Template talk:Infobox film

Order of writing credits

I believe that the rder the writing credits appear in the infobox should be changed.

• "Story by" should come first, because it is the origin of the film's basic plot

• "Screenplay by" should come second, because these writers actually wrote the working script for the film

• "Written by" should come last because it is used under two circumstances:

• When "written by" is the only credit, in which case there is no "screenplay by" or "story by", since the one name (or names) is responsible for all the writing

• In films -- especially older ones -- on which there are multiple writing credits, for "adaptation", "dialogue", "additional dialogue", "titles" and so on, all of which are subsidiary to the screenplay writing credit.

The credits now appear in the order

• Written by (adaptation, dialogue, titles, etc.)
• Screenplay by
• Story by

whereas I'm proposing

• Story by
• Screenplay by
• Written by (adaptation, dialogue, titles, etc.)

which in the case of a single author, simply becomes

• Written by

Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense to me Beyond My Ken. You might want to give some thought to where "based on" fits into your scheme. MarnetteD|Talk 00:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I have thought about that. "Based on" should be at the end, because there is frequently a serious disconnect between the instigating material and what appears on the screen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

In films and TV, screenplay/teleplay is usually credited before "story by". So, I think the current order should remain for consistency with credits order. The infobox is not meant to follow chronological order but rather mirror the regular credits order as much as possible. — Starforce¹³ 00:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Starforce. There's no need to order them chronologically and the Screenplay and Written by credits are generally given more prominence than the Story by credit. —El Millo (talk) 01:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I do realize that traditionally a "Screenplay by" credit will be shown before a "Story by" credit, and for that to continue wouldn't particularly bother me. Zeroing in on my concern, the problem is "Written by". When it is used for a single creator, it appears alone, so there's no other writing credit for it to compete with, but because there's no other place to put "adaptation", "dialogue" etc., those credits have to be put in "Written by", and when those credits appear first, before anything else, the logical progression is skewed and there's too much emphasis placed on those credits, which are really ancillary in nature.. That could be solved with having another parameter for additional writing credits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, those are valid concerns, but there are always exceptions. The infoboxes try to accommodate the majority. If we added a parameter or reordered the params for each possible scenario, it would be a mess.... especially if it's to mostly accommodate an old format that's rarely used anymore. — Starforce¹³ 02:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thirded, and there's some logic to the current order especially if "Based on" is also used. The closer to the end product the work, the earlier the credit.

Rather, if we were to tweak the order at all, I'd move producers to after writers first. For a long, long time I've felt this change is in order. It's jarring to see "Directed by" and "Written by" shared by the same person interrupted by producer credits in the article about an auteur-driven film. And for the vast majority of readers trying to quickly learn about a film, who wrote it is far more relevant information than who produced it. Nardog (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Nardog. Writers and Directors credits always go together. It doesn't make any sense to introduce producers in between them. So, this is one thing that definitely needs to be changed. — Starforce¹³ 03:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Glad I'm not alone. To be fair, producer credits sometimes do precede (or follow, in case the director comes last) writers, but it all has to do with inside baseball like who's got the best agent. But not having to split "Written and directed by" and relevance to readers are enough reasons IMHO. Nardog (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Reorder parameters

I'm starting a new subsection here based on Nardog and Starforce13's comments above about |producer= placement. I wanted to expand on that and suggest, if that change is going to be made, should we reexamine the rest, so they are in a quasi reverse billing block order? Looking at this NY Times example (which has always been helpful to me) I would suggest the following infobox order:

• Directed by
• Written by
• Screenplay by
• Story by
• Based on
• Producer
• Starring
• Narrated by
• Cinematography
• Edited by
• Music
• (Production companies and remaining parameters stay the same)

The two that change placement are Producer and Music, both moving lower than they currently are. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Yes, this is the standard order based on most films and per the NYT article you linked. We should adjust the infobox parameters to follow this as well. — Starforce¹³ 03:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Looks good, but since such changes in the template will result in MOS:DUPLINK violations because writers are often also producers (although the composer move probably wouldn't require much change except for John Ottman's works ;)), which will probably be too many to fix manually, we'd probably be better off with a concrete consensus to point to. And I suggest you make a separate venue for each change (producer and music) so the discussions won't get muddled. Nardog (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nardog: just to be clear, are you referring to the altered order making many infoboxes provide the link in the second occurrence of the name instead of the first? —El Millo (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
    • @Facu-el Millo: Yes. If we only changed the template, we would be linking the second occurrence of "Grant Heslov" in Good Night, and Good Luck, for example. Nardog (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
      • @Nardog and Facu-el Millo:, I think there's probably a bot that can be used to swap the links between the producer and writer parameter, if we were to reach a consensus. So, I don't think we would need to manually update all the affected articles. If we agree on this, we can request for such a bot.— Starforce¹³ 05:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Of course. Which is why I think a more robust consensus seeking like an RfC (or two RfCs) might be called for. Nardog (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
        • ...so I'm on it. Nardog (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• I think I'm kinda neutral on this change, I'm not sure if it should be done but I'm not outright opposed to it. Anyway, I reordered them as proposed in the template's sandbox, the difference between the current and proposed orders can be clearly seen at Template:Infobox film/testcases#Casablanca. —El Millo (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for comments

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to move 'produced by' (proposal #1) and 'music by' (proposal #3). No consensus for proposal #2. The primary argument cited for the proposals was to match the common billing order. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

---

In {{Infobox film}}, should "Produced by" and "Music by" be moved so the fields appear in the following order?

• Directed by
• Written by
• Screenplay by
• Story by
• Based on
• Produced by
• Starring
• Narrated by
• Cinematography
• Edited by
• Music by
• (Production companies and remaining parameters stay the same)

11:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Produced by

• Support Not only is this the more common order as seen in the NY Times infographic, it will particularly be a welcome change in the articles about films where the same person gets both writing and directing credits. Consider Moonlight, The White Ribbon, etc. It's been jarring to see auteurs' "Written and directed by" interrupted by producer credits, which are of little use to most readers. For those trying to quickly learn about a film (which the infobox is all about), who wrote it is far more relevant information that informs the film's potential quality, themes and plot than who produced it. Nardog (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per my recommendation in the above discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support - per my comments above. Writing and directing credits usually occur next to one another and are hardly ever separated by the producer. — Starforce¹³ 20:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose due to limited evidence of need to change away from the status quo. There should be better evidence than the New York Times infographic, which just breaks down what is essentially a primary source. And if we were to actually follow the infographic, we would put the companies first. So it seems to be cherry-picking here to support preconceived notions, like finding it "jarring" as if there aren't studio films with no-name directors-for-hire where some who-cares name "leading" the list of credits. Also consider the Best Picture nominees' names. At the Oscars and the BAFTAs, the producers are the specific individuals nominated. No writers in the mix there. That prioritizing should be unpacked before making a widespread change. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Since in most films the director also writes the script/screenplay, it is better to have the parameters "Directed by" and "Written by" behind each other.--FMM-1992 (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  @FMM-1992: in most films the director also writes the script/screenplay Er, take a look at this list and tell me how often the Best Director and Best Screenplay are the same. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Redrose64: the Academy Awards are very high class, my mean was normal/popular films, for example just see Tyler_Perry#Filmography, all the films he has directed were written by him and also produced / co-produced by him; another examples are James_Cameron_filmography#Film and Stanley_Kubrick_filmography#Films. -- FMM-1992 (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  Many films by both Cameron and Kubrick have been nominated for Academy Awards. See James Cameron#Awards and recognition and List of accolades received by Stanley Kubrick#Academy Awards. Popular films aren't primarily written by their directors either, most Steven Spielberg films haven't been written by him; out of the 23 released Marvel Cinematic Universe films, only 8 (The Avengers, Iron Man 3, Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers: Age of Ultron, Doctor Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, Black Panther, and Captain Marvel) have been at least in part written by their directors; out of the 10 released DC Extended Universe films, only two (Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman 1984) directors have received screenwriting credit; the Lord of the Rings trilogy was written by its director; only the first Back to the Future was written by its director; 12 out of the 24 Pixar films released were written by their directors (Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Ratatouille, WALL-E, Up, Brave, Monsters University, Inside Out, Finding Dory, Incredibles 2, Onward, Soul). You'll see it's pretty mixed, but there's definitely not a clear majority of films written by their directors. —El Millo (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  I knew that many films by Cameron and Kubrick have won or nominated for Academy Awards, when I said "normal/popular films" my mean was those films that haven't won or nominated for Academy Awards per what User:Redrose64 asked me for:

  take a look at this list (List of Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees) and tell me how often the Best Director and Best Screenplay are the same.

  "in most films the director also writes the script/screenplay" maybe not "most films", "there's definitely not a clear majority of films written by their directors that's right, I was wrong, but if "pretty mixed" means 30% ~ 50% I think it is a good reason for this change; another notable and good example is Joe Carnahan#Filmography, regards. -- FMM-1992 (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Opposed The infobox is not a billng box, it has its own logic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken: And what's that logic? How does it favor the status quo? Nardog (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

"Produced by" behind "Production company"

@Nardog, Favre1fan93, Starforce13, Erik, Beyond My Ken, and Facu-el Millo: I have a suggestion, how about putting the parameter "Produced by" behind the parameter "Production company"? in many cases they are the same or close to each other, for example, Jerry Bruckheimer's films have also produced by the production company "Bruckheimer Films".--FMM-1992 (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The main reason for the move is to mainly match the most common credits order. "Produced by" is for the person/human producer, and it's usually next to writer/director credits, unlike "Production company" which is for the companies responsible, which tends to be close to the distribution company at the end. Some producers have companies named after them, so that's why you may see similarities, but it's not always the same. — Starforce¹³ 15:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think this change should happen. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thirded – I too see little motivation for this change. Nardog (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I also am opposed to this change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Music by

• Support per my recommendation in the above discussion, though I would say I'm a bit more neutral on this change than |producer=. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support - for consistency with majority of credits order. — Starforce¹³ 20:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per the common billing order. I assume the composer was given precedence over other below-the-line roles because a score is often an accessible element to consumers, but I'm surprised to be reminded that we list it even before the cinematographer, who is often most responsible for the film's aesthetics. (Also while scores are typically made at the tail end of post-production and are absent in some films, cinematography and editing are rather essential parts of the process—remember the whole Oscars controversy?—but the same could be said about sound etc. so my rationale remains that it's just the common order.) Nardog (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per User:Nardog's comment.--FMM-1992 (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've initiated a request for a bot owner to help implement the changes: Wikipedia:Bot requests#Film infobox order change. To minimize disruption, I plan not to implement the changes to the template until a bot is ready to take on the task. Nardog (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Starring credits

Hello! Is it possible to create a parameter for voices. To be more exact the voice actors they use in animated pictures and stop-motion pictures?. The parameter text should be voices of. Yours sincerely, Sondre --88.89.103.4 (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

|starring= is neutral in its wording that it can cover physical appearances as well as voices. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Movie type

Hello! Can you add an optional parameter for movie type?. I mean such as short films, made for television movies, silent movie or animation?. Yours sincerely, Sondre --88.89.103.4 (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Films with multiple directors

Moved from Template talk:Infobox film/short description

As this template functions, it sometimes puts out very long SDs, often because a film has multiple directors. (I suspect there may be other possible problem cases, but I haven't explored them yet.) I suggest the simple solution would be to limit the director to something like 25 or even 30 characters. A more complex solution might search for line breaks and replace them with commas etc. An even more elegant solution might be to substitute the directors for something else.

Example: The documentary film About Baghdad would have read 2004 American film directed by Sinan AntoonBassam HaddadMaya MikdashiSuzy SalamyAdam Shapiro (92 char, not including the line breaks) but has been corrected to 2004 American documentary film. — HTGS (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I've actually removed that functionality (as of about 30 seconds ago) as I never did follow up on the talk discussion above that indicated that having the director in the shortdesc might not be as useful as the rest of the information included. Primefac (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I did or checked all the American films from 1915 through 1992, so they should all be fine. I stopped progressively going through each year once the process became automated. Primefac, just to clarify: You've simply removed the Directors from automated process of films, correct? Or have you removed the whole automated functionality completely? If it's the later, I suppose I could resume going through each year again (if so desired). — Ched (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Primefac just removed "directed by X" from the end. I would suggest that there is certainly a utility to going through every film, as the autoSD can't do many things. For a lot of films they won't need changing, but for many, the genre might be important, and for others the director will be. (Eg: 2002 American horror film for The Ring would be better than 2002 film directed by Gore Verbinski.) It's my impression that the infobox's autofill just speeds up the task for editors like you or I to go through and correct them where needed.

And thanks for that, Primefac. Apologies for putting the comment in the wrong place, I clearly wasn't thinking enough to check the main talk. — HTGS (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

No worries. And yes, the point of having the infobox add an auto shortdesc (and this is far from the only one) is to reduce the number of pages that need to be edited manually. Primefac (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Minor aesthetic changes

I have made some aesthetic changes in the sandbox to harmonize the text styling with the other major media infoboxes (television, video game, book) and the general infobox style. Here is the diff from live: diff. There are no functionality changes, and the test cases look correct (see here; MOS:SMALL requirements are followed with a smallest size of 88%, which is the default infobox bodytext size). If there aren't objections, I will implement the change in a week or so. — Goszei (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I've seen you make these adjustment to the TV-related infoboxes and there have been no issues, so you have my support to implement. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Other than the title being a bit larger which I'm fine with, I don't see any other visible changes. I'll also take your word on it that your changes make this template consistent with others, which for me is always worthwhile. Gonnym (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)