Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 24

If the image is of the theatrical poster, is it really necessary to say that in a caption? On Template:Infobox_television#Attributes it says, "An image with the title logo of the show does not need a caption." Wouldn't an image of the poster equate with that? I mean it's pretty obvious it's the poster. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You raise a good point. I think the field is beneficial for situations that need a more specific explanation, such as the poster coming from a film festival or being designed by a notable artist. Also, don't forget that the image can be a DVD cover or even a title card like at Casablanca (film). Most captions will say "Theatrical release poster" or something similar. It seems easy enough not to be obliged to use that, but at the same time, it seems like a useful enough aid to tell a reader if it is a film poster or a DVD cover. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

For some films there can be an original release poster and a later re-release one that is quite different (I think A Clockwork Orange has a few different ones out there.) In the day and age of VHS and later DVD (whoosh the technology just keeps moving along doesn't it) rental stores there were even posters designed specifically for releases there. As Erik points out there are also title cards and for older films there are also lobby cards. I don't see that there is any harm leaving the captions that we currently have even if it is stating the obvious. MarnetteD | Talk 20:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

"Credits in the infobox should not be retrospectively altered to accommodate name changes at a later date. A person should be credited by the name they were using professionally at the time the film was made."

I submit that the restriction to ossifying the names of individuals credited at the time be henceforth removed. Wikipedia should not be a list of film credits. It is a living document describing the work of potentially alive individuals, and therefore, should be a work respecting the names of those individuals at present. If need be, the policy should indicate prior names used professionally, but this should not be listed or bolded as canonical naming.

Wikipedia frankly should be ashamed of itself for this shortsighted, stupid policy. -- anon

Perhaps some editors didn't understand that you were refering here to The Matrix article. It should be explained that a lengthy discussion was already had about that issue [HERE] and consensus was reached. If you wish to add anything you should re-open a new discussion, and there is the place to do it. Jodon | Talk 11:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It is decidedly not just about _The Matrix_; hence I brought the discussion here. The idea that an individual work must only be accessible through the name in which an individual was credited at the time is short-sighted, hinders accessibility, and denies the reality of any individual whose name has changed for whatever reason. Compare -- even though these are books and not films -- that Love Is the Plan the Plan Is Death which credits Tiptree and yet makes absolutely no mention whatsoever that this is just a pen name, or that Little Women is credited not under A.M. Barnard but Louisa May Alcott. Ossifying names like this makes no sense. -- anon

Disagree. In general if the names of those associated with a project have changed, the original names can always be linked to the contemporary ones, and I believe there's value in using the names historically attached to the film. Also, you're not earning any points with your last sentence and I would recommend retracting it. Doniago (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Disregarding your tone argument. Yes, but that's not what the policy says; the policy says that only the name credited at the time must be used. In the spirit of Wikipedian consensus I can tolerate a policy that says an individual's current name must be shown as well as the name at the time; so if there is indeed consensus to make that change, then let's make it. --anon.

The infobox records bibilographic details about the authorship and publication of a work. On a Beatles album we don't stick John, Paul, George and Ringo in the infobox, we record the name of the group that the album's authorship was ascribed to. The Wachowskis authored the film as "The Wachowski Brothers"; that is how they chose to be credited on the work, just in the same way The Beatles chose to be credited as The Beatles. "Wachowski Brothers" even appears on their copyright application: Registration Number / Date: PA0000949615 / 1999-04-16, so the infobox isn't really the place for revisionism. Betty Logan (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

If you think that referring to all names that people use is "revisionism", then I think that's telling of some greater agenda that you're trying to push. People don't relate to authors by their copyright registration, they relate to them by name. Do you honestly think that if Love Is the Plan the Plan Is Death mentions that James Tiptree, Jr. is in fact Alice Bradley Sheldon that is some sort of "revisionism"? Honestly? -- anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.88.97 (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You are completely avoiding the point I have made: the film and copyright registration credits them as the "Wachoswki Brothers"; that is not my agenda, but how they chose their authorship to be credited. There is nothing to prevent them re-registering the copyright under new names, if they so wish. If Lana Wachowski chooses to be credited as Lana Wachowki on future works then that is the name that will be used. Also, you have completely avoided the analogy with The Beatles, where music is regularly credited to a chosen "stage name"; would you advocate replacing group names with those of their members? It also worth pointing out that the British library credits Silas Marner to George Eliot, not Mary Evans. The reason for this is because the bibliographic details are what are important when cataloging works, not the biographical details of the author. You are essentially arguing for a form of cataloging that is at odds with how the wider world catalogs creative works. Betty Logan (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You're putting words into my mouth. I'm not arguing that the article for the Beatles should replace the stage name. I'm arguing that both names should be listed (as a compromise). Do you have a problem with listing the names an individual is most known by, or not? -- anon.

Betty don't waste your breath, it's one of the super PC editors, they aren't interested in encyclopedic information, just being sensitive to the emotional traumas of transgender people being credited by the name they used at the time. You won't convince them otherwise. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You're hilarious. You don't wish to discuss the actual merits of the argument, but think this is about "emotional traumas"? You think listing outdated information for -- and not just transgender people, I have repeatedly _proven_ that this is a problem across multiple articles and multiple media, but you want to dismiss this as political correctness?

This is a problem because this does not allow a reader to correctly associate an article's link to a single individual, whether they're trans or married or using a pen name. The simple fact remains that an individual's name is not a static reference, whether you think that's "politically correct" or not.

The fact that Wikipedians want to avoid discussing this problem on its merits, dismissing this as some attempt at politically correctness, and ignoring the fact that I'm willing to find an acceptable compromise, demonstrates the sense of utter intellectual bankruptness that pervades this "encyclopedia". --anon

Noone is avoiding anything, it's been discussed, people have pointed you to that discussion. Continuing to talk in ignorance of that does not give you a high ground. And instead of being intellectually bankrupt and spineless by calling people intellectually bankrupt and signing all your comments "anon", try registering for an account and having some accountability for the baseless name calling you are throwing around. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Saying it's "super PC", complaining about "emotional trauma", and saying that "it's been discussed" and trying to end the discussion *is* avoiding the issue. Your complaints about "emotional trauma" is irrelevant. The fact that I have or have not an account or whether that should or should not give my argument more weight is irrelevant. Whatever your agenda about trans people is irrelevant. The fact that Wikipedians like yourself are acting so irrationally to this suggests that this is not an NPOV-driven policy, and maybe that should be the next course of action to take about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.88.97 (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone block this troll. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Is that the Wikipedian response to try and change things these days? How things have deteriorated. WP:CONSENSUS must mean little these days. No wonder Wikipedia has a problem with trying to gain a more diverse range of editors these days. 60.242.88.97 (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedian response was telling you how and why it is the way it is, credits reflect the credits used at the time, be it the real or a stage name. The Matrix films are famous for their creation by the Wachowski Brothers, it was under those circumstances that the film came to be, it is how they are known, it is how they are credited. The link leads to the current article which is named based on real time change because its biographical. Slandering every Wikipedian with your broad brush of blame will win you neither support nor friends. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRD says 'You should not accept, "It's policy, live with it."'. I have offered consensus which has been ignored. If I have "slandered" Wikipedians (hardly) it is because they have acted in a dismissive and boorish manner in response to what is a severe problem with this template.

If I'm not seeing any real attempt on the part of other Wikipedians to discuss the consensus in which I have offered, I will take this to the dispute resolution noticeboard; consider this your notification of such. 60.242.88.97 (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with that, no one has said it's policy, live with it, they've said it's policy, and we support the existing policy over the proposal put forward. Many have said that over the one who refuses to budge his/her position, that isn't a dispute, it's a consensus against your proposal, which if I remember correctly was "We should respect a persons up to date name for some reason and reassign credit to works, and you should all be ashamed of yourselves". That was your opening comment. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You perhaps haven't said "live with it" in so many terms, but the discussion has been firmly rooted in "that's what we agreed to, end of discussion" verbiage.

We should respect a person's most current name. It seems that the consensus here is against that -- I think that's awful -- but I have consistently and always been willing to accept the compromise which I have listed, which you're still ignoring. It's really quite simple now: do you have any substantive objection to my compromise, or should it be adopted, or should I raise this with dispute resolution? 60.242.88.97 (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC

Yes, we refute the "compromise". A compromise is an agreement reached by two parties, not an ultimatum put forward by a single editor. You are free to take it to dispute resolution, but since dispute resolution does not trump a Wikiproject I doubt any of us will participate in the process, since any proposed revision to the guidelines would have to be put to the Film project regardless, which would just bring us back to this discussion. The guideline reflects the consensus, and that is to follow standard Western cataloging conventions for film credits. You are free to pursue other routes, but I think this discussion is over as far as the current participants are concerned. Betty Logan (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I see I have come late to this discussion and that it has been contentious, but I would like to add a few (hopefully non-contentious) words in favour of crediting people by their current name. Here are my thoughts.

1. It is accurate, in general, to use a person's current name when describing events that happened before they began to use that name. So, for example, the John Wayne page correctly reports that "Wayne was born in Winterset, Iowa" even though his surname was not "Wayne" at the time.

2. It is common for pages for actors to do the same sort of thing when discussing the career of that actor, even if they changed their name during their career. So the pages for Courteney Cox, Roseanne Barr, Robin Wright, Eva Longoria, and Rebecca Romijn all refer to them throughout those articles by their current surname, even though in some cases they used other names for a great many years. The Rebecca Romijn page says, for example, "In 2000's X-Men Romijn had her first major movie role as Mystique" even though for that film she was credited as "Rebecca Romijn-Stamos".

3. Following the pattern indicated in the above two comments, it is common on film pages when discussing the actors to use their current names, even if they were credited differently. So, for example, on the X-Men page, when discussing the make-up we are told "the makeup department kept Romijn isolated in a windowless room". This use of her current surname in such descriptions is consistent with the similar use on her personal page.

4. While consistency is a good reason to also use current names in infoboxes, there is an even better argument when you consider that sometimes the credited name is just a pseudonym. For example, on the page for Solaris we are told in the infobox that the film was directed by Steven Soderbergh, the cinematographer was Peter Andrews, and the editor was Mary Ann Bernard. What it does not tell us is that the last two names are both pseudonyms used by Soderbergh. He did all three. It would be much more informative if the infobox said "Cinematography - Steven Soderbergh (credited as Peter Andrews" and "Editing by - Steven Soderbergh (credited as Mary Ann Bernard". In fact, the Steven Soderbergh page helpfully does this. Doing the same of the film page would also be useful.

5. Another case of pseudonyms is the infamous name "Alan Smithee". Some films credited to him just list the director as Alan Smithee (The Shrimp on the Barbie). many list Smithee along side the real name of the director, as if Smithee were a real co-director (Morgan Stewart's Coming Home). Some just list the real name of the director without mentioning the "Alan Smithee" credit (Solar Crisis). But some list the real director's name followed by a "(credited as Alan Smithee)" parenthetical (A River Made to Drown In). Of those variations, the last is clearly the most informative infobox.

6. Another case is people who used fronts or pseudonyms during the blacklist days. Dalton Trumbo was often credited this way during this time, but the articles for the films he wrote now put his name in the infobox. Although I would advocate adding a "credited to" where fronts were used and "credited as" where it was just a pseudonym, it seems right to put his real name in the infobox.

There are a lot of cases where the current name / credited name difference does not really matter. Does anyone really care that Michael J. Fox was credited as "Michael Fox" when he made Midnight Madness and Class of 1984? I don't. But in some cases it is different. I like the idea of a policy that makes the infobox informative (especially in cases like Soderbergh and Smithee) and gives credit where it is due (in cases like Trumbo). 99.192.94.9 (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Those are thoughtful comments. I would not put much weight on the cases you mention where a current name refers to a person's actions when they were using a different name because that is a conventional usage for clarity. This situation is well-established in the case of maiden names, and isn't the same as a case where artistic credit is given under name A by a person later referred to as person B. Frequently in those cases the change of reference is mentioned, i.e., "Wayne was born Marion Morrisson (?) in 19xx." That covers cases 1 through 3.

4. Is it better to puncture pseudonyms? Huck Finn by Samuel Clemens (credited as Mark Twain)? I don't think so.

5. Alan Smithee is a special case of 4. If a person doesn't want a work attributed to them -- frequently because they feel their work has been spoiled by someone else -- should we attempt to attribute to them work that they felt was not theirs? That seems to me a seriously high-handed case of arrogant misattribution, a distortion of the record rather than a correction.

6. Fronts are another case of pseudonyms and, as in 5, I think there are more questions raised by trying to correct the record in the infobox than in sticking to the simplest possible rule. If attributions are changed on works, the infobox, too, can change their attributions. Isn't that the clearest way? --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out that the guideline itself allows for discretion in extenuating circumstances, by recommending to use the name that the person was using professionally at the time. In most cases this will coincide with the credits but sometimes it won't: if someone's name is spelt wrong, we won't carry the error, although we may note it if it has bibilographic implications; if someone was blacklisted, we don't deny their authorship if it can be sourced, we simply append their name and tag it as (uncredited); if someone directs a film as "Alan Smithee" that is not a name they were professionally known by at the time, so while we will acknowledge the anonymity it wouldn't be encyclopedic to "play along" and conceal their true identity; on the other hand, if Soderbergh adopts a pseudonym that he uses professionally, then our guideline probably permits both names if he is also still operating professionally under his own name—I certainly wouldn't enforce a rigorous interpretation of the rules in such an unusual case. What it doesn't allow for is retrospective changes: if someone gets married and changes their name, we don't revise all their credits; if someone adopts a stage name such as many pop acts do we don't revise the credits if the group breaks up and no longer goes by the name. Basically what we try to do—and what the sentiment of our guideline tries to lay out—is to be as accurate as possible in recording the authorship at the time. Ultimately there is an important distinction between recording the author's name and the authorship credit, and generally we follow bibliographic conventions and go with the latter. Betty Logan (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I like your last point so much I want to repeat it. We're not trying to put ourselves in the position of determining the true identity of the artist; instead, we are trying to be clear on the credit (i.e. in the infobox). However, what would we do if a credit was misattributed? For example, Director D works on a film and then is disgusted by the studio's meddling. Although she requests her name be removed, it is not, and a work is attributed to D that she wanted to disavow. These kinds of things happen from time to time. Just curious... --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Most of the cases listed by the IP refer to Biography articles which has already been explained do not follow the same guideline as the film articles, or examples like X-Men (film) which is frankly doing it against the guideline so it's not a great example. I counter with Scream 2 which features both Courteney Cox and Jada Pinkett by the names they used at the time, not the names they used now, and both links luckily refer a user to their article. Comparing these with an Alan Smithee credit is a false equivalence, one leads to the actor in question, the other to a completely fabricated identity, one whose use would be discussed within the article, as Betty says, on a case by case basis. Larry Wachowski (which is the case which starts all these discussions) becoming Lana Wachowski has no bearing on the Matrix or the Matrix films, they are famously made by the Wachowski Bros and that is the reality of history, and her personal changes a decade later do not need mentioning, in the same way that the death of Keanu Reeves wife and unborn child AFTER the Matrix but between the Matrix Reloaded did not need mentioning no matter how much the user in question tried because it may have affected his performance. The only time the change would need to be mentioned is a switch from Larry to Lana when discussion actions relating to the film POST-release. So "In 2013, Lana Wachowski (formerly Larry) said the film was still bad ass". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, folks. It seems clear to me that I'm swimming against the consensus, so I will defer to that. But I did want to make a couple of quick parting replies to the comments above. First, to Ring Cinema on point #4 - What I was suggesting would not recommend crediting Huck Finn to "Samuel Clemens (credited as Mark Twain)". There is no "Samuel Clemens" article and that was not his professional name. Here's the difference explained in terms of movie actors. Eva Longoria not only legally changed her name to Eva Longoria Parker (and then back again), but she used the name "Parker" professionally. This required that the name of her Wikipedia page be changed as her name changed. But Demi Moore legally changed her surname to "Kutcher" when she got married, yet professionally she remained "Moore". Thus by WP:COMMONNAME her article name did not change. Some actors, in fact, adopt stage names without ever legally changing their names. In those cases using their common (professional) name is what would be required.

Second, to Betty Logan, you wrote, "Basically what we try to do—and what the sentiment of our guideline tries to lay out—is to be as accurate as possible in recording the authorship at the time." I would suggest that it is more accurate for the infobox of Fast Times at Ridgemont High to list among its stars "Nicolas Cage (credited as "Nicolas Coppola")" than to just say "Nicolas Coppola". My suggestion is 100% accurate in reporting the name he was using and credited with at the time while also providing the useful information about who he is to people who don't know that Cage=Coppola. One cannot worry that it is somehow "revisionist history" when the suggestion I am making is to clearly indicate what name was used in the credits at the time the film was released. All I was suggesting is that the infobox give a little more information than the guideline currently allows.

One final comment: It seems that cases of name changes because of gender identity changes have been more commonly the basis of discussion by others than it has been for me. (I actually have used none of those cases in my arguments.) I think the reason that this has been more contentious is because we are not just talking about the name, but the identity of the person being credited. It is not unusual for a person who has transitioned to refer to their pre-transition self as if it were a different person (as in "Larry did that, not Lana"). So I can see why people are reluctant to change the infoboxes in such cases since sometimes a name might seem like more than just a name. Steven Soderbergh is the same person even when he is credited as "Peter Andrews" or "Mary Ann Bernard". But Larry Wachowski and Lana Wachowski are more like two different people, perhaps even to Lana herself. This makes these tougher cases, which is why I have tried to deal with the simpler ones (where a name change is nothing more than a name change).

But like I said, consensus seems to be clearly going the other way, so I won't push this further. Thanks again for the replies. 99.192.90.12 (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.94.9)

(to Betty Logan) An ultimatum is a take-it-or-leave it option. A compromise is an alternative option. The above discussion shows that this is not a cut-and-dried situation here, you can't encyclopedically state just one name and hope the reader has the wherewithal to actually understand what is going on with an individual credit with naming.

Where is your hostility coming from? Why don't you offer alternatives or come to a mutually acceptable situation rather than just say "it's like that, live with it"? I think the consensus gathered is that this is a difficult situation for many individuals, so we should endeavour to do the right thing and come up with a solution rather than just ignoring a person's other names that they may have used. 60.242.88.97 (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

60.242, I don't think your comments here really are helping. Arguing over perceived ultimatums won't advance the matter. Let me try to summarize where things are. There are three suggested alternatives. they are:

(1) Use only the name they were using professionally at the time the film was made. (Current policy)

(2) Use only the name they are using professionally now (ie; whatever name is considered their WP:COMMONNAME).

(3) Use the name they are using professionally now, but add parenthetically the name they were using professionally at the time the film was made (if it is different).

I suppose there could be a fourth no one has yet suggested which would be this:

(4) Use the name they were using professionally at the time the film was made, but add parenthetically the name they are using professionally now.

You prefer 2, I prefer 3, and everyone else prefers 1 (current policy). You have suggested 3 as a compromise solution (although, in fairness to the others, you did sort of propose option 3 in your opening comment, so it's not really a change of position to suggest it as a "compromise"). I would suggest that others do not see it as a real compromise because they do not accept the argument that you have given for any inclusion of someone's current name, and so see 3 as just as unmotivated a suggestion as 2. I must admit that I, too, do not think that "respecting the names of those individuals at present" is a good reason to change the policy, so if your argument were the only one for making a change in policy, I too would side with the majority. But I have argued that 3 is the best option because it makes the infobox more informative. It makes it clear how someone was credited and it makes it clear who that person is now. Three respondents to my argument have said they still don't think there is any need to add current names. So unless you have a new argument to present I don't think there is much more to say. Arguing over what is or is not an ultimatum or a compromise won't help, so it is probably best just to drop that part of the discussion. 99.192.90.12 (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I prefer 2, 3, or 4. Either of these acknowledge an actual individual rather than an abstract credit that may or may not have any relevance to anything. 1 is a bad policy. It should be changed.

Wikipedia is not about "it's like this, and we've decided on this, and we're not budging"; I have already quoted enough Wikipedia guidelines to support that. The policy (1) as it stands is bad policy. What I find is poor behaviour on the part of Wikipedians here is making comments that suggest that there is no hope in getting this bad policy changed.

I understand consensus is against 2, even though I think it is wrong, but no one has seriously addressed options 3 or 4. Why is that? You acknowledge as well that 3 adds more information to the infobox, which is in line with the stated goals of Wikipedia as encyclopedia, so I'm not the only one who is supporting change. If there is no objection to any of these options, then let's discuss which of these options we should adopt. 60.242.88.97 (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment. In general, an infobox (and indeed the credits section in the article) should reflect the credits of the film. We can link to the individual's article, no matter what their current name is. There may be cases where explanation in prose in the article is required for certain individuals, but these should be taken on a case by case basis. The points Ring, Betty and Dark make above are interesting exceptions and should be considered. However, the IPs are not putting forward convincing arguments for change, and I see no reason for change based on their suggestions. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Rob, I accept that you are not convinced by either the arguments I have made or the one 60.242 has made, and that's fine. But I should point out that you have not given any reason for why you support the present policy. You merely stated what it is and then said you are not convinced by the arguments for a change. When I (and I believe most people) look at an infobox, I'm looking for the answer to the question "Who directed this film?" or "Who acted in this film?" If I walked up to someone who was familiar with of Fast Times at Ridgemont High and asked them "Who acted in the film?" I would expect them to say "Nicolas Cage", not "Nicolas Coppola". They might say "Nicolas Cage, but he was credited as Nicolas Coppola at the time". Saying "Nicolas Coppola" is the least informative answer and saying "Nicolas Cage, but he was credited as Nicolas Coppola at the time" is the most informative answer. If we were talking sports and I asked "Who was the star for those great late-60s UCLA basketball teams?" the best answer is "Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, but he was known as Lew Alcindor at the time." That is also the most informative answer to the question. If the infobox is about being informative on the questions people have when they read it, it would seem that option 3 is the best one.

I think I have done a good job trying to reply to the arguments I have seen made for the current policy. Betty Logan mentioned how Silas Marner is credited and Ring Cinema made a similar comment about Huck Finn. My proposal that credits should go according to the WP:COMMONNAME with a parenthetical if the credited name is different means that in cases like this the credit would go as Betty and Ring suggest they should, so that's not a problem. The worry expressed that using current names is "revisionist history" is a valid argument against option 2, but not against option 3, the one I have been supporting. So while I see that I have addressed the concerns others have, I don't see where they have either argued that option 3 is not actually more informative (which would be a hard case to make) or that the extra information it provides is not relevant.

If you prefer option 1, the infobox as a record of how people were credited rather than the most informative record of who were the people who did the various jobs on the film, that's fine. I just don't yet know why you think that. Can you explain it to me? 99.192.74.43 (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.90.12)

I do give a reasoning - that we should (for the most part anyway) reflect the credits of the film in infoboxes. The links can deal with the rest. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, saying the infobox should report the credits of the film tells me what you believe. It does not tell me why you believe it, so you have not given a reason for supporting that position. In my case, what I support is option 3. Why I support it is because it provides the most useful information that readers want. In 60.242's case, what he/she supports is any option other than 1. Why he/she supports those is because he/she believes it is disrespectful to the people named to not mention their current name. In your case, what you support is option 1 (infoboxes should reflect the credits of the film). Why you support it is still unstated. 99.192.74.43 (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.90.12)

I think Betty and Ring have made a good job of explaining why we do what we do, and I don't feel I have much more to add to their points. However, an infobox is a quick summary of the credits and other vital information, and should not be overly detailed. If we start including excessive biographical information, we end up with infobox bloat. Now I appreciate that there could be extenuating circumstances (pseudonyms, uncredited roles, etc., as Ring and Betty point out above) where this information is VITAL, but these should remain exceptions to the rule, rather the be incorporated in the rule itself. In these cases, it could be decided at the individual article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. The issue of bloat did occur to me as well, but given that parentheticals like "uncredited" are already used I thought it to be a minor issue, but I can see why it would be a concern. Thanks for the reply. 99.192.74.43 (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.90.12)

I suggest that 99.192's "option 3" be adopted, that is, 'Use the name they are using professionally now, but add parenthetically the name they were using professionally at the time the film was made (if it is different).'. If there is any strong opposition to this proposal, please state it.

I believe the amount of cases where there is name variance that would suggest using a parenthetical would be small, so the issue of bloat should also be small and should be discussed on the relevant talk pages on a case-by-case basis. 60.242.88.97 (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If it should be decided on a case-by-case basis as an exception to the rule, then we shouldn't be changing the rule. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Zero-tolerance rules are not effective and not informative. The aim is to convey information, and if we need to discuss a variation of the rule in the rare cases where it is required, that is a better outcome than the current policy where readers may possibly be confused. 60.242.88.97 (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Funny how these anon IP editors crawl out from the woodwork with little or no edits on other pages to support their buddies. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Lugnuts, first you have made two one-liner comments in this discussion, neither of them constructive. Please reread Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Your comments are in violation of both policies. Secondly, my comments have been polite and constructive and addressed the issue with reasoned arguments. If you have any responses to them other than ad hominems I'd be glad to hear them. 99.192.74.43 (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.90.12)

All IP editors are scum. I stand by that until my dying days. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. Well whatever you think of me, it still would be a good idea not to violate Wikipedia's policies on civility and good faith. You might consider yourself superior, but the rules still apply to you, too. If scum like me can follow the rules, surely you can as well. 99.192.74.43 (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it can be difficult for experienced editors to take IP users seriously sometimes - especially on talk pages - no edit history, no talk page, etc. I mistook you for the OP on first reading, but you seem reasonable - have you considered creating a user account? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Ahem, Lugnuts: stick to the substance. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Rob, experienced editors who assume good faith should have no problem taking IP users seriously, especially when the comments are civil as mine were. In fact, I have been editing Wikipedia pages for many years now (so I think I can count myself as experienced) and I have no problem judging editors on their individual merits. Whether or not an editor has an account shouldn't matter to anyone. A comment or edit is constructive or it is not, no matter who made it or whether or not they have an account. Responding to content rather than assumed motives is the way all editors, including Lugnuts, should approach discussions. 99.192.74.43 (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

But you've got to admit it's funny that you just turn up as your friend/sock account gets his ass handed to him? You just happened to be passing by? Of course! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Lugnuts, you have made it pretty clear that you have no interest in making a constructive contribution to this discussion, no interest in observing Wikipedia policies like Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and only want to just continue making insults and false accusations, so there really is nothing more to say to you. I will note that it is ironic that your first comment in this discussion was a drive-by comment to accuse another editor of being a troll. If anyone has been a troll in this discussion, it is you. It is, after all, your nonsense that has diverted the discussion from the policy issue in question to a discussion of your name-calling nonsense. 99.192.74.43 (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Acutally I have this page on my watchlist, and pass by when anon IP scum attack it, much like yourself. So, are you a sock of the original user? Yes or no? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think IP 99.192 is a sock; he's posted a few times on the Film Project page on topics unrelated to the one at hand and has always seemed like a good faith editor rather than "scum". In respect to the guideline it is largely designed for general purpose use, not highly irregular situations i.e. we don't want credits being altered every time someone gets married/divorced, we don't want spelling mistakes incorporated etc. The guideline is not overly prescriptive, but part of its function is to stop credits being revised purely because someone has changed their name, although there may be other arguments for adding clarification: many of the Stephen King books he wrote as Richard Bachman have been republished under his own name so Stephen King (as Richard Bachman) would be a good compromise in those cases; Nicolas cage is overwhelmingly known by that name, but since our guideline insists on including the professional credit then Nicolas Cage (as Nicolas Coppola) would be a good compromise. If Tom Cruise reverts to his birth name, then that wouldn't be a good enough reason on its own to revise the Top Gun infobox. In the case of The Matrix, a Google search shows that the authorship is still more commonly attributed to "The Wachowski Brothers" than "Lana Wachowki", with Google Books throwing up ten times as many hits for The Wachowski Brothers as it does for Lana Wachowski. The Matrix is widely identified as being made by "The Wachowski Brothers" so I don't think there is a recognizability argument for adding "Lana Wachowksi" to the infobox; if they had updated their copyright registration that would be a compelling argument but as yet they haven't done. Betty Logan (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It would not be a compelling argument, the infobox reflects the original release, hence why it contains the original publisher, the original runtime and, in something like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs the original poster, not a recent DVD cover. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The infobox essentially serves two purposes: document the bibliograpic details of the work (i.e. director, writer etc) and the publication (publisher, publication date etc). It's easier to think of it in terms of books, where these practises are more established. Mary Evans published all her work as George Eliot, so that is what should go in the infobox as per the British library. On the other hand, something like The Running Man has been published under both Stephen King and Richard Bachman, so ideally both names should be included as per the British library, since that is what is required to fully present its bibliographic history; I would argue the same for The Matrix if there were evidence of the bibliographic details of the work being updated. However, the book can only be published for the first time once, so the publication details i.e. original distributor/ release date, should remain unaffected no matter how many releases across different media it receives. Betty Logan (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Betty, your last two comments sound quite reasonable. In general, I prefer fairly rigid policies where possible to ones with case by case exceptions, since whether or not a given case might be an exception tend to generate arguments. So allowing "Nicolas Cage (as Nicolas Coppola)" as an exception to a rule rather than as being dictated by a rule gives fuel to all those who think others should be similarly counted as an exception. But I'll take what I can get.

By the way, on the question of works being updated, a long time ago in movie theaters far far away, about 100,000,000 people went to see a film called Star Wars. Many of them have never seen a film called Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. Yet we have an article with an infobox claiming that such a film was released on May 25, 1977. If, as Darkwarriorblake says, "the infobox reflects the original release" then this would be an error. Now I don't think the infobox and title of the article should be changed, but that's because I think using the current common name is the best idea in general. So if in six years time there is a 20th anniversary re-release of The Matrix to theaters in 3D and a new corresponding home media release (both quite plausible events) and if the director credit is given then as just "The Wachowskis", that would be a good reason to re-open the question of the infobox credit. But that's a debate for another day. 99.192.54.253 (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.74.43)

I do have several issues with the revisionism of the Star Wars title: it was originally known as Star Wars and that is what it is overwhelmingly known as to most people. These "episode" titles only really came into force when the prequels came along, so I think there is a bit of fan service going on. The problem though is that the Star Wars articles come under more than one Wikiproject, and our guidelines don't trump the views of another project. We would never get a decisive consensus to rename the Star Wars articles, so it basically stays as it is. Betty Logan (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The multi-project issue is something I had not thought of. And in fairness to the history of the title, the SWE4:ANH page does report that, "When the original film was re-released on April 10, 1981, Episode IV: A New Hope was added above the original opening crawl." So the renaming does predate the prequels, but it still postdates the original release, the first 100,000,000 viewers, and the film being nominated for 10 Academy Awards, wining 6. SWE4:ANH was nominated for none. So even a 1981 date for a name change is a bit johnny-come-lately :-) 99.192.54.253 (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.74.43)

THe article should be called Star Wars. The problem is, as I'm sure you;ve found, Wikipedia came AFTER it became Star Wars Episode IV, so people started the article, edited the article knowing it only as that film, and fighting against the Star Wars nerds is a battle that you cannot ever win unless you get an admin to move-lock it to prevent people putting it back to Star Wars EPisode IV. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I have eliminated the Nicolas Cage problem by removing him from the infobox; conveniently his inclusion violated one of our other guidelines, since he is not included in the billing block on the poster. I definitely think his "Nicolas Coppola" credit should have been added though had this not been the case. Betty Logan (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting to me (and a little surprising) that you both prefer the article be called Star Wars. I got curious and decided to check to see what they do with TV articles where a show changes names. I could only think of three shows that became well known under one name and then switched to a different one. Those are Two Guys and a Girl, 8 Simple Rules, and The Hogan Family. In all three cases the article is named by the most recent name with an "Also known as" credit in the infobox and an "originally titled" parenthetical in the opening sentence of the article. So it looks like they go with most recent name, although (in line with Darkwarriorblake's comment about Star Wars) the name change did precede the Wikipedia article in two of the three cases. So it's not exactly a strong pattern. 99.192.54.253 (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.74.43)

The thing is, virtually any user can move an article and amazingly they can do this without a discussion. Aqua Teen Hunger Force now changes its name every season, but it's still known as Aqua Teen Hunger Force. If Roseanne had become Roseanne, we're gonna screw with everything you enjoyed in it's last season, it should still be under the article Roseanne. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, article titles aren't governed by project guidelines either, unless we are disambiguating. They are decided by WP:COMMONAME, which can lead to some strange decisions: foreign language films can end up with an English title or under their original native title depending on the outcome. In the case of "Star Wars" the franchise has bagged the title which is probably the right call, so I don't really oppose the title of the page (since we have got to call it something), but the infobox shouldn't have been subject to the revisionism. It was released as "Star Wars", and we have a poster in the infobox with the original title, but yet we have the revisionist title in there, which doesn't sit well with me. Betty Logan (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we're veering wildly off-topic. The TV shows, films, etc., that are being cited actually changed their names - WP:COMMONNAME for show titles has nothing to do with how we list credits in infoboxes. Bottom line: we shouldn't be changing the rules for the credits, but, as with everything on Wikipedia, we allow for exceptions if absolutely necessary and agreed by consensus on a case by case basis. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Rob, I agree that we have veered a fair bit from the main topic, but just for the record, the TV shows I mentioned are all ones where not only the article name goes with the most recent name of the show, but the infobox names the most recent name, not the original name, as the title of the show (with the original name given as an "also known as" title). So if these examples are representative of TV show page policy (and I don't know that it is) and if movie page policy were the same (and I am not saying they need to be the same) then putting Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope in the infobox would be the right call. But yes, this is getting a bit off topic and the main issue does seem to be settled. 99.192.49.44 (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.54.253)

It is far from settled. We have barely discussed the alternatives and consensus hasn't been reached. 60.242.88.97 (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It is only you that now supports a change. Consensus is against you. I'd consider that settled. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

By my count, seven different editors have voiced opinions in the discussion of the matter Using the numbering of options I gave above, 5 editors support option #1 (the status quo). One editor (me) supports option #3. One editor (60.242.88.97) supports any of #2, #3, or #4. There has been extensive discussion of the options and clearly articulated reasons have been offered for the alternatives being supported. While I do still prefer option #3, I am pleased to find that many of the sorts of cases that most concern me are ones other editors think can be handed while maintaining #1 as the general policy. So I agree with Rob that the matter here is settled. There is a clear consensus to keep the current policy.

What I would recommend to 60.242.88.97 is if you wish to pursue the issue further with regard to any particular credit that you think should be changed because you think it is a valid exception to the rule that you go to the talk page of the specific article in question and make a case for why it should be regarded as an exceptional circumstance. But if you do decide to do that, you might try dropping the inflammatory tone you used when starting the discussion here. A hostile tone will only hurt your chances of achieving any changes. 99.192.74.156 (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.49.44)

I'd hardly call approximately 30% dissent of your count of editors "consensus"; Wikipedia is not a democracy.

As to your point about "going to the talk page", that needs to be codified in policy or we will inevitably have a repeat of this very same discussion happening in exactly the same way in multiple talk pages pointing them at this policy we are discussing right now. If this is acceptable, then the policy must change to reflect this. 60.242.88.97 (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows for exceptions if there is consensus to do so - it shouldn't need to be spelled out for one specific field on an infobox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Please link to an actual instance of policy which states this. I mean, people shouldn't need to point out things like WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia is not a democracy and so on, but these things _do_ need to be spelled out to others, I'm afraid. 60.242.88.97 (talk) 08:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It's at the core of Wikipedia. See WP:POLICY. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

For foreign films, which distributors do we list? Just the original? Or ones for English language countries too? If so, what do we limit to for English-language countries? (US, UK, Australian, etc.). Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

A level of discretion is permitted, but we always include the home distributor as a bare minimum. As a rule of thumb I always try to match distributors to the release dates that are mentioned directly above. If the release in a particular region is notable, then the distribution in that territory is probably notable too. Betty Logan (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this the right way: She's All That diff? - Richfife (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

We do not want embedded links. I would suggest writing "M. Night Shyamalan (credited as R. Lee Fleming, Jr.)". The referenced mention in the lead section is sufficient, I think. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I have someone causing issue at Fast & Furious 6 because it's somehow intolerable that Vin Diesel is linked as a producer but not linked in the starring section. They are edit warring over the content and now trying to de-link the first instance so they can link in the starring. There's no reason given beyond "why not", so it will be easier if I can just point him to something because he isn't getting it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK states "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." I don't think it is helpful to link the same person more than once in the infobox, so I'd delink the second, third, etc. I'm sure there's a better policy somewhere about the infobox, but I can't find it right now. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes are exempt from the overlinking guideline, so you can link the first occurrence, both or none I guess. Which I suppose isn't very helpful in resolving the dispute, unless you consider linking both occurrences a reasonable compromise. Betty Logan (talk) 10:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Not particularly, the user gives no reason for linking both apart from apparently preferring that someone not be unlinked in the starring section. Perhaps overlink should be amended as I can think of no circumstance where it is more special than any other part of the articles in this regard, and per Lugnuts linked guideline, it is only really exempt if helpful, but I see no helpful addition in this case. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the idea of exempting infoboxes, tables, footnotes etc is that people generally don't read them as prose. In the case of a footnote you can click on a reference and get taken to footnote #57 or something, so linking footnote #26 isn't very helpful. In the case of tables most of the time readers will just look up a particular entry, and don't want to go searching through the table looking for a link. There may be similar arguments for large infoboxes, but in the case of ours I agree there isn't much gain in repeating links. It would be easier and quicker just to amend our own infobox guidelines if other project members agree. I suggest linking to this dicsussion from the Film project to see if there is general agreement for such a clause. Betty Logan (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• IMO, one link in the infobox, is enough, and this shouldn't be affected by anything outside of it. I think that overlink should be changed to reflect this so we have some way to easily curb the issues (especially in the case of "written, directed, & starring" films).  drewmunn  talk  11:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I concur that one link is enough. Whether read as bullet points or prose there is no reason to link the same name over and over again. The point could be added to the film MoS as well as to overlink. MarnetteD | Talk 13:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I think adding it to our own infobox guidelines will be sufficient, we shouldn't be imposing our preferences on other projects. Betty Logan (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I did not know that WP:OVERLINK had this wording, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." It makes sense for tables because of how you navigate it. Did it mention infoboxes all this time? I kind of agree with that because there are cases where the actor is also a producer, and for someone looking up the "Starring" field, it may be confusing when a famous actor is not linked there. Hancock (film) is one example. Readers do not approach the infobox like they would the article body. I think in a case like Fast & Furious 6, it would be okay to link to Vin Diesel again. It's hard to tell how often readers bat an eye toward the "Produced by" field, but I'm inclined to say not as much as "Starring", especially with this kind of celeb-powered film. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I think that the wording "repeated in an infobox" would refer to the fact that just because an item is linked in the article does not mean that it shouldn't be linked in the infobox. On the other hand I can't imagine that it means that it should be linked again and again in said infobox. But, that is just my interpretation and I certainly wouldn't speak for those whose input went in to creating the guideline. IMO the producer, director and actors fields are withing mere centimeters of each other and linking the first time is sufficient. But I would not be adamantly against making an exception for the acting field only. MarnetteD | Talk 14:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're saying. It's not very clear about that. For example, I am pretty sure we would repeat links within a table because of how it can be navigated in different ways, but now that you mention it, the guidelines do not sound like they are referring to that kind of thing. Still, I think an infobox is comparable to a table or a list in which readers can have an idea of what they want to look up, which can be different from prose. Considering that WP:OVERLINK's main gist is to provide relevant links, it barely applies to names because these are more than just everyday words. There are entire lives behind a name to link to. Otherwise, it also seems to be a common-sense approach not to keep linking to a name throughout a given section; they become distracting if repeated necessarily. I don't think that kind of thing always applies to an infobox. I agree that there are director/producer/writer/actor cases for which it makes sense to have one example linked (since the infobox would be saturated with a name), but maybe if it's not so obvious that a star was also a producer, like with Fast & Furious 6 and Hancock, that second link would be fine. EDIT: Or we can be drastic and move "Starring" above "Produced by". :-P Erik (talk | contribs) 14:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope that each of you will forgive a moment of levity. This conversation jogged this joyous piece of animation Bambi Meets Godzilla out of my memory banks. This infobox illustrates a far end example of what we are talking about :-) MarnetteD | Talk 14:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The Man with the Iron Fists has RZA in the infobox five times including as a star. There's no reason to have him linked again and let's be honest here, if we don't relink in the article body in case someone didn't bother reading an earlier section, do we really need to compensate for people who skip 4 lines in the Fast 6 infobox? At this point I am more annoyed that the user in question is edit warring over it and OVERLINK for no reason whatsoever does not apply to Infoboxes by default. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Ooh, I don't know; some people find the 7 pixels between lines too far to move their cursor... If it continues, you've got plenty of people here willing to back you up. We all seem to be in agreement so far that it needs to go somewhere (whether that be film infobox or overlink), so we could probably get this into guidelines within a couple of days at maximum unless someone decides to make trouble.  drewmunn  talk  15:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

So I'm reading this guideline and I am wondering if it is poorly worded or misinterpreted. "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.". That to me reads that a link should only appear in an article once BUT it can ALSO appear in infoboxes, tables, images, captions and footnotes and the first occurrence after the lead if it appears IN the lead. I'm not sure why or if is supporting the repeating of links in infoboxes IF helpful, I'm not sure what kind of infobox that would be. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a guideline about infoboxes as much as it is a guideline limited to prose. For example, we repeat link in Academy Award for Best Actress: if you want to look up the 2011 Oscar winner you would find it was Meryl Streep, but it wouldn't be particularly helpful if she was the only name not linked in the 2011 entry, simply because she won it in 1982. Basically the guideline is just telling us to not overlink in the prose because it can be distracting to the "flow" when reading, but that doesn't apply to things such as captions, tables, infoboxes etc i.e. it's a guideline about prose because that is where the problem exists. Betty Logan (talk) 10:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The other side of it is that it's not really a very big problem to link twice in the same infobox. If there is not a link, it could appear to be a missing link, and someone wanting the link has to find the other link (before or after?) in order to link. Thinking of the readers, who after all read the infobox as a table, why not make it convenient? So maybe it's not a good idea to make a guideline since it's not so clear one is better than the other. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a big problem because if you don't defend it once then you don't have any argument when someone like ShookAllen comes along and edit wars incessantly to get his way because he has to have the starring field entry linked. You have no defense when someone wants to link a name 5 times in the infobox.. And if the infobox is read like a table, then they've already read and seen the linked name once, the first instance. Your stance makes no sense, if I get to the third instance and don't see it as a link, would we link it so it does not appear to be a missing link. If we are catering for readers who can't see a link eight pixels up, then it's time to just start linking every instance of every word. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ring Cinema that we should not have a specific guideline here, especially when the general overlinking guideline is vague about infoboxes. Like Betty said, it seems focused on prose. We should keep the consensus localized and determine rule of thumbs to follow. For Hancock (film), Will Smith's role as producer was minor in terms of coverage. He is much more known as the star than as a producer, and the lead section reflects this. For The Man with the Iron Fists, we have RZA as a writer and director as well as an actor, which is reflected in that article's lead section. I would argue that with this scope of involvement, we don't have to link him every time in the infobox. The reader, I think, would more readily see the extent of RZA's involvement. That would also apply to the example Bambi Meets Godzilla. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

We waste enough time on this project warning, discussing things, discussing things again, discussing them again. Instead of this exact situation which is over a minor thing where an editor is quite content to simply edit war to get their way, meaning I have to warn him, then start an edit warring discussion and discuss his inability to understand edit warring on the articles talk page. Instead of ALL of that, over every single issue, we can just add a simple guideline, it is not that hard, and unless you can give an honest example where you WOULD NOT link the first instance of a name because someone might skip over it, then there is no excuse NOT to implement this simple guideline to reinforce what we have been doing ALL A. LONG. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree completly with Darkwarriorblake. There's no good reason to link every single mention of someone's name in the infobox. Set that as the guidance. Yes, we are supposed to help the reader, but there's also the assumption that the reader isn't of sub-human intelligence too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

While I agree there is too much linking in many cases, I don't think this is one of them. I may have already mentioned this, but the absence of a link in the infobox might motivate a conscientious editor to put in the link. Since an unlinked name doesn't point you to the linked occurrence, I think we are not doing either the readers or the page editors any favors by requiring that infoboxes only link each name once. Now, I understand that argument loses some of its force in consideration of the fact that the same could be said of article links, but in an article the later occurrences do not have to be the entire name. In fact, I would suggest it is a reasonable rule of thumb that when a complete name is used, it should be linked, and if a name is not linked it probably needn't be the complete name. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

===

See this is what I am talking about, instead of implementing the request in this discussion so we can get on with doing the task at hand, Erik felt it more necessary to post at Fast & Furious 6 to remind me of the Edit Warring guideline and let me know that I'm as bad as the editor saying "who cares, as long as you stop undoing my edit I'll stop edit warring". I'm aware of the edit warring guideline Erik, what I NEED is progress here, not you giving the other party in that discussion further fuel for his fire. THis kind of ridiculously lengthy discussion over such an obvious change to make is exactly why the Semi-Retired template is at the top of my user page. I've done more widespread change at the video game project in a matter of weeks than this project gets done in months. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Blake, I commented on the talk page because it was not relevant to this discussion. We cannot mix a style discussion with an incident of edit warring between editors. I'm sorry that you're frustrated, but feelings of animosity from that article should not spill over here. Your opponent's attitude is beside the point. To get back on topic, Lugnuts says there should be a guideline. I see the infobox as something between a table and the article body. We naturally expect readers to read prose top to bottom; are we doing the same for the infobox? I don't think we should. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Right can we get on with enshrining this in the guidelines because the user has no intention of stopping doing it even with a block for edit warring and there is no reasonable argument against it beyond compensating for stupid people, which is not something we do in the body text. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It has been a convention for many years to record only the original distributor of the film (the de facto publisher of the work), since a film's distributor can change quite often down the years. However, it is quite a common occurrence for editors not familiar with the film articles to add the current distributor; a recent example would be the The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) article were a persistent editor recently kept adding Warner (Warner didn't acquire the MGM library until the 1990s).

The guideline as it is now doesn't really reflect the current thinking:

Insert the company name(s) of the distributor(s). Separate multiple entries using {{Plainlist}}. In addition, link each distributor to its appropriate article if possible.

I propose rewording it to the following:

Insert the company name(s) of the distributor(s) that released the film. Separate multiple entries using {{Plainlist}}. In addition, link each distributor to its appropriate article if possible.

It would at least make it a bit more explicit; otherwise the guideline can be interpreted as a free for all. Betty Logan (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. Maybe say "first released" to be more specific? Or would that lead to confusion? Erik (talk | contribs) 12:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

That works for me Erik. Betty Logan (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

If we're changing it, we should add something to discourage someone from adding a list of distributors for every territory as well. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with making the wording more explicit in this regard, but it is probably best to start a fresh discussion to discuss specific wordings. Betty Logan (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support Whatever the final wording anything that reduces infobox bloat is worth doing. MarnetteD | Talk 16:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

  Done I've added the proposed wording incorporating Erik's amendment since there were no objections put forward. Betty Logan (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The writer on the film is Misan Sagay.

The Writers Guild of America WGA have provided a link to the final credit determination. The credit is also on IMDB. The infobox should be edited to include the writers credit "Written by Misan Sagay" in the usual place after the Producers name. Thank you Misansagay (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC) Misansagay (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  Not done: This isn't the place for requesting edits to articles. Please post your request on the relevant article talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

...that film ratings by the MPAA be added, please? Thanks. ~~LDEJRuff~~ 16:54, 27 July, 2013 (UTC)

Read Motion picture rating system. Why does the MPAA rating system require special treatment? Ever changing ratings are not informative to a reader and are representative only of either financial compensation or immediate moralities and politician blaming. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

For our purposes, the main problem with the MPAA ratings is that it's only America's system. Film ratings are informative, though. They tell the reader the rating the film received. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is there no parameter for the aspect ratio? – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

An ideal item for the infobox. Tie it to the first release to avoid petty wars about re-edits for TV, etc.? --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems a bit trivial to me, unless the aspect ratio is notable for some reason...notable enough that there's discussion of it in the article. DonIago (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Notability is not the standard for including something in an article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That's good, as it's both unnotable and trivial. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I am hesitant to add more rows to the main film infobox. I would be more in favor of mentioning the aspect ratio in a film article's developed "Production" section. Maybe some kind of film production infobox? It could fit beside prose about the film's production. I think it is too specialist of a detail to include in the main infobox. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That would never happen, Erik. I'd say it's about as important as the run time, which is just a technical matter that is never mentioned in the body of the article. The distributor frequently goes unmentioned in the body, so perhaps that fails this test. The infobox is a good place to mention technical matters that wouldn't be covered in the body. I"d propose removing the country field in favor of aspect ratio. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

What would never happen? I would not mind a separate discussion about the runtime; you have a point about how minor it is. We shouldn't be Fandango. As for the distributor, my experience is that developed articles are more likely to mention them, so I think that field has a place in the infobox. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that is about the size of it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Having turned up Kubrick's "Letter to Projectionists"[1] for Barry Lyndon, confirming a 1.66:1 shooting aspect, and projection aspect of 1.66–1.75:1 I was about to add it with the citation, but it seems the parameter isn't there yet. It doesn't have to be used for every 1.78:1 film, but for Stanley Kubrick's films, the aspect ratios vary, but were precisely chosen. —Sladen (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

How is the aspect ration less notable and trivial than the Gross the film made, or the budget it used to make the film, or the cinematographer (who many times is an unwiki'd person)? I think it's something definitely worthwhile having down. It is an encyclopedia, and that's the type of thing encyclopedias list. Thricecube 16:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually? If we were to assume that notability can be assessed based on coverage in reliable sources, I think it's likely that a film's gross and budget are prone to much more discussion than its aspect ratio. As I asserted above, discussing the aspect ratio when it was important to the film in some manner seems reasonable to me, but simply throwing it in as yet another infobox field (especially in an already hefty infobox) doesn't seem warranted. DonIago (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Notability is not the standard so it is a misnomer to bring it up here. Relevance is the standard. Notability is the standard that determines if a subject should have its own article. It is NOT the standard for determining if anything in an article should remain. Almost all the facts in all the articles on Wikipedia are not notable but they are there because they are part of our knowledge of the subject. The correct standard is relevance. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If you replace "notability" with "relevance" in my above post I'm still happy with the conclusion I draw. DonIago (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to ask why the above mentioned field is not included in the "infobox". This being an important dept. in the production of any film, all top award ceremonies like Oscar and BAFTA award prizes for this category. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

By this logic, wouldn't visual effects, sound design, costume design, and makeup/hairstyling also have to be included? All of these are categories in both the Academy Awards and the BAFTAs. —Flax5 16:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

May be, it depends upon the kind of films that we have. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The majority of readers won't be interested in who did the production design. The infobox should be limited to key facts and key aspects of authorship. Betty Logan (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Vensatry, I think that if we add a new field, it will be filled out universally and regardless of the kind of film. I'm not keen on adding more fields to the infobox, but I do want to identify key crew members wherever possible. One way I do this is to list them in the "Production" section of a well-developed film article, like at Panic Room#Production or The East (film)#Production. It allows us to mention executive producers (especially if they're notable and since the infobox does not include them), costume designers, art directors, etc. Maybe that's an approach you can take? It's not exactly widespread, but I like to use it to encourage fuller crediting and cross-navigation beyond the infobox. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It makes more sense to list the PD than the distributor (zero creative input) and the country (ersatz misnomer). This is an area where this group shows a lack of expertise. It is well known that the Production Designer is an important creative artist (Erik's erroneous comments notwithstanding). Comparing that position to special effects or makeup is misleading at best, since the most important person who works on a film not listed in the infobox is the PD -- more significant and more interesting than many of the actors or writers we list without thinking. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Ring Cinema, I never said the production designer was unimportant. I am resistant to adding new fields (and inversely, open to discussing removal of some current fields). I say this because while the purpose of an infobox is "to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears" (per WP:IBX), we do not actually do that with the film infobox. We often fill out the fields to the fullest extent, basing most of them on official credits. I do want to mention the production designer and other key crew members in the article body, but I do not think the infobox is the place to add them, at least not based on its current design. (Maybe if there was a collapsible section?) I see new field additions to the infobox as a slippery slope where we could instead make a flexible space in "Production" sections to identify the key crew members. In doing this, we can make it less of a requirement to fill out all the infobox fields. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Not much there. First, there's no slippery slope. That's empty sophistry. Busted. As I said, the most important person to a film not mentioned in the infobox is the PD. They are in the credits so your comment there is a non sequitur, I believe, but you said nothing about it anyway. The last sentence makes no sense really and is also subject to the dread slippery slope, Erik, so quick run before you slip down the slope you might have to take everything out of the infobox! (Too late.) What is up here is that again there's some kind of prejudice against the crew. Obviously it's because we mistakenly think we know the actors personally, but I thought we were supposed to be smart here and not fall for nonsense. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The key point to the infobox is that it is supposed to give a snapshot overview of the article. We tend to talk about the director, the actors, and things like the script and music and who produced the film in some depth; most featured articles include this information, but how many actually discuss the production design? I just don't think it features regularly enough in Wikipedia articles for its inclusion in the infobox to be paramount. You could argue the same for the editor and cinematographer too, but I think that's probably a strong case for removing those fields rather than adding other crew members. Betty Logan (talk) 04:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ring Cinema, what I am saying is that the request to add production designer to the film infobox is not the only crew-related request we've had. The merits of each crew member is debatable, like what Betty said above about the production designer. To satisfy all parties, the infobox would be longer than it is now, especially considering how we always fill out the fields regardless of roles being featured in the article body. Maybe "slippery slope" is not the right term; maybe bloat? We do not tailor the infobox's fields in line with what the article body provides; we argue for or against fields based on what we think readers will benefit from. That's why I'm suggesting making a fuller list of key crew members available in a "Production" section or something similar, and we could have the editor or cinematographer there if their infobox fields were hypothetically removed. As for the cast, I hate to see sprawling lists of names like at The Butler (have suggested just having Whitaker and Winfrey per the billing block setup), and I know that some of the Star Trek Featured Articles have anchor links to jump to the "Cast" section if there is not a clear-cut group of 2-4 stars in the film. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Just my two cents - it seems to me that a case may be being made for including an infobox at the level of the Production section that can summarize production-related information. DonIago (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That could work. It does not have to be an infobox, though. It could be a template that goes the width of the article, like my amateur attempt at Panic Room#Production. I'm sure we could come up with a better design. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't get into too much detail. It's true that PD has more creative input than the distributor as pointed out by Ring Cinema. For films like Avatar and Titanic it may be worth mentioning who did the PD in the "infobox". The budget and box-office figures are not accurate for most of the films produced outside US and Europe and may not be significant enough to get an "infobox" mention. A field (optional) can be added for PD juts like cinematography, editing, etc., so that it can be added depending upon the type of film. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There are other requests to add crew members? No, I believe that is not true. And, again, for the third time, the production designer is the most important person not in the infobox, so what I'd expect is that we'd at least agree that's the best candidate. I'm not sure what to make of the fact that someone says a request has been made that hasn't been made. Perhaps it is possible that previous mentions of the production designer's absence from the infobox are being referenced as if the separate requests referred to something different? The production designer is a counterpart to the cinematographer; they direct the crew. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, like this. This page has also had discussions regarding costume designer, art director, executive producer, and sound. We've also talked about removing cinematographer and editor. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather see fields get demoted from the existing infobox and perhaps moved into an alternate solution for listing them than add more fields to the infobox as it currently stands. If those are the options we're considering. DonIago (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The sound editor or costume designer is the most important creative person missing from infobox? Or are they brought up only to muddy the waters? --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Different editors likely have different opinions as to what "most important" credit is missing from the infobox. Which is why I'm increasingly coming to believe that a separate listing may be the best approach. Personally I wouldn't care if all three were excluded from the infobox as that's not information I usually care about when I read film articles. And if I do really care and I can't find it here, there's always IMDb. DonIago (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The cinematographer, editor and production designer are usually listed together in a film's main title credits and its poster. This is also usually true for film publications. That is, if one is listed, the other two are as well. However, if one is left off, it's usually the production designer. Regardless of whether the PD is to be added to the WP film infobox, the cinematographer and editor should not be removed. WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a fan magazine. They are crucial members of the filmmaking team. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to add a list of crew members (including the production designer) to Interstellar (film) since the infobox does not cover all key crew members, but this list has been challenged. I mention this here since I had commented that I want to have a more comprehensive list of names in "Production" to address concerns like this one regarding the PD. Unfortunately, this thinking is too new at this point. I've started a discussion at Talk:Interstellar (film)#Crew members and invite others to comment. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 17:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added my thoughts there, though I think I would have preferred if that discussion had been linked to here instead. DonIago (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is decision about starring by the poster? It's not absurdity to check actors. The movie database is best.--Ferrari è grande (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Decision about starring poster because people like you think who they think important need to be in starring. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Poster is not Wikipedia:Verifiability. The movie databases are secondary source material.--Ferrari è grande (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course the poster is verifiable. The point of using the poster is to show which stars were given top billing for the film and were shown on the poster at the time. This is not usually possible to determine from movie databases. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep, film databases often list cast either in A-Z order or in the order they appeared on screen. That doesn't equate to who stars in the film. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This was first brought up about 8 years, and it appears it hasn't been looked at again in the last 4 years. My question is;

Since nearly all articles about films, especially new ones, contain the films critical ratings from the review site Rotten Tomatoes, has there ever been any consideration to adding this item to the infobox? (thereby necessitating a template change).

For example, the bottom of the infobox could (sort of) look like this;

Country - United States

Language - English

Budget - $150,000,000^[1]

Box office - $642,740,000^[2]

RT rating - 71%^[3]

This, of course, is if we just add it to the bottom of the list. The order of precedence could be debated. Now apparently adding external links was an issue before, but that is not what I'm proposing (they're fine where they are at the bottom of the page). I am suggesting adding only the (cited) value of the Rotten Tomatoes rating. As I said, this is already included in the body of virtually every film article, this would just make it quicker to reference. Also, since it's right under the box office total, it provides a greater picture, at a glance, of the film's success. I also suggested RT as it seems to be the premiere / go to site for critical consensus (as supported by Alexa rankings).

This is a minor adjustment that can only enhance the infobox and therefore the articles. This is also a small, specific and singular issue that has not been addressed before, from what I can tell. - thewolfchild 04:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem with doing this is that RT scores are not really a "fact" about the film, which is what the infobox is really there for. The box office is factual content that is either true or false, whereas the RT scores are a third party interpretation of English language critical consensus. It would probably violate WP:DUE by elevating it above other aggregators. Also, while they are frequently included on most modern studio films, there are many articles about older films and foreign films where they are not really all that relevant. Betty Logan (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the use of external links or sites as facts in the infobox. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was just a thought. But the fact is, is that RT scores are regularly included in film articles, along with some others, like metacritic, sometimes. However, the fashion in which these are included are fairly haphazard. I had made this suggestion as means of making this info more accessible. If not in the infobox, then perhaps a table, like the one used for video game critic scores, could be used instead. I suppose I would have to propose that elsewhere, but would appreciate any feedback here on this. - thewolfchild 10:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The infobox is for cold hard facts about a film, not its reception (which can change). For the record, I'm not convinced of the encyclopedic value of this sort of information in the articles either, but that's an argument for another time and place. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we add the genre parameter. I think the genre is an important thing for the subject like film and may be very useful. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 16:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Betty Logan (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 18:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It will always get shot down due to the lame knee-jerk of it creating edit wars (but categories and article leads dont...?) And on top of that, the infobox for albums does contain it. Go figure. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

One idea to avoid edit wars is to pick the genres from IMDB or other movie database. Wouldn't it be OK? --Ogat (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

IMDB is user-generated content. And besides, genre isn't black-and-white. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It would help prevent poster edit wars if this diff could be added to the template. Film Fan 13:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this is flawed. Wouldn't an English-language poster be preferable? Also, I wouldn't agree with your criteria as to what is considered the "definitive" poster, especially in terms of older films, or foreign films. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I more or less agree with Rob. The point of including a poster is not to include the poster but to identify the subject of the article to readers. That is what our FUR hinges on. In this capacity it would be best to choose a poster where the title matches up to the name of the article: if we use the original native title then the native poster should be selected, but if we have the article under an English language translation then the English language poster would be a better choice. Betty Logan (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That was the logic with which I originally began uploading posters, but for foreign films I was often reverted. So either way, it would be good if we could agree on a policy so that we have something to help prevent edit wars.

Rob Sinden, can you think of any examples of where the final poster prior to initial theatrical release is not the definitive version? Again, I just want to prevent edit wars. Film Fan 20:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

What's the alternative to this? --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The alternative to which bit? Film Fan 15:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should be having a strict policy/guideline here. I think we should be going with something that is most recognisable to the readers, which wouldn't always fit in with any guideline we could formulate. Maybe we could tighten it to say that it should be English-language where possible though, for this reason. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for that, as long as we can get consensus on it so there's something to refer to when making edits. Film Fan 15:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This became a problem once years ago when a user went to all of the Disney animated film articles and replaced the original release posters with more recent reissue posters, "because they looked better". I think it should be specified that the poster should be from the original major release of a film, from the country of origin (I'm not sure why having an original foreign-language poster would be an issue, even on this English website - due to free use licensing, the poster cannot be large enough to read most of the small text as it is). --FuriousFreddy (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Since this is English Wikipedia, I agree that a theatrical poster reflecting the title of the Wikipedia article is the most appropriate, where possible. Thebestfeet 20:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I was just wondering if there are any plans to add IMDB IDs to movies in a more structured way besides the IMDB Link Wikipedia:IMDb. I found out that http://dbpedia.org/ has a field for IMDB IDs that get's filled when a parameter imdb_id = [some_imdb_id] is added to the existing infobox parameters. The problem seems to be that this parameter is not officially included in this template. Are there any ambitions to include IMDB IDs into the infobox or the general film template? Pillemaen (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

search the archives for IMDb for some history, including this thread. Frietjes (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The film infobox used to have a link to the respective IMDb page, but it was removed as redundant to the IMDb link in the "External links" section. The infobox is supposed to be a summary of the topic, after all. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thank you both for pointing me in the right direction. I will now contact the DBpedia project to discuss the issue with them. Pillemaen (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is the Narrated by parameter put above Starring in the infobox? I've seen many articles where this is obviously out-of-place, such as Spartacus (film). On many films like this the narrator is only heard from once, at the beginning for less than a minute. On some, like Beneath the Planet of the Apes, the narrator is only heard once at the end for a quarter minute. I see no instance where the narrator should be positioned this way. Perhaps someone thought the narrator was linked to the Writing credits currently positioned directly above, but that's not valid. Actors work from a script as well.

I propose Narrated by be moved below Starring in the infobox. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Well the Narrator field is not meant for people who provide a disembodied voice at all in a film. Morgan Freeman is not the narrator of the Shawshank Redemption, he providers internal dialogue as he is essentially the main character providing an external perspective of Andy Dufresne. Morgan Freeman is however the narrator of March of the Penguins. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That's true, but we already fixed that problem earlier, as seen in the archive Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 23#Narrator. The guideline now says Note: do not include actors with a role in the film; this is not a place for in-character voiceovers. I've used that a number of times since to take out twice-billed actors. This is a different issue that shows up on every page with a Narrator credit. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but in your particular example you can just remove the narrator anyway, providing an introduction doesn't merit a narrator credit. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I think people would contest that. They thought it was legit to put it in to begin with. The guideline needs to address this. I'm not advocating removing narrators from the infobox if they only provided an introduction. I doubt a consensus could be found for that. But let's move Narrated by down below the Starring field. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Do we have access to the original reasoning for placing the Narrator field at its current location within the infobox? DonIago (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, my guess is someone thought the narrator was linked to the Writing credits currently positioned directly above, but that's not valid.

Can we get some action/further comment on this? Or do people agree with the suggestion to just delete a narrator who was only heard briefly in the film, as in the examples given at the top here? I'd rather move the Narrated by field down below Starring, but something should be done. - Gothicfilm (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should clarify that "Narrator" is just for documentaries in the guideline, and not voiceovers in feature films. If an actor narrates a story as a fictional character then that is voiceover rather than narration since they are still playing a part, and does not belong in the narrator field IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Such as Goodfellas, for example. What do you mean I'm a funny guy...? Back on topic - yes, agree with Gothicfilm that the field should be placed below the starring field in the infobox. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Betty. My impression was that "Narrated by" was for documentaries. I would support a more explicit definition of that. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I would support that as well. But we still have the many fiction film pages with a Narrator entry. Unless someone removes them all - which I don't support, since some are legit, such as at Barry Lyndon - the Narrated by field still should be moved down. This would do no harm to documentaries. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Can we do whatever is necessary to implement this change? No one is against it, it would do no harm to documentaries, and the issue of whether to include brief narration can be addressed later, as it stands regardless of where the narrator is listed. But in the meantime, more than four months after this was proposed, "Narrated by Vic Perrin" is still listed above "Starring Kirk Douglas" at Spartacus (film), even though the narration is only heard once, at the beginning for less than a minute. Even legit, proper use of the Narrated by parameter, such as at Barry Lyndon, should be listed below the Starring field. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it needs moving, a narrated by credit shouldn't really be being used if there are stars should it? Who are the stars in March of the Penguins? Though I confess I am struggling to think of a film with both a narrator and a star cast, so I might be missing the obvious. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, Barry Lyndon is an example. Used extensive narration. There are a number of other films where a not-on-camera actor was legitimately given the credit Narrated by. And all of them position the narrator below the cast. WP infoboxes should do the same. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

As of January 2014, I found this infobox not entirely well-suited for work with internet-based and/or independent movies. Do we need a separate infobox? Some reasons:

• the release "location" makes no immediate sense (Youtube vs. West Coast)
• internet movies are often independently- or crowd-funded (on eg. Kickstarter)
• the "distributor" tag: with internet/(real) indie, these are often more fluid entities than the tag would suggest. For example, is Vimeo a distributor?
• the "studio" tag: it doesn't take note of "funding". funding is a fundamental part in independent film. in Hollywood-based movies, "studio" may be the main funder. The tag is then useful. However, in internet/independent movies, the "studio" may be eg. the art group and the funders may be independent individuals. The studio tag is still useful but the funders are not noted.
• the "funders" are not studio and not distributors either in many independent/internet movies. Funding is a separate category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naxa (talk • contribs) 16:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I think for location, you mean in the {{Film date}} template? If so, then the form of release, i.e. youtube or netflix would be a suitable replacement, although I would still consider those released in the United States. The studio/distributor would be up for debate. Many films that are distributed online may still have a distributor. For the "individual funders", I believe they would be more suited in the producer parameter or simply stated in the prose. If the parameters don't fit the film, then don't use them. Use the prose as to be more precise. BOVINEBOY2008 18:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

There may be a major question of notability in regards to such films. After all, films that debut on itunes still generally have release dates, are still usually made by a production outfit and distributed by someone. I would like to see some hard examples first that can't be accommodated by the standard infobox. Even mainstream films like the first Superman films and Terminator 2 were funded through preselling distribution rights in different territories and we don't document their financiers in the infobox, so why do need to include something like Kickstarter? I don't see much point in catering for hypothetical scenarios. If we have some examples to go on we can take it from there. Betty Logan (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bechdel test, which asks whether a work of fiction features at least two women who talk to each other about something other than a man, is an increasingly widely used element of film criticism, being used by national media organizations ([2]) and as the basis of analyses of the economic success of films ([3]).

A WP:ORN discussion concluded earlier this year that Wikipedia should not rate works on whether or not they pass the test, except based on a reliable source that makes such a claim, because subjecting works to this test is an act of analysis that would be original research if not supported by a source. However, given that there are now increasingly reliable sources such as media reviews that subject films to this test (see. e.g. a Google News search), I believe that we should accommodate the infobox to be able to include this data.

I propose adding an optional parameter of the form "Bechdel test=[Passed/Failed]" to the infobox, and an additional parameter for the reference supporting that result. The infobox would output something like: "Bechdel test Passed^[n]" or "Bechdel test Failed^[n]", but only if both parameters (including the reference) are set. This is to prevent users from engaging in original research by adding Bechdel test results without a reliable source. If both parameters are set, the infobox would also include the article in the to-be-created categories Category:Films that pass the Bechdel test or Category:Films that fail the Bechdel test, respectively.

What do others think of this idea?  Sandstein  21:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I really don't see why this would be required in the Infobox, and I say that as someone who added mention of the Bechdel test to Dredd. The MPAA ratings don't belong there, this has even less reason to be there. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how this would improve the quality of the project. DonIago (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not think this warrants inclusion in the film infobox, but I would not mind a discussion about categorization or something similar. The infobox is mainly limited to objective data, and I believe it is hard to surmise in some cases whether or not a film has passed the test. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC) NOTE: Also, it is worth noting that the Bechdel test is more useful for overall assessment. As this says, "It's good to see The Bechdel Test used where it is most applicable: as a lens through which to expose a misrepresentational trend in modern film overall rather than specifically." So I'm not sure if a specific data point is that useful in an article. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the Bechdel test is next to meaningless without providing some contextual commentary: it would be just like providing an RT score without an accompanying summary of the critical reception. It's a nice objective yardstick when measuring female presentation in films, but it's only relevant if there is commentary on the issue. Basically we don't include film ratings unless there is some unusual or significant motivation for the rating, and that's probably the approach we should take for this test. Betty Logan (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to include in the infobox, but the categories would probably be useful, at least for articles that include mention of the test. Kaldari (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The test is rather subjective and arbitrary, and while it has had some attention it is a very long way from being a regularly-used, major mainstream critical tool. By all means we should mention it if the representation of female characters (or their absence) is an issue that has come up in critical discussion of the film, but putting it in the infobox is giving it far too much weight. Barnabypage (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Completely unsuitable for an infobox. We may as well have parameters to show the number of deaths, or the number of uses of the word "fuck". By all means it can be discussed in the body of the article if it is notable enough to have received coverage elsewhere, but not here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Per the above. And it wouldn't be a wise category either, as it's not defining to the film (IE - it wouldn't typically be mentioned in the lead of the article, if at all). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support as an optional parameter. The Bechdel test has become increasingly mainstream. A sourced indication of whether a film passes in the infobox is an easy way to provide readers quick insight into a film's gender dynamics that is often difficult or impossible to ascertain from plot summaries and cast lists. The decision of whether or not to implement the parameter can be determined at individual articles. I think this would also be a good property for films at Wikidata. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 20:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: Bechdel test is good to bring up for conversation, but without context it doesn't really help. Same reasoning I believe why we don't apply a ratings system. Besides, Feminists films can fail the bechdel test. I like the topic it brings up, but I want a better system for it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• oppose in info box, and oppose creation as a category, clearly not defining. No one says in the lede: "Full Metal Jacket was a great Vietnam movie, but it fails the Bechdel test." - see WP:DEFINING. If several RS do discuss the film in the context of this text, that material could be added to the article under critical reception.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: A reading of the "application" and "limitations" sections of the article show the weaknesses of this subjective "test". I would also be against creating a category for it but if one is created please remember that, for a category to be added to an article, there must be source info about it in the body of the article. MarnetteD | Talk 21:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The infobox should be limited to objective facts about the film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• 'Oppose any addition of this subjective test to the Infobox but I would encourage you to add it to the Reception/Critical response section articles, especially if you can find two or more reviewers or other WP:NOTABLE sources that bring it up. -- 109.78.166.24 (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Betty Logan's revert [4] of the addition of associate and executive producers to the template documentation example. Such additions are either deprecated, or should be discussed. I'm guilty of adding exec producers to Return (2011 film), because two of the three EPs were notable: Abigail Disney (EP), Meredith Vieira (EP), Amy Rapp (EP). It's certainly worth discussing and settling it. --Lexein (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

As it stands we do stipulate in the guidelines not to add exec/associate producers which is mainly why I reverted. I think User:Corvoe just edited the example to match the article, which is fair enough, but it created several issues. I also don't think inflation adjusted figures belong in the infobox either because they are speculative figures and I think the infobox should be reserved purely for factual data. There were other things that I was ok with, but I figured a clean revert was best and if anyone was that bothered we could discuss it first. Maybe we should pick an example from a better article. Betty Logan (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the added producers weren't regular producers. Apologies for that mistake. I actually remove exec and associate producers regularly, so this oversight isn't exactly common for me. Thank you for fixing my error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corvoe (talk • contribs) 22:37, 9 January 2014‎

• So, if EPs are discussed in reliable sources, then they should go in the prose and sometimes the infobox, as resolved by local discussion. That's what I gathered from these prior discussions (especially the first, #21). If that's the current rough consensus, then shall I update the template docs to reflect and link to it? That will save pain later. --Lexein (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

We don't actually have a field for "Executive producer" or "Associate producer", etc, etc, only for "Producer", which is not the same role, so these should never be in the infobox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

(You were bold, I reverted, because we're already in the middle of discussing, including prior discussions in the mix. Let's reach consensus first - it's barely been a day. --Lexein (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC))

To answer "we don't have a field": mm, that's not an explanation. The extensive prior discussion history (above) is illuminating, and seems closer to no consensus than strong consensus for exclusion, with a strong nod toward local discussion! Here, it seems like "EPs go in lead or body w/RS, but not in infobox" - but what about local per-film discussion? That's been happening for a while... --Lexein (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Executive producers are NOT producers, thus do not belong in the "producer" field, the same way that second-unit directors are not directors and do not belong in the "director" field. They are different roles. Per this guideline they are not included in the infoboxes, so please stop re-adding until there is consensus for change to the guideline. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

My preference is to mention notable executive producer(s) in the lead section. I think it is clumsy to try to insert their names in a field meant for standard producers. At the same time, I don't think an "eproducer" field is appropriate because infobox fields are never treated as optional, meaning that it will be filled out indiscriminately. Not to mention that in a set of executive producers, only one may be notable. Transformers (film) has Steven Spielberg as executive producer, but it also has Michael Bay, Brian Goldner, and Mark Vahradian. I think it's best to save such naming for the article body for the rare occasions where it is warranted. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Weird example, Erik. Bay and Goldner both have articles. But I see your point and agree with it. Again, EPs were added totally by accident, I just updated the infobox. I hadn't touched the producer field when I made changes. Corvoe (speak to me) 17:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I thought the Transformers example was obvious. Basically, Steven Spielberg's name was used in marketing for the film as a way to draw moviegoers. There was not that kind of focus on Bay or the others as executive producers. With this being the case, we couldn't just ID Spielberg as executive producer in the infobox without mentioning the others as well. I'd rather mention an executive producer in the article body as he/she fits the context (but indicating that the producer is one of x number, perhaps). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Got it. That makes a lot of sense. Corvoe (speak to me) 18:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Given how many film sequels and series there are, is it worth adding succession box links - prevfilm, nextfilm - at the bottom of the infobox (as there are, say, in {{Infobox_sports_season}})? It would be useful for major film franchises in particular - things like the James Bond series. Grutness...wha? 05:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Most sport seasons are preceded and succeeded, but only a small percentage of films have sequels, and the infobox only tends to include parameters if they are used on the majority of articles. Most films that form a series—like the Bond films—have a navbox at the bottom to navigate to other Bond articles. Betty Logan (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@Grutness: It is worth noting that the film infobox used to have "Preceded by" and "Followed by" parameters. They were frustrating parameters to have because there were disagreements about what chronology to follow (in-universe or real-world). E.g., should Star Wars: The Clone Wars (film) follow Attack of the Clones or not? Reboots in some franchises also complicated some matters. Eventually, we removed the parameters. Instead we depend on the lead sections' highlighting of preceding/succeeding films (with proper context) and on footer templates as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense. Ah well, it was only an idea :) Grutness...wha? 00:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Film and television infoboxes did include this before but it was removed, presumably for the reason stated by Betty, at least far as I recall. -- 109.78.166.24 (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Many films now aren't really based on a previously-published work, they are only inspired by them... I proposed an Inspired by parameter be added, so that it is optional for editors to choose between Based on and Inspired by, which is quite useful in certain circumstances. Quenhitran (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you give an example where this is included in the film's credits? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I think "inspired by" is endlessly subjective and would encourage OR. If a work reuses the intellectual property from another work that is something that is usually factually acknowledged (except in cases of plagiarism) and can be objectively stated. Plagiarism claims are a minefield and are best worded very carefully in the prose. As for inspiration, writers and directors are often inspired by many things; where would we even start with something like Tarantino's films? In reponse to Rob's direct question, I often see the phrase in "real life" films, but there is often a wide variation in how films draw upon true events. Both Psycho and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre drew upon the crimes of Ed Gein but you wouldn't know it from watching the films, so would the parameter really be helpful in those cases? Betty Logan (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a better way to handle it would be to amend the guidelines on editing film articles with a note in the germane section. For the infobox, "inspired by" is going to inspire a lot of needless disputes and let in too much questionable content. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Might be useful in the body of the article with good sourcing, if it's needed to be mentioned at all. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Inspired by is pretty weird one and since it's inspired, wouldn't it need some sort of prose to make you understand? I mean, if it's based off a book, that's pretty self explanatory. Then again, there are some films like White Noise which had the bizarre tagline of "based off of a true legend". Whatever that means. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the boxoffice info. of, Infobox film, be delineated to show both domestic and foreign box office? Certainly, a total movie gross provides some information, but in many instances it is actually misleading as to the success of a film. I believe the box concept is proposed as a "first glance" technique so that a reader can gleam some knowledge from a quick look at the box. However, for many films showing the total gross without a breakdown between domestic and foreign doesn't provide enough information. I believe that Infobox information, in fact, used to permit the distinction but now it is designed as one-size-fits-all. An example of what I am referring to would be the IronIron Man 3 film which (like many other films of huge grossings) earned what it did predominantly through foreign earnings. Shouldn't the Infobox have the featurability of the information that is and has been available to it and add both domestic and foreign boxoffice data? Stevenmitchell (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be potentially confusing for readers who may mistake "domestic" for their own country. You can find out more about the reasons at Wikipedia:MOSFILM#Box office. Also, some films have more than one domestic market (such as Skyfall which was a UK-US co-production) so the terminology simply wouldn't work in cases where there is more than one domestic market. Betty Logan (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

"Domestic" or regional box office amounts can be noted in the prose. The infobox needs to be just the main highlights, and how much the film made worldwide is an indication of the box office success as well as being fairly unambiguous, debatably. BOVINEBOY2008 13:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You guys have lost me. I don't understand the rigidity. My question was whether it was technically possible or not for an infobox to be adapted by a user for a particular film in which a choreographer (or whomever) is notable and important to the making of the film. It doesn't concern me that there are "millions" of films where choreographers or set designers or special effects people are unimportant. Most films are mediocre anyway. It's only the outstanding, notable ones, the ones with the greatest reader interest, that concern me. Coretheapple (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

By having a set, unchangeable infobox that cannot be adapted for special circumstances, if that is in fact the case, Wikipedia is substituting its judgment for that of film critics and experts. They are the ones who determine who is important or not. This is the epitome of original research. Coretheapple (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Rigidity exists because new fields are not going to just be used in special cases. Wherever possible, regardless of importance, the field is going to be filled out. Editors and cinematographers are never excluded even if the people were hired nobodies during a basic job. What currently exists in the infobox is a set of parameters agreed upon by consensus, so it's not original research. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, I am not clear if there's any way of having an infobox that can be adapted to individual circumstances. If there is, if one can add fields as required, there is no need to have a one-size-fits-all approach that makes the infobox non-neutral by excluding key personnel (for instance, ridiculously excluding the choreographer from Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (film), which is notable mainly for his dance, while including minor performers). Does anyone know the answer to this? Coretheapple (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Since the infobox is a template, a new field becomes available for all films. To make sure that such fields are used where applicable (for films where the roles are critical), we would essentially have to police against overuse. Outside of the infobox, the traditional approach has been that crew members that are truly key would be mentioned in the article body and highlighted in the lead section, which is the application of due weight. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, understood. But maybe there is a technical solution that can be explored, not just for this but for all infoboxes. Coretheapple (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Or if there is no technical solution, than having more than one film infobox as I suggested above. Coretheapple (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

[...] The rigidity of the infoboxes concerns me, and I think that the articles that brought me here (the fact that the notable choreographer whose article I'm expanding is in zero infoboxes) points up the problems with the infobox. While choreography is not as important as it was in the fifties, it is vitally important to a host of historical movies. Perhaps the solution is to have specialized infoboxes for specialized movies - movie musicals, horror movies, sci-fi movies, in which persons not in the current infobox could be included. That would give appropriate weight to appropriate persons. I disagree that it is sufficient to mention such people in the body of the articles. Many readers will just scan the infobox for pertinent data. In a slam-bang action movie, so common nowadays, the makeup, special effects and other technical personnel would be at least as important as the actors. By "important" I'm not referring to my judgment but to the judgment of the industry. I think that this is not some narrow issue for the film project but an NPOV issue that requires broader input from the community. Coretheapple (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Hm. A different template for a different type of movie. A brilliant idea if there was a reliable way to implement it. Unfortunately, in this milieu it would be a hopeless mess. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There already is a separate infobox for cartoons. Why just cartoons? I don't see why there can't be infoboxes for specific types of films, as many as we wish. Coretheapple (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Standard, animated, musical, documentary. Four templates to rule the world? It might seem that these differences would be hard to define, but reliable sources could be used. Probably someone else has more technical objections. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)