Template talk:Infobox film

Length

Please add a length field after runtime. The length can be either in feet or meter. The template {{convert|0000|meter|feet}} can be used.

This will help (me) when writing Tamil film articles--UKSharma3 (User | talk | Contribs) 01:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

What would this be used for? DonIago (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Since there is a one-to-one correspondence between length and time, I don't really see the usefulness of adding what is in essence a duplicate parameter. There are plenty of other relevant parameters (Production Designer, for one, and Choreographer for musicals) that I would prefer to see added. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I also do not think this is useful. "Length" seems to require specialist knowledge to determine the relevance, where "Runtime" is easily comprehensible by the layperson. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Silent movies would sometimes run at different speeds before film length was standardised at 24fps and the primary metric was the number of reels. That said, I don't believe an extra field is needed. You can see an example of how this is handled at The Birth of a Nation. Betty Logan (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

A lot of silent movie sources only list length (given that the speed of display wasn't initially standardized), often in feet and sometimes just in reels,but I just put it under runtime.--tronvillain (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Query

In the Ronin article, the movie credits David Mamet as one of the screenwriters, under the pseudonym Richard Weisz; how should he be credited in the infobox: should Mamet's name be placed beside Richard Weisz enclosed in parentheses, or pipelink the pseudonym to Mamet's article? Slightlymad 05:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

In Hellraiser: Bloodline, I did it as "Kevin Yagher (credited as Alan Smithee)". I don't know if that's how you're supposed to do it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is a consensus on the right approach, but I think at the very least, WP:EGG would apply in not piping a pseudonym to lead to the real person's article. NinjaRobotPirate's approach can work. Another one may be to have a note tag where the pseudonym is explained in the "Notes" section. See this for the director(s) at Solo: A Star Wars Story. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This issue comes up with Steven Soderbergh somewhat often, since he uses the pseudonyms Peter Andrews and Mary Ann Bernard for his cinematography and editing work, respectively. Contagion uses what has been my preferred method up to this point, crediting Soderbergh with a tag after to explain the name change. Magic Mike opts to just credit him by his real name, while Logan Lucky uses the pipe link with the pseudonyms. I feel like using note tags as suggested by Erik would be the best way to go though, since they're unintrusive and can be explained in more detail. Sock (tock talk) 13:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the approach for Logan Lucky since that is a flagrant violation of WP:EGG. But I do think a note tag approach would be ideal, especially to just explain why. It can be a detail that would not easily fit in the article body. When it comes to Soderbergh, the note can explain the why in a sentence and then link to the "Directorial style and collaborations" section on his article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I've adopted what has been done in Contagion and Logan Lucky. Cheers, Slightlymad 14:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I think if the person in question is using a unique alias (such as the Coen brothers do with "Roderick Jaynes") then we should use the credit and link to the main article, after all that is how they have chosen to be credited. I don't think this violates WP:EGG provided the main article actually acknowledges the alias. Many creators and artists have used aliases down the ages, and they are just as much a part of their professional identity as any other name they use. If the credit is not unique (e.g. Alan Smithee) then this does create an identification problem and I think the correct approach would be to use the person's professional name and add "credited as Alan Smithee". Betty Logan (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It does violate WP:EGG because when a reader clicks the name Roderick Jaynes, they would expect to see a biographical article about Roderick Jaynes. To land on the article for the Coen brothers would be confusing. I don't think the average reader is necessarily familiar with pseudonyms, much less the specific ones used. Why not just take the "<real name> (credited as <pseudonym>)" approach at minimum? A note tag can be used if the situation warrants a bit more explanation. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The Coens are Roderick Jaynes, and readers are taken to an article that covers the work of Roderick Jaynes. The purpose of EGG is to avoid taking readers to the wrong articles, but if you want to know more about "Roderick Jaynes" then the Coen article is where you would have to go. That is not an EGG violation. Any confusion arising from the different name is quickly cleared up by the lead and infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The production company may have some rationale for misleading audiences in credits, but Wikipedia has no defensible rationale for misleading our readers about the real facts. I prefer NinjaRobotPirate's approach in running text "Steven Soderbergh (credited as Peter Andrews)". In an infobox, Erik and Sock's formatting approach is probably better (Steven Soderbergh<br />{{small|(as Peter Andrews)}}). These are properly informative for our readers. WP:EGG is often but not always an issue; it's an issue if the pseudonym does not appear in bold in the lead. But I think that's a side point; readers should not, in the first place, be mislead by us into the idea Soderbergh and Andrews are different people, that someone named Peter Andrews is a notable cinematographer with his own article, and that the film had a different director and cinematographer.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Even if the pseudonym appears in bold in the middle of the lead section, it may not be immediately visible on mobile view. A reader using their smartphone and clicking on Roderick Jaynes and winding up at Coen brothers would definitely be confused. Of course, we can talk about hatnotes disclosing pseudonyms, but the Coen brothers already have one for their individual names redirecting there. More hatnoting seems unnecessary. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

If "Roderick Jaynes" doesn't direct to the Coen article, then the question becomes one of what should it link to? For example, if somebody came to Wikipedia and typed "Roderick Jaynes" into the search box having seen the name in a Coen film, what behavior would you advocate in that instance? Betty Logan (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point. :) I guess I'm not sure how to deal with relatively unimportant pseudonyms. Important ones would be more upfront, e.g., J. K. Rowling. Perhaps in this particular case, a stand-alone article about the pseudonym? It looks like there is some meatier content here and here, and such an article could also list where the credit was used. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I know this conversation has sort of come and gone, but it has come enough in some articles I work on. Generally, Infoboxes are supposed to be used to discuss information already in the prose. This is not always easy with film articles. I'd prefer to use someone's most common name and explain in the prose if possible why this person is credited that way. Its better to have a less cluttered up infobox than it is one trying to do things (like explain someone's Alan Smithee name) than it is to give out what people want, which is who actually did what. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I too missed this last month. One other way to handle things is with a footnote. That is what was used to deal with the Walter/Wendy Carlos listing at A Clockwork Orange (film). MarnetteD|Talk 19:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be handled best with a case by case basis. I have been editing a lot of European genre films lately whose credits are often...bonkers to say the least, ranging from writers nobody on the set seems to be familiar with to directors no one can clarify (see Frankenstein's Castle of Freaks where nobody knows who directed it anymore, or Terror-Creatures from the Grave where authorship has changed at least three times as the decades have gone by). I think since film production is complicated, it will have to be in a case by case basis, but I think either prose or complicated situations (like the films I mentioned) or a footnote in ones that can be explained in a quick sentence do the job. I'm only kind of against the whole giant bold credit saying "Uncredited:" in the infobox which could easily be explained in a more clean way otherwise. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 January 2018 -- adding exec producers

Can we make a section for executive producers? They are crucial to the making of a film and often get ignored. Jsp2135 (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: @Jsp2135: Seems like an edit that could very well gain consensus. Please allow some time for consensus for form; you may care to ping the relevant Wikiprojects with RfCs to expedite the process. Once several days have passed, feel free to ping me or reopen the request. Ergo Sum 21:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Poster image requirements

I recently uploaded File:A Quiet Place film poster.jpg and saw it tagged to be reduced based on certain broader non-free image use criteria (see User:Ronhjones/Reduce). It got reduced by a bot, but then it got replaced by another image slightly smaller in dimensions but bigger in file size. There is a discussion about that specific matter here.

However, it does not appear that Template:Infobox film#Image really gets into specifics about what should be considered when uploading a poster image, either in terms of dimensions or file size. Perhaps this is something that the community can determine based on the tag's criteria so we can basically get it right the first time when uploading? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

For myself, I find it easiest to just upload a poster as I find it on the internet and let the bots sort the sizing out; it's much easier, and hopefully means that it will be done correctly. It also means that every jo-blo editor doesn't have to be an expert in images and trying to accurately resize them. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Low resolution should be used, per WP:IMAGERES. Filesize is irrelevant (unless it's crazy big I guess, because that would slow loading time). — Film Fan 22:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Film Fan is correct about this. The file size is essentially irrelevant, since it invariably just represents the level of compression in the file format. It shouldn't be an issue unless—as FF points out—it is so large to the extent that it makes downloading the page problematic (and with kilobytes we are on the wrong scale for that to happen). WP:IMAGESRES stipulates that the image resolution should be as small as possible to be usuable, so this implies it only needs to be as large as its intended use in articles. If the image is only going to be used in infoboxes then it does not need to be wider than 220 pixels. If the file size is considered an issue 9which I don't think it is) then the 17kb file could always be downsized. Betty Logan (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Adamstom.97, I think it can matter because Film Fan uploaded a better-quality version than mine, which is not something a bot can do. (The red text in their version shows up better than mine after a bot's size reduction.) Basically, we could simply suggest vertical posters to be 220 pixels in width and suggest a larger file byte size if it improves an image's readability at that resolution. Thoughts? Betty Logan? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't be against a suggestion for users who want to do it properly themselves. I just think that it will be easiest for most to just keep doing it the same way. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

If somebody uploads a smaller image more in keeping with the guideline then given the option we should adhere to it, but in most cases it is probably easier to just let the bot handle it. So in that sense I agree with Adamstom. However, I have no objection to qualifying the dimensions of an upload in the infobox instructions. Betty Logan (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we can make a couple of suggestions rather than requirements. I'll look at the current wording and suggest additional wording. One more question: is PNG preferred over JPG when it comes to poster images? Or it does not matter? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the file type makes any difference to be honest. JPG is a compressed format so it would make the overall file size a bit smaller. Betty Logan (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed text

Currently, Template:Infobox film#Image says, "Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox to serve as an identifying image for the article. Poster images can be found..." I propose for the following text to be inserted: "Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox to serve as an identifying image for the article. For portrait-oriented posters, the image does not need to be more than 220 pixels in width due to the infobox's image framing. There is no limit to an image's file byte size, so an image of the same resolution but with a larger file byte size can be uploaded if it improves visibility or readability. Poster images can be found..." Thoughts on that? Betty Logan, Film Fan, Adamstom.97? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I think there is a problem in that it implies that editors should upload images less than 220 pixels wide, when ideally we want them at 220 pixels exactly. It is probably better if the images are slightly larger than they need to be than smaller. If editors want to replace a 250 pixel image with a 220 pixel image then that's ok with me; however we have a bot going around that chops images down to size so isn't this a solution looking for a problem? Wikipedia isn't going to be sued for copyright infringement over 50 pixels or so. Betty Logan (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

First, I wanted to stay away from requiring the width outright, but we can do that. But in terms of the benefit, it would help to state the parameters explicitly so we can avoid back-and-forth uploading. This way we can say it should be 220 pixels in width, and if a new version's file byte size is bigger and improves visibility, then that's fine. Basically wanted to get it right for myself and to make sure everyone can be on the same page too (or at least point to the agreed-upon page). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It's only going to be relevant to a relatively small amount of film content, but I feel like the recommended pixel width should be connected to the non-free content reference. If the image is public domain, we don't need people reducing images when the bot wouldn't either.--tronvillain (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

tronvillain, that is a very good point! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm okay with everything here. May be worth adding something for landscape ("quad") posters which are used in the UK. The UK also uses one-sheet (portrait) posters and I think a recommendation to use those instead of the quads would make sense, as there is often edit warring between the two, and quad posters don't fit the infobox format quite as well. — Film Fan 22:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

What should the parameter be for "quad" posters? Also 220 pixels for width or what? I'm not familiar with the best practice for that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

220 pixels works fine for quad posters too. Just check out any of the James Bond film articles which use the quad poster. If anything the image is slightly more compact because they are smaller in height. Betty Logan (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, rather than giving a recommendation on what users should do, we should just state what parametres they need to be aware of: the default size is 220 pixels, there is no restriction on resolution except where non-free restrictions apply, etc. Then users can decide what they are going to do from there, and bots will clean up after them where needed. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Kind of thought that's what the proposed text was doing already. :) What kind of alternative wording did you have in mind? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I just meant, rather than say the image does not need to be more than 220 pixels in width due to the infobox's image framing, we could say Note that the infobox's default image width is 220 pixels or something along those lines, just a little change that focus on the requriements rather than suggestions. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - 220px is not sufficent for some images, due to their complexity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  Hmm, complexity of what? WP:IMAGERES says, "An original, high resolution image (that can be reasonably scaled down to maintain overall artistic and critical details) may lose some text detail. In such cases, that text should be duplicated on the image description page. Care should be given to the recreation of copyrighted text: while it is appropriate for credits from a movie poster as factual data, such duplication would not be appropriate for an original poem embedded within an image." Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

  I would add to that in the case of non-free images, having a larger image would potentially violate the FUR if the film is identifiable from a much smaller version. That said, wouldn't the bot just automatically reduce the size anyway? Betty Logan (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

  Please, expand on your comment with examples, Beyond My Ken. — Film Fan 00:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 February 2018

Please add a parameter for secondary languages A145029 (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Betty Logan (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@A145029: From the documentation: "In rare cases of clearly bilingual or multilingual films, enter separate entries with {{unbulleted list}}". This is only for movies that don't have a clear primary language. There is no need for a secondary languages parameter, as it would likely be misused for movies where only a very small amount of a language was spoken in the film. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with this request. What's a secondary language? Dubs? Any other language spoken in the film? (Terminator 2 would have to have Spanish as a secondary language). Having the primary language(s) used for filming is useful to the reader. Beyond that, it's getting into trivia range. Ravensfire (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Backing Ahecht and Ravensfire on this. Very unnecessary to have two language parameters. Sock (tock talk) 20:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, a single "Language" parameter is just fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many times I have to say this before you folks get it.

• (1) The Infobox field calls for "Stars"
• (2) In general, every film has a small number of stars, although some are "ensemble" films, which have more
• (3) The names of the stars almost always appear above the titles, and their pictures often appear together in advertising as the principal visual element
• {4} The actors listed in the billing block are not the "stars", they are the "principal actors", which means the stars plus the featured actors
• (5) Film billing is not a meritocracy, it's purpose is to help the film draw in customers and make money.
• (6) Stars sell a movie, that's why their names appear in larger type above the title, so that their names can be easily seen by people who will then (hopefully) be enticed to see the moving. The other people in the billing box, listed in the equivalent of agate type, are there primarily for contractual reasons, not to sell the movie, because almost no one reads the agate type.
• (7) Anybody who has any familiarity with the billing process for films knows that 1-6 are absolutely and indisputably true, and that therefore the advice in the documentation is simply wrong.
• {8) Telling editors to put all the names in the billing box in the "starring" field is not only a disservice to our readers, but clutters up the infobox with too many names. It also defies WP:COMMONSENSE.
• [9) Anyone interested in the film articles in Wikipedia being accurate should support the change of documentation to say that if there are names listed above the title, these actors alone are the <u<>stars of the film.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)