Template talk:Indiana Jones

Order of films
The template should list the films in the chronology of PRODUCTION. The template is supposed to provide information. While Temple of Doom might chronologically come first plot-wise, presenting this on the template without explanation is misleading to those unfamiliar with the series. -- Wikipedical 22:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. Some may come to the template looking for chronology, while some may for production order. As a compromise, it is best to list them in chronological order, while giving release years as well. The Wookieepedian 22:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Not my specialist field but I would expect to find them in release order: Raiders, Temple, Crusade, unnamed fourth film. David | Talk 23:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Add another villan
If Arnold Toht has this template, why doesn't his name appear on it? E fansay--- T / C /Sign Here Please 07:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Other media
Aren't there any pages about Indiana Jones comics, or the Young Indiana Jones novel series yet? (I'm not clear on whether they're partly original or just novelizations of the TV episodes.) --DocumentN (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Indiana Jones Adventure theme park ride seems like it should go somewhere in the box also. --DocumentN (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: done, basically. --DocumentN (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we delete the super minor characters?
Is there really a reason for Alfred Molina or Dan Akyroyd to be on the "cast" list for the Indiana Jones series? They both have extremely minor roles. Akyroyd can barely even be seen in his cameo in the second movie. I know they're famous actors but it seems a little vain to put them on the list due to their extremely minor roles in the series. 61.213.76.87 (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: "this is an American wikipedia"
The English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language. --DocumentN (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Last Crusade
Yes, the Last Crusade video game is already linked at the top of the template, but that link is easy to miss for someone who's just looking at the row that starts with the "Video games" cell. I for one was searching for the name of the game that came before Fate of Atlantis. I found its name on MobyGames and looked at this template again. Only then did I notice these extra cells at the top of the template. Usability is lacking here, you're not helping visitors to find what they're looking for. It can be improved by also listing the game(s) in the row about the "Video games". I recently tried making the change, but it was reverted. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: The Graphic Adventure and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: The Action Game are missing in the template. Edit: Nevermind, i just read the previous comment. I had the same issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:8AC0:676C:6503:DC97:F6F7:A547 (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I also almost added it. Perhaps some change is necessary after all.

Lucas and Spielberg above
Frankly, I think the existing guideline, or at the very least the application of it, is mistaken. The "no crew" provision is meant to ensure that the navbox doesn't become bloated with every DP or minor cast memeber that's ever been in a film in a series. However, exception should be made for creators of characters that have expanded beyond film, just as authors are listed for books that have been adapted to film and creators are listed for comic book characters. Because ultimately there's no difference if a character is created for film first, or in a book if they have appeared in both. The idea that the Harry Potter navbox wouldn't contain JK Rowling's name is silly, so why should the Indiana Jones navbox not contain the names of this character's creators? oknazevad (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The point you are making highlights what is wrong with other navboxes, rather than a problem with WP:PERFNAV. The navigation through the works that each individual created would be dealt with at their own navigational boxes if they were a primary creative force behind the work.  As multiple people are usually responsible for the creation of a film series, it would be too problematic to allow them in navboxes of this type.  Who created the Alien franchise for example?  Is James Cameron's input less important than Ridley Scott's, Dan O'Bannon's etc, etc?  I'm sure neither Lucas or Spielberg had much input in many of the entries listed here.  In fact, could Spielberg even be considered a "creator" of Indiana Jones?  He seems to have been added in a very slapdash way in the first place.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I see your point in the case of Indiana Jones but on the other hand:
 * Books: Simple medium, mostly only one main creator, the writer.
 * Comics: Slightly more complex medium, mostly two main creators, the writer and artist.
 * Films: Very complex medium, ???? how many creators, the writer, the story boardist, the director, the producer, the costume designer, the original actor. Some would say there is only one true Indiana Jones, Ford.
 * With film, tv and videogames things like these become complex.★Trekker (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I think comics is a problem too for a couple of reasons. Firstly, you only have to look at the number of navboxes at Stan Lee to see why.  However, a navbox for Stan Lee detailing the characters he created and the comics he founded enables navigation through those titles, without the need to place him in every navbox.  Secondly, when someone else takes over a character, they make it their own.  Frank Miller or Brian Michael Bendis taking over Daredevil for example...  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Creating a character first is fundamentally different than re-imagining them, there is a reason why the original creators are credited and not every writer who has worked on them. I also diagree that Bendis is as important as many give him credit for, his run is concidered good but so are many others. He hardly made Daredevil a completly new character like Ennis did with Punisher, Miller maybe can get that credit for Batman and Daredevil. There is here were the problem lies, crediting the original writer and artist is easy, debating over who also deserves credit is hard and oppinionated.★Trekker (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"Comics: Slightly more complex medium, mostly two main creators, the writer and artist"

In some cases, they are the same person. Carl Barks, Jack Kirby, John Byrne and others often served as both writers and artists of their stories.

In other cases, more than one writer or more than one artist were involved in the creation of a story. For example "Uncanny X-Men" #352 (February, 1998) credits 6 artists for the same story: Darryl Banks, John Cassaday, Terry Dodson, Tommy Lee Edwards, Cully Hamner, and Anthony Williams. Which probably explains why the art style and character designs change every few pages in that issue.

"Creating a character first is fundamentally different than re-imagining them, there is a reason why the original creators are credited and not every writer who has worked on them."

Probably because the later would be impossible. Most long-running characters in comics have been handled by an ever-increasing number of writers and artists. Lets take Daredevil for example. Daredevil vol. 1 (1964-1998) had quite a cast of writers over the years. Looking at the credited names:
 * 1)Stan Lee. Issues #1-9 (April, 1964-August, 1965), #11-50 (December, 1965-March, 1969), #53 (June, 1969).
 * 2)Wallace Wood. Issue #10 (October, 1965).
 * 3)Dennis O'Neil. Issue #18 (July, 1966), #194-202 (May, 1983-January, 1984), #204-207 (March, 1984-June, 1984), #210-218 (September, 1984-May, 1985), #220-223 (July, 1985-October, 1985), #225-226 (December, 1985-January, 1986).
 * 4)Roy Thomas. Issues #51-69 (April, 1969-October, 1970), #71 (December, 1970).
 * 5)Gary Friedrich. Issues #67 (August, 1970), #70 (November, 1970), #79 (August, 1971).
 * 6)Len Wein. Issue #71 (December, 1970), #124 (August, 1975).
 * 7)Gerald F. Conway. Issues #72-98 (January, 1971-April, 1973), #118 (February, 1975), #144-145 (April, 1977-May, 1977).
 * 8)Allyn Brodsky. Issue #73 (February, 1971).
 * 9)Larry Ivie. Issue #81 (November, 1971).
 * 10)Stephen Ross Gerber. Issues #97-101 (March, 1973-July, 1973), #103-117 (September, 1973-January, 1975).
 * 11)Christopher Claremont. Issues #102 (August, 1973), #117 (January, 1975), #375 (May, 1998).
 * 12)Tony Isabella. Issues #119-123 (March, 1975-July, 1975).
 * 13)Bob Brown. Issues #121-123 (May, 1975-July, 1975).
 * 14)Marv Wolfman. Issues #124-139 (August, 1975-November, 1976), #141-143 (January, 1977-March, 1977), #158 (May, 1979).
 * 15)Bill Mantlo. Issue #140 (December, 1976).
 * 16)James Charles Shooter. Issues #141 (January, 1977), #144-151 (April, 1977-March, 1978), #223 (October, 1985).
 * 17)Gil Kane. Issues #148 (September, 1977), #151 (March, 1978).
 * 18)Roger McKenzie. Issues #151-161 (March, 1978-November, 1979), #163-166 (March, 1980-September, 1980), #183 (June, 1982).
 * 19)Mary Jo Duffy. Issue #157 (March, 1979).
 * 20)Michael Fleisher. Issue #162 (January, 1980).
 * 21)Frank Miller. Issues #165-166 (July, 1980-September, 1980), #168-191 (January, 1981-February, 1983), #219 (June, 1985), #226-233 (January, 1986-August, 1986).
 * 22)David Michelinie. Issue #167 (November, 1980).
 * 23)Alan Brennert. Issue #192 (March, 1983).
 * 24)Larry Hama. Issue #193 (April, 1983).
 * 25)Michael Carlin. Issue #202 (January, 1984).
 * 26)Steven D. Grant. Issue #203 (February, 1984).
 * 27)Arthur Byron Cover. Issue #208-209 (July, 1984-August, 1984).
 * 28)Harlan Ellison. Issue #208-209 (July, 1984-August, 1984).
 * 29)David Mazzucchelli. Issue #210 (September, 1984).
 * 30)James Christopher Owsley. Issuea #224 (November, 1985), #246 (September, 1987).
 * 31)Mark Gruenwald. Issue #234 (September, 1986).
 * 32)Danny Fingeroth. Issue #235 (October, 1986).
 * 33)Ann Nocenti. Issues #236 (November, 1986), #238-245 (January, 1987-August, 1987), #247-257 (October, 1987-August, 1988), #259-291 (October, 1988-April, 1991).
 * 34)John Harkness. Issue #237 (December, 1986).
 * 35)Fabian Nicieza. Issue #258 (September, 1988).
 * 36)John Romita Jr. . Issue #266 (May, 1989).
 * 37)Daniel G. Chichester. Issues #292-309 (May, 1991-October, 1992), #312-327 (January, 1993-April, 1994), #329-332 (June, 1994-September, 1994), #334 (November, 1994), #336 (January, 1995), #338-342 (March, 1995-July, 1995), #380 (October, 1998).
 * 38)Glenn Herdling. Issues #310-311 (November, 1992-December, 1992).
 * 39)Gregory Wright. Issues #328 (May, 1994), #333-337 (October, 1994-February, 1995).
 * 40)Warren Ellis. Issue #343 (August, 1995).
 * 41)Jean Marc DeMatteis. Issues #344-350 (September, 1995-March, 1996).
 * 42)Ivan Velez Jr. . Issue #350 (March, 1996).
 * 43)John Rozum. Issue #351 (April, 1996).
 * 44)Ben Raab. Issues #352 (May, 1996), #373 (March, 1998).
 * 45)Karl Kesel. Issues #353-357 (June, 1996-October, 1996), #359-364 (December, 1996-May, 1997).
 * 46)Joseph Kelly. Issues #358 (November, 1996), #365-375 (June, 1997-May, 1998).
 * 47)Jonathan Barron. Issue #374 (April, 1998).
 * 48)Scott Lobdell. Issues #376-379 (June, 1998-September, 1998).

48 writers in 34 years. How do we cover such detail in navigation boxes? I doubt if we can. Dimadick (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah this is pretty much exactly what I said. Crediting a few people is easy, which is why it's done.★Trekker (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We're completely off topic, but Brian Michael Bendis is the problem I'm highlighting. If we keep including every title in navboxes for every writer that worked on every series, then a long-running series with lots of writers will be drowning in navboxes...  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree. Garth Ennis on the other hand only includes series which he specifically wrote, which is the way that I feel it should be done.★Trekker (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)