Template talk:Infobox film

Infobox Title Backgrounds

Is there a way to add images to the back of the film infobox titles? Or, is there a reason that there isn't such a thing in the English articles? Other languages such as Spanish, French, and Korean have cool little backgrounds behind the title. The examples: es:Psicosis (película) fr:Psychose (film) ko:싸이코 (1960년 영화) Impure malignant indignation (talk) 11:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

What benefit would that serve? I know of no other infobox template on the English Wikipedia that does this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

It's neat, but it is superfluous. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

If other articles make use of it, then some benefits can be clearly seen. Impure malignant indignation (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Anthony Fantano's article also uses a unique background for its title, even if it's just a simple color. Impure malignant indignation (talk) 06:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Color is much different than images. Color identification is used here on the English Wikipedia, though there are some editors who support its use (when done for a purpose) and others who do not think it has merit. Anthony Fantano's infobox is as such because that article is using {{Infobox YouTube personality}}, with the red associated with YouTube's logo. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

While its definitely "neat", I'm not convinced by its usefulness. Color-coding is sort of less popular on wikipedia as for accessibility reasons, readers using screen readers wouldn't be able to see them (and also the reason why we generally have alt-tags with our images). While I do agree it has an appealing look, but the argument of "other articles do it so must be useful" is about as strong as a "if everybody jumped off a bridge, would do it too?" Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

What? That's not an argument, those two things are not comparable at all. Impure malignant indignation (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Music Director credit

While i'm normally against on adding to the infobox, I'd like to add a "Music Director" credit. When working on several older films, they often do not have someone credited as the music composer, but as the Music Director. I haven't found specific information on what this details, but on the several Universal Horror films I've worked on, there is often no composer (with some exceptions) but a music director, and many articles list the composer when it is a music director. Normally not an issue, but per a discussion on House of Dracula article, most of the music in the film is recycled from earlier films. While the music director may have contributed some new music, its not clear at the moment. I feel having this credit which should only be used when there is a credit for this and no composer credit, would resolve any misleading information in the infobox, and would not create any bloat because it would only be used when the composer is not available. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Please see the notice at the top of this page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Jonsey, I'm a long time editor and familiar with this issue. This would not expand the infobox, as it would swap one item with another in special situations. Its not the same problem. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

The text for the parameter currently says "Music by". I don't see how that can't also be applied to a music director for an older film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Because its unclear what a Music Director does or does not do. For example, he receives this credits in the opening of House of Dracula, however, as the prose of the article in question notes, most of the music in the film is re-purposed from other works. "Music by" sounds like he created an original score, which does not appear to be the case, but as he might have contributed something, its not clear how to do this. As stated, this applies to several of early films. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Its been a few months and as I've addressed the points brought up by the other editors (@Jonesey95: and @Favre1fan93:) and have not heard from them, I will allow them time to respond to my pings, but I believe I've made appropriate counter points to the music director being unique from a composer and how it would not increase the size of the box, as

1. It would not add anything to the infobox, it would take up the same space as the composer as this is what would be used when there is no composer credit.
2. Music by is not clear, because its not clear what a music director does or does not do, but they are the only person usually given credit for music in these older films. Its not likely to be interchangable with someone who did the music for the film, as these older films (primarily the Universal productions as stated above) often did not have original scores, but music used from various composers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

If it isn't clear what a Music Director does or doesn't do, I don't think the infobox is the appropriate place to list them. Their role should be explained, as much as possible, in prose. There are also far more important roles that should be added to the infobox before we add something random like this that is not relevant to most articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Box office figures

There's a discussion regarding the box office figure decimals over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Decimals in box office figures. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

People need to read MOS:LARGENUM. People always needed to read MOS:LARGENUM. People need to actually follow MOS:LARGENUM. -- 109.79.163.110 (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Based_on used if the novelization was based on the script?

See title. If the novelization is based on the script (e.g. The Mind Benders, Summer of '42) should this field still be used? Should we have a new optional field like derived_novelization? -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

We should not add a new parameter. In general, the |based_on= parameter should be used if the film source itself recognizes the source in its credits. If it doesn't, this shouldn't be used. When the writing credits are given for story and screenplay, use those instead of |writing=. Gonnym (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Basically agreed with Gonnym. Very few films are straight adaptations of of novels in terms of covering everything the novel or other mediums. For example, Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932 film) is heavily promoted as being off the Poe tale and much of the writing of the film I've encountered compares it to the Poe work, but it really only takes bits and pieces of the story to transfer into a film. That being said, that would still make it in adaptation. I wouldn't only not use it if there a film claims to be based off a book, and its found the book or other source doesn't exist (which also happens). Easier to explain that in the prose. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

If the novelisation is based on the script, then the film is not based on that novel. The based on field should not be used. There is no field for adding the novelisation or any other tie-in media. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Production Designer credit.

Adding Production Designer to the Wikipedia film infobox—placed directly beneath Cinematographer—would bring the template in line with how films are actually made.

The Production Designer and the Cinematographer are the two key creative partners responsible for shaping a film’s visual world. One designs the physical environments, sets, colors, textures, and props that bring the script to life; the other determines how those environments are lit, framed, and captured. Their work is so closely intertwined that it’s impossible to evaluate the final image on screen without acknowledging both roles. A beautifully designed set can fall flat if it isn’t lit or photographed well, and a beautifully composed shot depends entirely on the world being photographed. The look of a film is a collaboration, not a silo.

Film schools, guilds, critics, and awards bodies already recognize production design and cinematography as parallel creative pillars. Wikipedia’s infobox—used by students, journalists, and casual readers alike—should reflect that reality. Listing the DP while omitting the PD creates a distorted sense of authorship and leaves out half of the team responsible for defining the movie’s visual identity.

In short: if the infobox is meant to credit the primary visual authors of a film, then Production Designers belong there. They work side-by-side with Cinematographers from the first day of prep to the final frame. Including them isn’t just fair—it’s a more accurate representation of how filmmaking actually works. DrRayGun (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

If you search the archives, there were quite a few discussions about using this parameter. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Enough so that there's a note about adding additional credits to the infobox right at the top of this page. DonIago (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

And in the edit notice that appears when you edit this page: "Edit requests for additional crew members and ratings". It is almost as if banner blindness is real, but editors are still encouraged to be aware of their surroundings. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

This. 👏👏👏 Mike Allen 23:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I just increased the text size of the header and other text and added more to the header of the edit notice. Maybe it will help? (not holding my breath) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

That could work. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Associate Companies

I feel like some things should be separate in film articles like associate companies. Walden Media, Village Roadshow Pictures, MRC, & Domain Entertainment are credited sometimes in associate credits. Should we add a field for that? XyloQuip289 (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

No. Betty Logan (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Please, explain? There’s been this debate on what kind of companies should be listed in the production companies field. XyloQuip289 (talk) 08:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

The production companies that primary produced the film. Where is this debate? I thought the manual of style was pretty clear. Here are more details on what “in association with” credits usually mean and hopefully shed light on why we wouldn’t include them in the infobox with no context. Writing in prose that “company x” help finance the film would be beneficial to readers. Mike Allen 09:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@MikeAllen: that's a great link. I've just adjusted the |production_companies= field here to note about being the primary producing companies, and to avoid "In Association With" credits. I've put that external link there too as it was a good explainer. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

"Template:Infobox name module/attribution2" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:Infobox name module/attribution2 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 30 § Template:Infobox name module/attribution until a consensus is reached. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 03:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)