6236:, hi. Thank you for your suggestion of relaxing the condition without adding a separate parameter. It's a good suggestion generally. But given that largely all Indian cinema, has a substantial focus on music, song and dance, much as I've elaborated in my thread below. In fact, the exception there is the film that does not have songs. In Indian cinema, songs are written specifically to suit the situation within that specific film, befitting the characters, the locales, the dialects. They also serve as a connecting thread across the film. Since the 1930s until present day, the role of song-dance is critical to every film. There are may be 700-1000 films made annually in various languages catering to the vast population in India, and now also made especially for the Indian diaspora. I sincerely feel that the lyricist (songwriter who takes time to understand the specific requirements - the brief - of the film) merits a special position. Now as for your query about David Bowie, I'd say you could refer to him as Lyricist. (Just my two cents on that). As far as I understand, songs written especially for a film, are lyrics and the writer who penned those is known as the lyricist. But a songwriter need not necessarily be a lyricist. The lyricist may write poetry or songs - non-film related. Hope this helps. Thanks.
4162:, This is the best source for how the production represents itself. Readers should not have to go the very bottom of an article when searching for this information. And increasingly every movie has one. The links to official websites are common and uncontroversial in info boxes for other mass culture items like shows, music, books, artists, etc. I can see the reasoning to relegating unrelated film websites to the external links section, but a film's website is a part of their production. And I suspect that many readers seek to know what is a film's official website and hope the editors here will help determine that. I also suspect the majority of readers don't really scroll down much so would look to our helpful info box to impart the basic information on the production, and the official website is a part of that basic information.
563:
in the fifties, it is vitally important to a host of historical movies. Perhaps the solution is to have specialized infoboxes for specialized movies - movie musicals, horror movies, sci-fi movies, in which persons not in the current infobox could be included. That would give appropriate weight to appropriate persons. I disagree that it is sufficient to mention such people in the body of the articles. Many readers will just scan the infobox for pertinent data. In a slam-bang action movie, so common nowadays, the makeup, special effects and other technical personnel would be at least as important as the actors. By "important" I'm not referring to my judgment but to the judgment of the industry. I think that this is not some narrow issue for the film project but an NPOV issue that requires broader input from the community.
5474:
that they will almost never see the bottom of a page. As as a person who regularly uses
Knowledge (XXG) to confirm which of many spammy sites is an official page, I look to the info box to confirm that information. I also counter the idea that official sites are promotional with the fact that that is exactly the point. They are created to inform on the product, there are the defacto experts on their product and their view on what is important about their vilm, and whatever content they share speaks to their views on the product. I seriously doubt many studies have been done that would definitively prove what readers hope to see in presenting film information on Knowledge (XXG), but I still see know good reason to prevent this information being presented prominently.
6061:
the film. Not only is the music composer critical to the film but equally important is the lyricist (the songwriter); there may or may not be a choreographer for all the songs. The current
Knowledge (XXG) InfoBox template for films currently allows name of music composer, but it does not allow for the name of lyricist. This is my earnest request to please make room for lyricist/s - who play a very important role towards the success of Indian Films - and to be allowed on the template. Indian cinema is just as popular in the world outside of South Asia. Songs are not songs without the words, right? I feel due credit should be given to those who write these songs hummed by millions. I'd really appreciate your help in this matter. Thanks a bunch.
5147:. " Having looked through those discussion they all centered on IMDB is the info box, which apparently was there from the beginning of the box's usage. Even the last request cited the previous discussions without really addressing an official link might be an exception to the reasoning people held years ago about external links as general, which are now commonplace, and considerations for official links, which are unquestionably more common. Thus I think this is the first time that official links themselves are the focus of discussion. I had considered just closing this as repeating previous ground but it makes sense to let it go as the topic has been swept up in a disdain for external links in general, and IMDB as a source, in particular.
2728:. Diesel, Walker, and Johnson are clearly stars with names in large letters on the poster. They also have their names in the Billing block, with those 3 names before the title and then followed by 8 others. If the policy is all the names there are 11 names for this film in the infobox, which seems clunky. But for me, I think one can clearly delineate the list and justify just including Diesel, Walker, and Johnson. They are justified in 3 ways: larger typeface, listed 2x on the poster (top of poster + billing block), and listed in the billing block before the title. This to me makes them the "stars" and the other 8 don't need to be listed in this summary box. I do think if one justifies any of those 8, then all the 8 should be included.
2635:"Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release". This phrasing is unclear: Does it man all the names in the billing block must be included or does it simply mean that all the names that are in the blilling block should be no matter what? I think this needs to be made clear. I think the current guideline suggests we can we limit the list (no more than the names on the poster), but it is not clear that just being on the poster does not mean they must be included in the infobox. I think a target of 2-3 names is optimal but should not be a hard and fast rule, but should be dicated by the billing.
2594:, which by that rule would be just Nicholson and Keaton, though I think some would argue that Basinger was a starring role to, she's the female lead. I think the guideline needs some nuance and perhaps some example situations to cite, like if the billing block is excessive (featuring X amount of names) insert the names before the film's name in the billing block, or revert to star billing. I think that film posters in general are too inconsistent to create a single one-fits-all guideline. I'd also insert something about "if disputed, the status quo should remain without discussion" to prevent "well this way is equally valid and I prefer it" style arguments.
2849:
that is just academic, I am happy doing it based on billing, but I think we need some guidelines/rules and where to cut off the number. Must we take them all, or can we chose some logical demarcation point to get a reasonable number. I think even cutting "equally billed" actors (as the last 8 of 9 in GF and GF2) could be done in some fashion. I think it should be based on billing in the infobox as the best criteria. But that would mean a Margot Kidder in
Superman would not be in the infobox unless we went to 8 people, even though an argument could be made that she should be before Brando.
1744:"I've had numerous bouts with varying editors involving which actors should be included in the infobox. As per this template, the guideline is to "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release." Now, when I do this, I'm frequently reverted, and usually with good reason. Often, the billing block contains a large amount of actors that clutters the infobox. So in order to prevent myself from getting in any more arguments, I wanted to propose a change to the wording. Instead of what's above, why not this?
1316:
this because there is clearly no consensus to make the change, the same as six weeks ago when you gave up on it. I give you credit for knowing that consensus doesn't spontaneously germinate after six weeks. Your statement that it is uncontroversial seems like wishful thinking. Maybe DWB wants to weigh in, as you should have invited him to do absent an effort to respond to his simple objection. As an alternative, I'd like to suggest that we eliminate the
Narrator field and change the Starring guidelines to include the narrator when there are no actors. Would that work? --
3344:
4052:
4846:. Just because it exists doesn't mean it might not be encyclopedic to include. But in the circumstances of bands and musicians in particular, their websites don't go dead until well after they break up, if even then. Movie websites are different. They are entirely promotional, and frequently vanish after a few months on home release. Secondly, countless films that get a theatrical release, wide or limited, do not have official websites. It's largely the huge budget movies, or the awards movies. Therefore, I think external links should more than cover it.
5048:, it looks like an external link can be included in an infobox "if applicable". However, I think many films' official websites are promotional in nature, and any objective substance it can offer (synopsis, cast, production notes) would be used in the article body already. Such websites have media (trailer, images, videos) but I do not think that this warrants a position heightened from the "External links" section. It's best relegated to that section. Knowledge (XXG) best maintains an encyclopedic focus on films in this way.
3643:
if possible". I'd say that the "first released the film" portion definitely needs to go. I suggest this wording: "Insert the company name(s) of the distributor(s) that theatrically released the film in its country of production, separated using {{Plain list}}. If a single distributor released the film in most international markets, include that distributor as well. In addition, link each distributor to its appropriate article if possible." Obviously a rough version, and wide open to revision and critique.
5679:. The same is not true of the external links section. Furthermore, there is some confused thinking here: While the primary purpose of putting the official website, like others, in the EL section is to provide our readers with a (hopefully) useful source to read; the primary purpose of putting it in the infobox is to include it as a key piece of data about the film. We only make it a clickable link because it would be silly to display a valid URL and not do so; but that's a secondary matter.
5597:. I do think a MoS-wide discussion would make sense though since apparently dozens of request for comments have gone out to past users of just this template page. So we seem to be in more of a localized spiral of feedback. Perhaps with wider input we would see more people wonder why this info box should be exceptional to standards well accepted on the project. There does seem to be some valid concerns, but also reasonable counters to those, like employing a bot to watch for dead links.
3938:. Obviously I don't mind tweaking the MOS to that effect but if this is a problem that isn't isolated and affects hundreds of articles the only way to overcome it would be to completely change the culture of how grosses are documented i.e. round to the nearest million for every film. Again, I don't object to that but as we've seen with "universal acclaim" and "mixed to positive" in reception sections, changing the MOS is easy, getting editors to comply is nigh on impossible.
5627:. The Television Infobox is an abomination, the video game infobox, while not including a URL, is an abomination. These things doing something different is not an excuse to emulate them. The reader has to scroll to the end of the article to view the film's website? Oh no. If only they'd clicked on the link at the TOP of the google page above the Knowledge (XXG) article when they searched for it in the first place. If you are on WIkipedia, you're not here for
31:
425:.) One argument that I've seen to not list crew members is to just mention them in context of what they did for the film. While I can see this point, it requires a lot of article writing across the board to just mention a key crew member. Do you essentially think that crew sections should be staple sections? And do you want to have a wider discussion to encourage that? I do agree with you, but I am just not making a big push for that.
3514:. Personally, I take issue with the inclusion of all three of these. The film is an entirely American production: why are these other distributors even worth mentioning? I feel like the "Distributors" section should read like the "Release date" section, in that it should only include the country of production's distributors. Additionally, we could include an international distributor if it's only one company. Thoughts?
1205:
logical: in the few film infoboxes that list both stars and narrators, the stars almost always play a more significant role than the narrators, as can be seen in the examples above and elsewhere. Also, the vast majority of infoboxes list one or the other, and therefore are unaffected. Thus, narrators should be listed after stars as proposed. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to see it.
3967:
3295:
3190:
1101:
2815:
including all 9 or just Brando. Personally, I think all 9 should be listed as it is more ensemble than a star vehicle for Brando, but I could live just Brando in the starring portion of the infobox and just Pacino in the sequel but prefer all 9 in that film as well. The question is what is the policy and the intent of the policy and how much wiggle room is there for exceptions.
5452:
Knowledge (XXG). By leaving external links until the end we encourage readers to click internal links first. At the moment I think the official website is easy enough to find in the external links section for anyone who is looking for it, and at the same time we are not encouraging people who are not looking for it to passively follow the link before reading the article.
5342:
non-English speaking countries where films are commonly retitled into a native language, so poster art is much more universal than word titles in identifying a film. If there were a better means of identifying films to readers then the poster would fail our NFC criteria, and would not only be relegated from the infobox but also removed from
Knowledge (XXG) servers.
2720:, there are 9 actors with the same size typeface, though clearly there is one standout in each, Brando in the first and Pacino in the 2nd as they have their name all alone on a line followed by a "with". So I could see justifying listing only the "star" or having to include all 9 siince there is no demarcation between the 2 choices. But with the
3240:
1153:
1720:
in it for like 30 seconds if that. So I think making a qualifier for when you have an extensive star billing like that is to stick to that star billing, if it falls short of the billing block. Now I'm sure there is at least one film poster out there filled with a ridiculous amount of star billing on it, though I can't think what it is.
6169:"Now, especially in the context of Indian cinema, the songwriter plays a critical role in the success or failure of a film. Since the template is currently skewed towards Hollywood films, it does not currently allow for the name of lyricist on the infobox template. I'd like to make the request to make room for this on the template."
370:
tell the reader about the article subject matter. Another incorrect standard is to say someone shouldn't be mentioned in a film article if there is not a WP article on them. So what is the reason not to include a Crew section including at least the main members of the crew? Perhaps there is a reason but it needs to be stated. --
5989:"internet information" in this case, varies considerably in quality. The actually useful "Official sites" for movies are seemingly the exception, rather than the norm. Especially once they age more than a year or two after the release. Eg. we're definitely not going to move the "official link" from the EL to the infobox, at
2800:
was not as big a star, but his role was arguably the center of the film. Fortunately, we just follow the billing block and it's case closed. Secondly, I don't agree that my proposal -- which I favor only if a change is going to be made -- includes anything about star billing except when it is the only billing available. --
4521:, per Sportfan5000. Dead websites should be removed from articles in any case; I see no reason why official URLs shouldn't be in the easy-to-find summary in an infobox, but removed should they become "redirects to the distributor's page or just abandoned entirely". It's a valid concern, but easy to resolve, surely? —
5706:
though for something objective it might seem like wasted effort. The same seems to apply to the film's web site standing in as a quasi-primary source for a film. In fact, it may or may not be a reliably encyclopedic compilation because it is "official" only to the extent it is funded by a copyright holder. --
4496:, There is a very special place dedicated for external links only that is called "External links" section. Such link is also often used in the reference section. Such links became dead links too soon. Such duplicate placement in infobox would only promote the film, that does Knowledge (XXG) do not per policy
5067:
The film is a product though, and their official website is how they present themselves, whatever we may think of that presentation, and other websites like IMDB, Mojo, etc. have their own standards, and reasons, and those links are often just removed. Perhaps the argument should be made that no info
3864:
I think we need a guideline in this documentation on what degree of precision should be used, in the hope that this silliness'll stop. My inclination is: If domestic and foreign gross are known to the same degree of precision, then give the figure as given in the source. If one is known to a lesser
3151:
The FUR is invoked on the principal grounds that the artwork is necessary to help identify the film to the reader. We don't need to include a non-free image to tell the reader the name of the film. Therefore, it needs to be large enough so that the artwork is clear, but by increasing the size just to
2977:
parameters? It seems that most articles that use the image size parameter are doing some nominal stretching of the default 200px width to 250 px, which is wholly unnecessary. And the border parameter I could see being automatically implemented as it is helpful to light-background posters and would do
2799:
It's interesting that you mention The
Godfather. You say it's obvious Pacino is 2, but that is a highly debatable point that would never be resolved with a different guideline. Pacino's character's story is the main narrative and he has more screen time than Brando's. He's not the title character and
1719:
poster eleven billed names at the top of people who are not necessarily in the film a long time, but who are the stars of the film, like
Schwarzenneger, Willis, et al. While the billing block includes an additional 3 names of people who, if you've seen the film, are not starring roles, one of them is
1619:
films with larger casts. I realize that posters promote certain celebrities despite there being more major roles than just theirs. However, there are going to be films where there is a sensible combination of "starring" actors in both story-wise and real-world contexts. For example, in both contexts,
1368:
when I clearly laid it out above? Did you bother to read the opening paragraph? I do not want to rewrite all the points I have already made. You are demanding that others spend more time on this, including DWB, when they are obviously not inclined to do so. If there's no more comments on this, I will
1241:
Darkwarriorblake seemed to take exception to the proposal and his objections weren't answered. Then it was dropped for a month and someone says it's "dormant". Nine days later Gothic says it's uncontroversial. For those of us who watch these discussions, the assumption is that objections stand unless
594:
cited by DarkWarriorBlake. Blake, it seems you are inventing a violation that the policy does not address. Please explicitly tell us exactly which part of the policy you might like us to believe is violated by listing the crew on a film, taking care to explain why we would think differently about the
562:
I tend to agree with Ring. The rigidity of the infoboxes concerns me, and I think that the articles that brought me here (the fact that the notable choreographer whose article I'm expanding is in zero infoboxes) points up the problems with the infobox. While choreography is not as important as it was
6060:
Editors, I've noticed that the current template does well for
Hollywood films and for other World Cinema. However, in the context of Indian cinema, song, dance and music are integral to the film's success. Even before the movie is released, the song videos are used widely and aggressively to promote
5705:
I would compare our presentation of the actors in the film to this issue. We could, for the sake of brevity and completeness, forget about any cast lists and instead give a link to the cast list on a film's web site. I don't think we would consider that because WP has its own purposes or ethos, even
5473:
Good points to consider. I think
Pigsonthewing's statement below about how Els are not treated equally in metadata speaks to part of the reasoning of why we re doing a disservice. I believe we can also take studies on how most readers don't read beyond the introduction of an article as an indication
5444:
It is true that editors have to go to the end of the article to retrive the link, but is there any evidence that its position in the article makes it unreasonably difficult to find? The external links section is linked to in the table of contents, so presumably any reader who is actively seeking the
5437:
The implicit assumption that the official website is a more useful/important link than other external links and deserving of being elevated above all others. In practise I have not found this to be the case. Sometimes it is but not always or even usually. On film articles I think the IMDB is often a
3868:
OK, so even if we have both to the nearest dollar (or other currency unit), it's still not perfect, as it can still be actually one more or less by round-off error. And in the above example, if the foreign gross is actually $ 713,140,000 then the total to -5dp will actually be $ 1,112,800,000. But
3642:
Appears that there's no opposition thus far. Should we go ahead and figure out a new wording? The
TemplateData currently reads "Insert the company name(s) of the distributor(s) that first released the film, separated using {{Plain list}}. In addition, link each distributor to its appropriate article
2814:
Based on billing in the first Godfather, Pacino is 2nd but of equal status with the other 8, all 8 lower than Brando. I think the infobox is about credit. Comments about how much they may have starred, the politics, etc, can be handled in Prodn section. For the infobox, the discussion would be about
816:
Perhaps we should clarify that "Narrator" is just for documentaries in the guideline, and not voiceovers in feature films. If an actor narrates a story as a fictional character then that is voiceover rather than narration since they are still playing a part, and does not belong in the narrator field
634:, the narrator is only heard once at the end for a quarter minute. I see no instance where the narrator should be positioned this way. Perhaps someone thought the narrator was linked to the Writing credits currently positioned directly above, but that's not valid. Actors work from a script as well.
5361:
Another question, why should this one info box prohibit a website parameter when it seems most others in arts and entertainment do? Perhaps this is really a discussion that all websites should be removed from all info boxes. I don't think that's the case but i am trying to understand the logic that
5341:
applies to external links, so different arguments certainly apply in regards to their usage. While a poster is promotional (like a website link) its primary purpose here is identification: sometimes films have the same or similar titles which can be confusing, and one third of our readers come from
5212:
I don't think we can say with a straight face that any of the purely informational material on a film's website is already covered in the article. Our guidelines frequently restrict for purposes of brevity the scope of the content we offer. Cast lists are not comprehensive, crew lists are strangely
5015:
Knowledge (XXG) is an online encyclopaedia. Online presence of subjects of articles is to be strongly presented. Most films made nowdays have a website dedicated to them. Many films before the internet age also do. If a film does not have an "official website", the relevant parameter in the infobox
3902:
I would say it's not commonly pursued. Like Smjg stated, people blindly copy Box Office Mojo and don't think it through. My preference is that we just round all such figures, even there are no approximations. There's no value to report in showing the tens of thousands, thousands, etc. on top of the
3860:
has earned $ 399,619,073 in North America as of April 13, 2014, and $ 713,100,000 in other countries as of April 13, for a worldwide total of $ 1,112,719,073." It's obvious that the $ 713,100,000 is an approximate figure; as such, it makes no sense to combine it with the North American gross given
3136:
I am going to support the removal of the parameters. I am largely ambivalent about the image border, but as rightly pointed out there is no harm in making it a permanent feature in all boxes. As for the image size, I appreciate Erik's point that sometimes the titles are not legible in some posters,
2668:
lists 5 actors on the poster. The "star" with the largest billing is clearly Bankhead and she should be in the infobox. I can see just having her, but since it is only 1 name, also including Bendix since he has the next largest typeface and it keeps it < 3 names. The remaining 3 on the poster, I
2181:
I forgot about that. I think in that case, that would be considered the actors listed before the quotations. Note how "The Place Beyond the Pines" is shown, followed by Mendelsohn, Byrne, etc. So I agree that those four should be the only ones in there under this new guideline. If the actors in the
2104:
Pushing this forward because stagnation is the death of many a cause on Knowledge (XXG). A rough idea, feel free to adapt but let us move forward. I prefer, if possible, having SOME names rather than a link to the cast section, but some of the lists get ridiculous. In the same vein some of them are
1407:
I'm concerned with your attempt to circumvent the WP policy on consensus. Repeating that mistake would not be a confidence building measure. In the case of Barry Lyndon, the narrator could be left out of the infobox under my proposal, if not listed in the credit block of the poster. Would that be a
1315:
I would suggest you argue the merits of your case instead of offering a tendentious summary of DWB's non-support. I'm pretty sure that inaccurately summarizing another editor's words is frowned upon. Little Mountain reversed himself so we can't really rely on his earlier reasons. We are discussing
911:
Can we do whatever is necessary to implement this change? No one is against it, it would do no harm to documentaries, and the issue of whether to include brief narration can be addressed later, as it stands regardless of where the narrator is listed. But in the meantime, more than four months after
662:
Well the Narrator field is not meant for people who provide a disembodied voice at all in a film. Morgan Freeman is not the narrator of the Shawshank Redemption, he providers internal dialogue as he is essentially the main character providing an external perspective of Andy Dufresne. Morgan Freeman
5834:
Generally it is the, usually one, website, controlled by the production, or owners of a film. It does not refer to the official IMDB website, for instance. It would also not include an official fan club website. And if a movie's official website went dead, reasonable editing would dictate removing
5261:
the film, but a website link in itself doesn't really tell us anything. Ultimately the infobox is there to tells us important facts about a film while the external links section is there to provide useful/important links to other websites, and I don't think a convincing case has been made that the
5256:
No-one is really saying the official webiste isn't relevant, just questioning whether it's important enough for the infobox. The infobox covers things that are integral to the film itself i.e. the people and companies involved in making it etc. Every piece of information in the infobox tells us an
4182:
Simply not necessary to have them placed so prominently in the article. The infobox is there to provide an overview of the most essential details of a film's authorship, and there are many parameters that would be eligible for inclusion ahead of the official website, which basically just exists to
3147:
There is an assumption that setting the image to a larger size solves the issue for everyone. This is simply not the case however; it solves the issue at that particular resolution, which will and will not be used by other readers. If you increase your resolution by just 10%, then the large poster
3104:
Yeah, I do understand that. I am just thinking that certain images could suffer from being compressed so much in the infobox. The title isn't very legible, IMO, but the art is still reasonably legible. I can't think of any other examples offhand. I'm fine with making sure we don't overuse it. Just
2673:
has larger billing for 2 stars Maclaine and Caine (both before title), then next Lom after title but larger typeface and then by Carmel and Moss. I can see an argument for 2 but also 3 of the names. Including Lom is probably the better, since he is credited in the film as "also starring". Again, I
2045:
That's a really weird mixing of ideas. In this case, the billing block isn't traditional, so I would say Auteuil and Binoche should be the only ones included. Putting Benichou above the other actors listed in the infobox is inconsistent, as it should be all of them or none of them in that case. If
1520:, when listing a large number in the infobox is there a preference for listing the full figure or abbreviating it as, for instance, $ 9 million? I've seen numerous edits of this type made but am not aware of a consensus either way. If there is one, it might be useful to state in the documentation.
480:
I didn't know this was such a controversial topic. Anyway, isn't there some way of customizing these infoboxes so that, if the choreographer is relevant (which he/she wouldn't be in most film nowadays), a line can be added so it can be plugged in? I tried that and it wasn't visible. It is possible
3012:
I recall using image_size for images that were smaller than the default width, but it does not seem to stretch automatically to that. However, there may be cases where we would want the image to be wider, especially if it is a title card or a horizontally-presented poster (UK style). For example,
2848:
where Brando and Hackman are before the title, then one could list Reeve, but anyone else is ina group of 10. Beatty, Cooper, Ford, Howard are all billed higher than Kidder. On some level, it is OR to try to define the "star", when the source material gives you something different. To me, some of
1946:
I concur with Corvoe, with the possibility of a small modification. My reason is that many edit wars are avoided by having a strict rule, despite a few occasional anomalies like Moonrise Kingdom. I think above the title actors belong in the infobox, but think we could routinely include three from
1618:
It seems that the guidelines for the "Starring" field in the film infobox is being treated as policy, especially with the way it is worded. My impression is that the billing block is useful as a rule of thumb to resolve disputes about where to cut off a list of names, which is most applicable for
1535:
I personally round such figures. I think it is more to the point, and I don't think it is necessary to report specific numbers in the tens of thousands and below. (This is meant to apply to films that cost and gross millions; I am fine with greater precision for films with lower figures.) I don't
1204:
I undid my edit for the time being for further discussion, per your request on my talk page. I do believe a consensus was achieved here; the discussion began over five months ago and involved six editors, two of whom supported the change and none of whom opposed it. The rationale for change seems
369:
That is the wrong standard. Notability is the standard used to determine if a subject should have its own article. It is not the standard to determine if any particular fact belongs in an article. Almost all the facts in almost all the articles are not notable by themselves, but they are there to
6096:
Hope this request will help. Please let me know. In fact, just after my request I also looked at the Slumdog Millionnaire page. While the music composer's name features within the infobox, the notable, awarding winning songwriter's name does not feature as prominently, precisely for the reason I
3584:
I think if there are just two (a domestic and foreign one like you get with many studio films) then you can include both, but other than that I support Lugnut's general point: we should focus on significant releases (i.e. date and distributor in conjunction) rather than treating them as separate
2105:
too difficult to adapt, like the Expendables 2 one, where the star billing is superior to the billing block because the billing block lists at least one person who is in the film for 30 seconds and I can't even remember if they spoke, and you aren't going to get around them being ensemble stars.
1450:
I never gave up on this, I was giving people a chance to weigh in. I gave as much time as could possibly be expected. Anyone reading the above discussion can see I answered everybody who posted. No one objected to my actual proposal, including DWB or yourself. You never posted anything until the
3323:
Please add parameter for the official website of the movie. This is the best source for how the production represents itself. Readers should not have to go the very bottom of an article when searching for this information. And increasingly every movie has one. The links to official websites are
1650:
If I recall, the principle motivation behind the billing block was to set a limit on editors who installed entire cast lists in the infobox. There's nothing to say we can't have fewer names, since sometimes posters can have up to a dozen names in a billing block. Here is the related discussion:
5451:
Assuming we don't thwart our readers unreasonably, is it acceptable to balance the requirements of the reader with our own interests? By this I mean it could actually work against us by placing external links at the top of the article since a percentage of readers will click the link and leave
3783:
OK, how's does this draft read: "Using the same rationale as the release date, the distributor(s) should be restricted to the country or countries that produced the film and (if different) the country where the film is first released. If there are only two distributors in total (a domestic and
547:
I don't find Blake's point accurate when compared to the facts. First of all, notability is not the standard; if it were, most actors wouldn't be in film articles. That's been explained but perhaps it bears repeating if it's a difficult point. Secondly, it's not true that crew members are more
4971:- Promotional sites for films are ephemeral, and disappear after a time. Maintaining these "short shelf life" links in infoboxes will put a burden on WP editors. Leave to the bottom, where it can be added, and later removed, without introducing a short-lived link at the top of the article. --
4899:– I was neutral; since the official status makes the link noteworthy, but (in my personal experience) official film websites have little to offer that is not better communicated by the Knowledge (XXG) and IMDb pages. Having said that, the Metadata details explained below by Andy Mabbett (
1756:. You'd currently see a cast list consisting of Russell Crowe, Ed Harris, Jennifer Connelly, Paul Bettany, Adam Goldberg, Judd Hirsch, Josh Lucas, Anthony Rapp, and Christopher Plummer. Now while this is consistent with the documentation, it's cluttered as all get out. It's even worse on
1558:
Sorry, missed your response. My actual question was regarding, "$ 8 million" versus "$ 8,000,000". Is the former acceptable or is the latter preferred? Based on the above I'm guessing you consider the former reasonable, which works for me as well; I've just seen it handled either way.
949:
I'm not sure why it needs moving, a narrated by credit shouldn't really be being used if there are stars should it? Who are the stars in March of the Penguins? Though I confess I am struggling to think of a film with both a narrator and a star cast, so I might be missing the obvious.
2010:
is an example. Auteuil and Binoche above the title. Below the title, Benichou's performance was honored for best supporting actor somewhere. Five others are listed below the title -- none currently in the infobox, which seems about right but if two more were, it wouldn't be a crime.
2492:
Thanks. There is a little problem with my draft that is in the current draft: if no billing block is available and the screen credits are used, how many actors should be listed? As written, apparently all of them, but that's not right. So something would have to be done about that.
1280:
That includes DWB, who talked about other uses or misuses of the field. And now you have raised no actual objection to the change either. Yet you go to LM5's Talk page telling him to undo the change he implemented. You're demanding more discussion yet you admit in your edit summary
737:
I think people would contest that. They thought it was legit to put it in to begin with. The guideline needs to address this. I'm not advocating removing narrators from the infobox if they only provided an introduction. I doubt a consensus could be found for that. But let's move
3023:. (Granted, we could go ahead and replace that with a vertical image, but it wouldn't be an original image.) I assume that the articles that use 250px are vertical posters and should not be using it for the most part? As for the border field, I'm fine with its removal as well.
1285:. Why should even more time be spent on this? I have given clear reasons above why this should be implemented, and LM5 agrees as well. I have other things to do and suspect others on this page do as well. As there are no actual objections, I propose the change be reinstated. -
4701:
The External Links section is ample for this kind of thing. If the Infobox is expanded or customized, it should reflect worthy crew members who are sometimes crucial to a movie and excluded (like choreographers and special effects people) and not promotional websites.
4627:. Clearly encyclopedic information about a film, and clearly important enough for inclusion, Outdated information should be removed in the usual way; and a bot could be employed to detect redirects to distributor's main sites; or tag borderline cases for human checks.
2829:
Of course no one can stop editors who don't want to follow guidelines -- as it should be. My point above is that a hard and fast rule is necessary to avoid endless warring, since in the case of Pacino there will always be a very compelling case that he is the lead.
1947:
below the title, giving priority to honored performances, larger roles, and higher billing, in that order. The exception: frequently the last actor mentioned is someone special and that person essentially has high billing. Not sure what to do about that, though. --
3585:
concepts. Ultimately though the distributor who releases the film first should always be included since they are the de facto publisher of the work. In the case of something like Grand Budapest Hotel, Fox Searchlight should probably be replaced by the general
3903:
millions and hundreds of thousands. Sources like the trade papers don't write out the full numbers either, and Knowledge (XXG) does not have to write out that indiscriminately, either. I don't know if there would be a consensus behind this approach, though.
1693:
That is certainly my take on it. The problem always was that sometimes too many names were added to the infobox, but just having two or three names in there isn't a problem if there are obvious "stars". Sometimes it isn't that clear cut with films such as
1912:
I'm still in favour of partially using the block, only listing the names in front of the title, if applicable. But I think whatever the decision is, it's most important that it's worded definitively so we don't have different interpretations. Also yeah,
5312:
Question, on the basis of the logic presented so far, shouldn't the official image also be relegated outside of the info box, after all it's unquestionably decorative, promotional, and not really conveying any facts about the film not already covered.
460:
Yes, crew sections should be as commonplace as cast sections. For comparison, it is useful to check the NY Times on this, where they list the major people, actors and production, then link to longer lists of full credits for "Acting" and "Production".
3998:
The infobox displays "Release dates" in the plural, but the preferred form according to the documentation is singular. I personally find this jarring. Using "Release date" would lead to much fewer clashes, and encourage using the preferred form.
1455:
field is a different issue that would be controversial and would require support it hasn't gotten here. That is in contrast to switching the order as I proposed, which does no harm to documentaries or anything else, so it is uncontroversial. -
6133:, this is where you need to make a request for the "Lyrics" field to be added to the film infobox. However, this will not be done until there is consensus to add this field. You'll need to make the case to other editors for adding this field.
4915:
External links is just as good a location for the film's advertising. Metadata is a nonsense argument: there is no site-wide consensus that there is a benefit to including information solely to generate it (and there is evidence that metadata
1783:) it reads "Tom Hanks Helen Hunt "Cast Away" Nick Searcy", even though the poster only highlights Tom Hanks' name. In this case, we would list Tom Hanks and Helen Hunt in the infobox. On a related note, a decision was recently reached over at
5043:
It's worth noting that the film infobox used to have parameters that would link to the film's official website and to the film's IMDb page. These were removed years ago as redundant to what existed in the "External links" section. Reviewing
2678:
there are 4 primary actors listed in larger typeface with 2 secondary actors. In this case I think making an exception to 2-3 should be done, but I don't see a need for all 6 names as the last 2 clearly aren't billed equally as the other
323:(which I'm currently working on), it did not seem like crew members not in the infobox were notable. Still, I guess I could add a crew section that would be redundant to the infobox's credits. Do you think that should be done regardless?
6194:
and so on. Personally I would just relax the condition for the "music" parameter on musicals, and permit the inclusion of a lyricist in those cases. We wouldn't even need to change the template then, we can just adapt the documentation.
2220:
I think we have to accept that, if we make a bright line rule, sometimes the infobox won't come out to our liking. This is a tradeoff between simplicity and some kind of Platonic ideal. So be it. At least there aren't edit wars over it.
3436:
After comparing the widths of an infobox image with an image in the body of an article, it appears they are both 220px. The infobox width may have widened due to the recent typography changes, making the infobox image appear smaller.
5176:
If a website goes dead, we could link to an archived version or just remove it, I don't see why all the films that have perfectly functioning websites should be prevented from having an info box link because some eventually go dead?
420:
for this reason. In the long run, I endorse the idea of having crew sections as staple sections, but right now, I have just focused on inserting crew sections where most names are linked. (And I mention awards to that end because of
5234:
The films website is perfectly free to promote the film but that is not a reason to have the link in the infobox. Please remember we aren't saying the links should be removed (although there are some grounds for the like item #1 in
1631:, the purpose of an infobox is "to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears". So I suggest that we temper this billing block guideline with this summarizing where applicable. Could we reword the guideline to do this?
3929:
If it's a perpetual thing across the board and editors are just copying the figures in I'm not sure there's much we can do to address that. In some cases the problem isn't even obvious: the issue with precision is evident with
5291:
I think by relegating the official website down to the external links section, we are judging it as on par with any other external link that might be placed there, even though it's relationship to the film seems undeniable.
5213:
nonexistent. As an encyclopedia, we could take the view that we should cover all the facts, but we don't. So we are insisting that our readers get that information elsewhere. Why hide it if we're not going to include it? --
3089:
The title is also in the infobox. If the reader wants to see the full size image, they can always click on it to take them to the File page. For identification purposes, I think the size is negligible enough to discard it.
481:
that in some other films it would be relevant to add special effects people and others who ordinarily are not significant. In dozens of older movies, choreographers are definitely relevant and their omission is noticeable.
3616:
I agree with the sentiments presented so far. especially the sentiment that "The infobox is there to be a summary of the data, not to include every last piece of trivia." And don't even get started on the DVD/Bluray info.
6189:
I think it is unnecessary to add a separate parameter since it won't be utilized on most articles. However, I think Pictowrit has a valid point in regards to musicals, and this does affect some big Hollywood films like
4200:
An EL is all that is needed for these. As Betty Logan points out they are all too often a promotional website. Many of them turn into a sales site for a DVD or Bluray. Also, as time passes, many of the links go dead.
4458:: Most "official websites" of movies are only active for the first few months or so, after which they are either converted into redirects to the distributor's page or just abandoned entirely (for instance, see where
789:
Can we get some action/further comment on this? Or do people agree with the suggestion to just delete a narrator who was only heard briefly in the film, as in the examples given at the top here? I'd rather move the
228:
I'm all for making crew sections more commonplace. I've been implementing them where I think there are numerous notable crew members. Too many red links or non-links may make such a section look too indiscriminate.
4655:– We put the official website in all sorts of Infoboxes, some of which could have the same promotional and other objections. However, the "pros" seem to outweigh the "cons" there, as I believe they should here.
1573:
I actually find "$ 8,000,000" more inaccurate because it suggests that the film cost precisely that much. A rounded figure like "$ 8 million" is more a ballpark figure that is also more straightforward to read.
4781:, An official website is not the most essential information that readers want to know about the film. Also, most official websites die after one or two years. External links are still doing an excellent job.
3593:
is certainly credited as the main Fox company, and if that is the case for Germany too that is porbably what we should go with it. That article is certainly becoming a rigorous test case for our guidelines!
2361:
So, due to this conversation more or less dying off, I'm going to try to breathe new life to it and say we put it to an actual vote. The changes to be added to the current guideline's wording are in bold.
5549:
from the external links section, and placed only in the info box, it would not be a duplicate. In that case the one in the external links section would be a duplicate as happens on most other articles.
1862:(which Corvoe has seen) where we don't even mention Gilman and Hayward in the "Starring" field because they're not in the billing block. I think that we need to have rules of thumb here like we do with
5505:
You allude to redundancy, and spamming. As I see it an official link in the info box would replace it being anywhere else in the article, so really would not be spamming, or an extra hit of some kind.
1866:. The billing block should be a primary rule of thumb, but there should be secondary ones where it does not work fully. I'm fine with another rule of thumb being names above the poster title like for
3865:
precision, then give the total gross only to that precision. So the above figure would become $ 1,112,700,000. Or maybe "$ 1,112.7 million" if you want to make the approximateness of it clearer.
5675:
Arguments to the effect that "External links do the trick" are factually incorrect; any URL included in an infobox may be passed in metadata emitted by that box; and read by infobox parsers such as
2724:
it is a little different since you have 4 actors (Pacino, Keaton, Shire, and Garcia) all pre-title and the other 4 post-title. in this case I think 4 actors not 8. The last example I dug up is the
305:
You're right that showing the crew can open up possibilities, but one can gauge notability based on awards as seen at IMDb. When I add a crew section, I strive to make red links blue (as I did for
4217:, haven't we already had this discussion? They're often worthless at the best of times, filled with the most base of details, fleeting at the rest of times. There is no need to have such a thing.
2926:
and I the infobox has way too many cast members, but I can't read Japanese and am not sure how many should be in the infobox based on the poster. Any suggestion on how to handle things like this?
1747:"Insert the names of the actors as they are listed at the top of the poster for the film's original theatrical release. If no actors are listed, use the cast list on the poster's billing block."
5639:
4225:
2602:
511:
4589:, Primarily because those kinds of website links go dead after a year or so. The "External links" section is the appropriate place for them. On the other hand, I would support (re)adding the
5448:
Obviously content at the top article is more visible than content at the bottom, but are we under an obligation to make finding information as easy as possible, or is easy enough sufficient?
2049:
Also, we need to decide on a wording for the new policy at some point. I'm still thinking the actors listed before the title in the billing block should be used, but that might be just me.
1001:
This has been dormant long enough to be archived. I'm reviving it as a last chance for some action. I've given good examples above as to why this should be implemented. No one's opposed to
880:
I would support that as well. But we still have the many fiction film pages with a Narrator entry. Unless someone removes them all - which I don't support, since some are legit, such as at
110:
I was wondering why there is no line in the infobox for choreography. It seems to be a glaring omission,obviously, for musical films in which the director is not the choreographer (such as
4917:
4740:, or no better than a trailer. In fact, I am thinking infoboxes do not need to have external links at all; their subjects almost always live shorter than the article itself. Best regards,
3884:
Obviously when you combine figures, you do so to the precision of the least precise component. Isn't this something kids are taught in schools? Do we actually need a guideline for this?
3661:
Well no, because I think the distributor that first releases the film anywhere regardless of country of origin is important. It is the publisher of the film from a copyright standpoint.
5964:
but not among Knowledge (XXG) editors. An online encyclopaedia doubting the merits of offering to its users the full benefits, in the easiest manner, of internet information? Amusing. -
4842:- I'm noticing a lot of people who are supporting this change using the defence that we include official websites in other infoboxes (presumably, such as bands and musicians). Firstly,
3221:| image = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{{image|}}}|size={{{image_size|{{{image size|}}}}}}|sizedefault=frameless|alt={{{alt|}}}|border={{{border|{{{Border|}}}}}}}}
5522:
The primary spot for an official link is at the top of the ==External links== section. If it exists, it should always be the first item in that section. Having it anywhere else is a
1789:
to include only Forest Whitaker and Oprah Winfrey in the infobox using this reasoning. I would say using this would be a better source of actor listing, because sometimes films like
3045:
I could see replacing it with a landscape parameter that would allow some automatic stretching as an alternative. However, such a small width change would hardly make a difference:
3734:
There doesn't seem to be any objections, although I would add the caveat that if there are only two distributors in total (a domestic and foreign) then it is ok to include both.
3562:, which I believe is US-centric. The film appears to be distributed in Germany and the UK through 20th Century Fox's international arms, which are distinct from Fox Searchlight.
1242:
more is said. Saying nothing for a month and then claiming you had a consensus back then leaves something to be desired. I'm not speaking to the merits of the proposal at all. --
1805:
I apologize if this is insanely cluttered or hard to follow, but feel free to ask for any questions or clarifications. I have some trouble wording things sometimes. Thank you!"
4761:, there is no need to clutter up the infobox. While I initially opposed its removal from the infobox some years back, I have come to see the facility of keeping the box clean.
2273:
As a supporter of the rule-of-thumb guideline that's already implemented, I think what Darkwarriorblake quoted above ("Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the
3548:
In this case, I think it is appropriate to just identify Paramount in the infobox. (The other distributors can be mentioned in the article body if there is good context, like
1773:
However, there is an alternate option. Most billing blocks contain some actors before the title, and then contain more actors after it. For instance, in the billing block of
2664:
I found a few examples that demonstrate issues to possibly keep in mind when clarify the guidelines, so we can discuss and come to a consensus of some new wording. The film
3389:
The default infobox image size seems to have changed from 220px to 200px width. Also the font appears larger. Were these intended changes, or is there a technical problem?
2712:, none of the actors listed are in a different typeface or are pre-title. In this case, even though it takes a lot of room all 8 names seems justified. Similarly with both
2460:
template for multiple entries, and link each actor to his/her article if possible. Don't add additional text (such as "with" or "featuring") or punctuation to the list." --
4479:: If we decided we don't want ratings in movie userboxes anymore, then why should the website go there? Put the ratings back first, then we can worry about the websites.
3152:
make the title clear we are potentially violating the FUR. In the case of non-free images, I think there is a strong argument for sticking with Knowledge (XXG)'s defaults
2395:
template for multiple entries, and link each actor to his/her article if possible. Don't add additional text (such as "with" or "featuring") or punctuation to the list."
837:, for example. What do you mean I'm a funny guy...? Back on topic - yes, agree with Gothicfilm that the field should be placed below the starring field in the infobox.
5651:
It's not the end of the world if this doesn't happen, but it does fly in the face that we are here to inform and this is a simple request to address that, with a lot of
4550:, whereas films/books are finished projects and their sites are unlikely to have fresh info. Also per comments above, and comments in prior discussions (listed above). –
4387:- It's just a marketing website. Thus, it doesn't need to be so prominent on the page. We want to keep people reading our pages, not send them away as soon as possible.
2587:
template for multiple entries, and link each actor to his/her article if possible. Don't add additional text (such as "with" or "featuring") or punctuation to the list."
2097:
template for multiple entries, and link each actor to his/her article if possible. Don't add additional text (such as "with" or "featuring") or punctuation to the list."
2046:
the infobox had him and then said "Caché" followed by the other actors, I think that would be fine. But that isn't the case, so I'd say that Benichou should be removed.
5590:
has suggested that all external links should go in the info box, only the official website, which is the default for info boxes as far as I can tell. So it's actually
2151:
If you look at that poster though, the 4 people with top billing aren't even included IN the billing block, so I think it'd be fair to say that those 4 are the stars.
1856:
I think the billing block works well if the actors are starring both in a celebrity sense and in a story sense. One bad application of the billing block guideline is
3869:
giving $ 1,112,700,000 as the gross is still better than giving a figure to the last dollar the last five digits of which are in all probability completely wrong. —
3144:
The title is clearly visible in the lede and in the infobox anyway, so readers are not dependent on being able to read the title off the poster to identify the film.
5432:
I suppose you can turn that question on its head and ask why the official website should be treated exceptionally? There are a few things that need to considered:
548:"interchangeable" than actors. That's probably some variation on the media's cult of personality rather than knowledge of whose work on a movie is significant. --
1762:. So to use those posters as examples, the new guideline should somehow convey that the actors listed should only be Russell Crowe and Ed Harris, in the case of
1836:
3861:
to the nearest dollar and give the result as the worldwide gross. This was of course in the prose of the article, but the same figure appears in the infobox.
1741:
All right, this is gonna be really long. I proposed the same discussion over at the documentation talk page, so I blanked that and I'm going to paste it here:
1675:
Do you think it would be fair to say that the billing block is a generally appropriate cutoff point and that depending on the film, there could be less names?
2085:
If the billing block contains or more names, use any names presented before the film's title in the same section, or if available, whichever is the lesser.
4542:: 'Official' ELs should be removed from most finished/static media infoboxes. Most books don't have them. Most television shows don't have them. Most bands
2474:
I actually like your wording considerably more. Instating. Interesting that you've helped me out a lot and you aren't even in support, but to each his own.
1213:
784:
As I mentioned above, my guess is someone thought the narrator was linked to the Writing credits currently positioned directly above, but that's not valid.
3408:, but I do not see any recent changes to the module. I feel that the size difference is due to the typeface change that occurred throughout the project.
129:
Because most films don't have choreographers. They do usually have production designers, but like it or not, they aren't listed in the infobox either. -
5771:
That is true Q. Also, not all films have "official sites" and there is scant evidence that those that do have anything of value to add to our articles.
693:
I've used that a number of times since to take out twice-billed actors. This is a different issue that shows up on every page with a Narrator credit. -
3549:
4954:
seems to be 6 people in support, 28 who oppose. Hope this helps! (Came across it while perusing the RfC/A board, and I'm neutral on the subject).
1360:
is an example of a film that used extensive narration. There are a number of others where a not-on-camera actor was legitimately given the credit
1229:
1176:
3533:
Agree. It should mirror the release date rationale. The infobox is there to be a summary of the data, not to include every last piece of trivia.
198:
This again points out how strange it is that an encyclopedia doesn't have a Crew section for films. It's as peculiar as leaving out the cast. --
5835:
it, or linking it to the archived copy so those interested could see how the movie was presented by those who were in charge of its promotion.
3071:
I think the difference is enough. The title is much more legible in the second image. I don't know if others think that is significant or not.
416:
What I was thinking is that most editors are reluctant to have crew sections because it can appear indiscriminate. I experienced resistance at
267:
Possibly your thinking is a little circular. If there was a crew section with red links, editors could write an article about those people. --
6017:
wrote: "The actually useful 'Official sites' for movies are seemingly the exception, rather than the norm." That is a judgment call which is
5144:
5140:
5136:
4253:
4249:
4245:
4097:
There is an obvious consensus that Opposes enabling an official website parameter in the template. This official close is per the request at
4071:
1652:
686:
97:
89:
84:
72:
67:
59:
3366:
every archive of this talk page. You will need to gain a strong consensus to re-implement this parameter (and other deprecated parameters:
5132:
4984:
4937:
I am against external link in infoboxes. I would like to see all infoboxes moving their external links to the "external links" section. --
4241:
978:
is an example. Used extensive narration. There are a number of other films where a not-on-camera actor was legitimately given the credit
5810:
5736:
5695:
4643:
3490:
1886:
707:
Yes, but in your particular example you can just remove the narrator anyway, providing an introduction doesn't merit a narrator credit.
5586:
That seems a bit disingenuous, of course if there is no info box, the link could not go there. I think you're misreading things a bit.
3558:
isn't a production central to any one country. It mentions Germany and the United Kingdom as the key countries, yet the distributor is
4257:
3693:
I would keep it simple and just reiterate what Lugnuts suggests above: "Follow the same rationale that is applied to release dates."
499:
Dozens of older films are somewhat meaningless against the millions of total films. And crew sections should not be commonplace, per
148:
2575:
no billing block is available, apply the same standard to the screen credits, but restricted to three actors listed after the title.
850:
I agree with Betty. My impression was that "Narrated by" was for documentaries. I would support a more explicit definition of that.
4279:
Per the reasons given by Betty Logan. And also see the lenghty previous discussions in the archives not to restore this parameter.
3814:
Thanks Betty. I'll leave the draft here for a few more days, and if there's no objections, I'll update the template documentation.
4981:
4347:
3357:
2922:
1278:
the discussion began over five months ago and involved six editors, two of whom supported the change and none of whom opposed it.
2945:, with a much smaller billing block (cuts off at Shigeru Amachi). Stuff like that could work, if there isn't an English poster.
6215:, David Bowie wrote several songs for it and was credited in the opening credits. Would we list him as lyricist or songwriter?
503:, comparing cast and the recognition they receive to largely unnotable and interchangeable crew members is a false equivalency.
5852:
Sorry, I was referring to Quiddity's comment above. Some "angle" he says is covered by "official". Not sure what he means. --
4419:
4183:
promote the film. There is a place for official websites in Knowledge (XXG) articles and that is the external links section.
4018:, is very clear that normally up to two dates are acceptable. However, using "Release date(s)" as the label would be fine. --
630:
1702:
it is pretty obvious that Ian McKellen and Brad Renfro are the stars and I have no problem limiting it to those two names.
1136:
in the film infobox. As discussed above, this change in the order of the infobox fields is uncontroversial and sensible. -
6049:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
4128:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
5571:, would require an MoS-wide discussion (otherwise Film articles would be inconsistent with all other types of article). –
4843:
3229:| image = {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{{image|}}}|sizedefault=frameless|alt={{{alt|}}}|border=yes}}
6267:' and is the ideal source for this information. Usually the principal credits are listed at the bottom in block letters.
3046:
2590:
Looking at it, I'm not keen on wording that prioritizes star billing over billing block or vice versa. Take for example
1698:, so in such cases the billing block is a good guide (and I would stick to it in that example), but with something like
319:
4014:"preferred form according to the documentation is singular" - no it isn't. The documentation, both on this page and on
918:, even though the narration is only heard once, at the beginning for less than a minute. Even legit, proper use of the
769:
Do we have access to the original reasoning for placing the Narrator field at its current location within the infobox?
628:. On many films like this the narrator is only heard from once, at the beginning for less than a minute. On some, like
6097:
elaborated on. This is just one example. I'm sure you and other editors will see where I'm coming from. :) Thank you.
5385:
3784:
foreign) then include both of them." Please feel free to make any adjustments and then I'll update the text. Thanks.
1224:
1171:
5441:
Is there any evidence that readers seek out the official webiste more than other websites linked to from the article?
5195:
For other commenters, I'm not sure I see the problem with a film's website promoting the film, isn't that the point?
4497:
2323:
So what's the plan then? Are we wanting to implement or not? And I definitely agree with Darkwarriorblake's wording.
2277:
of the poster...") is a perfect way to solve the "starring" parameter, if we do go ahead and change the guideline. ~
591:
500:
6152:
Thank you, for initiating this thread here for me. I've already responded to your previous message. Thanks a bunch.
2379:
no billing block is available, use the actor names above and/or below the main title. Apply the same standard to the
1493:
to get his direct opinion on the matter rather than attempting to interpret his perspective. Oh, I just did that...
6180:
6142:
5635:
5057:
4462:
gets you today, almost eight years after the film's release). There is thus no reason to have them in the infobox.
4221:
3912:
3571:
3114:
3080:
3032:
2598:
2156:
2129:
2110:
1899:
1845:
1795:
has a large amount of actors listed on its poster, but the billing block only lists a few before the film's title.
1725:
1684:
1640:
1583:
1549:
955:
859:
712:
668:
534:
507:
434:
332:
238:
47:
38:
17:
5875:
any URL included in an infobox may be passed in metadata emitted by that box; and read by infobox parsers such as
5794:. I'm not sure why we'd worry about articles without infoboxes, in a debate about what to include in the infobox.
5631:, and if you are? Well tough, it isn't the duty of the encyclopedia to funnel you off site to marketing material.
3973:
3301:
3196:
1107:
5411:
be treated exceptionally? These links can be quite helpful, without requiring the reader to scroll to the end.
5395:
4770:
1160:
5931:
template should also be a completely reasonable place for DBpedia et al to extract this data-point from. HTH. –
5961:
5438:
more useful link than the official website, and from personal experience it is the one I often follow the most.
4978:
4360:- don't need it. That's what the well-established "External Links" listing at the bottom of the page is for. ("
3559:
3554:
1034:
template to this page (full instructions at the template) with a brief request of what you would like changed.
5652:
4815:- An external link should be in the external links section. There is no good reason to put it in the infobox.
3422:
Images are still coming up as 220px in my browser. Is it possible to get an article where the image is 200px?
3324:
common and uncontroversial in info boxes for other mass culture items like shows, music, books, artists, etc.
2182:
graphic design aren't in the billing block, they are still considered the stars. Got a good way to word that?
2631:
I think either of the suggestions makes sense, since I think there should be some guidelines and suggetions.
5806:
5732:
5691:
5003:
4745:
4639:
4065:
4037:
4004:
3935:
3414:
3177:
3096:
3055:
2984:
1752:
1028:
5624:
5527:
2561:
I'm still against making a change, but if it must be changed, I'd suggest: "Insert the names of the actors
1364:. And all of them position the narrator below the cast. WP infoboxes should do the same. Why do you write
5840:
5660:
5602:
5555:
5510:
5479:
5367:
5318:
5297:
5200:
5182:
5152:
5100:
5073:
4942:
4724:
4707:
4167:
4140:
3508:
3459:
3329:
2931:
2721:
1273:
1219:
1166:
568:
486:
119:
4059:
3351:
2994:
2087:
If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits. Other additions by consensus. Use the
6200:
5857:
5824:
5711:
5632:
5463:
5405:
5347:
5281:
5267:
5218:
4615:
4529:
4467:
4218:
4188:
4079:
4033:
4000:
3977:
3943:
3889:
3797:
3739:
3698:
3666:
3599:
3468:
3427:
3271:
3161:
2889:
2854:
2835:
2820:
2805:
2762:
2717:
2632:
2595:
2530:
2498:
2465:
2399:
2240:
2226:
2152:
2106:
2016:
1952:
1841:
1721:
1707:
1659:
1488:
1413:
1321:
1247:
1195:
1079:
1039:
951:
822:
708:
664:
600:
553:
504:
470:
375:
272:
203:
5045:
4501:
3137:
but I'm not convinced this is a good enough reason to permit manual override for the following reasons:
2669:
think should all be included or (better) none of them included since there is no need for 5. Similarly
1863:
6233:
6196:
5459:
5343:
5263:
4611:
4184:
4075:
3939:
3885:
3793:
3735:
3694:
3662:
3595:
3423:
3267:
3157:
2850:
2816:
2758:
2534:
1703:
1670:
1655:
1075:
1035:
818:
4803:
4786:
4763:
4598:
4567:
per Daniel Case. I would support a discussion however to add (readd?) a parameter for movie ratings.
4484:
4343:
2942:
2845:
2709:
1461:
1374:
1290:
1141:
1057:
1014:
987:
937:
895:
803:
751:
698:
691:
Note: do not include actors with a role in the film; this is not a place for in-character voiceovers.
650:
177:
134:
6241:
6157:
6102:
6066:
6026:
5996:
Be clear: We're not just "doubting the merits". Knowledge (XXG) editors examine ALLLLL the angles (
5969:
5776:
5244:
5021:
4972:
4684:
4206:
3622:
3405:
1750:
I don't know if I'm wording this well at all, but I'll give an example. Say you go to the page for
313:
156:
4098:
1973:
I'm unclear on what you agree with. Can you give an example of a poster that shows what you mean?
462:
422:
6056:
Request for change in template i.e. addition of field to allow the name of lyricist (Song writer)
6005:
5936:
5797:
5762:
5723:
5682:
5576:
5535:
5229:
5117:
4999:
4959:
4925:
4900:
4882:
4819:
4741:
4630:
4555:
4415:
4265:
4015:
3494:
3463:
had forced image sizes owing to the infobox image's orientation, but it's not working anymore. —
3410:
3173:
3092:
3051:
3015:
2980:
2920:
Just out of curiosity, what do we do with films that are in a foreign language? I was looking at
2725:
2675:
2670:
2591:
2581:
2454:
2389:
2091:
1791:
4758:
6245:
6228:
6204:
6184:
6161:
6146:
6106:
6070:
6030:
6009:
5973:
5940:
5861:
5844:
5828:
5814:
5779:
5766:
5740:
5715:
5699:
5664:
5645:
5606:
5580:
5559:
5539:
5514:
5483:
5467:
5423:
5371:
5351:
5322:
5301:
5285:
5271:
5247:
5222:
5204:
5186:
5156:
5121:
5104:
5077:
5061:
5025:
5007:
4990:
4963:
4946:
4929:
4907:
4891:
4859:
4834:
4822:
4807:
4790:
4773:
4749:
4728:
4711:
4693:
4659:
4647:
4619:
4602:
4581:
4559:
4534:
4513:
4488:
4471:
4450:
4423:
4402:
4379:
4352:
4329:
4308:
4287:
4269:
4231:
4209:
4192:
4171:
4144:
4083:
4041:
4027:
4008:
3947:
3916:
3893:
3878:
3837:
3822:
3801:
3761:
3743:
3729:
3702:
3688:
3670:
3656:
3625:
3603:
3575:
3541:
3527:
3472:
3446:
3431:
3417:
3398:
3378:
3368:{{#if:{{{1|}}}{{{imdb_id|}}}{{{amg_id|}}}{{{website|}}}{{{imdb_rating|}}}{{{mpaa_rating|}}}|]}}
3333:
3275:
3259:
3180:
3165:
3118:
3099:
3084:
3058:
3036:
3005:
2987:
2958:
2935:
2893:
2858:
2839:
2824:
2809:
2766:
2626:
2608:
2554:
2520:
2502:
2487:
2469:
2419:
2336:
2290:
2244:
2230:
2195:
2160:
2146:
2114:
2062:
2020:
1986:
1956:
1933:
1903:
1849:
1818:
1729:
1711:
1688:
1663:
1644:
1601:
1587:
1568:
1553:
1529:
1502:
1465:
1451:
change was made. Then you proposed an alternative that had already been answered. Removing the
1417:
1378:
1325:
1294:
1251:
1236:
1199:
1183:
1145:
1083:
1061:
1043:
1018:
991:
959:
941:
899:
863:
845:
826:
807:
778:
755:
716:
702:
672:
654:
604:
572:
557:
538:
517:
490:
474:
438:
379:
336:
276:
242:
207:
181:
159:
138:
123:
5925:
5895:
5836:
5788:
5751:
5656:
5598:
5551:
5506:
5475:
5363:
5314:
5293:
5196:
5178:
5148:
5096:
5069:
4938:
4720:
4703:
4397:
4366:
4163:
4136:
3501:
3442:
3394:
3373:
3325:
2927:
1716:
1597:
1564:
1525:
1498:
774:
564:
482:
172:
Not anymore. That discussion was archived eight minutes after you posted the above link...! -
115:
6018:
5236:
5131:
so it's fine to ask again, but listing the previous discussions would have been good, so...)
4240:
so it's fine to ask again, but listing the previous discussions would have been good, so...)
912:
this was proposed, "Narrated by Vic Perrin" is still listed above "Starring Kirk Douglas" at
6223:
6211:
5868:
5853:
5820:
5707:
5277:
5214:
4854:
4524:
4509:
4463:
4303:
4112:
4023:
3756:
3683:
3651:
3586:
3522:
3464:
2953:
2907:
2885:
2831:
2801:
2621:
2549:
2515:
2494:
2482:
2461:
2414:
2331:
2284:
2236:
2222:
2190:
2141:
2057:
2012:
1981:
1948:
1928:
1858:
1813:
1758:
1624:
1409:
1317:
1243:
1191:
982:. And all of them position the narrator below the cast. WP infoboxes should do the same. -
914:
624:
596:
549:
522:
466:
371:
268:
199:
5334:
5128:
4237:
3019:
has such a horizontal image and uses 250px to widen it a little bit. It can be compared to
1628:
6209:
Are "Lyrics" and "Songs" descriptors equivalent? For instance, in the case of a film like
4799:
4782:
4594:
4480:
4338:
3853:
3849:
2665:
2571:
If there are less than three, list all the actors as they are listed in the billing block.
2444:
If there are less than three, list all the actors as they are listed in the billing block.
2375:
If there are less than three, list all the actors as they are listed in the billing block.
1780:
1457:
1370:
1286:
1137:
1053:
1010:
983:
933:
891:
799:
747:
694:
646:
173:
130:
5338:
3931:
2997:"In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so".
2007:
1190:
Who says it's sensible and uncontroversial? There was inconclusive discussion, right? --
6237:
6176:
6153:
6138:
6130:
6098:
6062:
6022:
5984:
5965:
5772:
5419:
5240:
5171:
5053:
5017:
4904:
4831:
4737:
4668:
4593:
link to the infobox, since those pages are historical in nature, and do not go dead. —
4574:
4446:
4202:
3908:
3874:
3721:
So is that the outcome to this? Any objections if the text is updated to reflect this?
3618:
3590:
3567:
3254:
3110:
3076:
3028:
1895:
1680:
1636:
1579:
1545:
855:
530:
430:
328:
234:
152:
622:
in the infobox? I've seen many articles where this is obviously out-of-place, such as
6014:
6001:
5932:
5891:
template is used by itself in other infoboxes for the "website" field. In contrast,
5758:
5572:
5531:
5113:
4955:
4921:
4874:
4816:
4551:
4411:
4324:
4318:
4261:
3552:.) However, what do we do if the film is a multinational collaboration? For example,
2713:
2566:
2439:
2370:
2274:
2080:
4410:. As others have pointed out, we already do this for a variety of other articles.
5910:
5885:
5090:
4436:
4432:
4388:
4281:
4090:
RfC:Should an "Official website" parameter be enabled in the Infobox film template?
3831:
3816:
3786:
3723:
3535:
3438:
3390:
2999:
1593:
1560:
1521:
1494:
1356:
974:
924:
882:
839:
770:
149:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Film#Some possible new parameters for Infobox Film
5033:- it is promotional, but at the same time, an infobox is what it is...information.
1802:
be done, so there's no room for any different interpretations like there are now.
6217:
5997:
5757:
cover that angle (and if not, shouldn't it?). Not all articles have infoboxes. –
5500:
4848:
4505:
4297:
4135:
Should an "Official website" parameter be enabled in the Infobox film template?
4104:
4019:
3750:
3677:
3645:
3516:
2947:
2901:
2615:
2543:
2538:
2509:
2476:
2408:
2325:
2278:
2184:
2135:
2051:
1975:
1922:
1920:
s infobox not being able to include Heyward and Gilman right now is ridiculous.
1807:
1517:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
5628:
685:
That's true, but we already fixed that problem earlier, as seen in the archive
5567:
Not all articles have infoboxes, so that would create inconsistency. Changing
4918:
keeps readers off the site in the first place, which is hardly a sensible step
4757:... albeit weakly. As the link may be put in the external links section under
3453:
1872:
1785:
1620:
1537:
1270:
this change in the order of the infobox fields is uncontroversial and sensible
833:
307:
3748:
No objections here. Are we using the "Follow the same rationale..." wording?
3451:
It's not that, or not only that. We can't force infobox image sizes anymore.
6264:
6172:
6134:
6091:
5415:
5049:
4569:
4441:
3904:
3870:
3563:
3250:
3171:
If there are no other comments or opposition, I'll put in the edit request.
3106:
3072:
3024:
2526:
2127:
Maybe make = 10? Simple enough, not horrendously overcluttered. Looking at
1891:
1775:
1676:
1632:
1575:
1541:
890:
field still should be moved down. This would do no harm to documentaries. -
851:
526:
426:
324:
230:
2402:
didn't fill out), but I think this is a solid foundation. And obviously, I
4903:) seem pretty clear on good reasons to include said link in the infobox. —
3675:
Do you have an alternate wording suggestion? I can't figure out a rework.
3362:
template. This is a deprecated parameter. There is a request for this in
3105:
trying to figure out if there are any rare exceptions where it can apply.
5569:
the primary location of external links, from the EL section, to infoboxes
3148:
effectively becomes the size of the smaller poster on a reader's screen.
1052:
Is that the best course to change the order of fields in the infobox? -
5876:
5676:
1350:
No. How is that better than something that is clear as is? Films don't
4798:. The infobox should be limited to objective facts about the film. -
4667:
per Betty Logan and Lugnuts, Plus most end up as dead links anyway!.
4032:
You're right, it is clear. Some days I can't read English. Thanks.
5262:
external links section is not serving its purpose in this capacity.
4459:
1766:, and only Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, and Val Kilmer in the case of
6167:
To the other editors, this is what Picowrit wrote on my talk page:
2757:
But I don't know how we can set guidelines based on these examples.
2398:
More wording changes are welcome (as I had to fill in little areas
1653:
Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 22#Starring parameter: criteria?
4362:
Readers should not have to go alllll the way to bottom of the page
1208:
For reference, the "narrator" parameter was originally added with
1024:
If you want to request an edit by an admin you need to to add the
2235:
For that reason, I'd suggest we leave the guideline unchanged. --
1798:
Whatever the decision, I believe that it should be clear that it
1536:
think there needs to be documentation, though. We can just apply
1074:
It's the only way on a fully protected article as far as I know.
4590:
4316:. That would benefit the film's promoters, not Knowledge (XXG).
2899:
Not from me. I thought you were opposed to the change, though?
2708:
In ensemble pictures it gets more difficult. In the poster for
2525:
Pinging editors who participated in the previous conversation.
3961:
3289:
3184:
2429:
making a change, but if we were to change it, I'd prefer this:
1095:
25:
5720:
I'm not clear in what way this is a response to my comments.
4736:
These links die rather quickly and their content is either a
4719:
1) External links do the trick. 2) Most URL are short-lived.
2448:
no billing block is available, apply the same standard to the
4871:
when we have a dedicated section at the bottom of the page.
5112:
I've listed some that I found via a simple search, above. –
5960:
I would expect such a discussion among the editors of the
5362:
applies here but not on like content in similar articles.
4260:
archives are mere pointers to the discussions here. HTH. –
3848:
Some people seem to be blindly copying gross figures from
3493:, I noticed that its infobox contains three distributors:
2569:
of the poster for the film's original theatrical release.
2442:
of the poster for the film's original theatrical release.
2373:
of the poster for the film's original theatrical release.
2083:
of the poster for the film's original theatrical release.
2079:"Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the
1009:
in the infobox. Can we ask an admin to make the change? -
5784:
No it doesn't; and no it can't. And not all articles use
3589:
company if Fox Searchlight is just a local division: the
1592:
Makes sense. I'll take this into account going forward.
5993:("fifteenth highest-grossing film of all time") or etc.
5990:
5595:
info box that is inconsistent with all other info boxes
3020:
1513:
1209:
5819:
What is covered by "official"? I don't follow that. --
5239:) just that they do not merit a place in the infobox.
3247:. Could you update the documentation please? — Martin
2450:
screen credits. Other additions by consensus. Use the
1876:. Yet another possibility to consider, especially for
5879:. The same is not true of the external links section.
5337:
is the logic that applies to use of the poster while
2674:
don't see a need to include all 5 in this case. With
5445:
official website will have no problem in finding it.
5127:
quoting Quiddity, "Yes, already discussed (although
1880:
films, is what the Featured Articles of the earlier
1369:
be requesting the admin edit again in due course. -
2993:I have no problem with this. Good spot. And as per
663:is however the narrator of March of the Penguins.
5276:Yes, I agree that is the relevant distinction. --
4074:and the discussion didn't result in a consensus.
2978:no harm to include with dark-background posters.
2969:Would there be any opposition to deprecating the
1366:I would suggest you argue the merits of your case
5401:have space for an official website. Why should
4830:- Keep it in external links where it belongs. –
3958:Template-protected edit request on 30 April 2014
3286:Edit request: add parameter for official website
2844:Aggreed. And a similar argument can be made for
5068:box should have an official website parameter?
4095:
5881:" - I meant to allude to the fact that: the
1216:, which provides little insight on the issue.
687:Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 23#Narrator
311:), or to improve the blue links (as I did for
3404:The infobox uses the default image size from
2133:(which has nine) it seems to look all right.
1837:The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
8:
3852:or the like although they obviously display
2884:Any problem with the language I proposed? --
4546:have them, but bands are more likely to be
5747:I grok the metadata argument, but doesn't
5095:Could you link to the lengthy discussion?
1824:I've got to laugh a little that you think
590:I just took another look at the policy on
4867:– I see no reason to include that in the
4072:This change has been discussed previously
2507:I've revised it again. That work better?
1508:Budget and other dollar figure formatting
6263:The original poster is also called the '
2385:. Other additions by consensus. Use the
147:You will find a related discussion here
6256:
5903:<span class="db-b2ZmaWNpYWwgdw": -->
5526:, but would always be a duplicate. Per
4256:. The only threads I can find in the
2974:
2970:
2577:Other additions by consensus. Use the
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
4610:, for most the reasons already stated
4062:for this alteration before using the
3354:for this alteration before using the
1623:focuses on the top three actors, and
1485:Perhaps it would be sensible to ping
7:
6000:). That's why this place works. :) –
4122:The following discussion is closed.
5873:I was replying to Andy's comment: "
3491:The Wolf of Wall Street (2013 film)
1887:Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
1627:focuses on the top two actors. Per
798:, but something should be done. -
595:cast list. Thank you very much. --
24:
6043:The discussion above is closed.
4460:http://www.thedevilwearsprada.com
4236:Yes, already discussed (although
3792:11:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC) EDIT:
4337:per Betty Logan and MarnetteD. —
4050:
3965:
3844:False precision in gross figures
3342:
3293:
3238:
3188:
2434:"Insert the names of the actors
2365:"Insert the names of the actors
1540:so editors don't fight over it.
1151:
1128:request here, specifically that
1099:
29:
4258:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film
2357:Official proposition of changes
1163:to reflect the change. Cheers,
112:Seven Brides for Seven Brothers
5137:archive 11, 12, 13, 14, and 17
4364:"? - How lazy can one be?) -
4246:archive 11, 12, 13, 14, and 17
1283:Perhaps it isn't controversial
779:13:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
631:Beneath the Planet of the Apes
1:
5918:<span class="db-dXJs": -->
4295:per Betty Logan and Lugnuts.
3512:(Australia & New Zealand)
1664:20:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
1645:15:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
1602:15:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
1588:14:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
1569:13:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
1554:14:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
1530:13:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
1503:15:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
1466:02:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
1418:02:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
1379:00:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
1354:narrators. As I said before,
1326:00:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
1295:20:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
1252:17:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
1237:07:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
1200:06:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
1184:02:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
1159:. You may want to update the
1146:00:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
1084:15:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
1062:14:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
1044:14:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
1019:14:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
928:, should be listed below the
756:22:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
717:21:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
703:21:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
673:21:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
655:21:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
605:16:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
573:14:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
558:05:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
539:18:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
518:18:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
491:18:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
475:18:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
439:17:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
380:17:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
337:17:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
277:17:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
243:16:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
208:16:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
182:00:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
160:00:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
139:23:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
124:22:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
5901:currently wraps the link in
2965:Image size/border not needed
2959:03:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
2936:15:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
2627:17:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
2609:22:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
2555:12:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
2521:14:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
2503:02:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
2488:00:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
2470:21:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
2420:17:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
2337:02:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
2291:18:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
2245:22:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
2231:22:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
2196:02:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
2161:19:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
2147:02:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
2115:23:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
992:00:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
960:23:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
942:21:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
900:21:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
864:17:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
846:10:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
827:10:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
808:08:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
5653:Knowledge (XXG):IDONTLIKEIT
3992:to reactivate your request.
3980:has been answered. Set the
3316:to reactivate your request.
3304:has been answered. Set the
3233:14:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
3211:to reactivate your request.
3199:has been answered. Set the
2063:18:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
2021:16:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
1987:03:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
1957:02:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
1934:16:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
1904:00:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
1850:23:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
1819:23:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
1730:13:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
1712:04:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
1689:17:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
1122:to reactivate your request.
1110:has been answered. Set the
6284:
6031:01:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
6010:20:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
5974:05:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
5941:23:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
5862:13:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
5845:23:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
5829:22:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
5815:15:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
5780:02:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
5767:01:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
5741:15:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
5665:02:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
5607:02:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
5581:01:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
5026:05:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
5016:will simply not show up. -
5008:06:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
4991:22:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
4964:20:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
4947:08:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
4930:17:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
4115:) 23:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
4084:18:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
4042:20:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
4028:18:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
4009:10:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
3948:11:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
3917:11:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
3894:09:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
3879:09:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
3838:07:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
3823:12:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
3802:12:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
3762:02:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
3744:23:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
3730:16:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
3703:14:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
3689:14:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
3671:23:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
3657:22:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
3626:21:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
3604:21:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
3576:18:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
3542:18:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
3528:16:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
3473:11:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
3385:Default infobox image size
3276:17:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
3260:15:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
3181:14:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
3166:09:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
3119:16:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
3100:13:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
3085:13:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
3059:12:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
3037:12:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
3006:11:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
2988:10:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
2130:The Place Beyond the Pines
18:Template talk:Infobox film
5716:21:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
5700:16:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
5646:20:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
5560:20:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
5540:20:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
5515:20:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
5484:19:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
5468:04:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
5424:19:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
5381:Other infoboxes, such as
5372:18:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
5352:04:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
5323:18:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
5302:18:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
5286:18:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
5272:18:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
5248:18:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
5223:18:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
5205:18:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
5187:18:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
5157:20:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
5122:20:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
5105:18:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
5078:18:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
5062:18:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
4908:17:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
4892:17:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
4860:11:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
4835:07:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
4823:06:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
4808:06:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
4791:04:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
4774:02:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
4750:01:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
4729:01:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
4712:00:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
4694:00:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
4660:22:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
4648:21:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
4620:21:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
4603:20:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
4582:20:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
4560:20:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
4535:20:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
4514:19:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
4489:19:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
4472:19:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
4451:19:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
4424:19:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
4403:19:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
4380:18:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
4353:18:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
4330:18:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
4309:18:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
4288:18:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
4270:20:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
4232:18:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
4210:18:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
4193:17:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
4172:17:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
4145:17:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
3505:(select Europe countries)
3447:12:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
3432:12:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
3418:12:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
3399:11:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
3379:17:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
3334:16:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
2894:18:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
2859:16:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
2840:15:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
2825:11:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
2810:01:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
2767:00:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
1831:s starring field is bad.
1093:Alright, I'm posting the
689:. The guideline now says
6246:17:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
6229:21:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
6205:04:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
6185:21:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
6162:21:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
6147:20:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
6107:22:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
6071:21:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
6046:Please do not modify it.
5962:Encyclopaedia Britannica
4125:Please do not modify it.
3560:Fox Searchlight Pictures
3555:The Grand Budapest Hotel
4998:- An EL is sufficient.
3358:edit template-protected
3047:see here for comparison
2563:listed before the title
2436:listed before the title
2367:listed before the title
1268:My only claim was that
4117:
3509:Roadshow Entertainment
3460:Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI
2722:The Godfather Part III
922:parameter, such as at
525:, see what I mean? :)
317:). For something like
5991:Spiderman (2002 film)
3978:Template:Infobox film
3829:Now updated. Thanks.
3498:(North America/Japan)
2718:The Godfather Part II
2633:Template:Infobox film
1890:as one such example.
42:of past discussions.
3772:Draft wording to add
2923:The Tale of Zatoichi
2846:Superman (1978 film)
2710:The Big Chill (film)
618:parameter put above
5038:Threaded discussion
4439:, above. Cheers, —
4058:please establish a
3406:Module:InfoboxImage
3350:please establish a
1779:, (which I'll link
463:Interstellar in NYT
6192:The Sound of Music
6019:not for us to make
5386:infobox television
4901:User:Pigsonthewing
4844:other stuff exists
4548:an ongoing project
4500:and per guideline
4431:, essentially per
4016:Template:Film date
3502:Universal Pictures
3495:Paramount Pictures
3016:A Field in England
2726:Fast and Furious 6
2676:Ruggles of Red Gap
2671:Gambit (1966 film)
2592:Batman (1989 film)
1792:Olympus Has Fallen
1696:The Usual Suspects
1005:being moved below
645:in the infobox. -
592:WP: INDISCRIMINATE
501:WP: INDISCRIMINATE
5919:...</span: -->
5904:...</span: -->
5849:
5669:
5611:
5564:
5519:
5488:
5422:
5376:
5327:
5306:
5233:
5209:
5191:
5161:
5109:
5082:
4498:WP:NOTADVERTISING
4422:
4400:
4395:
4376:
4351:
4328:
4176:
4149:
3996:
3995:
3856:. For example: "
3413:
3338:
3320:
3319:
3258:
3215:
3214:
3176:
3095:
3054:
2983:
2613:Any suggestions?
1878:Lord of the Rings
1717:The Expendables 2
1274:Little Mountain 5
1126:
1125:
794:field down below
103:
102:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
6275:
6268:
6261:
6226:
6220:
6095:
6048:
5988:
5930:
5924:
5920:
5915:
5909:
5905:
5900:
5894:
5890:
5884:
5872:
5848:
5813:
5804:
5800:
5793:
5787:
5756:
5750:
5739:
5730:
5726:
5698:
5689:
5685:
5668:
5610:
5563:
5518:
5504:
5487:
5412:
5410:
5404:
5400:
5396:infobox musician
5394:
5390:
5384:
5375:
5326:
5305:
5227:
5208:
5190:
5175:
5160:
5108:
5094:
5081:
4987:
4890:
4887:
4879:
4857:
4851:
4766:
4691:
4682:
4675:
4658:
4646:
4637:
4633:
4577:
4572:
4533:
4527:
4414:
4398:
4393:
4389:
4374:
4341:
4322:
4306:
4300:
4284:
4175:
4148:
4127:
4107:
4069:
4054:
4053:
3987:
3983:
3969:
3968:
3962:
3834:
3819:
3789:
3759:
3753:
3726:
3686:
3680:
3654:
3648:
3587:20th Century Fox
3538:
3525:
3519:
3513:
3506:
3499:
3409:
3377:
3369:
3361:
3346:
3345:
3337:
3311:
3307:
3297:
3296:
3290:
3266:I've sorted it.
3248:
3246:
3242:
3241:
3230:
3222:
3206:
3202:
3192:
3191:
3185:
3172:
3091:
3050:
3002:
2979:
2976:
2972:
2956:
2950:
2910:
2904:
2624:
2618:
2586:
2580:
2552:
2546:
2531:Darkwarriorblake
2518:
2512:
2485:
2479:
2459:
2453:
2417:
2411:
2400:Darkwarriorblake
2394:
2388:
2383:up to ten actors
2381:screen credits,
2334:
2328:
2287:
2281:
2193:
2187:
2153:Darkwarriorblake
2144:
2138:
2107:Darkwarriorblake
2096:
2090:
2060:
2054:
1984:
1978:
1931:
1925:
1919:
1915:Moonrise Kingdom
1859:Moonrise Kingdom
1842:Darkwarriorblake
1830:
1816:
1810:
1764:A Beautiful Mind
1753:A Beautiful Mind
1722:Darkwarriorblake
1674:
1625:Apt Pupil (film)
1492:
1489:Darkwarriorblake
1232:
1227:
1222:
1179:
1174:
1169:
1155:
1154:
1117:
1113:
1103:
1102:
1096:
1033:
1027:
952:Darkwarriorblake
915:Spartacus (film)
842:
709:Darkwarriorblake
665:Darkwarriorblake
625:Spartacus (film)
320:About Last Night
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
6283:
6282:
6278:
6277:
6276:
6274:
6273:
6272:
6271:
6262:
6258:
6224:
6218:
6128:
6089:
6058:
6053:
6044:
5982:
5928:
5922:
5917:
5913:
5907:
5902:
5898:
5892:
5888:
5882:
5866:
5802:
5796:
5795:
5791:
5785:
5754:
5748:
5728:
5722:
5721:
5687:
5681:
5680:
5498:
5408:
5402:
5398:
5392:
5388:
5382:
5257:important fact
5169:
5088:
5040:
4988:
4977:
4889:
4883:
4875:
4872:
4855:
4849:
4764:
4685:
4676:
4669:
4656:
4635:
4629:
4628:
4575:
4570:
4523:
4522:
4391:
4372:
4304:
4298:
4282:
4155:
4123:
4118:
4105:
4092:
4063:
4051:
3985:
3981:
3966:
3960:
3854:false precision
3850:Box Office Mojo
3846:
3832:
3817:
3787:
3757:
3751:
3724:
3684:
3678:
3652:
3646:
3536:
3523:
3517:
3511:
3504:
3497:
3487:
3387:
3371:
3367:
3355:
3343:
3309:
3305:
3294:
3288:
3239:
3237:
3228:
3220:
3217:Please replace
3204:
3200:
3189:
3000:
2967:
2954:
2948:
2918:
2908:
2902:
2666:Lifeboat (film)
2622:
2616:
2584:
2578:
2550:
2544:
2516:
2510:
2483:
2477:
2457:
2451:
2415:
2409:
2392:
2386:
2359:
2332:
2326:
2285:
2279:
2191:
2185:
2142:
2136:
2094:
2088:
2058:
2052:
1982:
1976:
1929:
1923:
1917:
1828:
1814:
1808:
1668:
1616:
1510:
1486:
1408:bad outcome? --
1230:
1225:
1220:
1214:this discussion
1177:
1172:
1167:
1152:
1132:be moved below
1115:
1111:
1100:
1031:
1025:
840:
742:down below the
641:be moved below
612:
108:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
6281:
6279:
6270:
6269:
6255:
6254:
6253:
6252:
6251:
6250:
6249:
6231:
6165:
6127:
6124:
6123:
6122:
6121:
6120:
6119:
6118:
6117:
6116:
6115:
6114:
6113:
6112:
6111:
6110:
6057:
6054:
6052:
6051:
6039:
6038:
6037:
6036:
6035:
6034:
6033:
5994:
5977:
5976:
5954:
5953:
5952:
5951:
5950:
5949:
5948:
5947:
5946:
5945:
5944:
5943:
5906:, and also in
5782:
5745:
5744:
5743:
5673:
5672:
5671:
5670:
5621:
5620:
5619:
5618:
5617:
5616:
5615:
5614:
5613:
5612:
5494:
5493:
5492:
5491:
5490:
5489:
5457:
5456:
5455:
5454:
5453:
5449:
5446:
5442:
5439:
5427:
5426:
5378:
5377:
5357:
5356:
5355:
5354:
5329:
5328:
5309:
5308:
5307:
5288:
5254:
5253:
5252:
5251:
5250:
5192:
5166:
5165:
5164:
5163:
5162:
5085:
5084:
5083:
5039:
5036:
5035:
5034:
5028:
5010:
4993:
4976:
4973:David Spalding
4966:
4949:
4932:
4910:
4894:
4881:
4862:
4837:
4825:
4810:
4793:
4776:
4752:
4731:
4714:
4696:
4662:
4650:
4622:
4605:
4584:
4562:
4537:
4516:
4491:
4474:
4453:
4426:
4405:
4382:
4371:
4368:
4355:
4332:
4311:
4290:
4274:
4273:
4272:
4212:
4195:
4177:
4154:
4151:
4132:
4131:
4130:
4094:
4093:
4091:
4088:
4087:
4086:
4066:edit protected
4047:
4046:
4045:
4044:
3994:
3993:
3970:
3959:
3956:
3955:
3954:
3953:
3952:
3951:
3950:
3922:
3921:
3920:
3919:
3897:
3896:
3845:
3842:
3841:
3840:
3826:
3825:
3811:
3810:
3809:
3808:
3807:
3806:
3805:
3804:
3774:
3773:
3769:
3768:
3767:
3766:
3765:
3764:
3718:
3717:
3716:
3715:
3714:
3713:
3712:
3711:
3710:
3709:
3708:
3707:
3706:
3705:
3633:
3632:
3631:
3630:
3629:
3628:
3609:
3608:
3607:
3606:
3591:UK distributor
3579:
3578:
3545:
3544:
3486:
3485:Distributor(s)
3483:
3482:
3481:
3480:
3479:
3478:
3477:
3476:
3475:
3386:
3383:
3382:
3381:
3318:
3317:
3298:
3287:
3284:
3283:
3282:
3281:
3280:
3279:
3278:
3213:
3212:
3193:
3169:
3168:
3155:
3154:
3153:
3149:
3145:
3139:
3138:
3130:
3129:
3128:
3127:
3126:
3125:
3124:
3123:
3122:
3121:
3064:
3063:
3062:
3061:
3040:
3039:
3009:
3008:
2966:
2963:
2962:
2961:
2917:
2916:Quick question
2914:
2913:
2912:
2882:
2881:
2880:
2879:
2878:
2877:
2876:
2875:
2874:
2873:
2872:
2871:
2870:
2869:
2868:
2867:
2866:
2865:
2864:
2863:
2862:
2861:
2782:
2781:
2780:
2779:
2778:
2777:
2776:
2775:
2774:
2773:
2772:
2771:
2770:
2769:
2742:
2741:
2740:
2739:
2738:
2737:
2736:
2735:
2734:
2733:
2732:
2731:
2730:
2729:
2693:
2692:
2691:
2690:
2689:
2688:
2687:
2686:
2685:
2684:
2683:
2682:
2681:
2680:
2649:
2648:
2647:
2646:
2645:
2644:
2643:
2642:
2641:
2640:
2639:
2638:
2637:
2636:
2588:
2558:
2557:
2431:
2430:
2358:
2355:
2354:
2353:
2352:
2351:
2350:
2349:
2348:
2347:
2346:
2345:
2344:
2343:
2342:
2341:
2340:
2339:
2306:
2305:
2304:
2303:
2302:
2301:
2300:
2299:
2298:
2297:
2296:
2295:
2294:
2293:
2258:
2257:
2256:
2255:
2254:
2253:
2252:
2251:
2250:
2249:
2248:
2247:
2233:
2207:
2206:
2205:
2204:
2203:
2202:
2201:
2200:
2199:
2198:
2170:
2169:
2168:
2167:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2117:
2099:
2098:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2067:
2066:
2065:
2047:
2032:
2031:
2030:
2029:
2028:
2027:
2026:
2025:
2024:
2023:
1996:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1990:
1989:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1907:
1906:
1884:films do; see
1853:
1852:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1615:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1509:
1506:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1206:
1187:
1186:
1124:
1123:
1104:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1047:
1046:
1029:Edit protected
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
965:
964:
963:
962:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
848:
811:
810:
786:
785:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
678:
677:
676:
675:
611:
608:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
494:
493:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
280:
279:
254:
253:
252:
251:
250:
249:
248:
247:
246:
245:
217:
216:
215:
214:
213:
212:
211:
210:
189:
188:
187:
186:
185:
184:
165:
164:
163:
162:
142:
141:
107:
104:
101:
100:
95:
92:
87:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
6280:
6266:
6260:
6257:
6247:
6243:
6239:
6235:
6232:
6230:
6227:
6225:(speak to me)
6222:
6221:
6214:
6213:
6208:
6207:
6206:
6202:
6198:
6193:
6188:
6187:
6186:
6182:
6178:
6174:
6170:
6166:
6163:
6159:
6155:
6151:
6150:
6149:
6148:
6144:
6140:
6136:
6132:
6125:
6108:
6104:
6100:
6093:
6088:
6087:
6086:
6085:
6084:
6083:
6082:
6081:
6080:
6079:
6078:
6077:
6076:
6075:
6074:
6072:
6068:
6064:
6055:
6050:
6047:
6041:
6040:
6032:
6028:
6024:
6020:
6016:
6013:
6012:
6011:
6007:
6003:
5999:
5995:
5992:
5986:
5981:
5980:
5979:
5978:
5975:
5971:
5967:
5963:
5959:
5956:
5955:
5942:
5938:
5934:
5927:
5912:
5897:
5887:
5880:
5878:
5870:
5865:
5864:
5863:
5859:
5855:
5851:
5850:
5847:
5846:
5842:
5838:
5832:
5831:
5830:
5826:
5822:
5818:
5817:
5816:
5812:
5808:
5803:Pigsonthewing
5799:
5790:
5783:
5781:
5778:
5774:
5770:
5769:
5768:
5764:
5760:
5753:
5746:
5742:
5738:
5734:
5729:Pigsonthewing
5725:
5719:
5718:
5717:
5713:
5709:
5704:
5703:
5702:
5701:
5697:
5693:
5688:Pigsonthewing
5684:
5678:
5667:
5666:
5662:
5658:
5654:
5649:
5648:
5647:
5643:
5642:
5638:/ Comment on
5637:
5634:
5630:
5626:
5625:WP:OTHERSTUFF
5623:
5622:
5609:
5608:
5604:
5600:
5596:
5594:
5589:
5584:
5583:
5582:
5578:
5574:
5570:
5566:
5565:
5562:
5561:
5557:
5553:
5548:
5543:
5542:
5541:
5537:
5533:
5529:
5528:WP:ELOFFICIAL
5525:
5521:
5520:
5517:
5516:
5512:
5508:
5502:
5496:
5495:
5486:
5485:
5481:
5477:
5471:
5470:
5469:
5465:
5461:
5458:
5450:
5447:
5443:
5440:
5436:
5435:
5434:
5433:
5431:
5430:
5429:
5428:
5425:
5421:
5418:
5417:
5407:
5397:
5387:
5380:
5379:
5374:
5373:
5369:
5365:
5359:
5358:
5353:
5349:
5345:
5340:
5336:
5333:
5332:
5331:
5330:
5325:
5324:
5320:
5316:
5310:
5304:
5303:
5299:
5295:
5289:
5287:
5283:
5279:
5275:
5274:
5273:
5269:
5265:
5260:
5255:
5249:
5246:
5242:
5238:
5231:
5230:edit conflict
5226:
5225:
5224:
5220:
5216:
5211:
5210:
5207:
5206:
5202:
5198:
5193:
5189:
5188:
5184:
5180:
5173:
5167:
5159:
5158:
5154:
5150:
5146:
5142:
5138:
5134:
5130:
5125:
5124:
5123:
5119:
5115:
5111:
5110:
5107:
5106:
5102:
5098:
5092:
5086:
5080:
5079:
5075:
5071:
5065:
5064:
5063:
5059:
5055:
5051:
5047:
5042:
5041:
5037:
5032:
5029:
5027:
5023:
5019:
5014:
5011:
5009:
5005:
5001:
4997:
4994:
4992:
4986:
4983:
4980:
4974:
4970:
4967:
4965:
4961:
4957:
4953:
4950:
4948:
4944:
4940:
4936:
4933:
4931:
4927:
4923:
4919:
4914:
4911:
4909:
4906:
4902:
4898:
4895:
4893:
4888:
4886:
4880:
4878:
4870:
4866:
4863:
4861:
4858:
4856:(speak to me)
4853:
4852:
4845:
4841:
4838:
4836:
4833:
4829:
4826:
4824:
4821:
4818:
4814:
4811:
4809:
4805:
4801:
4797:
4794:
4792:
4788:
4784:
4780:
4777:
4775:
4772:
4771:
4768:
4767:
4760:
4756:
4753:
4751:
4747:
4743:
4742:Codename Lisa
4739:
4735:
4732:
4730:
4726:
4722:
4718:
4715:
4713:
4709:
4705:
4700:
4697:
4695:
4692:
4690:
4689:
4688:→Talk to me!→
4683:
4681:
4680:
4674:
4673:
4666:
4663:
4661:
4654:
4651:
4649:
4645:
4641:
4636:Pigsonthewing
4632:
4626:
4623:
4621:
4617:
4613:
4609:
4606:
4604:
4600:
4596:
4592:
4588:
4585:
4583:
4580:
4578:
4573:
4566:
4563:
4561:
4557:
4553:
4549:
4545:
4541:
4538:
4536:
4531:
4526:
4520:
4517:
4515:
4511:
4507:
4503:
4499:
4495:
4492:
4490:
4486:
4482:
4478:
4475:
4473:
4469:
4465:
4461:
4457:
4454:
4452:
4448:
4444:
4443:
4438:
4434:
4430:
4427:
4425:
4421:
4417:
4413:
4409:
4406:
4404:
4401:
4396:
4394:
4386:
4383:
4381:
4378:
4377:
4373:
4369:
4363:
4359:
4356:
4354:
4349:
4345:
4340:
4336:
4333:
4331:
4326:
4321:
4320:
4315:
4312:
4310:
4307:
4305:(speak to me)
4302:
4301:
4294:
4291:
4289:
4286:
4285:
4278:
4275:
4271:
4267:
4263:
4259:
4255:
4251:
4247:
4243:
4239:
4235:
4234:
4233:
4229:
4228:
4224:/ Comment on
4223:
4220:
4216:
4213:
4211:
4208:
4204:
4199:
4196:
4194:
4190:
4186:
4181:
4178:
4174:
4173:
4169:
4165:
4161:
4157:
4156:
4152:
4150:
4147:
4146:
4142:
4138:
4129:
4126:
4120:
4119:
4116:
4114:
4110:
4109:
4108:
4100:
4089:
4085:
4081:
4077:
4073:
4067:
4061:
4057:
4049:
4048:
4043:
4039:
4035:
4034:Choor monster
4031:
4030:
4029:
4025:
4021:
4017:
4013:
4012:
4011:
4010:
4006:
4002:
4001:Choor monster
3991:
3988:parameter to
3979:
3975:
3971:
3964:
3963:
3957:
3949:
3945:
3941:
3937:
3936:BoxOffice.com
3934:but not with
3933:
3928:
3927:
3926:
3925:
3924:
3923:
3918:
3914:
3910:
3906:
3901:
3900:
3899:
3898:
3895:
3891:
3887:
3883:
3882:
3881:
3880:
3876:
3872:
3866:
3862:
3859:
3855:
3851:
3843:
3839:
3836:
3835:
3828:
3827:
3824:
3821:
3820:
3813:
3812:
3803:
3799:
3795:
3791:
3790:
3782:
3781:
3780:
3779:
3778:
3777:
3776:
3775:
3771:
3770:
3763:
3760:
3758:(speak to me)
3755:
3754:
3747:
3746:
3745:
3741:
3737:
3733:
3732:
3731:
3728:
3727:
3720:
3719:
3704:
3700:
3696:
3692:
3691:
3690:
3687:
3685:(speak to me)
3682:
3681:
3674:
3673:
3672:
3668:
3664:
3660:
3659:
3658:
3655:
3653:(speak to me)
3650:
3649:
3641:
3640:
3639:
3638:
3637:
3636:
3635:
3634:
3627:
3624:
3620:
3615:
3614:
3613:
3612:
3611:
3610:
3605:
3601:
3597:
3592:
3588:
3583:
3582:
3581:
3580:
3577:
3573:
3569:
3565:
3561:
3557:
3556:
3551:
3547:
3546:
3543:
3540:
3539:
3532:
3531:
3530:
3529:
3526:
3524:(speak to me)
3521:
3520:
3510:
3503:
3496:
3492:
3489:Reading over
3484:
3474:
3470:
3466:
3462:
3461:
3456:
3455:
3450:
3449:
3448:
3444:
3440:
3435:
3434:
3433:
3429:
3425:
3421:
3420:
3419:
3416:
3412:
3407:
3403:
3402:
3401:
3400:
3396:
3392:
3384:
3380:
3375:
3365:
3359:
3353:
3349:
3341:
3340:
3339:
3336:
3335:
3331:
3327:
3315:
3312:parameter to
3303:
3299:
3292:
3291:
3285:
3277:
3273:
3269:
3265:
3264:
3263:
3262:
3261:
3256:
3252:
3245:
3236:
3235:
3234:
3231:
3226:
3223:
3218:
3210:
3207:parameter to
3198:
3194:
3187:
3186:
3183:
3182:
3179:
3175:
3167:
3163:
3159:
3156:
3150:
3146:
3143:
3142:
3141:
3140:
3135:
3132:
3131:
3120:
3116:
3112:
3108:
3103:
3102:
3101:
3098:
3094:
3088:
3087:
3086:
3082:
3078:
3074:
3070:
3069:
3068:
3067:
3066:
3065:
3060:
3057:
3053:
3048:
3044:
3043:
3042:
3041:
3038:
3034:
3030:
3026:
3022:
3018:
3017:
3011:
3010:
3007:
3004:
3003:
2996:
2992:
2991:
2990:
2989:
2986:
2982:
2964:
2960:
2957:
2955:(speak to me)
2952:
2951:
2944:
2940:
2939:
2938:
2937:
2933:
2929:
2925:
2924:
2915:
2911:
2909:(speak to me)
2906:
2905:
2898:
2897:
2896:
2895:
2891:
2887:
2860:
2856:
2852:
2847:
2843:
2842:
2841:
2837:
2833:
2828:
2827:
2826:
2822:
2818:
2813:
2812:
2811:
2807:
2803:
2798:
2797:
2796:
2795:
2794:
2793:
2792:
2791:
2790:
2789:
2788:
2787:
2786:
2785:
2784:
2783:
2768:
2764:
2760:
2756:
2755:
2754:
2753:
2752:
2751:
2750:
2749:
2748:
2747:
2746:
2745:
2744:
2743:
2727:
2723:
2719:
2715:
2714:The Godfather
2711:
2707:
2706:
2705:
2704:
2703:
2702:
2701:
2700:
2699:
2698:
2697:
2696:
2695:
2694:
2677:
2672:
2667:
2663:
2662:
2661:
2660:
2659:
2658:
2657:
2656:
2655:
2654:
2653:
2652:
2651:
2650:
2634:
2630:
2629:
2628:
2625:
2623:(speak to me)
2620:
2619:
2612:
2611:
2610:
2606:
2605:
2601:/ Comment on
2600:
2597:
2593:
2589:
2583:
2576:
2572:
2568:
2567:billing block
2564:
2560:
2559:
2556:
2553:
2551:(speak to me)
2548:
2547:
2540:
2536:
2532:
2528:
2524:
2523:
2522:
2519:
2517:(speak to me)
2514:
2513:
2506:
2505:
2504:
2500:
2496:
2491:
2490:
2489:
2486:
2484:(speak to me)
2481:
2480:
2473:
2472:
2471:
2467:
2463:
2456:
2449:
2445:
2441:
2440:billing block
2437:
2433:
2432:
2428:
2424:
2423:
2422:
2421:
2418:
2416:(speak to me)
2413:
2412:
2406:this change.
2405:
2401:
2396:
2391:
2384:
2380:
2376:
2372:
2371:billing block
2368:
2363:
2356:
2338:
2335:
2333:(speak to me)
2330:
2329:
2322:
2321:
2320:
2319:
2318:
2317:
2316:
2315:
2314:
2313:
2312:
2311:
2310:
2309:
2308:
2307:
2292:
2288:
2282:
2276:
2275:billing block
2272:
2271:
2270:
2269:
2268:
2267:
2266:
2265:
2264:
2263:
2262:
2261:
2260:
2259:
2246:
2242:
2238:
2234:
2232:
2228:
2224:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2214:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2210:
2209:
2208:
2197:
2194:
2192:(speak to me)
2189:
2188:
2180:
2179:
2178:
2177:
2176:
2175:
2174:
2173:
2172:
2171:
2162:
2158:
2154:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2145:
2143:(speak to me)
2140:
2139:
2132:
2131:
2126:
2125:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2116:
2112:
2108:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2100:
2093:
2086:
2082:
2081:billing block
2078:
2077:
2064:
2061:
2059:(speak to me)
2056:
2055:
2048:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2033:
2022:
2018:
2014:
2009:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1988:
1985:
1983:(speak to me)
1980:
1979:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1958:
1954:
1950:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1940:
1935:
1932:
1930:(speak to me)
1927:
1926:
1916:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1905:
1901:
1897:
1893:
1889:
1888:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1874:
1869:
1865:
1861:
1860:
1855:
1854:
1851:
1847:
1843:
1839:
1838:
1834:
1827:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1817:
1815:(speak to me)
1812:
1811:
1803:
1801:
1796:
1794:
1793:
1788:
1787:
1782:
1778:
1777:
1771:
1769:
1765:
1761:
1760:
1755:
1754:
1748:
1745:
1742:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1718:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1709:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1686:
1682:
1678:
1672:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1661:
1657:
1654:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1613:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1507:
1505:
1504:
1500:
1496:
1490:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1454:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1358:
1353:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1228:
1223:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1188:
1185:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1175:
1170:
1162:
1161:documentation
1158:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1121:
1118:parameter to
1109:
1105:
1098:
1097:
1094:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1030:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1004:
993:
989:
985:
981:
977:
976:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
961:
957:
953:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
939:
935:
931:
927:
926:
921:
917:
916:
901:
897:
893:
889:
885:
884:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
865:
861:
857:
853:
849:
847:
844:
843:
836:
835:
830:
829:
828:
824:
820:
815:
814:
813:
812:
809:
805:
801:
797:
793:
788:
787:
783:
782:
781:
780:
776:
772:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
718:
714:
710:
706:
705:
704:
700:
696:
692:
688:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
674:
670:
666:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
635:
633:
632:
627:
626:
621:
617:
609:
607:
606:
602:
598:
593:
574:
570:
566:
561:
560:
559:
555:
551:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
521:
520:
519:
515:
514:
510:/ Comment on
509:
506:
502:
498:
497:
496:
495:
492:
488:
484:
479:
478:
477:
476:
472:
468:
464:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
419:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
381:
377:
373:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
321:
316:
315:
310:
309:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
278:
274:
270:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
261:
260:
259:
258:
257:
256:
255:
244:
240:
236:
232:
227:
226:
225:
224:
223:
222:
221:
220:
219:
218:
209:
205:
201:
197:
196:
195:
194:
193:
192:
191:
190:
183:
179:
175:
171:
170:
169:
168:
167:
166:
161:
158:
154:
150:
146:
145:
144:
143:
140:
136:
132:
128:
127:
126:
125:
121:
117:
113:
105:
99:
96:
93:
91:
88:
86:
83:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
6259:
6216:
6210:
6191:
6168:
6129:
6059:
6045:
6042:
5957:
5921:, hence the
5874:
5837:Sportfan5000
5833:
5811:Andy's edits
5807:Talk to Andy
5798:Andy Mabbett
5737:Andy's edits
5733:Talk to Andy
5724:Andy Mabbett
5696:Andy's edits
5692:Talk to Andy
5683:Andy Mabbett
5674:
5657:Sportfan5000
5650:
5640:
5599:Sportfan5000
5592:
5591:
5587:
5585:
5568:
5552:Sportfan5000
5546:
5544:
5523:
5507:Sportfan5000
5497:
5476:Sportfan5000
5472:
5414:
5406:infobox film
5364:Sportfan5000
5360:
5315:Sportfan5000
5311:
5294:Sportfan5000
5290:
5258:
5197:Sportfan5000
5194:
5179:Sportfan5000
5168:
5149:Sportfan5000
5126:
5097:Sportfan5000
5087:
5070:Sportfan5000
5066:
5030:
5012:
4995:
4968:
4952:Tally so far
4951:
4939:Magioladitis
4934:
4912:
4896:
4884:
4876:
4868:
4864:
4847:
4839:
4827:
4812:
4795:
4778:
4769:
4762:
4754:
4733:
4721:Stephane mot
4716:
4704:Coretheapple
4698:
4687:
4686:
4678:
4677:
4671:
4670:
4664:
4652:
4644:Andy's edits
4640:Talk to Andy
4631:Andy Mabbett
4624:
4607:
4586:
4568:
4564:
4547:
4543:
4539:
4518:
4493:
4476:
4455:
4440:
4428:
4407:
4399:(Contact me)
4390:
4384:
4367:
4365:
4361:
4357:
4334:
4317:
4313:
4296:
4292:
4280:
4276:
4226:
4214:
4197:
4179:
4164:Sportfan5000
4159:
4158:
4137:Sportfan5000
4134:
4133:
4124:
4121:
4103:
4102:
4096:
4055:
3997:
3989:
3974:edit request
3867:
3863:
3857:
3847:
3830:
3815:
3785:
3749:
3722:
3676:
3644:
3553:
3534:
3515:
3488:
3458:
3452:
3388:
3374:Technical 13
3363:
3347:
3326:Sportfan5000
3322:
3321:
3313:
3302:edit request
3243:
3232:
3227:
3224:
3219:
3216:
3208:
3197:edit request
3170:
3133:
3014:
2998:
2995:WP:IMAGESIZE
2971:|image size=
2968:
2946:
2928:Andrzejbanas
2921:
2919:
2900:
2883:
2614:
2603:
2574:
2570:
2562:
2542:
2508:
2475:
2447:
2443:
2435:
2426:
2407:
2403:
2397:
2382:
2378:
2374:
2366:
2364:
2360:
2324:
2183:
2134:
2128:
2084:
2050:
2008:Caché_(film)
1974:
1921:
1914:
1885:
1881:
1877:
1871:
1867:
1857:
1835:
1832:
1825:
1806:
1804:
1799:
1797:
1790:
1784:
1774:
1772:
1767:
1763:
1757:
1751:
1749:
1746:
1743:
1740:
1699:
1695:
1617:
1511:
1484:
1452:
1365:
1361:
1357:Barry Lyndon
1355:
1351:
1282:
1277:
1269:
1218:
1217:
1165:
1164:
1156:
1133:
1129:
1127:
1119:
1108:edit request
1092:
1006:
1002:
1000:
979:
975:Barry Lyndon
973:
929:
925:Barry Lyndon
923:
919:
913:
910:
887:
883:Barry Lyndon
881:
838:
832:
795:
791:
768:
743:
739:
690:
642:
638:
636:
629:
623:
619:
615:
613:
589:
565:Coretheapple
512:
483:Coretheapple
459:
418:Interstellar
417:
318:
314:Interstellar
312:
306:
116:Coretheapple
111:
109:
106:Choreography
78:
43:
37:
6234:Betty Logan
6197:Betty Logan
5916:which uses
5869:Ring Cinema
5854:Ring Cinema
5821:Ring Cinema
5708:Ring Cinema
5655:arguments.
5644:'s FA nom!
5524:possibility
5460:Betty Logan
5344:Betty Logan
5278:Ring Cinema
5264:Betty Logan
5215:Ring Cinema
5046:WP:ELPOINTS
4612:AbramTerger
4525:OwenBlacker
4502:WP:LINKSPAM
4464:Daniel Case
4230:'s FA nom!
4185:Betty Logan
4076:Betty Logan
3940:Betty Logan
3886:Betty Logan
3794:Betty Logan
3736:Betty Logan
3695:Betty Logan
3663:Betty Logan
3596:Betty Logan
3465:Crisco 1492
3424:Betty Logan
3268:Betty Logan
3158:Betty Logan
2886:Ring Cinema
2851:AbramTerger
2832:Ring Cinema
2817:AbramTerger
2802:Ring Cinema
2759:AbramTerger
2607:'s FA nom!
2535:Betty Logan
2495:Ring Cinema
2462:Ring Cinema
2237:Ring Cinema
2223:Ring Cinema
2013:Ring Cinema
1949:Ring Cinema
1864:WP:FILMCAST
1704:Betty Logan
1671:Betty Logan
1656:Betty Logan
1518:Jaws (film)
1453:Narrated by
1410:Ring Cinema
1362:Narrated by
1318:Ring Cinema
1244:Ring Cinema
1192:Ring Cinema
1130:Narrated by
1076:Betty Logan
1036:Betty Logan
1003:Narrated by
980:Narrated by
920:Narrated by
888:Narrated by
819:Betty Logan
792:Narrated by
740:Narrated by
639:Narrated by
616:Narrated by
614:Why is the
610:Narrated by
597:Ring Cinema
550:Ring Cinema
523:Ring Cinema
516:'s FA nom!
467:Ring Cinema
372:Ring Cinema
269:Ring Cinema
200:Ring Cinema
36:This is an
6073:pictowrit
5998:eventually
5641:Dishonored
5145:archive 17
5141:archive 16
4800:Gothicfilm
4783:Quenhitran
4595:Loadmaster
4481:Tom Danson
4339:jameslucas
4254:archive 17
4250:archive 16
4227:Dishonored
4101:. Cheers,
4070:template.
3982:|answered=
3454:Gagak Item
3364:just about
3306:|answered=
3201:|answered=
2604:Dishonored
1873:Fight Club
1786:The Butler
1781:right here
1621:Fight Club
1538:MOS:RETAIN
1458:Gothicfilm
1371:Gothicfilm
1287:Gothicfilm
1212:following
1138:Gothicfilm
1112:|answered=
1054:Gothicfilm
1011:Gothicfilm
984:Gothicfilm
934:Gothicfilm
892:Gothicfilm
834:Goodfellas
800:Gothicfilm
748:Gothicfilm
695:Gothicfilm
647:Gothicfilm
637:I propose
513:Dishonored
308:Panic Room
174:Gothicfilm
131:Gothicfilm
98:Archive 30
90:Archive 27
85:Archive 26
79:Archive 25
73:Archive 24
68:Archive 23
60:Archive 20
6265:one sheet
6248:pictowrit
6238:Pictowrit
6212:Labyrinth
6164:pictowrit
6154:Pictowrit
6131:Pictowrit
6109:pictowrit
6099:Pictowrit
6063:Pictowrit
6023:The Gnome
5985:The Gnome
5966:The Gnome
5773:MarnetteD
5241:MarnetteD
5172:MarnetteD
5133:archive 5
5018:The Gnome
4905:MJBurrage
4832:Alex43223
4765:Schmidt,
4242:archive 5
4203:MarnetteD
4099:WP:AN/RFC
4060:consensus
4056:Not done:
3619:MarnetteD
3411:BOVINEBOY
3352:consensus
3348:Not done:
3174:BOVINEBOY
3093:BOVINEBOY
3052:BOVINEBOY
2981:BOVINEBOY
2582:Plainlist
2455:Plainlist
2390:Plainlist
2092:Plainlist
1882:Star Trek
1868:Cast Away
1776:Cast Away
1700:Apt Pupil
1514:this edit
1210:this edit
932:field. -
746:field. -
423:WP:ANYBIO
153:MarnetteD
6171:Thanks,
6015:Quiddity
6002:Quiddity
5933:Quiddity
5926:Official
5896:Official
5789:Official
5759:Quiddity
5752:official
5573:Quiddity
5545:If it's
5532:Quiddity
5114:Quiddity
4956:GRUcrule
4922:SchroCat
4877:Vensatry
4817:Garion96
4759:WP:ELYES
4552:Quiddity
4420:contribs
4412:Hot Stop
4392:BIGNOLE
4262:Quiddity
2975:|border=
1900:contribs
1685:contribs
1641:contribs
1614:Starring
1226:Mountain
1173:Mountain
1134:Starring
1007:Starring
930:Starring
860:contribs
831:Such as
796:Starring
744:Starring
643:Starring
620:Starring
6181:contrib
6143:contrib
5958:Comment
5877:DBpedia
5677:DBpedia
5547:removed
5237:WP:ELNO
5091:Lugnuts
5058:contrib
5013:Support
4897:Support
4869:infobox
4840:Comment
4738:trailer
4653:Support
4625:Support
4519:Support
4437:Lugnuts
4433:Bignole
4408:Support
4283:Lugnuts
4160:Support
3913:contrib
3833:Lugnuts
3818:Lugnuts
3788:Lugnuts
3725:Lugnuts
3572:contrib
3537:Lugnuts
3439:Bede735
3391:Bede735
3134:Support
3115:contrib
3081:contrib
3033:contrib
3001:Lugnuts
2565:in the
2438:in the
2427:against
2404:support
2369:in the
1833:Behold!
1594:DonIago
1584:contrib
1561:DonIago
1550:contrib
1522:DonIago
1495:DonIago
841:Lugnuts
771:DonIago
535:contrib
435:contrib
333:contrib
239:contrib
39:archive
6219:Corvoe
6126:Lyrics
5636:(talk)
5588:No one
5501:Snek01
5335:WP:NFC
5129:WP:CCC
5031:Oppose
4996:Oppose
4969:Oppose
4935:Oppose
4913:Oppose
4885:(Ping)
4865:Oppose
4850:Corvoe
4828:Oppose
4820:(talk)
4813:Oppose
4796:Oppose
4779:Oppose
4755:Oppose
4734:Oppose
4717:Oppose
4699:Oppose
4672:→Davey
4665:Oppose
4608:Oppose
4587:Oppose
4576:Head90
4571:CRRays
4565:Oppose
4540:Oppose
4506:Snek01
4494:Oppose
4477:Oppose
4456:Oppose
4429:Oppose
4385:Oppose
4358:Oppose
4335:Oppose
4314:Oppose
4299:Corvoe
4293:Oppose
4277:Oppose
4238:WP:CCC
4222:(talk)
4215:Oppose
4198:Oppose
4180:Oppose
4153:Survey
4106:TLSuda
4020:NSH002
3858:Frozen
3752:Corvoe
3679:Corvoe
3647:Corvoe
3518:Corvoe
3507:, and
2949:Corvoe
2941:Found
2903:Corvoe
2617:Corvoe
2599:(talk)
2545:Corvoe
2539:Jedi94
2511:Corvoe
2478:Corvoe
2410:Corvoe
2327:Corvoe
2280:Jedi94
2186:Corvoe
2137:Corvoe
2053:Corvoe
1977:Corvoe
1924:Corvoe
1809:Corvoe
1629:WP:IBX
1276:said,
1221:Little
1168:Little
972:Well,
886:- the
508:(talk)
5339:WP:EL
5259:about
4920:). –
4679:2010→
4375:child
4325:Help!
3986:|ans=
3972:This
3370:). —
3310:|ans=
3300:This
3225:with
3205:|ans=
3195:This
1272:. As
1116:|ans=
1106:This
817:IMO.
16:<
6242:talk
6201:talk
6177:talk
6173:Erik
6158:talk
6139:talk
6135:Erik
6103:talk
6092:Erik
6067:talk
6027:talk
6006:talk
5970:talk
5937:talk
5858:talk
5841:talk
5825:talk
5777:Talk
5763:talk
5712:talk
5661:talk
5629:this
5603:talk
5593:this
5577:talk
5556:talk
5536:talk
5511:talk
5480:talk
5464:talk
5416:sroc
5391:and
5368:talk
5348:talk
5319:talk
5298:talk
5282:talk
5268:talk
5245:Talk
5219:talk
5201:talk
5183:talk
5153:talk
5118:talk
5101:talk
5074:talk
5054:talk
5050:Erik
5022:talk
5004:talk
4960:talk
4943:talk
4926:talk
4804:talk
4787:talk
4746:talk
4725:talk
4708:talk
4616:talk
4599:talk
4591:imdb
4556:talk
4530:Talk
4510:talk
4485:talk
4468:talk
4447:talk
4442:Cirt
4435:and
4416:talk
4370:WOLF
4266:talk
4207:Talk
4189:talk
4168:talk
4141:talk
4113:talk
4080:talk
4038:talk
4024:talk
4005:talk
3944:talk
3909:talk
3905:Erik
3890:talk
3875:talk
3871:Smjg
3798:talk
3740:talk
3699:talk
3667:talk
3623:Talk
3600:talk
3568:talk
3564:Erik
3550:this
3469:talk
3457:and
3443:talk
3428:talk
3415:2008
3395:talk
3372:{{U|
3330:talk
3272:talk
3255:talk
3251:MSGJ
3244:Done
3178:2008
3162:talk
3111:talk
3107:Erik
3097:2008
3077:talk
3073:Erik
3056:2008
3029:talk
3025:Erik
3021:this
2985:2008
2973:and
2943:this
2932:talk
2890:talk
2855:talk
2836:talk
2821:talk
2806:talk
2763:talk
2716:and
2527:Erik
2499:talk
2466:talk
2425:I'm
2286:talk
2241:talk
2227:talk
2157:talk
2111:talk
2017:talk
1953:talk
1896:talk
1892:Erik
1846:talk
1826:Heat
1800:must
1768:Heat
1759:Heat
1726:talk
1708:talk
1681:talk
1677:Erik
1660:talk
1637:talk
1633:Erik
1598:talk
1580:talk
1576:Erik
1565:talk
1546:talk
1542:Erik
1526:talk
1512:Per
1499:talk
1462:talk
1414:talk
1375:talk
1352:Star
1322:talk
1291:talk
1248:talk
1196:talk
1157:Done
1142:talk
1080:talk
1058:talk
1040:talk
1015:talk
988:talk
956:talk
938:talk
896:talk
856:talk
852:Erik
823:talk
804:talk
775:talk
752:talk
713:talk
699:talk
669:talk
651:talk
601:talk
569:talk
554:talk
531:talk
527:Erik
487:talk
471:talk
465:. --
431:talk
427:Erik
376:talk
329:talk
325:Erik
273:talk
235:talk
231:Erik
204:talk
178:talk
157:Talk
135:talk
120:talk
6183:)
6145:)
5911:URL
5886:URL
5805:);
5731:);
5690:);
5633:DWB
5530:. –
5060:)
5000:BMK
4638:);
4344:" "
4319:Guy
4219:DWB
3984:or
3976:to
3932:BOM
3915:)
3574:)
3308:or
3203:or
3117:)
3083:)
3035:)
2596:DWB
2573:If
2446:If
2377:If
1870:or
1586:)
1552:)
1516:to
1114:or
537:)
505:DWB
437:)
335:)
241:)
114:).
6244:)
6203:)
6179:|
6160:)
6141:|
6105:)
6069:)
6029:)
6021:.-
6008:)
5972:)
5939:)
5929:}}
5923:{{
5914:}}
5908:{{
5899:}}
5893:{{
5889:}}
5883:{{
5860:)
5843:)
5827:)
5809:;
5792:}}
5786:{{
5775:|
5765:)
5755:}}
5749:{{
5735:;
5714:)
5694:;
5663:)
5605:)
5579:)
5558:)
5538:)
5513:)
5482:)
5466:)
5420:💬
5409:}}
5403:{{
5399:}}
5393:{{
5389:}}
5383:{{
5370:)
5350:)
5321:)
5300:)
5284:)
5270:)
5243:|
5221:)
5203:)
5185:)
5155:)
5143:,
5139:,
5135:,
5120:)
5103:)
5076:)
5056:|
5024:)
5006:)
4989:)
4962:)
4945:)
4928:)
4806:)
4789:)
4748:)
4727:)
4710:)
4657:——
4642:;
4618:)
4601:)
4579:|
4558:)
4544:do
4512:)
4504:.
4487:)
4470:)
4449:)
4346:/
4268:)
4252:,
4248:,
4244:,
4205:|
4191:)
4170:)
4143:)
4082:)
4068:}}
4064:{{
4040:)
4026:)
4007:)
3990:no
3946:)
3911:|
3892:)
3877:)
3800:)
3742:)
3701:)
3669:)
3621:|
3602:)
3570:|
3500:,
3471:)
3445:)
3430:)
3397:)
3376:}}
3360:}}
3356:{{
3332:)
3314:no
3274:)
3253:·
3209:no
3164:)
3113:|
3079:|
3049:.
3031:|
2934:)
2892:)
2857:)
2838:)
2830:--
2823:)
2808:)
2765:)
2679:4.
2585:}}
2579:{{
2541:.
2537:,
2533:,
2529:,
2501:)
2493:--
2468:)
2458:}}
2452:{{
2393:}}
2387:{{
2289:)
2243:)
2229:)
2221:--
2159:)
2113:)
2095:}}
2089:{{
2019:)
2011:--
1955:)
1902:)
1898:|
1848:)
1840:.
1770:.
1728:)
1710:)
1687:)
1683:|
1662:)
1643:)
1639:|
1600:)
1582:|
1567:)
1548:|
1528:)
1501:)
1464:)
1416:)
1377:)
1324:)
1293:)
1250:)
1198:)
1144:)
1120:no
1082:)
1060:)
1042:)
1032:}}
1026:{{
1017:)
990:)
958:)
940:)
898:)
862:)
858:|
825:)
806:)
777:)
754:)
715:)
701:)
671:)
653:)
603:)
571:)
556:)
533:|
489:)
473:)
433:|
378:)
331:|
275:)
237:|
206:)
180:)
155:|
151:.
137:)
122:)
94:→
64:←
6240:(
6199:(
6175:(
6156:(
6137:(
6101:(
6094::
6090:@
6065:(
6025:(
6004:(
5987::
5983:@
5968:(
5935:(
5871::
5867:@
5856:(
5839:(
5823:(
5801:(
5761:(
5727:(
5710:(
5686:(
5659:(
5601:(
5575:(
5554:(
5534:(
5509:(
5503::
5499:@
5478:(
5462:(
5413:—
5366:(
5346:(
5317:(
5296:(
5280:(
5266:(
5232:)
5228:(
5217:(
5199:(
5181:(
5174::
5170:@
5151:(
5116:(
5099:(
5093::
5089:@
5072:(
5052:(
5020:(
5002:(
4985:✍
4982:✉
4979:☎
4975:(
4958:(
4941:(
4924:(
4873:—
4802:(
4785:(
4744:(
4723:(
4706:(
4634:(
4614:(
4597:(
4554:(
4532:)
4528:(
4508:(
4483:(
4466:(
4445:(
4418:-
4350:)
4348:+
4342:(
4327:)
4323:(
4264:(
4187:(
4166:(
4139:(
4111:(
4078:(
4036:(
4022:(
4003:(
3942:(
3907:(
3888:(
3873:(
3796:(
3738:(
3697:(
3665:(
3598:(
3566:(
3467:(
3441:(
3426:(
3393:(
3328:(
3270:(
3257:)
3249:(
3160:(
3109:(
3075:(
3027:(
2930:(
2888:(
2853:(
2834:(
2819:(
2804:(
2761:(
2497:(
2464:(
2283:(
2239:(
2225:(
2155:(
2109:(
2015:(
1951:(
1918:'
1894:(
1844:(
1829:'
1724:(
1706:(
1679:(
1673::
1669:@
1658:(
1635:(
1596:(
1578:(
1563:(
1544:(
1524:(
1497:(
1491::
1487:@
1460:(
1412:(
1373:(
1320:(
1289:(
1246:(
1231:5
1194:(
1178:5
1140:(
1078:(
1056:(
1038:(
1013:(
986:(
954:(
936:(
894:(
854:(
821:(
802:(
773:(
750:(
711:(
697:(
667:(
649:(
599:(
567:(
552:(
529:(
485:(
469:(
429:(
374:(
327:(
271:(
233:(
202:(
176:(
133:(
118:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.