Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 10

Chronology of preceded/followed
If this has been addressed in the past please forgive the repeat. Is there any consensus for the order to use for the "preceded by" and "followed by" parameters if the films are released out of chronological order according to the sequence of the storyline? For example, the Star Wars series, the Indiana Jones films, and films with the Hannibal Lecter character had the earliest film according to the storyline being released after films with later events in the storyline. Ward3001 (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We had a discussion about this at WT:FILM, but it reached a stalemate. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We should probably reopen the discussion, and place an RfC, as well as other announcments, so that we can get more feedback on this. It's tiring to see the constent battles between what should and what should not be included.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal, August 2008
I'm here to suggest merging Template:Infobox Korean film into this template and adding new feature. Except for the display of Korean name and its Romanization, and a link to the KMDB profile, Infobox Korean film has no distinctive feature.

If someone think that Korean name and Romanizations of a title should be attached, using Ko-hhrm would be a solution.

For a link to KMDB profile... That's the reason for the new feature: Extra space for more external links at the bottom of the box that goes like [ ], placing below the IMDB link. -- JSH-alive (talk)(cntrbtns)(mail me) 14:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Infobox Korean film is a widely used template, and I don't see a problem with keeping it seperate. I'm not opposed to a merge per se, but additional features would need to be added to this infobox. Korean name in the infobox is a must as far as I'm concerned, and the Korean template also has another unique parameter, "Admissions". Don't forget about Infobox Chinese Film as well. PC78 (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would simply be more appropriate to have a "vernacular" parameter wherein the original title for any foreign film could be written in its original script? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

CSS Class inheritance
Here's a quickie; where are the two classes, "vevent" and "description" being called from because neither are in MediaWiki:Common.css... --Notmyhandle (talk) 05:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Genre, Native Name
It seems 'Genre' is missing from the infobox. Isn't it one of the most essential facts about any movie?..and therefore it would be good to have it included with the template? Also, for non English films it would be good to have an option for 'native name', like country info-boxes have. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The idea of including genre has been discussed to death; see various discussions above and in the archives. I do think there is some merit in including "native name", though. PC78 (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with PC78 on both points. In particular, consolidating the original title as a parameter would allow us to deprecate the Chinese and Korean infoboxes, which probably is a more consistent solution (rather than proliferating country-film infoboxes). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Genre would be too subjective? There definitely could be disagreements if any given film should be called either action/thriller/romantic/horror-drama. Or even calling anything either Documentary or Fiction can create disagreements, got the point.

But the idea having original titles or 'native names' included seems like it's getting supported? Can anybody make it happen then? To make it even more functional perhaps there is a way to add or link a language code to it? So that if you click on the native name or hold the pointer it would tell the reader what language is this text actually written in. I'd imagine that would be a very useful functionality on English WP for texts written in Chinese and Japanese etc.--Termer (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hellooo! How about the native name? Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll try to get around to it when I have more free time. I'd appreciate less shouting, though. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please take all the time you need. and sorry for the high pitched tone earlier, it just felt that I can barely hear myself with all this noise going on down here at Rating....--Termer (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Rating?
I tried to add "rating" to the infobox but was unsuccessful. I had tried to insert it under "distributor". Can anyone help? It seems that it's an obvious addition. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The idea has been suggested and rejected numerous times. See above and in the talk page archives. PC78 (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, let's reopen that discussion. It seems such an obvious addition. Can you capsulize the opposition and provide a link to the prior discussion so I don't have to search thru 7 archives? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What rating are you talking about, the MPAA rating that is particular to the United States? What about the English rating, or the Canadian rating, the Australian rating, the Indian rating.  What about the rating in non-English-speaking countries? Here's a typical IMDB rating listing, for Platoon: "Singapore:NC-16 (cut)"I don't think we need a rating slot in the template. There's no need to reopen discussion. Ed Fitzgerald  "unreachable by rational discourse" (t / c) 20:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm surprised to see opposition to simply re-opening discussion. Is there a downside to open and honest dialogue? In any case, to answer your question, I was referring to the rating from the country of origin - ie: the original rating. Just like we have the budget listed in (I would hope) the original currency (if not, we should have!) Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really like ratings, it's different from country to country, an R rated movie in the United States could be banned for all ages in some other country. Not to mention many PG-13 movies are for all ages in some countries. I can't see how it's useful for an encyclopedia. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that we include the release dates for Australia, the US, and the UK, I feel it would be appropriate to include the film ratings for those 3 countries as well. Otherwise, we should not include the release dates for all 3 countries. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As no one has dissented against this idea in approximately 4 days I am recommending full implementation immediately. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 02:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose including rating attributes in the infobox. The infobox is supposed to be concise, and mere letters and numbers do not convey anything in punctuated form.  If a drama film has an R, there's no explanation, and it would overload the infobox to insert the full MPAA judgment.  Save rating information for the article; see Hancock (film) as an example.  Also, if you want further input, I suggest raising the issue at WT:FILM.  I doubt that most film editors have Template:Film on their watchlist. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 02:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I also strongly oppose. The conversation has been had several times before - all of which are easily found in recent archives, and I don't see any new justifications or innovations here which would otherwise inform those discussions. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose. So many infoboxes already are longer than the articles. Adding unimportant data won't help the situation. Honestly, how relevant is a film's rating? If it was edited dramatically in order to get a PG-13 instead of an R, that could be noteworthy and mentioned within the article, but otherwise the rating isn't important enough to list in the infobox, IMHO. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I also oppose as well, for many of the reasons given. I've yet to see an actual good argument for their inclusion. Its trivia and trivial information that is only of relevance to someone in a specific country and ratings are fairly arbitrary between countries, giving no comparative value. Such an addition would also go against the MoS. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

IMDB - necessary? (see also Infobox Actor)
Over in Template:Infobox Actor, there was a reason given for NOT having an IMDB link, due to IMDB not being a reliable source for information (see heading 1 Colours / IMDB link / height in Template talk:Infobox Actor/archive1 ). From what I've seen, multiple attempts have been made in that Infobox to add IMDB, and every time the same reason has been given.

Given this, shouldn't there be some sort of alignment between Infobox Actor and Infobox Film regarding the usage of links from external sites such as IMDB and Allmovies? I would believe that if one template has the field removed due to it being an unreliable source, the other should as well. Conversely, if the link is determined to be usable in one infobox, the other should have it included too.

I have not cross posted this to Infobox actor, but if I should to get the discussion synchronized on both, let me know. Erpbridge (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They don't necessarily have to be in sync. A link to the film on IMDB is different than a link to the actor on IMDB. For film info I consider IMDB to be quite reliable, for the actor info not really except for the filmography section, but that is usually on the Wikipedia article anyway. Garion96 (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact still remains however, that the Wikipedia community has deemed IMDB as an unreliable source. The reasons brought up in the discussion I posted state that since it is a user contributed site, it is inherently unreliable. Therefore, it should not be treated as a reliable source for ANY usage, rather than being accepted as a RS for one realm of information and not as a RS for another realm of information. Erpbridge (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. IMDB has been rejected repeatedly as a RS for any details because it is user edited. While having it in EL is okay, I don't see any reason to really have it in the infobox (nor Allmovies, for that matter). Official site links is one thing, but I've never really seen any reason why IMDB or any other non-official site should be in the infobox. Leave it to the ELs. I can't think of any other media area that does something like this at all. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * AnmaFinotera, I agree with your assessment. It may be worth reviewing why we have the external links embedded in the infobox.  There has been the occasional outside comment about the redundancy of these links.  The "External links" section should be sufficient.  Removal of the attributes from the infobox would be a pretty big move, though, so we should seek community consensus before taking action.  Want to bring it up at WT:FILM, or should I? :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 21:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I think it would be good to get community consensus. You summed it up better than I did (and I'm about to head offline for a bit), so I'll let you bring it up :P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I also would be in favout of removing the link all together from the infobox. The external links section should be good enough. The link to IMDB is always there anyway, so right now most film articles have the same link twice on one page. Garion96 (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've initiated community discussion at WT:FILM. Please weigh in there! :) — Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)