Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 2

Title on top
I find having the title of the film on the top of the template is somewhat unnecessary, as the template generally apears at the top of the article, where the title is given as the first word of the article anyway. Any objections to just removing it from the infobox? --Fritz S. 18:08, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would object, for a couple reasons. The current Wikistyle provides for consistentcy across all media (info boxes for films, albums, singles, etc.) with a title bar across the top that formats and works pretty well. You'd also have alot of reverting to do to go back and change it at this point. Lastly, even though the title of the article should suffice, its nice to give the infobox an appearance that stands on its own, and having the title above the filmbox graphic (which may or may not itself carry the title) gives it a clean look and feel. Consider one may wish to screengrab the box to reuse elsewhere (email, clip to exchange) and its virtually a complete set of basic facts on the film, with its title on top. My thoughts, anyway...:) -- Barrettmagic 11:59, August 10 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, agree. But I now moved the title inside the box, this way it's more connected to it and not just floating above. Hope this is okay with everybody... --Fritz S. 10:31, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I disagree. Strictly, the title iss a caption to the infobox table; it's better Web accessibility to present it as such in the HTML. Compare also with other infoboxes (eg Template:Infobox London place, Template:Infobox Country, Template:Infobox U.S. state). I'm gonna revert it, but feel free to bring it back up here. — OwenBlacker 05:00, August 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I was trying to make it clearer the title belongs to the infobox (more aproaching it from an visual point of view than from a technical one). Other media-related infoboxes do it the same way: Template:Album infobox. But if you prefer it this way... I just still find it seems unnesseciary to have the title so often at the top of the article (as I mentioned before) and it looks really strange outside the infobox if the infobox appears further down in the article, for example in the article on Kill Bill. --Fritz S. 11:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Fritz on the last comment - looks like OwenBlacker did revert it back globally - the title looks really clugey outside the box. Like its hanging out there - and as Fritz points out, unlike the other examples noted earlier - film boxes/album boxes may sometimes be found down inside the article. I propose it be reverted back to having the title inside the top of the infobox. -- Barrettmagic 19:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the title should be inside, cauz it looks really silly pointing out like this. the articles already have the title of the films outside in many different places like the name of the article itself..so how many guys should agree to get the title back in ??--Amr Hassan 09:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * After all the recent comments, I changed it back inside for now. --Fritz S. 09:58, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Looking good!! :) -- Barrettmagic 20:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * yea, it does :) --Amr Hassan 02:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

imdb link
It appears that if no imdb id is given, the infobox produces a broken link instead of no link. Should this be happening? --Alynna 18:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks like the link can be broken even if a reference is given... try Akira (film)
 * --Spiggot 22:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Enhancements
I've updated the infobox by wikifying the table and implementing dynamic fields. The image field was also simplified. Adraeus 04:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The image field was messed up, so I reverted. The Wookieepedian 05:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You blindly reverted, so I reverted your reversion. Learn how to fix small problems. By the way, the image field is simplified, which simply means fixing how images are used in the syntax per article. I'm arrogant and stubborn. Don't start a stupid war to protect lame complacency. Look at the example syntax at the top of this Talk page to learn how to place images in the infobox. Adraeus 06:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If you continue reverting the template and the recent syntax fixes to the many articles I've updated, I'll seek administrative response. Cease. Adraeus 07:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've started updating the syntax on each article. Since there are plenty of articles to update, we should rely on the fact that each article will be fixed eventually. Adraeus 06:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It (and/or Template:Infobox film rating) has created a gap in Blade Runner, if this can be fixed I'd appreciate it. - RoyBoy 800 07:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What "gap"? Adraeus 07:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It was prior to the copy, but now fixed... I believe it was the Title being outside the infobox which caused it. - RoyBoy 800 15:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh yes and how much discussion was there prior to these changes being implemented? - RoyBoy 800 07:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There were no significant changes requiring discussion. I designed the Template:Infobox Company and Template:Infobox Celebrity. I am extremely aware of the consequences of significant changes to widely used templates. The version that The Wookieepedian continually reverts to is not properly formatted for use on Wikipedia. Use of HTML in infoboxes is deprecated, dynamic fields are recommended and desirable, and simplification is optimal. The previous version's image syntax adds needless bytes to an article and provides information in the inappropriate place. In addition, the latest enhancements facilitate edition of the template and of the articles in which the template is used. Adraeus 07:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, and it does look better, although I could see a case being made on tweaking the poster size a bit larger. However, any change which "breaks" previous syntax qualifies as significant; but you have been diligent in fixing them so little need for a ruckus. - RoyBoy 800 15:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved the title back inside the infobox as consent was reached to have the title within the infobox (see above).--11:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that fixed a problem, thanks. - RoyBoy 800 15:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

image update?
So now we have to update EVERY page that uses this template because the template was changed? Then what? It will be changed back and we'll have to edit them again? Who's gonna change the hundereds of pages with this template? I refer to pages like The Wolf Man. See the error on the image? Also, the text looks poor that small. Yuck. Steve-O 07:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's the way it is with all templates that are not transcluded. The syntax fixes are simple, and can be done with a bot.
 * I've already started to fix the syntax in the articles. Because a wiki is used by many people, the editions made by many people reduce the length of time and amount of effort necessary to solve problems. We, at Template:Infobox Company, encountered the same arguments when we removed and added various fields at a point where the template was used on ~500 articles. In fact, I made those same arguments, but I realized that my arguments do not stand up under scrutiny.
 * The text size looks fine. What resolution is your monitor set at? I'm using both a desktop at 1600x1200 and a laptop at 1280x1024. The text is readable and comfortable to read. The same text size is used on the aforementioned templates.
 * Adraeus 08:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I, for one, find the "improvements" pretty ugly. There is a note saying that changes for this template needs to be discussed here before they're put into effect.  I do not see this here.  I admire you're attemt to fix this template, but frankly, I didn't know there was a problem.  Can we agree to revert the template and vote on it before it's put into effect?  I'm mostly concerned with Text Size and the number of edits it would take to fix all the adversly effected pages.   Steve-O 08:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly how I feel. The Wookieepedian 08:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The text size is easily changed. No revert necessary. The position of subject title is easily changed. No revert necessary. Field syntax is easily changed. No revert necessary. Learn how to use the technology; otherwise, you shouldn't even be messing around with templates. If you want to experiment with the template source, copy the source to a subpage of your user page. Don't forget to copy the other fields: Template:Infobox_film/image, Template:Infobox_film/director, Template:Infobox_film/writer, etc. I will not support a blind reversion for either reason. The number-of-edits-required argument is an argument based on laziness and complacency, and is not a valid argument on a wiki. Sorry. Adraeus 09:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In the time it took you complain, I've fixed the syntax for about 120 articles. Adraeus 09:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Very well. The Wookieepedian 09:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've now fixed the syntax in around 250 articles. Adraeus 09:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I fixed around 35 articles total with the syntax problem Empty2005 13:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * How is adversly affecting hundereds of pages not a valid arguement? How is discussing before a change is made, which is the rule, not valid?  I have no intrest in changing the template so I have no interest geeking around and making so called "improvements".  Check out how many edits I have before you call me lazy.. OK? Steve-O 11:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No pages were "adversely" affected. Moreover, any changes to a template used in many articles are going to affect many articles. That's a simple fact. The latest enhancements do not add or remove content. Your complaint about the workload is mincemeat. Believe me, I tried to argue the same thing at Template_talk:Infobox_Company/Archive001, but we decided to add Revenue anyway. User:Goodoldpolonius2 presented this response to me, "The glory of Wikipedia is that the work is distributed over time and authors." That won me over, as it should you.
 * No discussion was required since no significant changes were made to the content of the infobox.
 * Adraeus 23:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, they were adversely effected. As of now, the image field change has only added a mess to the existing images and removed information from them (is it a poster or a dvd cover or whatever). The only resulting improvement is a standardization in size, which could've been achieved by making less changes than someone now has to make. - Bobet 14:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Add a parameter image type, then using switch to chose right way to display it, test it and check if ok, the call a bot job to change all calls to a proper way → Aza Toth 14:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You may have become complacent with bad habits, Bobet, but the information that was being used beneath those images should not be in the infobox. If you want to describe the image, describe the image on its page, as should be done. No articles were "adversely" affected. Adraeus 04:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think having that information more easily available on the film's page is better (and not just a bad habit). It's more readily available by hovering your mouse over the picture, without having to click on every picture and load the larger files every time you want to know what the picture is about. - Bobet 14:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

image size
I think it'd look better if the posters had awidth of 220px ... any objections? --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Whoever did their black template magic needs to add back control over the image. Many people gave good information about the image like "original poster" or "promo poster" or "reissue poseter" and set their own width, too. There should be ways to add if statements to have image_caption= and image_size=. Please add these back. —Fitch 07:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I actually like the idea that all images have the same width, that way there's some more consistancy throughout Wiki, but a caption would indeed be nice.--Fritz S. (Talk) 11:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ditto Troy34 12:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There's now an "image caption" field in the template that you can use. Thanks to AzaToth. - Bobet 20:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

omitted parameters
I added pipe to parameter references to the if defined call-call, so if the parameter is ommited it's just basically the same as if you had the parameter with the value of the empty string. I let the parameter movie_name be left required. → Aza Toth 15:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Your edits have been reverted as they seem to have broken a few templates. I hate template black-wizardry. KIS. &mdash; Ambush Commander (Talk) 20:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Meh, reverted. &mdash; Ambush Commander (Talk) 20:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Variable image size?
I'm not an expert on templates, especially with this newfangled ifdef/subpage stuff, so I'm hesitant to add this. However, some poster shots, etc. may be smaller than 200px, and look awful when blown up to that size. Perhaps we could add another parameter image_size to specify a size other than 200px, and make it optional. An example of what I'm talking about is at MASH. Demi T/C 08:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think a fixed width is nice for consistancy (see image size above)... Maybe this would be a good time to try to find little larger images in the cases where they're too small. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

consistancy...
So will Info film box 2 and 3 be updated to match this one??
 * I think they should be deleted to keep consistency Troy34 12:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't even know there were any others (and can't find them now; Could anyone post a link?). But I agree with Troy34 here. --Fritz S. (Talk) 13:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There's actually a fourth film infobox as well. Here's a link to the List of infobox templates instead of giving you 3 other links. I've only seen the Infobox film 2 used somewhere else, but i forgot where it was. Is there a way to find pages that the template is used on? Troy34 13:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * On each template, just click on What links here in the toolbox on the right. --Fritz S. (Talk) 13:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, newbie here Troy34 13:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think now that this template allows optional arguments, I think we could just add those from the other templates that are currently missing, and then change it so we only have one film template. And before there are any objections to this because one would have to change all the articles that currently use infobox 2, 3 or 4, I'll volunteer to do that. --Fritz S. (Talk) 13:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've come upon the other film infoboxes too. The infobox 2 has additional cinematography and editing fields, which could be implemented as optional arguments now (if people think they are useful), infobox 3 is the same but doesn't have an editing field. Infobox 4 is only used for one film. And I'd help in changing them to the standard film infobox.


 * Also, a lot of the regular infoboxes already have a (rarely used, since it wasn't displayed) music field. The part I don't think should be included is the awards field (it's also been included in some infoboxes). Including that one would just fill the infobox with a ton of data that is, or should be, covered in the other sections. - Bobet 14:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Have Updated this one now so it contains the fine other fields → Aza Toth 02:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Why have so many fields for writing? You have writer (which i'm assuming a writer for a film is the screenplay writer), screenplay, original story and new version. I thought the whole idea of the infobox was a short summary. Check out The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe for an alternative. I realize it might be some effort but it looks nice without too many fields. Either that or reduce the four fields to two, original story and screenplay.Troy34 04:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if "Original Story by..." fits the needs of some films
For example: Æon_Flux_%28film%29 ... "Original story by Peter Chung" doesn't really cut it, as that's not what he's credited with in the film. It would be more accurate to quote the film's poster: "Based on characters created by Peter Chung". And given the large number of remakes, sequels and adaptations the modern film industry seems to turn out, I think it'd be advantageous to have more options in this area. 68.104.201.53 06:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with this, and don't think any of the "original story" "new version by" and "screenplay" fields should be here, since the "writing" field already covers them all (with qualifiers after the name if needed, in the case of the above example, you would have "Writing by : Peter Chung (characters)", which is the way it's been done in most cases). - Bobet 13:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I just added the field that were in the other film infoboxes per request, please feel free to remove them or reformat them if you think so. → Aza Toth 14:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I removed the fields "original story", "new version by" and "screenplay" from the infobox. If you disagree with this, please leave a comment. - Bobet 14:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand if you don't want to have a template language here :) → Aza Toth 20:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

IMDb profile
The IMDb profile should not use the InterWiki link. Instead, it should use External Link style to indicate that the link will take you offsite. As discussed on the the Meta Interwiki Map talk pages, the imdbtitle: is a bad idea because of this. This line will fix it: |1=1=IMDb profile —Fitch 21:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Done → Aza Toth 22:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Image Problem
Has there been a change made recently that is now resulting in odd infobox images like this and this ? Each of these infoboxes displayed properly a day ago. - AKeen 00:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, there has been changes, the image should only be specified by it's name, for example  → Aza Toth 00:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems a lot of boxes will have to be changed, and I'm sure most users are not aware that the template change has occurred - is there any way we can get a bot to facilitate the process? - AKeen 01:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably, should be a easy change → Aza Toth 01:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * New bots can be requested at Bot_requests - AKeen 01:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Text Size....
I use Firefox, and the text seems too small. Looks fine for IE...Steve-O 05:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

EP compat patch
added fields preceded by and followed by for compat with EP, if you think they are totally unneccissary please remove them and tell here why you think so (T:IM(EP) is on TfD) → Aza Toth 11:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Caption
What is the point of having a hover caption, unless it simply displays tha movie title? What specialized use does caption serve here? -- Netoholic @ 21:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The original request per User:Bobet explicit specified a hover caption, nothing more, please change that if that isn't the consensus → Aza Toth 21:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See Alternative text for images. It's not a caption per se, it's the alternate text, which (if properly used) shows whether the picture is a poster, a dvd cover, a title card or whatever in an easy way. And someone please revert the field name back to 'image caption' (or add that as an alternate name for the field) for now, since that's the only one used in any pages. - Bobet 23:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bobet, please revert the name back to "image caption". Can we finally agree not to edit the infobox anymore? It looks fine. Either that or elect one person to make edits and if we want a change we put it to a vote BEFORE it's made. Troy34 16:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh man, that's the 3rd time I've had to change that. I wish someone would protect the template page. For someone who's thinking of changing it, at least read this talk page first, even if actually discussing the changes seems unreasonable. - Bobet 16:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

something happen to the IMDB link in the box?
See Seven Up!... Can't seem to get it into the box...Steve-O 04:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've fixed it... too many cooks in the kitchen. Thank you for posting about problems on Talk. -- Netoholic @ 06:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please look at what you're changing. The field names aren't consistant, and you keep assuming they are. The field with the caption is called 'image caption' in every infobox, not 'image_caption', while the language field is called 'movie_language'. Yes, ideally they should be consistent, but currently are not. This problem should eventually sort itself out since the preferred name for the field is 'caption' now so don't change that. - Bobet 12:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Film title
The film title area needs the font reduced, and the infobox itself needs to be slightly wider. I do not know how to do this myself, so I am suggesting it here. The Wookieepedian 10:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Title field now messed up...
whatever tweak someone did with the title screwed up quite a few infoboxes. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du_rififi_chez_les_hommes. Steve-O 13:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not mess up the title. When looking at it on several film articles, it takes up too much space. You've gotta remember those who view on a lower resolution! The Wookieepedian 13:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * check out Edge of Doom or Rififi to see how the changes have affected some pages. These pages were both fine before.  Thanks Steve-O 13:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I fixed it, that was caused by someone changing the movie_name field to just name and someone reverting changes that made using both possible. All of this needs to get sorted out by a bot at some point, the infobox currently has several parameters that use different names for absolutely no reason (name/movie_name, caption/image caption), but just removing them from the template is not the answer, since that just messes up movie pages. - Bobet 13:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have found that it works, however, on the majority of pages. How about we just fix those that are negatively affected? :) The Wookieepedian 15:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, it currently does work and there are no visible adverse effects. It's just that there are several fields for the same purpose in some cases (sorry if it seems I'm repeating myself). The problem is there's currently no way of finding out which infoboxes have which fields without going through every one of them (which a bot can do). And I'd suggest not removing the redundant fields until that has been done. - Bobet 15:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Protecting
I am going to protect this template. Please work out your differences. it's just not good to edit a template every day. Too disruptive. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Amen. Troy34 16:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wish there were actual differences that could be worked out. It just seems that there's a new person changing the template every day. - Bobet 16:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Multiple names for fields
As far as I know, the reason for the most recent excessive editing is because of changes in the names of the fields. Minor fiddling around of the template more often than not has resulted in changes in some of these fields which cause information included in a movie's page not being shown correctly.

There are several names for some of the fields, both of which currently (should) work:
 * language/movie_language
 * caption/image caption
 * name/movie_name.

And my proposal is to get a bot to change them all to one version (I'd prefer the short versions), so that the infobox can be made as straightforward to use as possible. The other thing being changed has has been whether the movie's name should appear inside the infobox or on top of it. I'm fairly sure the consensus has been that it should be inside the infobox, correct me if I'm wrong. Please reply here if you agree or disagree with anything I mentioned or have anything to add. Thanks. - Bobet 17:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've completed this conversion and removed support for them in the template itself. -- Netoholic @ 21:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Visible omitted parameters
Currently, a lot of lines are showing up even when there's nothing in them. E.g.:
 * Cinematography by
 * Editing by
 * Distributed by 	Universal Pictures
 * Released 	December 21, 2001
 * Running time 	135 min.
 * Language 	English
 * Language
 * Budget 	$60,000,000
 * Preceded by
 * Followed by

—wwoods 17:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Which pages is that on? I haven't seen it anywhere. - Bobet 18:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That particular example was taken from A Beautiful Mind, but any movie which isn't in a series presumably shows the "Preceded by" and "Followed by"s.
 * —wwoods 18:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There are no such things as I can see on that page. → Aza Toth 18:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Please revert the infobox to the older version as soon as possible, this is affecting many pages. If another example is needed, check out Groundhog Day, The Princess Bride, Ghostbusters, Singin' in the Rain, and hundreds of others. I would like to suggest that future additions to such a widely used infobox be:
 * Widely discussed and agreed upon
 * Documented properly
 * Backed up with a bot ready to automate all the changes necessary.
 * Again, please remove the cinematography, editing, language (which is now doubled on most pages!), preceded by, and followed by from the template. Turnstep 02:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, I can't see any errors → Aza Toth 02:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment, perhaps using class hiddenStructure does not work for all → Aza Toth 02:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem with firefox, but trying it with lynx, I do get the same problem. And there's not much else that could cause that problem besides the hiddenStructure. - Bobet 02:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am using Firefox 1.0.7, for what it's worth. Changing skins has no effect. Turnstep 04:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * And I'm using Mozilla 1.7.12 on Mac OS X.II.VIII. The hidden parameters on Template:Ship table seem to work well enough. The syntax used is, e.g.:


 * —wwoods 07:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's been stated that doing it like that should be avoided, because embedding a template for each field causes several harmful effects (see WP:AUM). And the problem with the empty fields showing doesn't appear for me when using the monobook skin, I tried it with several others and got the problem. I guess most of the skins don't use CSS properly in the case of hiddenStructure. - Bobet 13:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates for an other view of that → Aza Toth 14:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So does any of this move us closer to a solution for those of us not using the default skin? Turnstep 03:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Somebody did something that worked, for me. —wwoods 05:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks fine for me now, too. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Thanks for whomever made the changes. Turnstep 13:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)