Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox film

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

add the entry "subject".

[edit]

I was trying to add a subject parameter to some random film article i was editing, and found that there is no such parameter. It seems like an important thing to have, the book template does have this parameter.

I request that this parameter be added. Alexander Shipfield (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are thinking about what would be the equivalent to a "genre" parameter for film. This has been discussed previously (first here and several times after) and current consensus is not to include such parameter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about genre. I'm talking about Subject. For example the film An Inconvenient Truth's subject would be climate change. Alexander Shipfield (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't something still I feel there is consensus for. Looking at the documentation for its use in the book infobox as you mentioned, it is only for non-fiction work, so if that were similarly applied here, that would cover a very limited subset of film article, where that info can easily be conveyed in the lead and body. I don't see this as something appropriate for this infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a plentitude of "Films about..." categories. Including Category:Climate change films. DonIago (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this wouldn't be a helpful addition. This is surely something that would be in the opening paragraph of an article and we'd just be regurgitating information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Film infobox in film series

[edit]

As we are getting more and more articles about film series, I often, if not regularly see the infobox applied to film series. I'm not really against this per se, but it does come into complicated territory as we already have had discussion in the past on how the cast should be attributed in an infobox for an individual film, how should it apply to film? Or should we even be using this infobox in a "film series" article at all? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just some examples to reference:
I'm sure a case by case basis would be good, but should we have some basic guidelines for these? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that these articles are doing slightly different things, and therefore a standardised approach may not be available or even desirable. For example, Friday the 13th and The Invisible Man cover franchises, which are slightly different from film series. A franchise will typically cover different mediums, and may even include multiple films series. Both of the approaches taken at those articles are acceptable to me. I think the infoboxes at Pirates of the Caribbean/Twilight are convoluted messes, but X-Men's approach gets the balance right IMO. The "in film" articles are something else entirely, in that they essentially cover the film component of a franchise, which may encompass more than one series. The films in Spider-Man lend themselves well to this approach because they comprise several completely unconnected series (well, at least until the most recent film) and there is very little to connect the films to each other, besides the underlying IP, and in such a case an infobox serves no purpose. Betty Logan (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the "in film" topics are kind of like "in pop culture" articles so an infobox would probably make more readers confused than it would help them out. Friday the 13th definitely covers more material and probably doesn't really warrant discussion with this template. I kind of agree that X-Men handles it a bit better, but I'm sort of curious about the excessive production companies that have no source backing them up. I'm wondering a seperate infobox for film series might help better fit things that focus on film without falling into the traps that Pirates and Twilight get a bit caught up in. Possibly something like Template:Infobox_video_game_series or Template:Infobox book series that could be used as an option, but I don't even know where would be the place to propose such a thing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would prefer we stop using this infobox for pages which are not a single film. The infobox is not meant for anything else and usages are often breaking the "key-value" pairing with section titles in the value (such as "Total (13 films):" in X-Men (film series)). This is also preventing us working behind the scenes in clearing out Category:Pages using infobox film with nonstandard dates (see same article). If an infobox is needed for film series, one could be easily created with a much more relevant set of parameters. Gonnym (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like another good reason to try and adopt this. I've never attempted to make a infobox for a film series, but I do think with Gonnym's comments we should probably persue it in this direction as these infobox film was really made with singular films in mind and various other WikiProjects are way ahead of us in adopting to this. I don't think it would hurt to follow in suit. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I have been going through Category:Pages using infobox film with nonstandard dates that currently sits at 377 articles with almost all of them being franchise, film series, film serials, etc. The rest are fictional films: Goncharov (meme); disputed release dates: Keechaka Vadham and The Voyage of the Bourrichon Family; and production articles: Motifs in the James Bond film series and Production of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Aspects (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Co-director

[edit]

Why isn't there a section for the co-director. Co-directors are a big part of movie production, and they appear in the credits of several movies, so why aren't they listed on the infobox? 1ArcticDude (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend looking through the archives for this Talk page. This has come up multiple times previously. DonIago (talk) 02:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Strange short description - how to fix it?

[edit]

An issue with the short description was brought up at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Strange short description - how to fix it?. Gonnym (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the automatic short description

[edit]

There is currently a discussion at WT:FILM regarding the automatic short description generated by this infobox and possibly adjust it. The discussion can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2024

[edit]

In the parameter "gross" replace X
"Use condensed, rounded values ($22.4 million vs $22,392,684). "
with
Y
"Use condensed, rounded values ($22.4 million not $22,392,684)."

vs is an abbrevation for the word versus. Better to avoid unnecessary abbreviations, and better yet to use simpler clearer wording "use ... A not B" -- 109.79.167.27 (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The documentation is not protected so anyone can edit. Regardless, this change doesn't need to be made. "vs" is correct to use here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 9 September 2024

[edit]

Description of suggested change: Add rating to the infobox. Many times folks are looking for what is the movie rated and it would be great if it was available right in the infobox. My thought was that it would be as follows: | rating = mpaa=pg, commonsense=8+, etc. maybe the rating has the country flag next to it. Diff:

−
ORIGINAL_TEXT
+
CHANGED_TEXT

SrCarlos (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. This has been discussed and declined for over 15 years (like... it's almost in every talk page archive), and while I don't think consensus has changed, it will need to before anything can be done. Primefac (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just updated {{Editnotices/Page/Template talk:Infobox film}} with wording about ratings. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The editnotice has some relatively minor grammar issues that I'd clean up, but I lack the rights to do so.
Suggested text:
"Common edit requests are to suggest the addition of another crewperson or the film's rating to the infobox:
Requested crew additions have included production designer, art director, set decorator, costume designer, choreographer, and executive producer. The general consensus of the WikiProject Film community is to not expand the film infobox any further, but this does not preclude naming or listing them in the article body.
For more information regarding the exclusion of a film's rating from the infobox, please see Template:Infobox film#Ratings and WP:FILMRATING.
Please see the template talk page archives for more info regarding both requests, as each have come up numerous times in the past." DonIago (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Favre! DonIago (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance on image in WP:FILMPOSTER

[edit]

Hi all. There was a recent discussion as to whether the original film poster should always be used, even if a subsequent image is more representative on the article. I think the current text is a bit out of sync with MOS:LEADIMAGE. The prime purpose of the image is to provide confirmation that the reader is on the right page, so I think that the recognisability of the image at least need to be mentioned, and discussions about the best image to use shouldn't be shut down simply because the poster isn't the original. I think that we should have something similar to what is in MOS:NOVEL which recommends the original poster (which 99 times out of 100 will be fine) but still acknowledges that the recognizability of the image is a criteria. I've made a change based on this, feel free to revert and comment if you don't think it's helpful, or needs to be adjusted. Scribolt (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree we this on principal, how do we acknowledge what poster is more "recognizable". Surely some audiences will find something me posters more recognizable than others, and it's a difficult traditionally weigh as a metric. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe some different wording would be better. For a start, I'm not proposing that the image necessarily be more recognizable than another because as you say, trying to compare would generate far more heat than light most of the time. However, as I mentioned above essence of LEADIMAGE is that the image should identify the article if an average reader looks at it. And sometimes the original poster won't at all, vs a later one that does (I'm thinking of foreign language films that were re-released with posters featuring more english text). In these cases, where the original poster doesn't actually identify the really subject of the article I don't think we can say FILM is in an exception to the criteria that people should be able to recognize it. So, maybe changing my original edit to something like:
, although if the original release poster doesn't serve to easily identify the film then a later release may be more appropriate.
I see User:InfiniteNexus has reverted, would you care to join in? I'd like to highlight that the intention isn't to change the general practice of using the original, just be in-line with the guidance in both the overall MOS and the majority of other arts guidance. For example:
  • MOS:NOVELS explicitly states that the original is preferred but later releases can be used on occasion if better known.
  • MOS:TELEVISION which says when multiple options are available for an image, the most representative should be used.
  • MOS:VG (in the infobox template) says to prefer an the first english language release
  • MOS:COMICS say to use the most representative image in the infobox.
  • The infobox template for albums says to use the original release, no qualifiers, there's no reference to it in an MOS.
So, based on what I can see, amongst the established topic area MOSs, there's broad agreement that original is generally preferred, but no prohibition on going for later versions if it increases the recognizability of the subject. My change would be in line with this and general practice I think Scribolt (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the genesis of this discussion was over which poster should be used for Raiders of the Lost Ark, I would say that this wording is still an argument in favor of using the original poster over the one currently attached to the article, as the original poster clearly identifies the film. The reason why we're having this discussion was specifically due to recognizability concerns. Are we, then, saying that we agree that the poster for that film should be the original poster, but that we're going to try to address hypothetical concerns with other articles? DonIago (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in terms of Raiders. I think the original poster fulfills the criteria in LEADIMAGE in that anyone who looks at it will know they are in the right place. However, I don't think that this a purely hypothetical exercise. I think the infobox image in Ju-On:_The_Grudge for example fails the basic criteria of LEADIMAGE in failing to identify the subject of the article to vast majority of en-wiki readers, and there are alternative posters available for that version film that include the name in English text (maybe this this). We should allow for later images to be considered where there's a benefit (as the other projects do). I'm not going to start running around trying to change things, but if someone else wanted to, or to use a more useful image for new film articles, we shouldn't be shutting down that discussion. Scribolt (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, that is one way of looking at it, but a foreign language poster would also help identify users that this is the the Japanese Ju-On: The Grudge over The Grudge remake and other similar cases. Not to mention the identifying poster from these kind of countries also gives the user more immediate identification on the era of the film from the art style and tone, how it was promoted as a production of their country, what language and cultural context the film can be more easily applied to. Not to mention, the most common English title will literally be right in front on top of the poster. For years, looking up a film like Seven Samurai into a search engine will bring up the Japanese film poster first and fore most. Beyond that, I can't say I've ever seen any user, editor, or viewer confused about what they were looking at, except maybe a couple of my friends from Hong Kong why a Japanese film poster for The Killer (1989) was being used instead of one from Hong Kong. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally disagree with you that an image of a scary face + some kanji characters does a better job at fulfilling the purpose of the image than a scary face + Ju-on The Grudge in Latin text although I understand your point. In cases where a later poster is many years after the original and difers wildly in style, or the original is particularly iconic, I'd also maybe favour an original, but in this particular example I'm not seeing it, and I see it as more important to identify it as the grudge vs which particular version of it (which the reader may or may not be aware of). But if it came up we could discuss it and see how consensus develops for that particular film and the available images. This is also why in my revised suggestion above I said may be more appropriate. As I said I'm all in favour of sticking with the original release poster 99% of the time as it will serve its purpose and is a simple rule, but to say that we can't even have that discussion without someone saying "WP:FILMPOSTER" says the original is always the best because its the original goes against what I would say is a higher level consensus as to what the image is for than we should be defining just for our film articles. Scribolt (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah I hear you and I think you are making valid points. The Grudge may not be the best example and my idea on it is not you know, it's just my opinion. I'm just thinking that having the idea that one poster "may" or may not be a better representation just leads to decision by arguments of what is or is not "more representative" as that will change from editor to editor and from audience to audience. For example, The Rocky Horror Picture Show is certainly not using the most common promotional media in its infobox, but I'm gathering that it is the first. But I suppose one might argue if you really did not know anything about the films cult reputation (somehow!), and stumbled upon this article through the "Random article" button, you might at least recognize the cast pictured on the article if you did somehow see this film without knowing what it is. I'm very iffy with the terms "iconic" because it feels like such empty weight. Iconic to who? how? did the imagery become repeated enough? I believe in theory if there was some measurable to way to measure iconography outside our own assumptions, we could get away with this, but I'm not really sure there is. I also wonder if we are being more neutral to stick with original promotion for consistency between articles. Sure the big red lips for Rocky Horror is something I'd associate with it, but why would that film get a special privilege when most films don't have such cult fandoms/pop culture iconography? I know I'm making this more complicated than it is, and I don't feel too strongly either way, but I'm kind of satisfied with the status quo as outside nuances of Wikipedia rules, I have not really encountered confusion about it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel as though the only way we could make any definitive arguments regarding which poster might be 'more representative' would be if there was a reliable source discussing film posters in such a manner. While I imagine that there are at least websites that talk about such things (there's a website for everything these days!), I would question whether it would rise to the level of a reliable source. Even if it did, I'm not sure this is a scenario where 'more representative' should trump the principle of using the theatrical release poster; I worry that there would inherently be a bias factor at work in such determinations, even if we were using reliable sources. Just my two cents; I originally came here to settle the Raiders question, and I think we've moved beyond that. DonIago (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Little bit frustrating that a consensus has apparently been decided when it's just two people v Scribolt and I wasn't invited. There aren't often multiple release posters to choose from so close to the original release, any concerns of some kind of conflict over posters seems low, for instance this has only come up for the first time in over 3 years by a user who hasn't participated in either discussion since the opening comment of wanting the poster changed. It's not a source of major conflict and, in the case of Raiders, as mentioned on the WIkiProject Film discussion, it is the main way this film is identified. It's not a poster from 10 years later, it's a poster from 3 months after the original release. Typically the original would probably be the most common way to identify a film, such as with RoboCop, but that isn't true of Raiders. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dark, it feels a little disingenuous of you to claim that you weren't invited into this discussion when it was linked from the discussion in which you were actively participating. I wasn't 'invited' to this discussion either, but I saw the link and consequently followed it.
You keep claiming that the poster you prefer is the most common way to identify Raiders, but I don't think I've seen you provide any evidence to back up that claim? Your argument seems to be that the image you prefer is more "common", but you haven't provided a source for even that claim, and even if it were so, commonality isn't necessarily interchangeable with identifiability. DonIago (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The highest-level applicable policy here is WP:NFCI, under which #1 says what is appropriate to use, "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." Any cover art for a given film would be technically valid. WP:NPOV could narrow it down here, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery... This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well" (bold facing mine). But what from the real world should be used to do the weighing?

If we were discussing this before the streaming era, there could have been a push to use home-media covers as more repeatedly presented than film posters. But with streaming now, we have simpler cover art (and I think Netflix even rotates cover art based on the viewer to try to entice them to watch something). There are probably a lot of ways to go about discussing which cover art to pick, with so little gain or relevance. Like do we use the Fight Club cover art as seen at IMDb or at Rotten Tomatoes or at Amazon's top results, all of them being different? I think Andrzejbanas framed it well, "I also wonder if we are being more neutral to stick with original promotion for consistency between articles." Unless we want to completely upend the idea of using film posters in general for film articles' cover art, I find it best to go with the original theatrical release poster by default, and to add language to allow for a local consensus if there is proven real-world weighing in favor of something post-original. That way we don't have ambitiously-updating editors overriding the existing versions on a whim. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going to quote Gary Don Rhodes here from his journal entry on "The origin and development of the American moving picture poster" (2007), "Poster designs have become indelibly linked with the movies they advertise, often to the degree that their images act as embodiments of their films for collective memory. Long after their initial marketing responsibilities conclude, the poster remain iconic images in film history and culture at large." source While streaming seems to currently be the wave of the future of how people will watch and view films and other media, services like Netflix change thumbnails depending on the user watching (seemingly!). The BBC reported that Netflix changes its promotional art based on what you have watched (for example, if you watched a lot of films featuring Uma Thurman, you seem to get artwork based on the original one for Pulp Fiction, if you watched a lot of John Travolta films, you'll get art that showcases Travolta. (more here). As many different readers come to Wikipedia, I think the more initial promotional material (generally the promotional art, which is going to be posters most of the time) should still be the the most appropriate and neutral representation. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the allowance for a local consensus if there are real-world grounds to use cover art different than the original theatrical release poster? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very much agree (unsurprisingly) with Erik with regards to allowing discussion but with the original remaining the default choice. I'm still in favour of (unsurprisingly) this being for cases where the original poster fails to adequately identify the film for the average reader and an alternative exists. Scribolt (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there should be a default in cases where the original poster may fail to clearly identify the film, but I'm more flexible on that than in cases where the original poster is unambiguous, as in the test case that brought us here. DonIago (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the possibility of inadequate identification, I looked at Ju-On: The Grudge and am not understanding the issue with the cover art there. You linked to this as an alternative, which is generally the same image of the boy, only that the Latinized title is shown. Is this the crux of the matter, to show the Latinized title? I cannot support that because the Latinized title is already evident in the article title and the opening sentence. I do not think there are any policies or guidelines favoring displaying a Latinized title within cover art over a non-Latinized one. Something similar like Wolf Totem is fine to me because a legitimate essence (for lack of a better word) of the film comes through, like with Ju-On: The Grudge. Essentially, I feel like "identification" should be understood pretty broadly.
To think of a relatively famous non-film example, The Three-Body Problem (novel) has had the same non-Latinized cover art since 2017, even though the blue cover is probably more well-known to English-language readers. I mean, technically, you could challenge it now per WP:OSE, but if it has stood without issue for seven years, I really don't think cover art without Latinized titles should be frowned upon. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Ju-On is not the best example, but comparing it to the hundreds of Japanese films we have articles on that did not get any sort of wide-English release in any format, lets say the non-Godzilla films by Ishirō Honda would all be defaulting to Japanese film posters as they don't have any English-equivalent in home video or theatrical ads. Having a American poster for Godzilla, while surely recognizable, it would potentially confusing as we even have a separate article for the American release of Godzilla, cause the film has a lot of new content and was the only available version to English-audiences for a long time.
I'm not sure what a "local consensus" would really imply. For the Raiders film poster for example, I assume we are discussing Raiders of the Lost Ark still, the only discussion on it I've seen is this brief back and forth here: Talk:Raiders_of_the_Lost_Ark/Archive_2#Movie_poster and Talk:Raiders_of_the_Lost_Ark/Archive_1#Poster_image which boiled down to "the later poster was re-used for DVD" and having both of them, which I think is overkill unless there is some commentary unique to them. Sure people have seen it on home video, but people who are millennials or generation x may recognize it for its similarity to a home video cover. I don't think the current generation or any of the next ones are going to be mislead by it not looking like a DVD or VHS copy released over 20 years ago. I've tried to see if there was any real discussion of any serious analytical discussion of the posters available, but haven't found any. The title is clearly on display for both posters, my only sway in recognizability would be that you wouldn't mix it up more with the later films in the series, such as that the 1982 poster shows off more characters unique to this film (Jones' rival René Belloq for example). That said, Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of the most famous films of the 1980s or even among American films of the 20th century. A cursory glance at the articles lead would clarify which film we are talking about and it would be to a readers own cultural knowledge to connect the dots from there. Film is such a wide scope of depth of at a readers knowledge, I don't know how an average English-language reader would recognize a Early Spring (1956 film) from a Late Autumn from their posters, but it would still be more helpful than a screen capture, a title card.Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away for some time and haven't had the chance to read the full discussion above, but here are my two cents: I think the most convincing reason to use the original poster is that it's objective. Editors don't have to fight over which poster to use on every article, and editors don't have to change the poster image every few years. It's like with the cast section, where we follow the poster billing or end credits even if it seems wrong in our eyes. This prevents edit-warring and time-consuming discussion, and establishes consistency across articles. The original poster is the most recognizable image anyway, nine out of ten, and this is the widely accepted practice on all articles related to media: films, books, video games, etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry InfiniteNexus, but your last sentence isn't really accurate, as I said in my second post. The preferred choice of image in video games is the first English cover, not the original. Books have exactly what I was requesting here, original cover preferred but language allowing others to be discussed as to which would be better. Film is a bit of an outlier in having a hard rule.
Erik, maybe the Grudge/Ju-on example wasn't the most clear-cut and I take your point about identification being understood broadly, but I still see a genuine benefit to the reader in choosing an infobox image with a film title that matches the name of the article vs a poster that doesn't, and if it came up at an article I edit I'd like for it to be more open for discussion. It's true a reader can just look at the article title text, but this runs contrary to what is defined at LEADIMAGE, which I think is a good starting point in thinking of the most appropriate infobox image.
As I said in the original project post, I'd recently contributed to this just before the Raiders question arose. Note that in that discussion that there there was no obvious friction between what the book MOS and the global MOS say, it was simply focused on how to apply them to the article. We can see in the first part of the Raiders thread the contrast in film; you can't discuss recognizability without "ignoring" the guidance in FILMPOSTER as the original is preferred because it's the original. I do see the benefit in having a simple rule applied universally, and I agree that in the majority of cases the original poster fulfils the criteria (including Raiders), but I wanted to highlight that the current hardline approach is bit out of sync with other media projects and probably the rest of the encyclopedia. If a widely attended discussion started on a film article, I suspect people would say the status quo is just a local consensus. However, it seems apparent isn't much of an appetite to change things though, and if people far more active than me don't see a real benefit, I'll defer to their judgement. Scribolt (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected, though the rest of my comment holds true. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_film&oldid=1254431203"