Template talk:Infobox film

Proposal: Add optional "visual effects" parameter

I have read the archives and the previous discussions where this was rejected (Archive 7 on VFX companies, Archive 16 on sound credits, the February 2019 discussion on executive producer, and the November 2025 discussion on Production Designer). I would like to propose this again with a narrower scope that addresses the "bloat" concern that was the main objection across all those threads.

Proposal: Add an optional parameter `visual_effects` for the VFX Supervisor / VFX Creative Director, used only on films where VFX is an above-the-line credit (poster billing block, main on-end titles alongside cinematographer/editor/composer).

Rationale:

• Unlike the credits listed in the talk page header notice (production designer, art director, set decorator, costume designer, choreographer, executive producer), VFX Supervisor has not been the subject of a documented community consensus against inclusion — the prior discussions in Archive 7 addressed VFX companies, not the supervisor as a creative credit.
• Parameter would be optional, like `screenplay`, `story`, `based_on` (no bloat on films where it doesn't apply).
• On VFX-driven films (e.g. Avatar (2009 film), Avengers: Endgame, Dune: Part Two) the VFX Supervisor receives main-titles billing equivalent to the DP and editor.
• The Academy recognizes Best Visual Effects as a craft award equivalent to Cinematography, Editing, Sound.

Addressing prior objections:

• Archive 7 ("VFX is relevant only to some films, put it in Production section") — agreed for VFX houses/companies, but this proposal is specifically for the VFX Supervisor as a creative credit, not a company list. The optional nature mirrors how `based_on` is only used when applicable.
• "Just because it wins awards doesn't mean it belongs in the infobox" (Archive 16, 2019 thread) — agreed in general, but the relevant comparison is to other craft awards already in the infobox (cinematography, editing, music). VFX Supervisor sits in the same tier of authorship on VFX-driven films.
• "Infobox bloat" (recurring objection, including Nov 2025 Production Designer thread) — addressed by making the parameter strictly optional and scoped to films where VFX is an above-the-line credit, not a default field.

What this proposal is NOT:

• Not a request to list VFX houses/companies (that belongs in Production section).
• Not a request to add this to every film article.
• Not a request for VFX artist/crew lists.

Thanks in advance. Neuropixels (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a film where you would expect that all criteria you've laid out above would be met? I think it would help to illustrate by example, where we can look at cited sources to see how prominent the coverage is of a specific credit (such as VFX supervisor) post release.

• Update: I see that you've listed a few in your comments. These should warrant further discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

It's worth keeping in mind that the infobox is for listing commonly cited facts/details/credits, not for listing obscure details that may only matter to a handful of films. I'm not saying this is an example of that, necessarily, but you can just as easily call out and draw attention to unique details in the lead versus creating a parameter that may not get used very often. GoneIn60 (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Not a request to add this to every film article you have no way to prevent this. Gonnym (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both for the feedback. Gonnym, you're right that there's no technical enforcement preventing misuse, but this is true of every optional parameter (narrator, story, based_on, screenplay). The community relies on documentation and editorial judgment, not technical restriction. That said, your point has pushed me to tighten the proposal in a way I think addresses it directly.

Revised proposal: rename the parameter from visual_effects to vfx_supervisor. This narrows the field by name to a single individual creative credit (the Senior VFX Supervisor / Creative Director) and removes the ambiguity that would invite editors to list vendors, software houses, or crew rosters. The semantic restriction is built into the parameter name itself, the same way cinematography doesn't invite listing camera operators and gaffers.

On the criterion for inclusion: the benchmark goes beyond marketing real estate like the poster billing block; it is rooted in how the VFX Supervisor functions as a core creative head of department, helping the director to shape the aesthetic and narrative fabric of the film alongside the DP and production designer. This is true both in blockbusters and in independent features (in many indies the VFX Supervisor is involved from pre-production and is co-responsible for the visual language of the story).

To keep this objective and prevent the "infobox bloat" the community has rightfully objected to, the Main On-End / Main Opening Titles serve as a verifiable filter. A supervisor only receives main-title billing when the studio, producers, or platform contractually recognize that level of creative authorship. This mirrors how cinematography and editing are applied (every film has a DP and an editor, but the parameter is used because the community treats them as primary creative credits with main-title billing).

Verifiable examples (just a few of them) where the VFX Supervisor receives standalone title billing alongside the DP, editor, and composer:

• Avatar: The Way of Water — Joe Letteri (Academy Award winner)
• Gravity — Tim Webber (Academy Award winner)
• The Jungle Book — Robert Legato (Academy Award winner)

In all these cases, major secondary sources (Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, befores & afters, Art of VFX) dedicate extensive post-release coverage analyzing these supervisors' creative direction, framing them as key authors of the film's visual identity (the same kind of coverage given to DPs and editors).

On industry evolution: production structures naturally evolve, and Wikipedia templates have historically adapted when supported by reliable sources. The Academy's recent addition of the Best Casting category is one example of how the industry is formalizing recognition of roles that were previously treated as background crew.

Why the infobox and not just the lead or body: the infobox is for structured metadata. A film completely devoid of visual effects is almost non-existent today, it is a foundational craft. Because the parameter is strictly optional and the criterion (main-title billing) is restrictive, it would remain blank for the vast majority of character dramas, causing no bloat. But for films where the craft is contractually and critically elevated to a main-title credit, the infobox should reflect that structural reality, the same way it does for cinematography and editing.

Thank you in advance.

Neuropixels (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

As mentioned, if a vfx supervisor is mentioned on title block billing.... then they were integral to the success of the film and should be included in the template without question. ~2026-39768-54 (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

As mentioned, once we add the parameter, we have no way of stopping well-meaning editors from adding it to any film article they wish to add it to. Since it won't be applicable for the vast majority of films, it doesn't seem to me like a great idea to add this to the infobox. DonIago (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

choreographers and costume designers

Please add a section in info box film for choreographers and costume designers. It should say something like "Choreographed by" and "Costumes designed by" Gold Diggers of Broadway 1929 (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. This template should only be used on consensus has been reached for such a change, not to propose new ideas. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:30, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - this opens the floodgates to any number of other members of the film crew. While all members are important, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is to summarize the essential information, not list every position on the film crew. If we add these, why not the prop master? The head VFX? Lead makeup artist? Stunt coordinator? The list goes on... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:32, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and come to think of it, costume designers aren’t that important. But choreographers are very important in regards to any musical film, and I think that they need a section. Gold Diggers of Broadway 1929 (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Requests to add additional crew to the infobox are discussed both at the top of this page and in a notice that appears when one edits the page (I'm seeing it right now). I daresay any request to add crew to the infobox is a non-starter. DonIago (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

parameter for the movie itself

What parameter to use, if I want to include the movie itself (from Commons, already out of copyright)? Bennylin (talk) 05:50, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

You don't. Add it to the external links section, or possibly to the plot section. Gonnym (talk) 05:59, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Not external links. The movie has been uploaded to Commons. Bennylin (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Commons is an external link to en.wiki. Regardless, even if it were on en.wiki, my response would be the same. Gonnym (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

As stated, you wouldn't include it in the infobox. Editors generally include it in the plot section. See Steamboat Willie or The Jazz Singer as examples. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Question

As written, this template presumes that parenthesis in an article title are present as disambiguation, and thus under normal circumstances it automatically italicizes only the main part of a title while leaving the parenthetical disambiguator unitalicized. However, there are instances, such as Biidaaban (The Dawn Comes) or The Devil Smokes (and Saves the Burnt Matches in the Same Box), where the parenthetical information is not a disambiguator, but is actually part of the core title of the film and has to be italicized just the same.

There is a workaround for this, in that the box includes an "italic_title =" field that can be set only to "no", in order to disable the infobox's automatic italicization entirely. But that field doesn't directly have any "yes" or "all" setting at all, so this then requires the addition of a separate {{italic title}} with an "all=yes" parameter outside the infobox.

So since that isn't ideal, I wanted to ask if there's any way for this infobox to automatically handle such instances itself by adding a "yes/all" option directly to the "italic_title =" field itself, so as to avoid the necessity of adding an extra template to the article. I understand if that's just not possible due to infobox mechanics, but since I'm not an expert in such things I'd never know if I didn't at least ask. Bearcat (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I raised that issue in 2019 at the infobox module talk page when I also noticed that it didn't support it. I see that I tried fixing this but had some errors and didn't continue with it. Gonnym (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

As this is inbuilt into {{infobox}} I suggest raising the issue at Template talk:Infobox. Primefac (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Minor inconsistency

the section for language states:
"enter separate entries with {{unbulleted list}}."
the other sections state "using the either {{plainlist}} or {{ubl}} template".
An overly literal Wikipedia edit might take this advice as prescriptive and insist on using the unbulleted list. it would be better to avoid unnecessary style variation and either use one list template or the other consistenly within the given Infobox.

could editors please change the language section so that it gives the same advice as the other sections to "use either {{plainlist}} or {{ubl}}".

Thanks -- ~2026-52864-78 (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Alternatively the documentation could always revert back the way it used to be for many many years and simply not mention unbulleted lists at all. If you look at the past discussion Template_talk:Infobox_film/Archive_31#Plainlist_and_Ubl, the suggestion to use {{Ubl}} was only ever added (without discussion) by User:Walter_Görlitz who insisted on it being included as an option, and he has since been banned. -- ~2026-52864-78 (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Based on the linked discussion, unless there was a later discussion that superceded it, I'd be okay with returning it to the way it originally read. DonIago (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

This can probably be reverted. I also thought there was a way to make all the body classes plainlist (I thought the TV infobox did this) but I can't seem to find the relevant code there to confirm that. The class makes it so {{Plainlist}} isn't necessary and entries can just be added with bullets. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2026 (UTC)