Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: The image field was messed up, so I reverted. The Wookieepedian 05:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: What "gap"? Adraeus 07:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Oh yes and how much discussion was there prior to these changes being implemented? - RoyBoy 800 07:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I think that fixed a problem, thanks. - RoyBoy 800 15:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enhancements 

message: I think it'd look better if the posters had awidth of 220px ... any objections? --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ditto Troy34 12:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's now an "image caption" field in the template that you can use. Thanks to AzaToth. - Bobet 20:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: image size

message: 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. →AzaToth 15:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits have been reverted as they seem to have broken a few templates. I hate template black-wizardry. KIS. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 20:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh, reverted. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 20:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  omitted parameters 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Variable image size? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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. →AzaToth 14:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *I understand if you don't want to have a template  here :) →AzaToth 20:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't know if "Original Story by..." fits the needs of some films 

message: 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)
replies: text: *Done →AzaToth 22:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMDb profile 

message: 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)
replies: text: *Yes, there has been changes, the image should only be specified by it's name, for example |image = VelvetGoldminePoster.jpg →AzaToth 00:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *Probably, should be a easy change →AzaToth 01:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *New bots can be requested at Wikipedia:Bot_requests - AKeen 01:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Problem 

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

message: 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) →AzaToth 11:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  EP compat patch 

message: 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)
replies: text: *The original request per User:Bobet explicit specified a hover caption, nothing more, please change that if that isn't the consensus →AzaToth 21:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Caption 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Film title 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Title field now messed up... 

message: 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)
replies: text: Amen. Troy34 16:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Protecting

message: 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)
replies: text: I've completed this conversion and removed support for them in the template itself. -- Netoholic @ 21:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple names for fields