Template talk:Infobox film

Template-protected edit request on 2 May 2024
Please, add VISUAL EFFECTS category to update information in this film template. Neuropixels (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We have not wanted to add more credits to the film infobox because it is already long enough, but this does not mean that a full crew list cannot be provided in the article body. (After all, the infobox is generally a summary of what is in the article.) See Panic Room as an example. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2024
production design to the Info box film template. So that production designers of films can be credited. thanks Maryturner88 (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Nardog (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Maryturner88 - the credit for 'PRODUCTION DESIGNER' should be added to the info box template. The Production Designer is as important as the Cinematographer. This omission is disrespectful to a role of key creative significance on any film/TV project.  The Production Designer is responsible for creating the visual world that the actors inhabit and the camera photographs. Without the Production Designer, there is no 'world'. Fleurwhitlock (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example of an article this is missing at? Gonnym (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * All film pages are missing the role of PRODUCTION DESIGNER in the info box. The option to add it does not exist in the template Fleurwhitlock (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I asked for an example, not a repeat of what you said above. Gonnym (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Fleurwhitlock (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, I asked for an article, not code. --Gonnym (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you need - the issue is that the info box template doesn't allow for the Production Designer to be credited. Here is the link to the Wikipedia page for the feature film 'The Mission':
 * The Mission (1986 film)
 * Production Designer: Stuart Craig nominated for an Academy Award Fleurwhitlock (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well I did ask three times for an "article" example of where this would be missing, so I'm not sure what was so unclear. At least now you gave an example. So looking at Stuart Craig, the article prose does not mention him even once and if he wouldn't have been nominated for an award then he'd have zero mentions in the article. Now I'm not saying other entries in the infobox aren't problematic, even Chris Menges isn't mentioned in the article, but before you go asking to add a new parameter to the infobox, notice that this credit has been missing for years from articles where any information can be added. To recap, currently there is no reason to add more information to the infobox and I'd be more inclined to remove information from it. Gonnym (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This issue has been raised before:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_film/Archive_22#Production_Designer_Credit
 * The three key creative roles (after the script has been written and the money raised) in film production are: director, production designer and cinematographer.
 * The Production Designer is responsible for the visual world regardless of a studio or location based project. Even a contemporary production requires input from the Production Designer to create the world required by the script.
 * I agree - fewer credited roles would be better (eg Narrator or Distributor) but the Production Designer should be added. Fleurwhitlock (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This conversation isn't leading anywhere. You missed my point completely that no one cares to add the information to the article itself. The infobox isn't here to replace the article but to summarize key points in it. If the production designer isn't even mentioned in articles then there is no point in adding it to the infobox. Gonnym (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Barbie film, in Wikipedia there is a whole section written about the set design under development with refs to external articles and yet no production Designer is listed in the box. External link:https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/26/movies/barbie-movie-set-design.html
 * can I also ask please if you can be more polite in your replies you are being very aggressive and it’s not really necessary. 84.9.59.239 (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Again missing the point completely. I'm sure you can find a handful of articles that mention these people. Most articles won't, just as a lot don't mention the editor. People love to request over and over to add information to the infobox, but do little to actually add the information to the article. I find a request from an editor that created their account just to request this addition here to be in very bad faith. Gonnym (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You’re not getting the point and I fear you never will. They do mention the designers, you just don’t know it, read about it or educate yourself on it and yet you post here and pretend you do. You know so little about movies and film, you’re no expert. I’ll be reporting you. Have a nice day. 84.9.59.239 (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m shocked at the direction this conversation turned! What an aggressive and impolite person, set entirely to be unpleasant instead of helpful.
 * The fact is, the production designer is a core and key creative in the filmmaking process, yet in nearly every article, review and official summary online, their credit is missing. Up to and and including every Wikipedia article on films.
 * The contract between AMPTP and The Art Directors Guild dictates credit given to the Production Designer whenever the Director of Photography is given credit, and “prominent placement” on par, as the Production Designer is a core creative in the same grade as the DP. In film credits, you’ll see the designer’s name listed between them as standard because that’s where they are in the pecking order, so to speak.
 * It’s very obvious that the OP is simply requesting that Wikipedia, which purports to be unbiased and factual, just list the facts and be inclusive, giving credit to the creators of the world building.
 * It seems like an overdue request, and something that has absolutely frustrated me for years as well.
 * If you can’t exact change by instigating it, in the name of fairness and journalism, then how might one go about educating and changing the protocol? 2A00:23C8:D686:F201:B855:7389:8306:B32F (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your replies and positioning in this thread are curious as it suggests that you have little or no understanding of the reasons supporting the requested amendment. In addition, your inability to discuss the matter intelligently and respectfully also contravenes the fourth of Wikipedia's 'Five Pillars' of fundamental principles. Fleurwhitlock (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please explain the process of 'consensus' with regard to the request to add PRODUCTION DESIGNER credit to the infobox template. The explanation of 'consensus' within the Wiki guidelines seems to refer to subjective content whereby contributors and editors discuss the refinement of the information.  The request to create an additional field to credit one of the key creatives on a production has little scope for debate and 'consensus' other than saying "no" because there are too many credits already....
 * By way of support for my continued pursuit of this amendment, I offer this quote by Leo Kerz (1912-1976) from Elliott Stein’s comprehensive book ‘Caligari’s Cabinet and Other Grand Illusions: A History of Film Design’:
 * “The main function of the production designer is to create, in collaboration with the film’s director and director of photography, a distinct mood, a graphic approach, which in color, in texture, in overall image produces a characteristic style intended to set this particular film apart from the work of any other given team of film-makers. The production designer determines the keyshots and sketches them out for cameraman and director.  These sketches ideally incorporate everything, from lighting to position of characters, the choice of lenses – his work thus becomes the point of departure for the shooting of the film.”
 * Not to reflect the importance of this role in the basic list of credits displayed in the infobox is disappointing. Fleurwhitlock (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that Production Designer should be added to the info box. 212.180.235.92 (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that Production Designer should be added to the info box. 212.180.235.92 (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The core issue is that the community does not want the infobox to get longer with more credits, of which "production designer" is not the only one missing. The infobox takes up space, especially in mobile view. How do we justify one added credit but not another? I personally think we could use less credits in the infobox and have a crew-based list template in the "Production" section to list crew members in more detail. See Panic Room as an example. But whenever I mention that alternative, I don't really see a response in favor of that. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I’m trying to get my head around this conversation and indeed the stance taken … clearly the community does want to see Production Designer included. The individual responsible for overseeing the design and construction of all the sets, furniture, fixtures and fittings, props as well as wardrobe … literally the complete environment, look and feel of the entire production and you are justifying their exclusion because you don’t want to add an extra box?
 * Production Designer is as key as Director of Photography in film production, ignorance of this fact is no excuse for exclusion.
 * It would be great if you could go and talk to some other people about your stance, this is too big a decision to just throw back in the faces of the entire Art Department.
 * Unfortunately feathers have been somewhat ruffled now and attentions are focussed. I look forward to a new, more gentle and accommodating approach to Fleur’s valid request.
 * Thank you. 217.155.136.252 (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would just like to point out that your example of Panic Room illustrates our point - it includes Director and Cinematographer (aka Director/s of Photography) but not Production Designer. 217.155.136.252 (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It also has art director, set decorator, and costume designer. I think most of these have been requested before. Other people have requested choreographer and executive producer. I agree with Betty below that if editor and cinematographer were not listed today, we probably wouldn't include them. We just got strict with the cutoff point. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the general view is that the infobox is too long as it is. If it were created today the cinematographer and editor fields would very likely not be included. The decision isn't a reflection of the perceived status of the production designer, but rather a reflection of the community's relationship with infoboxes. Betty Logan (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This thread is perplexing as the request to add 'Production Designer' to the info box template is a valid amendment as the role is fundamental to film production.
 * Wikipedia promotes itself as an evolving source of information from a position of consensus.
 * It would appear that there are many requests to amend the info box therefore the 'community' does wish to see more roles credited, the issue being which ones. If the consensus of the community agreed on the key roles/info lines to be included then this should prompt an amendment.
 * Equally, there is no point running an interminable list down the side of an article and Erik's suggestion also has validity. This would point to removing the info box entirely (maybe just an image of the film poster instead?) and a sub-section for 'Production' where crew roles can be listed cf 'Panic Room'.
 * To not engage with the debate and merely block any suggested amendments is contrary to Wikipedia's 'Five Pillars' fundamental principles. Fleurwhitlock (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I offer a different theorem. Maybe your lack of experience editing here makes you see consensus where there is none. Your argument that This would point to removing the info box entirely (maybe just an image of the film poster instead? is something no one here brought forward, wanted, or will ever gain any minimal of consensus. Also, as I've explained several times, no one is blocking you or the questionable various IPs editing here, from actually adding to the prose any verifiable piece of text you want, including production designer information. For some reason none of you did that yet. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK and get some experience actually editing articles. Gonnym (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I am not an experienced editor of Wikipedia articles and nor do I wish to be. I am not interested in debating or discussing content.  My request is to add PRODUCTION DESIGNER to the info box template.
 * What criteria were used to assemble to the credits in the info box? This is important as it will allow constructive discussion about whether the inclusion of PRODUCTION DESIGNER is valid or not.  The current thread is merely denial on the grounds that there are already too many credits listed. Fleurwhitlock (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I completely doubt the outcome of simplifying the infobox that much. Gradualism is the most likely approach, to either expand the infobox gradually, or to shrink it. We've already touched on the preference not to grow the infobox any further, and if we shrink it, it would be like Betty said, to remove editor and/or cinematographer. However, that may really only come into play if there are viable crew lists all across film articles, which we are nowhere near accomplishing. Think of the "Starring" parameter in the infobox. We name some actors but not all of them. Another consideration is that if a parameter is provided, it will be filled zealously. So it's not likely that if a production designer parameter gets added, only the most noteworthy figures will be added. Every single film that has ever had a production designer will get its parameter populated. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So the potential to amend the info box content is feasible - this is encouraging.
 * However, to suggest removing CINEMATOGRAPHER displays an ignorance of the creative team involved in film production. Almost every film and TV project has a CINEMATOGRAPHER and a PRODUCTION DESIGNER working with the DIRECTOR to realise the world in which the narrative is set.  The WRITER provides the script and the PRODUCER raises the finances.  Of course, there exceptions to this simplistic framework and instances where the roles may be the same person but this is a good basis for the core creative team.
 * 'Consensus' about editing the info box contents should be from discussion and not merely defending the existing fields as an historic fait accompli. Fleurwhitlock (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding the entry "executive producer"
I was thinking of adding an entry for "executive producer" in the template to refer to the producers directly involved for financially investing in the film. 2600:1700:B331:50F0:C9F3:119E:1837:833 (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This is not usually a noteworthy crew member, unlike in television where the executive producers are the lead creators. In film, "executive producer" is a title given to all sorts of people, including people who aren't even involved in the making of the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * That's correct the EP in film is not involved in the creative and management responsibility like TV shows, but a film's EP does invest in the shoot so they are noteworthy in my opinion. 2600:1700:B331:50F0:C9F3:119E:1837:833 (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The WikiProject Film community is pretty set on the list of credits in the infobox, but this does not mean that executive producers cannot be named in the article body, if reliable sources support that. I've listed art directors, costume designers, and production designers in some places. Just be aware that it may be that many executive producers are not notable figures. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to think this page needs a list of perennial proposals... DonIago (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Like filling out Template:Editnotices/Page/Template talk:Infobox film or more like a talk-header template? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We already have a header advising about the removal of the sequel field way-back-when and the 'omission' of ratings information; perhaps something about executive producers could be added there. Or perhaps we just need a bulleted list of fields that have been brought up before with links to any key discussions. I'm just spitballing though. DonIago (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * An edit notice would probably be helpful, listing all the parameters many editors request to add that have been discussed before: EPs, below the line production heads, etc. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If it pares down the number of redundant requests we get or makes it easier to address them by referring editors to the notice then I'd fully support that. DonIago (talk) 05:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 6 June 2024
Description of suggested change: Add PRODUCTION DESIGNER as credit in the info box

Diff: Fleurwhitlock (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The PRODUCTION DESIGNER is a key role in any film or TV drama project. It is their job to interpret the script and create the world in which the narrative takes place. They usually begin their work before the cinematographer is engaged and sometimes before the director is confirmed. This credit should be added alongside Director and Cinematographer.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 16:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Notice template
I updated the notice template to say, "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 commented out the other situations because I feel like these never come up anymore, where additional crew parameters have been ongoing. Mentioning here in case anyone has any feedback. Pinging editors recently discussing this:, ,. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I somewhat wonder whether we should include links to meaningful discussions regarding the parameters in question, but I don't feel very strongly about it. Thanks Erik; I'm not sure whether this will improve anything (which is to say I'm not sure how many people read the editnotices before posting), but any improvement is improvement! DonIago (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I felt this should be on the talk page edit notice, so when someone is selecting "edit" or "new section", they see this notice. I can create that if desired (I think it would help). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See the notice here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I support that. Feel free to use the same template and wording in the notice template for consistency. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's done. I did use 's wording from the one above, with some bolding in places I thought helpful, plus directing editors to the template talk archives should they be curious for more info. I am a template editor so can adjust this as needed. Just give me a ping. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Favre! DonIago (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Articles appearing on Category:Pages using infobox film with missing date category
Articles that use this infobox for film information appear in the aforementioned maintenance category, but also quite frequently appear in Category:Upcoming films and Category:Unfinished films at the same time. Is there a way to automate a film's article from not appearing in the missing date category if it's also part of upcoming and/or unfinished films? Removing the  tag doesn't seem to remove it from the category, even after purging. SmittenGalaxy (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This can be handled in several ways but I believe the correct way is to add this missing piece of important information to the infobox. So if the film is to be released in the future then upcoming and if the film is unreleased then unreleased. This can then be coded into the template. Gonnym (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Both  and   work on removing movies from missing date category, but don't appear to update the upcoming or unreleased film categories. Not as big of a deal because the maintenance category seems to be just fine, but something I'll keep in mind as a potential issue later on. Thanks though! SmittenGalaxy (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want to update the upcoming category then you need to use Film date with a future date. I don't think it has support for "unreleased" values. Gonnym (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, posted a discussion on that template's talk page. Until then, I'll just continue to use  and   to get the films off the maintenance category. SmittenGalaxy (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I've come back from the discussion started at Film date. I don't believe there is current consensus within the film project to use anything other than a date in released (so no text of "upcoming" or "unreleased"). In both those cases, the parameter should just be excluded, and a manual addition of the relevant category should be added. So my suggestion is the coding of adding Category:Pages using infobox film with missing date to either of these instances gets reexamined. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * There is no code that does anything, that was just an idea how to handle this. Currently if a date is missing it's in the category, as it should (seeing as how there are over 3k pages in the category). Gonnym (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the main issue I was having was cleaning up the maintenance category while also populating the upcoming and unreleased film categories. Using  and   was just a way of cleaning it for films that had no actual release date, but this did not update the associated categories, which is where the initial question had come from.
 * If indeed there is no way to do it under the current implementation, or no way for it to be coded, I'll just continue populating the categories manually. But if there is truly no way to do so, what should I fill into  on movies that are not released, yet have no set date online anywhere? Assuming that "unreleased" and "upcoming" shouldn't be used. SmittenGalaxy (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Leave them for now and I'll think of another way to handle these two groups. Most of the 3k pages in the category are valid cases of missing dates. Gonnym (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Prequels & Sequels in the Infobox
Currently the film Infobox doesn't identify a film's prequels or sequels even when they're explicit, and I don't think that's helpful. I think most Wikipedia users would agree it's helpful to have the prequels and sequels if they exist in the Infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chachilongbow (talk • contribs) 05:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * See Template:Infobox film. Gonnym (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it could have been helpful, but the problem we had circa 2011 was constant disputing of using an out-of-universe or in-universe order, and what to do about spinoffs. Like should The Phantom Menace be listed in "Followed by" on Return of the Jedi, for example, or not? Where would something like Rogue One today even fit if it's "between" main films? It's not worth the hassle, and the lead section is the best place to define what films came before and after, in either context. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Navboxes are also quite helpful to avoid this problem. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Navboxes are easily superior IMO, and renders the infobox debate moot. Betty Logan (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep. Something we had before and slowly got trimmed away. Honestly, the sequel to a film and specific context to how it relates to it is usually mentioned within the lead either way. No real benefit of it being added here in an infobix that is bloated as it is. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if it could be made to work, the infobox is already becoming longer and longer because of the number of studios/countries/producers/release dates as more and more people are credited for contributing 1% to a film, which makes hte infobox bleed into other sections and break formatting, adding more will only make that worse from an organisational and style perspective. As others have said it's covered by navboxes and should typically be covered in the lead as well. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)