Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 1

message: Isn't there some bias in putting "USA" in the infobox by default? After all, not all films are made in the USA. -- LGagnon 19:56, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
:Undoubtedly you're right.  A given film has a multitude of release dates.  It's obviously not very prudent to list them all.  The only reason I can think of that'd make changing it worth it would be for films that are made in english-speaking countries that aren't the US.  Otherwise, non-English would have their respective release date on the appropriate language site of wikipedia.
:I would assume the US dominates other english-speaking countries in film releases.  If I'm wrong, please correct.  This is why I don't have much problem with keeping release dates for the US.  Perhaps another template :Template:Infobox film nonUSA or something that requires you to supply the country of release.  Then non-USA films could be migrated to the new template and all rejoice! :) Cburnett 20:28, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: US bias

message: As in the "release date" question above, we need to make guidelines for certain fields. My suggestions:
; Release date : First public non-festival release in any country. This means anything that opened in NY/LA or other limited releases before opening wide should go by the limited release date.
; Runtime : Original theatrical runtime in the country of original release. Not the special edition/director's cut/redux runtime or runtime of a version edited for another country.
; Tagline : Main 1-sheet poster tagline in the country of original release. Not the teaser poster, teaser trailer, or trailer tagline.
– flamurai (t) 02:23, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
: I would suggest a link to these guidelines is included in the infobox somehow, maybe through making links from the headings (director/writer/etc.) to stop the info being changed by someone who doesn't understand the criteria, or who doesn't realise there is one. --HappyDog 00:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added some of this to the /Syntax Guide and the Template —Fitch 03:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines for certain fields 

message: Since the people here have an interest in developing film articles, you might want to take part in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject films ("Intro format") about the format for film articles. 62.148.218.183 08:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Film article conventions

message: People might be interested to read about a possible future feature, meta:Extended template syntax which will make it possible to have certain fields appear only if there is relevant data, e.g. a field for tag line only if there was one, a field for original title only for non-English language films etc. Thuresson 23:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  Version 1.8 perhaps? ;-) --HappyDog 00:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Latest version is 1.4 so keep your fingers crossed for 2006. Thuresson 03:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This could solve a few of the plural problems we're currently fussin' over --Poorpete 17:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Extended parameters

message: In everyone's opinion, what's the ideal image size? -  Diceman 2 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)
:10000x10000. :) 200 or 225 or 250 are nice sizes for posters. Cburnett July 2, 2005 20:20 (UTC)
::It always seems to be a tossup between legibility vs filling up the infobox space vs the image size dominating the article. My early additions were 250px but looking at them now they seem too big, I'm thinking maybe 215 or 220 could be an easy "default" size to use. - Diceman 4 July 2005 15:27 (UTC)
:::I like a 300px as the width for the poster, cauz i really think that the poster describes a lot of what's happening in the film.. --Amr Hassan 21:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Size