A common edit request is to add another crew parameter to the film infobox. Requested additions have included production designer, art director, set decorator, costume designer, choreographer, executive producer. The general consensus of the WikiProject Film community is to not expand the film infobox any further, but this does not preclude naming or listing them in the article body.
This template falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style
This template falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes
Template:Infobox film is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.
Production designer credit
I read the notes from Fleur Whitlock and agree with her that the production designer should be listed in this template. The directors right and left hand are the production designer and the cinematographer. Both should be listed. It seems silly that this request cannot be processed. The production designer starts the earliest, setting the tone for the show well before the dp hits the ground.Sometimes before the director as well. Who is actually involved in the Wikiproject community to provide this general consensus that they are not included? Perhaps an update and appeal is needed. 76.64.37.167 (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a link to these notes. I searched the archives for "Fleur Whitlock" and there were zero results. However, there are multiple prior discussions of the pros and cons of adding another credit to the infobox. DonIago (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but the consensus is that the infobox is long enough already. The top of this page says, "A common edit request is to add another crew parameter to the film infobox. Requested additions have included production designer, art director, set decorator, costume designer, choreographer, executive producer. The general consensus of the WikiProject Film community is to not expand the film infobox any further, but this does not preclude naming or listing them in the article body." I advocate for having crew lists (like how we have cast lists) to list crew members more comprehensively, like at Panic Room § Production. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)19:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Template-protected edit request on 16 November 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I was editing The Fox and the Child when I noticed the currency used for |=gross parameter was in U.S. dollars only. Since it is a 2007 French film I thought it was better to choose euros. My attempt:
I think that seems correct. I looked and did not see anything in currency or conversion guidelines to not do that. I think it would be fine to display just euros. I do think the article needs a "Release" section, where it can be mentioned how many euros it made in France compared to other territories. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)19:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starring 2025
Here, I revised the "Starring" parameter's guideline. My impression of how the previous version has been applied in practice is for the billing block to always trump everything else, which is not appropriate per WP:PSTS. The billing block is a primary source, and Wikipedia should be largely based on secondary sources (their being one step removed from the film). Usually the primary and secondary sources will match, but if there are discrepancies, the secondary sources should take precedent. (If the secondary sources contradict among themselves, that warrants deeper diving to solidify a local consensus.) Anyway, I was bold with this edit. Feel free to revert or discuss here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)11:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To share an example of what prompted this, Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film) does not have the voice actor for the character Tails in the "Starring" parameter per the billing block, yet three reviews I sampled (that I recalled tended to group actors at the end) all name that voice actor. So I hope there can be more flexibility, based on determining due weight from secondary sources, to better represent "starring" actors for a film based on what the real world is saying. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)11:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the end goal is here? So the Sonic 3 poster lists 9 people, the variety review lists 14, so we should defer to the Variety article? The poster (when a billing block is included) avoids having to establish a local consensus every time, it avoids constant debate and quickly shuts down people who want to add every tertiary character to the infobox. It's "unbiased, unprejudiced, fair". At least for our needs. All I think is how atrociously long the starring section on MCU films are now, and then think about adding 10 more names because The Hollywood Reporter just listed every role at the end of their review. Then having to establish a local consensus because people disagree over which names to include. Objectively, having seen Sonic 3, Tails isn't a starring role and there's probably a reason they're not on the poster when the 3 other main voice actors are. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a situation where it makes sense to defer to secondary sources since any number of reviews could come up with their own list of who they think is important. Better to have an objective list that avoids arguments. My preference is to follow the billing block until the film is released and then update the list to match with the onscreen main titles. At that point, if editors take issue with the list (feel it is too long or someone is missing, for example) they can come to a local consensus for any changes and secondary sources could be used to support their arguments. But in general that should not be necessary. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is the inflexibility. Guidelines in general can sometimes be applied as if they were policy. For the most part, the billing block is fine. I get your point about debates across the board, but I think these disputes are more because some editors personally want more names there, rather than their citing WP:SECONDARY sources. I think there should always be some space for discussion, rooted in such sources. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)12:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I've researched this, but if anything I'd suspect that secondary sources are likely to be more liberal in terms of who they consider to be starring actors than the billing block, so changing this to give more weight to secondary sources seems, to me, likely to lead to larger, not smaller infoboxes.
Otherwise, while I see the concern, I do like the unambiguous guidance to use the billing block, and, as with everything else, editors who feel that's not appropriate in specific cases can always make their arguments at the article's Talk page. DonIago (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Requested edit
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Short description pattern matching failing, resulting in "0000 American film"
For certain inputs to {{film date}}, the short description's pattern matching is failing, resulting in an automatic short description of "0000 American film" or similar. I have done a bit of troubleshooting, but I haven't figured out why the string matching, which looks pretty straightforward, is failing for these cases. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After a quick look at a handful, my best guess seems to be an incorrect syntax of {{film date}} in the infobox using a MDY year in the first parameter (i.e., {{film date|January 8, 2024}} as opposed to the correct three params (i.e., {{film date|2024|01|08}}). ~Cheers, TenTonParasol05:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that appears to be the cause, but I'm curious why it happens. When I expand that mis-formatted template at Special:ExpandTemplates, it appears to work fine, and "0000" is not in the expanded text. Where does the "0000" come from? – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add the "prequel" and "sequel" of the films that are part of the franchises, like, for example, James Bond 007 and Star Wars, on a template. Jussie2024 (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
_-_The_Noun_Project.svg){kind=small}
