Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Accessibility

This template does not seem to include WP:ALT for images. Please add it. -- Horkana (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The template does not currently include any images as far as I can tell. Images are passed using a full [[File:foo.svg|300px|center|caption|alt=words]] specification, so if the alt is missing, that's up to the page that transcludes the template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Flags

This discussion really has to be made again. Last night Madchester (edits) removed all the flags from the episode list, I reverted half of them and wanted to start this discussion later (should have done this weeks ago but I'm way to busy at the moment), but now Darrenhusted (edits) removed them again. The rules are open to interpretation and the last discussion ended without consensus. I was going to ask for a halt on the adding and removal of flags in the infoboxes, but there are none left. I'll jump back in later as my lunch break is over. Hope that then some of you will have already voiced your views on this. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 13:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I, again, support the removal of flags from the infobox. Television is one of the few projects still doing so despite it being against WP:MOSFLAGS and no compelling reason to keep them has ever been put forth. Glad do not help identify a country unless you actually know its flag already, while the simple text name is clear, unambiguous, and unmistakable. As a note, Films has already removed flags from their infoboxes with no detrimental affect to the articles nor quality. Madchester and Darrenhusted have simply done what needed to be done - applied the guidelines regarding flags properly. I suggest the infobox and MoS docs be updated according. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Xeworlebi. Fortunately, the editor uninitiated to the issue (reference to self) had to get no further than the first sentence, "No consensus either way", to understand who's right in the current war (skirmish, hostility, disruption, whatever). —Aladdin Sane (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to start a site wide removal without a clear ruling or consensus on the matter. Especially with "WP:MOSFLAG" as edit summary as there is literally nothing that prohibits or even mentions the use of flags in this way in WP:MOSFLAG; It's not a nationality, birth/death location. It's not replacing a missing picture. Not about subnational or supernational flags. Nor has anything to do with historical, political, biographical use or about sportspeople. And the flags are accompanied with the name of the country. The infobox is a table, a list of information, structured for easy and quick overview in which a flag aids by giving a visual cue. It's not prose where an icon disrupts the flow of the text. A flag makes is clearer for quick recognition. It's accompanied by the name of the country, this make it no more unclear, ambiguous or controversial. Not sure what you're saying Aladdin Sane, but there is no war going on and no one is wrong or right on this as there is no ruling on the matter. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 16:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

While not specified under the Flags section, a flag is considered an icon and icons should be avoided for pure decoration. What purpose otherwise do flags in the infobox serve? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 02:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Flags allow readers to quickly skim the infobox and gather information from it. Which to me is the purpose of the infobox, as all the info in the infobox should already be in the article in prose form. The visual component enables effective communication of content. Even if one does not know what country that flag represents, each image is accompanied with the name. So long as they are not overused, they do not affect the readability of a page, nor do they pose a problem to those that have vision problems as long as, the full template ex. {{USA}} (United States), is used in preference to {{flagicon|USA}} (). Some people, like in the extreme, those with dyslexia, would even benefit from the use of flags alongside the name. As for them the difference between United States and United Kingdom is much clearer than United States vs United Kingdom. There is, in my opinion, nothing in WP:FLAG that specifically bars the use of flags in these television infoboxes, and, as I've stated above, I feel that their use is beneficial, and most certainly doesn't count as decoration. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 14:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't. It only allows those who are extremely knowledable about every flag in world to do that. Remember, this is not the American or British wiki, it is the English wiki with users from around the world. WP:FLAG does strongly discourage such frivilous use, which is why other projects have removed them from their infoboxes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

They surely do, they may not for you but for others they do. I just gave the difference between the United States and United Kingdom because they are so alike yet there flags are quite distinguishable. You don't have to know every flag in the world and if you don't know that one in particular, the name is still besides it. Stating that people who don't know every flag in the world are incapable of recognizing, mostly, the flags of the United States and United Kingdom, is kinda insulting. I don't know every countries name (like most people) in the world does that mean that we should remove all the names of the countries in the infobox? And again: There is, in my opinion, nothing in WP:FLAG that specifically bars the use of flags in these television infoboxes. Just because others have removed flags (after they reached consensus, which has not been reached here) doesn't mean that they should not be used here. On the other side the animanga infobox uses flags; InuYasha (a page that you seem to edit on frequently) even has 14 flags in its infobox, none who are accompanied with the name of the country or explained what they are earlier as stated in WP:FLAGS that they should. The Disney ride infobox even uses wheelchair icons and FASTPASS icons. But that doesn't matter, just because others do it doesn't make it so here. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 17:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and Animanga is in discussions to remove them as well. From WP:MOSFLAG. "Repeated use of an icon in a table or infobox should only be done if the icon has been used previously in the table with an explanation of its purpose", "When icons are added excessively, they clutter the page and become redundant", "If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen.", "Avoid adding icons that provide neither additional useful information relevant to the article subject nor visual cues or layout that aid the reader. Icons should serve an encyclopaedic purpose other than decoration.", "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason: Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride. Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things." and on and on and on. The guidelines are clear. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

We communicate the majority of our information on wikipedia by text. Sure, we use pictures to convey some ideas that simply cannot be made thru words (ie, the cliche a picture tells a 1000 words), but a flag of a country tells, well, one-word which is better off just expressed as text. If a flag was so superior to text in conveying a country's name, then we would not use the text of a country's name as well - but, i note that we do use the text. Is anyone trying to say that flag beats text? If not, chose. That it allows people to skim an info box is a flimsy argument (and it's based on the more broadly accepted but substantially different idea of flags in long lists). It's practically useless if you don't know the flag or the article is for example discerning between the New Zealand and Australian flags. The argument that it looks good falls down because it's purely subjective - ie, i, for example, think it doesn't look good. --Merbabu (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera's quotes from WP:MOSFLAG are strong evidence that flags should not be used in television infoboxes, unless there's a good reason to emphasize the nationality. For example, it might well be appropriate to use a flag icon in an article about This Week in the Pentagon, a weekly half-hour show produced by the U.S. Dept. of Defense, as that show is very strongly associated with the U.S. as a nation. However, it does not seem appropriate to use a flag icon in (say) The Simpsons. Eubulides (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no compelling reason why the "Country of origin" field in this infobox should be given extra emphasis over other infobox fields, by the addition of a little flag icon. That's a form of undue weight, in my opinion. Flag icons are effective when browsing a large list or table of items that have strong association to nationality (e.g. international sports results). But singular flag icons like this one serve no useful purpose. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with Madchester's edits here. The lack of a specific prohibition on the use of flags does not mean that using them is automatically appropriate. It usually isn't. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of removing flags from infoboxes. I used to add them when I first started, but I soon changed my mind and now see them as unnecessary decoration. I'll admit that MOS:FLAG is a bit ambiguous, but it still seems to discourage usage here. {{Infobox Television film}} was edited to discourage flags, by an admin who seems to make a lot of edits to flag related articles! And there has been no objections since. {{Infobox film}} was also edited to discourage flags after this discussion. I think we should follow suit and clarify the documentation here. Sarilox (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The flags puts an undue weight on a specific parameter in the infobox that isn't any more important than other facts. Removing the flags will not remove any information so there is no loss. Rettetast (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"Creative director" parameter

Could there be some clarification in the attributes section as to the exact role of a "creative director" on a TV series? The Wikipedia entry on the subject gives the impression that the position in the TV industry, as opposed to other areas such as advertising, is to do with production design, which conflicts with the the template's description: "the show's writer or writers".

What distinguishes a creative director from an ordinary scriptwriter? Is a creative director a "lead writer" of sorts, explaining why it is advised that the field is not used if there are more than five writers? IMDb lists "creative consultant" in its glossary of terms here, which is perhaps not synonymous but seems to agree with Wikipedia's description of a creative director as being someone involved in more than just scriptwriting work.

Are there any prominent TV series pages on Wikipedia using this parameter, or any popular shows on which a crewmember could be fairly described as the "creative director" for that programme? SuperMarioMan (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any article that uses this parameter; I've never used it. It appears from this edit that the creative director entry was simply copied from the writer entry with only the parameter name being changed. I just changed it so that it's as self-referential as most of the other descriptions. I realise that this may not be very helpful in defining the job, but at least it's not so obviously wrong. The article for creative director definitely needs to be expanded to better cover the role in television. Sarilox (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Name

I wanted to request the move of this infobox to Template:Infobox television, because that is the correct capitalization per WP:IBX, but then I realized that the name is quite wrong – this infobox is for television series, not television in general. So I think that the name should be either Template:Infobox television show or Template:Infobox TV show. Has anyone any objections against this change? Svick (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that at the very least it should be moved to Template:Infobox television. The only potential caveat would be if there is some WP:ENGVAR surrounding the use of the word "show". Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I object to the second. Television itself is fine to me, and I don't see any reason to move it to some other longer name. There is nothing "television in general" so its not as if it is confusing. It is for any television show (not just series), and there are no other uses for something similar. Its clear and doesn't cause issues for different variants of English. Moving it to Template:Infobox television to fix the casing, however, is fine. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with AnmaFinotera. However, if the case is fixed here it should be fixed for all the other television infoboxes that currently use the same capitalization. Category:Television infobox templates. - Sarilox (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I requested the move of this template, Template:Infobox Television episode and Template:Infobox Television film to their lowercase versions (without any other changes). I think that other infoboxes whose names are “Infobox Television *” (eg. Template:Infobox Television Survivor) should be moved to “Infobox *” (without the word “Television”), but that would probably require further discussion, but not here. Svick (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

External links

The external links in the infobox should be deprecated. The purpose for the infobox is to give a brief overview of the subject at hand. Providing a links to the official site not only does not help that attempt but they also distract the reader from reading our content. This has been proposed before, and seemed to be agreed upon, but no action has taken since. I think now is as good of time as any. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 12:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyone out there? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 01:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Many Infoboxes seem to contain the parameter. It fails to offend me, harm me, my browser, or my computer. I'm not sure how how a reader, abstracted from myself as an editor, could feel otherwise. I've not noticed a reader complaint on a Talk page about it, for example. I'm not seeing a problem. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that the film project has deprecated it and since there is some overlap between the two, both projects (and infoboxes) should be on the same page. The purpose of an infobox is to give a quick overview of the subject at hand and providing an external link with (often limited, but not always) limited information does not help in that endeavor. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 02:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, as noted above and for the same reasons it was removed from films, I feel it should be removed. It really goes against the idea of external links by highlighting any external link in the infobox. There is already an appropriate EL section at the bottom of the article for the official link where it belongs. The infobox is for an overview of the article, and the EL section needs no such overview. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

purpose of num_series

The purpose of the infobox is to describe a single television series. How, therefore, could the infobox ever legitimately have a num_series other than 1? I've seen it used a few times, but in each of those cases it was actually used to refer to the number of seasons for which the series aired. But since there is already a num_seasons and num_seasons outputs the correct text in the box "No. of seasons" rather than "No. of series", if there is no legitimate usage, num_series should be removed and all references be corrected to num_seasons. If that's too much work, then at least the text generated by num_series should be corrected to the intended semantic meaning. 131.107.0.73 (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Not all television series (that may not be the right term) are produced the same way as American ones usually are – by seasons. E.g. Doctor Who: its infobox claims that is has 30 series and I'm pretty sure that they are not seasons (at least the old ones). Svick (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I took it that they are synonymous and one or the other should be used: One is British usage, is all. At least that's how I read the docs. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In UK English, a season is called a series. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As noted, num_series is the UK/European equivalent of num_seasons. In the US, television programs air in seasons, while in the UK programmes are in series. The option ensures the correct terminology is used, as seasons is really only used in the US. Its use is legitimate. For example, Meerkat Manor aired for four series. If it is being misused, such as with the Doctor Who example, then it should be corrected. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Lines needed

I'd like to suggest two lines:

announcer=

host=

Though in-house announcers are less common now from the 1950s through the 1970s many tv shows had a permanent announcer. Several modern shows, particularly game shows and talk shows, still have these positions today along with Saturday Night Live which has had Don Pardo since the 1970s. "Presenter" is a term used in British television. "Host" is more common in North America. Both options should be available. Fred the happy man (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed recently and consensus agreed that Presenter is all encompassing enough for all three. It should be viewable in the archives...which should really have a search....-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem I have with this is that no one who speaks American English would ever say that someone "presents" or "narrates" a TV show -- those terms simply don't exist in this country. I've seen it said many times that Wikipedia shouldn't default to American terms, but defaulting to British/Australian ones doesn't make a whole lot more sense. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Presenter makes no sense for a North American show that isn't a documentary series or news program (and even for news programs the term used in North America is "anchor" not presenter). See Late Show with David Letterman where Letterman is listed as the "presenter" making the show sound like something completely different and the band leader is listed as the "star" while the announcer is the "narrator" making the show sound like a drama. In the North American context this makes no sense. No one is suggesting removing existing fields but adding fields would give people more choice as far as nomenclature and be able to select terms for a particular program that make sense. Fred the happy man (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Fred and Steve. If editors want to use the term "presenter" or "narrator" for a program produced and aired in Great Britian, Australia, etc., that's one thing. For programs aired in the United States, the accepted term should be "host," "emcee," "anchor," etc. And before I came to Wikipedia, I've never heard the term "presenter" used to describe a host/emcee, etc. Same goes for program/programme (which I've also seen used interchangably for American, British and Australian programs). In other words, terms should be localized to which country the program was produced/aired. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)]]

Theme music

Would it be possible to add a field that combines "opentheme" and "endtheme" for shows where the same music is used for both? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

first_aired

Because of some recent edit-warring on Human Target (TV series), I'll just ask it here for the record. |first_aired=, is this the date the the show first aired on television, on global – world level, or is this the date that the show first aired in the country the show is made in? Thanks. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 15:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I always considered it to be the first airing in the country the show originated, unless there is a significant difference (like several months). BOVINEBOY2008 :) 16:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

But what is the difference between it being a month a week or a day? How long before it's acceptable to use the global first time it aired to public? _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 16:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Generally first aired in the country of origin. If it aired significantly earlier in another country first, this should be noted in the prose. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, perhaps make a note of it in the documentation. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 16:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Also Starring

• Can we add an "also starring" tab for this. I think it would be useful for shows like Oz and The Office (US version). 75.42.83.46 (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No, infoboxes are supposed to provide a brief overview of the series. Such information can be covered easily and best in the actual article. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 07:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Second Bovineboy. The infobox already has the appropriate field for the actual stars of the series. "Also starrings" should be noted in the prose, where relevant and noteworthy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional fields

Can the following fields be added so that information related to US late night talk shows can be displayed in fashion that makes sense?

|announcer= |musical director= |band=

Currently the info box in The Late Show with David Letterman, for instance, lists Letterman as the show's "presenter" (which makes the show sound like a news program or documentary series) and Paul Shaffer as the "star" because there is no place in the current template to list the musical director/band leader and the band. Because there is no line for announcer the show is listed as having Alan Kalter as the "narrator" which implies the program is a drama rather than a talk show. Similar oddities exist wherever the current template is used for US talk shows. Fred the happy man (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose all. There are already appropriate fields for the host. Adding the band is unnecessary, and Shaffer isn't the "musical director" is he? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

He's certainly not the "star" which is how he is currently listed (as is the bandleader at the Tonight Show). Call it bandleader if you don't like musical director, point is there is no appropriate line at present and as all the late night talkshows here have a musical director/band leader and a band it's a needless omission. I'm not proposing removing any line, just adding a few so that people can be called by the job description that is actually used rather than by a bad approximation. Fred the happy man (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Related Shows section

I have been accused by another editor of having "ownership issues" (though they have not made a case why this is anything other than an ad hominem), therefore, I am bringing this question here for community consensus to hopefully avoid an edit war.

The guidelines for the related field currently read: "Related TV shows, i.e. remakes, spin-offs, adaptations for different audiences, etc." I have noticed editors interpreting this in the widest possible lattitude, i.e. any possible show that has the loosest connection. I have been trying to interpret it in a fairly conservative manner: the show being listed must be a spin off of the show in question, be an adaptation, remake, or foreign version of the show in in question, and/or must have crossed over with the show or had one or more characters appear on both shows. I would argue that anything beyond this could be construed as WP:OR if there is not a third party source directly saying the two are somehow related.

Now, the shows in question are Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (SVU) and Law & Order: Criminal Intent (CI). Both are spin-offs of Law & Order; there is no question about that. However, there has been quite a bit of controversy it seems as to whether or not they are related to each other or not. A case could be made they are indirectly related because they are both Law & Order spinoffs (though a case could be made that would be WP:OR.

Consider the following:

1. SVU and CI have never crossed over with each other. A main character from SVU has never appeared on CI, and vice versa. The closest is that certain minor medical examiner and psychologist characters who originated on the original series have made appearances in both shows.
2. CI is not a spin off of SVU. CI is a spin-off of the original Law & Order. CI may have come chronologically after SVU, but its plot is in no way derived from SVU's.
3. CI and SVU are not adaptations of each other.
4. CI and SVU have no direct relationship other than sharing a franchise name that would make one believe without speculation they were related. Law & Order: UK also shares the name of the franchise, but has not established that it is related to the American shows at all (it is an adaptation that uses scripts from the original series and adapts them to a British audience, so it is only related to the original series loosely).

Based on this information, I have removed SVU from the CI infobox and CI from the SVU infobox. An editor seems to disagree with this decision but really will not say why other than to make an ad hominem, say it's not OR without elaboration, and say I'm interpreting it too rigidly. I have really had no explanation of their thought process in the matter yet. So I'm asking: what do you think? Redfarmer (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

So you want to limit "related" to what amounts to a parent-child connection. The other editor wants to include siblings. I agree with the other editor. L&O:SVU and L&O:CI are related shows.

As for L&O:UK, that is more akin to a cousin, and therefore debatable.

—MJBurrage^(T•C) 00:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily parent-child. I would definitely say that Homicide: Life on the Street is related to both the mothership and SVU though it was created by a different person. It is related to the original by its crossovers and to SVU by John Munch, who was a regular on both series. Though there is not a parent-child relationship, I say all three are related. Redfarmer (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Redfarmer. Just because they share the same name "Law & Order", doesn't make them related to each other. Like he pointed out, the two have never crossed over and have unrelated characters. SVU has crossed over with the mothership and the character, Don Cragen, who appeared in the first three seasons of Law & Order is now the captain of SVU. Also Jack McCoy has appeared on SVU. I'm not sure if he has appeared on CI. Homicide: Life on the Street's character, John Munch moved to SVU. Trial by Jury has been crossed over more than once with SVU. The character Alex Cabot, who was (and currently is) the ADA had a starring short lived role in Conviction. The infobox shouldn't be used to list every L&O universe shows, that's what the navbox at the bottom of the page is designed to do. —Mike Allen 21:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Two shows from the same franchise are by definition related. If we decide that the number of shows that are related is too long for the infobox, then have a single link to the franchise article, and then the links for any non franchise shows. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 09:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As a random note, in addition to the Munch crossover, there were 3-4 crossover episodes between Homicide: Life on the Street and the original Law & Order where a story started on one episode of one show, and concluded on the other. That said, L&O providers one extreme example of just how crazy the related shows can get. Really, I think such relations should be limited to the prose. For the most part, it isn't a major part of the article on the series that needs highlighting in the infobox, which is the boxes purpose. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In reference, I take the "Related shows" field as stating programs that were spun-off of a parent series that debuted concurrent with the parent show's run, "Preceeded by" as referencing a spin-off series whose parent show ended before the spin-off began and "Followed by" as being the vice versa of what "Preceeded by" would mean. Tvtonightokc (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Camera setup

Pinkadelica suggested I take this up with the talk page on this subject. I've placed the wording "film" or "videotape" next to the words "multi-camera" or "single-camera" in the camera setup field to refer to what type of camera is used, so as to delineate what recordable product and camera a program is filmed with. She, I'm pretty sure Pinkadelica is a she, suggests using "Film" or "Videotape" should be shown under the "picture_format" field in the Infobox. I think that it should be listed in the camera setup field as it seems more appropriate for that field. This is to reference if it shot on one or the other, since it is easy to tell if a program is shot on film or tape, unless the program is a videotaped product that is filmized, but that is another story. Is there any way the wording in the Infobox's attributes section can be revised to indicate that it is shot on film or tape? Pinkadelica brought up that the wording of the section suggests that it belongs in the picture format section but that attribute reference states, "The video or film format in which the show is or was originally recorded or broadcast (Black-and-white, Film, 405-line, NTSC (480i), PAL (576i), SECAM (576i), HDTV 720p, HDTV 1080i)", implying simply the picture resolution or color format but not what it is shot on, and it does seem more appropriate to have "film" or "videotape" reference to it being shot on one of the two be referenced under camera setup and the picture size/resolution or color format under picture format. Tvtonightokc (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Frame Rate

How can one add the frame rate of a TV show into the infobox for television? I tried to but i think it wouldnt let me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rb26dett (talk • contribs) 08:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't include "frame rate" in the infoboxes (nor articles) of television series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

May it be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by N40798 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason it should be. Frame rate is not a critical component nor noteworthy for highlighting. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(editconflict) Why, is it important ? Every country uses a different system, so the framerate is only really useful when you relate it to the recording format. And in recording, you could say it is part of video_format option, but they often use different framerates for different locations. Lastly, it usually is very hard to find a source for what exact framerate a TV series is recorded with. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Format Parameter

What is the does the format parameter mean? --Twinsday 10:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That question has been asked several times in the 2-3 years I've been active with this project, and no one seems to know. Therefore I propose it be removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Format is the "genre" option from older infoboxes that got merged into this one. And after that it was reused for audio/videoformat by some, and now it's just one big mess that needs sorting. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Alternative text for images

{{editprotected}} Infobox should have a alt parameter that meets the WP:Alternative text for images guideline. Please add one, following the approach taken in {{infobox film}}, which already has the parameter. The following, taken from {{infobox film/doc}}, should also be added to the documentation as part of addressing this request:

Parameter	Explanation
alt	Alt text for the image. See WP:ALT. This field is normally not visible in standard web browsers, but you can see it by requesting the image's properties from the browser. A visually impaired reader will typically hear the alt text in place of the image.

Thanks. 68.165.77.192 (talk) 09:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This template seems to be set up different to {{infobox film}} as the whole image (complete with formatting) is passed to the template rather than just the name of the image. Therefore the alt text can be specified on each article already. Hope this makes sense. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, yes I see what you mean. I'll update the doc page for this template to make more people aware of this. Thanks. 68.165.77.192 (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that. The question brings to mind whether we should update this template to use something like what Films use, which seems to be more of the norm. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

We could add some {{#ifexist logic to detect if the image name has been specified, rather than the entire image. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Announcer and host parameters

{{editprotected}} I am requesting the addition of host and announcer parameters on the Infobox, I have already added these using the sandbox supplement, however they were not transferred to the parameter source on the main article, and since the source is protected, I cannot add it myself. In the sandbox, the host parameter is listed in the attributes section in the same section as "presenter" for alternate use under the description that the "host" parameter be used for non-UK programs since the term "presenter" is not used in many countries outside the United Kindgom, and especially not used in the U.S. The attributes and parameters also list "announcer" which was added due to the fact that there is a difference between an announcer and a narrator. (Tvtonightokc (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

Tvtonightokc (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed this request. There is NO consensus for this addition as per the discussion above. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"After reading the posts on the page, there is somewhat of a minimal consensus from the earlier talks/requests that American users who have talked about this do not think that it makes sense to use "presenter" or "narrator" for American programs as "presenter" is not used for American or Canadian programs, host is. "Narrator" makes sense to use for scripted programming that uses a first-person voiceover or a documentary but for programs that use a voiceover that is not for that or for a character, "announcer" is more appropriate. Is it possible to call a new vote on these additions from American Wikipedia users only, those American-born and raised and those living here in the U.S. but born abroad, the majority determines? (Tvtonightokc (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

Narrator is perfectly acceptable for either kind of voice over. Announcer is for sporting/gaming events. There needs to be discussion about whether presenter really needs to be changed and the best way to do it. Also one person making the request is not really consensus one way or the other. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, announcer can be applicable for programs such as talk shows and most programs that use on-camera personalities but may use a voice over for program bumpers and introductions and are non-fiction or non-documentary based. The term "narrator" is described as "One who narrates or tell stories", "The person or the "voice" whose viewpoint is used in telling a story" or "The person providing the voice-over in a documentary" and is more applicable towards fictionalized work; that term would apply to people like Chris Rock on "Everybody Hates Chris", Patricia Heaton on "The Middle" or Daniel Stern on The Wonder Years, whereas an announcer is described as "One that announces, especially a person who introduces programs, reads announcements, or provides commentary on television or radio"; that term would apply to people like Wally Wingert on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" or Jess Harnell on America's Funniest Home Videos. Also it was a few people discussing this on earlier talks about the "announcer"/"narrator" and "host"/"presenter" terms to use within the Infobox, not a single person making the request. I think that there could be a region-specific application to the latter based on the use of the term. (Tvtonightokc (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

Edit request from Tvtonightokc, 31 March 2010

{{editprotected}} I am requesting that for syntax purposes and owing to the fact that many television theme songs are not composed or written by a single person, that the "theme_music_composer" parameter's label "Theme music composer" be modified to "Theme music composer(s)". (Tvtonightokc (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

Tvtonightokc (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, removing the template. Please do not just make edit requests without discussion. I actually think we should go the way film does, and just change all those (s) to "by" (i.e. Produced By, Directed By, Theme Music Composed By) which would eliminate the whole singular/plural issue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That may make sense, but television generally does not use the "by" template for such things as producers, except maybe the show's line producer using the "produced by" term and there are some labels that would have to be left out like for example "executive producer", no one uses the term "executive produced by" to refer to people with that credit. "Theme music composed by" might work since many television shows use something like "Theme song written by" or "Theme by" to refer to the composer in the end credits and a "produced by" label might work (though it may have to be modified to refer to line producers since the produced by term generally refers to them, rather than being used for both line producers and producer/writers), I'm willing to agree on possibly using that for those labels, but there are too few fields where a "-d by" that is not used that anything other plural/singular would be work. (Tvtonightokc (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

Clash with a table

{{editprotected}} Hello. I don't know if the css of this infobox or the table syntax at Iznogoud#Animated_Series is to blame, but one of those two overwrite the other. Could anyone please fix it ? Thank you, Comte0 (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The infobox doesn't belong there, so would recommend removing it. It should only be used in an actual series article, which this is not. Conversely, fix the table by removing the 99% width (which by its nature will force the table to take up the whole window and not share a line with anything). Might also want to fix it to use {{Episode list}} instead of that manual table. In either case, there is no issue with the table so I have removed the edit protected request. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Add current season to infobox

I would like to propose adding the current season to the infobox in between show name and picture. For example, the current season for the Chicago Blackhawks is very easily accessible on their main article above the logo near the top of the page. Here's why I think this could be useful. I have no idea what season American Idol is on. If I search American Idol on Google click on the Wikipedia page it takes too much time to get the relevant information I want (currently have to scroll all the way down the page and click again). Sure it may seem trivial, but it would make things much more convenient without changing anything dramatically. sorebearmat (^T/_C) 01:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Why? Wikipedia is not a TV guide, and the current season would seem to be fairly obviously be the one listed in the infobox already. I see no value in having "current" distinct from the overall season count. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Setting

I think a "setting" field, located in the main part of the template, would be wonderful. Many people have been putting the setting of the show in the "Production" section under "Location(s)," with a "(setting)" to differentiate it from the filming location. Rumkles (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen anyone do that and if they are doing it, they should be corrected. That is not an appropriate use of the Location attribute at all, nor is the setting generally a major out-of-universe element worth noting. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree the use of "(setting)" is not ideal. I first noticed it in the 3rd Rock from the Sun article. Seinfeld currently has only New York City listed under production locations, even though it was mainly filmed in Los Angeles. It shows that someone wanted a place to put the show's setting and, failing to find one, put in the "Location" field, even though it has nothing to do with the production.

With the minutiae of production (i.e. aspect ratios) being listed, it seems as though a major detail like the setting of the series, although part of the fictional world of the show, could be pulled from the body of the article and placed in the template. The setting of shows like Cheers (Boston), ER (Chicago), and WKRP in Cincinnati (self-evident), are integral to the series for the entirety of their run. Rumkles (talk • contribs) 05:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The setting is an in-universe detail, however, and the infoboxes are primarily to highlight major real world information. A few series the settings are somewhat integral, but not heavily so and setting can be covered in the prose in those cases, with appropriate sourcing of course. One person wanting a place to put the setting is not really a good reason to change the infobox. Some of those other minute details you mentioned have been discussed for removal (and were even removed for a short time), but consensus disagreed with that and they were restored. I personally think aspect ratios, for example, should go. It is not discussed in the article and for the most part is completely irrelevant and just a random trivia statistic, at best. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If fictional details are unwelcome in the template, I understand. It is unfair for me to pull a detail up to the front of an article just to avoid slogging through the prose to find it, although if someone ever brings it up again, I would still consider myself in favor of this change to the template. Thanks for the response, btw. You're very good at this. Rumkles (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Status parameter ?

Has there ever been discussion about what is appropriate in the 'status' parameter? I did an archive search but came up with nothing. I think a list of examples would be helpful, and would also provide some uniformity among pages. The current description for the parameter is just "The status of the show." I've seen a wide variety of things in that section. Just curious, just a suggestion. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be useful to have a set of status'. I can only think of four that really should be needed: on-going, finished, on hiatus, canceled. What about you? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I think needs to be there, I came here for some help/ideas when expanding some new TV show pages. Recently I have seen people using pre-production, in production, Fall 2010, filming, upcoming series, returning, new series, renewed for second season, ending, in development, etc. I was hoping for some standardization. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Future or Upcoming would probably be good. Unfortunately, I don't think any other media infobox uses such a param, so no idea on how best to proceed, however most of those other than "in production" or "upcoming" should be removed/changed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the first task should be to request a BOT to scan existing uses, and list and count each type? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about BOTs and changing/creating guidelines, (I'm still new here) but that sounds like a good idea to me. It would be nice to know what is used most often (even between 'future' and 'upcoming', which to me seem like the same thing.) Unfortunately, I am not about to change these descriptors without a guideline for me to reference. (For example, when I remove flags in the infobox, my edit summary says something like: as per WP:MOS and Template:Infobox television.) Some of the TV pages are watched by editors who, shall I say, "always know best" and I am not about to start a problem without "backup". --Logical Fuzz (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Just ask at WP:BOTREQ, with a link to this discussion. For your latter concern "per consensus on talk page" is often sufficient. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I created a bot request here. If you have a chance, please take a look at it and feel free to edit if you think it needs clarification. Thanks! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No bot is required if you just add a tracking category. If you have the list of the various instances that you would like to count, I can set it up for you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, we might not know all the values being used. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so a database dump report is probably the best choice. I thought you just want to keep track of instances that are not among a list of known values (e.g., all occurrences other than: on-going, finished, on hiatus, canceled, future, and upcoming). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have created a dump report request here. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Data

The dump report is done, data is here. It is from data as of March 12, so while it does not include the recent flurry of activity with new shows/cancellations, it still gives us a picture of the most common comments in the field.

I have tried to combine similar comments (capitalization, spelling variations or errors, citations and wikilinking) below. While combining comments, I have also ignored any further description (such as New Series returning for second season.) These are the top:

• Ended - 969
• Canceled - 64
• Ongoing - 46
• Returning - 39
• Airing - 27
• Canceled/ended - 19
• New series - 14
• On hiatus - 13
• In production - 11
• Current - 11
• Upcoming - 7
• Finished - 5
• Running - 5
• Completed - 5
• Continuing series - 4

then combining like terms. Here are a few comments on possible decisions: (most popular in bold)

• On-going, Airing, Current, Running, Continuing
• Returning, On hiatus, renewed
• Ended, canceled, completed, finished, aired

Do you feel ended should be distinguished from canceled? Does canceled become ended after the season ends?

After that, I get a little confused. Some editors seem to consider a new series as in production:

• New series, upcoming (?)

Once it begins airing does it become 'Airing', or stay as New Series?

• In production, casting, filming, upcoming (?)

Is there any need for pre-production? (IMO, if it's pre-production, should there even be an article?) Syndicated? (Isn't that basically ended?) I didn't see any other useful suggestions in the one-off comments.

It's funny because my suggestions would not have been what is most popular. From looking at what was most popular (thus less pages will differ), my opinion would be to have on-going, returning, and ended. (and canceled?) I'm still at a loss for the earlier stage stuff. What exactly is a new series?

Other suggestions? Comments appreciated. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up

Can we agree a definitive list then run a bot to convert similar terms and/or make the template throw an error message if a different term is used? Or shall we just put a list of suggestions in the documentation? 08:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

For sure a suggested list in the docs. I'd say, at minimum,: on-going, ended, future series (neither "new" nor "upcoming" seems ideal to me and it covers all the phases until actual premiere), Hiatus (which really isn't the same as returning or renewed). I do think we should differentiate between ended and canceled (one is voluntary/planned/natural life cycle, the other not so much). I think the replacements would probably be best done with AWB or the like, rather than a bot, so they can be checked to be sure which term is really correct. With those done, then I'd be fine with the template throwing an error, but then we'd also need to have a bot (after the first clean up) run through and make sure all the casing is correct. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep them all as adjectives, preferably single-word; so "planned" instead of "future series" and, say, "suspended" instead of "hiatus". I think "ended" vs "cancelled" might cause problems due to a grey area between the two extremes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• I changed the template to force a capital.
• Status is odd because, apart from it's only determinable with hindsight Dr Who was apparently "Cancelled" but actually "Suspended" for a decade or so - also a series that is "Airing" may or may not have completed "Production", or it might for a short while be "Cancelled" but have an episode or episodes that is are still in "Production". cWhat status would you puton Itchy and Scratchy? I would have thought the following concepts are what is needed - still scrabbling for suitable words for some of them
  • Proposed/Planned - this can include anything notable that was never made.
  • In production - but not aired
  • Showing/airing/playing/transmitting/uploading - for the first time
  • Off air between seasons (but WP is not a TV guide maybe this is too fine grained?)
  • Finished (apparently) (never mind why)

The other aspect that might be relevant is the release information: DVD/VHS/Blu-Ray/download/VoD ... whatever but that might be better for another template.

Rich Farmbrough, 17:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Theme

Could we have a "theme music" label option not specific to "open" vs. "closing", please? Many shows have just one theme for both opening and closing. 108.1.68.51 (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think a better option would be to make the opening theme parameter leave off "opening" if no closing theme is listed. Or remove both parameters all together, as the theme songs themselves aren't always notable or even known by name, and for long running series, the theme may change several times during its run (though less common with American series, it seems). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I requested this in January but nobody took any notice. :( AnemoneProjectors 00:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I think removing the word "opening" if no closing theme is specified could work, but please don't remove the parameters because in many cases it is notable and known by name, for example, Doctor Who theme music, EastEnders theme tune, Boss of Me, Superman (Lazlo Bane song), The Simpsons Theme, to name just a few I can think of off the top of my head. If it's not known by name then it simply won't be mentioned. AnemoneProjectors 11:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Colouring

See Template talk:Infobox television/colour. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Formatting

{{editprotected}} Could you replace the code with the sandbox? The code there is a bit easier in some locations (e.g. not needing all those ifexpr:), uses {{Official website}} for consistent formatting and the option to change the url with CSS and removes old empty categories. Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion of the changes made. What testing has been done to ensure it doesn't break stuff? I also see more than just the changes mentioned, like the addition of white-space:nowrap (which seems unneeded). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The whitespace thing was already in there, see the diff. Of course, the changes have been tested within Special:ExpandTemplates and worked just fine. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind re-syncronising the sandbox and reapplying your changes? Otherwise any changes applied to the main template since the sandbox was last updated might be lost. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Did it. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I made most of the changes. Would it be useful to have the span class on the production website as well? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Picture format section of infobox

As has been said before 1080i, 1080p, 720p, SD, HD is irrelevant to the viewer as they are transmission systems. They want to know, and where I have the problem, is the picture ratio received at home which has now become more complicated with 4:3, 16:9, 4:3 pan and scan of 16:9 originals and cropped 4:3 broadcast as 16:9 ie; Star Trek Colombo etc. I do a lot of old TV made on 35mm B/W 4/3. They can easily be broadcast as 1080 (Space Patrol a puppet tv series made on film in 1962 is available as blue ray) and using transmission system symbols is very misleading. Any suggestions??REVUpminster (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

True, but these parameters exist under the "Broadcast" header. It can be differ from region, your cable provider or your cable subscription and is currently almost always 480i (SDTV) and 1080i (HDTV), same goes for |Audio_format=. There probably should be a "production" equivalent, which would give the recorded format, not the broadcasted, which would contain info like 35mm 4:3 etc. Although this information is, I believe, for most shows not readily available. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 17:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• This arose because an editor said because it is 1080i it must be widescreen 16:9 but that is not true. I know the option is to just put "film" but that I feel is too vague and covers multitude of picture formats. I'll wait and see any debate.REVUpminster (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk shows

I've gone through the archives and notice that, even though "announcers" are not "narrators", we still shoehorn them into that parameter. Beyond that, however, I think it would be useful to add a parameter for "house_band" or "band", because Late Night with Jimmy Fallon is not starring The Roots; they're the house band. The same goes for: Rickey Minor and The Tonight Show Band; Paul Shaffer and the CBS Orchestra, etc.  Chickenmonkey  20:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Microformat improvements

{{editprotected}} Please change | class10 = description to | class10 = attendee and add the same class name value for classes 7-13; then add | class2 = category and the same for classes 3 and 39. These will give greater meaning to the emitted hCalendar microformat, without any visual changes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 02:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Could I ask you to make the required changes on the /sandbox copy? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine, thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Language

The infobox film template documentation specifies that Language not be a link and the infobox television template documentation specifies that a link should be used for the Language. It seems like they should agree. Here is the comment from the infobox film template documentation.

Note: inserting "English" will not automatically link to English language. This has been done intentionally because readers of the English Wikipedia are already familiar with the language and no benefit is added by placing a link to it. Please do not override this by inserting English.

76.179.180.74 (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Mike Allen 06:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

While indifferent to the matter, I'd like to bring up the template {{English}} which would become obsolete and depreciated if this goes through, I've brought this discussion up over there. Perhaps we could go with the same automatic linking as done in {{Infobox film}}, although I would assume that would require mass changes to current already manually linked parameters. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 09:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Format and Genre

Please look at the That '70s Show article and my comments on the Talk page. If you look at the very recent history of the Infobox for the article, you'll notice that it used to show the format as sitcom (or later period sitcom). I then looked at the template for what format means and found very little guidance. I also looked at the genre keyword in the template. I decided that sitcom must belong in genre (similar to comedy or drama-comedy, etc.), but if I'm wrong about that, please let me know. However, I'm still confused about what format means and the possible descriptions for the format parameter. More specifically, what is the format for That 70's Show?

Any help on format in particular, and genre, less so, would be appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Rating parameter for the infobox?

I was just wondering... What if the infobox would also tell what the show is rated, be it TV-PG, TV-G, or TV-Y7-FV? Would that work?
~~LDEJRuff~~ ^{(see what I've contributed)} 19:32, 14 September 2010 (EDT)

What about other country ratings? Shouldn't they be added too? Mike Allen 00:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This comes up every ones in a while: Archive 1#Rating, Archive 5#Rating, Archive 9#Rating. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 09:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Status

Please indicate what the values for status should be. I'm guessing "cancelled" and "ongoing" or something like that but I'd appreciate clarification and if the template included a few specific examples it would make for greater consistency in articles. -- Horkana (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

See: Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 11#Status parameter ? _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 08:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Description |num_seasons= and |num_episodes=

I find that the description of these should be changed from "produced" to "released". This comes up every once in a while and an old discussion from when the doc was changed ( didn't really have an end. The main issue I have with produced is that it is the exception, it's often not sourced at all, and when sources are given these mostly don't talk about production but about the order they got. Very few sources state when shows have actually finished production, it's often mistaken for ending of filming and what about post-production? Going with episodes aired is much more streamlined and gets rid of the very few places that use produced. I would go with "released" rather than "aired" in case of unaired episodes which are released on DVD or online. Saying this, I have only seen a real issue about this at Dollhouse some time ago, the rest have always been based on production order rather than sourced information about the number of episodes produced. Basically the episodes released are used pretty much everywhere. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 21:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Italicization of the show's name

{{editprotected}} When wiki italic marks are used in the show_name, the title of the article is not italicized.

Article title italicized:

| show_name = Show name

Article title not italicized:

| show_name = ''Show name''

Someone should clarify this and make a note or a comment on the Template page that including wiki italic marks for show_name does not italicize the article title. XP1 (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this type of formatting. Changing the displayed title should only be done for cases like "eBay" and similar. This doesn't meet the criteria to change the name. Or am I missing some consensus somewhere where italic titles are allowed for television shows and films? Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 11:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:ITALICTITLE, says it should. The link you provide mentioned the template used for this, {{Italic title}}. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Sorry for not checking through. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 05:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That's because the template only italicizes the article title when it's the exact same as the one in |show_name=, which excludes addition markups there and disambiguated pages. Also |show_name= is already italicized so no-one should manually italicize that parameter. {{Italic title infobox}} exists, which should work fine here as well, It's deployed at {{Infobox album}}. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's deployed at {{Infobox film}} as well. This was the edit made, and it's better than just {{Italic title}} because you can include parameters in the infobox like |italic title=no to prevent italics or |italic title=force to force italics, especially for titles with symbols (like it was applied for (500) Days of Summer) or titles that more than 50 characters. I put together guidelines at MOS:FILM#Article italics; feel free to copy. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please make the required changes to Template:Infobox television/sandbox and when you have reached an agreement, reactivate the request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Image size

Can we "codify" the standard 250px width used for the intertitle images? Thumperward wants to change all the image sizes in favor of using frameless which would reduce its size everywhere from the currently 250px width. In the process can we adopt the different parameters (|image=, |image size=, |alt=) for the different image properties as done in other infoboxes (film, person, …)? _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 09:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't reduce the size in all cases: users who have changed their default thumbnail size would have the image scaled appropriately. Using frameless also means that images smaller than 250px are not upscaled (which is undesirable). {{infobox film}} already uses frameless, following the discussion at template talk: infobox film/Archive 17#Default image size. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Chris, I see no reason to go against policy (WP:IMGSIZE) on this. If you want the images bigger you can use the image size setting in your preferences, which will change the size of all images using "thumb" and "frameless". -- d'oh! _[talk] 09:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to mess up the article for everyone without special preferences. There is a clear precedent to use 250px. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

How is the article "messed up" without the forced image size? The larger image maybe good for users with larger screens but what about users with smaller screens? Also the image size also resizes the infobox from the standard size. Also precedent isn't a good reason to override the policy. -- d'oh! _[talk] 10:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The policy leaves an opening just for this, the precedent is to use 250px, doing that is perfectly within the policy boundaries, and does not "override" the policy. 220px is smaller than the infobox itself and creates wasted space on both sides, for users with small screens replacing image with white space makes no difference. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Frameless seems to be a sensible default to me. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What is the advantage to having this over this? It just seems silly to me. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

They both look the same to me, with the first one matching the box width and the second one just making the box larger? Perhaps your font size is different in your browser? I believe this is the central problem. If you define the infobox width in "em" units and the image in "px" units, then it assumes a particular font size. For example, it looks entirely different on my iPhone. By the way, you can still framless and get something that is 10 percent wider using "frameless|upright=1.1", for example. However, given that the appearance is browser dependent when you start mixing em and px units, tweaking it might make it look different in your browser, but have an undesirable effect in someone else's browser. But, every user has the chance to override the width used by "thumb" and "frameless", not so with hardcoded px units. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you try logging out before checking? Logged out, on every one of the randomly chosen PCs that I've checked out of the 120 I have available, the first is consistently smaller than the infobox while the second neatly fits the infobox. Logged in, the frameless version is ridiculously tiny because I have my default at 180px. As I sid to d'oh! on my talk page, there's nothing to be gained by making an infobox image smaller than the minimum width of the infobox. The only exception is when the image is so tall as to make the infobox excessively long. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

There also seem to be some confusion about consensus, as per WP:CONLIMITED the current consensus is for "frameless", to go back to "250px" there need to be wide consensus to go against policy, WP:IMGSIZE or a good reason is put forward (which has consensus) as per the policy. Also from now on I am viewing any reverts of "frameless" in articles as vandalism. -- d'oh! _[talk] 08:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If only WP:IMGSIZE would say that images can benifit from other sizes but the standard size and that in those cases forcing the size is perfectly acceptable. Oh wait, it does! There is no "going back to 250px" the person changing all of this is you, from the current 250px to frameless. Your stance is quite arrogant. Especially since you're going out of your way editing on articles you have never edited before just to press your preferred view trough. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 09:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

(EC)There certainly seems to be some confusion so please let me clear it up for you. The template instructions currently say "An image relevant to the show. Should be resized to a width of 300 pixels or below", and have done since 10 March 2007, when the template was first fully documented. "Frameless" is not mentioned anywhere in the instructions, nor does "frameless" appear anywhere in the archives of the talk page, so "frameless" is not the current consensus for this template. Viewing reversion of your changes can not be viewed as vandalism. I think you should read the policy on that. However, bulldozing your edits into the various articles as you have, against opposition by other editors in the absence of any consensus to use frameless, and only frameless, can certainly be seen as edit-warring. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Template instructions can not override policy, the instruction says nothing about copyright does that mean I can ignore the copyright policy? No, of cause not. Again the policy clearly says there needs to be a "good reason" when not using "frameless" and "thumb", and both of you hasn't offered one yet. I am not arrogant, I am just sick of my edits to TV show articles getting reverted even when they are within policy and/or received support from other editors, then have to spend time creating arguments for them, when I could be spending that time improving the articles. I don't care which one is used as long as there a clear consensus for one, which is currently "frameless". -- d'oh! _[talk] 09:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:IMGSIZE says "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so", not "do not ever, under any circumstances define the size of an image". There are no good reasons for making the image size less than the minimum size of the infobox as I explained on my talk page when you brought the discussion there. If you have problems with the instructions here, then you need to gain consensus to change. You can't simply choose to ignore the instructions and then brush off the concerns of those who are doing what the instructions say to do. We work on consensus, not "I'm right and you're wrong because policy says. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You are the one doing the lawyering with this comment, if there is a wide support not to use "frameless", I will have no trouble with it, and by wide support I mean across the whole project not just one or two WikiProjects. Also this revert[1] and the fact you are not addressing the other people's arguments here shows how little you care about other editors ideas or concerns. If its such a "horrible colour" why didn't you change it to a better colour instead of just half reverting it to make a point and creating a problem, which is white text on a light blue background. Finally I am not ignoring the instructions, they say the image should be resized to 300px or less, "frameless" is within that requirement. The fact you both want to only use 250px requires consensus to change the instructions. -- d'oh! _[talk] 10:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The simple fact is, there is currently no consensus to use only "frameless" in this template. Nothing you have said above changes this. The reversion I made to {{CastleTV}} is not relevant to this discussion. Please stay on-topic. Your changes to "frameless" are predicated on supposed compliance with WP:IMGSIZE, and when you are reverted you warn people not to revert again and state you will view any further reversion of your edits as vandalism. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and you clearly are demonstrating an unwillingness to collaborate. I have to agree with Xeworlebi, your stance is quite arrogant. Until such time as this changes, I don't see how we're going to get anywhere. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's fairly simple, currently 250px is used, this has been so for years, which is not a violation of the policy, and is perfectly acceptable. The fact that the policy does not forbid this, but allows it, makes that current consensus on individual wikiprojects and templates trough editing still holds, you want to change this to frameless. That would require a new consensus here, since current practice is within the policy boundaries. Just because a new format becomes the preferred one higher up does not mean that other formats are banned from use on individual wikiprojects and templates. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

In the best interest of the project and avoiding a large scale war, I am dropping it, but I hope the idea of using "frameless" images in the television infobox is at least looked as a option. -- d'oh! _[talk] 17:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it seems as though there is no consensus for either option. The entire image size thing with infoboxes will always be a problem so long as we are using "px" units for images and "em" units for the width of the box. The width of the box will depend on the width of the font, and resizing the font resizes the box without resizing the image. That's not to say we should use "px" units for the infobox, since W3 guidelines suggest always using relative rather than absolute units. So long as there are variations in browsers, and people tweaking options, there is no way to please everyone. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

language linking

In the "language" field would it be alright to link to the local variant of English such as American English for an American TV show or Australian English for an Australian TV show (something I'm thinking of doing for the CNNNN and Neighbours articles). Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Italics

{{editrequest}} The template currently links to {{italictitle}}. This is a redirect to {{Italic title}}. Could someone please change this to link to the page directly rather than the redirect? Mhiji (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but this is really rather pointless, per WP:2RD. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Italic implementation

{{Edit protected}} I would like to request that the way the italic title is implemented be changed. Change {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{{show_name}}}|{{italictitle}}|}} to {{Italic title infobox|{{{italic title|}}}}}, this is used in several other templates and allows forcing italics (for including brackets) and turning it off. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This would affect existing uses (if show_name is not equal to PAGENAME. Therefore I think this might need further thought/discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It is used at {{Infobox film}}, {{Infobox book}}, {{Infobox album}}, all templates which use it. It will finally italicize all the disambiguated TV articles, |italic title=no can disable it, both which are current problems with the way it is setup here. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Per above - needs to be changed to italicize all the disambiguated TV articles. Mhiji (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay,  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

how to override italicization

Now that the infobox has automatic italicization of an article's title text, how does one override that for articles whose titles are not television series (e.g. Fred Figglehorn)? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a function listed above that does it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, like this. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone should update the documentation ... Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah; it was the documentation on the template's front page that I looked at for the option. Since I didn't see it there, I didn't think to check the talk page to see if it had been discussed and implemented. My apologies. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox television season

Discussion moved to Template talk:Infobox television season#Italic titles

I thought that I'd raise the issue here, rather than at Template talk:Infobox television season because that template has very few people watching it and this is related to an issue recently addressed here. I'm hoping somebody here will be able to come up with a far better fix for this problem. User:Mhiji has added "italic_title" to {{Infobox television season}} resulting in almost all of the title text becoming italicised. For example, List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 1) becomes "List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 1)", when the title should be "List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 1)" His method of resolving this is to go to every article that uses {{Infobox television season}} (1,156 articles) and add "|italic_title=no" to the infobox. This seems to be the wrong way to fix the issue and I'm sure there is a far better resolution to the problem he has introduced. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC) I think this is better brought up at {{Italic title infobox}}, and request that specific markups can be added in that parameter, so that you can place |italic_title=List of ''The Big Bang'' episodes (season 1) and have it auto format that way, or possibly make a season specific way to use |italic_title=list and have it auto-format using the known List of … episodes (season …) title format and |show_name=. No idea if thats even possible. On a side note, {{Infobox television season}} could use a major overhaul. Xeworlebi (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC) In the meantime, it now appears that where a season article is at "List of X episodes (season y)", as is specified at Template:Episode list#Sublists, he's moving the articles to "X (season y)" to fix the problem he's introduced. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC) I've reverted this for the shows I watch (Numb3rs, Two Guys and a Girl), but looking at the contributions, he's going all in. I've requested on Mhiji's talk page to stop these moves. Xeworlebi (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC) If there's a better suggestion that would be great. User:Xeworlebi's idea sounds good. I don't really see the method as "incredibly inefficient". Of the 1156 articles, only 184 are "list of...". And I've changed all of these already and updated the template doc so don't really see why there's an issue. The majority of these titles are incorrect anyway per WP:TV-NC which states for episode lists should be on a single page, e.g. "List of Knight Rider episodes" or organised by season e.g. (24 (season 3), In Bed with Medinner (series 1)). I've stopped these moves for now but I am just following the policy guidelines... Mhiji (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC) WP:TV-NC is incredibly outdated and hasn't been updated for a long time, and lacks in quite some things including "List of" pages. Template:Episode list#Sublists states current use for this. So you're just moving 184 articles? I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous, and should simply not be done without any type of discussion. If 16% of the subject articles are named differently that should be an indicator that it isn't a mistake, but done so purposely. Anything that includes a template wide alteration, as this is, we use this template to achieve italics wiki wide, is way more efficient that going true thousands of articles and adjust it manually, that's why we use these templates, and not just place {{Italic title}} on every subject article, that is incredibly inefficient. Xeworlebi (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC) While "only" 184 articles may have been affected now, a look at Mhiji's edit history shows that almost 400 edits were necessary to correct the problem introduced by a single edit to the template. That's not inefficient? As I indicated on my talk page, by default the infobox should display the title in the least troublesome manner. In this case that's using standard formatting for the title, not italicising it. What happens in an article where somebody tries to correct the title? Has that even been checked? When new episode lists are created, users often copy and paste a template from an existing series, rather than using a brand new one. It's not what they should be doing, but they do it anyway. For each new "List of" article that is created, the Mhiji implementation of italic titles is likely to result in an error that somebody will have to fix, an eror that wouldn't be necessary with the correct, or no, implementation. This too is inefficient. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I agree if their is a better way to implement this that would be great. If you have a better ideas please do suggest it. I agree placing {{Italic title}} on every subject article would have been incredibly inefficient. That's why instead of doing that (adding it to 972 articles) I added this to the infobox (in the same way it has been done on many others) and then added |italic_title=no to the 184. I figured that was more efficient. No I'm not moving 184 articles. I didn't say that...? I was moving those in the format "List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 1)" to "The Big Bang Theory (season 1)" per WP:TV-NC. I wasn't going to touch those in the format "List of Knight Rider episodes". I usually follow the policy guidelines rather than go to a template I have never used and look half way down the doc there. Mhiji (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Also where did you get "almost 400 edits" from? There were only 184 articles which I added |italic_title=no to. That's 184 edits. Mhiji (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Have a look at your edit history. There are a lot more than 184 edits involved in this debacle. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC) There are two "debacles" here. One is the problem we've been discussing here and the other is that there is an inconsistency in the way articles have been named. Granted, I have made over 400 edits in the last day or so, but only 184 of them (where I added |italic_title=no) were related to the first "debacle". Mhiji (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC) And with regards to the naming conventions, if you don't like WP:TV-NC then your welcome to discuss changing it. But for now I'm going to follow the guideline there. Mhiji (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC) The same could be said to you with regard to Template:Episode list#Sublists, which I noticed that you changed to suit your POV. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I've not been following this closely, but it does seem very odd to me that an infobox template would affect the title of an article. It breaks the single responsibility principle and the principle of least astonishment. Its good programming practice to have one function performing a single task, in this case producing and infobox. Having a infobox affect the title is also going to confuse editor when they try to work out what caused the title of an article to change. Simply using {{|Italic title}}{{infobox television| ...}} seems the easiest and most controllable solution.--Salix (talk): 08:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC) {{Italic title}} has been added to lots of high profile infoboxes {{Infobox film}}, {{Infobox album}} {{Infobox television}}, {{Infobox book}}, {{Infobox newspaper}}, {{Infobox video game}} and others, based upon consensus. Surely this makes much more sense than having to add the template to thousands of articles individually? Mhiji (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I've started a discussion at Template_talk:Italic_title#List_of_X_episodes with regards to possibly getting a fix for this. Mhiji (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC) For "Infobox television season" the names are nearly all "Show Name (season/series N)". Add italictitle there. The few (List of..) shouldn't really be using that template and can be treated individually. Agreed? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Agreed. You may also be interested in the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television)#Massive_page_moves_on_season_articles_by_Mhiji. Mhiji (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I wouldn't call a fifth of the articles (16%) "a few". Xeworlebi (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC) You keep using this figure of 16%... That's just what you've worked out for the articles which use this template. That does not accurately reflect all of the television season articles on Wikipedia. There are lots television season articles which do not use this template. Also depending on the outcome of the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television)#Massive_page_moves_on_season_articles_by_Mhiji, this would mean there would be a lot lot less "List of..." articles. Even if the figure was 16% (I'm sure it's not), this is relatively few compared to the other 84% which are in the form "X (season Y)", for which {{italic title}} would work on. Surely it makes sense to have the default to make the "84%" correct and then sort out the rest? Mhiji (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC) The 16% came from you… (184/1156) and no, 84% and the half ass the rest is not a good way to approach this. Xeworlebi (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, but, as I said, that 16% does not represent all articles on Wikipedia. What do you mean by half-ass? I added |italic_title=no to all of the articles affected. Meaning that all of the articles in the form "X (season Y)" were italicised correctly and all of the ones in the form "List of X episodes" were not italicised at all (just as they were before I made any edits). I'd say making all of the articles which use this infobox in the format "X (season Y)" and making it so that all the other were unaffected is very successful, not "half assed".... Mhiji (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I've readded the italic functionality with a conditional parser so it doesn't use italic title if the page name starts "List of". Compare The X-Files (season 2) (italicised) whereas List of Highlander: The Raven episodes is not. Hopefully this compromise fits all. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC) That's excellent thanks very much. Mhiji (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I knew there was a better way. Thanks. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion

Discussion moved to Template talk:Infobox television season#DVD release date

This is about Infobox television season, but as that place is a ghost town I'm posting here. With the ever-increasing releases of television seasons on formats other than DVD, I propose that we change the "DVD release date" and format fields to something more general. Perhaps "disc release date" or "compilation release date". However, such a change will have to be done in a manner that will prevent breaking every single instance of the template, and I have to admit I'm not 100% how to do that. --Dorsal Axe 20:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Documentation

Can we change the doc to say that |num_episodes= should be the number of episodes released? Currently it says it should be the number of episodes produced. This is in my experience the extreme exception, I've only seen once someone trying to add it with a source. The information of production ending is incredibly scarce, and for the one time I saw a source added, it talked about ending of filming not ending of production. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Italics

{{editprotected}} Since Template:Infobox has now been changed so that it allows italics, could someone change the code to reflect this please rather than using {{Italic title infobox}} (similar to how its been implemented at {{Infobox book}}, {{Infobox album}}, {{Infobox newspaper}}, {{Infobox play}} etc etc.)? Mhiji (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. — Edokter • Talk • 00:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Documentation out of date?

To override header-italicisation, rather than "|italic title=no", apparently what's now required is "|italictitle=no". Can someone please tweak the documentation -- or better yet, have the template accept either? Over at Dennis Miller, I just had to go through one exercise to find out why it was being wrongly italicised, and then another to work out why the documented fix wasn't working.

I'd question whether it was any sort of good idea to do this in the first place. "False positives" in which non-TV show-names end up in header italics are, to my mind, much worse than "false negatives" in which TV shows end up in plain text. And are going to be harder to find and fix -- especially if no-one is actually looking for them. Smartiger (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah this should have had been tested before it was massively rolled out. —Mike Allen 04:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That is not the Wiki way! :/ Ideally, if someone wise to this issue were to check existing transclusions, that would be a lot more time-effective than having numerous non-template-savvy topical editors banging their heads on a case by case basis... Smartiger (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done The doc's been updated. Mhiji (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Website

Unresolved

{{editprotected}} Please change

[{{{website}}} Official website]

to

{{{website}}}

so that the URL is exposed to the reader, as with other major infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: That would lose the information that the URL is for the official website. An alternative would be the following approach:

|label44 = Official website
|data44  = {{{website|}}}

But making that change would require a consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree the URL should be exposed but would support MSGJ's approach above. Mhiji (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

However I would prefer just Website rather than having the word official for simplicity and for consistency with other infoboxes. Mhiji (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Some URLs are quite lenghty, so we cannot simply display it without breaking the infobox. Here's another suggestion:

[{{{website}}} <span title="{{{website}}}">Official website</span>]

This will explose the URL as a hint. — Edokter • Talk • 15:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Optionally, a website_title parameter could be added:

[{{{website}}} <span title="{{{website}}}">{{{website_title|Official}}} website</span>]

— Edokter • Talk • 15:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've implemented my changes, since there has been no objections. — Edokter • Talk • 23:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This does not expose the URL on the page; nor include it in the emitted microformat. Please find a solution which does so, or make the change I requested. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hoover your mouse over the link; you will see the link. As for the microformat... you need to fill me in on that. — Edokter • Talk • 00:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but I know what a tooltip is; my point stands. The microformat is explained in this template's documentation. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(←) Microformat fixed. But why does the URL need to be exposed in al is't ugliness? If it is too long, you get unwieldly formatting errors. — Edokter • Talk • 15:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No; you've not fixed the microformat - each now has a URL value like "Production website" or "Official website" rather than a valid URL. URLs are, in this context, data and we shouldn't be hiding data. Calling them "ugly" is a personal value judgement. If the infobox can't display them properly then it should be fixed; other infoboxes seem to manage. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

What other infoboxes are you talking about? Remember that this template is first and formost for displaying visual information, machines come second. And on a side note, perhaps the links should be removed all together and moved the the External links section... just like all other major infoboxes? — Edokter • Talk • 18:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Lots of major infoboxes display URLs visually. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Please list some examples. There is no way I can help if I don't know what templates you're talking about. — Edokter • Talk • 00:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

{{Infobox person}}, {{Infobox building}}, {{Infobox musical artist}}, {{Infobox company}} - but I don't recall asking you to help me; I've explained what needs to be done, others have proposed minor (and acceptable to me) tweaks, and you and no-one else have objected to it, and made an inferior and flawed change. You've stated that this infobox can't handle it and - wrongly - that "all other major infoboxes" don't, either. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

(←) Yes, I am actually trying to help... I'm just trying to do it right. Your original proposal would not have caused the microformat to be emitted, because simply passing an URL does not trigger the microformat. Now that I have looked at the other templates, I see the the first three instruct to use {{URL}} to list the website (and which optionally hides the URL), but {{infobox company}} does not, so it doens't emit a microformat because {{URL}} is not mentioned in it's documentation). I can incorporate {{URL}} in the template in such a way that let the editors decide wether to expose the URL or not, while not interfering with the microformat. Would that be OK? — Edokter • Talk • 23:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt... But I'd object to that. (I hope I'm understanding what you're saying correctly - sorry if not...). I don't think we should give editors the option as to whether to expose the URL or not on a case by case basis. We should have consistency across all television articles (either to display the URL or not). It doesn't make sense to me to have some articles which do and some which don't, just based on the personal preference of the editor at the time. This could create unnecessary edit-warring too. But I agree incorporating {{URL}} into the template code would be great - this is far more user friendly as the editor then just has to enter the bare URL and nothing more (just as it is at the moment - nothing would need to be changed on article pages) and the microformat is added too. Mhiji (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Very well, then I would have to take out website_title, because as I understand it, {{URL}} only exposes the "displayed" text as microformat, leaving a bare URL as the only option. What to do with production_website? We can't have two URL in microformat. — Edokter • Talk • 23:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it would not; and most of the statements which precede your question are false. I have never claimed that the proposed change would caused the microformat to be emitted. - it already is. {{infobox company}} emits a microformat, regardless of the use of {{URL}}. There is no need to incorporate {{URL}} in this template. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

URL Microformat is only emitted when the URL is wrapped in an .url class, so now your statement is inacurate. Without {{URL}} or a manually added span class="url", there is no microformat. The documentation also states that. So I am still left with what to do with the website_title and the production_website. — Edokter • Talk — 21:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing inaccurate in my statement. The microformat exists regardless of the presence of {{URL}} or a manually added span class="url". The documentation states nothing to the contrary. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have now incorporated {{URL}} into the template. According to all the documentation I have read with regard to microformats, this should guarantee that the URL is emitted. — Edokter • Talk — 22:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against removing these from the infobox. Take The West Wing, the exposed URL is ridiculous. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I know... I fixed that. I have no idea why it was exposed twice... perhaps too long? — Edokter • Talk — 22:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

what the .....: Stargate SG-1 :(( Vilnisr ^{T | C} 09:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly what I warned Andy about. As a workaround, add website_title=(something) to the template to hide the link. — Edokter • Talk — 13:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this is not practical. Microformat or no microformat, the old way was much better. Garion96 (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If a URL was shown twice, that is nothing to do with its length; nothing to do with the microformat, and is not something you have ever warned about, it would seem to be due entirely to your error. I again refer you to the above list of highly-use infoboxes, all of which show a URL and include it in the emitted microformat with no such drama. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I looked again, and they all use {{URL}} (at least they instruct you to use it). Infobox itself has microformat support, but you must add the classes using the class parameters. In short: simply passing the url does NOT generate a microformat. I warned again misformed infobox display, and that is what happened. Anyway, since {{URL}} is now used, I don't see any more problems. The microformat is there; it is just not shown on-screen. — Edokter • Talk — 21:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)#

The fact that you don't perceive the problems (that you have caused) doesn't mean that they don't exist. While you persist in denying the problem, you're unlikely to stumble across a solution. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

better restore the old format Vilnisr (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here is an idea. How about if we do the following: (1) Create a new field which allows for passing of a formatted URL like, e.g. using the {{URL}} template, (2) Convert all the existing uses to a functionally equivalent version (by bot), then (3) deprecate the old parameter. Then, people can tweak the formating on a case-by-case basis. For example, if you check {{Infobox musical artist}}, it exposes the URL and calls it URL. I don't have a strong opinion on the parameter name, but it would seem that having flexibility there would be useful. What do you think? I could file a WP:BRFA if there is consensus that this is a viable path forward. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That might work, but seems an awful lot of effort compared to the requested change, which is in line with the workings of the major-use templates I gave as examples, above. I note that no substantive reason has been given, not to implement that change (with subsequently-proposed tweaks). Over-long URLs has been given as a hypothetical problem, but no evidence that this will actually cause issues has been cited, and it doesn't seem to affect the listed infoboxes. Commonality of function across templates is surely also better for the project? Furthermore, though your change didn't make a material difference, the template is currently emitting an invalid URL microformat value for every instance. In the short term, all the recent edits to URL parameters should be reverted. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not hypothetical when multiple articles were pointed out to be affected during that time. Two specific articles were mentioned at the time, The West Wing (pointed out by me) was messed up (till the URL was changed shortly afterwards), and Stargate SG-1 (pointed out by Vilnisr). But also Stargate Atlantis and Stargate Universe were entirely messed up with the inbox getting twice as wide as it's now due to the URL being long (stargate.mgm.com/view/series/1/index.html for SG-1). I would like to ask that all future edits to this URL format are tested out first in the sandbox before implemented, come up with the appropriate code, test it out in the sandbox and do an {{Edit protected}} request. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Those articles were messed up because the change implemented was a broken one; not that proposed or discussed above; which are akin to those in the example templates given. You will need to ask the editor who made those changes why he did not sandbox his, different, changes. The problem with Stargate URL is, chiefly, the superflous "index.html" suffix. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No, exposing the URL exposes the entire URL, which is what you want, the implementation was not broken. You have removed the index.html but that doesn't fix the issue, it's a mere patch for those articles. Exposing the URL as you want it causes problems, for which you have provided no answer. What is currently in place is still the best option, unless you can give a way to magically shrink long URL's. Not to mention that in some cases it just looks stupid, TV websites are usually subpages of the network, unlike the other templates you have given were normally they have no nothing after the .com. I think it's time to stop telling everyone that what they did was wrong or broken and instead come up with a functional answer yourself. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 13:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There were reports if URLs displaying twice; if so the implementation was broken. My recent edits to remove index.html from URLs in the infoboxes on three SG articles were to remove the aforesaid redundancy; not fix anything else, since the template currently does not expose the URL and does emit bogus metadata. You have yet to identify any problems caused by the requested edit, or to say why those problems will occur here, but do not in the more widely-used infoboxes given as examples, above. Saying something "looks stupid", with out giving an example, much less a demonstration of such stupidity, is merely an unsupported personal opinion. Since my proposal has not yet been implemented, how can you say how it looks, in any case? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal was shot down by the first responder MSGJ, you have yet to come up with a solution to that. Long exposed URL will mess up the infobox, that is the case, period, there don't have to be examples, I cant even show you an example because the template works just fine now and does not mess up articles, which exposing the URL will cause, just use some common sense. Please actually try to help, you're bossing everyone around to do what you say, instead of coming up with a solution like other people here have tried. And yes "looks stupid" is my opinion, and my example was the Stargate articles, do I really have to add that after every sentence? _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No, MSGJ suggested a minor modification to the labelling, which I've already indicated more than once I'm happy with. Why would you want to present the facts as anything other than that? Sating "Long exposed URL will mess up the infobox, that is the case, period, there don't have to be examples…" carries no more weight than your last unsupported personal opinion. I'm not "bossing everyone around", and that's bordering on a personal attack. I've already provided a working solution with examples of other infoboxes which cope admirably. I've already refuted the example of the Stargate articles, which were broken by a change other than the one proposed here; and where the URLs used were needlessly bloated. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Previewing

(←) Just for the sake of it, I've implemented what you appear to be wanting in the sandbox, now just go to Stargate Universe change {{Infobox television}} with {{Infobox television/sandbox}} and preview it, even with the /index.html removed it's still messed up. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 16:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not messed up at all here (albeit it would look better with the use of {{URL}}, which would suppress the http:// prefix); it looks just like such URLs do in the four high-use infoboxes cited above. Perhaps, if it's broken with your device & settings, you should post a screen-shot? Or at least define "messed up"? Incidentally, though it doesn't affect the rendering, what you've implemented isn't what I asked for. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The entire infobox is stretched out, creating about 10 pixels of white space on both sides and causing all the labels to wrap around. Using {{URL}} only messes it up more, creating stargate.mgm.com/view/series/3//view/series/3/. If that's not what was asked for by you and what MSGJ said, which you stated that you are happy with, then I give up on trying to understand what you're asking for, as I used the exact code provided by MSGJ. I can only suggest you more clearly state what you want, preferably just doing it in the sandbox. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

{{URL|stargate.mgm.com/view/series/3/}} (i.e. stargate.mgm.com/view/series/3/ ) renders as stargate.mgm.com/view/series/3/ (my emboldening, and obviously linked) and not what you have given. This is true inside the infobox, when I preview it as you suggest, and there is no issue with white space or wrapping tables, such as you describe. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

{{URL|http://stargate.mgm.com/view/series/3/}} results in stargate.mgm.com/view/series/3//view/series/3/. It clearly breaks on URLs with the http://-part prefixed, so that is out the door. While the other infoboxes usually deal with short www.[...].com. links, TV series usually have longer URLs that this infobox can simple not accomodate. — Edokter • Talk — 18:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have discovered a bug in {{URL}}; which I've now reported on its talk page. Even without a fix, it doesn't preclude the requested change, which envisions {{URL}} being applied on a case-by-case basis. The length of the URL only appears to be an issue when it is subject to this bug. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict), what Edokter said, unless you are planning to go trough every article to check and fix this. Anyway I tried it on both Safari and Chrome and the issue I have described is present, preview image, clearly this is neither desirable nor acceptable. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If the requested change is applied, there will be no need to "go trough every article to check and fix this", because no articles will be changed until {{URL}} is applied locally. It's impossible to see how you think the rendering in your browser is broken, unless you also supply a screenshot of the same infobox before the change. However, it does appear that the browser you have used does not wrap URLs (unlike, say, Firefox: see screenshot). We shouldn't be restricted by such browser deficiencies. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Comparison image, you can only imaging how a longer URL will cause havoc (if you can't, well then I don't know anymore). But yes, we are restricted by what the browser renders, it is unacceptable to create a wikipedia which only works normally for Firefox and ignore the rest of the world, simply unacceptable. The "no-problem-with-me-so-do-it-and-screw-everybody-else"-approach is not an acceptable way to proceed. And please tell what the requested change is that will not affect any article unless {{URL}} is used, because there has been no such proposal presented here. It is impossible to implement the changes if we don't even know what they are. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Although it's not really the core issue here, the bug in {{URL}} has been fixed. If there is interest, I can have URL remove trailing slashes, index.html, index.php, ... It would add some complexity, but would further shorten some URLs. However, that can be discussed at Template talk:URL if anyone is interested. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Now the bug has been fixed, may we proceed with this? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Based on, co-executive producers and (s) removal

Can we add the parameters |based_on= and |co-executive_producers=, these are currently tacked on with |creator= and |executive_producer= and can make a mess of info in parentheses in the infobox. Some of the names were changed to omit the (s) at the end some time ago, I would like to see the remaining also removed: Composer(s) → Composed by, Producer(s) → Produced by, Editor(s) → Edited by, Location(s) → Filmed at or Produced at. And if someone can come up with some names without (s) for Creative director(s), Language(s), Executive producer(s), Production company(s). Thanks. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 13:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Seasonal infobox overhaul

I have some proposed changes for {{Infobox television season}}, please see Template talk:Infobox television season#Template overhaul for the proposed template overhaul. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 21:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Dates in infobox

It is my understanding, and edits by various editors over a considerable amount of time have backed this up, to not add future dates to the infobox: such as |first_aired=, which is only filled in when the premiere has happened; |last_aired=, which is only filled in when the finale has actually aired. The same applies to |num_episodes=, which is only updated after the episode has been released, and is thus updated after each broadcast; and |num_seasons=/|num_series= which and is only updated after the season/series premiere has been released. 117Avenue does not believe that this common practice applies there and believes this "isn't right" and wants to follow the letter of the documentation, which the wording to me implies the past already, but does not explicitly state "only past dates". So, am I somehow wrong in my understanding of this common practice? And do we need to alter the documentation to reflect this and explicitly state it? _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you are correct; I have left a note for 117Avenue at the article talk page. As for clarifying the documentation, that is (as always) an ongoing process... --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong about the number of episodes, the documentation says that if there is a reliable source, you can enter more than the number aired. 117Avenue (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This has been debated repeatedly, and the consensus has been established to avoid doing that. What you are referring to is invoked in the case of a series that is cancelled before all of the produced episodes have aired. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, these conventions should be explained in the documentation. 117Avenue (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've now updated the documentation as to avoid further confusion in the future. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• I just noticed that the original airdate (field 'first_aired') seems to display the date twice in the live infobox. Is this a programming error in the template? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No issue here, you have an example? _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from John May's Assassin, 8 April 2011

I Would Like To Access This page to Add Invisible Text In The Country Box <!-- Please No Flags Here --> As It Would Enphasise What is Said In The Attributes for That Section

If Not Please Set Another Person on the Task John May's Assassin (talk • message • contribs • page moves • deleted contribs • summary • count • total • logs • block log • block • email)

07:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Please, specify precisely what changes need to be made. Ruslik_Zero 19:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. The template code itself is rarely seen by editors. But it may be a good idea to put the comment in the sample code on the documentation. — Edokter (talk) — 19:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)