# Talk:The Pickwick Papers (1913 film)

@Gabriel Yuji: I'm not sure I agree with your recent edit recategorizing The Pickwick Papers as an American film. Although The Pickwick Papers was produced by an American studio and its lead actor was American, it was shot in England and all its other cast members were British. The British Film Institute lists both the United Kingdom and the United States as the the the film's countries of production, and our article originally included both Category:American films and Category:British films. This seemed misleading to me, however, and I decided to avoid specifying the film's nationality in any categories and just provide a description in the article text, where this nuance can be better presented. What are your thoughts on this? I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia's conventions on identifying a film's country of production (or with categorization in general, for that matter), so feel free to suggest a better way of categorizing than what I opted for. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lord Bolingbroke: Thanks for the alert. Both Category:Black-and-white films and Category:Silent films say "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable". So, I was doing this. I was a bit uncautious and presumed it was an American film. However, if BFI classifies it as British-American production, it should be probably listed as such. Do you have an idea of how the other sources describe it? That's how we identify a film's country of production (or any other data, as a matter of fact): by using what reliable sources say (see: Template:Infobox film#Parameters, WP:FILMLEAD, and more broadly WP:V). As long as other sources don't disagree with BFI, the best should be to categorize it as both a British and an American film. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Why do you want to add an infobox to the article? I think the lead section on its own is an effective summary of the key aspects of the film. Adding an infobox would be redundant at best, and would place undue weight on certain aspects of the film at worst. This, certainly, is not an improvement to the article; it adds nothing but clutter and looks ugly. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Lord Bolingbroke, OK, whatever, I think infoboxes should be used when possible, but feel free to revert. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@Another Believer: For the record, I don't consider myself an anti-infoboxer; I just don't think an infobox would be an improvement for this particular article. I'm open to discussing specific reasons to include an infobox in this article if you'd like to. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Lord Bolingbroke, I find infoboxes incredibly helpful, but I don't feel too strongly here. I imagine one would be added if the article were considered for Featured status, but you put in the work here and I was just trying to make a general improvement. All good! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)