Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

RfC: Is it relevant to list all composers for the film's music score and songs?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This has been restored to the main talk page for a formal close, as requested at WP:ANRFC. With a small number of editors voicing opinions and an even smaller number of explicit !votes, it is perhaps not surprising it lingered without a formal close. Nonetheless, the request should still be honored. There is, fortunately, a discernible consensus in the opinions expressed below. The consistent theme of comments, both pro and against, is that credit should be provided where practical without overwhelming the infobox template. As MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is fully compatible with these sentiments, there is a rough consensus to judiciously credit additional composers apparent in this RfC. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Should we include the composers for both the score and songs in the infobox, since the music parameter in the infobox calls for composers only? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, but only for musical films. Current instructions say composer of score only which is fine for most movies as that is likely the only music composed for the film other than the composer of the award-bait song over the credits which is not really part of the film, or composers of incidental songs not written for the film. For musical films, however, the songwriter is the predominant composer of music with the score composer, when there is one, somewhat secondary and supporting to that. Both should be listed. Lyricist is traditionally listed with composer for songs. Per the current guidance if strictly followed, some musical films would have nothing listed in the music attribute because of the lack of a score composer, the only music being from the songs, My Fair Lady (film) for example. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm also growing concerned about potentially cluttering up the infobox with lyricists and song composers (if there's at least five or six composers, it may be a little too much). Maybe this past discussion might be of interest? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Avoiding infobox bloat is important. This especially true when we get to editors who want to list composers - lyricists - score composers - etc. Add to that the unneeded bold lettering for each job and you get infoboxes that look sloppy - now this is just to my eye and I know others disagree. FWIW this is another one of those fields where the nuances are better handled in prose in the body of the article. MarnetteD|Talk 15:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I think there is a very compelling argument for including the composer of the lyrics for musicals, provided they wrote the majority of the lyrics. After all, a Rodgers and Hammerstein musical is a Rodgers and Hammerstein musical, not a Rodgers musical. In a musical the lyricist is providing an essential creative component. They are more or less as important as the script writer. If they just wrote a couple of numbers they shouldn't go in the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - My perpetual refrain: "Please consider Indian films." While some might comfortably be described as "musicals", it's not uncommon for action thrillers to have song sequences peppered throughout, and I think that fans of these films would consider the songs integral to the film and of cultural import. The workaround so far is that editors will add improvised subsections Score and Songs in the composer parameter. And to Betty's point, though I agree that song writers are potentially as important as the composers, if we include lyricists as well, we might be asking for parameter bloat. Example: check out Saaho, then scroll to the soundtrack section. This film was ostensibly shot simultaneously in three languages: Hindi, Telugu and Tamil. There is one score composer, four song composers, and eight lyric writers for the various songs in these languages. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - While I agree with some of the points above, namely where the songwriters may need to be in the article prose to avoid infobox bloat, should we also consider the approach taken with the cast sections of the Star Trek films in the infobox with "See Music" if necessary? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment (invited by the bot) I don't have the experience in this area to weigh in, but note that the whole idea of info boxes is to be very brief and to be highly selective in order to achieve that. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Mostly no. I agree that for musicals (and equivalent, e.g. operas released on DVD) it's pertinent, but not otherwise. The average blockbuster may have 20 songs in the soundtrack, each with complex credits. And no, do not "consider Indian films". They are not magically special, and all kinds of non-Indian films have musical sequences in them (e.g. Team America and all three Austin Powers films). It's just completely inappropriate clutter to name-dump in such cases. Include the name(s) of the score composer(s), not everyone involved in the soundtrack.  — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 07:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Yes It would be unfair to not give some credit. HAL333 20:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why does reference wrap in film_date parameter?

Any idea why the reference notation wraps in |film_date=? Looking at Shylock (2020 film) and it seems like we have ample room to have the reference directly after the date. I'm not tech minded, BTW. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Good question - I've wondered about this too. There is a fix of sorts with the ref formatting, see this example, but I'm sure something could be tweaked in the coding of the IB. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a problem with the {{film date}} template. See its test cases page. The solution is to use the |ref1= parameter in {{film date}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh right, shoot. Totally forgot that. Sorry. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding wording to the "runtime" documentation

Would anyone be opposed to moving much of the text in the |runtime= documentation to a section below like with release info, and also making the following adjustments (in bold) to the current text: Use a reliable secondary source, such as the BBFC classification site, to cite the information; do not take it from theater chain websites, home video packaging or time it yourself. If using the BBFC website as a source...

The main addition is to discourage taking run times (at least for current/upcoming features) that trace back to theater chains (AMC, Regal, Cinemark, etc.). In my editing, I've come across fellow editors who feel the same that this should not be done, because various chains could have slightly different times (off by a couple minutes) so in that case, which would you chose? Also, chains could be receiving general info from the studio before the film has been classified to help them start booking out theaters/showings, resulting in times that might turn out to be inaccurate once it has been classified.

The text in the table would reduce to this:

Insert an approximate time duration of the film in minutes. If the running time is given to the second, round it to the minute (and do not link to "minute"). Restrict the entry to the runtime for the primary release. See #Runtime for additional guidelines.

With the section looking like this:

The runtime for the film should be for the primary release; this will usually be the format the film premiered on, so for films that have had a theatrical release insert the runtime of the original theatrical version. Runtimes can vary due to regional censorship, alternative cuts (such as a director's cut or an unrated version) and different technical specifications across release formats, but do not include any additional runtimes without consensus. Use a reliable secondary source, such as the BBFC classification site, to cite the information; do not take it from theater chain websites, home video packaging or time it yourself. If using the BBFC website as a source take note that a film may have been submitted to the BBFC several times for classification and have several different runtimes associated with it depending on format, version and component (such as a DVD commentary), so be careful to source the correct time, which are all listed at the bottom of the entry page for the film under "Feature".

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support. It seems like a reasonable proposal to me. One caveat is that if a film only plays exclusively at a festival it may be the only source we have for the runtime, but if such a case should occur we can leave that to a local talk page consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Betty Logan: Sure. If we can get wording like that in the prose, I'd be fine with that, but I felt using "such as the BBFC classification site" wasn't meant to limit it to only that, just provide an example of a reliable secondary source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. To have the consensus we reached some time ago available in an accessible place. El Millo (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Why are we excluding "home video packaging"? I understand the need for caution if there are various cuts out there, but this is an official source. If it is a US film, then it seems that the US home video packaging is fair game to source. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

BBFC's source is available since before the film's theatrical release, home video packaging is available like three months after. El Millo (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand that for upcoming films, but what about in the past? Is BBFC going to cover older films released on only DVD or VHS that are notable on Wikipedia? I don't mind BBFC being the first and foremost source to reference, but it seems like "home video packaging" is an acceptable backup as long as matters like cuts and non-origin countries are considered. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure. El Millo (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Erik: I'm not sure. The wording currently is there, so I'm assuming at some point a discussion was had regarding its exclusion? I'll see if I can dig up any info on it, but given your reasoning, I don't have any issue with home media being a source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

So the home media part was added per this discussion and with this edit. The discussion was started by Betty Logan who also made the edit change. (You and I Erik also participated in that discussion among other editors). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Further examination of the past discussion shows that MarnetteD was the one then to bring up about home media times, but the comment was in the context of films that have been released theatrically and/or classified might have varying times because of commentary or disclaimers. So maybe we need to tweak this a bit more so it is clear for home media release only films or older ones, those times can be used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's fine otherwise. I only raised the matter because it seemed to me that someone could argue, "Why the heck can't we cite the home video packaging that is actually printed by the studio itself?" The other variations essentially boil down to the runtime being muddled in some transfer/reporting process, where there could be more explicit clarification for home video packaging as a more direct source. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

What if we pull out "home video packaging" from where it currently is, and add a new sentence at the very end that reads something like: Home video packaging should only be used to source runtimes for direct-to-video films or for films that may not have been classified; reliable secondary sources are still preferable in these instances if at all possible. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I am fine with that and also would like to know what Betty Logan thinks since she proposed the addition of "home video packaging" in the first place. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It was a pragmatic suggestion. I occasionally noticed editors removing BBFC sourced times and adding times from their UK DVD boxes. This is problematic because of PAL speedup. Obviously the same problem does not occur with US DVD boxes because NTSC does not alter the runtime. To be fair it still goes on so the guideline hasn't been much help in this regard, but it would still be useful to have something to point to. I am fine with the re-write below. Betty Logan (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Per some of the discussion above, here is what the new "Runtime" section prose would look like. I've included the change for home video and made a slight tweak to my wording on theater chains to specify that instance would mostly apply only to upcoming/currently showing releases.

The runtime for the film should be for the primary release; this will usually be the format the film premiered on, so for films that have had a theatrical release insert the runtime of the original theatrical version. Runtimes can vary due to regional censorship, alternative cuts (such as a director's cut or an unrated version) and different technical specifications across release formats, but do not include any additional runtimes without consensus. Use a reliable secondary source, such as the BBFC classification site, to cite the information; do not time it yourself, and for upcoming releases, do not take it from theater chain websites. If using the BBFC website as a source take note that a film may have been submitted to the BBFC several times for classification and have several different runtimes associated with it depending on format, version and component (such as a DVD commentary), so be careful to source the correct time, which are all listed at the bottom of the entry page for the film under "Feature".

Home video packaging should only be used to source runtimes for direct-to-video films or for films that may not have been classified; reliable secondary sources are still preferable in these instances if at all possible.

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo and Erik: any issues with this rewrite above? Betty voiced their support in their comment to Erik above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we should clarify that websites that take the info from theater chains can't be used as well. El Millo (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

That at that point becomes a WP:FRUIT issue, so I don't see the need to state that step here. If it's done on articles, you can point to this new section and FRUIT in your reasoning for removal. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

It appear there is support and consensus to make this change. I'll go ahead and do so. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

prequel/sequel

Just curious, why does the infobox not mention "prequel" or "sequel"? Is it not easier to add a title in the infobox of the previous or next part of e.g. a movie-trilogy? Sometimes it is not easy to immediately find the link to the next/previous part of a movie in a series.Garnhami (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Garnhami: see Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 27#Sequel support, Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 24#Adding optional succession parameters? and Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 30#Add sequel / prequel parameters. El Millo (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

There's a note about this at the top of this page. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to deprecate "film_name" in favor of "native_name"

There is currently a proposal on {{Infobox television}} to change its |show_name= parameter to |name= for consistency with this template. I'd like to propose a change here to change the |film_name= parameter to |native_name= to match the usage in {{Infobox television}}. Using |film_name= to mean a native name is very confusing as logically the name should mean the same as |name=. |native_name= removes any confusion here and clearly states what that parameter is for. --Gonnym (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support It is a bit more intuitive. For the record it was me who created the "film name" field, which was designed to accommodate {{Infobox name module}} whose purpose was to merge the foreign-language film infoboxes into the main film infobox. To be honest I didn't really give much thought to what it should be called at the time. Betty Logan (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support makes sense. El Millo (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• This now has been implemented. --Gonnym (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Film articles using image size parameter

I was wondering if there was a reason for this tracking category? The category has no text explaining what reason there is to track these parameters nor are there any comments in the template code itself. If these parameters should be disabled, why aren't they removed from the template code? --Gonnym (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks like it was added in August 2010. You might check this talk page's archives to see if there was a reason, and then determine if that reason is still valid. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I think there's more info at WP:IMAGESIZE which mentions no to change the default, unless there's a good reason to do so. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Italic title

By using italic title= no it does not make the page name italic. But it still makes the name=ABC italic. Is there any way to fix this? or do we need to implement it? This can be useful in YouTube videos pages etc. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 14:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: If you don't want the name in the infobox to be italicized, do the following: |name={{noitalic|ABC}} - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, Thanks. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 10:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll just add that technically CAPTAIN MEDUSA is right that the template should have dealt with it with the same parameter. --Gonnym (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Gonnym, It would make life much more easier. There are many articles with italic |name=, where they should not have italic name. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 16:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Based on

Now that |based on= is officially deprecated, is someone working on a means to convert all instances of it to |based_on=? Gonnym, do you know? --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• I've tried asking @Primefac: for his bot to help on a different set of parameters which were also deprecated and a helpful editor blocked it by saying it was cosmetic. So not much I can do here. --Gonnym (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • For this instance, I wouldn't call this cosmetic though... just my 2 cents. So if we could get the bot to make passes, that would be helpful. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Yeah, without getting too deep into the other conversation, you were looking for invalid parameters that could have just as easily been ignored, which I do agree are not necessary to remove. Deprecated parameters, though, are well worth changing so that the IBs actually work properly. Primefac (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
      • That being said, there are 43k pages with deprecated params and only 27k in the "unknown" params cat, so I don't see any issue with bundling the two together. If you wouldn't mind terribly Gonnym, would you mind going through User:Gonnym/sandbox/tests4 and indicating which params should be removed outright and which are likely misspellings of others? Some like "writter" or "usic_composer" are pretty obvious, but others like "season_number" I don't know about. Primefac (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
        • You could also look at the monthly TemplateData report to find the most common unsupported parameters, and recommend a change for each one. Note that a parameter name showing up in that report as unsupported does not actually mean that it is unsupported, so that would have to be checked for each parameter. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
          • That's actually what I was planning on using, but I don't think I've ever seen TemplateData put into the middle of a /doc so I didn't even realize it was enabled for this template. Primefac (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
            • Me neither, but I did a Find on the page, and there it was. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
              • Okay, I've gone through the TemplateData and updated the task list with the most commonly incorrect params (most are deprecated, a few are common misspellings). I only went down to params that had 20+ uses. If I'm missing anything let me know, but that should take care of all of the deprecated params and a decent chunk of the non-blank invalid params. Primefac (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
                • @Primefac: thanks for the assistance!
                  1. |Executive Producer= (or any other x-producer credits) shouldn't be changed to |producer=. These are two different credits, with the template currently only allowing for producer credit.
                  2. Most (all?) of the 0-9 entries in the tracking category are for incorrect "|". Can your bot remove these?
                  3. Already Dead (film) has |publisher= and |accessdate= which seem to be leftovers from a deleted cite template. Can the bot handle these parameters without touching valid cite templates?
                  4. Sampled a few of the links and found these parameters that should be removed: |website=, |web-site=, |Official Sites=, |trailer_url=, |amg_id=, |imdb_id=, |jmdb_url=, |rating=, |awards=, |preceded_by=, |preceded by=, |followed_by=, |followed by=, |design=, |designer=, |visual effects=, |graphic design=, |maintheme= |location=, |sales agent=, |tagline=, |year=, |lyrics=, |Genre= (and whatever is on this list).
                  5. |release= can be changed to |released= (make sure the template doesn't end with doubles. It's probably safer/easier to just remove if empty).
                  6. I know this is cosmetic in itself, but since you are already editing these pages, can the bot use the canonized template name ("Infobox film") when it edits a page?

                  --Gonnym (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

                  Having looked through some of the extant uses of "unnamed" parameters, I am not going to remove or otherwise deal with them, because most of them appear to be a result of previous messed-up edits (for example, this should be fixed rather than removed). I'll look at the others a bit more deeply but it looks like the majority of what you list above are either unused or used less than two times. Primefac (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

                  I did fix the instance you linked to Primefac for manual adjusting and fixed the Already Dead article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

                  The parameters and values in the link above titled "this list" should not be blindly removed. Many of them need to be converted to valid parameters. Once the bot has fixed the most obvious problems, humans need to deal with the rest. If the blank parameter check is removed from the template, it will be a lot easier to see how many actual errors there are in the category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

                  As I've told you before, an invalid empty parameter and an invalid non empty parameter have the same affect on the template, which is none. It just helps removing them all as it makes editing easier and cleaner without the unnecessary noise. It also helps the needles spread of this, as editors copy/paste from one page to another. --Gonnym (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Just so we're all on the same page here, I am

a) changing the parameters listed at the Task 30 subsection

b) performing (as part of Task 30) the so-called "infobox genfixes", which do involve things like spurious pipes (1c). Note that spurious pipes (such as |\n| or | |) are different from "unnamed parameters".

I am basing these changes only on the pages in Category:Pages using infobox film with deprecated parameters, so there is a chance that there will be spurious pipes that are not touched. However, given that there are almost 3x as many pages in the "deprecated" cat as the "unknown" cat, chances are good the majority of the "blank parameter" pages will be dealt with.

Now as a general point of note, the invalid params (based on TemplateData) are incredibly spread out - of the bottom 330 parameters only three are tripped more than 10 times; only the "Executive producer" variants have more than 30 uses, with the more-used values being the deprecated params. I have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with such low-hanging fruit. Primefac (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• That's still good, so thanks. Just as a comment, there are almost 3k entries using |preceded by= (and probably it's counterpart) as can be seen here and 14.5k using |preceded_by= (and probably it's counterpart) as can be seen here. I have a suspicion |website= might have similar results, but the search results gets other uses as well.

Production companies

Do we also add companies that are credited "In Association With"? The rules are a bit ambiguous on that part. Armegon (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It depends. If a company is plainly credited as a production company in the film credits then that is sufficient to add it to the infobox. Obviously this is not the case for companies that carry the "In Association With" credit; in some cases their involvement may extend to production, whereas in others they may just be a company with a financial or IP stake. In such cases a secondary source is required that explicitly credits them as a production company. Betty Logan (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

One adjustment I've made with this kind of instance is to put it in a "Notes" section. At Wolf Totem (film), there were too many entities to sort out reasonably, so I have an anchor link from the infobox to that section to lay it all out in prose. I think that kind of thing should be done for films that have an above-average number of companies associated with it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Based_on parameter

Re: |based_on=, if a film is based on another film, who do we attribute as the creator? The director or the writer? Directors are usually considered the main creative in a film, which is why I ask. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

You could just credit the film without naming specific individuals.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Do we have an example of this? I found for example The Time Machine from 2002, where it credits the original's writer David Duncan. I think it makes sense to credit the writer instead of the director, since the story is what the new movie is based on. El Millo (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This is what the film is based on, not who created that particular film. Primefac (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand your answer. What I mean is we could say to always credit the writer of the original film in the |based_on= parameter of the remake. El Millo (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

In that case, I'm with TriiipleThreat; if the film is based on the 1960 film version, then we link to the 1960 film version; we don't need anything else. Primefac (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Unless there is a "based on" credit you should not be using based on. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

That is also a fair point. Primefac (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

That's true. So we base ourselves on whoever or whatever is credited in the film. El Millo (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not actually stated in the documentation, so "should not" is a big stretch. If the community wants that to be the guideline, then it should be put in the documentation. There are tons of Indian films that are based on Indian films made in other languages, and it would be normal to include a "based on" attribution so long as it were sourced. India isn't so good with adhering to western-style credits all the time. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Indian films: How to format writing credits and music credits?

Indian films have some differences from Western films and I'm curious how to best format writing credits and music credits so that it makes sense and is generally consistent with community guidelines.

Here are two facts:

1. In Indian films, there are often three types of film writers. The person who shapes the story, the person who writes the screenplay, and the person who write the dialogue. See this article if you are interested in the background.
2. In Indian films, there are musical scores just like Western films, and there are music videos that are peppered throughout your average film. Not quite in the style of West Side Story.

Writing parameter issue

Template:Infobox film has |writer= and |screenplay=, but no |dialogues= (Indian trades typically say "dialogues", not "dialogue", if that matters.) The lack of |dialogues= parameter confuses people, so they typically just format the |writer= parameter with pseudoheadings so that it looks like:

Option 1

Story:

K. Subash

Screenplay:

Yunus Sajawal

Dialogues:

Sajid-Farhad

See this for example.

Option 2

• K. Subash (Story)
• Yunus Sajawal (Screenplay)
• Sajid-Farhad (Dialogues)

See this for example. I used {{ubl}} so it's a little more compact, vertically.

Option 3

Add a |dialogues= parameter with instructions that it's typically only used for Indian films (or for whatever other nations use this style of writing) so that editors of Western films don't get confused.

Music parameter issue

Similar issue to what's above.

Option A

Score:

Amar Mohile

Songs:

Pritam

Option B

• Amar Mohile (Score)
• Pritam (Songs)

Option C

Some other solution TBD.

Your thoughts are appreciated in the Feedback section below. Sorry if the columns are weird, please feel free to reformat. It just took up too much vertical space if I formatted it normally. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Feedback

• Regarding the writing credit, if this is indeed how the Indian film industry works then the infobox should accommodate it and add the parameter. If we really wanted to minimize misuse of the parameter, we could also limit it appearing only when |country=India. --Gonnym (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• Would like to endorse this and add a caveat. Regarding music it seems necessary often to distinguish between lyricists and musicians composers. A parameter for lyrics would be useful. --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I don't believe it is necessary to add extra parameters to the infobox just to cater to anomalies in a single country. Every time we add a parameter it is invariably abused; the "narrator" field is a good example of this, when actors that provide "in character" narration. For the record, some English-language films do have a "dialogue" credit, and I came up with a compromise at The Killing (film) which I believe would address all of the problems outlined here. Take a look at it and let me know if a solution along these lines would work for you. If so we can put together a template to automate the process. Betty Logan (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree with Betty here. If we were to add parameters to accommodate every country's exception, we'd end up with a mess. I think the "writer" parameter is sufficient for all writing-related credits whether they use "writer", "teleplay", "screenplay", "story by" or other credits like "dialogues". Even though screenplay has its own parameter, it ends up being put in the writer param in most cases just because of the complexity of the writing credits. So, "dialogues" writer can fit into that box too.

As for music credits, I don't think we can accommodate every single credit. Since composers (original score) are the most consistently credited, we should just keep those and leave everyone else out. It's hard to accommodate everyone - Majority of credits never make it to the infobox anyway.— Starforce¹³ 20:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Nobody suggested adding parameters for "every country's exception". This is a unique way that Indian films and television programs are written and India generates more films that many nations combined. Since I have seen some people object to the use of pseudoheadings in parameters, I was attempting to create a less problematic scenario. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

Please add the option for the title of Production Designer between cinematography and the editor as is customary in movie credit blocks. 58.178.101.122 (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. GoingBatty (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Nationalities in infobox poster captions

Should nationalities be excluded from captions beneath posters/home media covers in infoboxes on film articles, unless the poster/home media cover in question is not from the film's country of origin? —Matthew - (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support: Nationalities should be excluded, unless the poster in question is not from the film's country of origin. I brought this topic up earlier today over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. To me, it seems as though editors sometimes treat the United States as a default in {{Infobox film}} captions, whereas posters for films from other countries need to be clarified. I'm guilty of this myself. If you look at a number of articles for films produced by the Japanese company Studio Ghibli, you'll find that the infobox captions often read "Japanese theatrical release poster". The article for Amélie notes the film's poster as "French". The poster for Bicycle Thieves is specified as "Italian", Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon as "Chinese", A Separation as "Iranian", Solaris as "Soviet", etc. However, I have yet to see an article for an American-produced film featuring the infobox caption "American theatrical release poster".

I think that supporting the exclusion of nationalities from infobox captions, unless the poster in question is not from the film's country of origin, will help counter systemic bias on Wikipedia. As I type this, there are no specifics at WP:FILMPOSTER regarding nationalities in infobox poster captions. So while numerous articles do not follow the proposed guideline (see the aforementioned examples), there are also numerous articles that already do (e.g. Wild Strawberries, which makes no mention of the poster/film's Swedish nature, or the Thai-produced Uncle Boonmee's "English-language release poster"). I say we set something in stone. —Matthew - (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. El Millo (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Captions should be descriptive of the image, the nationality is not important unless it differs from what a reader may expect to see. BOVINEBOY2008 00:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom and my comment at WT:FILM on this topic. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per the nominators reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, per nom, nationalities are not needed or important in most cases for the readers understanding. QueerFilmNerd^talk 09:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - The only time nationalities would ever be appropriate is if 2 posters are released in different languages .... other than that there is no valid reason to include nationalities in poster captions. –Davey2010^Talk 19:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per all above. Seems sensible to me. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support proposal but also oppose inclusion of film posters. Film posters are the major collection of Non-free content in English Wikipedia. English Wikipedia readers get the privilege of viewing posters because English language Wikipedia follows United States copyright law, but other language Wikipedias cannot have posters because they conform to other countries' laws which do not permit fair use. Wikipedia is an advocacy project seeking to promote universal access to media, but because of historical precedent, somehow the Wikipedia community has an unwarranted comfort with allowing movie posters. If we ever excluded movie posters, then I think that would create opportunities for movie studios to release movie art with Wikimedia compatible copyright licenses. Wikipedia is already a major source of free advertising for movies, and if we as a community made a public standing request to commercial movies, I think that eventually and soon film studios would make poster and other media donations. These organizations getting great benefit and non-free media exceptions have little motivation to share media for as long as posters are here. The bit about nationalities is great, but I dislike growing the community discussion and discourse around all this non-free media and would prefer that all language Wikipedias continually seek to become as free and open universally as possible. I like the idea of planning major public requests to film studios that they give content to Wikipedia, and for there to be public awareness of whether they take this option or now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  Not sure if you are aware, but WP:NFCI #1 permits "cover art". Furthermore, poster images are kept low-resolution. I do not find it likely that studios will release art like that. I find it more likely that they may release a batch of behind-the-scenes photos with such licenses, but still not very likely overall. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I recognize that the Wikipedia community decided to permit this content, but that was still a choice which we could revoke and renegotiate someday. The decision to include posters was arbitrary and peculiar to English Wikipedia. We can use any non-free images we like (so long as low resolution, fair use, etc), such as for example, non-free photos in every biography of a living person, or images of sports games, or photos of commercial artworks, or movie stills instead of movie posters. We gave an odd pass to some kind of non-free content including posters and this choice benefits extremely wealthy movie studios without Wikipedia negotiating the terms. At the time, wiki was small and studios were big. Now wiki is big and studios are small, and we have real leverage to make serious public requests of them. I think film studios are likely to promote their films in the way that makes money, and supporting Wikipedia does that. If we eliminated this special benefit of republishing their advertising posters, then I am sure their marketing teams would find some compromise to give us free and open media if they made a determination that their customers read Wikipedia articles.

I appreciate the original proposal about countries / posters, and that alone makes sense. My objection here is that this entire discussion is part of a financially valuable special exception which the English Wikipedia community arbitrarily grants to a well funded commercial industry. As we have this discussion, I do not want anyone to forget that the Wikipedia community and not United States law sets our Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Any discussion about this non-free content promotes its further use, which is fine. I hope the day can come when Wikipedia can dictate terms to industry and not just give a commercial sector benefits without negotiation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is it arbitrary and peculiar to include posters? We can use any non-free images we like ... movie stills instead of movie posters What's the difference fair use-wise between these two? It would certainly add a lot more to argue, given that a movie has literally thousands of different possible stills, while it can have at most around 20 posters.

I don't see how an extremely low-resolution movie poster benefits extremely wealthy movie studios, and studios are still very big (e.g. Disney, Universal, Warner Bros). I don't see how a negotiation could take place, or which leverage we might have, since we can't just remove positive information or change the content of the article should they refuse to offer us free and open media, because that would be non-encyclopedic. Many studios wouldn't want people to read the Wikipedia articles on their films anyway, especially close to being released when there's already a Plot section full of spoilers and a full Critical response section which in some cases may be full of negative reviews. El Millo (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: This discussion is about poster captions in infoboxes. If you want to start a separate discussion about whether or not poster images themselves should be allowed on the English Wikipedia in their current form, you're free to do so. —Matthew - (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding "Loss"

I want you to add the loss to films that were box office failures, for example Mars Meets Moms lost over 111 million dollars, I want it to be below "Box Office". Gamerknowitall (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Gamerknowitall. While I support the sentiment of sharing how much a film loses, it is not as simple as subtracting the production budget from the worldwide box office gross to determine the actual loss. There are other expenses involved. So a film that cost $150 million and made $149 million does not mean a loss of $1 million. There are other factors to consider, and that complexity means it is too much to put in the infobox. It's best covered in the article body using reliable sources that analyze the relevant numbers. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Gamerknowitall: Box office is a measure of revenue, not net revenue. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I was trying to say for financial failure films that lost a huge amount like Treasure Planet, and Mars Meets Moms. Gamerknowitall (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This will be useful information for only a tiny percentage of films, so it should go in the article, not the infobox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Erik, especially when we frequently do not know the exact costs for all the ancillary items for a film (e.g., marketing costs). We have a "rule of thumb" that the industry uses to indicate that it has made a profit, but we don't know what the cut off actually is. It would be borderline, if not completely, original research to assume the amount lost when we have to guess at the figures for the subtraction to even take place.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 August 2020

don't remove article Bikram malati in mb (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Infobox film}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Nardog (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Village Pump Proposal on adding IMDb and/or review aggregator score(s) to this infobox

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Adding IMDb & Rotten Tomatoes ratings to articles (wherever possible). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Color process field

I've just discovered that the "| color_process =" field is still active in this infobox. I note that it isn't shown on the template page or in its documentation. I'm not sure when the removal happened or what the WP:CONSENSUS was that brought that about. I think we need to decide if it should a) be turned off completely or b) added back to this page with an explanation in the documentation of when it should or should not be used. If there is another option please feel free to add it to this thread. MarnetteD|Talk 22:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I can't imagine any reason to turn that back on, given that it's such a specific field that is so easily summarized in prose. Sock (tock talk) 23:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Your browser's "Find" feature is helpful in situations like this. If you use it, you will find the parameter's usage described in the documentation. Also, the "Search archives" box at the top of this page can be helpful in situations like this. It yields this brief discussion explaining the history of the parameter. And finally, the monthly report in the TemplateData section is useful to know how many and which articles use each parameter. In the case of |color_process=, a little over 2,000 articles use the parameter, including Eleventh Hour (1942 animated film). – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Add an Awards section

It may be a good idea to add an Awards box on the template, like the Infobox book template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyMinecart88 (talk • contribs) 16:08, October 1, 2020 (UTC)

• That isn't a good idea at all. A film can have hundreds of awards. What do we include? Lets say, somehow, we get a consensus to include only Academy Awards. Titanic (1997 film) has 11, do we add them all? Also, who are the individuals that won that award, do you add them also? Better to have the award section in a table, where the complete context can be gained and references added. --Gonnym (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• I agree that an "Awards" parameter would not be suitable for the film infobox. Film awards have much more variation than book awards, and it is commonplace for a film to win multiple awards of the same kind, just from a different organization. I think it's fine to keep to "Accolades" sections that are readily findable in an article's table of contents. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• Anybody remember when there were about 25 separate fields for various awards in the actor infobox? Any listing in the infobox involves a) WP:POV choices and b) the potential for infobox bloat. Please note that in most articles the ToC is near the top of the article which allows a reader to get to the "Awards/Accolades" section with a simple click. MarnetteD|Talk 16:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yeah, good point.
  Thanks, CrazyMinecart88 (talk | contribs) 13:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Plainlist and Ubl

An editor changed the documentation to say that both {{Plainlist}} and {{ubl}} are acceptable.[1] Acceptable in that both are semantically the same and neither fails the requirements of MOS:ACCESS accessibility guidelines. But acceptable is different from good, or preferable, and I don't think it is appropriate for this template to actively recommend using {{ubl}}.

He has not explained why he wants to recommend people use {{Ubl}}. It seems to be based on nothing more than his personal preference which is what he accused me of doing, and he is reacting by changing the documentation because he chooses not to use Plainlist.

The editors who favor {{Ubl}} seem to also favor using as few spaces and line breaks as possible. If would be great if no one ever made mistakes but that kind condensed markup without spacing and line breaks makes mistakes harder to spot. If you do want the documentation to say it is acceptable to use both it would be preferable to use the full name {{Unbulleted list}} which is much clearer to all editors, not just experienced editors who have already learned the short name.

I think it would be best if the documentation was reverted back to recommend only Plainlist as it did before. -- 109.76.209.8 (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I Think that MOS:ACCESS has been met and if you check Template:Infobox album and its talk page, you will see that a similar discussion on this topic was carried on there. Other infoboxes should follow the guidance from ACCESS. Also, the template could eschew the need for the template and imbed it as others have done. For instance, see the Template:Infobox musical artist#current members.

Anon from Ireland is assuming things about why one list is preferred over another, and redirects are immaterial, using them does not mean that something is broken and needs to be fixed.

I'm glad anons take an interest in editing, but if you want to talk policy, you're in over your head. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Accessibility concerns are satisfied with either template. That said, I agree with the IP that one of these is marginally more accessible to newbies. --Izno (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreee that the bulletted list may be easier to use, but anon wants to exclude the use of ubl because the editor does not like it. The point is, both may be used, and neither is better as far as ACCESS is concerned, and options are always welcome. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I've got to say that I agree with the IP here. While both might be ok to use, it's perfectly fine for an infobox to prefer one style over the other, and Plainlist makes editing more user-friendly. If a user really wants to use ubl, nothing is stopping them, just like nothing is stopping anyone from not using {{Start date}} or br tags. If there is no real support for the /doc change it should be restored to the previous version. --Gonnym (talk) 09:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the IP, Izno, and Gonnym that this should stick to Plainlist for the documentation, but that does not exclude anyone from using Unbulleted list if they choose. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

No Favre1fan93, you don't agree with the IP. The IP does not want to use UBL at all. It's a valid comment. I suggest a change to the template so plainlist can be embedded. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The IP does not want to use UBL, and neither do I. But if YOU want, you can still do it. The infobox proposes the "best" layout, if you wish to follow that or not, that is up to you. Regarding the change, I'm all for making editing easier. I'm just not sure how to go about it, considering we have various types of usages already in place all over the wiki. If you know how to do it, then you have my support. --Gonnym (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no preference and I am happy to use either, but the anon insists on changing one particular article to plainlist because the claim is that the documentation mandates it.

I think the concern of all, save the anon's, can be addressed. We could change

multiple entries using either {{ubl}} or {{plainlist}}

to

multiple entries using {{plainlist}}, although {{ubl}} is acceptable.

or

multiple entries using a list.

and add a {{#tag:ref|For reasons of [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility|accessibility]], do not use HTML breaks. Instead, use either a {{tl|plainlist}} or {{tl|ubl}}|group=lists}} after the first and {{Reflist|group=lists}} below the instructions.

While we're discussing accessibility, I would like to remind editors not to use small tags or templates inside this template per MOS:SMALLTEXT. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Please don't tell me what I do and don't agree with Walter Görlitz. No where does the IP say not to use UBL at all, only that we should not be presenting it as an option in the documentation, of which I also agree with them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought you did your homework. My mistake. See Talk:God's Not Dead: A Light in Darkness#Tidy Infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Voice acting

Hello! Can you add a parameter for voices. Which tells who was the voice actors for the movies. Yours sincerely, Sondre --88.91.100.244 (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Use |starring= if they are in a lead role. Otherwise they probably don't belong in the infobox. BOVINEBOY2008 21:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Can you add an optional parameter for voice actors. This should only be used when it is an animated movie not in other movies. Starring is used when it is in live-action movies. In animated cartoons they use voices not starring. Yours sincerely, Sondre --88.91.100.244 (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Same answer above applies. Use |starring= for all actors or voice actors in a film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Native_name display

|native_name= seems to be displayed below the image, instead of at the top of the infobox after the [English] name. I found this in Unmatta which has an image with no caption, and the native name appears to be a non-English image caption. I think this should be moved up where I believe it is in every other kind of infobox I can recall. MB 04:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The parameter was being used incorrectly. It should be used in conjunction with the {{Infobox name module}} template, where it will appear as a field. I have corrected the usage at the article: [2]. Betty Logan (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Now I see that in the documentation. However, this is quite inconsistent with most other infoboxes that just have |native_name= and |native_name_lang= and you just specify the raw data. There may be more like the above out there. MB 23:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Streaming rating

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated strongly the digitized premieres of the films and the box office label is very partial information in the infobox. A label should be placed in relation to digital reception (POVD sales, streaming viewing, or similar) on streaming platforms such as Mulan via Disney+ and its strategic priority in streaming, The Witches and upcoming Zack Snyder's Justice League via HBO Max, several films from Netflix, etc. Streaming viewing reception data will be an important channel of insight. --JungleWiki (talk) 04:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Such data can be fairly complicated and may vary for each distributor. It would be best to list it in the prose where complete information can be provided with proper citation. BOVINEBOY2008 17:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2020

'Production Design' should be listed as a credit in the infobox. They are ordinarily the first creative (after than the director) who is hired on a project and are instrumental to realising the story and the world of the characters. Please consult the Art Directors Guild (ADG) or the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Design branch for further information. 90.252.98.7 (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please gain a consensus for this addition. The most recent discussion is above and has not formed a consensus to add. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

SUPPORT In the above thread I’ve cited numerous sources that support this addition, including Wikipedia’s own entry on credit order and its historic significance. SequentialCircuit (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

You need a consensus for this change. You need to convince others with your sources to build that consensus. Please see WP:RFC as an approach to take. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Co-director field

Hi. I’m writing to suggest the addition of a co-director field to the film Infobox. I understand there is a consensus that co-credits not be included, however I think there are some exceptional circumstances where the co-director has a large and significant impact on a film where the trade off between brevity and comprehensiveness swings towards the later. I’m thinking particularly of the film Soul (2020), where the film was co-directed by Kemp Powers who had a major impact (see here, and I think it’s important this can be seen at a glance in the Infobox. SNMSB (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that I am only advocating using this field in exceptional circumstances where there is a significant contribution, to ensure the box continues to be brief. But Soul I think meets these criteria. SNMSB (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Apologies the link should be Soul (2020 film) SNMSB (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't create a new parameter for just one film and for exceptional circumstances. If the co-director was really that important, and there's consensus for it, then add his name below director Pete Docter in the Director parameter, along with a footnote that clarifies he's the co-director and not a director. However, it's better to just state Kemp Powers' importance and impact somewhere else in the article. El Millo (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I initially did this in the director field but it was reverted. What is the best way to see if there is consensus for this edit? SNMSB (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps an RfC? SNMSB (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on the talk page works fine; you don't need to immediately jump to an RFC. Primefac (talk) 10:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: Would that be best here or on the film’s talk page? SNMSB (talk) 11:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Since the query is page-specific, it should take place at the article's talk page. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

If a film has two directors who are credited as co-directors, list them both in the Director field (see Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (film)). "Co-" means that two people did something together. If the person was an assistant director, we do not list that role in the infobox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

If memory serves me, Pixar films make "co-directors" a distinct credit, under the actual director. With Soul as an example, Pete Doctor is the director and Kemp Powers would be the co-director. They are not both "co-directors" in the sense that Anthony and Joe Russo are "co-directors" of their films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. El Millo (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

[citation needed]. If so, that is a strange misuse of the English language, and we do not have to be a party to it. What they mean is "assistant director", a well-established job in filmmaking. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's an article by /Film that talks about the co-director's role in a Pixar film. El Millo (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I will create a discussion on the film’s talk page to see if there is consensus for adding Kemp Power’s name below director Pete Docter in the Director parameter, along with a footnote. SNMSB (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Visual editor adding blank parameters

I've seen a lot of edits like this and this lately, where, superficially, it appears that random editors are propagating blank |screenplay=, |story=, |based_on= and |narrator= parameters into Template:Infobox film. The common theme between these two edits is that they both used Visual Editor.

About a year ago, I noticed Visual Editor doing this with some parameters at {{Infobox person}}, and the reason why it was happening was, according to editor WhatamIdoing:

"those parameters are added because someone marked them as either "suggested" or "required" in the template's TemplateData ... If you're directly editing the infobox (which is what happened in these diffs), then the visual editor makes the infobox follow the format that's specified on the template's /doc page (which is what it should do). (Relevant discussions here and here.)

Since these parameters are probably not used in the majority of films produced, it seems undesirable for the Visual Editor to be adding them automatically, so unless this is a controversial request, which it doesn't seem like it would be, it'd be nice if someone familiar with template stuff could fix this, please. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The template documentation is not protected. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb:, I think I've made the corresponding edits. BOVINEBOY2008 13:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bovineboy2008: Awesome, thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Production Design credit in right hand info-box

The Designer is not listed in the credits infobox, yet the other heads of department are? There's no film to make unless it is designed first, this credit should be included. The three key creatives on any film are the director, the designer, and the cinematographer - their working relationship during preproduction defines the film. In fact the designer is most often the second creative lead hired after the director. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.205.125 (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The key creatives are director, writer, cinematographer and composer because these are the roles that create the copyrighted elements of the film. I would put production designer on a par with editor, which personally I would not include in the infobox either. Not because I think these roles are unimportant, but because I don't think they are key to documenting authorship or summarizing information that readers typically want to know, and the line needs to be drawn somewhere. Betty Logan (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I would argue here that Production Designers are most involved in copyrighted elements of the film production taking into considering Lightsabers, Batmobiles, Flux Capacitors, Giant Marshmallow Men, etc. The fact is the key creatives are first and foremost the Director, the DP, and the Production Designer. The line should not be drawn in exclusion of the primary engineers of the visual language of film. The role has become even more intertwined with post-production/vfx and animation as well. Currently, wikipedia's Production Design entries fall short of properly connecting these essential filmmakers to their works, leaving me to wonder why there may be a perceived gap between "what readers typically want to know" and the connectivity of information being provided. I second adding this category. Jpet6823 (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Requested templates § Adding Production Designers to Film InfoBox

 – —⁠andrybak (talk) 07:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The creative figureheads of a film production are the Director, the DP (Cinematographer,) and Production Designer. In common vernacular, a compliment toward a films "cinematography" is often in (at the very least partial) reference to its production design; the X-wing or War Room, more so than the camera's relative position to it. That may be a bit hyperbolic but my point is the following:

Missing from film infoboxes across Wikipedia are the entries for those individuals that dictate the visual language of a films setting, and the character of it's framing. The following is a proposed change to the infobox that adds the field for production design below cinematographer and above editor, as is typical in film crediting.

{{Infobox film
| name           = 
| image          = 
| alt            = 
| caption        = 
| native_name    = 
| director       = 
| producer       = 
| writer         = 
| screenplay     = 
| story          = 
| based_on       = 
| starring       = 
| narrator       = 
| music          = 
| cinematography = 
| production design = <!-- Proposed placement and syntax, accounting for instances of multiple designers -->
| editing        = 
| studio         = 
| distributor    = 
| released       = 
| runtime        = 
| country        = 
| language       = 
| budget         = 
| gross          = 
}}

This edit will help consolidate articles related to achievements in the arts and sciences of filmmaking, as well as a clearer definition of the roles of the filmmaking apparatus. It provides an opportunity to directly link individuals like Ken Adam, William Cameron Menzies (who invented the title,) and Adam Stockhausen to their respective works and the film related wikis overall.

Jpet6823 (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources to support your claims, especially your implicit claim that the writer of a film is not one of the key creative people responsible for the content of a film? – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I in no way have implied that a writer, or any other category listed in the infobox is not a key creative. My assertion is that a Production Designer is the key individual for interpreting the visual language of a screenplay and realizing it on screen. Here are a number of reliable sources: NY Times Article, ASC Mag interview with Dennis Gassner PD: Blade Runner 2049, IndieWire article on David Gassner PD: 1917, Flimmaker Magazine interview with Barbara Ling PD: OUATIH, Filmmaker Magazine's search page for 'production design' featuring countless interviews detailing my points, Collection of industry department heads discussing collaboration with designers, A collection of interviews with Production Designers on their role and process., LiftOff Article covering Production Design

The Times article includes many pertinent supporting claims: "More or less creative individuals trained in the visual arts and who, by the grace of the director, function as visual conceptualists - that is, translating the screenplay from a written document into pulsating, plastic images.", "We come on before the director of photography and actually put the movie together on paper before the editor is on the picture. We are by and large associate directors, in the sense that the director's problems are ours, including casting. Everyone else has a piece of hardware: the cameraman has his camera, the editor his editing machine, the sound man his equipment. We just have a pencil sharpener. We're butting into everyone else's business, but many times we're the only ones on the set trained in the visual arts."

A couple important books on the subject: [g.co/kgs/SBySnM By Design], [g.co/kgs/Lat9bK If it's purple someone's gonna die] Jpet6823 (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

This topic has been raised many times, and I understand that traditionally the matter of adding credits to the infobox is conservatively approached with the view that it is already too long. The fields of narrator and distributor are dubious with this rationale. @MovieMadness:, @Ring Cinema:, @Favre1fan93:, @Breinane:, and @Girolamo Savonarola: have been more involved in this conversation in the past. The archive shows this issue has been raised, but the predominant dissenting arguments seem to fall under the "slippery slope," "notability," and "copyrighted material," arguments which I don't find to be particularly strong. The editor category being included has not followed with a deluge of requests for "assistant editor" to be added, nor has "cinematographer" been preceded by "camera operator." This is a position of vital importance, that receives an Opening Credit, which are dictated by filmmaker's contracts and are often highly negotiated. That linked article should serve as a perfect representation of what information is pertinent to include in the infobox. Jpet6823 (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The slippery-slope argument does not apply to "assistant editor" or "camera operator". It applies to the next-possible addition. In this case, it's production designer. There's art director, costume designer, choreographer, etc. I concur with Betty we could even do without the editor category. To be clear, this does not mean there is no place for "production designer" in the article. I personally try to add crew lists because like the infobox's "Starring" field does not list all of the cast members, it also does not list all of its crew members. So crew lists like one at Panic Room#Production can be done for the sake of encompassing crew members "below the fold", so to speak. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose addition of PD field - Infobox bloat is to be avoided. MarnetteD|Talk 22:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Costume Designers I can see, but I would also advocate for including them. I have seen Choreographers floated in the archives as well, but I don't have a strong opinion there. Art directors on the other hand are not given opening credits, and report directly to the production designer. The name change in the mid century has created some confusion around the title, including that the Academy Award for Best Art Direction is given to Production Designers, and not to contemporary art directors. Again, I believe the Opening Credits entry substantively informs this discussion. Jpet6823 (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

In response to "infobox bloat:" relative to other infoboxes around wikipedia, Film is fairly modest. Is "infobox bloat" to be avoided at any/all cost? Infobox building for example has fields for all sorts of trivial information that is entirely optional per subject. So far I'm still only ever seeing dissent for purely aesthetic/design reasons (of one line in this case) and no opposition to the inclusion of Production Design due to any reliable sources claiming that the contribution should be omitted. I understand that avoiding excessive crediting within infoboxes to the degree that they mirror IMDb, but as stated before, Opening Credit guidelines serve as a clear indicator here. Art Directors, prop masters, hair & makeup artists, etc. do not appear in opening credits. Pointing to the opening credits guideline would seem a solid standard to reference in the future should the "slippery-slope" circumstance lead to excessive "next-possible additions" in the future, and certainly better than drawing an arbitrary "no bloat" line at the exclusion of fundamental visual storytellers. Jpet6823 (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jpet6823: Going by the section of the article you linked (Opening credits#Common opening credits order), we should also add the casting director, the VFX supervisor and executive producer(s), apart from the production designer that you want to be included. That's if we put all those who appear in the opening credits. See how that would cause a slippery-slope effect? El Millo (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

and also Costume Designer! I'm not opposed to any of those entries being added to be honest. I don't find an issue with using a standard methodology that accurately represents the importance of specific roles historically, and for consistency with the medium moving forward. This is also a total of five additions if we're using (Opening credits#Common opening credits order) which is hardly bloating. This list is also noted here: /wiki/Billing_(performing_arts)#Billing_order and aptly includes that the "The order in which credits are billed generally signify their importance." It should be noted that the convention in Opening Credits is, in order of importance, reverse. The same goes for the movie poster convention. NY Times Title Block Reference Again, I feel a line is clearly drawn by industry standards. That line, rather than an arbitrary "anti-bloat" line, is a much stronger argument for why the Film infobox is the way it is (should a Unit Production Manager someday request they be included.) In that instance, the assertion could be made that they could take up the issue with the PGA. Jpet6823 (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ring Cinema: and @Gothicfilm: have echoed my arguments elsewhere in the archives, either of you care to weigh in again? Also after culling through again I’ve seen so few mentions of make-up artists etc. being added that the slippery slope argument starts to look ever more thin. I really think we’re missing a major aspect of filmmaking here, and even arguments for production design details to be added in prose are falling well short. 2001: A Space Odyssey which is a triumph of production design has such a section, but by its prose one would think that Kubrick did everything in collaboration with home and office designers. Jpet6823 (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Just coming back to this to see if anyone that requested me to provide sources has taken a look at them? I’ve raised a number of questions and am curious if this is still a discussion here, or if there’s a strong or logical reason why we continue to leave this field out. SequentialCircuit (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I'm of the opinion that if there is an Academy Award category dedicated to the role, it should be listed --> Academy Awards#Current categories. However, I can understand that could sound like an pro-America bias, so ... BAFTA has such a category --> http://awards.bafta.org/award/2020/film/production-design ; AACTA has a production design category --> https://www.aacta.org/aacta-awards/winners-and-nominees/ ; the Africa Movie Academy Awards has an Achievement in Production Design category; in other words, this is a globally recognized area of cinematographic achievement. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ceyockey: also a valid supporting point. I think this category is particularly important to include as it is so often confused as an aspect of filmmaking that is devised by the cinematographer or director, despite it being carefully designed as a visual interpretation of the script by visual artists. Again I think even stronger than awards, however, is the order of opening credits, as this is backed up by long-standing contracts and film industry definitions, as well as Wikipedia’s own page on the topic. The only dissenting arguments hearing are arbitrary in comparison. SequentialCircuit (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I’d like to add a response to @Betty Logan: ‘s comment that the Director, Writer, DP, and Composer alone create the copyrighted material of a film (would love to see a source on that) is not accurate when it comes to copyright law. The following article is a great source of insight: UCLA Law Article Herein we see that films are created by multiple authors, each of them typically sign releases of their work or complete their work under a “work for hire” arrangement, assigning ownership to the Producer. This article sheds a lot of light further in about the legal specifics. I myself am not a lawyer, but I am a working Production Designer and our contracts are not only very specific about releasing our work legally, but our department works closest with a films legal team and clearance coordinators throughout production to insure that the production design as a whole meets legal standards. SequentialCircuit (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Did you ever get around to reading the sources I provided per your earlier request? I’m curious as to what you think after reading through. SequentialCircuit (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no opinion. I mostly just watch this page for technical requests. If there is consensus here, I'll be happy to add the field to the infobox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a consensus. Why has Production Designer not been added? Add the field FFS. Comtos (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Now. Comtos (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

There actually isn't consensus, but is leaning towards opposing the addition. Stating Add the field FFS. Now. doesn't help matters nor is it constructive. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Quite trivial, and just another un-needed field for the infobox. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - The box is already bloated. You add production design and then someone will ask for sound editing and then costume design, so forth and so on. The thing already gets too long in most places. You also cannot add them with the idea of "only use when they are relevant, like when they win an award", because then it will just be an edit war of people adding regardless of that because the space exists (we already see that with character infoboxes where people fight over the inclusion of a species for a show that only features humans). If they are relevant, then discuss them in prose down in the production section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bignole: I really don’t think this “slippery slope” argument counts for much. Next time you watch a movie, watch the order of the opening credits. They roll in reverse order of “importance” for lack of a better term. Currently the info box has the editor and composer, which almost always rolls (I’m sure there are a few examples contrary to this convention) before the production designer. As I’ve said before, I think the costume designer should be included, but that will need to be their issue to take up. The info box bloat argument also doesn’t seem like a strong roadblock against the assumed inevitability of set PAs asking for their credit to be included either, because in both of these cases the info box conventions of other types of pages that are longer than the articles themselves will always be possible to point to. My alternative to this is to follow the same convention that film industry uses: which is using the opening credits as a basis for inclusion. Opening credits are moderate in length, have a historically important role in the definition of the creative figureheads of the collaborative art of cinema, as well as to what appears on cinematic posters etc. etc. etc. 2603:8001:9B00:6B00:C5DD:8D8:8AE1:6E51 (talk) 09:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

By that logic, we should list everything considering that older movies put their entire credits at the start of their films (not the end).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bignole: That’s a bit of a straw man.SequentialCircuit (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Not really. I literally just used the logic that was present. I didn't even have to stretch it when the argument was "it's being presented at the start, so it's important". Where do you draw the line, because older films put ALL the credits at the start.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Plural parameter

Following a recent discussion on Template talk:Infobox television#Company(s) the decision was made to implement {{detect singular}} in a number of fields within that template. I believe there is grounds for a similar implementation here; specifically for the Cinematography (Cinematographers), Production company (Production companies), and possibly Language (Languages). I'd like to see if there is consensus for such a change here? -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 16:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Support I'd support that. I think just to Production company and Language, given how the labels are formatted here. "Cinematographers" wouldn't fit with the label styling, as "Cinematography" works with multiple people in this instance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd be fine with Production company and Language. No need for Cinematography. What about Country (Countries)? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Country should use it too. What are your thoughts on Release date (Release dates)? —El Millo (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Cinematography should be left out of the change. Looking at the template It looks like this could apply to: Director, producer, writer, studio, distributor, country and language. Did I miss any? :-) MarnetteD|Talk 19:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, if we were to implement that change, then Cinematography could change to Cinematographer (Cinematographers). The couple you missed are narrators and editors. —El Millo (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a slightly different discussion, if we want to change the labels of "Directed by" to "Director" etc. If yes to that change, then they should get the plural option as well. But if we don't want those changes, then it would just be "Production company", "Language", "Country", and possibly "Release date". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I was noting them as they read at the moment with the exception of narrator. Since that field has been limited to documentaries I didn't think it worth mentioning but it could be part of the plural option. I don't feel that any of the currant fields should be changed simply to pluralize them. MarnetteD|Talk 21:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It, of course, wouldn't make sense to pluralise any field label ending with "by", but if there is consensus to change these labels to, for example, "Director", then I'm certainly not opposed. The current format is consistent with out templates in place, however. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 10:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather not change the "<work> by" parameters at this time. We've had them a long time, and that should be its own distinct discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I also don't see the need to adjust most of the parameters, and I guess in that case, "Cinematography" wouldn't really need to change to "Cinematographer/s". So still by my count, the changes would be for "Production company", "Language", "Country", and possibly "Release date". I'm curious though if {{detect singular}} would work with {{Film date}} that we use for release to change that to "Release dates". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I suppose the easiest option would be for somebody to sandbox it and see. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 10:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Test cases are up here. Using this for Release date doesn't work for two reasons. First, {{detect singular}} sees a date such as "January 1, 2020" as two items, with "January 1" being the first and "2020" being second. And second (which is also another issue for the other parameters), if you put a singular item into a {{Plainlist}}, it will think that's more than one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jasca Ducato, Erik, Facu-el Millo, and MarnetteD: Anyone object to having this implemented to "Production company", "Language", and "Country"? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

None at all. Let's go ahead with those parameters that support it. —El Millo (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

No objections here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Full steam ahead Favre1fan93 :-) MarnetteD|Talk 23:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Let's get it done. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 10:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Please implement the code in the sandbox seen in this edit to the live template to implement {{detect singular}} code for certain parameters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Budget for Rereleases and Director's cuts

Should budgets for films that were rereleased with changes (such as 3D conversions, special editions) and Director's cuts be included or mentioned in the film's infobox? For example, Titanic was converted to 3D at a cost of $18 million for its 2012 rerelease according to The Hollywood Reporter while Justice League's director's cut is estimated to be made at an extra cost of $70 million[3]. ~Rajan51 (talk) 5:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

In the body of the article is fine but the amount of infobox bloat is already a problem that this would just exacerbate. The items in the infobox should stick, as much as possible, to the original theatrical release. Yes I know that there are exceptions to this but items that come years after the initial release need explanations in prose that the infobox IMO is not suited for. MarnetteD|Talk 05:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Song Writer

How do I add Song Writer into this infobox ? Very important for Indian films.Pritiranjan Tripathy (talk) 11:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

There is the |music= parameter which you can use for a film's composer/writer. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The template says "songwriters should not be included", so it might be controversial to include them. In that case, they can always be included in the production section using prose. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Narrated by

Is there a reason the template in #Usage includes "|narrator="? The information in #Parameters says that it's only for documentaries, so why can't it be an "optional" parameter like "|animator=", "|layout_artist=", and "|background_artist="? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It exists as an alternative to "Starring". Technically, perhaps these should be the same parameter but modifiable, like how some parameters can be either singular or plural. So the other parameters you mention would not be alternatives but additional. And generally speaking, I think the community at large is reluctant to add more parameters to the infobox. When a parameter exists, it tends to be filled out pretty indiscriminately. Like while VFX supervisor could be pertinent for some films, but even your typical drama film today has a VFX supervisor whose name isn't very pertinent to the topic. I don't think anyone really has an issue with putting additional crew names in the article body, though. In some places, I've included the art director, production designer, set decorator, etc. The same could be done with animation-related credits. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

color_proccess

In light of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Technical possibilities of creating an edit filter that targets app users I am proposing and seeing some potential for template improvements here. Firstly, I think the color_proccess parameter should have an if check for the animator parameter. At least the color process would not show if it is not supposed to. Secondly, color_process and animator should in the templatedata be made into a pair. That would prompt the user to add animator info when the color_process parameter is used and vice versa.--Snaevar (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Franchise parameter

Adding a franchise parameter for the Infobox. For example in the Cars (film) infobox the franchise parameter will link to Cars (franchise). Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand your interest in this but I would say no. IMO it would just be infobox bloat. In all the articles that I have seen there are links to a franchise article in the lede and/or the "See also" section and/or the navbox so a mention in the infobox would be redundant. If there are any articles without these mentions it could easily be added in one of those places. MarnetteD|Talk 17:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Recent edit

A recent edit to the template has caused sources on the "country" parameter to be numbered before any other reference (see The Imitation Game as an example where the "running time" reference is #3 but the "country" parameter source is #1/#2). Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the issue has been resolved. Primefac (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Aspect ratio

I believe an aspect ratio section should be added to the template, as it is an important and relevant detail for some films at the very least. There are a number of inconclusive discussions about this subject in the archives. Falude (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Aspect ratio isn't a generally notable aspect of a film, certainly not relevant enough for the infobox, where only the main, most important aspects of a film should be. —El Millo (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Unless it is something like Cinerama which was a unique selling point it is hardly ever significant. Betty Logan (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree. However, I would not be unopposed to an infobox that could go in a "Production" section and cover these kinds of details. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

If it's particularly relevant to a film, it will be mentioned in prose. No need to state it for all films. —El Millo (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with adding it in principal, the concern becomes where would you source this information since IMDb is generally frowned on and the studios don't typically advertise this information (rarely on packaging for home media releases)? —Locke Cole • t • c 14:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

If a film has an unusual aspect ratio, i.e. other than 1.85:1 today, sources should be easier to find. For example The Hateful Eight has a 2.76:1 aspect ratio, which is unusual, and I thought it would be cool if this was mentioned in the infobox and was the reason that I made this thread, there are multiple sources for this movie in particular such as this. Off the top of my head movies 1917 and Come and See (which is old and non-English) also had unusual aspect ratios and I can find sources for both on the Web. Falude (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

With that clarification in mind, I support adding this field. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

How often do films have unusual aspect ratios, though? I'm inclined to concur with Facu-el Millo that it can be mentioned in prose. If we add this field to the infobox, I anticipate editors needing to, on a regular basis, revert inappropriate/unsourced additions to it. DonIago (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is most films are 2.35:1 or 16:9, but some use larger/wider formats, or have variable aspect ratios (Christopher Nolan does this in a number of his films). As to the issue of inappropriate additions, how would that be any different than it is now? I'd discourage editors from leaving the blank template parameter in the article source, but nothing stops a malicious actor from inserting prose stating something that isn't true (but doesn't look wildly inappropriate at first glance). —Locke Cole • t • c 19:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Having an unusual—and thus relevant—aspect ratio is, by definition, an exception and not the norm. Therefore, we would be adding a parameter that would only be appropriate for use in exceptional cases. As MOS:INFOBOX states: If the field is relevant to very few articles, it should probably not be included at all. Conversely, very common fields may be included—and made optional—even if they are not applicable to a few of the articles in question and Any field that might reasonably be empty should probably be optional. However, a field that is usually empty may not be particularly useful or relevant In most film articles, this parameter would and should be empty, therefore it shouldn't be part of the template. —El Millo (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

100% of films have an aspect ratio. It's definitely not something that's only relevant to very few articles. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Every film having an aspect ratio doesn't make it relevant or notable. Every film has an end credits font, for that matter. —El Millo (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this parameter shouldn't be added to the infobox, but discussed in article if necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

While the aspect ratio itself is a terribly geeky thing to note, it's an objectively measurable feature of a film, easily verifiable by anyone with access to the end product, and loosely correlates somewhat with various more nebulous characteristics (era, budget, scope, genre). Flat 1.85:1 often signifies an indie film shot with spherical lenses, whereas 2.39:1 is more typical of a major studio film shot with anamorphic lenses. 1.375:1 was popular with early sound-including films, and 4:3 was common for silent films. Noting the aspect ratio to hint at whether a film is more dialogue or action heavy seems to make about as much sense as using the box office receipts to roughly gauge its popularity, or its critical response to get a feel for whether it's respected. All of these are imperfect measurements of something less tangible, hinting at the subjective by measuring an objective surrogate. ZoeB (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Silent films

I noticed that when the "Language" parameter for the infobox is filled in as "silent" the "Silent films" category automatically displays at the bottom of the page. However, this has had the unfortunate effect of violating WP:SUBCAT and WP:DIFFUSE because 1200 films contain the category "Silent film" even though the vast majority of these films already contain categories like "American silent films" or "British silent short films." I would edit the template myself to get rid of these redundant categories, but I do not have that right. Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Shortdesc

From WT:SHORTDESC:

I noticed a change recently when adding the Short description. In film articles, where I used to see "(Wikidata Import Edit and import)", I now see "American film (Override Export ?)". As I understand it the "American film" populated part is due to some automatically pulling info from the {{Infobox film}} template. This seems to be a fairly recent change, and I'm wondering if there was a discussion somewhere that explains this. — Ched (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

This is the edit that changed the behavior. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Jonesey95, I appreciate that very much. I'll take it up with him - just not sure where yet. — Ched (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

From User talk:Primefac:

I noticed some problems in my updating films with the short description. I see you made this change which seems to be the cause. I asked first here. Anyway - was there a discussion anywhere which prompted this? Were you or others aware that it would break the Import function (via Wikipedia:Shortdesc helper) Which pulls the short description from wikidata? (it instead automatically pulls "American film" from the infobox as I understand it.). Is it something you'd be willing to restore to its previous state? — Ched (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

To answer both of these questions in a centralized location, I did this because there has been a desire recently to have widely-used templates such as {{infobox school}}, {{infobox award}}, etc to automatically generate a short description to save editors the need to manually input (literally) millions of short descriptions; I decided to be BOLD and do the same for this template.

While I will admit that the current short description is not ideal, and there is certainly room for discussion and improvement, my reading of the above comments does not seem to merit a wholesale revert (Shortdesc helper still works, yes? Just not how you expect it) and I'm happy to discuss improving (I've already realized that "<country> film by <director>" is probably a good improvement; again, discussion welcome). Of course, if a discussion does decide that a short description is too problematic (after workshopping potential improvements) I'm fine reverting. (please ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC) ​​

@Primefac:. To be honest, I'm not a fan of the change. I've been working my way through the lists of "American films" on wiki for close to two years, importing wikidata, sometimes editing or adding to one or the other. So far I've checked/imported all the film articles from 1915-1992. I thought the idea was for both 'pedia and 'data to be in sync. (I've done and will continue to do a wide variety of articles to ensure they have a short descriptions, but the films constituted the majority of efforts so far). Perhaps "American film" in the short description is better than nothing; and, if that's the decision I'll abide by it. (The bulk of the wikidata entries are "year, film, director" ex: Casablanca (film) ~ short description: "1942 film by Michael Curtiz"). if you could automatically draw that into the article as well, I think it would be an improvement. I guess there's really no need for our articles to match wikidata

Unfortunately there is no "year" parameter in the template, but adding in the director is something that could be done. As someone who has worked for two years on adding shortdescs to these film articles, how long do you think it would take you to finish the last 30 years? Genuinely curious, and I think that's the reason why we wanted to start automatically adding these shortdescs, because it means editors like you don't need to add them. As for matching WikiData, the whole reason we're using {{shortdesc}} in the first place is because WD was seen as "not being good enough" in a large number of cases (so a small mismatch is acceptable).

EDIT: Actually, on second look there's a release date, which in theory a year could be pulled from it. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Not being a template editor, I did also have a minor question. In this edit, shouldn't there be a closing set of braces at the end? — Ched (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Braces are all matched, as near as I can tell. The <includeonly> at the beginning is closed at the end of the infobox. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

(replying in mobile so forgive any indent issues). As Primefac said, the year can be pulled from the template, as can the director and any other piece of information wanted. Prime, if the code to generate the description becomes longer or more complex, please move it to a module (if complex) or sub-template (if longer). Gonnym (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Currently working on a sub-template :-) Primefac (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I've run the test cases and do not see anything untoward. Suggestions for improvement are welcome, of course (for example, I'm not quite sure why the country info isn't being parsed properly, but since it's not breaking anything else I'll come back to it late). At the moment it's giving <year> film directed by <director> assuming the two values are provided. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I've never liked the common WD short description of "year, film, director". Unless your are a real film buff, would most people recognize most directors? I think that "American 1942 historical romance film" is much better than "1942 film by Michael Curtiz" (for Casablanca). Are we just blindly following WD here or is there a consensus here? MB 17:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

That's fine, I'm open to altering the shortdesc. The only issue with the genre (which I have also seen in a number of film articles with manual shortdescs) is that there is no |genre= parameter in this template, meaning that it cannot be easily programmed. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I just go with "year + film", with anything else being superfluous and contradictory to the definition of the word short. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Would country be reasonable as well, since it will add only one (or two) extra words? Primefac (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I tend to leave it out, esp. with the proliferation of international co-productions, for example "2018 German-Dutch-French-Belgian-Italian film"! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

"Short" does not mean as short as possible. The guideline is "very brief", and the convention is to try to be under 40 characters. So yes, there is room for country, as well as, in most cases, genre (although I realize that can't be added by the template and must be done manually). MB 18:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

First, thank you @Primefac: for your work on this. Second, I agree with MB on including country and genre, but I didn't want to deal with the flak from Lugnuts when I started (he was a regular in the film group, and I wasn't) so I fell into a pattern. My reasoning (nationality): compare British comedy (Monty Python) to American comedy (Beavis and Buthead). My reasoning (genre): compare superhero live action vs animated. Personally I don't usually pay much attention director outside of the greats (Spielberg, Lucas, Hawk), but I think many others do look for that. — Ched (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Genre can't be done from the infobox as the parameter isn't there and I don't think consensus would be achieved to place it in. --Gonnym (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't be pandering to the director primacy school of thought by auto-inserting the film's director into the short description. Let's take that out, please. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Bug

The addition of director is a little buggy, the contents of the director parameter is added "as is" which is fine when there's only one director, but some formatting is required when there is more than one director, or if extra info has been added. See examples:

• Halo Legends has two directors, so the short description renders as 2010 film directed by Frank O'ConnorJoseph Chou (note lack of space between names)
• From Dusk till Dawn (franchise) extra info regarding which director was in charge of which film has been added and short description renders as 1996 American film directed by Robert Rodriguez ''(1)''Scott Spiegel ''(2)''P.J. Pesce ''(3)''
• Corpse Party Book of Shadows uses the Interlanguage link multi template and renders as 2016 Japanese film directed by Masafumi Yamada [ja]

Any chance of a tracking category etc to see how often this kind of thing occurs? - X201 (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding #2, franchise articles should not use this infobox and should use the franchise one instead. Gonnym (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that, but the principle about render problems if extra info is added still stands. - X201 (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not like this change

I do not like the idea of autogenerating short descriptions. I would have responded earlier, but I did not know why this happened until now. This seems to be a giant mess. Specifically, many short descriptions are now longer than 40 characters. The wording is also awkward. Can't we just come up with a system we all agree on.

Would it be possible for Driving Miss Daisy's short description to be "1989 film". Driving Miss Daisy (1989 film) would be "1989 film by Bruce Beresford" or 1989 American film? Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)