Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

how to get rid of flags

Just put into your Special:mypage/monobook.css

.flagicon {display: none}

-- Agathoclea (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey it works aswell! Nice one. (FTR, I still think all flags should be removed anyway.) CJ2005B (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

resulting in ..

sample

Agathoclea (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Panelists

I recommend adding an optional "panelists" field to the infobox just below "presenter" for use on panel shows. This can be used for team captains and regular panelists on game shows (e.g. for the team captains on Have I Got News For You, A Question of Sport, etc) and regular panelists on discussion programmes (e.g. Loose Women, The View, etc). This way we avoid having to use the "starring" field for non-fiction shows and the "presenter" field for participants who are not the actual presenter. Bradley0110 (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 18:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree. We already have presenter, starring, narrator, judges, and voices. Yet another field is unnecessary. We use presenter for host, no reason not to use starring or judges for panelists. Maybe what we really need is a way to change "Starring" to say different things depending on the option used, rather than continuing just adding the same field with different wording. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is with more fields. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Flag usage

As per WP:Flags#Help_the_reader_rather_than_decorate , this template should not use a flag Gnevin (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Note -- This is also currently being discussed at Talk:Doctor_Who#Flag in infobox. TheProf - T / C 11:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This has also in the past been discussed above (here). As the template guidelines have included the use of flags for a long, long time, they should not be removed until there is consensus to remove. Once there is consensus, by all means change it, but not before. _TalkIslander 13:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the discussion that has already occurred over at Talk:Doctor Who is actually quite useful, albeit in the wrong place, so I've copied it to below:

---

All TV show articles have flags in their infoboxes. I don't see why this one should'nt! WP:Flag in not totally clear on flags in infoboxes. Thanks TheProf - T / C 17:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Television specifically shows an example flag in its specification. In the absence of a compelling reason NOT to have one, I suggest we go with the flow and keep it. If the argument prevails the other way, of course, those proposing it would be free to update that template & go round every single television programme removing the flags. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of a compelling reason NOT to have one how about policy ? Wikipedia:Flags#Help_the_reader_rather_than_decorate, clear . Now just because other articles have it doesn't mean this article should be wrong . What does having a flag here add and no all TV shows/movies have them ,they are being removed slowly see South Park Gnevin (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The policy is not clear. And the fact that Template:Infobox Television has one in its example is a good reason to keep it! As for the South Park article. In the infobox, [[United States]] should be changed to {{USA}}! I would do it right now, however, i feel it may lead to an edit war. Which i don't want to happen on any article! TheProf - T / C 17:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

When policy is unclear, as it is here, consensus should prevail, and I propose we give sufficient time for a consensus to develop. This is, remember, a featured article, and it became one with the flag IIRC. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and its logical corollary are never good reasons for making decisions. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The policy is clear , Don't decorate!. I've removed the flag in Template:Infobox Television it was wrong . Just because other articles have flags doesn't mean they are correct . Please discuss the merits of the flag as applies here Gnevin (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's still in the template. How about you fight it out on the template's talk page and come back when you've got a leg to stand on? --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's a little unfair. The policy is unclear as to what constitues decoration and what does not. However, from a purely practical point of view, it's arguably more constructive to challenge the policy where it is stated than to go round the entire encyclopedia applying a personal interpretation. I found that out when I practised law. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Don't decorate" is highly interpretive language, and its explanation is vague and badly phrased to the point of being almost useless in the original policy. Moreover the presence of the flag in the template would seem to both contradict one user's interpretation (operative word) that the flag is decoration and give considerable support to the majority position that the flag is appropriate. I would agree with the users who contend the policy should be challenged in its own context rather than in any given application. Moreover I would further the argument of the majority that the presence of the flag on the template constitutes use within WP:Flag guidelines. Your interpretation of the policy is that the flag is decoration. The majority interpretation is that it is not. Consensus is well established, and around these parts, majority rules. --Drmargi (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Before this gets too heated, a few points. One, Wikipedia doesn't operate by the idea of "majority rules", which is quite different from consensus. Second, WP:FLAG isn't a policy; it began as an essay and has since become a guideline under the Manual of Style. (To quote, "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article.") Third, inclusion in the template does not reflect consensus about the use of flags. It is just a line of code in the template, and as very few editors actually get involved in the design of templates it cannot really be taken as consensus for anything. (There was a discussion on the template talk page about the use of flags back in January. Opinions were split, and no consensus appears to have developed.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is all very borderline personal and incivil . I've yet too hear what the flag adds to the article.I've yet to told what this adds here .Why do we need the flag here? '

Don't decorate and it's important points here Flag and other icons are commonly misused as decoration. Adding a country's flag next to its name does not provide additional encyclopedic information, and is often simply distracting (example). Wikipedia generally strongly eschews the use of images for decorative purposes, preferring those that provide additional essential information or needed illustrationGnevin (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

---

_TalkIslander 13:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Was discussed a year ago when the guideline was an essay ,it's not a guideline and a lot clearer. Their was consensus , I took the lack of objections to indicate consensus,Template guidelines still need to follow policy Gnevin (talk)

You're right, template guidelines do need to follow policy. However, there is no policy regarding the use of flags, only another guideline, and it appears that the majority of editors (which does not necessarily show a concencus, but is a good indication that there may be one) are in favour of keeping flags in the templates. _TalkIslander 13:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This majority is where? Gnevin (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the above discussion for a start. _TalkIslander 13:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Also in the fact that most television infoboxes on Wikipedia contain a flag - they would not if the majority disputed their use. _TalkIslander 13:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a logical fallacy , it was standard pratice to include the flag , the guidelines have now changed and so should the standard pratice,please stop inventing majorities and incorrectly citing "well template {{usa}} exists so I must be right" and perhaps discuss why and what the flags add ? Gnevin (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I do find it somewhat irritating that you type "This is all very borderline personal and incivil..." above, yet your above post is hardly the height of civility. Please keep to your own standards. I am not inventing majorities - you are still failing to acknowledge that in the discussion above, you are anti-flags whilst all other participants are either neutral or pro-flags. Like I said, we do not yet have consensus on the issue (something which is needed before you jump in and change a long-term standard), but it would appear that there is, if not a majority, a non-minority that disagrees with you. _TalkIslander 13:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Break 1

As a note: I've posted a message to the main project page to point out this discussion, since this talk page tends to get little traffic. AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Note - I've now added {{USA}} to the infobox in the South Park article. If the current consensus here changes, i will gladly remove it again. Thank you TheProf - T / C 13:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem I see with flag usage is undue weight. The show's country of origin is easy to write with letters like we do in the rest of the template. Why should this part of the infobox have an eye-catching flag. This information is definitely not more important than than other information. Flag usage also causes problems when flags changes. What flag do we use then. If there are any good reasons for flag usage besides they have bin there a long time, and they doesn't hurt anyone I would like to hear them. Rettetast (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think having the flags help the reader. I've been involved with Degrassi: The Next Generation and its season sub-pages. Having a flag helps readers realise that the show is broadcast in the U.S. and Canada, as without the flags, CTV and The N especially, could be stations anywhere in the world. As for having it in the "Country of origin" part, that doesn't make a difference either way to me. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that argument when the country name isn't repeated just after the flag and there is no room to do so. Anyone that has a good argument for using a flag in "Country of origin""? Rettetast (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Flags seem fine in the infobox. It's not much different than using other types of icons, and from an "at-a-glance" approach, it does help one quickly identify the country. It's not much different from how Template:Infobox Disney ride uses icons. Template:Infobox animanga has been using flags for a while, and we even came up with a clever way to deal with multiple country listings via a hide/show switch. I know the flag thing can get a bit crazy, but I'm not sure it's really an issue here. -- Ned Scott 04:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If other infoboxes jumped off a cliff would you? Gnevin (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What kind of an argument is that? Not a helpful one, at any rate. The fact that other userboxes use flag icons is not carte-blanche to use it here, however, it's a good way of determining that concensus may well be in favour of their use. _TalkIslander 12:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS kind of argument . The fact other info boxes are not following this guideline should not influence on this discussion as most of them where properly developed before the guideline was developed. Gnevin (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you for pointing me to a page that, as an experienced user, I'm well aware of ;). Now, go back to that page yourself, and take a look at the nutshell box. Pay particular attention to the first two points, as well as the latter half of the third point. Also, bear in mind that this essay is primarily used in conjunction with AfXs. Finally, note that it is just that - an essay, not policy, nor a guideline. Now, back to my point - the fact that other infoboxes use flags is not a good reason in itself for flags to be used here. However, it does show that there is a wide range of users who do it, suggesting that there may be concensus. Yes, infobox policies were developed before the flags guidelines, but if concensus was clearly not to use them, use would obviously have discontinued quickly after implementing said guideline. _TalkIslander 16:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm well award of the limits of Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and what its primarily used for but you asked what kind of argument it was and it said it was an argument against Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS types of arguments. use would obviously have discontinued quickly after implementing said guideline. Not if during the discussion to remove the flags their where people like you saying Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS instead on pointing out what the flags add to the info boxes which words can't ([[Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS],one more for good luck :)) Gnevin (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument at all. This is a "we have a similar situation that doesn't demonstrate the negative effects that lead us to restrict flag use". That situation leads me to believe that we can have a limited use of flags in the infobox without it being an issue. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Break 2

I would have to say that it depends on the article in question. For instance, Doctor Who is very much British - it's where the humour comes from, among other things. Stuff like Deal or no Deal I would say is more ambiguous, and doesn't need a flag. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And just what doesn't "United Kingdom" provide to show that something is overtly British? A flag is unnecessary and is just pure decoration, unless of course you add nationalistic zeal for which there is no place in a supposedly neutral zone like WP. --WebHamster 05:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to read over a reasonable explanation (that does not involve WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) that defends the use of these flags. Text is just as easily identifiable as a flag. I wonder whose idea was it to put flags in the first place. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{Spring • ahead!}} 17:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It would appear thats because the only arguement for the flags is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Gnevin (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This is silly! wp:mosflag is quite clear on not using flags to decorate. Consensus or not wp:mos must take first priority. CJ2005B (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not accurate. MOSFLAG is a guideline created by consensus, and consensus can change. That aside I belive this discussion shows that there are consensus that flags aren't important in the infobox and should be removed. Rettetast (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSFLAG is a guideline, not a policy. As such, editors are not required uphold the guideline 'at all costs'. Consesnsus can override a guideline in certain cases. Also, MOSFLAG is woefully quiet regarding the use in infoboxes, but allows use in tables. So it is certainly not a good idea to summerly remove every flag from every infobox. — Edokter • Talk • 20:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont see a consensus here to have the flags. CJ2005B (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see concensus not to use the flags either - I don't see concensus either way. Until there is concensus, we continue using them as we have been. Appart from all else, the 'traffic' to this talk page is very low, so we're never going to acheive any sort of concensus without bringing it to a bigger audience. Regardless, I agree 100% with Edokter - buldosing all the flags from the infoboxes helps nothing. _TalkIslander 20:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there anywhere higher you can take this? CJ2005B (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it. This is primarely a content dispute, and editors are expected to come to an agreement by means of discussion. — Edokter • Talk • 22:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The flag helps the reader by quickly identifying where the program's nationality is located, therefore it serves as an important navigational aid pointing to a practical identification aid among reams of text. From there, readers can orient themselves in the infobox to its other factoids. Readers can often more easily recognise a flag than plain text, and that should work as long as flags don't also start popping up with every other line of the infobox. MOSFLAG also seems to be risking instruction creep with all its thou-shalt-nots; we should consider WP:IAR for this template case. As a bonus, typing in a flag/country name template (e.g. {{USA}}, {{GBR}}, {{CAN}}) uses fewer characters than country name alone. And it makes WP a little bit less bland and boring. Keep flag for Country of origin as per existing template spec. Dl2000 (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If you've a problem with the MOS the suggest changes or change if your self at the MOS talk .Flags are not more recognisable if fact they are very much less so than plain text . WP is not a bowl of ice cream it doesn't need sprinkles on it to make it less bland.Gnevin (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Break 3

I think people are forgetting why we avoid using flags. We avoid using them because people try to use them everywhere, and things get cluttered and messy very quickly. In my above example of Template:Infobox animanga, flags are only used once. The average anime or manga article doesn't normally use flags in the article itself. We have a situation where flag use is minimal, and thus it's not a problem. So I must ask this before we continue, do we actually have a problem? -- Ned Scott 04:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes per the MOS , Their are issues for the colour blind, the blind, their are contentious flags issues ,historical issues issues for people who find if difficult to distinguish between certain flags at 20 px

Finally their is the nutshell While flag icons and similar images can be useful in Wikipedia articles in some circumstances, there are also problems associated with their misapplication and overuse. Words are clearer. Gnevin (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, you cite their overuse - how exactly does one flag in an infobox qualify as overuse? Also, your argument about issues for the colour blind / blind etc. doesn't hold, so long as, for example, {{UK}} is used and not {{flagicon|UK}}, as the former produces both a flag and text, appeasing both parties. _TalkIslander 10:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What about historical ,political issues? I think i've said all I really can say here, the MOS is their too follow if you wish and you can keep the pretty flags if you wish Gnevin (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What about historical and political issues? I fail to see how those are relevant here. _TalkIslander 11:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

To Ned Scott. Yes, their use is minimal (only one per article at least) but I still see no reason why a flag should be there. As Gnevin says, words are clearer. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games btw has decided to remove all flags from infoboxes. Garion96 (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Garion96 was their a discussion about that ? Can you link to it if so ,would love to read it Gnevin (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It must be in the archives of the wikiproject. I couldn't quickly find it. Garion96 (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Flags , Flags and more Flags Gnevin (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"United Kingdom" is much clearer than "", that I certainly won't deny. However, how is "United Kingdom" any less clear than "United Kingdom"? Especially when in an infobox, where clarity is much better than in straight text, as here. _TalkIslander 21:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it distracts, it looks simplistic, there is no need for them, some flags look almost identical and flags can change so they will not be correct anymore. (all but the last one is my POV of course). Garion96 (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Luckily for us, though, these flags are all placed in articles through templates, that aren't subst'ed. Therefore, should a flag change, the template can be updated, and all articles using that template will switch to the new image by themselves. There's the answer to your last point, and you are correct, all your other points are your own (perfectly valid, of course) points of view. Unfortunately, my and other editors points of view conflict with those, hence some consensus needs to be reached. _TalkIslander 23:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect as say for example the flag of the UK changed tomorrow, all the current shows would need to keep current flags where the {{UK}} would be updated to the new flag of the UK . In order for the flags to be correct a massive clean-up job would be needed too set a parm in the template such as {{UK}} Gnevin (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but when flags change, should the older flag be added or should it be the new flag. There have been extremely lame edit wars over that. Or for instance this wonderful edit. Any article on a german tv show from 1933-1945 around? :) Not likely in this infobox though, but for all those reasons I don't see any benefit for flags. Garion96 (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

This is getting ridiculous. Those against keeping the flags are never going to see this from the point of view of those for keeping the flags, and those for keeping the flags are never going to see it from the point of view of those against keeping the flags. We need to find a consensus. I suggest the following, to end this once and for all:

• Below each editor states their support or opposition for the following proposal. It can be accompanied by a brief explanation as to why they think that way, or it can just be a straight support/oppose/neutral.
• We leave this open for one month. On 2 June we end this debate, a non-involved admin (unless it is very clear cut) is asked to come and review the supports/opposes, and deduce a consensus, hopefully one way or the other.
• The infobox instructions are changed accordingly, and infoboxes are changed to remove/add flags as necessary.
• During this month, no flags are either added to or removed from television infoboxes, save of course good-faith edits made by those unaware of these proceedings.

What do people think? If you have any comments or objections to this idea, post it below this comment. If not, post your support/oppose/neutral below the following level 4 header. Please keep WP:CANVASS in mind, though do let as many parties know of this as possible. Perhaps in this way we can finally end this once and for all. _TalkIslander 13:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes the word's flag-hater's is horribly loaded and POV. I don't know why you'd used such terms when you could of said for keeping the flags and against keeping the flags Gnevin (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Appologies, 'twas a genuine mistake. Better now? _TalkIslander 14:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have informed both WP:TV and WP:FLAG of this, in an attempt to get as many contributors as possible, to guage the best consensus possible. _TalkIslander 14:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Just posted a message over at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) - the more people that voice their opinion below, the clearer consensus will become. _TalkIslander 12:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There are still some editors that believe that the above injunction to not edit any flags while this discussion is going on, does not apply to them (you know who you are). Therefore, I will have to enforce this injuction is necessary. All parties are once again reminded not to edit the flags in or out, not even to revert in breach of this rule. Non-withstanding the (non-)weight of the issue, the edit warring is disruptive, and is not becoming Wikipedia editors. — Edokter • Talk • 12:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should check the history of the Torchwood article and see who has changed it 4 times since this edict (someone with a worse 3RR record than me). I suggest you revert the article back to the state it was in when you issued the above ruling, ie no flag, otherwise your ruling isn't worth the electrons used to create it. --WebHamster 12:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There, I've done it myself, m'kay? Now perhaps we can stop edit warring, cease the addition/removal of flags, and try and find a consensus. Is that possible? _TalkIslander 13:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Please note that since you made the above ruling I did indeed cease reverting, that is until it was necessary to keep to said ruling. May I suggest that any further changes made to the flag template should only be reverted by yourself or Edokter so as to prevent another reoccurence of what happened earlier? --WebHamster 13:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No, no-one should edit/revert in any way. I'm just as guilty, but now we all stop. — Edokter • Talk • 13:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish I lived in the same Utopia that you seem to live in, but in the real world someone will come along and change it, sure as eggs is eggs. My above suggestion was that only you two keep the status quo, nothing more. It will prevent what happened today, or put another way if you don't keep the status quo, then I will... do you really want that? --WebHamster 13:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really, though I have to say I'd find it highly amusing to watch you repeatedly replace a flag, if the occassion arose :P. I see no problem with your suggestion, except that there are bound to be cases that both myself and Edokter miss. Having said that, this certainly wouldn't be something immune from 3RR - I won't be engaging in edit wars, merely reverting to the status quo whilst discussions are ongoing. Edoktor, thoughts? _TalkIslander 13:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need to revert if a good-faith editor comes along and changes it; it is a status-quo either way. Just leave it alone for the time being. — Edokter • Talk • 14:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I've offended. I didn't see any injunctions. I came here from a link that took me straight to the voting section, where I read the points pro and cons and added my own voice. I figured that this would be a good summary of the long discussion I now see above - it all looks kinda petty and personal to me anyway. --Pete (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested for closing admin listed here Gnevin (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, was just about to do that m'self :P _TalkIslander 12:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Protected

Okay, you know the procedure. :) Further discussion below this line please. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does Edoktor get to force smaller fonts without discussion here, yet I can't revert them, per WP:BOLD? I have bad eyes, an old glases prescription, and I can't leave my house. I also have a small monitor. It's hard to read the small font on IE after a long day at the comp (not that it's easy on a short one either). This is ridiculous, and not the first time he has done this, as with the Wiki-wide small font size change a few weeks back. I give up here, but I will be taking my complaints to a higher authority if this keeps occuring. Please show some consideration for the disabilities others. I have know problem with the need for broweser consistecncy, but please default to the larger size, not the smaller one. - BillCJ (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest using crtl and plus to increase the font size , instead of changing of this template displays Gnevin (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that works on my system (I tried), but I don't need a larger font if it's standard font size. Even if I change the small font size, then the standard size is too big, and affects format overall. Most infoboxes use standard font size anyway, so why does this one need to be any different? If someone wants a smaller than standard font size, why can't they change their settings? - BillCJ (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment: Small fonts in templates

Okay, a summary. One editor has added small text to the template and has been reverted. An edit war has thus begun. Arguments include small text in the box include difficulty for those with disabilities, and that it's easier simply to change the screen resolution rather than change the text directly. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem seeing the standard text on my system - its not huge, but I can read it easily enough. My problem is with forcing smaller text sizes (lower than 90% on IE6) on the template. Changing system settings is not a viable solution here. - BillCJ (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am personally ok with and prefer the larger font. I see no reason to make it smaller. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

First, some compare links for those wanting to see the difference original and smaller version and proposed larger?. For my view, I think the original is just fine and does not need to be made either smaller nor larger. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The 88% size is perfectly readable, and looks far nicer than the 100% does. Furthermore, it's a common standard in most templates. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain the change from 90% to 88%. Yes, on IE it looks smaller; it now has the same size in IE as in every other browser, where the font size already was the same as you see it now. Font sizes have to be consistent accross browsers, it is essential to be able to build the templates based on this template. 90% is the only value that happnes to render different in IE then other browsers (which is why it should never be used). If a bigger font is preferred, it would have to be bigger in all browsers; not just IE; and we would have to abolish all small fonts on every page/template/styling. And such a change accross the board will need a consensus. With all due respect to BillCJ, but if you have a vision problem, there are other solutions. If you cannot read some elements at standard font size, increase the font. But don't try and force a change in design for your sole benefit. — Edokter • Talk • 20:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to disagree, but it looks smaller in Firefox as well, and somewhat distorted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's odd... for me the jump in font-size doesn't happen until 92%. And in what way does it look distorted? — Edokter • Talk • 21:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a trick of the spacing. Your latest version, compared to the original one AnmaFinotera linked, has an added "line-height:1.5em;", which has the effect of making the lines closer together and making the text seem smaller than it actually is. There's no significant difference in my Firefox. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The dimensions of the letters seem off versus the original, like when you resize an image but forget to keep aspect ratio turned on. I can take screenshots if it would help. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Leaving out the line-height causes the lines to be too far apart; which too me makes the font look even smaller. Are you on Windows or Linux? — Edokter • Talk • 10:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Windows. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Disability" should really not be an argument here. People who can't read small text already have views at their disposal, such as the on-screen magnifying glass, and zooming in, to view small text. Many sites use smaller text as a standard for stuff. It looks fine to me. Danielkitchener1 (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel the same way. The font sizes are easy enough to override on the end-user's computer anyways. -- Ned Scott 01:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, since one could easily manipulate font size, as mentioned just above, a change in the temp is unnecessary. Cliff smith (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The template should be an {{infobox}} anyway, and should use the default sizes specified in that master template. Can we get this unlocked, please? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Infobox}} is not used as a meta-template in this case. But this template is is using the same font-size as Infobox. — Edokter • Talk • 14:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant "should be" as in "in the future". If it were an {{infobox}}, we wouldn't have having this conversation, because we wouldn't have to arbitrarily pick values. Once it's unprotected, I plan to make that happen. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Converting to use Infobox is not a trivial task. But there is the sandbox which is not protected. — Edokter • Talk • 23:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

prod_website is really production_website

Can an admin editor fix it? -Lwc4life (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Fix what? prod is short for production, or do you mean fix in the documentation? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course I meant the documentation. Anyone who doesn't click "view source" would not understand why does prod_website fail to work. Lwc4life (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

convert to {{infobox}}

{{editprotected}}

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Was going to do this myself, but as a mere Untermensch I'm not able to thanks to AnmaFinotera's valiant requesting of full protection.

Code dump is at User:Thumperward/tv. Drop-in replacement. The only changes to existing style are as follows:

1. The title is in the "title" infobox parameter, and thus floats outside the box.
2. {{{show_name_2}}} is used as an "above" at the top of the box, rather than being a normal parameter.

If these things cause serious distress then I can use the previous markup for those, but I feel that this is making better use of the infobox semantics. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No, those were not the only changes. You significantly changed the code, and you changed all instances of No. to Number, making multiple lines wrap needlessly. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I said "only changes to existing style". I'm aware that the code has changed heavily; that's the whole point. Minor wording issues can be trivially corrected afterwards (or would be, were it not for the template being needlessly fullyprot). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is you didn't bother to discuss you. You just waited until the template was unprotected and immediately went through making a ton of changes with no discussion as to whether they were needed, valid, or desired. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That's because I'm a skilled template editor, and know well enough to work without needing my hand held. Procedure is there to keep the project ticking smoothly, not to give random weenies power over other editors. You reverted edits which you didn't even understand, which leads me to believe that I'm not the one who shouldn't be editing in templatespace.

Regardless, I'm not here to argue with procedural nonsense. I'm here to get peer review for the updated code. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that Edokter also disagreed with the switch, as it functions the same. This isn't a matter of skill, as making an infobox isn't rocket science. People just disagree with the need to switch. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 09:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Where did Edokter disagree?

Look, there's literally no reason not to switch. The advantages in the new version are obvious:

1. The code is vastly simpler, easier to follow and maintain.
2. It ends arguments about default text size, because the size is standardised across every {{infobox}}.
3. There's a trivial fix to allow {{{show_name}}} to inherit from the article title, which should have stood regardless of the other changes.

There are no advantages to using the current version. Nobody has come up with a single one, other than bickering about process. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't necessarely disagree, however, I said it is a major operation. Before this conversion is done, it should be thouroughly tested in the sandbox. Chris, please move your code to the this template's sandbox, so we can all test-drive it. — Edokter • Talk • 11:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

For the time being...

{{editprotected}}

Might as well re-do the non-controversial part.

Currently, the template demands a {{{show_name}}} attribute. This shouldn't be necessary if the show's article is located at the same name, so changing:

! style="font-size:125%; background:{{{bgcolour|{{Television colour|{{{show_name}}}}}}}};
color: {{{color text|{{{colour text|#000}}}}}}; text-align:center;" colspan="2" | ''{{{show_name}}}''

to

! style="font-size:125%; background:{{{bgcolour|{{Television colour|{{{show_name}}}}}}}};
color: {{{color text|{{{colour text|#000}}}}}}; text-align:center;" colspan="2" | ''{{{show_name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}''

Allows the infobox to exist without any mandatory parameters. This is pretty common across infoboxen now, and doesn't break anything anywhere.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Eeek! Wrong section. This is the meant to replace the second line of the template. Re-enabling. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done. — Edokter • Talk • 12:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I apologise. Sorry. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Force consistent style?

OK, so I'm being a bold newbie to this area. I noticed that a couple of shows didn't have infoboxes, or didn't have them fully filled out, so I added them. That led me to have to research what I should put into some of these fields, which in turn led me to record my observations back into the documentation and update the example to match observed common style.

It occurs to me that consistency could be aided by using strongly stylized values, with the template turning them into common presentations. (imdb_id and tv_com_id are good examples of what I mean.)

For instance:

Parameter	Comments
format	Automatically link. Note that a red link will be a hint that you haven't picked a good value.
camera	Automatically link. Perhaps automatically expand to some canonical values.
picture_format	Automatically link
audio_format	Automatically link
country	use ISO 3166 country codes; automatically generate flag template references
language	use ISO 639 language codes; automatically generate appropriate link
preceded_by	It'd be nice to standardize the formatting here, but I suspect too complex.

Hosts

Is there any interest in adding a "Host" section to the info box for shows such as news magazines and game shows? There is some debate on talk pages as to whether or not "hosts" should be billed as "stars" of the show. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hosts are generally put in the presenter field. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

More specific and explanable parameters

I think the parameter "Original channel" being used for currently running tv programs is not useful.

I think the parameter should cease use and be replaced by a new parameter called "Original network(s)" as channels refer to frequencies not networks or stations although the community uses the term channel for stations.

Lets not delete the parameter "Original channel" but rather replace it. Also, the "Original network(s)" parameter should only be used for no longer airing tv shows. Also, lets make three new parameters for more specific uses.

• "Current network(s)" - The current network(s) that broacasts show on its stations
• "Former network(s)" - The former network(s) that broacasted show on its/there stations
• "Rerun network(s)" - Like "Original network(s)" should be used for no longer airing television series.

Is that a good idea?

I disagree on ceasing use as a large number of lay people use channels the same way it is used here, as do all the satellite and cable companies. Adding an alias of original network would be find. I disagree on having current/former as its are enough to not be an issue. Big huge no on rerun networks - syndicated series don't need to have every network listed that may have shown an episode or two of a series. The channels a series is rerun on is rarely notable at all, and if it does become notable it will be covered in the prose.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

first aired?

I don't think "first aired" makes sense for programs that haven't even debuted yet. Think there should be some sort of switch to change it to something else for shows that haven't aired yet and are set to debut, like maybe "Premiere date" or something? ViperSnake151 15:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"Premier date" isn't really that important; it'd only encourage even more futuritis in articles. The attribute is optional, so it can just be omitted if the show hasn't started. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Alignment

Am I imagining things or has a formatting change taken place that now aligns the TV info box on the left hand side of pages rather than on the right and in-line with text? Not sure how to correct this... Sottolacqua (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a specific article you are seeing this on? It looks normal to me on TV articles I checked. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodeo_Drive_(game_show)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Price_Is_Right_(U.S._game_show)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Office_(U.S._TV_series)

Are you using Firefox or IE? This appears to be happening with just Firefox on my current computer.

Sottolacqua (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox and they are all appearing on the right side for me. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, after doing some hunting I think it has to do with using the Modern skin rather than the default MonoBook. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I meant to ask which skin you were using and if it might have been changed lately :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I switched back to the default skin and all is well. Have a good day Sottolacqua (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who can edit the page...

The explanation for the "writer" parameters says The show's writer or writers. Separate multiple entries with line breaks (<br/>. Don't use if the show has many (5+) writers. The first bracket needs closing. ;) —97198 talk 02:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, Template:Infobox Television/doc is not fully protected. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh :) Well, thanks. —97198 talk 02:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

Original run	(For country of origin) (first aired) - (last aired) ((airing note): To describe airing status and also the network switches. Examples are: "(Cancelled)" and "(Ongoing; On UPN (until December 31 2009), Fox (from January 1 2010))")
(airdate aux1) run	(Additional airdates. In airdate aux1, you can put something like "British", "South Korean", "Japanese" or "Italian".) (first aired aux1) - (last aired aux1) ((airing note aux1))
(airdate aux2) run	(Same as aux1) (first aired aux2) - (last aired aux2) ((airing note aux2))
(airdate aux3) run	(Same as aux1) (first aired aux3) - (last aired aux3) ((airing note aux3))
(airdate aux4) run	(Same as aux1) (first aired aux4) - (last aired aux4) ((airing note aux4))
American run	(To show the American airdate of non-US TV series. You can ignore it if the show is from the USA.) (first aired usa) - (last aired usa) ((airing note usa))
Canadian run	(Simmilar to USA parameters.) (first aired can) - (last aired can) ((airing note can): Also the place for the airdates of Canadian-French version if not same dates as of English version.)
British run	(Simmilar to USA parameters.) (first aired uk) - (last aired uk) ((airing note uk))
Australian run	(Simmilar to USA parameters.) (first aired aus) - (last aired aus) ((airing note aus)) If you met a situation like Robotboy (Programme from France. Shown in UK prior to US run.), you can put British airdate on aux1.

1. Aside from the AKA parameter, how about a separated parameter to show the original title of the programme from non-English-speaking countries, locating right under the showname parameter?
2. Does the separated parameters of Genre and Format working well?
3. How about the extra parameters of airdates like what is on the right?

--JSH-alive ^(talk)_(cntrbtns)^{(mail me)} 11:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Add hCard microformat

{{editprotected}}

Please change: [code redacted to save space] so that this template will output an hCalendar microformat.

Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Is that Ok? Happy‑melon 16:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but class="description" should wrap the row, not just one cell. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed, I hope. Happy‑melon 14:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Still missing <span class="summary"> from around {{PAGENAME}}. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 15:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Done Happy‑melon 16:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Bingo! Thank you.. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 17:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

production_website not prod_website

Under usage, should be production_website not prod_website Nfitz (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Template:Infobox Television/doc is a semi-protected page. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 09:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Number of episodes

Since 25 March 2006 the Usage Guideline (now at Template:Infobox Television/doc) for this infobox has said "The number of episodes currently produced." for the num_episodes field. (Note, prior to 25 March 2006, the Guideline was either silent or unclear on the issue.)

I pointed this out an editor this morning. Shortly thereafter a second editor changed the Guideline to read "The number of episodes aired." Shortly after that, the first editor responded that I was mistaken (I.E. that the Guideline said the field should be episodes aired.)

I believe that the change made today should have been discussed. I also believe that the long standing guideline was correct; If a reliable source gives a number of episodes produced higher than the number of episodes aired the number produced should be used. An episode's existence is not dependent on it having aired yet. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 03:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the "aired" edit would be a better choice, as the long (long long)-standing practice has been to use aired episodes. It is just too unpredictable to use "produced", plus it creates issues with dates and other lists. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What about a ep never aired but available in dvd box set? I think that should be included as well. I think it should be the number of ep's available to the public in any form, because until the public can watch it, it can't be considered cannon !DISCUSS! SomeoneE1se (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Canon." Though it usually isn't an issue, I think the distinction should be noted when a series has a different number of broadcast episodes vs produced episodes. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 09:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Another oddity if we were to use "episodes aired" rather than "episodes produced" would be the many current series were the episode list (section or page) lists all known episodes produced, which would be more than the aired number. So the entry might read "4 (list of episodes)" but anyone clicking on the link can see a table detailing 12 episodes known to be produced so far. In this case there are 12 episodes, eight have just not been seen publically yet (but they do exist). If we have a valid source for the production list, than we have a valid source for the episodes existence; and the example should read "12 (list of episodes)". The list's airdates would answer any questions vis-a-vis number of aired episodes. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 11:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Vernacular

Looking at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 19#Template:Infobox kdrama, it looks like there's a number of templates which are almost redundant to this one, except that they include a field for the foreign language name of the show (ie: Japanese, Korean, etc); one user suggested adding such a parameter, here, so that the templates can be merged. Is show_name_2 a suitable option, currently? If not, how else could we resolve this? – Luna Santin (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. What field-names are used on other such templates? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 17:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Avril Troll

Is this something that will get fixed, or is it just a little joke that comes around every year on this date? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Something else is the cause. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 15:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Director

I feel that the "director" parameter should be in the "production" group of parameters as directors are part of the production team. How about it?. Mythdon (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Update in style

I feel, that as a better style, the "original run" should show with an unspaced em dash, like:

September 21, 2008—present

instead of the spaced en dash currently:

September 21, 2008 – present

Any agreers?. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 00:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I feel the "—" should not be used on this infobox as "-" works very well. If we used "—" and included no space, the dates would be squished. If we were going to use "—", then I suggest we still include the spaces. Mythdon (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Transclusion from documentation

Hi

I would like to highlight a discrepancy. The transclusion that is shown on the Template:Infobox Television is different from the actual documentation in Template:Infobox Television/doc. I wonder what is the reason so.--Tjmj (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

How are they different? It's the same page. Flowerparty^☀ 13:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, i guess there was some cache problem. After I updated the documentation, it wasn't reflected on the main page. --Tjmj (talk) 09:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Americanization of some terms

Is there any way we can create an option for the American version of some terms like for instance host instead of presenter? We could put a line at the end of the infobox for American=true that would change some terms? Does anyone know how to do this? -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, per WP:ENGVAR, this would possibly seem like a good idea. On the other hand, I personally favour all infoboxes being the same - after all, the entire point of infoboxes is to create uniformity in the display of important information, in this case TV programmes... _TalkIslander 16:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, but the terms are different, and that is important to keep in mind. The phrase "presented by" in American English has more of an advertising meaning, like "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is presented by Doritos." The football infoboxes do something similar, with different spellings of honors/honours and preferring head coach to manager. There's no reason to use a term that most viewers of certain shows have no familiarity with. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have suggestions for edits in mind, I can drum up fixes for this in a few minutes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

For right now, the biggest thing is making presenter read host if the line American=true is inserted. -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If that's done, you might as well take out the 'num_series'/'num_season' thing, and have it read 'series' by default, or 'season' if American=true. _TalkIslander 09:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Did we ever end up getting anywhere with this? We need "presented by" to read "hosted by" and "series" read "season" if the line "American = true" is inserted into the code. I think it is also worth asking why the American terms aren't default given the fact that the overwhelming majority of TV is produced in the U.S., but that is a question for another time I guess. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I dispute that entirely - the overwhelming majority of TV is definitely not produced in the US, it's just that that is the TV you know of. The BBC, for instance, produce a huge amount of material, and then what about the hundreds of other networks in other countries? Per WP:ENGVAR, "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic". Although that is worded towards articles, the same would be relevant here. _TalkIslander 19:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but the fact remains that the changes we asked for have not been made yet. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

External links

Recently, the film infobox and the actor infobox have removed the external links at the bottom of their boxes, mainly because they duplicate the links in the EL section, they're biased toward IMDb.com and AMG (in our case we would substitute AMG for TV.com), they theoretically violate the WP:EL guideline, and the official website link typically doesn't ever add any additional, useful information regardless (note: the actor box kept the official website link). It got me to thinking, should this infobox be updated to reflect a growing trend to keep all ELs in the EL section, and remove them from the box? The debate itself has already happened over there, so there isn't a reason to start it all over again here, as there really isn't a difference in how we use the ELs in the box and how the film community used them (I'm pretty sure we only added them based on what the film community had done...as most of this type of stuff originated in the film community). I'm looking more for opinion on whether we should follow suit as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've always had a problem with the link to TV.com simply because, for new series, the site is crap (some older series have complete plot summaries, trivia, cast, etc, for every episode but most are just people's reviews and ratings). I think the problem with having the official website link in the film infobox was that those sites are little more than advertisements, with a trailer, cast list and brief production credits. Official sites for TV series are generally a lot better; they have detailed episode guides, IU character guides and generally things we try to avoid in WP articles. I'd prefer to keep the official site links simply because they're worth highlighting at the top of the page. As for IMDB, the same can be said for that as with TV.com; unless it is a major TV series, cast lists and production credits are often incomplete. In any case, if a link to the Internet Movie Database has been removed from the film i/box, there's little point in keeping it in the TV one. Bradley0110 (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd also agree with the removal of both of those links, for the same reason as they were removed from Film. They overly promote two external links over all others, provide no particularly extra/helpful information beyond what Wikipedia would in FL/FA level articles, and goes against the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:EL. Would also agree with the removal of the official site links. Initially, I thought they offered more, but as I started to type it out, I realized that they still rarely provide anything above/beyond our own FL/FA articles would: episode summaries, character summaries, credits, and DVD release info. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I never use(d) the ELs in the infoboxes, so I am neutral to supporting regarding their removal there. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to side on AnmaFinotera's view of the "official website". In a general sense, they really don't provide things that we don't already provide (episode guide, character listings, etc). The only difference is that they usually contain advertisements on the website.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with all the above, but any removal would have to be done carefully. I don't believe that these links should be erradicated from the articles (neither, I think, does anyone here) - merely moved out of the infobox. We would therefore need to make sure that any links in the infobox were, if not already in the external links, moved there. I wouldn't support a straight removal of the fields without this proviso. Would this be something a bot could do? _TalkIslander 19:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably, though getting someone to code it up may be another issue. Films couldn't find anyone when they removed the links either, and finally decided that most articles have already duplicated the links and those that weren't would be fixed quick enough. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A bot could do it, if you knew someone that works with bots. The film community put in a request for a bot creation that would remove the instances from the box and put them in the EL section of all articles (assuming of course that the identifier was in the box to begin with). We could do the same, but the film community still has not heard back (as far as I know) about getting a bot to take care of that. I suspect that TV articles are just like the film articles in that there are probably very few that do not already have IMDb, TV.com and the official website already in the EL section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Picture format

As is evidenced by any series recently released on HD-DVD or Blu-ray, most if not all shows are now filmed in 1080p, and then broadcast in 1080i, 720p, 720i, or standard def, depending more on the local television station or cable system than the actual production itself.
So which format should be listed for current shows? I would suggest 1080p, since that is the native resolution before it is downgraded for local broadcast.
Regardless, the documentation should probably be updated to clarify that we want the format the show was filmed in, not whatever format an editor happens to watch it in. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 21:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I feel like it is a useless number to the average reader. Unless you understand what 1080i, p, etc means, you don't care really. Even so, it is hard to prove, verifiably (excusing what IMDb lists), exactly what the format for the show is. We cannot assume that all shows are 1080p, but not every single one is. Personally, I would like to move toward scrapping the section from the box completely. As I stated, it really does not add anything to understanding the show (which is what the box is for), and we cannot assume that the average reader is going to understand what those numbers actually mean.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It does seem rather trivial. I don't suppose there are many instances where the picture format is actually discussed within the article. I'd be happy to see this field go. Flowerparty^☀ 09:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"Bgcolour" parameter

Why is there a "bgcolour" parameter?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's because someone once decided the article about their favourite show wasn't colourful enough, and they figured they could introduce some colour by making the infobox look like the cover of their favourite show's dvd. My question is this: given that there is a bgcolor parameter, why do we also have {{television colour}}? It seems unnecessary - and indeed unwiki - to have the colours for these shows hardcoded into a protected template. Is there a technical reason for this or could we deprecate this colour template and just specify the colours at the individual articles? Flowerparty^☀ 14:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference Numbering

The template makes reference numbering non-intuitive. For example, in Meet The Press the first reference in the main article is (currently) #7, as 1 to 6 are in the infobox. Could this be tweaked? Gerardw (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Not on this template. Reference numbering is done sequentially based on the position of the reference in the text. Since the infobox is always at the top, references in it will be numbered first. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 17:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

{{{format}}}, {{{genre}}} and the difference between them

What are the {{{format}}} and {{{genre}}} parameters each for? The descriptions aren't entirely clear, and many or most series (including big-ticket series like Buffy, TOS Trek and The Office) have no {{{genre}}} entry and a {{{format}}} entry which would seem to belong under {{{genre}}} instead. Also, the television-film infobox has differing guidelines for {{{format}}} and no {{{genre}}} parameter. RW Dutton (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Genre is for the series genre, such as sci-fi, reality show, documentary, etc. Format...I agree, what is that for? That description needs some help. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

{{{format}}} is presumably along the lines of "serial", "one-off" et cetera. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it's the technical format. IE. PAL, 1080i, etcetera... — Edokter • Talk • 15:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The technical format would seem to be covered by the {{{picture_format}}} and {{{audio_format}}} entries. I guess that {{{format}}} is either meant to refer to 'format' in the sense described in Television format (presumable example: Dramatic programming) or in the (quite different) sense described in TV program format (example: Big Brother (TV series)). RW Dutton (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I just realised that. My bad... — Edokter • Talk • 23:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary fields

I take it the Composer(s) field is meant for if someone wrote the incidental music but not the theme tune, but this isn't at all clear. Where they both appear, like here, the two fields seem to contradict each other. Flowerparty^☀ 09:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That's because one should read simple "Composer" and the other "Theme by".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That wouldn't really avoid the potential confusion, though. I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better to collapse the theme tune info into a single line and maybe remove the composer field - there's way too many fields in this box. Flowerparty^☀ 14:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is a major difference between a "Composer" and the person that provides the "Theme music" (speaking of course that they aren't the same person doing both). In most cases, the "theme music", for live action shows, is often taken from a pop culture song, while there is a separate person providing the episode to episode music. I wouldn't be for merging these into one cat, as we had that before and we eventually separated them because the roles are typically distinctly different. Are you referring to "Composer" and "Theme music composer"? If so, then I would be for merging those two. They can easily identify each composer (one for the show and one for the theme) inside the box itself. But, I do agree that we have way too many fields in the box, and quite a few are irrelevant (I have renamed the header so that are discussion, which seems to be drifting to "which fields do we really need", will reflect the talk). We talked above about the picture format, you may recall. If I had to list the cats that I think could go, because they are really useless in helping the reader understand anything about the show, then I would say:
Picture format
audio format
Camera setup
Consulting, Associate, and Supervising producers (I think we only need Executive and regular producers, you rarely hear anything from the other three when it comes to who gets the privilege of discussing the show)
Story edit (seems to be the same job as "Editor")
Slogan (This looks like another name for "tagline", and we generally discourage taglines in the film community, as they don't provide any real information without context...something the infobox cannot provide)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant the theme music composer field. I didn't make that clear, sorry. A merge would be better than having the two separate, I think.

As for the stuff you suggest removing, I'd agree on all counts. I'd go a lot further, in fact. The trouble with this template is people have just added piecemeal to it as they saw fit, resulting in a classic horse designed by committee. If it had been protected from the start I don't believe we'd have half the fields we have now. To me it seems like it would be more sensible to decide which ones are absolutely necessary and then eliminate everything else. What would Ockham do? Flowerparty^☀ 10:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would keep the theme music fields, since this is often a notable song otherwise unrelated to the rest of the music on a show. But I would change the wording used from "Theme music composer" to "Theme by"; it would take one line instead of two and allow for the field to be filled by the theme's performer when they are more notable than the theme's composer. I would also suggest moving this field to just after the fields for the names of the theme songs (instead of just before). —MJBurrage^(T•C) 05:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, currently we have "Theme music composer", "Opening theme", "Ending theme", and "Composer(s)" We really only need two fields: "Composed by" and "Theme by". The "opening" and "ending" theme sections can easily be covered by a single "Theme by" section. All you need to do, if they are different, is:
Opening theme
Ending theme.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Line breaks should not be used to differentiate data fields within a table cell, for accessibility reasons. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Accessibility? Does not really seem to apply for an infobox, given that you cannot access the different sections in an infobox individually. there is only one "edit" option, so accessibility does not really apply. Unless you know of some other reason. Putting in "Title of song"<br>"Band title" doesn't really create any difficult accessibility.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course accessibility applies to infoboxes. They're rendered as HTML tables, which can be made so that they work in assistive software or, in the manner you propose, do not work. This as nothing to do with "edit" options. See WP:ACCESS for more. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Given the amount of boxes that utilitize the "br" option, I don't think this issue has been brought up in other projects, especially given film and TV infoboxes where we list "casts" and have half a dozen names. We don't put in "actor1", "actor2", "actor3" as options (which is what your guideline suggests to do), because there is no set number of people that can be placed in the box. This is why we use the "br" option, against the accessibility MOS. This is the same thing. We cannot determine how many viable options for composer will be needed (and we wouldn't put in the option for an excessive amount that would virtually never be filled), thus we use the "br" option that might violate the MOS, but is actually the better choice.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so where are we with cleaning out some of the unnecessary fields?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is no distension, I think we can remove Picture format, audio format, Camera setup, Consulting, Associate, and Supervising producers, and finally "slogan". The reasoning is above.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Done.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've restored three of the deleted fields, as they are useful and in use. The three are "picture format" (shows SD, HD etc. - see "Lost"), audio format, and camera setup. (Camera setup is important as it illustrates how the series is created; single-camera productions are very different from multi-camera.) As for "story editor", I haven't restored that one yet, but it is not the same as "editor". (A story editor is usually involved in writing/rewriting the script.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure they are "used" by a lot of articles, because most editors (and I'm not saying this is a bad thing) just go to IMDb and start filling out all of our infobox sections with the info that IMDb lists. I don't see how "picture format" is useful, when just about all new TV shows appear in both HD and SD. Even older shows are now being broadcasted in HD format. It's a criteria that lends nothing to the understanding of the show itself. It doesn't tell you have the show is made (as they don't film in "HD", the broadcast in HD and that's only if you happen to get said channel in HD). The same goes for audio format. As for "Camera Setup", I don't no too many shows that don't use multiple cameras at some point while filming. The final one, "story editor", either you edit the series (i.e. cut and paste scenes), or you write/rewrite scripts. The former is called an "editor" and the latter is typically listed under "writer". The actual job of "story editor" is about as important as the job of associate producer as far as encyclopedic articles go. It's a thankless job that doesn't get any press. When you ask to talk to the person that wrote Lost episode 55, you are referring to the people credited as "writer" and not the people that smoothed the script out after it was finally written (the same goes for all those producer categories, you typically talk to Exec. Producers, and regular Producers).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, shows are being shot in high-def, so the field does indicate how it was produced (SD, HD, could include film as well). Audio - older shows were produced in mono, newer ones are in surround. Single- and multi-camera doesn't mean the number of cameras used throughout the shoot, it refers to how the shoot is configured. (For example, a sitcom shot single-camera has to do separate takes on each actor, while a scene shot multi-camera can get these different angles from the same take.) These details do help understand the show, as they give the reader an idea of what to expect technically. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How relevant is it is the average reader doesn't understand what it means. They could very well be like me and just assume that we mean the show is broadcast in HD, or SD. The same with the audio. Unless you understand the implications of shooting in HD, it means nothing. If I came here and saw that Lost was shot in HD, but I turned on my TV and saw SD, my expectation of seeing an HD show is rather lost (pardon the pun), because what is is filmed in doesn't equate to what it is broadcast in (if you don't have HD channels, you aren't going to get an HD program...well, you will, but it will be all black and you cannot see anything). Which brings to me to the question of, other than IMDb (as we both know the kink in that straw), what other reliable sources actually cover that type of information accurately?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Slightly broken?

I see someone recently made changes to remove "unnecessary fields", but this has resulted in these extra brackets on top of every page with this infobox. I tried looking at the code, then gave up. Can someone else fix it? Thanks. SKS2K6 (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I know. Check again. They should be removed now. It happened when I removed some sections but accidentally left a couple of "}}" behind in their place. It should be straight now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Current season?

Is there an option of placing the current season of a TV show at the top of an infobox? --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 22:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't be at all appropriate, as the information would quickly become outdated. _TalkIslander 22:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur, doesn't belong in the infobox. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

But wouldn't the same apply to where that is in use, such as sports events or awards? --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 03:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm lost, exactly what are you looking for? Like, a new section in the infobox that says "current season" and you just plug in something like "3", "1", or "14"? If that's it, then it is kind of irrelevant. Most articles state where the article is in the lead, the box already has a "No. of seasons" section, as well as an "Original run" section. Together, they indicate the "current" season as the "No. of seasons" generally reflects the number the show currently resides in, and the "Original run" indicates if the show is still airing or not. We really don't need a completely separate section for "Current season".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Candlewicke is referring to putting a relevant {{current}} in the infobox that links to the season that is currently airing, in the vein of what is in the Academy Award infobox at the moment (e.g. a "current" link to Lost (season 5) in the Lost (TV series) ibox). Bradley0110 (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Something to bear in mind in that case, then, is that whilst major television shows will have individual articles for each series, the vast majority won't (even some major shows don't, such as Doctor Who). That renders such an idea fairly pointless. _TalkIslander 13:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha....still don't think it is necessary. We typically have links all over, and there is usually a link to all of the episodes in the infobox itself anyway.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was wondering. I've just been adding a few such "currents" to topics such as awards and wondered about TV... not specifically Lost though but I suppose that would benefit too... --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 19:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I was referring specifically to shows whose seasons, not episodes, have articles, e.g. this example which I created a while ago... this Lost obsession is alarming... it's all very well for American users of whom there are more than enough of to spend the time on individual episodes but some of us are only getting to the seasons in our own countries... --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 19:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It is generally unnecessary as we have a link to the List of episodes page for all shows already in the box. We shouldn't favor the current, just because it is the current. As you said, not everyone sees the show at the same. It is easier, and better to link to a page that has all of the seasons listed (if there are season articles, then they are linked to in the "List of episodes" article) so that the reader can pick whatever season they want to.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

But what harm is there in having the option? --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 22:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it isn't necessary and is trivial and relates to only a minority of the television articles. It also seems like it would encourage season page creation when few shows actually need them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, see WP:RECENT. Time-specific information should really be avoided altogether. _TalkIslander 23:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Language varieties

Should I differentiate between varieties of English? i.e. British English v. American English? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you would just put [[English Language|English]]. It's the general "English" page, that encompasses all forms of English.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, okay. Thanks. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Conversion to {{infobox}}?

I really think the infobox now looks dull and, frankly, quite unenthusiastic. The text is spaced close together and there is a lot of extraneous code. If consensus is reached here to redesign the template, I would be more than happy to keep all of the parameters the same and redesigning it through the {{infobox}} template. Suggestions and ideas are appreciated! obentomusubi 00:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that infoboxes needed to look snazzy.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate your fetid sarcasm. I simply feel that infoboxes should be aesthetically pleasing... If you could refrain from your snide remarks, that would be greatly appreciated. :) obentomusubi 01:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention, for convenience sake, I believe many infoboxes should be converted to {{infobox}} for standardization to some degree. obentomusubi 01:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sarcastic, sure, but it wasn't snide as it was a genuine question wrapped in sarcasm. You came here criticizing the aesthetic of the infobox. Infoboxes are just there to convey general information. They are not images used for the purpose of decorating an article. As for this idea that this one is "dull" with "text spaced close together", that seems to be your personal opinion. Frankly, I do not see anything different in this box than I do at Template:Infobox Film, or any of the others. Exactly what makes {{infobox}} so much better a template? Why is that one prettier than this one? If your issue with text spacing, then you are free (I don't own this page) to adjust the text a more presentable spacing size (not really sure what you are referring to by that...is it the font size that bothers you or the spacing between the letters?). Are you proposing that this infobox be deleted in favor of the putting this information over at {{infobox}}, or are you wanting to redesign the whole thing but keep it on this page? If the latter (as I doubt there would be consensus for the former as there are far too many articles using the TV box), could you provide an example of how you would make it look (i.e., maybe a sandbox rendition)?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I apologize since I didn't use a good choice of words. I'll try to make a test at my sandbox to see. obentomusubi 02:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There already is a sandbox version using {{infobox}}, at Template:Infobox Television/sandbox. As I've intimated to Obento Musubi before on other infobox templates, I firmly disagree with overriding the default styling of that base template in general. But I think this needs discussed at WT:TV rather than just on this template talk regardless. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it needs to be discussed there. There is nothing to look at in that box, no actual example to see what I full version of the box could look like.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Television/testcases. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Other than the banner, and "running time" being moved up to the broadcast title, I don't really see a difference. Personally, I like the banner at the top of the box and I'm ok with the running time being moved up to the new location. Just to know, we're actually going to be removing some sections of the infobox that are basically irrelevant to articles anyway, like "picture format" (doesn't add anything) and some of the various producers (executive producers and regular producers are all that matter, those "associate" and "assistant" are generally not in charge of anything specific that requires one to discuss them in prose later in the article). You can see in the above convo the other things being adjusted.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually think the current sandbox is in sync with the template code at this moment; I was just pointing out to Obento Musubi that such a thing already existed at a standardised location. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Update

I've now made this migration (although I'd actually forgotten that the sandbox had been updated, so did it from scratch). There should be not change to output except that the "broadcast" header only appears if that section actually contains some attributes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Condense external links

The links to IMDB and TV.com should be shortened and placed on a single line similar to the links in Infobox Film.--Marcus Brute (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Both infoboxes are currently getting the links removed and moved towards the External links section. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Show's Stars

I was hoping to get some discussion on this. I am having a dispute with an editor on CSI: NY regarding this template. He claims that all the show's stars, past and present, should be listed in the "starring" field of this infobox, "per convention." I say the convention is to only list current stars unless it is a canceled series. I have successfully brought an article up to FA status using my method and never heard anyone say I was wrong. What is current consensus on this field? Redfarmer (talk) 09:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally, we show all characters as it reflects an "overall" perspective on the series, rather than just an "in the moment" one. Per the WikiProject Television style guidelines:

"Articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series."

and

"If the cast list gets too large you might consider linking to a section of the article instead."

Hope this helps. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Those do not address infoboxes, however, which are not intended to be comprehensive and can only give snapshots. Such thinking would utterly fail on series that have had a large revolving cast, such as Last of the Summer Wine, Law & Order, and any soap opera. Redfarmer (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the second quote is from the "Infobox" section. It suggests that, in situations where the cast list is too long, a link to the "Cast" section can be used instead. This has been successfully employed in a number of situations. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This question has been brought up very recently at Talk:Criminal_Minds#Cast_inclusion_in_infobox. You may find some opinions there as well. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

format vs. genre

Why is format one of the options ? I thought that was deprecated years ago in favor of "genre" --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was removed. I'm not sure what "format" it is currently referring to.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

readded. Here someone mistakenly figured that the "old" format param was referring to Television format i think. This is in fact incorrect. The old format was indeed "genre", and was renamed for that reason. It stayed in place, because we didn't do an all out "replace war". --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd been wondering about that as well, and the doc is useless on it. I'd say let's get it out. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

imdb and tv.com

I say these options can now be removed. I suggest to remove them visually and let the categories in place, to make sure that the bulk of them was truly removed. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Weren't they already removed?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the bot was still working on moving them. I removed them now however. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Television articles with an IMDb link in the infobox and Category:Television articles with an IMDb link in the infobox --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree, they should stay in the infobox. They never should have been removed in the first place (at least the IMDb one). TJ Spyke 22:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Scheduled ending.

I have a question, I hope it's appropriate to ask it here. For certain shows, if they have an expected ending to their run, yet the show is still airing, should the "original run" date be "– present"? Or "–date"? The main article I am asking for is LOST. The show is scheduled to conclude 2010, but, in the infobox should it read "September 22, 2004 – present"? Or "September 22, 2004 – 2010"? Just wondering. --HELLØ ŦHERE 23:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

In theory, there is a chance that the series could still be continued beyond it's currently intended ending. Although unlikely in the case of Lost, it wouldn't be the first time. Due to a strike, difference of opinion or sudden lack of money, the series can also be shortened unexpectedly. So "present" is more accurate than "planned". --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Voice

What am i meant to do for Voice Director? IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What are you looking at, because "Voice Director" isn't a field in the template.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly my point Bignole. I have a series that has no director, but has a voice director, assistant directors and various other ones. My original question was what do i do.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean like a Voice Director for every episode, who works in the same vein as a live-action Director? You'll have to show me what you're looking at (series and the source that has the "Voice Director"), because I'm not sure what you're referring to precisely. My assumption is that the "Voice Director" is the "Director" of the episode, because animated series don't generally have "direction". Someone draws and someone writes, and then you have someone who directs the people doing the voice work. "Assistant Directors" are just assistance, and they don't typically get mentioned.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

But you generally do have directors on animation, because someone has to tell the storyboarders, and then the animators what the hell to do in relation to shots, camera movement, colours, characters etc. The problem is it's too hard to tell if the voice director is in fact the director, or the producers and assisant directors are doing the job. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, without example with some links I cannot tell you. There isn't a section for it, because it's not something that comes up regularly. If "Voice Director" is what is listed then use that. "Assistant Director" is the same no matter what you're working with. They're the "AD", and they are not listed on any infobox we or anyone has. It's just the personal assistant of the director.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

color

I added a check that tries to find articles that use some of the color options that are NOT in {{television colour}}. When the queue is done processing the changes, they will all show up in Category:Television articles that use colour in the infobox. Then we can go and see what we will do with these options, that some people have argued needed to disappear. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Opening/Closing Credits Production?

Hey guys,

Just thought of this, but what about adding a section on this template where it states what production company has developed/created/designed the opening/closing credits?

Anyway, thats all I'm bringing to the table.

Shieked ^:3 10:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh...why? That is beyond trivial information and not even worth mentioning in the article itself 99.9% of the time, must less in the infobox. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Announcer listing

{{editprotected}} Add an 'announcer' listing. 12.23.2.98 (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been proposed before and rejected by consensus. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Width

Either we need to get an admin to go in an widen the box a little bit, or we need to abbreviate some teams. I just noticed that the "Executive Producer(s)" line says
"Executive Producer
(s)".
It's kind of annoying and unprofessional looking. From what I can tell it's the only item that does that, and can be corrected by either adding a couple of digits to the width em, or by changing it to say "Exec. Producer(s)". It's probably prefer the former.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What I'm looking at is on the Smallville page, and it appears to be dicated by the image size. When I made the image 300px it solved the problem, but 300px seems rather large. Most infoboxes, from my experience, use 250 px. If they use a default setting then random readers get the 180px (which would probably break quite a few section terms into two lines).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

While I'm curious as to how you got the (s) to wrap in the first place (it isn't a word boundary; what browser are you using?) a better solution than arbitrarily overriding the table width would be setting labelstyle = white-space: nowrap so that the labels always kept to one line. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I use IE8. If there is an easier way to keep the text from wrapping, I'm all for it. I just know that the image size is dictating whether it is going to wrap the text or not (smaller image the more likely it will wrap the longer words).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the test cases as see what you think. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It solves the issue with the section titles wrapping, but it forces the specific show's info to wrap instead. I'm not sure if that's better or worse.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Judges?

"If the show involves judges, list them here, separated by line breaks." Is there really a need for a "judges" field? What about lawyers, doctors, officers, bartenders or scientists? It seems pretty odd and out of place to have that field in the infobox. --Conti|✉ 12:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not so weird for American Idol. The X Factor (TV series), Dancing with the Stars and similar highly popular talent shows. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, those kinds of judges. :) --Conti|✉ 12:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Country of origin

The description needs to be more specific. For example, if a show is of American origin, but is just filmed in Canada, does that mean both countries are listed or only the US?--Ridge Runner (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's whoever produces the show. Doctor Who could be filmed in the US, but the primary broadcaster and producer is a UK station. Smallville is filmed in Vancouver, Canada, but The CW and Warner Brothers are American studios. It should probably read something like, "The show's country of origin is the country in which its production house is located." or something like that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that was my interpretation as well, but I'm seeing a lot of US shows that are listed as also Canadian due to being filmed on location.--Ridge Runner (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be. The Dark Knight isn't a Chinese film even though it filmed in China. I think we should come up with a clear definition, and those pages should have the Canadian sticker removed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just giving it a few days to give anyone else a chance to chime in. What about shows like Stargate? They're permanently filmed (and maybe produced) in Canada, but the corporation that owns them (MGM) is American. I guess one way a person could look at it is the Stargate shows are made at The Bridge Studios in Canada. American movies are also made there, but the movies don't say they're also Canadian - just American.--Ridge Runner (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Smallville is 100% filmed in Vancouver. The only thing done in the US is the SFX work, but the show is still an American show, because it's owned and produced by The CW and Warner Bros. Where they film something doesn't really matter, it's about who is producing the show. If the BBC produced Smallville, but filmed it in Kansas, then it would be a British show. It's just like how the Harry Potter books are UK books, but the films are American films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, but all of the Potter films are listed as also being British.--Ridge Runner (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Duh...lol. Heyday is a British film company, and since they produced the film alongside Warner Bros. that's probably why it's listed as both American and UK. I forgot about Heyday. The Film Project defines "country of origin" as "Insert the home country or countries of the film's main production companies" (see Template:Infobox film). That's probably language we could translate over to the TV box.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Rating

Put in the template Rating, because the parents can know the ratings of the show. --Francisco97 (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If parents wanted to know the ratings of a show, they can watch the show as the ratings appear on the TV. In any consequence, a show's ratings have no encyclopedic value unless there is a significance to the rating (like a show receiving controversy because it is more graphic than originally rated, etc.).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

But if a parent don't know what is the rating of the show and they wanna see. So we can put rating in template? because is for the parents and in shows like American Dad! has in the template "rating". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisco97 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a TV guide. If a parent wants to know the rating of a show, then there are other, better venues for them to find such information. Wikipedia is about presenting encyclopedic information about a show. We do not include ratings for TV shows for the same reason that film articles don't include MPAA ratings; because ratings vary from channel to channel. What a show is rated on ABC Family might be the same as what it would be rated on BBC, or CanadaTV. Arbitrary numbers mean little in an article unless you can explain why the show was given such a rating. As such, it would be presented in prose form, and not a template listing everything under the Sun.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ditto what Bignole said. This is not a TV guide nor a parental advisory. Parents can turn to places like CommonSense.com or the like for that. Ratings, even worse than MPAA, are arbitrary and vary from channel to channel, even within American-television for the same series, and many countries have no such ratings. Nor are such ratings appropriate within the prose, as they are primarily American-centric. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Links to lanugage

Why is it that the film infobox automatically links to languages but not the tv infobox? Someone please make it link automatically. 68.35.208.229 (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Last_aired

There has been some edit warring over at Scrubs (TV series) about what exactly should be going in the "last aired" parameter. Personally, I think the use of "present" should be used for returning or airing series as this conforms to WP:OTHERDATE. The article has been held at "{{end date}}" resulting in "October 2, 2001 -  ()" which doesn't agree with MOS and recently, the use of "{{date}}" has been used, resulting in "October 2, 2001 - 17 November 2024" which is incorrect, implying the show ended. What do other editors think? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 14:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The last date should not be used at all unless the series has ended. That said, the current instructions do say to use "date" for the last date of currently running series, which makes little sense to me. I think "on-going" or "present" or leaving blank would be better. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The guideline I mentioned states "1996–present...is preferred in infoboxes", so I support using the word "present". BOVINEBOY2008 :) 14:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. It should simply state "present" for currently airing television shows. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree too. "Present" is far less confusing than date and makes far more sense. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, would everyone agree to this language:

The original airdate of the show's last episode. Use "present" if the show is ongoing or renewed and {{end date}} if the show is ended.

BOVINEBOY2008 :) 04:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support as per my comments above. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, present is the most logical. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So I went ahead and made the change in the documentation. Does it look alright to everyone? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 21:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)