I do think the original writer should be included in the infobox. So 5 gets my vote.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 14:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so I'd say 5 for the easy cases and nothing for the "problematic" works. I'll leave a notice for Dohhh22 to ask if he (she?) would be okay with this. Prime Blue (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I do like this as a compromise. It looks good.Dohhh22 (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's necessary to include an "original work" field. We're going to have two fields - "Screenplay by" and "Story by", and I don't see why we can't just stick everyone who is not a credited screenwriter in the "story by" field and keep it simple. By definition, if your material has contributed to the script you have made a contribution to the story, even if that's just the authorship of the characters. It's important to have a screenplay field because that's an official credited role within the film, but "story" pretty much encompasses all other contributions. As for including links to the source material I'm not sure its necessary to include that in the infobox because sometimes the link is pretty tenuous. Betty Logan (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

On the distinction between "Story by" and "Original work/Source material by/Based on", see the latter part of my post above. I guess many people here will agree that there has to be a distinction between the people who actively worked on the film and those who did not (consider the examples where the writers have died a long time ago and are credited alongside those working on the screen story). Prime Blue (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Betty, what about where someone created the characters but someone else came up with the story, and yet someone else wrote the actual script? Lumping the original work creator with the person that came up with the story seems a bit unrealistic and unfair given that those individuals typically receive completely separate credits on a film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not against it per se, I'm just not convinced of the need for it. If you want to stick these parameters in then I won't stand in the way of that, so please don't count my post as a "vote against". I was for the creation of the screenplay/story by parameters because they cater for a wide body of work - the majority of screenplays are generally an original piece of work or adapted from published works of fiction, so the screenplay/story by parameters will be utilised by the majority of film articles. My feeling is that any cases that fall outside of that can be taken care of by the "written by" parameter as they are now. I just think we have to be careful not to fall into the trap of creating parameters for exceptions. Betty Logan (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That is relieving to hear, Betty Logan. :-) Don't worry too much about this additional field being redundant, I think we'll still have many, many cases in which we can put it to good use, see most of the films in categories that begin with "Category:Films based on...". And I guess this will also be the last field we'll add. Okay, given that, I think we can move on slowly to the next issue, which would be how this field is called. Prime Blue (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

How to call the original work credits field

This is about how we call the original work credits field decided on above. Once more, there are several possibilities (as always, if there are more, please add them or give me a heads-up):

• 1. "Based on" (template code based on=)
• 2. "Original work" (template code original work=)
• 3. "Source material" (template code source material=)

I would go with 1: It is the easiest and fastest to read, and it would probably work better for cases where the film is still clearly based on a single work by an author, but some facts are spun around (parodies, for example). In that case, "Original work" and "Source material" might give the wrong impression that the source material is also a humorous work. "Based on" somehow sounds more liberal. I can't think of an example at the moment, but I just feel 1 is, again, "the safest way". Prime Blue (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You should have spaces in those parameter names, i.e. |based on= not |basedon=. PC78 (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, fixed that. Prime Blue (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I too am in favor of 1. I do think we need to also cover some type of guideline as to how it will be listed (maybe in another section). Will it be as shown, or should it be - the novel The Curious Case of Benjamin Button by F. Scott Fitzgerald or - the play Everybody Comes to Rick's by Murray Burnett and Joan Alison?Dohhh22 (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've thought about this, too. I'll add that as another discussion afterwards as there are three possibilities there as well. Prime Blue (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with "Based on" is that it draws a very definite link between the film and the work. In the case of something like Excalibur, it drew inspiration from Malory's Arthurian legends so maybe "Source material" would be a better "one size fits all" parameter, since it doesn't imply that the film is an adaptation. Betty Logan (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm only going by the article which states that Malory was the primary source for Excalibur, but I don't think that "Based on: Morte d'Arthur by Thomas Malory" would be inappropriate. PC78 (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm also liking #1 the most, but I think we need to have a better idea of how the parameter is to be used before we think about adding it to the template. PC78 (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

1 is the way to go. For the template to work properly, I do think we need to add two separate fields: one for the work and one for the writer(s). Then some coding magic will have to place the writer(s) in the "Based on" field (after or under the "by"). I know that is quite simple to achieve.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 14:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why that would be necessary or even useful -- it would only add needless complication. To use the example I gave above, what would be wrong with typing |based on=Morte d'Arthur by Thomas Malory? PC78 (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It makes things much easier if the template handles all the formating. But I suppose it's a dispensable function.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 14:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, we've come to a standstill. How do you people feel about this? Style 1 appears to be the clear favorite and the field can be handled as described by PC78 above. Is it ready to be implemented, then?–FunkyVoltron ^talk 20:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It was suggested above that the field not be used in complex situations -- is this still to be the case? While I think we have a concensus to proceed, I would prefer to have a clearer idea of how we're actually going to use it first. PC78 (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, for the complicated cases, this field will be dropped. Now, 1. got the most support. For parodies and such, just like PC78 said, I don't think that it makes a too direct connection between the source material and the film. Before we can implement this field, however, we'll have to discuss on how to use it. I'll start the new section tomorrow. Prime Blue (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

How to use the "Based on" field

This is about how we use the "Based on" field for the original work credits decided on above. As always, if there are more possibilities than those mentioned below, please add them or give me a heads-up:

• 1. "Original work title"<br />by "original writer" (template code based on=). Example 1a and Example 1b.
• 2. "Original work type" by<br />"original writer" (template code based on=) Example 2a and Example 2b.
• 3. Two separate fields based on= (for the original work title) and original writer= (for the original work writer). Would look like example 1a and example 1b, but it would be put together automatically.
• 4. Putting a sub-template with two fields in the based on= field of the infobox. Same output as example 1a and example 1b, but it would be put together automatically.
• 5. "Original work title" by "original writer" (no line break, template code based on=). Example 5a. (example 5b pending)
• 6. "Original work title" by {{nowrap|"original writer"}} (nowrap prevents unwanted line break for the writer, template code based on=). Example 6a. (example 6b pending)
• 7. "Original work title" by<br />"original writer" (template code based on=). Example 7a. (example 7b pending)
• 8. Putting Template:Basedon in the based on= field of the infobox. Example 8a and example 8b.
• 9. "Original work title" by<br />"original writer", using a sub-template. Same output as Example 7a., but it would be put together automatically.

I'd go with solution 1 solution 8 or 9. which is again the fail-safe way I'd say (try saying that ten times fast!).

• I oppose solution 2 because we would always have to know the work type (novel, short story, etc.). I can imagine this causing problems for some entries. Also, some original works the film are based on have a different title (A.I. Artificial Intelligence is based on Super-Toys Last All Summer Long).
• I oppose solution 3 because there is little gain:
  • wikilinks must be set manually as there are original works and writers without their own article
  • italics must be set manually as there are original work titles that should not be italicized (e.g. short stories like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Super-Toys Last All Summer Long) – I did not know that before...
  • the possible automatic formatting we are left with is the "<br />by", and that is probably too few to warrant its own field
• I oppose solution 5 because of possible unwanted line breaks separating the writer's given name from the family name

Prime Blue (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fair. While I do believe that letting the infobox handle the formatting, however minor, is wholly warranted and may even prevent discrepancies in format from arising within articles, it's also true that many titles and writers require manual formatting. The problem, I believe, is that some people will make some cosmetic changes as they see fit. For instance, someone might place the <br> after the "by" instead of before as urged (in cases of multiples source writers, some will feel it looks better). Of course, with the proper explanation of how the field is to be utilized in the template article, this should not happen too often. 1 is fine by me.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 22:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a solution: Template:Basedon would create the line break automatically without needing another extra field. Prime Blue (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks very nice. Does it work with more than one source material writer?–FunkyVoltron ^talk 12:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you have to put another line break between the two writers. But this will not be necessary for a lot of articles, anyway: Remember that the field will not be used for the problematic cases (which mostly are those with the multiple writers or source materials), and other source materials like books and short stories will, in the majority of cases, have been written by a single person. Prime Blue (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That template will work great, I think. Template:Infobox video game uses sub-templates for two of its fields and it has helped tremendously in creating consistency. 4 9 gets my vote.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 15:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Serenity

X-Men

None of the above for me, sorry chaps. I don't see why a line break is desirable, and I don't really see why we would need either two seperate parameters or a seperate template to handle some pretty simplistic formatting. While I'm happy with the "work by author" format for literary works, what I really want to know is how we're going to use the field for other types of source material (if at all). For remakes I'm thinking that it's enough to just link to the original film. Ditto for video games. My suggestions for films based on TV series and comic books are to the right. Feel free to discuss. :) PC78 (talk) 07:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

See the Catwoman comment above: the field would only be used for story adaptions/parodies etc., not as a general identification of the film's origin. That is better off in the prose. Prime Blue (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really agree with this. If we're going to use the infobox to identify the source material of a film, then I don't see why we should do it for some things and not others. Saying that the Catwoman film is based on the Catwoman character is not some abstract concept that requires explanatory text. PC78 (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it seems this is a preference-based issue. I will add it to the list so the others can partake. Prime Blue (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Added two solutions. If we don't use line breaks, nowrap makes sense for the writer to prevent an unwanted line break. Prime Blue (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would prefer a line break over nowrap. :) Would it be such a problem to just let the text flow, though? PC78 (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Funkyvoltron raised a good point, though: See Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, where there are two base writers. It's a very seldom case, but we still have to find a way to make the "by" less intrusive in such a case. The current version of the template in solution 4 does not look good. Having the "by" next to the work title is not an option, either, as it would cause problems for unitalicized works without articles. For example, let us assume the short story The Curious Case of Benjamin Button did not have its own article, then it would look like that. I guess no line break before the "by" is not an option, thus making solution 5 and 6 not usable. I will try to rework Template:Basedon so the base writers are aligned with each other (kind of like that, but immediately after the "by" and without a line break). Prime Blue (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How about giving the "by" its own line? It would look like this. Of course, that means the field would take up more space. It's a viable solution, at least.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 17:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. How would you guys feel about that? I just have to fix the bug with the space beneath it (no idea where that comes from). Prime Blue (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the problem arises from the HTML code mockup! It already works with real infobox templates. Fixed the example. Prime Blue (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

My gripe with that is that the source material writers are not in line with the rest of the film's crew.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 17:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I dislike the "by" in a single line more than that. :/ Any suggestions on how to keep the writers in line? If the "by" is in the same line as the work title, we could have it aligned right and probably enclosed with small tags, to set it apart from the work title. Would have to see it first, though. Prime Blue (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" should be enclosed in double quotation marks, per MOS:TITLE. ;) PC78 (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about that. That's true. So, using the template, the "by" would always be preceded by text that is either italicized or within quotation marks. We could even make the "by" small to make it stand out even more.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 18:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button would look like this if it didn't have its own article. Articles concerning films based on short stories and magazine articles without their own articles would look like that, which I find palatable.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 18:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that should eliminate the concerns about keeping the by in the first line (though I like it better this way). However, I still feel very strongly about avoiding to have the "by" in a single line, which could be prevented with nbsp; instead of a real space (" ") between the original work title and the writer (either by telling users through the documentation or by using a sub-template). Also, PC78 (since you were not too fond of line breaks), how would you format the two base writers of Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist? Prime Blue (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure to be honest, I'd have to think about it. But this is another reason why I'm not keen on using a template, because I think we're going to need more flexibility than what a template can offer, particuarly if (as I think we should) we use the parameter for things other than films based on works of literature. How would you suggest handling this parameter in Che, where you have a film based on two works by a single author? PC78 (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, is anyone else annoyed by Brad Pitt's face yet? Prime Blue (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at these new suggestions, I'd go with 7, but rather still have a sub-template handle the minor formatting. A sub-template is good if someone ever decides they want to change how source material appears in articles. I've added this style as a ninth alternative.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 19:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

All right, for example B, I used two non-breaking spaces to make it look like this. That means the "by" is somewhat separate of the title while not being too far away. Decent enough?–FunkyVoltron ^talk 22:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to PC78: Unfortunately, flexibility in formatting always comes with editor preference – I think it would be better to still use a subtemplate than to let users include non-breaking spaces and line breaks themselves (naturally, some will like one non-breaking space rather than two, and so on – it would only result in inconsistencies between articles). Che would be one of the "problematic" cases if it is based on several works, and the field would hence be dropped due to the compromise with Dohhh22. Prime Blue (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist

Che

I'm all for consistancy, but not to the point where we start tying ourselves in knots; what's wrong with letting people use whatever works on a case by case basis? If this field is to be added then it need to be as broadly usable as possible -- I'm really not comfortable with this notion that we use it in some places and not others. I don't see any specific compromises being made in the above discussion, only this vague notion that we drop the field if it is deemed too problematic, but if too many cases become problematic then I'm afraid that becomes an argument for not having the field at all. I don't think that Che poses too many problems, though; I've added some examples to the right using my own preference of plain text without line breaks or templates. TBH, I think you guys are obsessing a little too much over the aestheics. The simpler we keep things, the more flexible and user friendly this field will be. PC78 (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

For the compromise, see here and here: Basically, Dohhh22 did not want the original work credits field, but in the end, we restricted the usage to be able to include it anyway. We also determined that not restricting the field would be problematic anyway, as it would give people the impression that they can go crazy with the field (see the You've Got Mail example above).

Now, for the examples on the right: I object to these formats (or non-formats, rather) because the purpose of an infobox is to "quickly summarize important points in an easy-to-read format". The examples on the right look more like prose text than a field of an infobox. I think possibilities 8 and 9 are the best ways to make the field quick and easy to read. Prime Blue (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, those brief comments were made in response to your example for You've Got Mail, so again I see no compromises being made, just a vague feeling that we should avoid that sort of thing. In your own words, it was "a very drastic and also an overdramatized example", I don't think there was ever any serious suggestion that the field would be used in such a manner. There are no specific or binding agreements that I can see in the above discussion. PC78 (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Prime Blue, the examples on the right are not very reader-friendly and look more like prose. 8 or 9 are still the best styles and I'd go with 9.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 19:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what makes it "not very reader-friendly", or why it's such a problem that it "look[s] more like prose"; it's not contrary to the quote given above from Help:Infobox, IMHO. I think we're going to need more input from other editors, because the three of us seem to be heading towards an impasse on this issue. Perhaps drop a note at WT:FILM reminding the folks there that this discussion is still ongoing? PC78 (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

PC78, ask Dohhh22 over then and get an approval for these cases. But I have to say that, personally, I would not agree with multiple works in this field either. It opens the door for people to use it in film remakes, and that has a horrible outcome even for more "realistic" examples like Planet of the Apes, with either solution. As for asking more people over: Erik did that yesterday. Prime Blue (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Then hopefully we shall get more input. I don't need to ask Dohhh22 for any kind of permission or approval if that's what you're suggesting, but he is certainly welcome to come here and offer his own opinions of his own accord. I actually do think we should use the field to list multiple works, just not in the bloated manner in which you did with You've Got Mail. I do think we should use the field for remakes (amongst other things), but I think it should just be a link to the film, since a film is not the product of it's writers in the same manner as a novel or play. As I read the article, Planet of the Apes is a remake of the 1968 film, not an adaptation of the original novel, so there would be no need to credit the novel in the infobox. Likewise for You've Got Mail I should think, since I don't see how it can simultaneously be a remake of two different films and an adaptation of a play. What I object to with the various proposals put forward by yourself and FunkyVoltron is that they only really work for single works of literature by a single author. Anything else seems to become too problematic, and I can't in all honesty support this field if it is to be burdened with such crippling restrictions. Apologies if that sounds a bit harsh, but it's just where I am with this at the moment. PC78 (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

To look at Planet of the Apes another way, how would either of your two examples (and I would seperate the two works using {{unbulleted list}} in your first example) be any different, any worse, or any more problematic compared to how the infobox is currently set out in that article? PC78 (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

In your position, I'd just be uncomfortable with going forward behind Dohhh22's back on this: The restriction was the basis for being able to include the field – but not only due to Dohhh22 but also myself.

Naturally, there will be cases in which the field would cause problems if it is used for every article. See the reasons given here and here. Alien vs. Predator again comes to mind. Any film sequel, in that regard. Temple of Doom is based on Raiders of the Lost Ark, for example.

I'm not the biggest proponent of the field now, anyway: In the discussion above, I originally wanted just the original work title to be included, then compromised to include writers as well, but then came to the growing realization that this field might still be better off not included, with the original work credits kept to prose. What I can say is that I object to the prose-like examples above, and to not restricting the field. If we cannot agree on that, it might really be better to just keep original writer credits to the article text, or to go a different route altogether. Prime Blue (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I still fully support the addition of the field even if that means we have to engage in hairsplitting for weeks to come. As it stands now, the fields are very confusing to use. The whole point was to add three fields: one for screenplay, one for story and one for the source material – they were meant to complement each other. The goal was to make formatting more consistent across film articles, wasn't it? Not including a source material field is counterproductive of that goal. Look at this old revision of Casablanca for instance. It's a mess. If a proper field is not added to the infobox, a lot of articles concerning films based on previously produced or published material will end up looking like that. PC78, are you completely inexorable in this matter? Your suggestions have been taken into consideration and have been rejected by the people involved in this discussion, as have countless other suggestions. If you feel that this is unjust, that the people who rejected your ideas are uninformed and that additional input will lead to a different resolution, go find that input. Bear in mind that this discussion has been going on for a while and it's a lot to catch up on. The solution we proposed was to use this field for clear cases and drop it entirely for the more complicated and ambiguous cases (which aren't that many to begin with). Do you really think Planet of the Apes looks terrible like this? I personally don't, I think it looks all right, and Planet of the Apes arguably qualifies as one of those complicated cases, which means the fields can be dropped entirely if undesired.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 17:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with FunkyVoltron. The original purpose was consistancy and clarification which I think this achieves. Will it work in every case? No, but find one that will. For what it is worth, I do like the way this Planet of the Apes looks as well. Also, I do keep up on what is being said here, I just don't feel the need to comment on all of it.Dohhh22 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What would be the problem with just having one for source material by and one for characters by? Those two to me seem to be the best options. But what do I know.173.88.129.35 (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Funkyvoltron, I like your latest example with the two non-breaking spaces. If you don't hear anything back from PC78, I would suggest to go bold on it and stick to that plan, whatever system you use for the actual implementation. Prime Blue (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've not been following this discussion for the past two weeks, but my input has been requested so I'll try to address some of the points above.

Prime Blue: I don't see how I'm going behind anyone's back. (And how does one do that in a public discussion?) At best there was a rough agreement (between three editors) that the field not be used for anything too "problematic" (with no definition of what "problematic" is), nothing more than that. I also don't see why you think this parameter would be used for sequels in the manner you suggest. If you think that needs to be spelled out for people, then that's the kind of general restriction I would support. I still don't really get what you have against the examples I posted above, or agree that they are "prose like"; that sort of thing in infoboxes is not uncommon.

FunkyVoltron: You make it sound like I am going against a concensus here; I'm not. This part of the discussion has essentialy been between three editors, and what we have is nothing more than a disagreement. I think your Planet of the Apes example looks good actually, though the novel and the film should argualbly be disambiguated for clarity, and I don't see why we need two non-breaking spaces as opposed to just one. But as you say, I thought that was one of your "problematic" examples? How can you guys expect me to know what you want when you seem unsure yourselves?

In general: It would help this discussion immensely if you guys could nail down a firm idea of what it is you want. There are that many examples and proposals in this section that frankly I don't know anymore what it is I'm supposed to agree or disagree with. I'm open to the idea of line breaks as used in that last example, and while I don't think a template is necessary to facilitate that, I don't object to it as long as it is merely a non-compulsory convenience. I don't think we need to place any restrictions on the use of this field, other than to give a general idea of what it is not for, i.e. sequels, parodies, films based on real life events, etc. In short: decide what you want and post a few examples of how it would apply in different situations, then I think we can move this discussion forward in a productive manner. PC78 (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read all of this discussion, but I've seen some of the examples of the "Based On" field above. I am in agreement that this should be added as an optional field, as well as the screenplay and story by fields. I know the other two have already been added, but this field could resolve some issues and clutter with only one field. Hope this helped a bit. ChaosMaster_Chat 20:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this further, I do like example 8 (the Based on Template). ChaosMaster_Chat 22:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

All right, as for the "problematic cases": they're films where the source material is ambiguous. The 2001 version of Planet of the Apes can be used as an example. It clearly draws inspiration from both the novel and the 1968 film, but is not unambiguously based on either. According to IMDB, the 2001 Planet of the Apes credits Pierre Boulle, the writer of the novel, for the source material (WGA credits). It's easiest to follow this in cases of remakes of films based on an original work (phew) and perhaps add a line or two about the film that was released earlier. Two films based on the same novel can just as easily be considered two different interpretations of the same work (even though the producers of the later film almost always looked at the earlier film more than its source material; see Psycho). Remakes of films from an original screenplay are simple: just credit the original screenwriter(s) (also works for "loose" remakes like The Departed). Films that are clearly based on more than one original work are no longer "problematic", which the Planet of the Apes example shows (I was just using it as an example of how to display multiple original works). Hope that cleared things up.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 17:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, it seems that we agree on having the field and on basic formatting (I think my only remaining concern there is the use of two non-breaking spaces which is something we wouldn't do anywhere else in article text, though that's really just a side issue to the meat of this proposal). All that really remains is what to put in the documentation. I don't think that we need to say anything about problem cases, except perhaps something simple like "Do not use this field where the source material is ambiguous"; this is ultimately something that will need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I would also say something like "Use {{based on}} or similar formatting where possible" to allow some flexibility wherever it may be needed. We can't reasonably hope to govern too strictly how people end up using this field, and it's only proper that we allow room for editorial discretion. If problem cases are to be avoided, then let's avoid creating problems by being too rigid in our usage guidelines. PC78 (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

All right, now that it has been implemented, I'll update the template documentation. I'm glad we finally reached a consensus in this matter. I've changed {{based on}} to one non-breaking space.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 12:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Implemented "based on" field

{{edit protected}} Discussion has fizzled out again, but concensus is in favour of adding a |based on= field, so let's do it and fine-tune actual usage as we go along. Code for this change is at {{Infobox film/sandbox}}. PC78 (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Haven't read the entire discussion, so taking your word that there is consensus for this. By the way, next time why don't you just use even numbers for the parameter names? Then you can insert another field without having to renumber all of the others! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Move the "Cast" field?

I'm putting this here since the suggestion stems from the inclusion of multiple new writer/source material fields as discussed above. If implemented, these would push the cast further down the infobox, and yet for most casual film fans I would imagine that the most important credits are for the director and principal cast. With that in mind, I would like to suggest moving "Cast" so that it comes immediately after "Director". Thoughts? PC78 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of putting the cast right after the director. The writers are just as important as the director in any film. Without the script/story you have nothing to say. I think if you do any reordering, and I'm not saying that I think we should reorder at all, I think it should reflect a typical film credit sequence. The cast comes first, then basic crew (editing, music, etc.) then producers, writers, and last the director. In most cases, I don't think we'll have a problem because most films don't have separate writers for the "story", and most films don't have something they are based on either. So, I think it's a problem will only arise in a few cases.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

PC78, I think this is another issue that would be best discussed after the full impact of the writer credits in the infobox is known. I have added this problem a bit further down in our list. We'll get to it as soon as there is consensus on the writer credits. Prime Blue (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that we have a limitation to use the source material (or whatever we'll call it) field in "easy" cases only, I guess there will be no more concerns about pushing the cast list down too much. If you feel this is too far down, PC78, we can still discuss it here (simultaneously even as it is not "built upon" another issue). Until then, I struck this out from our list. Prime Blue (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I still stand by my initial comment, if that's what you're asking. I think the average user will be looking for the director and cast before any other credits, so I would prefer to see cast moved up the box. Writers are important of course, I'm not trying to dispute that, but they are seldom the most notable aspect of a film. PC78 (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Re-included it as to be discussed. Will get to this as soon as the two other things are done. Prime Blue (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Lyricist

can somebody modify the infobox to include a slot for the Lyricist? --Dr.saptarshi (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No thanks. We don't need any more fields, and this wouldn't be used in 95% of film articles. In fact, in what articles would it be used? --IllaZilla (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing musicals mainly, but I agree it's unnecessary. If the lyricist is deemed important enough to document in the infobox there is a music parameter and I think brackets can be used to distinguish between composer and lyricist. Betty Logan (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Lion King, featuring Tim Rice's lyrics, of course! On a serious note, I have to agree that it is not a critical parameter to add to the film infobox. Regardless, that does not bar mention of the lyricist in the article body, though it would be useful to provide the general context of the lyricist's involvement (such as songs written). Erik (talk | contribs) 00:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing that Dr.saptarshi is asking in relation to Indian films specifically, though by extension I guess it would cover all musicals. I think the idea has merit, at least. I don't agree that "we don't need any more fields"; on the contrary, I think the infobox would benefit from more specialised fields that apply to different types of film. PC78 (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. This infobox is already very long with 23 display fields. WP:IBX advises "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." Generally we should only adopt fields that would be relevant to the vast majority of film articles. Lyricist would only be relevant to musicals, which represent a small portion of the total body of films (and even then, not to all musicals, as many have music and lyrics written by the same persons as opposed to music by one individual and lyrics by another). As Betty Logan points out, if a lyricist is that significant they can be added to the existing "Music" field, with their role indicated parenthetically like so: "Tim Rice (lyrics)". --IllaZilla (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

What constitutes a "key fact" is wide open to interpretation. And I don't think you could be more wrong about keeping the infobox overly generic. It's not about cramming it with extraneous data, but recognising that different types of films have different needs. 23 fields—most of which are not compulsory—is not "very long" by any stretch of the imagination. PC78 (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of the 23 fields are compulsory, as they are things that every film has (budget, producer, writer, studio, etc.). The idea is to limit the fields to things that apply to almost all films, and not add fields that apply only to a small subset of films. WP:IBX further advises "If the field is relevant to very few articles, it should probably not be included at all." I still don't see why we need an extra field when we can just indicate "(lyrics)" in parenthesis within the existing "Music" parameter. Can you explain why that doesn't cut it, and why we'd need an entirely separate field? --IllaZilla (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm speaking more generally rather than about a |lyricist= parameter specifically. We're not talking about "very few articles" or "small subsets", but significant groups of films. |narrator= doesn't apply to most films, but it's revelant and useful nonetheless, and it's presence isn't a problem for the majority of articles that don't need it. Likewise, there are other specialised fields we could add that would be of benefit. PC78 (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Srk121srk, 26 October 2010

{{edit protected}} Please add the following labels 1. Costume Designer, 2. Production Designer.

Kindly increase the width of the info box .

Srk121srk (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done You need to reach consensus before requesting an edit. BOVINEBOY2008 13:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Starring" parameter

The guidance here states that for the starring parameter, you should "Insert the name(s) of the actor(s) who had major roles in the film." Major is in bold, but this is still open to interpretation. Is there any further guidance anywhere, or precedence on who exactly to include? I know some films like Magnolia have large starring casts. However, in my opinion, for a film like The X-Files, 8 stars is too many. I'd rather see two here, possibly 3–4. Another editor disagrees, which is fine. As this is something I've noticed on other articles, I'd rather avoid having a huge discussion/RFC about this one particular film. Are there any guidelines or previous discussions on this?--BelovedFreak 21:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Top billing of the cast is the rule of thumb I've used. This is usually reflected on the poster. For example, Magnolia has the ensemble cast's names on its poster. However, for The X-Files, the top billing would definitely be Duchovny and Anderson. I think there was a previous discussion about using media like the poster to determine the cutoff, but I can't find it right now. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've used the poster as a guide before. trouble is, I couldn't actually read the billing on the poster this time! I think it should be just Anderson and Duchonvny though. I shall engage the other editor.--BelovedFreak 21:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This subject was discussed quite a bit at the time the guideline was made. The way to use the poster is to look at the bottom of the page where the production credits are listed, since these reflect the credits in the movie. A good rule of thumb is to list the actors listed above (before) the title and possibly two or three more. It probably bears mentioning that it is a bad practice to use promotional materials, since that reflects the work of a marketing professional. However, the film credits and their repetition at the bottom of the film poster are reliable. Is that clear? --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. The problem as I see it is the "possibly two or three more" bit. If we're just using our own judgement, it seems to be at risk of WP:OR.--BelovedFreak 21:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The article uses the film's credits as the source, I guess, the way you take the author's name off a book. I assume we don't have to source that Hamlet was written by Shakespeare. --71.63.236.131 (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)--Ring Cinema (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Runtime for silent films

It is conventional to give the length of a silent film in feet or metres rather than minutes, as the duration of a film depends on the projection speed, and this was not standardised until the sound era. Thus the runtime field of the infobox for a silent film should contain the length of the film in feet or metres. It may be useful to give a runtime in minutes as well, ideally together with the projection speed this runtime is based on. I suggest the infobox template documentation be updated to include these suggestions. Eljayess (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Concur with the suggestion of specifying physical length. As for specifying duration, can I suggest we give an 18fps runtime unless we have evidence of another frame rate being specified by the film-maker? There seems to be some consensus nowadays that films were generally actually shown a little faster than the so-called "silent speed" of 16fps. Maybe we should label it "approx.".

And should we give a 24fps runtime as well?

Though all this is opening a family-sized can of worms - as Kevin Brownlow reports http://www.cinemaweb.com/silentfilm/bookshelf/18_kb_2.htm, for example, Griffith on at least one occasion even specified different speeds for different reels! Barnabypage (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a valid point. To keep the worms in the can though, perhaps if we specify the physical film length then we shouldn't specify a runtime. The whole argument for including the physical film length is that the runtime isn't standardised, so it should be a strict one or the other. Betty Logan (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There's certainly a case for making things more straightforward by omitting the runtime. But having said that, doesn't it leave the reader in the dark about what can be an important aspect of a film - for example, that The Birth of a Nation is long even by modern standards, but The Tramp is only about the length of a soap-opera episode? Maybe we should give a rough indication of the duration in the body text? Or link the physical film length to Silent film#Projection speed and explain there how to calculate duration from a given physical length and given fps (assuming 4-perf 35mm)? Barnabypage (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"Country" field

Wikipedia could follow the practice of one or more film websites or of one or more film festivals or of one or more film critics.
Wikipedia could mention all the available details, for example:

• Produced by Americans
• Directed mainly by Americans
• Financed by Americans and Britons
• Set in southeast Asia
• Filmed in California and southeast Asia
• Premiered in the United States

(In these times of globalization, there could be a similar challenge in identifying the nationality of a DVD player.)
—Wavelength (talk) 07:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting all of these be added as fields? Because I'd much rather just dump "country" altogether than add 6 or more new fields. Keep it simple. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This discussion began here. Mike Allen 10:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#1930s, point 15 of 27.

"It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience."

—Wavelength (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

[My message of 18:11 was indented with two colons as a reply to IllaZilla, but it was reformated to have three colons, making it appear incorrectly as a reply to MikeAllen. See Help:Using talk pages#Indentation.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)]

I don't think we need to get quite so philosophical. If you read the prior discussion, one of the main points is that these days many films cross numerous national boundaries with respect to production companies, financiers, director & production staff, actors, filming locations, etc. Trying to reduce this to bullet points in an infobox isn't very useful to a reader. Obviously all of these things should be covered in prose in the article body, and that's the best place for a reader to gain an understanding of how the film came together. If we have to add a half dozen parameters to the infobox in order to adequately explain the film's origin, that's a hint that it isn't the kind of information that suits an infobox format. If a film is in all respects attached to 1 or 2 specific countries, then that's easy to summarize in the infobox. If not, if the film's production encompasses a number of nationalities, then it's best just to leave "country" out of the infobox altogether & let the article itself provide the explanation. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

IllaZilla, I was going to quote the paraphrased version: "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler." When I saw the original version, I decided to use that instead. Maybe the word "theory" is what makes it seem to be philosophical.

I see that Template:Infobox film already lists more than 20 fields. Where an infobox says "Directed by {{{director}}}", it can say "Directed by {{{director}}} (nationality)". Where it says "Starring {{{starring}}}", it can say "Starring {{{starring}}} (nationality)".

—Wavelength (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion, Wavelength. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Gotta disagree. We don't need citizenship parentheticals next to everybody's names. What seems to be developing from the previously mentioned discussion is that in the 21st century more and more films are multi-national productions, and therefore "country" is becoming less and less relevant. It remains relevant to films that unambiguously "belong" to a particular country, such as Australia, but if we have to toss in several parentheticals next to several names to explain a film's nationality, we have to ask ourselves "is the nationality of this film of such importance it that it needs to be summarized in the infobox"? For most multi-national productions, the answer is probably no. You are correct that {{Infobox film}} lists more than 20 fields; to my eye, that is a reason to think about which fields we might do without, and trim the infobox so that it actually serves its purpose of summarizing key facts for a reader. WP:IBX advises that the fewer fields an infobox has, the more effectively it serves that purpose. By restricing ourselves to the most pertinent information, we prevent the infobox from becoming excessively long and thus less helpful as a summation. When the infobox starts to list all manner of minutia such as the nationalities of the actors, the runtimes of every variant DVD edition, and separate fields for every writing role (writer/screenplay/story/based on), that is a sign that we need to trim back the amount of detail that we are trying to cram into it. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, too, IllaZilla. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreement with IllaZilla. The country is hard to accurately verify and if we did away with it, we wouldn't be losing any valuable information. Mike Allen 03:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

[MikeAllen, that discussion is now archived at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2010 November 11#What exactly determines a film's country of origin?

—Wavelength (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)]

Italics

{{editprotected}}

Since Template:Infobox has now been changed so that it allows italics, could someone change the code to reflect this please rather than using {{Italic title infobox}} (similar to how its been implemented at {{Infobox book}}, {{Infobox album}}, {{Infobox newspaper}}, {{Infobox play}} etc etc.)? Mhiji (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. — Edokter • Talk • 00:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Use of this infobox

Comments are welcome regarding the choice of infobox at Talk:Five Across the Eyes (film). Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Preceded and Succeeded By - Include Years?

Could I get a ruling on whether the Preceded By and Succeeded By fields should generally include the year of the predecessor or successor? Someone recently added the year of Tron's release to Tron: Legacy, and my instinct says it shouldn't be included, but the infobox doc doesn't say either way. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would say the year should only be included if the title of the article about the film is disambiguated by the year. In all other cases it should be just the title on its own. Betty Logan (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Anything that keeps infobox bloat to a minimum is to be encouraged. IMO the year is not necessary. If someone want to know the release year for a given film the clicking on the linked article title will get them the info they want. If we need to add this to the MoS for film infoboxes then I would support not having the year in the Preceded By and Succeeded By fields. MarnetteD | Talk 16:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all! Doniago (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Neither, the fields in question should be deleted. Lugnuts (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Really? Do you have a link to discussion for this? The fields are included in the documentation... Doniago (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think L may just have misunderstood. We aren't discussing deleting the fields - just what should and should not go in them. MarnetteD | Talk 19:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

There have been previous discussions about the usefulness of this field (in the talk archives, I guess). I think it's the most useless of the current fields, esp. with the the likelyhood of any film in a series having a navigation template at the foot of the article. Def. one for the cull! Lugnuts (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Turns out I'm the one who misunderstood. I read the sentence without paying attention to the comma so I completely missed the point of your post L. Many apologies. MarnetteD | Talk 20:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable deleting the fields while they're in the documentation and being of (arguable) use personally. In a worst-case I could see my edits just getting reverted in any case. If there is a clear-cut decision on this though, I'd be happy to review it and then act accordingly. Doniago (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No probs, MarnetteD! Yes, the current consensus is to use the fields, so as long as that remains, there's no issue. Lugnuts (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not think the year is necessary to mention, and I would actually like to see these parameters automatically italicize the titles. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)