Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Native names

For films like When the Night, we need a |native_name= and |native_name_lang= parameters; or at least |other_name=. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, do you mean a field for original title in native language? If so, I don't think this is a bad idea. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ideally, yes, with a language parameter (see {{Infobox settlement}}, for example). Perhaps |other_name= as well - so that the main name parameter is uncluttered by such things. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

In about 95% of the article I have seen this is handled in the first line of the lede. I think that is the perfect place for it. We don't need to clutter up the infobox any more than it already is. MarnetteD | Talk 17:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to "clutter up the infobox"; I'm proposing to declutter it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Re-phrasing infobox country

As mentioned above I thought i'd bring up that we want to re-write how template:infobox film is phrased to make it clear that it's based on production countires which was the agreement from the discussion above. Is anyone willing to take a whack at it? Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

So, this is what we have at the moment:

Fill in the nationality of the film as identified in the lead of the article. The nationality of the film should be backed up with a reliable source. Sources such as the British Film Institute's and Variety's websites, which are not user-edited databases usually show the nationalities of the film's production companies; user-edited resources like Allmovie and IMDb are not sufficient identification of the film's nationality. If this information is not available, the source must clearly identify the nationality in a descriptive capacity, as in describing it as an American or a French film/movie etc, or in a contextual capacity such as the BFI's list of top 100 "British films" or as an example in a published work on German film etc. If there is a conflict between nationalities, then the nationality should not be stated and the country field should not be filled in.

When using the field, do not use flag icons, as this places an unnecessary emphasis on nationality; see MOS:FLAG for a detailed rationale. Also, do not link to Cinema of XXXX; see WP:EGG.

What needs changing? It mentions "nationalities of the film's production companies". --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Also there is no consensus to base nationalities on production countries. Some sources may base their criteria on the nationalities of the production companies, but that is irrelevant to us. The guideline for the infobox is encourage an emphasis on sources. I think the AFI and BFI are perfectly adequate for filling in this field usually, but should they consider other things besides production companies then that shouldn't have any bearing on how we use them. I am against making the guidelines more criteria focused because we are are moving away from Verifiability (what we can show) and towards Original Research (setting our own criteria for the national identity of a film). I'd be quite happy to state "Use the AFI/BFI databases to source the nationalities of films, but if there is dissent between them and other published sources leave the field blank and explain the national interests in the prose"; that would allow the field to be used in straightforward cases, but not in complicated multi-national productions where it is better to elaborate in prose. Betty Logan (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd happily endorse this suggestion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we should just dump the field. Unless it is reliant on its nationality for some understanding of the film, I don't see what being told that Iron Man is an American film does to enlighten me, and it causes nothing but issue. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. Some editors ignore the sources they disagree with, so it's not really functioning well, no matter how you explain that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I have supported removing this field in the past and do so again. There is never going to be a final answer to what should or should not go in there. The loss of almost all of our {{Film country}} templates through the TFD process only adds to the arguments for the fields removal IMO. MarnetteD | Talk 18:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Bit drastic to remove a field that's causing problems on <1% of all the film articles. I think this needs a WP:RFC raising, as it will affect 70,000+ articles and shouldn't be agreed by just 3 or 4 people who read this page. What next, remove the runtime as someone thinks x film is 91 minutes long and the next editor thinks it's 92 minutes long? Or the starring field? Or any field, for that matter. Where there is any issue, simply leave it blank on that article, rather than removing it across the board. Lugnuts (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There is the additional matter that the category is fatuous. Films don't have nationalities any more than words have a digital root. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with dumping it. I think it causes problems on more articles than Lugnuts estimates, and every time it's brought up there seems to be no consensus on how to solve these problems. I haven't read all the discussions of late concerning this field, but the fact that the discussions are so numerous, as well as so long and involving so many editors with differing opinions, indicates that this is not a very good field for the infobox and that its presence seems to cause more arguments than benefits. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The difference with runtime is it is undeniably sourced from reliable sources who count the frames. The nationalities differ from body to body, some counting the most abstract connections, others deciding a primary one, such that you get that film someone was mentioning the other day that had like 5 nationalities in its infobox. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

We have had at least 6 major discussions over the years as well as several smaller ones and have never reached a consensus. Even the much missed Erik, with all his skills, couldn't guide the discussions to a conclusion. IMO bringing more people in makes it less likely, not more, that a final definition could be reached. Also, since consensus can change, even if one was reached the over/under on the discussion being reopened would be nine months. MarnetteD | Talk 20:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There has been too much time spent on this, but the Country category should not be removed. On the vast majority of articles, it is not a problem. Where there is an issue, simply leave it blank on that page if it gets contentious, rather than removing it across the board, as said above. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Excluding the production countries would be a terrible idea and make Wikipedia go against the convention of pretty much every encyclopedia and film database out there. I don't know where some people got the idea that some other national interest in a movie production ever was relevant anywhere, to me that only looks like a lack of interest in international cinema. If you follow a few different industries and festivals, and especially if you also write more than plot sections on Wikipedia, it gets very difficult to put homemade metaphysical concepts of a film production's country before the practical reality of filmmaking. I've mentioned above that German Wikipedia calls the field "production country" ("produktionsland") in its infobox film; the only argument against doing the same here seemed to be that it would stretch the infobox a little bit. I think that would be a prize worth to pay to get over with this silly argument. Smetanahue (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Breaking all the infoboxes is not a prize worth having to compensate for a single field. It either needs dropping it it needs explaining thoroughly and completely in the template page that there is absolutely no doubt as to what goes where and the limits on what is going where when what gets where it was going when it was where but now there before it was when. The problem with infoboxes, here and TV especially, is the lack of any kind of specificity on fields. So you get things like True Blood (TV series) that has like 100 names in its starring field. And with no guideline to point at every winds up boiling down to a discussion between the rational and the fan, that the rational will always lose. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Addition to my longer, boring reply below: I did some digging, and the country field was added to the infobox in April 2006 after this discussion. As you can see, the suggestion was to add the country of production and nothing else. Can we at least be done with that part of the discussion now? The editors explicitly decided to include the country of production in the infobox, and named the field Country. Smetanahue (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the infobox would be broken by becoming a few characters wider. But we seem to have two objecting editors in this conflict. There is Ring Cinema who has his own theory that no one else supports, who doesn't write articles other than shuffling around plot elements, and who I if you excuse me think we dismissed a long time ago. And then there is Betty Logan whose objection is that the infobox field has been called country since the infobox was created, and due to that we have no right to decide that by a film production's country, we mean the conventional definition of a production country. Betty Logan is a very valuable and experienced content editor, but I don't see how that argument has any bearing either. Even if the field was intended as diffuse and metaphysical when the infobox was created, we are perfectly entitled to take the decision now to list the production country instead, like all those databases and trade magazines we use as sources do.

I don't see this as a problem novice editors face either, other than maybe Ring Cinema and the occasional superhero fan who can't accept that Hollywood is like all other film industies and participate in co-productions. The conflicts I know of have all involved editors who are active in these discussions. Novice editors tend, in my experience, to simply copy the countries from the IMDb, which like all the other databases list production country. The reason we should make the infobox slightly wider is really to make it clear to talk page regulars. Smetanahue (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Smetanahue, you have misstated my view. This stuff about accepting that Hollywood does international productions has nothing to do with it. Unless we are doing OR, it is obvious that "country" refers to something more than just the home country of the production countries. A. O. Scott: "And what determines the nationality of a film in any case? Why is Rachid Bouchareb’s “Outside the Law” an Algerian rather than a French film, given that its director is a French citizen and that it was made with mostly French financing and therefore within that country’s extensive legal statutes governing cinematic production? And what makes “Biutiful,” shot in Barcelona with a Spanish cast, a Mexican film?" New York Times So here we have a source that says something in a universally accepted source. He mentions several indexes: director's nationality, source of financing, the law, the nationality of the cast, the location of the shoot. So, that is very sensible and I have no idea why we should ignore it. No one else has quoted anything to support their view. Maybe there is a reason for that. I believe BettyLogan accepts this reasoning, and in any event I have yet to see anyone give a reason to ignore this source apart from the fact that they don't agree with what he says. My understanding is that Wikipedia proceeds according to the sources. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I've provided a source earlier that states in quotes that what represents the country, is the production country involves. Here it is for the third or so time: this book here "Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures" states that "the nationality of a cinema is determined and transferred from the nationality of the production company of a studio". Please actually read other people's works, cause I've given this to you at least a few times. A.O. Scott is posing a question, but not really making it an official change in status quo. I agree that it's confusing at times, but it doesn't change the status quo. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That's one particular viewpoint, and no-one disputes that, but if it were that simple why do sources like the AFI, BFI and New York Times disagree on various films? Laziness? Incompetence? Or different criteria? Either those sources don't apply the definition that a film's nationality is solely determined by the production companies, or they do but dispute what constitutes a 'production' company in this context. Either way I see no good argument to dismiss what the American and British Film Institutes have to say on the matter, or indeed high-end publications and trade magazines such as The New York Times and Variety. If all sources treated this category identically then we would just follow suit, and in the cases they do I suggest we do likewise, and in the cases where they disagree then in the spirit of WP:NPOV it is probably best not to cherry-pick our source and leave the field blank. Betty Logan (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I'm leaning towards the idea that they may disagree at times due to the fact that things like Variety publish their reviews the day after they are viewed and there could be missing information, while BFI is probably much more in detail. I'm not sure what the website or source is for the AFI, but so I'm not going to guess. But I agree with you on your points. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

This discussion really has gone on long enough, mostly at the insistence of one particular editor. All we need to do is report what reliable sources state, not the opinion of one film critic. In the case where there are conflicts, should we perhaps just report the countries that are common to both sources? In cases where this proves impossible, then perhaps leave it blank and discuss in detail in the article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I think just listing the common countries is a good approach. If all the sources list the US as one of the countries then there is no reason not to list the country, and it allows us to omit the odd source that lists some German tax dodge. Betty Logan (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Concur. This seems like the best practical approach and solution to me. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

An application to the BFI for recognition as a film of British nationality has several requirements.

1. British production company
2. At least 70% shot in Europe
3. One of the six UK languages must be the main language of the film
4. 60% British nationals or residents for key personnel, including: director, screenwriter, composer, actors, cinematographer, executive producer, editor, sound engineer, production designer, costume designer
5. the director must be British unless screenwriter and composer are both British and the key personnel is 80% British

Perhaps someone else can learn what it takes in other countries to certify a film as one of theirs. The British seem to take a position very close to mine and including production company as only one criterion among several. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, Appendix II to the European Convention on Cinematographic Co-production (1992) requires that

1. A cinematographic work qualifies as European in the sense of Article 3, paragraph 3, if it achieves at least 15 points out of a possible total of 19, according to the schedule of European elements set out below. 2. Having regard to the demands of the screenplay, the competent authorities may, after consulting together, and if they consider that the work nonetheless reflects a European identity, grant co-production status to the work with a number of points less than the normally required 15 points.

European elements

Weighting Points

Creative group (7)

Director 3 Script writer 3 Composer 1

Performing group (6)

First role 3 Second role 2 Third role 1

Technical craft group (6)

Cameraman 1 Sound recordist 1 Editor 1 Art director 1 Studio or shooting location 1 Post-production location 1

N. B. a. First, second and third roles are determined by number of days worked. b. So far as Article 8 is concerned, "artistic" refers to the creative and performing groups, "technical" refers to the technical and craft group.

[This method applies to works with at least three European co-producers.] --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

An interesting article on the subject that offers something of interest to each view in this discussion. In part:

[W]e take for granted the notion of national cinema. However, this... is becoming increasingly vague under critical scrutiny and in the light of the changing practices of filmmaking. For example, territorial proximity and a common language already make it difficult to tell an Austrian film from a German one especially for audiences who are not familiar with the two nations. Co-production also casts doubt on using the country of origin to mark a national cinema. Nevertheless, the notion of national cinema prevails either for convenience or for other reasons.

Problems of explaining national cinema

Demise of the industrial criterion in the face of thriving co-production

In the past, when co-productions were few local films were always produced with money from local companies. They depicted themes of concern to local people using local cast and were influenced by the historic territory factor. The industrial emphasis on the origin of capital thus can adequately include elements constituting the 'aura' of a national cinema. However, with co-production becoming the order of the day, it means very little to define a national cinema by the place where the money comes."

--Ring Cinema (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

i'm pretty sure that when production companies are registered these are standard forms they fill out. It's not up to us or any corporation to find this information, as this paperwork is already handled by the production companies and staff of things like the BFI. good try though Ring Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is all well and good, but as Wikipedia editors, we are not the ones judging the nationality of a film, we just have to report what the reliable sources say. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas, this is another example where you insist on ignoring reliable sources. Your comments are simply your own invention and have no connection to reality. This is not some corporation offering this form; this is what Brits ask when someone wants their film certified British. So, good try, but you simply show again that you will make things up before you pay attention to the evidence or make a coherent argument.

Rob, I think you are fair-minded enough to realize that these examples undermine the view that only production companies matter in this discussion. Sure, as I have said all along, we have to go by the sources. That includes the material that we use in the guidelines. That, too, should honestly reflect the sources. Given that, I trust that you will support me and BettyLogan in saying that the guidelines should either mention the several criteria or, alternatively, it should mention none of the criteria. Anything else would be misleading and at odds with the sources. Perhaps we are in agreement on that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

This is still only one example though Ring. And we don't know how strict this is withheld or how much fact checking is used with it. Besides, when I look at the BFI page who are related to this form, they've already labeled the countries, so it's not up to us to find out if they've passed this or not. I still wish you'd give up on saying what I do not read, it's getting a bit silly. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

So, in other words, this is the best institutional example that we have that addresses the question before us and you have nothing that compares with it. True! What you said above was completely invented, utterly false, had no connection to reality, yet you think what you say now still has some credibility? No, sorry. I don't know how your whoppers above found their way into this discussion, but I think it has something to do with the fact that there are two reliable sources that bury your argument. If we are going by the sources, it would be advisable for you to find a national institution given the job of determining which films are their own; show us the criteria they use. Then you will have an argument. And then find someone like Choi who writes an article about the subject of film and nationality who doesn't contradict you at every turn. That's how it works. Making things up like you did, then pretending you never said it, that's what you do when you're wrong and you don't want to admit it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Ring, you're twisting everyone's words here for your own ends, whatever they maybe. It seems you disagree with the industry standard of determining nationalities of films. We need to keep this as simple as possible. We shouldn't be getting into theories by one or two critics, but we should accept the standards set by the industry. When one reads a magazine, such as Sight and Sound, that lists the country or countries of origin of the film. It is this that we should be emulating, and not be making up criteria of our own. The BFI website is an excellent source for that, although as Betty and I mention above, sometimes there are conflicts among reliable sources, and all we should be trying to decide here is what to do in those cases. --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You have no example where I twisted anyone's words because it never happened. I am offering sources that discuss the question we are considering. You keep saying, correctly, that we go by the sources. Now, I am saying, "Go by the sources -- I insist." While you say I am emphasizing one or two critics, the shoe is on the other foot. You want to use only your specially chosen sites. Isn't it clear even to you that this is more than a bit skewed? So what is twisted? When sources don't agree with you, you want to ignore them. Not me. I'm suggesting we follow the sources, even yours. So I am not making up criteria, I am following the criteria offered by reliable sources. So you tell me when you want to start to go by the sources. (What do you think of the point that Choi makes in his final paragraph? Do you agree or disagree?) --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, who gives a flying fig what you or I think about Choi's opinion. This is not a reliable source for determining nationalities of films, just one person's opinion. We need to be going by the industry's standard here. Would changing the parameter title to "production company" satisfy you? You really do seem to be trying to skew this argument off topic because you don't agree with the method commonly used to determine nationalities. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Unbelievable. So I insist that you go by the sources and you are so uncomfortable with that you can't even agree to it. I'm sorry, we really do go by the sources here. If you can't do it -- if you simply want to ignore sources you don't agree with -- I think you should recuse yourself. Everyone here adjusts their thinking to the sources. Look again at what it takes to be certified as a British film. These are the requirements:

1. British production company
2. At least 70% shot in Europe
3. One of the six UK languages must be the main language of the film
4. 60% British nationals or residents for key personnel, including: director, screenwriter, composer, actors, cinematographer, executive producer, editor, sound engineer, production designer, costume designer
5. the director must be British unless screenwriter and composer are both British and the key personnel is 80% British

So, see, your thinking is wrong. What you thought is "the usual way" or the "industry standard" is something you were thinking that is not the way it is in all cases. When you believe one thing and you read something that shows you things are different, you might consider changing your beliefs. Or, you can say that others are "trying to skew" things. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find that this is the criteria used if a film is to be certified as solely "British" when entered into festivals, etc. Obviously these criteria could not allow for co-nationalities, which is incredibly common today. As I, and others, have said, we are not here to judge whether the films meet certain criteria, merely expecting that they have been pre-judged, and reporting what is stated from other reliable sources. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I mean, are you really expecting editors to look up the individual criteria for each country, and then make a judgement call as to whether Soandso is from such and such a country and whether they then count towards the quota of the "key personnel"? This is a nonsense! --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

However, you must feel like you're hitting your head against a wall, as you seem to be the only one taking this stand. Would your concerns be allayed if we make it clearer that it is the production country, rather than any kind of national cinema represented in this box? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Potential new wording

As Betty Logan, Andrzejbanas, Smetanahue, Gothicfilm and myself (sorry if I missed anyone) seem to be reaching some kind of consensus; and taking the chance that Ring Cinema may be satisfied if we change the field title to "Production companycountry"; and not seeing consensus to dump the field altogether; How do we consider the following as a potential new wording?

Fill in the nationality of the film as identified in the lead of the article. The nationality of the film should be backed up with a reliable source. User-edited resources like Allmovie and IMDb are not sufficient identification of the film's nationality, but other reliable databases exist, for example those published by national film institutes such as the BFI or AFI, or leading trade publications such as Variety. If this information is not available, the source must clearly identify the nationality in a descriptive capacity, as in describing it as an American or a French film/movie etc, or in a contextual capacity such as the BFI's list of top 100 "British films" or as an example in a published work on German film etc. If there is a conflict of information in various reliable sources, then only the common published nationalities should be included. Alternatively the country field should not be filled in, and the nationality should not be stated, but could be discussed in the article.

When using the field, do not use flag icons, as this places an unnecessary emphasis on nationality; see MOS:FLAG for a detailed rationale. Also, do not link to Cinema of XXXX; see WP:EGG.

Hopefully we can get somewhere and put this matter to bed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I sympathise with Ring's view above, but being able to source different criteria for determining nationality still requires OR to get from A to B. If the BFI apply their criteria to give us sourcable nationalities, then obviously that is something we can use. Using the nationalities that are common to a few different sources (that may or may not use different criteria) is a workable solution that can be applied unambiguously, which is ultimately what you need for an infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Pretty good, but is Allmovie user-edited? Not by any ways I see it. Also, with some films that have more than one production country like Antichrist, what do we put in the lead? It's kind of a mouthful to list more than 3 production companies and makes a sentence look clunky. Just a couple of thoughts. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at WP:MOSFILM, it states: "Ideally, the nationality of the film should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is ambiguous, clarify the circumstances at a later point in the first paragraph.", so I'd say that maybe that bit clashes. How about we edit the first two sentences together to "Fill in the nationality of the film which should be backed up by a reliable source"? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not advocating OR. I am advocating that we go by the sources. Some sources cover nationality; use them. The guidelines should reflect the sources about the criteria. There is no need to invent an "industry standard" that doesn't exist (RobSinden's current OR). Instead, if we are going to use sources, the guidelines should reflect what sources say about criteria for nationality. There are several before us and I'd like an explanation why some of them are ignored. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're calling OR in the version I proposed above, but judging by what you've left out in your version below, it isn't mine, it's a hangover from previous versions of the guideline. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I could not possibly be more clear, but I'll repeat it for you. "Industry standard" is your invention that not only has no source, but is contradicted by the sources. But, it's fine, Rob. So far, you don't follow the sources. That is your decision. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"Industry standard" was just my shorthand way of describing the system the industry already uses for determining nationalities when publishing them in newspaper reviews, magazines, etc., without our need to dissect this method. There's no OR involved there. Let's not get caught up in semantics, when we seem to be making progress. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It is something you made up despite the sources contradicting it. So that's not only OR, it's wrong. Cannes goes by director's nationality. The Academy rules are that "the submitting country must certify that creative control of the motion picture was largely in the hands of citizens or residents of that country." Notice no mention of the production company and that is as industry as you get. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said, semantics. You purposely miss the point. You're really tiresome. Let's move on. --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, Rob decides to ignore a source that contradicts him. There is a pattern. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

STOP MAKING THIS PERSONAL! --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

A draft that uses no OR

I am surprised that no one has considered the many problems that RobSinden's draft would cause in practice. Anyway, I think this does the job for a field called "Production Company".

Fill in the nationality of the production company, backed with a reliable source. Reliable databases exist (see BFI, AFI, or Variety) that list the home country of the production company. If there is a conflict of information in various reliable sources, list only the common published nations. Consider leaving this blank if the subject is discussed in the article.

When using the field, do not use flag icons, as this places an unnecessary emphasis on nationality; see MOS:FLAG for a detailed rationale. Also, do not link to Cinema of XXXX; see WP:EGG.

--Ring Cinema (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if it you'd stop accusing me of OR! But actually, I'm fine with this draft for the most part. I think plural options should be used in the wording in order to show that more than one country can be considered, and maybe qualify "consider" which suggests that it could be left out completely at the drop of a hat. So, my counter-proposal as follows:

Fill in the nationalities of the production companies, backed with a reliable source. Reliable databases exist (see BFI, AFI, or Variety) that list the production countries of films. If there is a conflict of information in various reliable sources, then only list the common published nations, or consider leaving this field blank and discussing the issue in the article.

When using the field, do not use flag icons, as this places an unnecessary emphasis on nationality; see MOS:FLAG for a detailed rationale. Also, do not link to Cinema of XXXX; see WP:EGG.

Are we getting somewhere? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

For the most part that seems fine, and I don't oppose changing the name of the field if that clarifies matters. However, do we know for a fact that the BFI and AFI determine nationality via the production companies for their databases? Part of the problem sees to me that we don't know their criteria. I think maybe something along these lines would get around the lack of clarity:

Fill in the countries of production, as identified by a reliable source. Reliable databases exist (see BFI, AFI, or Variety) that list the production countries. If there is a conflict of information in various reliable sources, then list only the common published nations. Alternatively in the case of conflict, consider leaving this field blank and discussing the issue in the article.

When using the field, do not use flag icons, as this places an unnecessary emphasis on nationality; see MOS:FLAG for a detailed rationale. Also, do not link to Cinema of XXXX; see WP:EGG.

Betty Logan (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this works better for me. I'm happy with this wording. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Fill in the countries of the production companies, as identified by a reliable source. Reliable databases exist (see BFI, AFI, or Variety) that list them. If there is a conflict of information in various reliable sources, then list only the common published nations. Alternatively in the case of conflict, consider leaving this field blank and discussing the issue in the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This proposal is predicated on naming the field "Production Company". To mention the "countries of production" brings up another matter. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is though that sources like BFI/AFI/Variety don't specify what criteria they use, so to say that they are predicated on "production companies" is an assumption that we can't make. The BFI just labels this field "Production country" and the AFI simply "Country" and leave it at that. To use your phrasing we would have to find sources that explicitly tie their country field to production companies (as IMDB do), and that would rule out sources like the BFI and AFI which personally I would consider perfectly adequate for this sort of field. I can't think of a good reason why the field on our articles shouldn't match up to the analogous field on first rate databases like the BFI and AFI. Sure, we shouldn't limit our selection of sources to them but we shouldn't preclude them through the wording of our guidelines. Betty Logan (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Betty. It is OR to assume that these ARE the countries of the production companies, and we make it complicated if we start sending editors on a search for sources for nationalities of each of the production companies, which is what Ring's wording suggests. Let's keep it simple, and, like Betty says, use the analogous fields. --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't be too hasty. There is proof on the BFI page that they use their countries based on the publication. I'm going to take the film The Wages of Fear for example which they list as a French-Italian production. On their credits page they list each production country. If you click on them they list their respective country of origin, in these cases "Compagnie Industrielle et Commerciale Cinématograp" (French), "Filmsonor (Paris)" (French), "Véra Films", (French) and finally Fono Roma (Italian). This shows that they use the production companies. That's proof enough for me as this is what you are supposed to be doing. From every time I've used it I've found no mis-matched information. Following that, I've sent them a quick e-mail to confirm this. It's the best I can do for now, but it convinces me enough. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, Betty, I see your point. I assumed that Rob and Andrzejbanas knew what they were talking about when they said these sites were based on production company countries. Perhaps this was an error. Still, if we label the field "Production company" then I'm not clear what is the downside of saying that this is the place to put the production company's country. This is the same issue we have now, isn't it? The problem with your draft is the ambiguity about "countries of production." That seems to imply that the field is about where the film is made, location shooting, etc. If we want the production company's country, I think we better say that specifically to avoid problems later. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Even if that is how the BFI do it (and I am not convinced by this, just check out the listing for Dr No, which list it as a UK/US co-production despite only listing a UK based production company), that is no reason to elevate it ahead of other sources that possibly use different criteria. Some of the differences as follows:

1. Moonraker (BFI - UK/France; AFI - UK/France/US)
2. Walkabout (BFI - Australia; AFI - Austalia/UK/US)

There are numerous instances like that. Either these criteria consider factors beyond production companies, or they have different criteria for what determines a 'production company'. They are obviously doing something different to each other otherwise they wouldn't be listing different countries. Even if the BFI and AFI provided explicit criteria, that wouldn't really address the problem because who is to say that the AFI criteria is superior to the BFI criteria, or vice versa? I mean, we have a couple of authoritative databases that call the field either 'country' or 'production country'. Basically we shouldn't be pigeon-holing methodology when reputable sources are listing different countries, because that could lead to precluding the AFI or database or Variety, which would just be ridiculous. We have a bunch or sources we can use, we just need some sensible instructions on how to use them. Betty Logan (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

So for the purpose of determining the country of the production companies, these databases are imperfect and don't just key off that fact alone. Normally, we would accept that the editors can figure out which sources to use, right? They find reliable sources and follow them. For the infobox, the fields are relatively uncontroversial. For me, that these touted sources are using various criteria that don't lock in on production is further evidence that this is oversold by some form of good faith zealotry. The more we get into it the clearer it is that nationality in cinema has many facets. We have to be honest about it and try to reflect that reality here. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

We're not trying to source the countries of production companies though are we? We are trying to source an ambiguous field called "country" that is analogous to similar ambiguous fields found at film databases and in trade magazines. These fields attempt to capture the relationship between the film and presumably the film industries of various countries, which may factor in where the creative impetus comes from, where the film is made, the nationality of the production company, the source of the financing etc. Different publications obviously do it in different ways, and even in the case of just one publication the criteria might be dynamic; for instance, the BFI criteria you listed above stated several different ways a film can be "British". If we have this field it should more or less carry the same information. It would be helpful if we knew the methodologies, but since we don't we have to make do with the countries themselves. If all sources included the same list of countries for each film then we wouldn't deviate from that, but in reality while there is a strong correllation there are some inevitable differences, which is what causes the disputes. Take Walkabout for instance: made in Australia by an independent British production outfit. The BFI and Almovie regard it as Australian, the New York Times and Variety as British, while the AFI have it down as Aus/UK/US. It's clearly a judgment call, and in weighing up the British and Australian elements some sources come down on one side and some on the other, with some sitting on the fence. They are all roughly trying to say the same thing, but their methodologies lead them to different conclusions. In that case it seems to me the judgment is split on whether it is Australian or British, so you either go with both or don't go with either. In that sense the guidelines shouldn't be dictating what sources we can and cannot use (above and beyond the regular RS considerations)—or prescribing criteria—but simply how we weight conflicting claims. Betty Logan (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

So, then, if these databases are not reliable, this would seem the way to be clear about it for a field named 'Production Company':

List the countries of the production companies, as identified by a reliable source. If there is a conflict of information in various reliable sources, then list only the common published nations. Alternatively in the case of conflict, consider leaving this field blank and discussing the issue in the article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing to say that the databases are unreliable. I've given good reason why the BFI is reasonable. I never brought up AFI as I never use their database. I'd lean towards using BFI for the reason I stated above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

We can't call the field "Production company" as that is something different. We were nearing consensus on calling it "Production country". We're probably safe in assuming that the countries listed in trade magazines, databases, etc., are the nationalities of the production companies, but we cannot be 100% sure on this, yet we're pretty much in agreement that this is the field we are trying to emulate here. Ring's wording would have editors hunting out the nationalities of each individual production company which is not what we're trying to do, instead we want editors to list them as per the RS, be it the BFI or wherever. I get Ring's point, that defining nationality of a film is difficult, but it is OR if we make the rules ourselves. We just have to report what the other sources say, and we and other editors need guidelines for the best way to do this in order to avoid lengthy arguments like this on every single film page, and we should guide them to some examples of reliable sources. I understand Ring, that you have a point to make, and your tenacity is admirable, but I feel that is a little displaced in trying to objectively write this guideline. Newspapers and magazines have listed nationalities of films in brackets after the title for decades, and I'm assuming you don't write an angry letter to the publication each time you disagree with them. All we need to do with this field is emulate this information. To my mind, Betty's wording above most closely relates to how to proceed, and in hoping to bring this to a conclusion, I hope other editors will also endorse it. Ring's suggestion of "countries of the production companies" should not be endorsed, as it is inaccurate as to what we are trying to emulate. --Rob Sinden (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Amazing, Rob. I am withdrawing my assumption of your good faith. You explicitly suggested we change the name of the field to "Production Company":

"As Betty Logan, Andrzejbanas, Smetanahue, Gothicfilm and myself (sorry if I missed anyone) seem to be reaching some kind of consensus; and taking the chance that Ring Cinema may be satisfied if we change the field title to "Production company"; and not seeing consensus to dump the field altogether; How do we consider the following as a potential new wording?"

Following was your proposal. Now you're trying to change it to something else? That gives every appearance of dishonesty and bad faith. I'll let you try to explain this apparent dishonesty on your part. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Merely a typo on my part. Sorry. It makes no sense to call it Production company, I meant "Production country". If you read the guidelines, you know you shouldn't assume bad faith. I'm sure it was clear to others what I meant. Please don't use this slip up on my part to disrupt the progress we're making. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, you claim it's a typo but it has been repeated several times. The progress is based on agreeing on what we're talking about. It's your mistake, not mine. Of course I have assumed your good faith and relied on your words and that has led to several significant errors, which calls into question the level of deception involved. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, I'va apologised. What more do you want? I haven't repeated it, and to suggest that there's some deception on my part is the worst assumption of bad faith. Your actions are starting to become a concern, and if you don't start trying to be constructive, and stop trying to prevent this discussion from reaching a conclusion, I will seek outside guidance from an administrator. Now, please, let's get back on topic. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think you are in a position to criticize me, Rob. In good faith I have discussed this with you, repeatedly answering your erroneous propositions with well-sourced material and your only response is that we should ignore them. You misled us for a long time about your preferred databases, right? You haven't corrected your view of the "industry standard", right? So, yes, I have repeatedly corrected your errors. Now what is the normal response when someone is consistently corrected and consistently corrected by the evidence? I would expect editors to correct their views to conform to the evidence. That is what I have done. Denial is another level of deception. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

If I say what I want to say to you right now, I risk a ban. It's almost worth it. I have never met another editor as disagreeable as you, and your accusations of deceipt and your assumptions of bad faith are beyond reproach. All I'm suggesting we ignore is your disruptive nonsense. Now please get back on topic, constructively, and without trying to hold up the consensus we are close to reaching. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not valid. --Rob Sinden (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Endorse Betty Logan's version, with some minor reservations, but this still seems like the best practical approach to me. If there is a conflict of information in various reliable sources, then list only the common published nations is hopefully effective to avoid listing countries used only as a tax shelter. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The The Lumiere database that documents European film admissions goes into detail about production country identification. It provides some interesting insight, as well as being another a source we can consider in these matters. It's pretty obvious that if a pan European academic venture finds no straightforward solution to the problem, then we won't. Their solution seems to be similar to ours: compare the countries from different sources and adopt a pragmatic approach. Betty Logan (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I am unclear on your current proposal, Betty, if you wouldn't mind clarifying that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It's near the top of this sub-section in italics. As the Lumiere reference makes clear (and they clearly studied the matter), there is no clear solution to this. The purpose of this field is to establish a relationship between a film and a national industry, and different sources do this in different ways. Some sources may be more production company centric, others might not be, and as Lumiere point out by comparing different sources you get different lists of countries for the same film. The objective is to best represent the countries that are present in these lists; Rob's idea of just listing common entities seems to be the most neutral approach. Betty Logan (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice find on the Lumière text. I support Betty's proposal above, but I'm happy as long as it's made clear that it's the production countries we are after. Smetanahue (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

If we restrict the field to producers, it's fine to list producing countries common to all sources. If not, not. However, consistent with that, the phrase "country of production" should be recognized as something different from the producers' countries and can be interpreted to mean, e.g., restricted to one country, the location of the shoot or the location of the home office of a production company. If we want to get "producers' countries" shouldn't we be direct? --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The point that Lumiere makes is that it is ambiguous. The definition is ambiguous. There is no standard way of defining what is meant by a "production country" or "country" or "country of origin". However, in all these cases the field is attempting to do provide a national identity for the film. You want us to define an ambiguous concept, and we can't do that ourselves because that would be original research, and we can't use the criteria of one particular source because many other sources do it a different way and there is no reason to prefer one source over another. Our category is intended to capture an ambiguous concept and there is no way to make it unambiguous; all we can do is take a bunch of sources and best represent the countries they list. We have a bunch of sources that say this film is British, American, French etc, and these are just conflicting claims like any other. In accordance with WP:WEIGHT, we should represent those claims proportionally to their occurrence in published sources. Betty Logan (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

When you say "you", do you mean me? And are you responding to my most recent post? On the assumption that you are, I think you misread it. What I say is that you have written the guideline equivocally. Not ambiguously, equivocally. In other words, it can be read more than one way. I am suggesting that write the guideline in a way that will avoid a problem later. What I say is that you use a term, Betty, and that term is "country of production." That term is subject to interpretation. I don't think you are trying to say "location of the shoot," but that is one way to read "country of production." So, again, if you want the producer's country in the box, why not just say "producers' countries" instead of the equivocal "country of production." It's a practical suggestion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with "Producer country". So basically this seems to be what is on the table as I understand it:

Producer country

Fill in the countries that produced the film, as identified by a reliable source. Reliable databases exist (see BFI, AFI, or Variety etc) that list the producer countries. If there is a conflict of information in various reliable sources, then list only the common published nations, or alternatively consider leaving this field blank and discussing the issue in the article.

When using the field, do not use flag icons, as this places an unnecessary emphasis on nationality; see MOS:FLAG for a detailed rationale. Also, do not link to Cinema of XXXX; see WP:EGG.

I've made some slight alterations to the guideline to use the phrase "producer country". Anyone still got problems? Any further suggestions? Betty Logan (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

As producer and production are practically synonymous, and as "producer country" doesn't really make grammatical sense, "production country" is the best way to go on this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

What about "Producing country"? Would that be an effective compromise between the two? If Ring is willing to accept the guideline rewrite, then it will be a shame if a consensus fails on what the field is called. We might not get things perfect, but we always have the option to visit this discussion (god forbid) to iron out any kinks that arise. If we can make it more usable/intuitive/policy based than what it currently is, it's huge step in the right direction. Betty Logan (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

"Producing country" is not going to look accurate when you have more than one listed. It doesn't strike me as a proper term, and as you have said, we don't know the criterion the sources are using. Just calling the category "Country", with your guideline as written above, is probably most practical. But if most others want to call it "Producing country", I won't object. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's add the guideline now, seems to be consensus for Betty's version. I'm fine with either Producing country (used in the Lumière writeup), Production country (the term commonly used in the film industry) or just Country with Betty's guideline defining it. Smetanahue (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added the wording, but not changed the field name. "Country" or "Production country" are fine by me, and in the spirit of compromise, I'd favour "production country", as this is commonly used. "Producer country" seems like re-jigging the English language just to please one editor. I think a good majority of us would be happy with "production country", so I think that is probably one with the most consensus. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't propose "Producer country" for the field name. Betty mentions it first above and it was erroneously attributed to me. If the field is changed to Production Country I am satisfied this draft follows the sources on this subject. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Great! Looks like we're all set then :) I've changed the wording, but do we need an administrator to change the field name to "Production country"? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Border not working

The |border= parameter doesn't seem to be working. This may be a side effect of Thumperward's changes of 30 April. I've looked at several articles where I placed borders—Multiplicity (film) and Doctor Dolittle (film), for example—and the border isn't appearing. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

So, no help with this? I realize everyone's tied up discussing countries for the nth time, but I think it's it's kind of important that existing features of the template actually work. --IllaZilla (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe try on the template project page, as it seems to be a technical problem, and the template is protected. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Borders? Countries have borders. Let's discuss countries.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

:) Actually, now you mention it, we still need someone with rights to change the name of the country field as agreed above... --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It's because the variable has been changed from border to Border. As you can see at [1], capitalising the variable fixes the problem. The capitalisation just needs to be removed. Betty Logan (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Please make the following change to repair the function of the border parameter:

• {{#ifeq:{{{Border|}}}|yes|border}}]]}}

to

• {{#ifeq:{{{border|}}}|yes|border}}]]}}

(Change is the lowercasing of "b" in the first occurrence of the word "border".) Thank you. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If I simply lowercase it, any pages which have been set as |Border=yes (as a workaround) will lose their border. It could be set to allow either:

• {{#ifeq:{{{border|{{{Border|}}}}}}|yes|border}}]]}}

how about that? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine, whatever fixes the current problem (all infoboxes that have "border" lowercased, as the template documentation does, aren't working). --IllaZilla (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Executive producers in infobox... again!

Despite recent consensus not to include them, the issue has been brought up again here. *sigh*! --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Composer credit in infobox

Due to the endless dispute at Talk:The Godfather#Godfather film credits, it looks like we need to make it clear in the music section that the standard for the infobox is to list only the composer who did the film's score - not composers of songs used in the film, or composers of music played by musician(s) in a wedding scene, as we have on the first Godfather film.

Most people on WP seem to agree only the score composer should be in the infobox. I called it the standard because that's how most every WP film page is done. Film credits give the score composer sole "single card" billing in a film's main credits under "Music by". Songs and their composers are usually listed in the end credit crawl. And can you imagine how adding song writers would inflate the infobox? - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure most would agree that you should just list the film's composer. Extra information about songs in it (if relevant) can be discussed in the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Naturally I agree with both of you on this. If either of you want to present a wording (or two) that we can replace the one currently used in the parameters section that might help to move things to a conclusion. MarnetteD | Talk 21:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Something along the lines of "Insert the name(s) of the composer(s) of the original music score" would probably do it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That wouldn't be enough to stop the ongoing debate linked above. How about:

Insert the name(s) of the composer(s) of the original music score. Songs and pieces listed in the end credit crawl should not be included. Separate multiple entries using Plainlist. In addition, link each composer to his/her appropriate article if possible.

Hopefully that will do it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

So, in other words, you agree that the guidelines don't support your position, GF? So instead of accepting that honestly, you want to alter them for no reason? Seems like the backward way of doing things. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps they do support it but but your constant wikilawyering and edit warring has brought about a need to simplify the wording so that it can be understood by everyone. MarnetteD | Talk 21:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

As with a lot of the fields in the infobox, we should be emulating the credits. When a film's credits say "Music by...", this is generally the composer of the score. I can see a exceptional case in Batman (1989 film) for including Prince, but generally, the whole soundtrack shouldn't be in the infobox, but in the "Music" or "Soundtrack" section as per WP:MOSFILM. --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Weighing it up, I think Gothic's wording does take it a little far, especially looking at the arguments for including Carmine Coppola for The Godfather. I've just contributed to that discussion after running the credits on Netflix. --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This is about the template, not just one film. So perhaps we can all agree on:

Insert the name(s) of the composer(s) of the original music score. Songs writers should not be included. Separate multiple entries using Plainlist. In addition, link each composer to his/her appropriate article if possible.

Leaving aside The Godfather, hopefully that will do it. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That wouldn't work for musicals, or situations like Batman. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The credits are only one important source. As in all things Wikipedia, if we have sources reliably claiming original music is written expressly for the film, it might be misleading to leave it out. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

So would "Insert the name(s) of the composer(s) of the original music score" for the first sentence work for you? It's not much of a change, but it clarifies slightly. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, make that small change. Musicals are a particular case and if their song composers are in the main credits they should be listed. I must say, however, I find putting Prince in the Batman (1989 film) infobox for a couple minutes of songs to be unwarranted. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I assume that composers of music written expressly for the film in question would normally be included. Perhaps we would like to be more clear that composers writing for another purpose are not in the infobox. To achieve that, I believe we would say something like "Insert the name(s) of the composer(s) of the original music written expressly for the film". However, I don't think we should make any change at all. There's not really a problem with the current guide, is there? --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Title Sequence

I'd like to discuss if it would be relevant for notable title sequences to be credited in the infobox. With some films, this can be more memorable or famous than the film. Or does this information belong within the Production section of the article? (or maybe both?)

Example of sites that have followed title sequence design are http://www.watchthetitles.com/articles/00192-Nanny_McPhee_and_the_Big_Bang/ and http://www.artofthetitle.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquelau (talk • contribs) 12:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I would include it in a production section, not the infobox. We use the infobox for roles that are notable for most every film (director, starring, writer, etc). Not too many title sequences are notable, but those that are could be covered in the article. BOVINEBOY2008 12:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Production Company

Please add a new parameter under "studio" for major production companies involved that are not studios, like here. This new parameter could be named "production" or "production company". We need this parameter for films like Ninja Scroll or Metropolis. In case of Ninja Scroll for example, Madhouse is the animation studio, while JVC, Toho and Movic are production companies (investors and copyright holders). There are other examples like Gantz movies, where TV Stations NTV, Yomiuri TV and publisher Shueisha are production companies (members of the production committee). To list a company like JVC, NTV, or Shueisha as "studio" is not appropriate. IMDb lists these under Production Companies too. Raamin (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

"Studio" is used interchangeably with "production company" on the film articles; there is probably a good argument for changing the field to "production company" to accommodate independent films since "studio" does have certain connotations, but there is nothing to stop you using the field as it is. It's just a terminology issue. Betty Logan (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Then I think it is better to change "Studio" to "Production company"; or make the template flexible, so that editors can choose "Studio" or "Production company" to use. Raamin (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Use of the "Narrated by" field

I feel like if an actor or actress is part of the main starring cast of a film, and happens to provide voice overs for the film, he/she shouldn't be credited using the "narrator" field. I think this field should only be used if the narrator is completely off-screen, and/or not an actual character in the story (including in documentaries). For example, Morgan Freeman in The Shawshank Redemption or Ray Liotta in Goodfellas needn't be credited as a narrator because they're already starring in the film, it seems unnecessary. On the other hand, Morgan Freeman in War of the Worlds (2005) should be credited using the narrator field since he's not part of the starring cast. What do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.189.184 (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it needs to be even more restrictive than that. I've seen people try to list narrators for films that have only brief bits of narration (like an opening & closing bit). I believe the field is meant for films that are fully or mostly narrated, such as March of the Penguins or other documentaries, not for a film like The Chronicles of Riddick that merely has an opening narration to establish the setting. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Narration is not voiceover. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 August 2012: do not categorize when not in mainspace

{{edit protected|answered=no}} This template applies [[Category:{{{language}}}-language films]], and the general case is disabled for all non-article namespaces. However, as a special case English is categorized directly. This is fine, except the namespace-sensitive disabling was not used for the special case. Please make the following change (removal in strikethrough and addition in boldface, other lines provided only for context). This fix will prevent such pages as User:Knssilm/Humpty Dumpty (film) from being categorized automatically when they are English (they are already not categorized when they are in other languages).

| data17 = {{#if:{{{language|}}}|

{{#switch:{{{language|}}}

|English

|english = English[[Category:English-language films]]

|english = English{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||[[Category:English-language films]]}}

|{{#ifexist:{{{language}}} language|[[{{{language|}}} language|{{{language|}}}]]|{{{language|}}}}}<!--

-->{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||{{#ifexist:Category:{{{language}}}-language films|[[Category:{{{language|}}}-language films]]}}}}

BigNate37_(T) 20:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: Before actioning this, I'd like to point out that WP:TEMPLATECAT recommends against the placement of articles into content categories by means of templates. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with this template until coming across its inappropriate userspace categorization. I don't know what the implications would be for the 71 000 articles it is transcluded on if we modify this template to conform to WP:TEMPLATECAT; I'm afraid that's a can of worms bigger than I am prepared to open today. However, I am confident that conditionally disabling the categorization would not cause harm, and it would get us one step closer to best practices. BigNate37_(T) 22:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It's normal to put your proposed change into the template's sandbox. Please verify that this is what you want doing. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I feel like you are more interested in teaching me a lesson than fixing this template, and it has become quite frustrating. I'm familiar with template sandboxes. While you are perhaps right that I ought to make a habit of always using the sandbox to propose template changes, I feel as though I put an acceptable level of effort and detail into this request for what amounts to a small and simple fix that I (thought I) could effect while passing through. I have struck the edit protected template and I am going to unwatch this page. If you choose to pursue the matter of this template's categorization issues, please do not credit me in the edit summary. BigNate37_(T) 16:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Frustrating after only two responses, neither of which was a firm refusal? It may have seemed petty or even harsh not to action the {{edit protected}} straight off, but if all {{edit protected}} requests were actioned without question, a lot of undesirable side-effects, even harm, could be perpetrated. The template's doc page states "The template should be accompanied by a clear and specific description of the requested change" - although specific, it wasn't entirely clear to me. I wanted to make sure of the exact edit required, that's all. I could have refused outright, on two grounds: (i) I see no consensus above, not even a link to a discussion elsewhere - just a request from one individual; (ii) the absence of an edit to the template's sandbox means that the edit has not been appropriately tested beforehand. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I will drop you a note on your talk page, since it isn't really relevant to this template. BigNate37_(T) 18:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, this may impact on the the film date template. If it is disabled to stop it auto-populating categories, it then becomes redundant and needs deleting. Lugnuts (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

So. Do you want it done or not? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No, unless a consenus is reached. Lugnuts (talk) 07:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a sound change to me; it will limit category inclusion to articles in article space. I don't think it will affect Filmdate, since the date and language categories don't overlap. Betty Logan (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You've missed the point. It's OK for one template to populate categories, but not for another? This issue was raised because of ONE article in Userspace having a category in the mainspace. Big deal. Lugnuts (talk) 07:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The point that BigNate seems to be making is that the template generally doesn't categorise articles in user space, with the sole exception of English language films? Surely the point is internal consistency: either we should categorise foreign language films in user space or we shouldn't categorise English language films in user space. There may be a valid argument for either approach, but it seems reasonable to have the same approach across all languages. If we impose the restriction on foreign language films then it should be imposed on English langauge films, unless there is a valid reason for categorising only English language films in userspace? Betty Logan (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. If your car has a flat tire do you put the spare on, or do you insist that the spare is a bad long-term solution and drive to the service station on the flat? According to WP:TEMPLATECAT the template isn't right, but it's also failing to correctly do what was intended; fixing the latter is a trivial matter that can be done in the short term. Perhaps a better analogy is the bike shed: there's this nice blue bike shed here, with a hole in it. I came by and offered a blue board to patch it up with, and now we're worried about the fact that all the other bike sheds on the street are green. I just wanted to patch the hole, you can paint it whatever colour you want after that. BigNate37_(T) 18:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"Songs by" parameter for musical films

I'm not sure if this has been suggested before, but I was thinking that for musicals, the songs play as big of a role, if not more, than the underlying score. I've always felt that the "music by" parameter should be reserved only for the composer of the score, leaving no credit for the song writers, especially for those films where the song writers and the score composer differ (e.g. The Lion King, Mulan, Mary Poppins, Tarzan, Winnie the Pooh, etc). My suggestion would be to have the song parameter available primarily for musical films (not films that happen to have an original song in the end credits or something like that). It could say "Songs by" and if there is only one songwriter who wrote both the music and the lyrics, the name could be listed there as is. If there are separate writers for music and lyrics, you could add in small text {{small|(Music)}} and {{small|(Lyrics)}} after the respective person, each listed in a plainlist. My only concern with this is that some people might start overusing it in films where the credit might not be appropriate, such as films that aren't musicals but feature an original song. Robber93 (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That is just what would happen. We already have people adding songs and other additional music to the composer credit, which should usually be for only the score composer. See above #Composer credit in infobox. Musicals are a particular case and if their song composers are in the main credits they should be listed, in "Music by" under the score composer. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the guideline, a composer of original music written for a film can be listed under Music. GFilm has a problem with it, but the guideline is not ambiguous on the point. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested edit

This shouldn't be controversial. Could someone add a DISPLAYTITLE to prevent the template title from displaying in italics? --BDD (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is this a problem? — Edokter (talk) — 22:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a style issue. --BDD (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure there was a previous discussion that requested italic titles from this template. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 08:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Already supported: use | italic title = no. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being thick but I was under the impression he meant the name of the actual template i.e. it should look like "Template:Infobox film" rather than "Template:Infobox film". Betty Logan (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Aha. I've fixed that now (which involved having to set italic title off in the example of the doc page, which was bubbling its own italics through to here). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Or is that thanks. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 13:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you've got that wrong. Now film articles don't have the italic title. Please fix. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 14:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Betty's interpretation of my question was correct. But it does seem to have broken the template. Instead of the |italic title=no, we should be able to insert {{DISPLAYTITLE|Template:Infobox film}}. I believe that should override the template's automatic italicizing. --BDD (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Done For some reason <nowiki>...</nowiki> had been used, which should have been <noinclude>...</noinclude>. If that hasn't fixed all the issues raised since 12:44, please reactivate describing what's still wrong. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Great. Thanks! --BDD (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for format parameter

I was thinking that a "format", as in film format, parameter could be added. Here we can state the film format if it is not conventional, such as 3D or IMAX. -- User:2nyte 19:45, 7 September 2012 (AEST)

Starring parameter: criteria?

There's a bit of a conflict starting at Night Moves (film) over whether Melanie Griffith should be included in the "Starring" section of the infobox. One of the editors involved notes that Ms. Griffith did not appear in the poster for the film, which seems like a sensible criterion to me. Would it be worth adding a sentence to the Manual of Style about it, or otherwise providing some policy for cases of conflict? thanks, Easchiff (talk) 12:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with not including Griffith in the infobox. Mentioning her early appearance in the article body is fine. I personally think that major roles tends to equal what shows on the poster, so I'm not keen on adding such a specific rule. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. For conflict resolution, it would be helpful to have a bit more written guidance about how the "starring" section should be used. How about a slight revision of the parameter description for the template? It current reads "Insert the name(s) of the actor(s) who had major roles in the film." This could be extended to read "Insert the name(s) of the actor(s) who had major roles and were given star billing in the film's credits and advertising"? Easchiff (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not think it should be required as the language suggests. It could be suggested merely as a rule of thumb for shaping that field. If you want more eyes on this discussion, you can post a notice at WT:FILM. I'm curious to see what others say, but I'm wary of instruction creep (having contributed to a few of these film guidelines in my time here). Erik (talk | contribs) 13:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm happy to defer to your judgment. We worked together on some revisions a couple of years ago. Thanks for thinking about it. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• I wouldn't have any objection to the guidelines being more specific. After all, we advocate the use of the poster as a guide, and these are guidelines, not directives. We could simply add "It is generally good practice to use the credits on the original theatrical poster, although exceptions may be made if there is a consensus for them." That is basically the stand we take on this isn't it? Betty Logan (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Where do we say to use the poster as a guide? In the example for this template, there are several stars listed who aren't on the poster! :) Easchiff (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't, which is why I think we should probably add it to the MOS; but basically every single time this issue comes up on the project page we invariably decide to go with what is on the poster, so we could save ourselves a lot of hassle. The example on this page is very dated and has been there for years, and probably doesn't reflect the current thinking on these matters. Betty Logan (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. Personally, I agree that a little guidance would be helpful. As a start, I think I'll edit that example infobox so it includes only the 3 stars listed on the poster! My feeling is that guidance listed at the template documentation would be sufficient, but let's wait a bit to see if Erik or someone else wants to chime in again. Easchiff (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Generally I fully support using the poster's lower level credits as the cut-off for whether or not to include actors in the infobox and lead, and have edited using that standard. I also appreciate the work Easchiff does on film editor articles here. However, we have to make allowances for exceptions, and Night Moves (film) may be one of them. There's only two actors on the poster. There was a tendency in the 1970s to get rather minimalist with the number of people given poster listing (DPs and editors often weren't there either), especially if they weren't known stars at the time, which Melanie Griffith wasn't - that film launched her career. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe that for the lead the standard is higher than for the infobox. At least for the first paragraph, only lead roles need to be included as a general rule. In other words, someone who would be eligible for a best actor nomination, not a supporting actor. Perhaps that should be in the guidelines but some discretion isn't the worst thing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for all these thoughtful comments. How about a slight extension of the current statement for the "starring" parameter: " Insert the name(s) of the actor(s) who had major roles in the film; these should be consistent with the poster (if any)."
  I think any MOS changes should be discussed separately; I think RingCinema's remarks there are sensible. Cheers, Easchiff(talk) 16:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for your work here, Easchiff. The above seems good. I must say supporting actors often are in the lead and the infobox, and rightly so. First there's no clear distinction between lead and supporting, and people often debate which is which. We wouldn't exclude Timothy Hutton from the lead for Ordinary People, would we? He famously won for Best Supporting Actor, despite having the lead role. For that matter Marlon Brando and Robert Duvall were supporting in Apocalypse Now, despite being top-billed. But they belong in the lead. And in many cases without these controversies, roles that were clearly supporting are quite notable. It is best to go by the poster, but allow for exceptions, using case-by-case judgment. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your support on the template documentation change. I'll wait a bit to see if anyone else chimes in. For the lead of film articles, I understand that the emphases on actors there may well differ from their prominence in the credits, which are decided by business negotiations. The little change to the infobox documentation should not have much effect on that conversation.
P.S. The credit for music in the example of the template documentation, Plan 9 from Outer Space, appears to be incorrect. The example itself may be more important than whatever we say about them! Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think we went a little bit off the rails here. More than the major roles are listed in the infobox. In general, the infobox includes anyone listed on the one sheet poster. And, again, some discretion is called for. The lead paragraph should be restricted to major roles. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Just to make sure we're all talking about the same things:

Change proposal: guidance text for the "starring" parameter of the infobox:
current Insert the name(s) of the actor(s) who had major roles in the film.
proposed Insert the name(s) of the actor(s) who had major roles in the film; these should be consistent with the poster (if any).

This is not intended to have any direct effect on how the article lead is written. It just introduces the idea that the poster is relevant to the choice of "stars" for the infobox. This is also as good a chance as any to revisit the original guidance text, if anyone wants to do that. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I thought "major" was added. So in this context 'major' means less than leading but not minor. That's okay. Sorry if I misunderstood. As to the proposal: we have to be clear about the poster to refer to. The original poster of the first release is reliable. Later posters tend to reflect promotional concerns. So if we can be clear to use the one sheet, is that a good idea? --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What about something like The Expendables 2? I had a long drawn out edit conflict with a user because they were adding Yu Nan and Scott Adkins to the infobox because they felt they were starring roles. They appear in the bottom credits of the poster only on certain posters, but the top billing is universal across all media so I stuck with that, and I think that is a fair reflection of the fact in a film like that, those are teh starring roles. And at 11 names, I think that's a fair cut off point too. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This is where case-by-case judgment comes in. When you have 11 actors consistently given billing at the top of the poster, that's good to go by. That's why I backed you on that dispute. That many on top is unusual, but when it's done, it's the best source. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot you intervened on that, thanks again GFilm. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You bet. And again, I back Easchiff's proposed change, as long as it's interpreted as allowing for exceptions. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Here's a revision of the change proposal that I think incorporates the new suggestions:

Change proposal: guidance text for the "starring" parameter of the infobox:
current Insert the name(s) of the actor(s) who had major roles in the film.
proposed Insert the name(s) of the actor(s) who had major roles in the film; these should typically be consistent with the poster from the film's original theatrical release.

One of us should probably address the tags on the one sheet article, since now we're linking to it. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should use Film poster instead - it seems to be more detailed, and has illustrations... - Gothicfilm (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, that (Film poster) is a problem because the one sheet is basically the reliable one. Also, re: DWArrior's note above, I think that allowing for exceptions is preferable but hard because everyone seems to lean heavily on the guidelines whenever there is trouble. How to allow for discretion? Sure, 11 actors is a lot for the infobox, but as long as it's not the usual maybe it's not so serious. Movies are so various and that is part of the deal. These are opposite impulses: restrict or allow, both per discretion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we use the new version, including the link to the somewhat deficient "one sheet" article. I had not known about "one sheets" before, and I think introducing them lightly is a great idea. In principle, this could give some discipline to filling out the infobox. If there isn't further discussion, I'll make the change within a day or so. Easchiff (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to suggest an alternate wording. The reason for this is the use of the term "major". It has too many WP:POV connections for me. One editors "major" will be a "minor" for another. It leaves us open to the inevitable edit wars that arise because of said POV. Although I didn't completely agree with it at the time the decision to use the poster that we came to (sometime in the last couple years) has cut down on problems that I used to see. Thus, I think that we should consider this

Insert the name(s) of the actor(s) who are on the film poster. To insert any other name{s) a WP:RS stating that the person had a major role in the film is required

Now my wording may be clunky and any tightening will be helpful. Also I appreciate the work that the rest of you have already done on this and if you dislike my suggestion I think that you are on the right track in rewording our MoS. MarnetteD | Talk 15:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your ideas. I think the main point of the previous discussion is to establish the "one sheet" (i.e. the poster for the original theatrical release) as the standard for picking the list of actors, but also to indicate flexibility for departures based on consensus discussions. My view is that opening the door to reliable sources will take us away from this simplicity. The "major role" phrasing is a legacy of the previous wording. How about simplifying to state that "starring" is "typically the list of actors appearing on the original theatrical poster, but can be modified based on a consensus discussion on the talk page". Original theatrical poster will link to one-sheet. If this seems OK, I'll write it up more formally in hopes of consensus. Easchiff (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh good - thanks for explaining that. I obviously lost the thread when it got to the brass tacks about one sheet. Apologies. As long as we default to the poster and have discussions when we go beyond that I think that we will cut back on the edit warring. This looks good and I look forward to your write up. MarnetteD | Talk 02:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Your new wording is good, even better than before, as it was rather ambiguous. I am not very impressed with the one sheet article. Why not say "starring" is "typically the list of actors appearing on the original theatrical film poster, but can be modified based on a consensus discussion on the talk page". This way you've said we're using posters from the original release, and film poster is a much better article - and it doesn't have the threat it's in danger of being deleted either (however unlikely). Many people don't know what a one-sheet is, and there's nothing to be gained by teaching them about it on our MOS page. It's an in-industry term - jargon the public doesn't need to be led to. Actually they would learn more from the film poster article, and they can follow the link there to one sheet if they're interested. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I like this wording, too, although a couple things might be worth thinking about. First, I think that we should make reference to the "text" on the one sheet directly. I agree, Gothic, that the one sheet article has shortcomings for our purposes, but unfortunately I have had some bad experiences with editors who are unaware of the importance and reliability of the original one sheet. As it happens, that poster is as close as we will get to a gold standard on this question. It is stable, easy to find and verify, and it doesn't tempt puffery. So perhaps there is room for some kind of modification...? Maybe we can refer to the "text of the first release poster or the original one sheet". (We need to target the text so that someone doesn't say, "well, they put the crazy Sergeant in the photo, so he gets in the infobox.") Secondly, do we want to reintroduce the word 'major'? Since any guideline can be ignored if there is a consensus to do so, perhaps the less said the better. If we want to say 'major', maybe we should join it to something else to make it restrictive. For example, perhaps we should say that a role needs to be "major and widely recognized." Or something better. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If we say the original theatrical film poster that can only mean the one-sheet. If someone looks at the film poster article, they're not going to think it means anything other than what we want them to think it means, even if most don't know the term "one sheet". And "major and widely recognized" is subjective, so it wouldn't stop arguments. I believe "starring" is "typically the list of actors appearing on the original theatrical film poster, but can be modified based on a consensus discussion on the talk page" covers most circumstances, and others will have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

1. If they are synonymous, I'm not sure of your objection. Perhaps the solution is to mention that the poster should contain the original billing block. I think that would work. 2. Of course my suggestion is subjective; there's no getting away from it. My interest is in raising the bar a little to avoid some disputes. On that score, it would work, but of course there could be a better suggestion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we've basically agreed that the theatrical release poster should be the first source for the "starring" parameter. If someone could develop the one-sheet article a bit more that would be good, and could provide a future alternative; I did look for some additional sources for that article, but didn't find much. So for the time being, I think overall sentiment favors just linking to the film poster article. Our text needs to be rather brief, so subtleties are going to get lost, unfortunately. Here's another version:

proposed Insert the names of actors appearing on a poster for the film. Use an original theatrical release poster if it's available. The list of actors can be adjusted later based on a consensus discussion on the talk page. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

We should refer to the one sheet and the billing block. Would you like me to draft that? --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Just something like this: Insert the names of the actors from the billing block of the film's original theatrical poster (known as the one sheet) or from the top billing of the film itself. Other additions by consensus. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response. As a practical matter, I don't think it's going to help editors to mention the one-sheet. Sources for posters - such as the one for our example Plan 9 From Outer Space - don't necessarily use the terminology. Would it be OK if we put some of these details into a footnote, or perhaps a short essay on the subject if someone is willing to write it? So then we'd be into something like: "Insert the names of actors from a [[film poster|poster]] for the film, preferably from the original theatrical release.<ref>Most films have a "[[one sheet]]" that is the basis for the original poster(s). When available, the one-sheet is the ideal source for the infobox. On a poster, the principal cast members and crew are usually listed in a well-defined [[billing block]].</ref> If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the credits. Other additions by consensus." Easchiff (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That might work, but your draft is a little bit unclear. Also, footnotes for a guideline? I'm not sure that is done. How about: "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release. If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits. Other additions by consensus." If we can't use a footnote, the note could be in parentheses. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Your new version is fine with me. I'm comfortable with a footnote myself; they preserve technical ideas, and in this case the article itself can't be unreservedly recommended. The reason that I used the "preferably the original theatrical release" language is that I don't know for sure that people can always find it. Anyway, shall we put this out to see if people complain about the footnote? Easchiff (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with Ring's version. I am against having footnotes in a guideline, it's an unnecessary complication and best to keep the full guideline in one place. Betty Logan (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. Are we proposing Ring's recent version, but ditching the footnote? "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release. If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits. Other additions by consensus." cheers, Easchiff (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggested parentheses for the note. Is it bad? --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I feel that a parenthetic remark would be a distraction from the main issue. Knowledge of the one sheet doesn't seem essential to what we're asking editors to do. I do think some note of this history and terminology is desirable. So I favor the footnote, even though it's unconventional. Easchiff (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'm willing to try the footnote but I don't feel strongly about it. Maybe you should work that out with Betty. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to do it, with the footnote. We've got consensus on the substantive issues, which is quite something! Thanks for your contributions, which made this revision much better. Easchiff (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's be bold and include a footnote. I think this is the best solution to preserving the extra information about the one sheet. Since we've reached consensus on the important issue of referencing the original film poster, I'd like to get this posted.

Thanks a lot for all your very fine efforts. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the [[billing block]] of the poster for the film's original theatrical release.<ref>The original poster is also called the '[[one sheet]]' and is the ideal source for this information. Usually the principal credits are listed at the bottom in block letters.</ref> If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits. Other additions by consensus.

I've now inserted this new text into the template documentation. Thanks to everyone who contributed to the discussion. If desired, please start a new section just below to continue it. This section seems long enough! Easchiff (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Genres

I'm wondering why there isn't a parameter for genres, when there is on albums? I would vote for its inclusion. Lachlan Foley (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

We've discussed this topic in the past as seen here, and it boils down to simple genre classification being too difficult for films. It's not like music at all. The consensus has been to keep it to the lead section because we can go into context with prose. There would be a lot of edit warring about what to include and what not to include in the infobox. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I would vote against its inclusion, emphatically, and probably multiple times :P If you've ever watchlisted any band/album articles, you'll know that the "genre" field of infoboxes is one of the biggest battlegrounds on Wikipedia for edit wars, POV-pushing, and the like. I've seen dozens and dozens of editors blocked for edit warring over that stupid little field. We even tried removing it from the music infoboxes in 2008, and man, you'd have thought we'd deleted the main page, judging by the brouhaha it raised. There's already enough edit-warring in film articles just by having the genre in the lead sentence and in categories. We absolutely do not need that headache in the infobox as well. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

How is it any different than mentioning it in the article body/categories than in the infobox? The edit war would happen regardless of were it is, so the no-inclusion arguement is redundant. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 13:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we make a conscious effort to keep the infobox concise. We are more indiscriminate with categories since the criteria for inclusion is much more lenient. As for the article body, we have room to establish context, though we are suspect to edit warring of the lead section if a film's genre is not so straightforward. Not to mention, our film genre articles are kind of crappy... Erik (talk | contribs) 14:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Lugnuts, I acknowledge that there is edit-warring in article bodies and categories, but I watch hundreds of pages on albums, musical artists, and films, and I promise you that the edit-warring over genres in music infoboxes is exponentially higher than any type of genre-warring in any film article I watch. There is something about these little boxes in the uppper right corner—with their pretty images, bolded headers, and often bright colors—that IPs, SPAs, and genre warriors cannot resist. These types seem less willing to argue over genres when they're in the article text, since these types rarely actually read our articles, but once it's in that little box they cannot help but muck with it...it's like a conditioned response or something. An infobox is for "key facts", things that are easily verifiable and not open to much debate or interpretation. Think about all the problems we currently have over the "country" field and how to use it; Imagine the endless arguments we'll have over a "genre" field if it were added. That removal in 2008 that I mentioned led to five archive pages worth of arguing. In my 6+ years of editing I have seen no aspect of Wikipedia be the subject of as many arguments, RFCs, edit-wars, blocks, and page protections as the genre field of infoboxes. It's a Pandora's box, and adding one to this infobox would be an enormous regret. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd argue that the genre just isn't all that important either. If there isn't a label saying horror anywhere on the page and you read, going in blind, the plot to Halloween, you can decide what it is and come to a reasonable conclusion. The Oscars aren't Best Supporting Actor in a science fiction action adventure film. And even the bodies that record these things like IMDb, AllRovi and the like can't always agree on a genre and don't seem to always use a logical classification, simply locking it in months before a film has even been released. It's a categorisation, that's all, and people can and do apply their own parameters to the films anyway, forever adding comedy to Scream because it has SOME dark humour in it, when it clearly is not Trading Places mixed with a slasher film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Lugnuts; I don't think it makes any difference whether it is in the infobox or the lead section (if anything, I would have thought it'd be more prominently displayed in the lead section, thus more open to edit warring).

I think having the genre in an article is no less important than any other item of information. I also agree, though, that some sort of order needs to be established regarding which genre is right for each respective article, because at the moment genres on Wikipedia are largely unsourced, and that's pretty much just asking for people to bring in their own POV. Lachlan Foley (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be in the infobox, OR the lead for that matter. The categories are just fine for categorizing a film. Most times, films today have multiple genres, and I'm sorry, but reading "Film Y is a 2010 American action/drama/comedy film...." is kind of ungodly to read. Not to mention that lack of professionalism in the writing. The problem we run into is that if you say, "this is just a comedy" you have to deal with the ones that are "no, it's a romantic comedy because there's a love story", or "no, it's a dramatic comedy because of the melodramatic tone throughout". It's probably all of the above, but that's too much for the lead sentence to handle, and unnecessary for an infobox that is already too long. The edit wars are enough in the lead paragraphs, we don't need more in the infobox for people that want to add every various genre filling that a film falls into. We have categores for a reason.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is definitely a problem. Ironically, putting the genre in the infobox would help if we then agree it doesn't have to be in the lede. (Not going to happen.) It is one of those "facts" about a movie that is cultural. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

We all seem to agree that genres can be contentious, and that there is edit-warring regardless of where they're mentioned. So my point is, don't give 'em another place to war. We've done fine without it all these years. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Production Designer Credit

Can this information be included in the template? This is one of the key creative roles in movie production next to Writer, Director, Composer and Cinematographer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonFerrando (talk • contribs) 22:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. In general, crew gets short shrift here, partly because we reflect popular culture more than film culture. I suppose it might be useful to compare the relative importance of other fields that are included. Maybe it's true that the next field to add would be PD. Maybe there is a consensus for that now. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The infobox is already very long, in large part due to all the names we list in it, and would do with fewer fields rather than more. Production designer, cinematographer, and editor are not likely the type of thing that most readers are looking for in an infobox. That said, Ring Cinema is right that crew often get short shrift in Wikipedia articles. I imagine this is because there are so many crew roles in any given film and their work takes place mostly behind the scenes, and therefore there are fewer notable (in the Wikipedia sense) people in those roles than there are in the more high-profile roles like actors and directors. There is certainly room for more mention of crew within our articles, but I don't think the infobox is the best place to do so. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I would personally endorse a crew list in the article body. It could be part of a well-developed production section. I wouldn't mind seeing the editor and cinematographer listed there instead of in the infobox, along with the production designer, costume designer, etc. It would help encourage blue links and cross-navigation without lengthening the infobox. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I concur with IllaZilla and Erik. This kind of information is better suited to a production section where it can be more fully explained. MarnetteD | Talk 15:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It would make more sense to lose some of the lesser roles like narrator or limit the names under "starring" than to omit the production designer (though I would think one more role is really not going to matter if the result is a breakdown of the main creatives of a given production that actually makes sense rather than an arbitrary, incomplete one. In fact if you do list writer and cinematographer it makes absolutely NO sense to ignore the production designer who is responsible for the entire visual aspect of a film which, you will have to agree, is pretty substantial for cinematic storytelling. A film without a screenplay can still be a film. A film without music can still be a film. A film without visuals is an audiobook. I believe Ring Cinema is on the right track by comparing relative importance. With that logic the Production Designer CANNOT be ignored if the cinematographer is included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonFerrando (talk • contribs) 10:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

On the flipside, a film WITH music can not be a film. I watched The Amazing Spider-Man last night and Horner's score is embarrassing. Of course the whole film is embarrassing. As for this, I don't really ever see people highlighting production designers in the way composers and cinematographers are, I don't even know what the role does. I assume it's like set design? in that case its probably less important for some films than others. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I hate to use the "slippery slope" argument, but if we start adding more production roles, how long until the infobox is just one long list of credits? It's not the infobox's purpose to give a complete listing of credits. I always fall back to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." What are the "key facts" about a film? Arguably, they're the ones readers are most often looking for when they visit a film article, and the one's you'd give if you were giving a very brief explanation of a film (as we do in article leads). Typically a brief explanation would include mention of the director and the main cast, but not the various production roles. The production designer, cinematographer, editor, etc. will generally be part of a more in-depth explanation. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

In theory, you are right that there is a slippery slope but we don't seem close to it. The idea of taking out the editor and cinematographer -- and leaving the actors? -- would be the opposite of a solution to the short shrift given to crew here. If someone doesn't know what the PD does, they aren't really in a position to comment on whether or not the PD belongs in the infobox -- at least, not until they have done the basic and essential homework of learning what this significant creative artist is involved with. I suppose it could be an accident that there is an Oscar for PD, but an alternative explanation is that people who know what they're talking about realize that the PD is important. It seems that the next field to add would be the PD, but I will pull no punches and just note that this group doesn't have the sophistication to know the importance of the PD or the humility to have no opinion when they don't know what they're talking about. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Please don't be insulting. I know perfectly well what the various important production roles are. My point is not that these roles aren't significant; it's that they're not likely what most of our readers are looking for in an "at-a-glance" summation of key facts (which is what an infobox is). There are Oscars for Costume Design, Hair & Makeup, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Visual Effects, etc, and these are certainly roles that should be included in a discussion of the film's production. But in the article's main infobox, less is more. I like Erik's idea of including a crew list in the article body: We require of our GAs and FAs that they have production sections, so a crew list could be included there in a manner similar to how the cast is listed here. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

If you know what you're talking about, I'm not talking about you. And I agree with you except that Erik suggested pulling the cinematographer and the editor from the infobox. That would be like leaving out the lead actors. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth I would be happy with dropping the editor since I agree it seems somewhat arbitrary to including the editor and leaving out the PD; I would be against dropping the cinematographer since he is the "author" of the negative, one of the copyrightable elements of a film (the other two elements being the script and the score). I do question the logic of including the stars if we actually have a separate cast list in the article—it does seem we perhaps put too much emphasis on celebrity. On that note, I would be for dropping certain fields as opposed to adding to readdress the balance. Betty Logan (talk) 05:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A film cannot be shot without someone fulfilling the function of the Cinematographer. It cannot be finished without someone editing it, unless the whole film is one long take. A film shot entirely on location technically can be made without a Production Designer, and I assumed this is why they weren't included in the infobox. I believe PDs should be listed, but I'm not going to start a campaign for it. Many on-location ultra low-budget films have been made without them, though there's usually at least an art director and/or set decorator. Most documentaries won't have them, unless they build a set for a narrator to be seen in. My point is not listing a PD is no justification for removing the editor or cinematographer from the infobox. All documentaries have both.

I would be for not listing the narrator when he's already listed as one of the actors. If you want to exclude anyone, how about some action on that? - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd be for not listing the narrator unless they actually have a narrated by credit. Having a voice over or inner monologing is not a narrated by credit.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Yet WP film articles are littered with actors listed twice even though they had no on-screen credit as narrator. People often talk here of wanting to prune the infobox, but I rarely see this mentioned. Leave the editor and cinematographer categories alone. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well that's because at the end of the day we only discuss one matter at a time and as volunteers, the process takes a lot more effort than many of us want to put in, and thats just for ONE field. Like I got them to remove the Ratings field over at the VG Infobox, but that took 13 days or so, and that infobox needs so many other things doing to it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

My impression was that voiceovers do not constitute narration per the guidelines. That could be made explicit. GFilm's thoughts above seem pretty sensible. For me, I wouldn't say that we are missing something without the PD, but it seems to be next in line. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Merging Infobox Korean Film to general Infobox Film: A Redigging from 2010

I spend most of my editing time at Wikipedia on Korean films, the Seoul Subway system, and adding romanizations to various Korean pages. So when I saw an editor converting Infobox Korean Film to Infobox Film I saw a lot of work disappearing. The editor was very polite and showed me several debates from 2010.

So while people seemed to be in favor of merging, the next debate ended with being unresolved as to how they should be merged.

I'd like to hear if people still think this should be merged and if so how (ex: just delete the parts that make it Korean Infobox or add those fields to the main film Infobox).

If the consensus ends in it not being necessary to merge I kindly ask people to refrain from changing Infobox Korean Film into the main Infobox Film.

Please give me your thoughts. ₪RicknAsia₪ 03:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The parts in question seem to be:

{{Infobox Korean film
| hangul         = 
| hanja          = 
| rr             = 
| mr             = 
| context        = 
| admissions     = 

• Hangul - the name of the film in the source language. Can be convenient as users can copy/paste this. Without it users must have that keyboard language pack installed on their computer as well as know how to type in that language. And while many pages do write the name of the film in Korean within the main page, it is convenient having this in ready accessible format in the Infobox.
• Hanja - A large chunk of the Korean language comes from Chinese. To better understand words users of Wikipedia can frequently click on these and are directed to the various meanings and pronouncation. A number of older films have the titles in Hangul mixed with Hanja. So the proper name of the film sometimes is written here.
• RR and MR are forms of romanization which are the official forms used in both North (MR) and South Korea (RR but MR was official form before). As both formats are still in wide usage it makes sense to show both.
• Context - is used to differentiate if the film is from North Korea or not. Non usage shows it is from South Korea.
• Admissions - while the success or failure of a movie from the West is seen through gross dollars, within Korea it is seen through number of tickets sold as can be seen on the Korean Cinema page.

I find this information to be very helpful and as such my vote is to keep the Infobox Korean Film and not merge with the generic. ₪RicknAsia₪ 03:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge all into the standard template. Hangul, Hanja, RR and MR should go in the article lead. Context is redundant to the country field. Admissions should be in the body of the article (probably the reception section). Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 09:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Korean infobox should be merged into the main one; it is effective enough for other foreign language films. These parameters should not be transferred over because we only include parameters in the infobox if they will be utilised by the majority of films, so we don't include country specific parameters. As Lugnuts states, the title variations should go in the lede, "context" is replaceable by "country" and Korea's admissions should go in reception. Betty Logan (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to use Infobox film + Infobox Korean name templates together? Considering Infobox Korean film is basically two templates in one. As long as it provides Hangul, Hanja, MR and RR for readers. Jae ₩on (Deposit) 14:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

A "merge" requires something to be merged, yet neither of you want to add any of the extra fields to the main film infobox. What you really want is to "delete and replace". PC78 (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be an idea to add a "module" parameter to infobox film, similar to {{Infobox person}}? This would allow other infoboxes, such as {{Infobox Korean name}} to be embedded inside the film infobox, thus removing much of the need for a seperate Korean film infobox. PC78 (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I would support a merge in principle, but only if something was actually merged to make {{Infobox Korean film}} redundant. The native titles of foreign films (not just Korean) are important enough to be included in the infobox, IMO. Likewise, I would prefer to see "admissions" added to infobox film given it's relevance to Korean cinema - just because the parameter is there doesn't mean that it should or would be used for all films. Although {{Infobox Korean film}} is largely derivative, I believe that the extra fields do make it valid, and I would not like to see it casually dismissed. PC78 (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason for the treatment of Korean films to be inconsistent with the treatment of Indian films, Japanese films etc. The standard film infobox only includes parameters that are relevant to all films, not just a small minority. For instance, we don't even include a parameter for the US box office or French admissions in the infobox because it is not all that relevant to the vast majority of films, so I don't really see why Korean specific content requires special treatment. Betty Logan (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

But Korean films don't get special treatment compared to Japanese or Chinese films; they each have their own templates which allows for the name in the original language (dare I say the real name of the movie) as well as romanizations so users know how to pronounce the title accurately. It is clean and convenient having it in the Infobox and as it is useful for some groups I say it's worth having. ₪RicknAsia₪ 02:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

These templates seem to be in very limited usage. The Japanese template is used on a couple of hundred pages, whereas there are over 2000 articles about Japanese films. Most of the articles do seem to already use the standard template without any detrimental effect; even the majority of South Korean film articles use the standard template. The bottom line is that this is the English language Wikipedia—and most of its readers reside outside out of Korea—and parameters are generally only included in the infobox if they will be of interest to the majority of readers. Therefore things like the original Korean title (if not in the form used in the English language) and Korean admissions are not really necessary in the infobox. It is adequate to cover the Korean stuff in the main body of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"...even the majority of South Korean film articles use the standard template."

That is true now because a number of then have been edited from Infobox Korean Film to Infobox Film within the last few months. Open some of the pages, check the history, you'll see it. I noticed that the Hangul was missing from a bunch of pages and that led me to open this debate.

It does seem that a number of the pages only had the original Korean name (Hangul, hanja, RR, MR) in the Infobox, so when it was changed to general Infobox, the information was deleted from the page completely. ₪RicknAsia₪ 15:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

We live in the US, our main language is English, we've only used the English Wiki, but it's helpful to see the names of certain things in their original language. Chinese pages have Chinese, Japanese pages can have Japanese in their Infobox, Korean Korean. If it's useful to people using those pages then leave it in. Mooreba1003 (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The special templates for Asian cinema are useful and shouldn't be deleted. I agree with RickinAsia and vote that they remain as they are. PlaidMouse (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

No more special/useful than any other non-English area of film. You could justify the creation of templates to support French, Spanish, German cinema, etc. All of these variations should be deleted. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 09:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, when editing Japanese film articles, I don't really bother using the special Japanese template because 1) The "native" Japanese name is already mentioned in the lead, and 2) It does not really bring much more benefit than a standard infobox. Besides, readers cannot tell the difference between Infobox Korean film or Infobox film. We could just add a perimeter like "native name" to the original infobox if we are really concerned about reflecting the native name in the infobox. This updated standard infobox would thus make it less confusing for us editors, because we do not have to learn the difference between all of the variations of the infobox and be concerned about which one to use in each article. Thus, I advocate a merge of not just this Korean version, but all of the other versions of this template.--Lionratz (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

As a common user of the English site to search for Korean films, it is very useful to see the Korean specific information. Yes, I can try to search to Korean site for the information, but as my Korean is not native or even advanced, it would take an extended amount of time that is saved when I can see the information in my language. Especially for Korean films, where the meaning of the translated title is often nothing similar to the original Korean title's Meaning. Example is "Breathless" was "Poop Fly" in Korean. That information is very useful and it is very nice to see it in the infobox. Even the hanja can give some instant extra meaning to some users. 76.23.129.24 (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

When merging the template a great deal of important information is lost. What's the point in making things uniform when what matters the most, the content, is lost? Lu skywalker (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I find it highly suspect that 3 new accounts have popped up just to comment in this discussion:

• PlaidMouse (talk · contribs)
• Mooreba1003 (talk · contribs)
• Lu skywalker (talk · contribs)
• 76.23.129.24 (talk · contribs)

The only one to have made an edit to Wikipedia prior to this discussion is PlaidMouse. Methinks there is sockpuppetry going on. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there a Korean Wiki project? Could be some canvassing going on. Either way, the infobox is not an article concern it is a project concern, so the decision should ultimately reside with the editors who regularly edit within the scope of the Film project. Betty Logan (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Rickinasia has notified a number of editors and projects of this discussion, but these are all new accounts whose very first contributions have been to comment here, all supporting the same argument (not to merge the template). This is rather suspect. I've started a SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PlaidMouse. If I turn out to be wrong, I apologize, but I don't how else to explain such a coincidence. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Since the outcome of this debate will affect the editors of Korean pages I'm trying to get their input especially the original debate only had people that probably never used the template. I joined Wiki around 2 years ago and never knew about debates such as these until things started to disappear from usage: IMDB from infobox and then his one, which was a day or two before I started this topic.

I completely understand IllaZilla's concern, please continue with the investigation. I do know a few of them in real life and as they watch a fair amount of Asian cinema and had all expressed concern to edit I told them about this debate and encouraged them to signup now as opposed to later. ₪RicknAsia₪ 01:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

As an editor of Korean popular culture articles, I was notified by Rickinasia to offer my opinion on the matter. That being said, I primarily edit K-pop articles and I'm not a regular editor of Korean film articles so please take my opinion with a grain of salt. As a Wikipedia consumer, I feel that providing native titles and names in general is quite useful - it helps to confirm that the page you are on is actually what you were looking for when you're not quite sure of the English title or romanization - and I hate digging around page content for it. I was actually quite surprised that having the native title in the infobox is not the norm on other foreign language films; it seems like an integral part of the film's identity. Additionally, from an artistic standpoint (and as Rickinasia mentioned previously), the native titles are arguably the real names of the film and it seems wrong to exclude them from the infobox (though that's fairly subjective).

That being said, it seems foolish to keep a separate template for every possible origin of foreign film so I propose we merge the Korean film template into the standard one, adding a "native film title" and "romanization" field. Alternatively, we can pursue the "module" route (though I have yet to see an example of that in action) or the separate "Korean name" template, as in most K-pop artist articles (see Boa for an example). In any case, I would like to see these fields stay in a reliably accessible location. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the "Admissions" or "Context" field to give an opinion on those matters (though "context" seems redundant to "country" from the explanations given above). Michaelcomella (talk) 04:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I also think that all films should use the same template, provided said template is beefed up so that we don't lose the information. To be consistent with books/literature, where the original title appears near the top, we would have first the title in English, then the original title (in the original language, with additional films for alternate renderings or anglicizations, precising the writing systems), then the language(s) of the film, which can be different. --Stephane mot (talk) 09:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Korean film module in main infobox: I find the Korean names (all four forms: Hangul/hanja/RR/MR) and the admission data useful as part of the infobox. Which is the point of one: "to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears". The English title is often different from the original Korean name (possibility distributors wanting a catchy English name to appeal to the international market), sometimes loosing the meaning behind the creative process. Likewise admission data is an important indiciator of a film success ie the number of tickets sold. It is the data that is quoted in Korean newspaper and other reliable sources. Though context is not needed when the country field will suffice. Thus it is useful to have these key facts clearly summarised in the infobox. If it is useful to somebody then it is useful. Just because someone doesn't think it's relevant it doesn't mean it is not useful to other users, because we use Wiki in different ways.

I also agree that it is not necessary to have many different language ones but at the same time it would not be useful to merge these fields into the main infobox as it is not needed for non-Korean films. Hence a Korean film module (as sugguested by PC78) seems sensible enough like for Template:Infobox person where Korean names are added to the infobox for Korean BLP pages eg Hyun Bin. Then this would not clutter the main infobox for non-Korean film editors and provide Korean films the key facts it needs to show. This is probably a better option than simply using the Template:Infobox Korean name as admission data would be lost as it's not relevant nor appropriate to add that to it.--Michaela den (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't responded to this sooner (I've been busy in the real world). It was my understanding that we would be merging {{Infobox Korean film}} to this main template, as well as {{Infobox Japanese film}} and {{Infobox Chinese film}}, but it seems that disagrees with some editors. I understand the need to keep the information about hangul/hanja/rr/mr versions of titles in the infobox, but we simply do not need them in the infobox. These three templates have only minor differences and the main one is the inclusions of alternate titles, albeit those are titles from the origin language. However, including the original title to infoboxes can get us into trouble. What would stopping us then from creating infoboxes for each country/language? Why is it so important that we include original titles and alternate languages in the infobox when that information should be in the lede sentence if not in the lede paragraph anyway?

The inclusion of admissions I just cannot justify, it is in some sense directly related to the gross which is already included in the infobox. And as Lugnuts pointed out, the context is equivalent to the country/language parameters.

While I don't want to prevent discussion of modules, (I could see them possibly working under careful consideration) I do think that these derivative infoboxes should be merged into the main infobox, for consistency and ease of editing, while information "lost" by the merge should be included in the lede. BOVINEBOY2008 12:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Break and poll

Maybe now is a good time to get a straw poll on what to do going forward.

Merge

• 1. Support the merging/redirecting of the Korean/Chinese/Japanese infoboxes to the main film infobox

1. As per comments above Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
2. As my reasoning above, and others. BOVINEBOY2008 17:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
3. Redirect to main template. Comments above; but basically the infobox should only cover universal information. Betty Logan (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
4. Merge but add a "Native title" field (or equivalent module) to the main infobox; see comments above. Michaelcomella (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
5. Merge, there's nothing special about credits in East Asian movies. A field for original title exists in many other language editions of the infobox, as well as in {{Infobox book}}; I wouldn't oppose its addition but it's a separate discussion. Smetanahue (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Do not merge

• 2. Keep things as they are.

1. I'm in this camp as for reasons I stated as well as considering the Korean film template has 5 unique fields (minus "context" as I agree that is not necessary), Japanese has 3, and Chinese 5, I just don't see these as being brought into the main infobox template although I'd make a case for it. If only using one template I like the idea of "native language" as well as "admissions" as again not all countries count success by gross income or is that information always available. If the template dies I like the idea of a module as mentioned by PC78 or using Template:Infobox Korean name as mentioned by Michaela den. ₪RicknAsia₪ 01:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
2. Reasons pointed out by Michaela den & Rickinasia. Also a good percentage of contributors have yet to give their input. (Especially when it affect them.) Jae ₩on (Deposit) 02:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
3. my comments as above--Michaela den (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
4. Reasons pointed out by Michaela den & Rickinasia. I also like the module idea as long as the information is still there. --Goldstar012 (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
5. Hangul is a bit unusual because two separate Romanization schemes are commonly used: one by the South Korean government and another by the majority of Korean Study scholars. Putting both in the lead line of an article is inelegant and clutters up the introduction. I like the idea of maintaining this information in the info box. Konamaiki (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess my question for those opposed to merging is, (a) would you be in favor of merging if a module-like system is established and (b) why you think these three particular industries (Korean/Japanese/Chinese) need a template when others do not? Or do you think we should have separate templates for each film industry that does not use English as its main language? BOVINEBOY2008 01:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

(a) I would prefer to keep things as they are (template is already made and works fine) but I could be cool with a module. Would a new module basically be the 4 categories of Hangul, Hanja, RR, MR + Admissions? Because that looks like the Korean name template + admissions info. ₪RicknAsia₪ 07:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

(b) North/South America and a good chunk of Europe all use a Roman-based alphabet so there is no need for romanization. So I think the template works for almost everything except certain Asian or Middle Eastern languages. And my guess is these cinema groups aren't as big/wikied so they have no templates. I don't see a big need for other Roman-based languages to need their own template except possibly in creating auto-generated lists of some sort, for example these that I hugely focused on: A, B. Having a template (or module) allows for these to be auto-generated and help people like me to go through the list adding in missing information. ₪RicknAsia₪ 07:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

(c) But my own question is why is it bad having multiple templates? Lioratz made a good point "...confusing for us editors, because we... have to learn the difference between all of the variations of the infobox and be concerned about which one to use in each article." - can be confusing having variations; but starting a new article doesn't mean you have to use the special template or even fill every line of the standard template; most of my work was filling in the empty fields. Other than what Lioratz said, the main argument seems to be a fear of too many templates. Within the last 8 years I only know of the four that have been created: 2004 primary, 2005 Korea, 2007 China, and 2009 Japan. Is it a fear that a huge number will suddenly pop up or is it something else I am missing? I still don't understand the negative to having 3 special templates, and that is something I want to understand. ₪RicknAsia₪ 07:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

While I can't speak for everyone about why they think it's bad to have multiple templates, personally, I find the biggest problem to be maintenance. Suppose in the future a big development in film technology necessitates the addition of a field to the film infobox. If there's one film infobox template, that's one change to the template (granted, in addition to manually adding the information to each film page). Now suppose there are several hundred individual film templates, one for each culture (because, let's be fair, if there's a Korean, Japanese, and Chinese film infobox, there should be a French, Indian, etc. film infobox as well). That means the field would need to be updated in all several hundred of these templates. That's not only a waste of time, but how can we be sure we updated them all? Will each culture's film editors even know the main template changed? What happens if the field is decided to be unnecessary slightly later and then removed? We will have some infoboxes with this information and some without? How do we keep everyone in sync?

The maintenance difficulties boil down to information redundancy - duplicating information in multiple places means that when that information changes, it needs to change it in multiple places, making it difficult to keep it all synchronized. This is why the modules exist - they allow the use of a standard template while allowing domain-specific information to be interjected as necessary. Michaelcomella (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)