Talk:Five Across the Eyes (film)

Film infobox
Since this is a film, I do not understand why we cannot use the film infobox in this article, as shown here. Instead, User:Soundvisions1 appears intent on using some strange hardcoded html table with parser functions as shown here, which transcludes templates from Soundvisions1's userspace. I do not understand why this film article is so special that it cannot use the standard. Please discuss here. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * See infobox album. It uses the same code and has been used since 2008. One has to look at the actual back end code of infobox album to see that. In case Plastikspork and others do not understand how to see tghis here is a direct link to the "strange hardcoded html table with parser functions" for the infobox album source: View source - Infobox album. Same code - same "strange hardcoded html table with parser functions" The idea was to have a constant between infoboxes for media - however things have changed over the years. For example one would also need to read the IMDb, Allmovie, and other external links section of the Infobox film page that *that* template In more recent years, additional external websites have become increasingly useful resources, including Allmovie, Box Office Mojo, British Film Institute, Metacritic, and Rotten Tomatoes. Also, modern films almost invariably have an official website. As a consequence, new external links were added to and removed from the infobox as consensus changed on the subject. However there appears to have been no such change on the infobox album template, on which this VHS/DVD template is based. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We should use infobox film. We should have consistency across all film articles and the way to do this is by using just one infobox for this. That infobox is currently used on 55673 articles. Soundvisions1, why should this article be any different? And what advantage is there of using your method rather than the standard infobox? If you have any suggestions as to how it can be improved pleased do suggest them. Mhiji (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur with Plastikspork, Mhiji, and the edit summary rationale given by Jack Merridrew. User space templates should not be transcluded into article space. There is absolutely no reason in the world why this article cannot use the same Infobox film as all other film articles, instead of some weird parser-html-hardcode gibberish being beamed in from someone's userspace. I'm not sure why Soundvision1 has his own custom infobox in userspace, when it's functionally identical to the film infobox. Suggest replacing the infobox in the article with the standard, then finding out what the purpose is behind Soundvisions1's userspace infobox and, if it serves no useful purpose, nominating it for deletion. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Editors shouldn't have to become computer programmers to update basic information in the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply is above - you all posted as I was replying. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's the same as the Album template, why not use the template? Why should editors be forced to learn HTML (and that code is more than just basic HTML 101)?  That's why templates were created to mask the code and make it easier for just about anyone to use them.  Anyway the film infobox is the appropriate template to use since this is.. well a film article. — Mike   Allen   05:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * ok, this talk page. The code in question appears to be an adaptation of the album code copied to here with bits to user space. Right? Bad concept. There's nothing special about this film article that warrants any of this. You're free to fiddle with tests like this in your user space, but it is highly inappropriate to insert user space into article space. This mostly seems about colours and specific reviews and that's all off, too. WP:Deviations for the colours, and take any ideas to template talk:infobox film, as above, where any of this will fare poorly. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Important facts you are all either ignoring outright or simply refuse to look into or maybe can't read - I really have no idea and am not implying that one size fits all. But: 1. This article was being discussed to be nominated for deletion when I stepped in an saved it. It never got nominated because of my work on it. As such it has been on the watch list since that time. 2. In 2008 it was suggested to me that I should work on a template that could be used for VHS and DVD releases that was modeled after the album template. I did that. 3. This discussion is really not about the template however - this all was triggered by an I.P (actually two on them both coming from the same location) that made changes to this article. Both of the I.P's are tagged as possible vandalism I.P.s. Their edits were reverted. So don't attempt to make my reversions as being about this template because it isn't. From what I see Plastikspork has made it an issue and posted in other locations and contacted their friends telling them to post on my talk page and here.

Ultimately you all can complain that this is "some weird parser-html-hardcode gibberish":


 * Name       =
 * Type       =
 * Longtype   =
 * Artist     =
 * Cover      =
 * Cover size =
 * Caption    =
 * Released   =
 * Recorded   =
 * Genre      =
 * Length     =
 * Language   =
 * Label      =
 * Director   =
 * Producer   =
 * Reviews    =
 * Compiler   =
 * Chronology =
 * Last film  =
 * This film  =
 * Next film  =

I say if that is "some weird parser-html-hardcode gibberish" than so is this:


 * name          =
 * image         =
 * image size    =
 * alt           =
 * caption       =
 * director      =
 * producer      =
 * writer        =
 * screenplay    =
 * story         =
 * based on      =
 * narrator      =
 * starring      =
 * music         =
 * cinematography =
 * editing       =
 * studio        =
 * distributor   =
 * released      =
 * runtime       =
 * country       =
 * language      =
 * budget        =
 * gross         =
 * preceded by   =
 * followed by   =

Frankly what I did in 2008, when I was asked to create something like this, was to, *gasp*, actually create something that all someone had to do was put "DVD" or "VHS" after "type" in the exact same way that is described at Infobox album - Type. As I have said - if any of you, or all of you, feel the that the layout of Infobox album is so hard to follow than feel free to bring it up there. If any of you want to, in 2010, work on that template to include DVD, VHS and now, HD-DVD and Blu Ray, than go right ahead. I was reverting potential vandalism from an already tagged for vandalism account and it had zero to to with the template. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A few things. First, when an IP makes an edit, it should be judged on the edit, not the editor. The IP may be tagged, but that is because it is a shared IP that happened to be used by a vandal at some point in time. The IP's edit in this case was legit, so arguing that you were reverting "a possible vandal" is bad faith, and frankly, totally irrelevant in this case. It actually is about the code.


 * Second:




 * ...is a hell of a lot harder to understand and edit then a list of parameters in your example. Templates are designed to rid the articles of just this sort of code. Putting code like this in an article is a big no-no; it should be placed in Template: space where it belongs. By copying the code to the article, it ceases to be a template. — Edokter •  Talk  • 12:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line: Soundvisions1, while your efforts to improve this article are appreciated, you don't own it. You have given no rationale for why this article cannot use Infobox film, which all other film articles use (and this article is about a film), and why it instead requires a custom infobox. All other points raised (the article's past history, IP edits, the nature of your custom infobox) fail to address this fundamental question. The article should simply use the same infobox as all other film articles; this would render all of this elaborate explanation of code moot. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)