Talk:By the Sword (film)

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 1, 2007.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the cast of By the Sword (1991), the first feature film about fencing, included two actors sharing the same last name as the director?

Infobox[edit]

Gimmetrow, please explain your reasons for reverting the placement of the infobox and image. PC78 (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit because you vandalized the article. Gimmetrow 19:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Utter nonsense. Correct placement of the infobox and image is mandated by MOS:INFOBOX and MOS:FILM. Your behaviour here is unacceptable and unbecoming of an administrator. PC78 (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You removed content from the article. Such behaviour is unacceptable and unbecoming an established editor, let alone a "coordinator" of the films project. Gimmetrow 19:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow, what are trying to do? Every film article with an infobox has the infobox at the top of the page with a relevant image (if available) inside it - or should do. This is a standard across the entire site. The whole point of a infobox is to provide a quick 'snapshot' of the article so it's right it's at the top. Separating the image and the box and siting the box halfway down the page - what is this supposed to achieve? And PC78's edit was certainly not vandalism. As three different editors have now reverted your edit this should suggest to you that your edit really isn't improving the article. Exxolon (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow was correct in the sense that other changes to the article were inadvertantly reverted; these have now been restored. Gimmetrow, do you have any further problem here? PC78 (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cast and crew list was more appropriate in the cast and crew section. PC78 has claimed the general MOS:INFOBOX and MOS:FILM as support, but I see nothing in either which requires an infobox in the top right corner of the page. Even the documentation for Infobox film says "typically at the top an an article", not "always". For that matter, please point to the exact policy page which requires an infobox at all? WP:FILM seems to have degenerated writing to a formula. Even if there are general guidelines, circumstances warrant variation. Sadly, WP:FILM apparently no longer respects that general guidelines may have variations. Gimmetrow 20:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:INFOBOX: "Insert at the top of articles and right-align"; this is standard practise across the whole of Wikipedia, as you should well know. The infobox contains more than just cast & crew information, hence it does not belong in any one particular section. If you believe that "circumstances warrant variation" in this particular article, then please state your reasons why this is so. PC78 (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 10:57, 29 October 2007, when another guideline was merged with MOS:INFOBOX to have the section you refer to, said: "Insert in the main body of articles - either after the intro or in the most appropriate section." This was changed on 18:11, 22 April 2008. The infobox primarily lists cast and crew, and as originally used was functioning as a cast and crew table; it was therefore most appropriate in that section. It's another question whether a non-free image was ever needed, and, if the non-free image be retained, whether the image necessitates moving the infobox. I don't see that the presence of an movie poster necessitates moving a cast and crew table. Gimmetrow 20:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just clicked through around 30 random films and they all have the infobox at the top right, most including an image. What makes this article so different it needs the box split/in a different place?

If you look at e.g. Titanic (1997 film) you'll see the infobox contains more information than just cast/crew members. Links, budget, distibutor, release date, running time, revenue etc are also there. Your argument would seem to suggest that the infobox should be split into separate sections and placed in the appropiate sections of the article - which defeats the point of the infobox. What would you do if for instance I found a source for the budget and placed it in the infobox? Would you concede the point and leave the infobox at the top? Or would you create a section on "Budget and Revenue", put the budget information there then split that section of the infobox off and place it there also? Surely you realise just how ridiculous this would get very quickly. You could end up with an infobox split into half a dozen sections scattered throughout the article. Exxolon (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow, your comment above are utterly irrelevant. What the guideline said 18 months ago is of no concern; what the infobox was originally created for, many years ago, is also of no concern. What's important is what the guideline says now, which is in any case a well-established convention. The infobox contains numerous parameters that do not relate to cast and crew; that they are not currently used here is of no consequence. You did not answer my question; what makes this article so special that the normal guidelines should not apply? PC78 (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is you seeking to change the article, therefore it is your duty to demonstrate that the change is needed. It is not needed because the template functions as a cast and crew table, and therefore fits most appropriately in the cast and crew section. Given that those proposing the change have tag-teamed to vandalize the article itself, and refuse to make any compromises, and one of them has made personal attacks while effectively installing a giant "fuck you" on the talk page, I'm not inclined to offer any further compromises myself. If you cannot come to a reasonable agreement, then the infobox is not necessary and can be removed. Gimmetrow 00:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is demonstratably not a mere cast & crew list; it's use is mandated by guidelines. Concensus here, it seems, is that it should remain in its current place. No vandalism has occurred here, and such accusations are entirely false. No personal attacks have been made on your talk page. You have yet to offer any real compromise yourself. PC78 (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No infobox is "mandated", and if you cannot offer any suggestion which is satisfactory to all, then the only solution is to remove the infobox entirely. I have gone out of my way to make accommodations for you and the film people, only to have all offers rejected. Individually, you've come around some, but the giant "fuck you" has eroded most of the good will I may have had left. Gimmetrow 00:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've done nothing of the sort. You have steadfastly refused to highlight your concerns in a rational manner, and you haven't once shown me an ounce of good faith. No one has said "fuck you", either implicitly or explicity. With regards to the banner, we are actively looking at ways to reduce its size. With regards to the infobox in this article, you yourself have offered no compromise, and have not explained why this film article should be different to all others. We're trying to accomodate you, but all we seem to get from you is hostility. Why must we waste our time on this petty dispute when we could be working together to resolve any issues you may have? PC78 (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, why the hell don't you want the infobox exactly? First, to characterize PC78's edits as "vandalism" is moronic beyond words; if you don't know what vandalism actually is, don't use the term. Next, the rather overwhelming consensus for these infoboxes comes into play here. So long as our MoS has consensus, it's to be followed. Yes, it's a guideline and there are exceptions, but when you give no good reason to ignore that guideline, we're going to follow it. Drop the issue and move on. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image[edit]

Before someone feels like reverting this edit, which removed the promotional poster image from the infobox, I strongly suggest that anyone wishing to do so discusses it here first, explaining exactly why they feel the image is necessary (or agrees that it's unnecessary, for that matter). The last thing that's needed right now is a repeat of the above. For the record, I'd keep the image; it passes fair use, serving as "cover art" to identify the article's topic, which is widely permitted across various article topics. Steve ^{T • C} 22:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a link to the movie poster in "external links" - a link which has been there since the first version of the article some 20 months ago. That should be sufficient in this case, and it avoids a non-free image. If a non-free image were to be in the article, the VHS cover art is arguably better associated with the film. (An image is available at imdb.) Gimmetrow 23:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our guidelines advise using the poster first, with video release images as a backup in case a poster does not exist. The issue of association with the film is not really germane, since virtually every older film's current release cover is completely different from the original poster, which we prefer in the articles, as it depicts the contemporary image associated with the film (if possible). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting very close to disrupting wikipedia to make a point Gimmetrow, I strongly suggest you disengage here - all you seem to be doing is trying to aggravate other editors by needlessly reverting their within policy and guideline non-controversial contributions. You really are not helping the situation. Exxolon (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is not helping. I've provided the bare minimum of commentary to plausibly justify the image. Gimmetrow 02:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]