Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Country

Consider the current description of the country parameter from the perspective of someone who is not familiar with the workings of the movie industry. It says "countries of production". The literal interpretation for movies that are not animated is the countries where the movie was shot, according to Film_production#Production. It takes a lot of digging, for example in the archive of this talk page, before it's clear that that interpretation is wrong.

Some editors may argue that the interpretation should not be allowed according to WP:OR. Then it is still possible that a reliable source may support the literal interpretation. For example an interviewer may ask what the most difficult part of production was and the director may answer with shooting in Val Verde.

Furthermore, I think that the current wording ("countries of production") excludes a lot of reliable sources because they don't explicitly mention production, for example [1]. -- Nic Roets (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

So, are you proposing that the wording be more clear, or that the definition behind the word be changed?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I see a whole spectrum of solutions: Changing the wording or the definition is ideal, but it may be very difficult to find consensus.

It may be easier to find an award winning movie shot in a different country and use it as an example. Preferably we should have media coverage of the reason(s) for shooting in that country. Then it will be helpful if the template documentation can link to that movie and/or media coverage. -- Nic Roets (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If we could provide an exact definition that would be great, but that's been the whole problem whenever this issue comes up: one doesn't exist! It's an iffy category that seems to cover different aspects. It is often simply identified as 'country', others as (with the BFI) the 'production country', sometimes the 'country of origin' or 'nationality' etc. Instead of trying to offer a clear explanation of what it is, perhaps we should just clarify that the production country and the location of the filming are not necessarily identical i.e. Star Wars was filmed in the UK, but I doubt you will find many sources that would consider it a British film. Basically what we want editors to do is to go to a reputable source like the AFI and BFI and use their 'country' definitions rather than trying to formulate their own. Betty Logan (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the complaint here is that the guidelines are not clear. "Countries of production" = (1) the nations where the shooting occurred, or (2) the home countries of the entire film production from pre- through post-. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The country section of the infobox is based on the location of the production company. See a film like Alien vs. Predator for example. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly. There was quite a long discussion on this point and I believe there was quite a bit of evidence that the production company location was not the only determinant of a film's country. So the compromise was to allow only countries named in all reliable sources, regardless of the basis of the designation. That's why the parameter name is equivocal. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Betty, your comments lead me to believe that we should not define it i.e. the country is the country. Wikipedias should instead look for authoritative sources as far as they are not in conflict with one another. If no authoritative sources exist, leave the parameter blank.

RingC, on point (2) do you mean home country(s) of the company of the entire film production from pre- through post- ? It crossed my mind that we could even say home country of company who had creative control of the entire production process (pre- through post-). These definitions are however not practical, because authoritative sources like BFI never use those exact words.

Andrzejbanas, the countries for that film are home countries of all companies that produced or co-produced. By the same logic, a number of films will have South Africa as a production country because [www.filmafrika.com Film Africa] is credited as a co-producer. -- Nic Roets (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The parameter is intentionally vague on this point because production companies are only one aspect of a film's country. But to appear in the infobox, the country has to be named in all the RS. Perhaps we should make that more explicit if it is not clear now. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

There are extensive discussions archived, but I don't really blame anyone for not wanting to trawl through them. Basically the crux of the issue is probably best summarised by the European Lumiere project which states:

defining the nationality of a film is a complex task. There are no widely accepted international or even European definitions of the criteria to be used to determine the country of origin of a film. This is both a legal and a statistical problem. It is enlightening to compare the lists provided by the different national sources that we use: countries involved in a joint production are not always indicated (even when the main coproducer is from another country). Different national records - and the statistics on which they are based - can show the same film as having a whole range of nationalities.

As Ring points out the location of the production company is only one factor: if you compare this field on two high quality sources such as the BFI and AFI databases there are substantial differences (even when the same companies are listed), meaning there is no universal agreement. Basically our approach to this is to use the analagous field on high quality sources such as the BFI and AFI, scholarly studies, trade journals such as Variety etc to identify the nationality, so that our own interpretations don't really come into it. We adopt a similar approach to the Lumiere project approach by comparing different sources and only using the countries that are overwhelmingly identified by most of the sources. If our wording is ambiguous then we should clear that up, but like Ring I have no inclination to try and pin this down again because we can't really withour infringing both WP:NPOV and WP:V: ultimately if you have the BFI, AFI, Variety etc identifying a country or not identifying a country/nationality, then we have to abide by that. In cases where there is wide variation and no single country is comon to the sources then I agree it is best to leave the field blank. In reality it's a historic category: Hollywood studios used to make American films in studio lots, Hammer would make British films at Elstree and so on, so they had clear identities, now you have Japanese companies owning American studios financing British productions made in Australia; the definitions are becoming much more blurred. Betty Logan (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said before: People who do not know the movie industry may see the 'country' as a simple fact, in which case WP:RS says that many sources, such as primary sources, may be reliable. I think we should stress that 'country' is an 'interpretive claim' and then include the quote you have given. -- Nic Roets (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, if it helps to clarify how the field should be filled out. Betty Logan (talk) 08:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"The Academy's rules dictate that a film's nationality is dependent not on the language that is primarily spoken in the film or the origins of its stars, but rather on the origins of the majority of its principal behind-the-scenes talent -- especially its writer, director, and producer." A good link on a film's nationality. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That's for shows choosing how an award is nominated. Not the same as the country of production. So please don't make abrasive edits as you had done here and here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That's right. There are some of the criteria they use for determining a film's country. Sorry, that's just how it is. It's unfortunate you don't want to accept the sources, but that is how it's done on Wikipedia. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That's one. We've had several others. It's something to consider, but we still must follow the rules. Let others contribute to sources before proclaiming your cites as gospel. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's one that is issued by the most important film industry group in the world. Probably they know what they're doing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not 100% against your idea, but you can't have rule as something to be cited. As Betty mentioned above, we have to go by what the majority of citations say. If we went by your method, it would lead to far too many WP:OR posts. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? It's not up to you if we go by the sources. That's how it's done. And on Wikipedia, majority has nothing to do with it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It does actually, please read WP:UNDUE. And it's not up to me to go by sources, but it's up to WP:RS to state that we have to if you want your edits to stay. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. We had recent consensus on this, and it was quite hard work to get there as I recall, but I think we got close to something that we were in agreement on. Clarification of the field is fine, but we shouldn't be looking to change the criteria so soon, especially seeing as the same editors are involved, and we're just going to go over the same arguments again. I thought the simple rule that we agreed on was to only include sourced countries, and in any dispute to only include the ones shown in multiple sources. Seems clear enough. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The user is bringing up the article Cache in question. I've provided multiple sources for the four countries mentioned, while the user above is removing it because he found a single source not saying what I said. I think that's the opposite of what we agreed to. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the idea behind the consensus is that the countries should only be added to the infobox when there is unanimous support for them. Unfortunately the infobox doesn't do shades of grey, so if we have sources that identify a country and others that don't, there is no way to convey that in the infobox. I see the BFI lists four countries for Caché, while Ring's source of choice just lists one, and the NY Times goes for three, so it's probably the case that if you look hard enough you'll find sources to back up your preferred position. This parameter should be used for things like The Avengers and Twilight movies, it doesn't really work for pan-European films backed by international consortiums. Listing a bunch of countries doesn't tell readers anything at all about its cultural and production origins: it's essentially a French language film produced in France and Austria, with production backing from a number of countries, so it seems to me this is a classic example of where we should drop the parameter and elaborate using prose. This is one of those cases where a traditional nationality identity has dissolved, so we should resist the urge to force one onto it. Betty Logan (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this Betty is that a lot of the major European productions nowadays are produced from several countries. I don't know where you came to the conclusion of just France and Australia. Listing the correct countries does show the pan-European production style as that's what was agreed too previously. I believe I even brought up pan-European production when we the infobox's country was listed. I just think we should follow WP:UNDUE and go with the countries that are cited the most often. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I was mainly going by the actual film credits which the BFI helpfully include. The credits state A Production by (Paris) and A Production by (Vienna), and two line producers are listed too (one each for France and Austria), so to all intents and purposes the film itself is a co-production between those two countries as far as the film credits are concerned. That doesn't mean we should preclude Germany's and Italy's involvement, but I believe representing all four countries in the infobox equally misrepresents the respective involvements of the four countries, and covering it in the prose would do a better job. Betty Logan (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Uhh, but the they base their countries after the production companies. Not where the producers are from. If you click the links, it says where the location is of these production companies, in this case it's

• Films du Losange (France)
• Wega (Austrian)
• Bavaria (German)
• Bim (Italian)

Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

To avoid having to search for these everytime of course, you can just look for them here listed on BFI's mainpage for the film here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The BFI may use the companies as their criteria, but this is part of the problem, different sources use different criteria. Ring has one source listing one country, we have the NY Times listing three, and we have the actual film credits listing France and Austria as the countries of production. There is no way to objectively present that in the infobox. Going with what the majority of the sources say violates WP:WEIGHT, which stipulates we should present information proportionally. Listing all four countries simply because the majority of sources list them is not presenting the information proportionally which is why the infobox guideline states we should only list countries that are common to all sources. The NY Times and the actual film credits represent enough dissent in my book for us to consider not using the parameter. It's not a clear-cut case, and we can cover it better in the actual prose where we can provide a bit of context. Betty Logan (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If it's really contested that much then I am fine for referring to it as prose in the infobox instead. I'd like to note that I'm confused where the NYT is getting it's sources on this information as they state they are pulling it from Allmovie.com, but allmovie.com states four countries as well. WP:WEIGHT also states "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.". Finding the source that showcases the countries of production the most is not against any procedure as suggested. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking about this again overnight, and thumbed through Sight and Sound this morning, a well-respected publication that lists the nationality of the film based on the nationalities of the (co-)production companies. This is probably the same criteria that the BFI website uses, as it is a BFI publication. My personal view is that these are the best sources, as these are the industry credits. For the most part, these type of sources will agree on this, but we will have discrepancies sometimes. In these cases, maybe Betty's right, leave the infobox blank and discuss in prose. However, this is not the case with the amendments that Ring made to Cache, which go against the the consensus reached in the recent discussion (of which Ring was part of), and use a film review and an article discussing the problematic nature of determining nationality (which can hardly be definitive by its very nature), and not the industry-type sites agreed upon. This seems to fall foul of WP:POINT, and the agressive editing does seem to have got Ring blocked for this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You misstate BFI's criteria for determining a film's nationality. Keeping in mind that BFI is only one source, remember that they have developed a form for deciding if a film is British. As one might expect, they consider the nationality of the writer, director, producer, main actors, and the production company. They don't use just one criterion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ring, I don't know where you are getting that information that that's what the database does. Can you should specific films where they do that in the database? Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I notice you've started your edit war on Cache again. Wow, you really want to ignore the guidelines! --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If you are just going to bait me ring and ignore Wikipedia:Civility and not address me when I ask you questions, your responses are going to be ignored. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the point of discussing the guidelines here if you are going to ignore them? --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

out of chronology

Possibly, Ring was particularly insistent originally that the films' country should reflect the nationality of his director originally so I don't think he was ever truly happy with our conclusion. I think it makes sense to try and expand information on the country in the article where it's confusing or not immediately obvious (i.e: things like Moonraker where it's an British and French and American production apparently, but that article explains the production in the article's production history. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Andrzejbanas, I am following the guidelines and you are not. As Betty said above: "the countries should only be added to the infobox when there is unanimous support for them." So, using your logic, maybe because you mistakenly believe that nationality should be tied only (and erroneously) to production company you made this mistake that resulted in your ban...? I guess that is your logic. Interestingly, Rob and Andrz once again propose that if there is a source that contradicts their view, it should be ignored. I think that is the fourth time for that ploy. So, tomorrow we'll start following all the sources as I am doing. I look forward to having you join me in that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Parameter confusion!

I often need some parameters which I can't find (or I don't understand how to add) in the current infobox.

Production, Banner

For example, in this newly created article Teen Kanya (2012 film) I have these information in hand:

• Presented by (Banner): Rose Valley Films.
• Production house; Agnidev Chatterjee productions.
• Producer: Agnidev Chatterjee
• Co producer: Sampa Das
• Associate producer: 3 names

I can try adding co-producer and associate producers in producer parameter, but how can I add banner, presented by information?

Dialogue writer

There are parameters for story and screenplay, but, sometimes I need a third parameter for dialogue writer! --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

None of these parameters are supported. The infobox is not meant to reproduce a long list of film credits. It sticks to the most notable few. Additional production staff can be listed in the article itself. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, some banners are notable enough and if it is a banner like Yash Raj Films, the film is mainly known as a film of that banner. --Tito Dutta (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "banner". Would this not fall under either "studio" or "distributor"? Those are the usual fields used for companies financing/producing/distributing a film. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I can try to clarify what I mean by banner! Well, production banner.. I am not sure about Hollywood films but, for Bollywood and Bengali films, in some movies it is an essential to mention the production banner. Please see last part of first sentence of lead in this article Jab Tak Hai Jaan, it may clarify what I am trying to say. You'll see these for many blockbuster films- these films are known as YRF (i.e. Yash Raj Films). Many people can't even tell you the name of director or Producer. If you ask me who directed Tashan or Dhoom, I don't know, but, I know those are YRF films. --Tito Dutta (talk) 07:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Your term "banner" seems to be synonymous with "studio". It's the name of the film studio, like Dimension Films or New Line Cinema. Just use the "studio" field. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Studio and banner may not be same. I'll ask someone! --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

According to IMDB, Yash Raj Films serves as either the production company or the distributor. Please note that on Wikipedia "studio" is the production company, not the actual physical studio where the film was made; it is an anachronistic term in a sense that derives from the Hollywood Studio era when everything was done in house. For instance, Star Wars is a Lucasfilm production that was made at Elstree Studios, but it is Lucasfilm that goes in the "studio" field. Betty Logan (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Silent films

This template's not quite doing the right thing with silent films I think. Category:Films by language advises 'please place all silent films in Category:Silent films regardless of nationality'. Currently, this template checks for a variety of forms of category, but fails to find this particular (non-standard) case. A list of applicable uses can be seen by checking what links to Category:Silent-language films. I believe an extra clause in the snippet below explicitly testing for language=Silent and evaluating as "Category:Silent films" when true would resolve the problem.

| data17       = {{#if:{{{language|}}}|
  {{#switch:{{{language|}}}
    |English
    |english = English[[Category:English-language films]]
    |{{#ifexist:{{{language}}} language|[[{{{language|}}} language|{{{language|}}}]]|{{{language|}}}}}<!--
  -->{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||{{#ifexist:Category:{{{language}}}-language films|[[Category:{{{language|}}}-language films]]}}}}
  }}
}}

- TB (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

(self-reply). There should probably also be something in there to catch all the stuff testing for Category:Silent film(English intertitles)-language films and Category:Silent(English intertitles)-language films, but the solution in these cases is less clear. - TB (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There being no objection, I've gone ahead and added a clause for silent/Silent. - TB (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice one - thanks! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Narrator

Can we make the description for the narrator field a little more defined so that people can't add someone as a narrator unless there is a narrator credit? Otherwise people add it every time a character has some inner monologue. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As said in the Production Designer section above, WP film articles are littered with actors listed twice in the infobox even though they had no on-screen credit as narrator. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Draft... Insert the name(s) of the credited narrator(s). Separate multiple entries using {{Plainlist}}. In addition, link each narrator to his/her appropriate article if possible. ...--Ring Cinema (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine, how about adding an "only" after "narrator(s)"? But with or without I support that wording. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Would "only" say something? Just in case they wanted to put the name of their dog? My only concern here is the case where there is definitely a narrator but there's definitely no credit. Then this guideline should be ignored. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Draft2... Insert the names of the narrators. Separate multiple entries using {{Plainlist}}. In addition, link each narrator to his/her appropriate article if possible. Note: do not include actors with a role in the film; this is not a place for in-character voiceovers. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This one looks better. It certainly covers situations like Malcolm McDowell's Alex in A Clockwork Orange. MarnetteD | Talk 00:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Though we should go back to narrator(s). There's rarely more than one. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The plural case covers the singular case, but not vice versa. It's obvious, right? --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No, narrator(s) covers both plural and singular. That's the whole point of the (s). It's a common technique for this very purpose, and it should be used here. Can we get down to implementing this change? I doubt anyone will object to it. Many often complain on this page about infobox bloat, and this is one instance where it can be addressed without losing a legitimate credit. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Is Betty an admin? Needs a faster method of implementing things. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Afraid not. FILM could sure do with a dedicated admin though to sort out these issues. Betty Logan (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If we are in agreement I think that all we need to do is use this template {{edit semi-protected|answered=no}}. I can't say how fast the request will be acted on but it will be taken care of eventually. MarnetteD | Talk 21:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Also you might try asking any of the admins who have edited this template for us in the recent past as seen here [2]. MarnetteD | Talk 21:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ive added the template but we need power in this wikocracy. We must seize it all for ourselves.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I changed the template to a more appropriate one: this template is fully (not semi) protected. RudolfRed (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that RR. I copied it from another page and missed that difference. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 03:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Betty my experience with these is that those of us that make the request set the answered to "no" and then when the admin responds to the request they set it to "yes" so I have changed it back. My apologies if this is a mistake. MarnetteD | Talk 04:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

To the admin who comes along to work on this it is draft 2 that we would like to be added to the instructions on the template instructions. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 04:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Also, sorry about this earlier response... I now see that most of you were asking about the bracketed "s" in the main template. On the plus side, I discovered the {{minitrout}} template which I think I might use again sometime in a more appropriate setting. :) By the way, {{Edit protected}} requests are usually answered within a day, or maybe within two (although it has been longer in the past). So it's probably ok just to use those. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, Marnette, you're right that the "answered" parameter needs to be set to |answered=no, otherwise the page won't appear in CAT:EP. If you're in any doubt, you can just check CAT:EP yourself and see if your page is listed there. (If you do that, be aware that the bot-generated listing at the top of the page takes about five minutes to update, but the normal category listing at the bottom is updated straight away.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this and for the explanation(s) - always good to learn something new around here and the minitrout is a hoot. MarnetteD | Talk 20:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hate to reopen this, but I must say actually putting Narrator(s) in the infobox looks terrible, at least to my eye. I supported using it in the instructions, as it's harmless and most accurate there, but to now have that term display in the infobox itself is quite undesirable and unnecessary, particularly as most films with narration have only one. The previous Narrated by, while imperfect, was a better choice. - Gothicfilm (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

? We didn't ask for the label to be changed, asked for the description to be modified. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have asked Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} on his Talk page to change it back, to display in the infobox as Narrated by, as it was before. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

So was the guideline not changes? Just the title? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The guideline instructions were changed - Note: do not include actors with a role in the film; this is not a place for in-character voiceovers was added. That should remain, but the actual infobox display of Narrator(s) should be restored to how it was: Narrated by - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the text back to "Narrated by" - sorry about the confusion. It looks like my original {{minitrout}} was the correct response. :) You don't need an admin to update the documentation, you can just do that yourself. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Country production

The production country should probably be changed to reflect the rules of WP:UNDUE. Currently, it states that "If there is a conflict of information in various reliable sources, then list only the common published nations. ". However, UNDUE states "giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views.". I think just because we find one source that lacks information of others, it shouldn't stop others that list the same production countries six times. The reason of not showing a certain amount of countries, especially on database-driven websites could be due to database restrictions. My main concern is with the article on Cache, which I've found six sources (variety, sight and sound, moma, BFI, AFI, variety, that all state the same information. But one URL has found one that simply lists one country. I think this argument also follows: Wikipedia:UNDUE#Good_research, that we should pick more high quality sources that do more specific research. In other words, when we cite the countries on the talk page, if we find one off obscure source from something less important than a film journal or a film institute (i.e: BFI), will take priority over a something as vague as a television show listing. Can we change the description to reflect UNDUE? Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The concern here is that Andrz doesn't want to follow the infobox guidelines, which were the subject of a very long discussion a few months ago, resulting in the compromise above. If the subject is reopened, I would predict another long discussion without a consensus for change. Perhaps there will be a consensus to remove the field altogether in order to avoid these disputes. I would favor that, too. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a major change Ring, it's a slight change to the wording of the argument as it's ignoring a wikipedia rule. I understand and was involved with the debate previously, but it ended rather muddled. Right now I just want to clear up and loopholes we've encountered, this is one of them. I believe Betty Logan said earlier that the citation template is currently good for films which are simple hollywood productions, but needs to take into special consideration when it comes to more widely applied sections such as European co-productions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You were in on the discussion that led to this compromise. You accepted it like everyone else. Personally, I think it's less than ideal but there you have it. It's a compromise. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I was. New issues have come up since then (as mentioned). It's never to early to take a look at it again. I'd like to have this paragraph readable and not you and I going back and forth. I understand your opinion, I'm looking for the opinions of others along with yours. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

UNDUE states Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The problem with an infobox parameter is that you either include the information or you don't, you cannot present contradictory claims of vary significance proportionally. I believe the guideline is consistent with UNDUE by stating Alternatively in the case of conflict, consider leaving this field blank and discussing the issue in the article. Sometimes UNDUE cannot be served by an all-or-nothing parameter. The intention behind our guideline is really only to use this ill-defined parameter in clear-cut cases; it was the essence of the compromise between the editors who wanted to get rid of it and those didn't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. Betty Logan (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: categorize in mainspace only

Could someone please change this template so it only categorizes in mainspace and not in userspace (e.g. User:Jnorthdur/Malombra (1917)) per WP:USERNOCAT? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This issue was discussed at Template_talk:Infobox_film/Archive 22#Edit request on 13 August 2012: do not categorize when not in mainspace. The proposed code change is also available at the older topic too. Betty Logan (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The code there would work - so would using {{Main other}}. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done The sections for English and Silent updated. - J Greb (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Works great - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Uncredited business partner in the infobox

People here no doubt recall the debate over whether to include executive producers in the infobox. It resulted in the policy Only producer credits should be included, not executive producers, associate producers, etc. being added to Template:Infobox film. We now have Ring Cinema edit warring at Annie Hall, insisting on adding the uncredited business partner of the producer to the infobox. He now also uses some refs that incorrrectly give the business partner that credit, ignoring the film's actual credits, the poster, the AFI, BFI, etc. You can comment at Talk:Annie Hall#Producers. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect summary, GothicFilm. I will ask you in the future to be honest instead of whatever you call that nonsense above. As you know, I've sourced the producer credit I proposed and it has nothing to do with executive producer credits. Sorry you're so completely wrong that you can't even state what we're discussing. I guess you just don't understand some things that are really very simple. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite WP:Uncivil, aren't you? For those who haven't visited Talk:Annie Hall#Producers, Charles H. Joffe had sole "Produced by" credit on Annie Hall, as can be seen in the film's credits, on its poster, and its AFI and BFI listing. Because of this, Joffe alone won the 1977 Academy Award for Best Picture, as the article correctly says. Jack Rollins was his business partner, to use the term Ring used in his earlier edit summary. They both managed well-known comics. But they decided Joffe would focus on Allen, and Rollins on others. So Rollins took no producer credit on this film or several others in the 1970s. There was much discussion of this policy on this Talk page. If George Lucas can't be listed in the producer category for his films, than I doubt an uncredited talent manager can either. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, template documentation is hardly policy. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What is uncivil, GothicFilm, is your dishonest summary of what is under discussion. In fact, you have it upside down: the discussion at Annie Hall is not about including Rollins because he was an executive producer -- he is listed as a producer in the NY Times. In fact, I proposed that both Joffe and Rollins should be removed if they were only de facto producers. So why are you misrepresenting this? --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall you proposing their removal until today. The AFI and BFI are the best sources. They're regularly referred to on this Talk page. I don't recall anyone here turning to the NYT as a better source for any film data. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about this user's WP:Uncivility. He been blocked at least six times, yet he never learns. Just take a look at his insulting, slanderous edit summaries - as can be seen at his history. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is an incivil editor here, GothicFilm. Your consistent misstatements are not accidents and you haven't corrected yourself. The pretext of your initial post in this section is almost 100% incorrect. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: format parameter

I had previously asked for this addition but saw no response. Anyway, I wanted to ask for a "format" parameter (as in film format) to be added. Here we can state the film format if it's not conventional, i.e. 3D, IMAX, HFR. Thoughts? Opinion? --2nyte (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In the article body. This isn't infobox material. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is it not? As this technology is becoming widely used by the industry and a large majority of films are being released in these formats why can we not add it in the infobox? Is it a question of whether it would be utilised, or whether it is relevent to a film, or whether it is of public concern? In all cases I say yes, so why can't we add it? How is it not "infobox material" and what makes it that? --2nyte (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

See Purpose of an infobox and WP:IBX#General considerations. Such a field would be relevant to relatively few articles (mainly only ones about films released in recent years). Generally speaking, if there is something unconventional about the filming (such as The Hobbit being filmed in 48fps, which isn't a different format by the way) it will be mentioned in the lead or in a section about filming. The infobox is not meant to include every interesting detail. The film infobox is already quite long. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"Silent film" category

As currently coded, data element 17 includes a line that says, "|Silent (English intertitles) = Silent"

If I understand the coding correctly, this automatically assigns the "Silent film" category to whatever page is described as "Silent (English intertitles)". Although this category currently has over 1000 pages in it, the category is so broad as to be meaningless. I would like to put a CatDiffuse tag in that category, and I'm willing to work through and assign its members down to more meaningful cats. I believe this infobox template should be changed too. Any other opinions? --Lockley (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It was me that added the clause above - see Template_talk:Infobox_film/Archive_23#Silent_films. No objections here; I lumped them into Category:Silent films as this was preferable to their old home at Category:Silent (English intertitles)-language films. Manual sorting is more preferable still. Be aware that values passed to this template are poorly standardised. Common values I found being passed for silent films were:

• • "Silent"
  • "Silent film"
  • "silent"
  • "Silent film(English intertitles)"
  • "Silent(English intertitles)"
  • "Silent with English intertitles"
  • "Silent (English intertitles)"

Good luck! - TB (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

1,000+ articles is really meaningless. No less meaningless than say Category:French-language films, for example. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request January 2013

Would there be any objection to making the abovestyle parameter customizable? I know it's a very obscure circumstance that would require this, but recently I stumbled on the Bronies: The Extremely Unexpected Adult Fans of My Little Pony article, which, as the title of a movie itself containing the title of a television series, necessitates putting the "My Little Pony" in Roman face. I believe all you'd have to do would be to change abovestyle = font-size: 110%; font-style: italic to abovestyle = {{{name style|font-size: 110%; font-style: italic}}}. Or perhaps, to avoid people forgetting to set the size at 110%, abovestyle = font-size: 110%; {{{name style|font-style: italic}}}. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 07:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

This can be easily handled using the {{noitalic}} template. There is no reason to alter the coding to handle an unusual exception. Betty Logan (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

On top of that I also question the logic of making part of the title non-italicised. To use an analogy, "Malcolm X" is the name of a real life person, and the film about him uses the name of the real life person as its title, but we don't apply the MOS for biographies, we apply the MOS for films because in this capacity Malcolm X refers to a piece of work, not a person; in the same manner, Bronies: The Extremely Unexpected Adult Fans of My Little Pony is the title of a film, it is irrelevant whether the title references a TV show. Betty Logan (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Genre / Categorization

The Infobox doesnt seem to include a categorisation of the film, like Ad, Documentary, Thriller, .. at least if it is a documentary, an ad, or a regular box office movie would be interesting .. RScheiber (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi,RScheiber. This request has been made a few times in the past, but I don't think there is a consensus to have such a field. See previous discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Even though it is applicable to most articles—and therefore an obvious candidate for inclusion—the main argument against it is that genres are an interpretative claim about a film: while most are obvious, many are not, and the bottom line is that if we add it some editors will fight over it. Infoboxes are best suited to straightforward indisputable facts, things that can be proven to be either true or false. Betty Logan (talk) 12:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Total agreement with Betty Logan. Although I see the appeal of the idea, the genre of a film is a subjective opinion. Even the currently existing cats for films are arguable half the time. "Infoboxes are best suited to straightforward indisputable facts." Well said. --Lockley (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I get the appeal of indisputable facts .. at the same time we have Genres already, e.g. Template:Infobox_album, probably also Albums have ambiguous Genres, nonetheless the editing community can at least try to find a consensus, and so i still would vote for inclusion of a field Genre. Beside all this, the discussion is rather missing my initial intent: My Heading Genre was misleading .. i intended a higher level categorization like Feature film, Documentary film, Television advertisement .. which should be indisputable. --RScheiber (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013 edit request

The "Studio" label should really read "Studio(s)" for the instance that there's more than one studio involved. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 02:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm okay with this sensible change. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, Done --Redrose64 (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I strongly oppose and demand a lengthy discussion that goes nowhere. No, wait, I agree with Erik. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I do oppose. It's unnecessary. "Studio" allows for multiple studios. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

And "release date(s)" should be reverted to "release date" also. Just because it doesn't have a plural, doesn't mean that we cannot fill more than one entry in the field. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

But it's then mislabeled and give the impression of singular when there's more than one. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 14:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it's fairly common practice for these kinds of labels not to be pluralised. If "studio" and "release date" need to be pluralised, then "language" and "country" do too. All completely unnecessary. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Rob is correct, I believe. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Please can we get this reverted then? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

OK Done but per WP:EDITREQ please obtain consensus next time; otherwise I shall ignore it (which is one more for the CAT:EP backlog). --Redrose64 (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Then shall we discuss this. really, it makes it more accurate even if more than the "Studio" label must be changed. It's not plural. (also in my defense, it seemed uncontroversial to me. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 11:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It's standard practice for these kinds of labels not to be pluralised. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, when it's guaranteed to be singular. There's not guarantee of that here. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 12:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If you look at some of the other film catalogs online i.e. AFI, Allmovie. IMDB, some pluralise and some don't. What none of them seem to do however is append "(s)" on the end. My suggestion is that we either go with studio/release date/country etc or studios/release dates/countries and be consistent throughout. Betty Logan (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That's actually not too bad of a suggestion. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 19:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Then we're pretty much there. We just need to get "release date(s)" changed back to "release date". --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

My change was already reverted, and we're tying to get that changed to something else. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 13:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought you agreed with Betty that everything should be consistent. Seeing as everything, except "release date(s)" is not plural, and as it is common practice not to pluralise labels, for consistency we just need to change "release date(s)" to "release date" and we're done. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I agreed for consistency, however I also agreed with the suggestion of changing labels like "release date" to "release dates". CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 13:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, you didn't make that clear! However, common practice is not to pluralise labels as the majority of the time there will be only one entry. And your initial argument against keeping in the singular was due to potential mislabelling, so if we pluralise, then there will be more "mislabelling" than we have now. Let's not over-complicate this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I re-read what I put and it seemed pretty clear to me. Regardless, let's look at an example if you go to an airport, the board says "departure times" regardless of how many departure times are actually there, if it's 1 or 200, it still says "departure times" because the account for the likelihood of more than one. Another example, if you go to a theater to watch a movie, it says "show times" regardless of whether there's more than one show time or not, again to account for the likelihood of more than one. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 14:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a good parallel. The "departure times" board is a list of times of multiple departures - and is not a label in an infobox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No it's a good one, I think you miss the point, let me put it a different way. The departure board is designed to accept multiple times or just one, our infobox should be the same way. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 14:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it's designed to list multiple departures, and listing just one departure would be a rare exception. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it's designed show any number of times it needs to show,which is how the infobox should work. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 14:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

And the infobox can show any number of entries with singular legend labels. Singular should be the default, unless the field would always result in a plural. Plural would not look right as a default - consider (for example) Frankenweenie (1984 film), with "Studios", "Countries", "Languages", etc., as labels. However, singular looks perfectly acceptable when the field has multiple entries. And look how that "Release date(s)" really jars. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

So your argument essentially is that "Country: United States, Canada" looks better than "Countries: United States" correct? If yes, then I disagree and would really like others to voice their input 'cause us changing each others mind seems unlikely and we're just gonna go around and around. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 15:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Not that it looks better, but that it is the correct way of presentation. Your initial issue was one of precision and inaccuracy, yet you now propose a change in contradiction of your original concern.[3] --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

This matter is completely conventional, thus the difficulty arguing for either side. Betty supports uniformity, which is thoughtful, although one might observe that some fields are likely to have more than one entry and others only rarely. If uniformity prevails, it seems we are bound to use the singular form, otherwise some fields that tend to be singular (e.g. genre) would need to be plural, yielding more frequent inconsistency between field and entry. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Edit request. I think we have consensus enough for uniformity, thus reactivating the edit request so that we can ask an admin to remove the "(s)" after "release date". --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  I think this can be solved by technical means. It's easy enough to use template parameters to make the field "release date" as a default and "release dates" when some parameter is set. I have done just this in the sandbox with a new |releasedplural= parameter (I'm open to suggestions as to better naming for it). I've set up a test case here - take a look and see what you think. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

So could that option be taken up for any of the contentious fields mentioned above? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather not implement that; it's a wholly overblown solution to a trivial aesthetic concern. What we really need to do is take this to a central discussion somewhere (the talk page of MOS:INFOBOX would be ideal) and get a wider consensus of which we should use in general across all infoboxes. For now, let's leave this one as it is (it's not entirely consistent, but nor has this been a serious concern to anyone until now). Disabling. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring comparison

There used to be a lot of edit warring about the infoboxes for film series with links to "Preceded by" and "Followed by". There doesn't seem to be the same amount of warring over navbox contents that cover the same material. Why not? I have a couple ideas but I never saw a dispute on the subject. Anyone? --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

P/F only allowed for one film to be included, and which one was a matter of interpretation in multiple cases. Navboxes allow for every film meeting a particular interpretation to be included. Doniago (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought the issue that caused problems was how to define a series. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. One editor believe the fields should be used for an in-universe chronological series, another editor believes they should be used for a release date series, and we're off to the races... Doniago (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Story chronology and release chronology, then, are two different types of series. That's clear enough and could be delineated in a guideline, whether one or both were chosen. The harder cases, though, are about whether or not a certain film belongs, because these are binary decisions so compromise isn't easy. At least, I assume that's the problem. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"Preceded by" and "Followed by"

I believe that we should bring these back. I remember two years ago when they were around, it was very simple to navigate my way around a series. I have looked at the archive of the previous discussion, from two years ago and was rather upset that it was mainly editors who made the change without considering the probably millions of people who visit the pages the change affected. Two years ago, when they were around they were rather useful. E. g. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire had the preceded by: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and was followed by: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. I don't know why they were originally removed when they were such a useful feature. They still exist on the book infobox. and help significantly. AlexKnightNZ (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

In two years, you're saying that you're life has been detrimentally impacted by the fact that you have to scroll to the bottom of the page to a navigation box that lists ALL of the films IN ORDER in one location?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

In a really minor fashion, Bignole, but this is about ease of navigation for the readers, not editors. The feature was extremely convenient. And it's not just about navigation either, IMO it's kinda important to the movie to show what movies were made in the same series before or after it. It's important information. I disagreed with the removal when the original discussion happened, but was unable to participate because of my inhibiting circumstances that was in effect 2 years ago, now I can participate and will try my best to help bring them back. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 12:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It's no harder to navigate now. Maybe it is important information, but it's important information that was not actually removed. The navigation box still lists the films that come before and after a particular film in a series. Your argument is that you want it at the top of the page, instead of at the bottom. Convienence is not a reason to keep something...especially when that's the only reason. Not only did those sections just extend an already lengthy infobox, but the amount of edit warring that occurred on many franchise pages that have multiple continuities, or films like Star Wars where people want story order over release order, create more issues than "convienence" could ever supercede. IMO. We have not lost any readers because they have to go to the bottom of the page to find the link to the next film in the series (which is probably only a few pages, since most film pages mention the before and after film in the lead paragraphs anyway).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

I"m not sure I'm clear on the reason to make the information inconvenient. How is that a plus for the readers? Should it be difficult to navigate for a reason? --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Because it wasn't more convenient. A relative minority of articles had any use for these parameters, and frequently when they did, as Bignole noted, numerous edit wars would ensue over what the order used should be. Using navboxes instead presents the same information more clearly and in more detail, and I strongly oppose re-adding these parameters. If convenience is really an issue, there's this neat trick you can do with Ctrl-End... Doniago (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

How do avoid the edit wars? You specifically state on the description of the parameter whether the parameters are to be used for story order or release order. If you do that then people who argue otherwise have no standing. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 15:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue Bignole and Doniago have is that the point becomes more complicated when you have spin-offs and different continuities. For example, is Supergirl part of the Superman film series? Does Superman Returns follow Superman IV or Superman II, etc., etc. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Experience showed that there was no way to be specific enough to avoid edit wars. Go and take a look at the contentious issue regarding Rise of the Planet of the Apes and whether it was a prequel, sequel reboot etc. Prometheus too for that matter. The fact is navboxes are far more convenient and contain for more info than the old infobox fields. It weems that "millions" of readers have adapted to using them without distress. MarnetteD | Talk 15:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

For that matter, if the concern is really navigating to the bottom of the page, a well-written lead can easily include all of the information that the params could have, with more detail to capture all of the possible interpretations. Doniago (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Marnette,good point and I will concede that and will do some thinking how maybe how to improve my suggestion. On the other hand, Doniago, but isn't that the point of the infobox? To summarize in the important stuff in the lede and rest of the article? By that logic, infoboxes should be done away completely because a well written article has it all there. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 15:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• A link is more obvious at the top of a page than it is at the bottom, but maybe that's an argument for having all navigation templates at the top of an article? I mean, at the end of the day we have navigation templates for navigating, and infoboxes for pertinent factual content about the film, and we try to restrict it to parammeters that apply to the majority of film articles. If navigation templates aren't actually doing their jobs for readers due to their positioning within the article then that should be looked at in more detail, but I don't think incorporating navigation into the infobox is the solution if there really is a problem. Betty Logan (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

"Preceded by" and "Followed by" were only used on a very small number of film articles, and hence they became redundant. They aren't coming back anytime soon. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

CRRays, you're right, the lead is meant to summarize the important stuff from the article. In no way would I ever assume that the next/previous film in a series was important to the article that I'm reading. That may be important to a film series/franchise article, but not the article of a specific film. Given that knowing the title of the next film (or previous film) tells me nothing about its significance in relation to the page I'm on, its importance to the reader is really minute.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

But apparently your opinion is very far from universal, BigNole. I'm afraid no amount of insisting that navboxes are better will change the reality that it's not true for everyone. So you don't use them; fine, don't use them. Other readers clearly have a legitimate view that is different. Everything in the infobox is redundant of something in a good article. Clearly, their function is not to provide unique information. They are there for convenience, Why is it that we don't want to make it easy to navigate? I really haven't seen that addressed. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I mean, just to be clear, I read what Doniago said, which again I recognize is a legitimate view as well, that navoboxes are just as good. However, this does not seem verified by the practice. Some readers prefer the previous/next navigation. Since we are here offering information + organization, how can we not recognize the validity of readers who come here expressly for the purpose of mentioning that we made a mistake? Is there no circumstance under which we reconsider our actions? I don't get that, colleagues. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I said that nav boxes are better at providing all of the films for ease of navigation within a series. I didn't say that they were more convienent. I recognize the convienence of having links in the infobox. What I'm saying is that convienence is not the be all end all, and since infoboxes should really only contain necessary information relevant to the page your own, links to other films would not qualify in my eyes (and apparently not in the eyes of those that participated in the discussion originally). You're (and I mean all those involved, not just you personally) only argument is that it is a convienence for readers. The arguments against it are that they are not important links (as they don't convey a message of how they relate to a film on an importance scale), they extend the infobox unnecessarily, and they create repeated edit wars over what film should be listed where. People seem to have gotten along just fine without them, just as they got along just fine when IMDb and the other external links were removed, and just as they got along when we got rid of trivia sections. Yes, it's nice to have all those things, but do we really need them for the article to be great.....I'd say no.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

One editor of six months standing (BTW there is absolutely nothing wrong with that - whatever they were doing two years ago does not stop their raising the question now) brings up the question. While I do not have time to look up when it was last raised it was at a minimum months - if not over a year ago - which means there is little demand for a return to the situation that caused so many problems in the past. A couple editors continue the question while others are content with the way things have been. No one has yet shown that hitting the "page bottom" key takes any more time than scrolling two or three times to get to the bottom of the infobox is more convenient. Most certainly no one has shown that having all the films in a series mentioned in an infobox rather than just one or two in the old fields gives more information. Above all no empiric evidence has been presented as to what the average reader thinks at all so please quit pretending to speak for them. Some of you feel one way and others feels another so while WP:CONSENSUS can change it does not seem to have done so at this time. MarnetteD | Talk 02:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You are trying to say he's out of order and that's not how it works. The editor's concern is legitimate. He says it's not as convenient or useful or clear. No problem, and the matter should be discussed on the merits. At the time the change was made, advocates of navboxes insisted they were just as easy for navigation. Now we've had a test of the concept that call into doubt that promise. The honest thing to do if someone says it's not working is to think about it. Don't we want to get it right? --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

No I am not trying to say that - though I am not surprised that you would use that canard. On the other hand this is not had a test of the navbox concept since the OP does not mention navboxes at all. Indeed there is no evidence at all of "millions of readers" being inconvenienced and the "honest" thing to do would be to acknowledge that fact. "We" did not make a mistake - we acted according to wikipolicy and the fact that you don't like it is what it is = your opinion. MarnetteD | Talk 04:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to jump back but Marnette you misstate my view in more than one way. 1. I used no canard. 2. I said nothing about millions of readers. 3. I haven't expressed my own opinion on this subject. 4. I didn't say that we did not act according to policy. (Consensus can change though and even the best decision procedure will lead to mistakes; if we made one we should correct ourselves.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not convinced that there was a consensus to remove "Preceded by" and "Followed by" from the infobox. Certainly some editors strongly advocated for their removal, but a lot of other editors wanted them left in. I'm another one who thinks that the infobox is much better with the parameters left in. I understand that in some cases there were tedious arguments about which films constitute a "series", but that can be handled with clear guidelines about how to use the parameters. That will never be perfect, there will still be some disagreements, but I strongly feel that putting these parameters back will be extremely helpful to our readers. "P.S." Here, I believe, are the two main discussions about removing the parameters or leaving them in:

• Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 19#Preceded By/Followed By
• Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 20#Preceded By / Followed By

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 09:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

How would those "clear guidelines" deal with such cases like Superman, X-Men, Aliens/Predator/Aliens vs Predator/Prometheus, etc, etc.? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

BigNole, you said they're not important information. I find it to be very important information that a film as a prequel/midquel/sequel and/or a film preceding it. IMO, it's just as important as the fact that Super Bowl XXVI preceded Super Bowl XXVII and that was followed by Super Bowl XXVIII as an example. And the excuse of "it was removed to stop edit wars" doesn't really convince me the parameters were bad. Seems like you're running from the problem rather than solving it by taking it head on. Again, IMHO. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 13:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

What was important about knowing there was a previous film? What does it tell you about that film's article that you're reading? P.S. You cannot micromanage every criteria to remove all fighting. No one agrees on what the orders should be, so please don't insinuate that people "ran from a problem". We dealt with the problem for years, and no solution could be agreed upon other than, "lets just remove them". When the only argument to keep is "it's convienent", that's not a powerful argument, IMO (or the opinion of everyone that took part in the many debates the years past). Also, Mudwater, you speak of "no consensus", but if you remember WP:CONSENSUS, as I'm sure you've read it, consensus is not built on the number of people for or against something, it's about strength of argument for the people debating. If we were talking 100 people to 20 people, then yeah, I'll conceded a shear volume as consensus, but when it comes down to smaller numbers, it's about strength of argument.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

What's important about it?! The fact that the movie is not the first in the series and the fact that the preceding movie likely has implications on that movie's story. An example of this is the Harry Potter movies, especially the last two. And you're right, we can't micromangage everything, but you can set guidelines for a parameter that says how they're intended to be used. With that you prevent a lot of edit wars in the first place. No not all of them, but a lot of them. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 14:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

"The fact that a movie is not the first in the series" should be in the lead, so it isn't that important that it needs to be in the infobox considering it is not information directly about this film, but about a series of films. As for "implications on that movie's story"....well, you don't know that. By only listing a title, it tells you nothing about the implications on this film's story. Knowing that Goblet of Fire precedes Order of Phoenix tells me nothing about its implications on the latter's story. Better yet (spoiler alert), knowing Half-Blood Prince happened before Deathly Hallows doesn't tell me that Dumbledore died, which is one of the main emotional plot elements of Deathly Hallows, not to mention character motivation. All I would know is that a film came before (and after that), which the lead would indicate already (which is higher on the page than where they were in the infobox) and the nav box at the end of the page indicates. Here's another example....Halloween. Knowing that there was Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers before Halloween H20 tells me only that there was a previous film, it doesn't tell me that the story was retconned and that Halloween 4, 5 and 6 were effectively removed from continuity. A lead might include some element to show the importance of the last film to the current film (or in the case of Halloween, explain that the previous 3 films are no longer connected to the continuity), so why do we need a third place in the article for sending people away from the page they are viewing again?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping these links out, and I have several reasons:

1. I believe the discussion that instigated their removal was consistent with MOS:INFOBOX, which states: the purpose of an infobox [is] to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears and If the field is relevant to very few articles, it should probably not be included at all. The fact is the parameter is only relevant to a minority of the articles, and supplying a link for the purpose of navigation isn't really compliant with the stated aim of the infobox. In truth, these links should never have been inlcuded to begin with.
2. If we are to accept that a direct sequel or predecessor is a pertinent enough fact to warrant inclusion, doesn't the same rationale hold for the other films in a franchise? If for example, we were to include links to the Temple of Doom and Crystal Skull on the Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade article, then doesn't it logically follow that Raiders of the Lost Ark also belongs in there too?
3. As pointed out, nobody in this discussion really speaks for anyone else, but all the "complaints" seem to be of the form that they object to the removal of the links. We haven't had any complaints directly related to the difficulty of navigation. The discussion boils down to this: some of us don't mind them gone because we're happy to use the navbox, while some editors obviously miss them. No empirical evidence has been presented in terms of readers complaining that they are finding it difficult to navigate to other films in the franchise.
4. If there is a real problem with navigation, then I think the problem is wider than the scope of this discussion. Yes, we want navigation to be easy, which is why we have navboxes. Now, if navigation really would be better served by the infobox, then this means that navboxes aren't really serving the purpose they are designed for, and perhaps that needs to be addressed as a whole. I mean, sure, we could shove a couple of links into the infobox but what about all the others that remain in the navbox?

If this is really more than just a few editors getting the hump because we removed a parameter that they liked and there is a demonstrable issue with navigation as a whole, then we should look at navigation as whole. Betty Logan (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I was sad when they were removed. As a reader I found them helpful and a quick way to navigate between the titles in a series. I'd love it for the code to be brought back. ₪RicknAsia₪ 15:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how it was quick if you wanted to navigate between Philospher's Stone and Half Blood Prince in the Potter films. Also are you saying that the navboxes are not helpful and quick? MarnetteD | Talk 18:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not required. Finding a single example, Marnette, where you think they are not helpful doesn't contradict these editors' response to the missing links. They say they made it easier. I seriously doubt they are lying. Even if you personally have found another way that you think is just as good, they think the infobox links made it easy. With respect, this discussion should be located in another area than whether or not the links are preferred by some readers because of ease of use. That matter is settled. Also, I don't see where the links make navigation worse, so it's not a tradeoff. Lastly, I would like to address Betty's point above where she seems to say that it would be trivial to add some links instead of addressing some other bigger problem. 1. The navigation "problem" is the absence of these very links. There's not another problem, just this one. 2. This was not considered a problem when we discussed switching from preceded/following links to navboxes. While it might be sad that we lost the links we already had, nothing stops us starting over with new links. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

A single example? Are the Potter films the only film series? I could present dozens but I don't need a wall of text to make my point. Please let Rick speak for himself if he wishes. Some readers liked them is fine but it is not wnough to change the consensus of over two years standing. Some editors have enjoyed the lack of edit wars BTW. I liked the actor infoboxes that disappeared several years ago and I would guess that others do as well. Yet I don't feel the need to claim that "we" made a mistake or sight some people liking it as a reason to reintroduce problematic parameters. As yet no evidence has been presented that the previous links were more useful than the current ones. Until that is done I will Oppose the fields return. MarnetteD | Talk 01:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You can take this as my oppose too. How is there a "navigation problem" if the links are supplied by navboxes instead of the infobox? That is what they are designed for. Either the navboxes supply an acceptable level of navigation or they don't: if they do then there isn't a navigation problem; if they don't then there are other solutions to consider besides supplying navigation through the infobox. There needs to be a reason for adding the links to the infobox besides just wanting to add them to the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. I haven't seen anything here that I find persuasive as to why the various alternatives to the infobox fields are insufficient. If and when I do I'll be happy to reconsider my opinion. Doniago (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Betty, there used to be another way to navigate. Some say this new method is not as good in practice. Your characterization of the proponents of f/p links as merely whimsical is inaccurate. I somewhat agree with Doniago, because at this point in the discussion neither view has addressed the claims of the other. In other words, there is a dearth of good reasoning for either position. Instead of rushing to a decision, this is the time when editors might consider engaging with the actual arguments made by the other side. Those who want f/p links should explain why the navigation is inferior without them. Those who think navboxes are adequate might do something besides deny the validity of the concerns of those who disagree. Admittedly, a conversation on that level might be extremely boring, but it is what we're talking about. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding links to the infobox is a solution to a problem that hasn't yet been articulated. What makes these two links so much more important than the others? Do editors miss the links simply because they have become accustomed to them? Do readers simply prefer to navigate from the top rather than the bottom? If that is the case there are other things worth considering like sidebars for links that are heavily utilised on franchise films. The debate needs to be framed within the context of navigation, not infobox parameters. Betty Logan (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is articulated by the editors who advocate it. It is true that they happen to be editors who don't normally weigh in here. That is a very good reason to take their concerns seriously. AlexKnight, CRRaysHead, Mudwater have all decided that this is the one thing they believe is worth offering an opinion about. BigNole, Marnette, and you are --- for reasons I'm unclear on -- defending an opinion you held a long time ago before you knew exactly how it would work out. There seems to be some reluctance to learn from experience that is anti-epistemic. To me it seems obvious that the navboxes are not consistently in the same place and they don't tell you which film in the series is next without checking. In other words, f/p links organize the films like the alphabet organizes a list of authors. Why have a distracting discussion about the underlying causes of this preference for f/p links among some editors? We had them, they liked them, they tried it our way, they aren't persuaded. How about restore the links and then discuss the deep reasoning? As far as I can tell, the only problem with these very useful links is that there were disagreements about the nature or identity of a series. Yes, it's a serious issue and proponents of the links haven't offered a drop dead gorgeous explanation how to solve that. Apart from that, I think we should be open-minded, ready to learn, and good listeners. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

First, never presume to tell me what I do and don't know and when I do and don't know it. Thanks. Secondly, nav boxes are not always in the same place? Last time I checked, they were at the bottom of the page. Do you have other film pages where they are somewhere else? As for the, "they don't tell you which film in the series is next" argument, the films are listed in order so deductive logic should tell you which film is next. You merely need to read the list from left to right, which is the way we all read.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You knew exactly how this was going to work out? Of course you didn't because it's just a fact of life that we can't see the future. Secondly, I think you misunderstood me on the navigation issue. Navboxes are in the same place at the bottom, true, but to navigate between films in a series requires the reader to determine which film is next in the series. The f/p link organizes the information using the technology of the internet. It's easier to move between the films in the series and it can be done in fewer steps. I understand that and I don't use navboxes or the links. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

How this would turn out? Do you mean, that I couldn't predict that some people would miss the p/f links from the infobox? Um, go back and read the original discussions, and you'll note that we all knew there would be people that would miss the links. Again, as for navigating between films, I have no idea what you're even trying to insinuate here. You say you cannot navigate between films in a series in a nav box because it requires the reader to "determine which film is next". Did you happen to read what I said? ALL the films are already in their correct order. You can navigate between Film 1 to Film 10 in a series, it's not that hard. Please show me a nav box where it is unclear what film comes next in the series. I'd really like to see one, because I've never seen a nav box where someone organized it to be out of order. It seems pretty clear to me when I look at these: Template:Friday the 13th, Template:A Nightmare on Elm Street, Template:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Template:Halloween series, Template:Harry Potter, Template:Star Wars, Template:James Bond films. I feel like you attribute a level of stupidity to readers that really isn't there. I've never come across anyone that came to a talk page, or my page, or anywhere with, "The nav box is too confusing, I cannot figure out which film comes next."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be helpful to cool down the tone of the discussion a bit and focus on the issues rather than perceived assumptions that editors might be making. Just trying to help. Alternately perhaps that might be better discussed at editors' individual Talk pages. In any case, I feel the removal of p/f mooted a large number of time-consuming and regrettably frequent, yet objectively speaking trivial edit wars regarding what films belonged in those parameters; I suspect that many editors would prefer those situations not be brought to the forefront again, and if those parameters are resurrected I have every confidence that they will be, because even if our documentation is clear we can't compel every editor to RTFM before they edit, and there would likely be editors who felt strongly enough about what p/f "should" do that we'd end up having muliple discussions about that here. IMO a well-structured lead and a well-designed navbox not only replace but are superior to those params because they provide the same information with better detail and clarity and without opening the same doors to edit-warring.

If the editors who feel the p/f params should return wish to persuade me of that, they need to 1) state clear ways in which the params provide information that cannot be relayed at least as clearly through the lead/navboxes, 2) explain why not having the params damages the quality of the articles, 3) discuss how we can reintegrate those params without opening the doors to a) edit-warring on specific articles, b) multiple discussions about what those params should be used for. Doniago (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this should be the subject. I am not committed either way, but I understand perfectly well what the advocates of p/f links are missing. Perhaps consider a similar situation: at the bottom of the web pages for most newspaper articles, one can proceed to the next page of the article simply with a single click. Imagine if instead you had to return to a list of all the pages in the article and determine which page you were on so you could select the next one. And imagine that the pages were not numbered but named according to their contents. Yes, one could do it, but why would the newspaper ask you to do that? It's not organized in a natural way. So, to me, it's not surprising that some readers like the links. Having said that, I think the problem of edit wars is serious, too. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad we have some level of understanding, truly. I don't feel your analogy quite holds up though, because the movies that would be listed in p/f can and arguably should be listed in a well-structured lead as well...and that would apply regardless of how you feel p/f should be handled. You might have to do a little bit of searching to find them, but they are there (and obviously will be indicated/highlighted as links). And if it's too frustrating to look for them there, jump to the bottom of the page and work through the navbox. I just don't personally believe that scrolling to the bottom of a webpage constitutes a significant inconvenience. As an example, I submit X-Men: First Class, which is both a prequel and a sequel depending on whether you're talking about release order or chronology. The lead discusses this in its first paragraph, while the navbox provides a graphical representation with appropriate links to every film in the pertinent continuity. Doniago (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

But this little bit of searching is just the point, isn't it? We are here to organize the information so that it's easy to work with. We are a reference work. An encyclopedia doesn't say to its readers, "Hey, it's in there somewhere so just keep looking." Again, isn't this exactly why some readers prefer the links? They organize the information so it's easy to find what you're looking for. Of course, the newspaper might decide that the readers will find the next page in a long list of articles and their page numbers, but they wouldn't think for a second of doing that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay...if we stipulate that the "little bit of searching" is a significant issue (I don't believe it is), but also that the p/f fields as they were used before didn't provide enough clarity (among other issues, I already mentioned release order versus film chronology order) to prevent edit-warring and other issues, then I guess I'd throw it back to you...what would you recommend in order to resolve the LBoS issue without recreating the edit-warring issue? Documenting proper usage in the MoS, as I noted, will only help if editors read the MoS, which I suspect most of the edit warriors won't, and editors who feel strongly one way or another will just start discussions to try to push the acceptable use of the fields one way or another. Doniago (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I think your strong argument is that the edit warring was a problem. Until there's a proposal to address that, the navigation issue has to wait. I don't think a newspaper that didn't link to their connected pages would be a serious resource, and that is about where we are positioning ourselves. At the time the change was made, proponents of navboxes claimed that they were as easy to navigate. Yes, that was a very important claim they made at that time. Now, both empirically and logically, that claim is falsified. If we don't correct ourselves when we get something wrong, what are we doing here? Protecting turf? --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that AlexKnight, CRRaysHead, Mudwater only said that they liked the p/f parameters. They did not remark on the ease or difficulty of using of navboxes. There has been a paucity of responses to direct questions asked of them. As ever, Ring has presented no evidence that even "little bit of searching" is a problem. As I pointed out "things that we like" in both reading and editing disappear all the time at WikiP. As yet, nothing has been presented here that makes me reconsider the decision that we took came to over two years ago. It should also be pointed out that it is over 15 months since the last time this was brought up. I would hazard a guess that means that a sizable number of readers in that time were able to decipher the info in our articles without any stress or anxiety. MarnetteD | Talk 16:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Marnette, you seriously misstate the facts. Please read the very first post in this discussion and correct yourself. Even Doniago agrees that the links are easier for navigation than the navboxes. Thanks for correcting that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

What I'd actually say is that the links are easier for navigation if the definition of p/f meets your particular interpretation of how the fields could best be used in a given case. I think the navboxes are a lot more versatile, and failing those the lead at least provides a more clear definition of what p/f mean in cases where multiple interpretations are possible. Doniago (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Both can be used, right? A newspaper can have a list of all their articles and have navigation tools to move between pages of an article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing for me to correct and it seems that the only misstating of facts is being done by Ring. AlexKnightNZ states that it was a way to navigate around the film series that they liked. He then goes on to illustrate how one would have to go to three different articles to do that navigation. With the navbox they can get to any of those three articles in one step not multiple ones. Other misstatements by Ring include saying that readers have problems using navboxes without any examples of this and misquoting Doniago. Ring has used this sophistry in the past which helps to explain how the tone of some posts can get heated. Barring any real evidence that navboxes are difficult to use this thread could stand closure. MarnetteD | Talk 18:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

But there is. As he says, "it was very simple to navigate my way around a series." Are you asking us to believe that they prefer p/f links even though they are just as simple? --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we should leave it to the editors who advocated for the p/f links but who have not spoken up recently in this discussion to present their own perspectives on the situation rather than guessing what their arguments are. Doniago (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Marnette will advocate for including the f/p links if those three editors say they find the navboxes poor for navigation? --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I support the re-introduction of "Preceded by" and "Followed by" parameters for the following reasons:

(1) Where there are multiple films in a series, it is relevant key information for each film which ought to be included in an infobox (the purpose of which is to summarise key information);

(2) Their use is consistent with the approach used in other infoboxes;

(3) As such, it is intuitive for Wikipedia readers to look to the infobox to find the chronology for films in a series, just as they do for the chronology of seasons in a TV series, albums by a musical artist, regular events such as elections, etc.;

(4) Despite the use of naviboxes at the end of articles for film franchises, not all Wikipedia readers will be aware of or as familiar with them as infoboxes, so they may not think to look there (as I didn't at first despite being a user and editor since 2007) and even then they would not find them as convenient as having links to other films in the series listed in the infobox at the top of the article;

(5) Reliance on naviboxes places an additional burden (creating a navibox) for series that may consist of only two or three films and which may have no other relevant articles to be included in a navibox, when the links to other films in the series could easily be included in the existing infobox;

(6) Although there are particular cases where the chronology of films in a series may be disputed, this may be addressed in any number of ways (e.g., by setting policies for determining order, by discussing the matter on the relevant films' talk pages, by having an alternative parameter for listing films in a series without implying order or linking to the relevant franchise summary page), and IMHO, does not justify removing useful information from films where the series order is unambiguous (e.g., the Back to the Future series);

(7) I do not agree that the removal of these parameters from the infobox is justified merely because the information should be included in the main body. The point of the infobox is to summarise information which (mostly) is already in the article; otherwise, infoboxes might as well be done away with entirely (which I would not support, BTW, before anyone takes that as a serious suggestion).

Finally, comments made previously that this discussion already has been had, a decision made from a straw poll, and that anyone who wasn't there "missed the boat" overlook that consensus can change (if consensus to removal was reached), no one owns the templates, and discouraging others from contributing their views tends towards incivility. Please let's keep the discussion fruitful. —sroc (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Please add box_width param

The underlying {{Infobox}} template supports a box_width param, but this template does not pass it through. Please add and pass through. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a legacy parameter which should only be needed in special cases. is there a particular reason it's needed here? Disabling for now pending response, as overriding this without a good rationale reduces consistency without giving any obvious benefits. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Korean, Japanese and Chinese film Infobox merges at TfD

Following several discussions, I've raised these at TfD here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

now that these discussions have closed as merge, we should figure out the best way to merge them. the way I see it, we have at least three options

(1) add |traditional=, |simplified=, |pinyin=, |jyutping=, |poj=, |kanji=, |kana=, |romaji=, |hangul=, |hanja=, |rr=, and |mr= to this infobox.

(2) create (or repurpose) the three infoboxes to only generate the language translations, and then use them as subtemplate modules, so you could type

{{Infobox film
| name = {{Chinese film name
  | name = 
  | traditional    = 
  | simplified     = 
  | pinyin         = 
  | jyutping       = 
  | poj            = 
  }}
| director = 
...
}}

(3) create (or repurpose) the three infoboxes the same as (2) but into a single module for all three, so you could type

{{Infobox film
| name = {{Asian film name
  | name = 
  | traditional    = 
  | simplified     = 
  | pinyin         = 
  | jyutping       = 
  | poj            = 
  }}
| director = 
...
}}

the advantage of the second and third option is that it would not require changing this infobox, and would allow tracking the uses by tracking the transclusions of the subtemplates. comments? Frietjes (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Advantages of first is that they could all then be redirected to Infobox film and there would be no need to edit any articles. Note though that Infobox Korean film have |context= & |admissions= and Infobox Japanese film have |artdirector= & |production= as additional params. As to if any of those are worth adding, I don't know. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a preference for the third option, except we could generalize it to accommodate all foreign language titles i.e. Foreign film name. I have no doubt that more of these foreign language templates will pop up if the main template can't accommodate them, so if we had a name template that was openly adaptable for any editor that wanted to add name parameters for their language then hopefully that would be sufficient. Obviously we don't want to add a ton of parameters to the main template when they wouldn't be used in the vast majority of articles. Betty Logan (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Except, what is a "Foreign film"? Non-English language may be a better descriptive title. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is the English language Wikipedia so it probably would be self evident. But to that effect you could simply call it "Film name", since English language films just wouldn't utilise the template. Betty Logan (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

that would work for me. the |context= parameter would be added to this template as well, since that is part of a switch for the name. the other three that WOSlinker mentioned would be added here directly, if they are useful. Frietjes (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Well something like "admissions" shouldn't technically be included because it is not a global metric (we insist on a 'world view' for the main infobox such as worldwide box office, and for this reason MPAA ratings were dropped because they were US centric); 'local' information can be included in the article, but the infobox should be geared to a global readership. In the case of "art director", it is subordinate to the "production designer", and a recent consensus was against adding the production designer on notability grounds, so the art director simply wouldn't make it into the main infobox. I haven't a clue what "production" is for in the Japanese infobox; the documentation doesn't cover it, and I've just opened up half a dozen articles that use the template and none of them set the parameter. Betty Logan (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"Admissions" is necessary as not all countries count box office results in gross USD, Yen, Euros, etc. In Korea the standard way box office success / failure has been counted is in tickets sold and only more recently in gross Won. Hence This is also how the List of highest-grossing domestic films in South Korea has been sorted by. ₪RicknAsia₪ 01:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out above "local" information doesn't go in infoboxes. Korean admissions would go in the article just like US box office goes in the article. The decision was to merge the infoboxes, but the parameters that are merged are still subject to the infobox consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It makes sense to keep the |context= part as this is used for North Korean related articles. Much as the body of water in between Korea and Japan has a disputed name (East Sea? Sea of Japan?), the names and spellings for the Korean alphabet (Hangul/Chosŏn'gŭl) and Korean system of Chinese characters (Hanja/Hancha) is different in the North and the South. By adding "|context=north" to an article it displays the names in the style that the North uses; the official way for materials from that country. For example see this North film with "context=north" Unsung_Heroes_(film) versus a South film My Tutor Friend. ₪RicknAsia₪ 03:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: That single module shouldn't be limited to only East Asian text, but as of now, I'm in favour of the third option. I've a suggestion which may sound far-fetched at the moment: I hope that the module can become a universal one on the English Wikipedia. In other words, we have a subtemplate module within the standard film infobox (as in options 2 and 3) which has many parameters for editors to choose from, so that films with titles in non-Latin text (e.g. Indian, Iranian, Russian, Greek etc) can have those original titles included in the infobox. LDS _{contact me} 05:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Smart thinking as it could be expanded to any language without a Latin-based alphabet. And if that is the case that allows for a host of other languages to be added (I'm all for that) so option 2 or 3 would be much cleaner otherwise the template in general would drown in all these language options :) Would "Unicode" be a better term or is that limited to Asian languages? ₪RicknAsia₪ 05:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't be limited to only Asian languages. What about Russian and Greek? "Unicode" is fine. LDS _{contact me} 06:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"It shouldn't be limited to only Asian languages." Agreed so something like "Film Unicode Name" or "Original language Title" or such would be better. But before adding in additional language groups, for now let's finish this merge and then when the format is finalized contact people in those film group pages to propose (or propose it yourself) additional languages be added. ₪RicknAsia₪ 13:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• What about films with multiple countries that made it? For example Three Extremes. Would each of the 3 choices work for a situation like this? ₪RicknAsia₪ 05:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The merge wouldn't have any impact on the case of Three Extremes since the Korean, Japanese and Chinese infoboxes aren't used anyway. This discussion is purely to determine how to integrate those infoboxes into the main one. Editors have already decided it is best to use the main infobox in that case, and it is beyond the scope of this discussion to overrule that consensus. This discussion is restricted to articles where the Chinese, Japanese and Korean templates are in use. Betty Logan (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not in use in this case because only one template can be used at a time and this movie has three countries that made it. So my question is, in a case such as this movie where multiple countries made a film, which of the three merging option listed above would work to display the "original title" in all 3 languages? ₪RicknAsia₪ 16:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

None of them! Merging templates doesn't alter the functionality of them. Depending on which option you select it would either operate like the Korean template, or the Japanese template, or whichever other template is being merged but it won't do anything that these templates can't already do. That is not what a template merge is for, and not what the consensus for the merge accepted. Adding new functionality to the template is beyond the scope of a merge discussion. If you want to add further functionality to the template you are free to propose it after the templates have been merged. Betty Logan (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I am in favor of Option 3 and also wouldn't have a problem with Option 1. Remember to think for the new users. Which one would be the easiest for them to learn/remember? Jae ₩on (Deposit) 18:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Experimental template

Everyone seems to be reasonably happy with option 3, so I have created a prototype template at {{Film name}}. As you can see, it allows editors to fully customise the main infobox to accommodate their language. I have experimented on each of the four languages:

• Chinese: Before, After, Diff.
• Japanese: Before, After, Diff.
• South Korea: Before, After, Diff.
• North Korea: Before, After, Diff.

It looks identical in my browser (Opera) so I would appreciate it if you check that it looks ok in your browsers. You will notice that the switch function is used in the template: this in effect serves no functional purpose, but I was getting white space between the parameters and the switch function seems to remove it, at least in my browser. Finally you will notice that the template must be positioned after the parameter you want it to appear in the template. This is not ideal, and I will request a positioning parameter is added to the main infobox if this proposal is accepted. Betty Logan (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine on Safari on my iPad and on Firefox on my laptop. No white space. LDS _{contact me} 12:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Why are we adding yet more parameters into the infobox with another template? Surely this should go in the lead of the article, as it does for other languages (French, German, Russian, etc). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Because the outcome was "merge" and not "delete"? It's a valid point that perhaps not all of these parameters belong in the infobox, but the merge discussion doesn't actually give us a mandate to remove them; in fact it gives a mandate to add a shit load of unnecessary parameters to the infobox. This may not be the ideal solution, but it's better than the current situation where the Film project has effectively lost authority over the infoboxes on foreign film articles. The Film name template accomplishes two things: i) it brings the foreign films back under the main infobox, and ii) it doesn't result in adding an extra dozen or so largely unnecessary parameters to the infobox. Once we have one infobox on all the film articles, then we can have a closer look at exactly what should be there and what shouldn't, but let's at least get to the situation where we have one infobox on all the articles, otherwise we are going to end with even more of these pointless infoboxes. Betty Logan (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

the new template looks pretty good, but I am concerned with the usage, since wedging it in the caption field can be problematic if the image is not there. perhaps we could have a default place to hang it that won't depend on the existence of the image? Frietjes (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah it's a hack just to demonstrate the idea. Ideally a Film name parameter would be added to the main template, which would take the Film name template as a value. That way the expense to the main infobox would be just one extra parameter. Betty Logan (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You're removing information found in the first template, if all the same information isn't being conveyed the merge is failure.--114.205.84.126 (talk) 05:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The sole purpose of this template is to allow the addition of foreign film titles to the infobox, and any other parameter is irrelevant as far as this particular template is concerned. If you look at the examples you will see that all the title fields are transferred over, and that is all this template is supposed to do. Betty Logan (talk) 07:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

An extra parameter to the template to accommodate the foreign language title sub-template above, to accommodate the merge.

| data1 = {{{film name|}}}

There is no need for a "label" parameter, these will be set individually by the {{Film name}}. template. Don't forget to re-number the remaining parameters i.e. label1 & data1 will now be label2 & data2. Betty Logan (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Merged

I have completed the merge. All the foreign film titles should show up in the infoboxes, but it's been quite a complex task so I am bound to have missed something, so take a look and let me know if anything is not showing up/ill-formatted etc. In the case of Korean admissions, they will show up in the infobox if there is no worldwide gross present to supersede the local performance, as is customary on American film articles with the US gross. The only parameter that has been dropped to my knowledge is the "art director" from the Japanese infobox, since there is a standing consensus not to include it in the main film infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Production Company vs. Studio

In July 2012, I suggested to add an optional parameter |production= to the infobox (or change the |studio= parameter, to show "Production company" or "Production" instead); I had addeed this parameter to Template:Infobox Japanese film already. Now that "Infobox Japanese film" is merged with "Infobox film", I must address this issue again:
There are (many) examples outside Hollywood, where major production companies that are not studios, are behind a project. I think that a new parameter called "production" or "production company" under "studio" would be useful for such cases. There are films like Gantz, where TV Stations NTV, Yomiuri TV and publisher Shueisha are production companies (members of the Production Committee), while no specific studio is mentioned. IMDb lists these under Production Companies. Furthermore, for animated films from Japan, we have usually a small or medium size animation studio, just doing the animation production, and big companies (TV stations, publishers, advertising agencies etc.) that start the project, invest in it, hire the animation studio, hire the staff, and are copyright holders of the work. Examples that I can mention are Ninja Scroll (Madhouse doing the animation work, while JVC, Toho and Movic are producers and copyright holders); and Metropolis (Madhouse hired for animation production, while Bandai Visual, SPEJ, Toho, Dentsu, Kadokawa Shoten, Tezuka Productions, Imagica, and King Records are the members of the Production Committee, investing in the project and copyright holders).
To list a company like JVC, NTV, Shueisha or Dentsu under "studio" is not appropriate; these are obviously not studios. I recommend to add a new optioanl parameter for production companies (preferable in cases like Ninja Scroll and Metropolis, to separate the animation studio, Madhouse, from other production companies) or find a more appropriate term for "Studio" and rename it. --Raamin (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

In this capacity "Studio" is an all encompassing term for any production facility (even for independents that do not have a studio) but I would support a change to "Production company" since most secondary and tertiary sources use this terminology such as IMDB and the AFI. It would also avoid confusion between production companies and filming facilitis such as Pinewood. Betty Logan (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I support this change. In Template:Infobox television film, the parameter "studio" displays as "Production company". Bede735 (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That's TV. We've had this discussion before, neither says more than the other, just a lot longer and messier. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

There is indeed a difference. To call Shueisha, Kodansha, or Dentsu "studio" is just wrong, and unencyclopedic. --Raamin (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this is a language issue? A "studio" is any structure or building that is engaged in creative output: that may or may not include filming facilities, but in the sense we use it on Wikipedia, "studio" and "production company" are entirely interchangeable. However, the misconceptions about the term are a good enough reason alone to consider the change. Betty Logan (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)