Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

first_run fails WP:TRIVIA, and should be removed

The country or region a show merely happened to air in first is incidental information, and has absolutely nothing to do with the actual production of the show.

It also confuses readers because there are no other fields referring to this one, e.g. first_network. (And I would certainly oppose introducing any, for both trivia and size reasons.) Modernponderer (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Most TV programs first air in the country of origin, i.e. where the program is filmed and/or produced. However, there are some programs where the program is produced in one country but then first airs in another country. Indeed, many US TV programs have aired in Canada the day before it aired in the US. The country where the program first airs generally determines the air dates in the episode lists so this needs to be identified, which is why first_run exists. It's not trivial at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
User:AussieLegend, the original network as referred to in the infobox is the network of production, not a random channel possibly halfway across the world that just happened to air the show first. Air dates from other countries cannot be included in the infobox (doing so violates not only WP:TRIVIA but also WP:UNDUE). Modernponderer (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
You are confusing network with company. Per the infobox instructions:
network - The original network(s) on which the show has appeared.
company - The names of the production company or companies that funded/organized series production.
The network is not necessarily the company that produced the series. There was a long discussion regarding first_run back in 2014 that I started. It is now archived here. A subsequent RfC failed to gain any support for removal. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@User:AussieLegend: I am not confusing anything. The original network(s) are the ones that appears in the closing credits, if any. If for some reason this information is not available, then it is the network(s) that contributed to the production of the series as verified by reliable sources. Finally, if none of this applies then the network can be assumed to be in the country of production.
Your interpretation would force recognizing an "original network" in a country that has absolutely nothing to do with the show. Again, WP:UNDUE prohibits this, and as it is policy you could not override it with consensus here even if it existed!
The RfC on this parameter you're referring to – which I started – had no input whatsoever from other editors, so I could just as easily say it failed to gain any opposition as well. If it were an AfD, it would have been relisted. Unfortunately publicizing RfCs is unnecessarily much more difficult.
On the other hand, your proposal actually did fail to gain consensus, despite quite a bit of discussion. The parameters you proposed were not implemented, and are unlikely to ever be. Modernponderer (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you are wrong. If a program was produced by NBC but aired on CBS, then |network=CBS is the correct entry. That's why the instructions say "The original network(s) on which the show has appeared." If the program simultaneously aired on CBS and NBC, both would be included.
then it is the network(s) that contributed to the production of the series as verified by reliable sources. - That is not supported by the instructions. Again, you are confusing this with the "company" field, which is about production.
The RfC on this parameter you're referring to – which I started – had no input whatsoever from other editors, so I could just as easily say it failed to gain any opposition as well - Ahh, so you're another account of Dogmaticeclectic. An RfC requires the support of others in order to implement a change. If nobody supports or opposes then the proposal fails so failure of anyone to participate can only be taken to mean, given the number of editors who participated in the previous discussion, that people weren't interested in making that change, no matter how much they were hounded. By contrast, the changes proposed by Favre1fan93 did receive support, but the discussion just fizzled out like so many do. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
User:AussieLegend, your statement about me reads like a personal attack, so please strike it out. This is not "another account" – it is exactly the same account.
Your interpretation leads to absurd situations. Consider even these very basic examples:
  • A show was made in the US with participation from the US broadcaster but with absolutely no input from Canada, and was bought by broadcasters worldwide but happened to air in Canada one day earlier than in the US. You would permanently replace the US broadcaster with the Canadian one in the infobox. How in the world is this in line with policy, or remotely useful to readers?
  • A show was made in the US but first appeared online on a foreign broadcaster's streaming platform. Would you replace it then as well?
  • A show was made in the US but was first aired in a non-English-speaking country. How would you even put this in the infobox? Would you change the "original" language of the show too? After all, the merits of the definition are the same as those for an original broadcaster involved in production...
  • A foreign-language series was first aired in the US, or another English-speaking country – perhaps even merely being made available online in some form. Would you really violate Wikipedia:Systemic bias and put the US broadcaster in the infobox?
The simple fact is, if there are commissioning broadcaster(s) for a show – and for modern series there virtually always are – those must be the ones included in the infobox. This prevents quasi-paradoxes like the ones I pointed out, is what policies such as WP:UNDUE require, and is what readers expect to see in an article – not some broadcaster from a country they may never have even heard of. Modernponderer (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
A statement of fact is not a personal attack and, no, it's not the same account. Dogmaticeclectic has had a number of name changes and it would have been nice to know who I was talking to. The last name that Dogmaticeclectic was moved to is still registered. This appears to be a separate account, which is fine as you've disclosed other accounts on your user page. Also, as I'm sure I've mentioned before, you don't need to ping someone every time you reply to them. If they're watching the page, as I am here, they'll see your response. It can be annoying to other editors and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop pinging me. Now, let's move on.
A show was made in the US with participation from the US broadcaster but with absolutely no input from Canada, and was bought by broadcasters worldwide but happened to air in Canada one day earlier than in the US. - Per the infobox instructions it would be appropriate for |first_run=Canada if the series consistently aired in Canada before the US. If it was a one-off incident then commonsense would dictate that first_run would not be completed. The other examples that you've provided have never eventuated to my knowledge. It does nobody any good to consider such possibilities until they happen. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
First of all, this is in fact the same account, like I said. For technical reasons, the redirects had not been updated – I've gone ahead and fixed those. I would suggest not relying on redirects to determine user identity in the future, or questioning what established users tell you about their own accounts for that matter (and in doing so making incredibly dismissive statements that read like attacks).
Second, I cannot know in advance who does not want to be (re-)pinged, or guarantee that I will remember past requests. Now that you have asked, I will stop doing so in this discussion, and will do my best to remember that in future discussions. But, especially on longer talk pages, even having them watchlisted does not mean you will necessarily spot an updated discussion, which is why I continue to use pings unless requested otherwise.
Third and most importantly, you basically dismissed almost everything I wrote as "unimportant" hypotheticals. Even in the one example you did address, you essentially contradicted yourself in terms of application, since now you claim there is a new, unspecified, and arbitrary cutoff for "consistently aired" vs. "a one-off incident". Do you not understand that parameters are supposed to be general, not for incredibly specific use cases that you may have in mind? You have to consider all the reasonably possible use cases, because otherwise infobox parameters are as good as useless. Modernponderer (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
If an account is still active, it doesn't matter if it redirects somewhere else, it's still an account. Provided they are used legitimately, multiple accounts can be used even if they are used by the same editor, but they're still separate accounts. I don't know why you're still going on about this. Regardless of whether or not you know someone is watching a page, you don't need to ping them every time you respond to them. Reply and if they haven't responded in a reasonable time, ping them then if necessary. Pinging someone every time is completely unnecessary. It's like a small child yelling out "Mum! Mum! Mum! Mum! Mum! Mum! Mum! Mum! Mum! Mum!" That leads me to:
you essentially contradicted yourself in terms of application, since now you claim there is a new, unspecified, and arbitrary cutoff for "consistently aired" vs. "a one-off incident". - Not at all. As I said, you have to use a bit of commonsense. The field is aimed at identifying when a series airs in a country other than the country of origin. If a US series airs its first episode in, say, Botswana before the US and then every other episode in the US first, it's misleading to use Botswana in the infobox. The infobox is about the series, not individual episodes, and articles are supposed to report the entire history of a series. In this case it might be appropriate to include a note in the prose that episode 1 aired in Botswana before the US but it's not something that should be in the infobox, which is similar to the lede in that it is a summary of the whole series.
Do you not understand that parameters are supposed to be general, not for incredibly specific use cases that you may have in mind? - This is a rather hypocritical tack given your response to Whats new? in which you state as I already wrote, to my knowledge I have simply never seen one, and from such a perspective your claim that it is "often" mentioned seems incredibly dubious. That's pretty much the argument I used above; it's OK for you to use the argument but not me? Now that's contradictory.
You have to consider all the reasonably possible use cases - The suggestions you made are, in my opinion which is based on 13 years of edits to over 35,500 Wikipedia pages, not reasonably possible use cases. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The so-called hypocrisy you are referring to does not actually exist, because the context is completely different. I am arguing that, in general, reliable sources do not care whatsoever about where a show aired first, so we are not allowed to care either (based on years of experience with reliable sources in general). You are arguing that the entire categories of shows that I am referring to are not reasonably possible use cases (based on your personal choices of which articles to edit). Once again, I refer you to Wikipedia:Systemic bias, and now ask: are you aware that your argument here is essentially based around that, and even perpetuates it? Modernponderer (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support removal. I was actually looking at that parameter yesterday and it really seemed out of place. Regarding AussieLegend's comment, no reader unfamiler with what you just said will understand that from that parameter. If the episode tables need clarification of something, then one of the {{Efn}} templates should be used on those tables. Unrelated side note: I believe that |country= would better fit in the Release section where this parameter is. --Gonnym (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't see the problem here. Perhaps Gone (TV series) is a good example. Commissioned by broadcasters in France and Germany for an American production company to make, but aired first in Australia. I think the infobox is pretty clear and contains all the relevant information. Country of origin, Production companies, Original network and First shown in all seem to work and all are notable. If anything, it makes it more notable that the program aired first outside its home market. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Whats new?, how in the world is it notable!? Would a single reliable source ever even comment on the fact that a show first aired in another country, outside of purely technical citations like for schedules? In all my years of looking up sources for even the most obscure shows, I have never seen this – WP:RS only ever mention original networks, or the network they are focusing on (often the one in the same country as the source) regardless of first airdate.
Furthermore, even if we did for some bizarre reason consider this as "notable" information when reliable sources do not even include it, we would have to change this parameter to first_network because the fact that the different network is in another country is a completely arbitrary distinction – it goes against the rationale behind WP:INFOBOXFLAG much more than it would by actually just using a flag. Modernponderer (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I think it is often mentioned in news media when a program or episode will debut outside its home market first. I think things as they are now are fine, and don't see any need for change, and frankly don't understand the fuss here -- Whats new?(talk) 06:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Whats new?, could you please provide even a single example? Because, as I already wrote, to my knowledge I have simply never seen one, and from such a perspective your claim that it is "often" mentioned seems incredibly dubious. Modernponderer (talk) 08:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Gone is the only example I can think of, as I raised earlier [1] which premiered first in Australia. No one would reasonably say it was an Australian show, it just happened to be broadcast on an Australian channel first before any of its three home markets. The infobox works. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Whats new?, thank you for providing that link. It is indeed a reliable source supporting that claim, but given how unusual it is it should only be noted in prose in the article's broadcast section per WP:TVINTL, and not in the infobox.
(Note that TVINTL was very contentious and mentioning foreign broadcasters at all barely got consensus, so I really struggle to see how having an infobox parameter for this type of information is in any way logical even from a consensus perspective.) Modernponderer (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not sure how you think this is different from, say, |country= from {{Infobox book}}. In most cases the network on which a series first airs is not "a random channel possibly halfway across the world that just happened to air the show first."— TAnthonyTalk 01:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
User:TAnthony, this infobox template does have its own "country" parameter, as well as an entirely separate "network" field for the original network(s). The parameter in question is used for something entirely different, that is very often "a random channel possibly halfway across the world that just happened to air the show first". Please refer to the discussions above, where I explained the issue in detail. Modernponderer (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The "country" field in {{Infobox book}} has a similar use to "first_run" here, which is different to the use of "country" in this infobox. That's what he was talking about, not implying that this infobox doesn't have one. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
No. Infobox book does not have a separate parameter for a second country that is entirely separate from the production of the book. And even if it did, publication is part of producing a book, while merely broadcasting a show has nothing whatsoever to do with producing it! The analogy fails on multiple levels. Modernponderer (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
"A show was made in the US but was first aired in a non-English-speaking country. How would you even put this in the infobox? Would you change the "original" language of the show too?" So what do you do with "Stargate Atlantis" or "Supernatural", which were produced in Canada but first run in the U.S.? (I'm less sure about the likes of "Rookie Blue" , which AIUI was made for Canadian TV & exported. It appears "Diamonds", which I first saw on on CBS, actually ran first on Global.) Omit the U.S. network? And what happens to "Airwolf" or "JAG", which debuted on one network & moved to another, or changed production companies, or both? You seem to think only networks produce programming; AFAIK, that's never been the standard in U.S. or Canadian TV, though it might be elsewhere. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Trekphiler, you bring up some rather interesting cases but your characterization of my position is incorrect – it is in fact the exact opposite. I am drawing a distinction between production companies and commissioning broadcasters. The former go into the company field, the latter under the network parameter.
Countries are, and should be, largely irrelevant for the infobox outside of the country parameter itself – which according to the documentation for company should pretty clearly be based on that (and not the networks at all), though it is not stated explicitly. Modernponderer (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I am drawing a distinction between production companies and commissioning broadcasters. The former go into the company field, the latter under the network parameter. - Where did you come up with "commissioning broadcasters"? That is not at all mentioned in the infobox. The instructions are quite clear |network=The original network(s) on which the show has appeared. Nowhere does it talk about commissioning broadcasters. This seems to be only your (mis)interpretation. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
The only interpretation of "original networks" that does not violate WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, and WP:TRIVIA is as "commissioning broadcasters". (Note furthermore that "original" is not the same as "first", e.g. as used in the parameter we are talking about here.) Modernponderer (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Note furthermore that "original" is not the same as "first" - You are incorrect. Quite some time ago we had a problem with people adding networks to infoboxes that resulted in the usage being changed, or rather confirmed as meaning the first network on which a series aired. To the average person "original" and "first" mean the same thing, at least as far as the channel/network is concerned. An example of the problem was that a program was first aired on "network 1". Reruns subsequently aired on "network 2" then it later appeared on "network 3". People would add "network 2" and "network 3", because they were networks on which the program aired, which was wrong. The field is for the first/original network. Nobody has ever discussed "commissioning network". Again, this is only your interpretation and is not the way that the field is used or, to my knowledge, has ever been used. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
No, you are incorrect – on all counts (other than the reruns thing, which is obviously true but a red herring in this discussion). First of all, even if you were right that that is not how it is currently used, that would still be how it ought to be used. I remind you that WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, and WP:TRIVIA are policy (or a guideline in the latter case) and per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot be overridden neither by "accepted use" (which hardly qualifies as consensus at all), nor even by an actual consensus here! Second, in my extensive experience editing TV series articles, that has essentially always been how it was interpreted, and it is in fact your interpretation that when attempted has been quickly reverted and provoked significant controversy (for very good reason). Modernponderer (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
The outcome of this, and similar discussions does not support your claims but it appears that reality is not something that you are willing to accept. As for your extensive experience editing TV series articles, I'm not convinced, nor impressed with such a claim, given my own experience. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I could say all of that to you (given that this discussion is a pretty obvious "no consensus" right now). The simple fact is that we probably need a separate discussion on the question of "original networks", as that seems to be the key issue – on which basically nobody else has even weighed in here. Modernponderer (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
♠"your characterization of my position" I don't mean to characterize it in any fashion. It's evident I've misunderstood your intent, because I read it to mean produced in one country & broadcast in another, without regard to "commissioning".
♠On the matter of "commissioning", that implies networks are pre-ordering certain kinds of pilots, & AFAIK, no network has ever done that. If you mean, the network that buys the particular pilot (series), I think we still disagree, but I'm not (now) clear enough I've understood you correctly. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with pilots. A modern TV show generally has commissioning broadcaster(s) listed in the credits for the entire duration of the series. Modernponderer (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
But even if you're right about that info – you're simply pointing out that the countries that should be listed are the US and Mexico. So what is the point of listing both of them twice? What is the purpose of this parameter being in the infobox, as opposed to "country"? Modernponderer (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I think its use is already explained. For example if the introduction of the article does not say something about it, this helps anyone understand and know in which country premiered a production. And really, I will not change my opinion. The parameter fulfills its function very well.--Philip J Fry (¿Dime quién ama de verdad?) 16:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Then you should be aware that WP:POLL applies to all consensus on Wikipedia, not just deletion discussions. And given that your opinion is essentially WP:ILIKEIT without offering any explanation whatsoever for the duplication of identical information, I cannot take it into serious consideration – and I would expect that to be the case for other editors as well (such as a potential discussion closer). Modernponderer (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Support: When did this paremeter get added? I have done many infoboxes in the last 10 years and have never used it. I can see problems with many shows such as Game of Thrones that has been having simulcasts in the UK and America and I think in other parts of the world. The paremeter is not being used there. REVUpminster (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The field was added 12 years ago.[2] Like most fields, it doesn't need to be used in every infobox.
I can see problems with many shows such as Game of Thrones ... The paremeter is not being used there. - If it's not being used there it's not really a problem is it? --AussieLegend (✉) 10:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Request

Given the increasingly common phenomenon of television networks reviving old series that were out of production for some time, this infobox needs a new way to offer multiple "first_aired" and "last_aired" dates. As it now stands, shows such as Will & Grace, Murphy Brown and Street Legal are stuck with deceptive and inaccurate infoboxes, because the only way to make note of the current revival in the infobox is to erase the original end date and not add the revival's premiere date at all, so that the series is now inaccurately depicted as starting on its original premiere date but airing continuously to the present day without interruption.

Basically, the first_aired and last_aired fields need options to include more than one date, in the "first_aired1" + "first_aired2" format, so that all of the relevant dates can be listed. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Co-exective producer

Hi, I'm just wondering where someone designated as a "co-executive producer" would be placed in an infobox. Executive producer or producer or none? It doesn't really make sense to exclude them but I'm unsure as to where they fit. Should there be a new parameter for co-executive producers? Heartfox (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that this was last addressed in this discussion, and before that here. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Sandbox

This template is using a sandbox version of module:string (i.e. module:String/sandbox) via Module:Infobox television disambiguation check. It should be fixed. Christian75 (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Unless you see any error then there is nothing to "fix" and if you do, please report any. The module will change to the live version soon, just waiting for the code to sync. --Gonnym (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
The moment I (or somebody else) change the sandbox you will see 46644 scripts errors. Its a sandbox i.e. not for highly visible templates. Christian75 (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Well good thing then that Module:String is fully protected and can only be edited by an admin and not by a user without even template editing permission, right? There is a reason why the module called a sandbox version, as the relevant code was added specifically by an admin for this purpose and it needed testing to make sure that the 6.3m transclusions of it don't break. My initial testing found no errors, so I've mode the code to live for a day to make sure I haven't missed anything. Once that was done and the Module:String code was synced to live, I've updated the template. Please don't waste my, or anyone else's time on a infobox template you've never commented before, and for articles you aren't editing. --Gonnym (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Please don't use sandbox version of templates again with your template editor right. There is no good reason that a "live" template is using a sandbox version, especially a highly visible template. I came here because the template was using a sandbox version of a module. Any controversial edit you make with your template editor right should be discussed first. Christian75 (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 May 2019

Please revert last edit[3]. Its uses Module:Infobox television disambiguation check which uses Module:String/sandbox. The creator says its not a problem. I disagree - a highly used template should not use a sandbox version. The edit was not uncontroversial edits especially because it uses a sandbox module. Christian75 (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Christian75 (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

You've already created a discussion above, waited less than a day and created another one here, linked to Wikipedia:Template editor with an MOS:EGG link which if you'd actually read what it says then Non-controversial changes to hidden tracking categories. is placed in the uncontroversial section. I've commented in the previous section as well and said all I need to here. Your actions are a hindrance to the wiki. --Gonnym (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
As said in the last section. Every edit a template editor makes which is controversial should be discussed first. BRD is not for protected templates (or articles). And its just wrong that you decline the rollback of an edit you made yourself. Anyway, you fixed your mistake and the template isn't using a sandbox version anymore. Christian75 (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

arrow Reverted. @Gonnym: you should have immediately self-reverted when your undiscussed change was disputed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay I just noticed that the issue is resolved, so i redeployed. My other comment stands though — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@MSGJ: I've been working on fixing TV names for over a year, tagging and fixing more than 1000 pages, and this was the next step to catch those I couldn't. I would have reverted if an editor reported an actual error or the report came from one of the maintainers of the template, a member of the relevant WikiProjects or even from a random person that edits TV-related pages and somehow decided to report this. Instead it came from a drive-by editor that probably saw this template page pop up on some report, demanded it be "fixed" and waited less than a day to file this request. That is the dentition of bad faith, and I disagree with your conclusion. --Gonnym (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Do not call my request bad faith. I came here because I saw a highly visible template was transcluding a /sandbox module. Would you accept an edit request which used a /sandbox module on 40000+ pages? There is a reason this template is protected. Politely, I asked you to fix it, and you said 'There is nothing to "fix"'. Therefore, I requested your edit reverted. Christian75 (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Template instructions

{{Infobox television/sandbox
| show_name         = Example
| cast              = John Smith
Fred McMurray
| writers           = Not the ones who wrote the GoT final season
| creative producer = Someone else
| original network  = syndication
| date aired        = 12 February 1999 - 30 February 2001
}}

Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters is a category that I check at least twice daily and there are normally 5 or more articles in there with errors. It occurred to me that it might help editors if there was a link to the infobox insructions in the infobox. This doesn't need to be there all the time, only when the editor is previewing, which is when they get warning of any invalid fields in the infobox. To see this in action, edit the adjacent infobox and then preview the results. I've added some actual fields that I've seen to give you some idea of the things people are adding. I've tested the changes and can't see any issues. Does anyone have any issues with adding the code to the infobox? --AussieLegend (✉) 08:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Wouldn't just modifying the warning red text be better? At first glance I missed the link you added as I was looking at the warnings, but with a very long infobox, I really think the below link will be missed. --Gonnym (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    • The main thing is to have a link to the instructions. The method we use is not that important to me. I realise that a lot of editors are going to ignore the instructions anyway regardless of where we have it, even if there were bells, whistles and someone jumping through the screen and punching them in the face. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I have no issue with anything that makes maintenance better. I personally think that the warning message should be edited (as I've done in the sandbox which you can see in the preview), as it makes it much more noticeable, but have no issue if you think the link in below works better. --Gonnym (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
        • I think both are useful. While it may seem an overkill to have both, the warning messages won't exist in a properly functioning template but editors expanding an infobox will still have a link to the instructions. The links only exist in preview mode so it's not going to affect anything once save is pressed. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Sure, no issue with me to having both, with a small caveat that if in the future a legitimate use of the "below" line is needed, this won't be an obstacle to implement it. --Gonnym (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
            • I can't see that as an issue. In any case, I just had an "interesting" discussion with another editor after I removed the dates against presenters' names at Press Your Luck. My edit summary was "We don't put years in the infobox. Please read the infobox instructions",[4] and the editor in question said on my talk page First, you provided NO actual citation (i.e., link) to the alleged "infobox instructions" supporting your claim. It seems at least one editor has found an issue with lack of a link so this seems to have come at a good time. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I am wondering whether it would be possible and convenient for you to 1) add an explanation like "Infobox Instructions (Only Shown in Preview Mode)" to the bottom link, and 2) restore the old "unknown parameter red alerts" as well.
Reason for 1: It would be helpful for (some) people to realize that the bottom instruction link is not a bug or their own typo. It took me three days to figure out this and resume editing—or maybe I am too dumb…
Reason for 2: The old red alert would be straightforward for people to locate the unknown parameters used by mistake—I edit pages on both English and Chinese Wikipedia. Their infobox templates have slightly different sets of parameters defined, even though they share a same template name. This makes me adding locally unknown parameters from time to time.
Thank you for your time (and sorry for your loss).Skywayer (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Skywayer:, I've just double checked and I still see the red preview. Are you sure it isn't appearing for you? Can you link to an example that it isn't working? --Gonnym (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Gonnym: Thank you for pointing out and I was wrong about the disappearance of red alerts. I misunderstood infobox tv source codes that the bottom instruction link would only appear if any unknown parameter was detected—it is coded to be shown as default.
For the first point, I don't mind adding the extra text. @AussieLegend: any comments on this request? --Gonnym (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't really see how a line saying "Infobox instructions" could confuse anyone but I don't oppose clarification text. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Skywayer:, added "(only shown in preview)". --Gonnym (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you all for the fast response and action:) Skywayer (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

"Years or seasons should not be included"?

Can someone explain the rationale behind this directive, noted in some but not all the relevant fields? Particularly in the case of Jeopardy!, removing the year/season information greatly reduces the meaningfulness of the information presented without substantially improving the aesthetic of the presentation. It just makes it seem like the show had multiple hosts/producers/directors/announces etc. simultaneously, when a simple inclusion of year/season eliminates any such confusion and keeps things clean. Is not this rule more of a "foolish consistency" hobgoblin? (For reference, here is the first diff that introduced this language, although initially it was only for "starring".) Robert K S (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that this has also been raised at WT:TV#"Years or seasons should not be included"?. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Stage/scenic designer

Shouldn't Stage designer or scenic designer be included in the template? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not a thing that is used in most programs from my experience. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I think all the TV shows have a scenic designer. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Add "episode_list" as an alternative to "list_episodes"

Proposal: Add |episode_list= as an alternative to |list_episodes= so all 3 television infoboxes (this, {{Infobox television season}} and {{Infobox television episode}}) use the same parameter name, making usage easier for editors (as editors won't need to learn/remember which parameter name is used where), and will make it easier when converting infobox from series->season or season->series. This parameter should also be the one shown in the documentation as while support for the previous one should still exist, it should be discouraged for the benefits given above. --Gonnym (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

This infobox is used in 47,000 articles while the other two are used in just under 17,000 so it be more logical to make those templates comply with this than the other way around. I thought we had actually done that some time ago. I remember a discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the parameter name of "episode_list" is more clear than "list_episodes", but if that is the only contention point and you think the other is better, I'm ok with going the other way. --Gonnym (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Just as a followup, while this template is used much more than the other 2, it only has 3240 uses of this parameter, while the other two have 3421 and 8759 - so far less uses. --Gonnym (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

narrator vs narrated

While we're on the subject, I noticed that this uses |narrated=, while {{Infobox episode}} uses |narrator=. Most of the "job" titles are in the latter's style (director, creator, developer, presenter, executive_producer) so this would also benift in changing to fit the style of other job titles and the other infobox. --Gonnym (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Revival Series; Last Aired situation

I'm sorry and I'm going to be completely blunt But I don't like the way that last_aired is used.

Yes, The infobox is ONLY supposed to show when the program started and when it ended and not supposed to detail the entire history. However, I feel that it is discriminatory Seriously it's like dismissing them as not revivals but just new seasons when they had been off the air for decades.

I just don't see the reason to just have it in that format.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

And as AussieLegend said to me, he suggested that If I don't agree with what's happening, I take it to this talk page. As I said before, I feel that it is discriminatory Seriously it's like dismissing them as not revivals but just new seasons when they had been off the air for decades. In the examples I'm putting the first section works, but the second no thank you:
The X-Files
Original release
ReleaseOriginal series:
September 10, 1993 (1993-09-10) –
May 19, 2002 (2002-05-19)
Revival:
January 24, 2016 (2016-01-24) – March 21, 2018 (2018-03-21)
The X-Files
Original release
ReleaseSeptember 10, 1993 (1993-09-10) –
March 21, 2018 (2018-03-21)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by AnimeDisneylover95 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to point to Gilmore Girls, which had a short-lived revival that had a different name and its own article, so this issue did not arise there. Personally, as a reader, I'd prefer the Original series/Revival distinction in the infobox. Not having that distinction implies that the show was on the air consecutively for that period, which it obviously wasn't. To go back to the Gilmore Girls example, the presense of revival information in the inforbox should not depend on if the revival kept the show's name or didn't. Or have a look at the Roseanne/The Conners situation, where both things happened (same-named revival and continual under a different name). I guess you could ask for more input at WP:TV. – sgeureka t•c 19:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Executive producers

Should the executive producer's section be used for the current season's producers or shall we list all including past producers? --Judicature (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:TVCAST, "Articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such cast members remain on the list even after their departure from the series." This applies to crew as well so al executive producers should be listed. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Italic title

How should I use this parameter ?, because it is not indicated, if I put "yes" or "no", it does nothing.-- Bradford ✉ 11:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Normally it's not necessary to use the parameter as the infobox automatically italicises page titles, which is effectively |italic_title=yes. When a page title shouldn't be italicised |italic_title=no should be used. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Difficulty of implementation of season_title parameter?

This template currently has the "num_seasons" and "num_series" parameters, which cover nearly all cases. But how difficult or accepted would it be to add a universal "season_title" work-around parameter similar to what {{Television ratings graph}} has? I am asking because of Money Heist, where the production and release platforms group the episodes into "parts" (technically half-seasons) rather than seasons, while a surprisingly large number of third-party publications have begun to refer to parts as (full) seasons, resulting in a big naming mess. The article currently uses the not-so-great but at least stable solution of "num_seasons=2 (3 parts)", and only uses "parts" in the prose. – sgeureka t•c 11:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I figured out the solution myself: diff. Any opposition before I make this change and update the documentation? – sgeureka t•c 10:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I'll back off from this for now. (I found that The Ranch (TV series) independently uses the same solution as Money Heist, and I will research more similar cases.) But I'll leave this proposal up in case I'll revisit this in the future. – sgeureka t•c 10:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Released field not working

A TV Show
Original release
ReleaseOctober 24, 2019 (2019-10-24)

The released field isn't displaying. See code and example. 

{{Infobox television
| name            = A TV Show
| released             = {{Start date|2019|10|24}}
| first_aired          = <!-- {{Start date|2019|10|24}} -->
}}

But first_aired works fine. - X201 (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

You shouldn't be using both first_aired and released. This is a sort of error checking for the many articles where somebody puts a location in released instead of a date, which happens far too often
A TV Show
Original release
ReleaseOctober 24, 2019 (2019-10-24)
{{Infobox television
| name            = A TV Show
| released             = China
| first_aired          = {{Start date|2019|10|24}}
}}
Just to elaborate on AussieLegend's answer from the code side: The way the code was setup as {{{first_aired|{{{released|}}}}}} which means that it checks if the |first_aired= parameter is used, and if it isn't, only then does it move on to check |released=. In your example, you used the field, and even-though the content of that field was empty, it still won't move on to the next field. I personally prefer the style of {{If empty |{{{first_aired|}}} |{{{released|}}} }} which means that it checks if the field is empty or not. As I wasn't the one who wrote that part of the code, I have no idea what was the reasoning behind that. --Gonnym (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Being used to numerous other templates that use If empty I'd assumed this would do the same. Perhaps we need to rethink the copy and paste version of the template on the Documentation page. e.g. 

| released             = <!-- {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}} -->
| first_aired          = <!-- {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}} -->

Users will copy and paste that without knowing that any text in the one field will cause the other to not display. - X201 (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

State of the series

Hello! Is it possible to add a parameter concerning the state of the series. It should denote which situation the series is in. If it is in production or cancelled. It is important for those who are interested in the series in general. Status should denote which situation the series is in. It can be of importance for the followers of the series. --88.89.14.37 (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Choreographer

Could a parameter for choreographer be added? Some shows have a significant amount of dancing or dance numbers, and the choreographer is really of interest in those cases. Schazjmd (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: Hey there, just a friendly note that it might be helpful to other editors who might be interested in scope if you could provide some examples of shows that might need this parameter as well as maybe expanding a bit on how prolific those shows might be in whatever culture you are referring to. As someone who usually polices Indian film and TV articles, I can sometimes see the need for other parameters that might be more specific to non-western-style TV. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Some examples of current articles where the choreographer parameter would be useful are Glee, Zoey's Extraordinary Playlist, Smash (TV series), Cop Rock, Soundtrack, and Crazy Ex-Girlfriend. Schazjmd (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Producer section

This section either shouldn't be present or should be overhauled, at least for US TV. Unlike in film, 'Producer' is not a particularly notable position in US TV, and the vast majority of the time it refers to medium-ranking writers, who exist below EPs, Co-EPs and Supervising Producers in the hierarchy - the latter two obviously not being included in the template as it exists. The exception to this are people who get a 'Produced by' credit. 115.70.7.33 (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the parameter should remain, as it remains relevant for shows produced in the U.K. and other countries. However, the parameter should be ignored for U.S. shows for the reasons you have stated (it makes no sense to list producers but not co-exec. or supervising producers who outrank them), and this should be noted in the template documentation. I think it's fine for just the executive producers to be included for U.S. shows. Jimmio78 (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Streaming

Can we add a steaming release information parameter something? Perhaps under the release section or its own section. My7thsecret (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean? When you say "steaming release information", do you mean that a show was originally released on Netflix and you want to add the date? Or do you mean a show that was originally released on ABC and then 7 months later was released on Netflix and you want to add that information? --Gonnym (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The second one, yes. My7thsecret (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
We normally only record the first date that a program airs on its original network, not subsequent releases on other networks. If we did otherwise, infoboxes would be filled with release dates on subsequent networks. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
This is helpful specially if you are looking for a show's (past and current) streaming home. My7thsecret (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
With streaming rights this isn't very useful. A show can be on Netfix Singapore, but not on Netflix US, while in the US it can be on Hulu and in Canada on a different one. Which one do you add? --Gonnym (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
No need for the streaming release date. Just the name of the streaming service will do. Release date will be exclusive to its first release. My7thsecret (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Only those shows with exclusivity will have that info. The Mandalorian or the The Witcher, for example, which are available in Disney+ and Netflix, respectively, in all locations. My7thsecret (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
The Simpson's also. My7thsecret (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I understand you want that, but I've explained the issues and so did AussieLegend. For shows like Mandalorian and Witcher, they are already listed as such as that is the original network. Anything else does not belong in the infobox. I won't reply anymore to this issue. --Gonnym (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I'll further add that this is something best handled in the body of the article, maybe in the "Broadcast" section. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Judges/list in infobox

Hey there... so for a quick run-down of the situation, America's Got Talent has had many judges on the show since it began in 2006. With Sofía Vergara announced yesterday, she will be the 12th person to be a judge on the show. As a result, I think the infobox is getting a bit crowded.

Yesterday, I changed it to be "starring" instead of "judges" in the infobox as per MOS:TV#Infobox. However, since then, it's been changed up a bit (as the history shows...), and now reverted back to the full list of judges over the years. So what should be done here?

Personally, I think it would be fine to change it to "starring" and only have the current judges, and then for the "presented by", remove past hosts and just keep the current one listed. Seems a bit too much, especially with a table further in the article listing all of these people anyways.

Other shows and how their pages handle it (keeping everyone listed) has been brought up as well, including American Idol, Grey's Anatomy, and Britain's Got Talent. The Voice also lists everyone in the infobox. However, should be noted that WP:OSE exists- just because these other articles are doing it, doesn't mean AGT needs to too. In fact, they could be doing it wrong in the first place.

Also, not to be rude/bash on the other two users involved in this, but I had a talk page message about this since July 2019, with no response from anyone. Even with the recent edits on the page yesterday regarding this, no discussion whatsoever held there, only through edit summaries, which doesn't help that much.

Thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Pinging GUtt01 and Heartfox to this as well. Magitroopa (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Your trying to fix a problem by creating a different problem. Don't make up titles. A judge is not a "starring" role. Those are completely different TV series and functions. The real issue is sadly unrelated to this or any show, but the fact that the initial design of the infobox even let seasonal staff positions to be used in the overall infobox. This means that it will always be a spam-list, whether it's a full starring cast for long series, judges, writers, directors or others. If any list is too long, you have only 2 real solutions. Either decide that a long list is fine and keep it as is, or use a "See list" and link it to somewhere in the article which lists them. Using incorrect infobox parameters, or using the series infobox as a season infobox are both options that the infobox does not support or allow. --Gonnym (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe the infobox is suitable for the program, in terms of identifying members by their role - switching Judge to Starring is a mistake, and problematic, since that states something else for a televised competition. In regards to the length of entries for those sections in the Infobox I'd say we vote on one particular option, suggested by Gonnym, we could implement - using a "See List" option. If there's a deadlock on this matter, recommend a RfC to gain further input on the matter. GUtt01 (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Country of origin

Hi. I hope this is the right place for this discussion. Can someone clarify what the "Country of origin" parameter should indicate? I'm contributing to these articles about US/Italian co-productions and I have a few doubts:

Given that:

  1. A production company is the executive company physically producing the series and is hired by a network (sometimes through a mediator production company or department within a network like Rai Fiction for Rai and HBO Entertainment for HBO).
  2. A commissioning channel/network is the channel financing the series and the one broadcasting it for the first time. If more channels are commissioning the series, the original release date is the one of the first channel AMONG those which have commissioned the series.
  3. A distributor is a company who sells the series internationally to non-commissioning channels/networks.
  4. A location is the country or countries where the series is filmed.

In the case of My Brilliant Friend, the production companies are Wildside (Italian), Fandango (Italian), Umedia (international), The Apartment (Italian), Mowe (Italian). The commissioning channels are Rai 1 (Italian) and HBO (American), with the first season airing in the US first and the second in Italy first (as indicated in the "First shown in" parameter in the template). The international distributor is Fremantle (a UK company with a subsidiary in Italy). The series is filmed in Italy. As of now the listed countries of origin are Italy, United States.

In the case of The Young Pope and The New Pope, the production companies are Wildside (Italian), Haut et Court TV (French), Mediapro (Spanish), The Apartment (Italian, New Pope only). The commissioning channels are Sky Atlantic (Italian), HBO (American), Canal+ (French), with first release on Sky Atlantic in Italy. The international distributor is Fremantle (a UK company with a subsidiary in Italy). The series are filmed in Italy (both) and in the US (Young Pope only). As of now the countries of origin are Italy, France, Spain.

In the case of We Are Who We Are, the production companies are The Apartment (Italian), Wildside (Italian), Small Forward (Italian). The commissioning channels are Sky Atlantic (Italian) and HBO (American), with first release unknown yet. The international distributor is Fremantle (a UK company with a subsidiary in Italy). The series was shot in Italy. As of now the countries of origin are Italy, United States.

In the case of ZeroZeroZero, the production companies are Cattleya (Italian) and Bartleby Film (Italian). The commissioning channels are Sky Atlantic (Italian), Amazon (American) and Canal+ (French), with first release on Sky Atlantic in Italy. The international distributor is Fremantle (a UK company with a subsidiary in Italy). The series was shot in Italy, Mexico, United States, Senegal, Morocco. As of now the country of origin is Italy.

So, my question is: WHAT SHOULD COUNTRY OF ORIGIN REFER TO? The country/ies of the production companies, the country/ies of the commissioning channels, the country/ies of the distributor, the country/ies of filming or a mixture of some or all of these?

--TheVampire (talk) 14:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I've always viewed it as "who owns the show". In today's day and age, you frequently have multiple production companies from around the world, and they don't all provide equal portions. It's whatever the main company can do to cut costs, and so I don't necessarily see the list of production companies as the way of determining "country of origin". I don't particularly like the idea of "Country of origin" anyway, because there's an implicit idea of "where did it start", but that's not indicative of where it's from necessarily.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Exactly, I don't like it either because it's confusing. With "who owns the show" do you mean the commissioning channel(s) or the production companies? Because sometimes you have a production company owning the show and the commissioning channel calling it an 'original series' at the same time, with the production company bound to produce the show for the channel by contract. So, let's take The Young Pope for example: it was made by three production companies: 1 Italian, 1 French, 1 Spanish and it was commissioned as an original series by three channels: 1 Italian, 1 French, 1 American. What should the country of origin list? Italy, France, Spain OR Italy, France, United States OR Italy, France, Spain, United States? I'm lost :D --TheVampire (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I think your examples are a great way of why it's so confusing. I mean who actually owns the rights. To give you an example that is a bit easier to follow: Lucifer is owned by Warner Bros. So, the show was primarily produced by WB, with like 3 or 4 other companies include Jerry Bruckheimer's company. They don't own any piece of Lucifer, they just get a piece of the profits. WB owns it outright and when Fox cancelled the show Netflix picked it up. Netflix still lists it as an "original series", but they don't own it. In fact, they are in negotiations to get another season from WB for it. As WB is the owner, I see the country of origin as "the US", nowhere else, even if some other company happened to be located in another country. At the end of the day, only 1 person owns the property.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
So, would you say looking at the copyright at the end of an episode would be helpful? For The Young Pope there's this: "Copyright Wildside / Sky Italia / Haut et Court TV / Mediaproducciòn 2019. All rights reserved". That is 2 Italian companies, 1 French and 1 Spanish. That means that they share the copyright and that the series is then Italian, French and Spanish of origin, despite being broadcast by HBO, too?--TheVampire (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
That depends. There's a difference between owning the episode and owning the rights to the story. I'm not sure how easy it is to find that out, which always takes me back to the question of "why do we need 'County of Origin'"? WB shows are always fairly easy to figure that because WB rarely licenses out their stuff other than for distribution purposes. I mean, there's a pretty solid chance that "The New Pope" is not owned by HBO. Everything that I can find for most of those shows link back to an Italian ownership with distribution and possibly some production assistance from American companies. My concern about "County of Origin" has always been that simply because another production company from another country works on the show/film, that doesn't make it theirs and doesn't really indicate that's where the show is from. Otherwise, you end up with a lot of "American/Canadian" productions because Hollywood films a lot in Canada because it's cheaper.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I'll leave them as they are for now, I guess. Thanks for your comments. We'll see if, in the future, this problem will rise again and what the consensus will be on the use of this parameter of the template.--TheVampire (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
"Country of origin" (|country=) is in my opinion wrongly set up here. It currently represents two different parameters - The show's country of origin and The country or region where the show was first broadcast. Omit if the same country as country of origin above or if the show has only been broadcast in one country or region. (taken from |first_run=). These two are completely different functions and should never have even been used together. The "what country owns the program" is completely irrelevant in the infobox, and I'd say even in the article itself. A country does not own a show. A cooperation owns it. So, should The Boondocks (2020 TV series) which airs on a American network, produced by a Sony Pictures Television and Sony Pictures Animation which are American companies, and are owned by Sony, a Japanese conglomerate, be listed as "United States" for country of origin? A much better usage, which is the one that most editors and readers are actually using this for, is "where did the show first air?" (as in "for what country was it produced for"). I'd be in favor of changing the infobox to reflect this. --Gonnym (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
In the examples I mentioned, I put "Italy" in the |first_run= parameter because that was the first country where these series were broadcast. However, these series were later broadcast in France and/or in America, on Canal+ and HBO or Amazon, which acted as co-commissioners for the series (for The New Pope for instance, every poster from HBO says "a joint production SKY/HBO/CANAL+"). So if you have more than one commissioning channel/network, what is the country of origin? Is it a list of the countries where the commissioning channels are based or is it a list of the countries where the production companies are based? That was the doubt, because the |first_run= parameter is pretty straightforward and it only includes the single country where the series is broadcast for the first time if there are multiple commissioning channels from different countries. Since we already separate production companies from the international distributor and the original networks, the parameter (|country=) is misleading because it is not clear what it refers to.--TheVampire (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
In my view (which is currently counter to the infobox), I would say that the |first_run= parameter should not be used as a "competition" parameter, as in, "who was able to place the show in the earliest time slot", which is why I said above "for what country was it produced for". So in your examples of join productions from different countries, each of those countries would be valid to list, as each of those channels/networks would also be valid to have the show in a original programming category for that channel, such as Category:HBO original programming. --Gonnym (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Location

Hi, there I'm just asking if a show such as Ant and Dec's Saturday Night Takeaway has broadcast from one off filming locations such as Walt Disney World, is it acceptable for that Location to be mentioned in the infobox? Pepper Gaming (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Location should be the main/primary filming location. One-off locations shouldn't be mentioned in the infobox, but can/should be noted in the article body/appropriate area. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Can you edit that and add something that says no one off locations? And why shouldn't be included? Pepper Gaming (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC).
Can someone answer my question please Pepper Gaming (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Added "primary" to the location section, as that is what it has always meant.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@Bignole: Cheers, otherwise people will believe that one off locations are accepted (like me, until GUtt01 said otherwise)

Revert

I've reverted today's changes, because [[Category:Pages using infobox television with alias parameters|]] was showing as raw text in articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The issue was with a tracking template, so I've restored the edits but without tracking, for now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Website parameter

Hey team, I see this has been discussed before here with apparently no follow-up, so just bringing attention back to it. Currently it is suggested to use |website=hide if you don't want to display the wikidata URL in the infobox, but instead of just hiding the field it is displaying "[hide Website]". Does anyone know how to address this? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Follow up question. Why do we even need website info in the infobox anymore? Can't we just include it in an external links section at the bottom of the article? Just looking at other media infoboxes (film and video games), they don't include websites in their infoboxes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Only just spotted this, but I support the idea. Remove the parameter and let External Links do the job it's brilliant at. - X201 (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
This is the template code: {{#if: {{{website|{{#property:P856}}}}} | [{{{website|{{#property:P856}}}}} {{#if: {{{website_title|}}} | {{{website_title}}}|Website}}] }}. Looking at the code, I have no idea how the "hide" flag handles this. Regarding the removal of the parameter, I don't think I have a problem with it, but I'd like to point out that other TV- and media-related templates such as {{Infobox television season}}, {{Infobox reality talent competition}} and {{Infobox media franchise}} have this parameter. I'd be in favour of removing only if we are consistent with this across these related templates. --Gonnym (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Having looked at the three templates mentioned I can't see any special reason why they should keep the field either. - X201 (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm still of the mindset of outright removal, and would support removal on the other templates Gonnym listed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I've left notices at the other templates about this discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
The hide parameter did work initially but broke when Alex 21 fixed something.[5][6] --AussieLegend (✉) 11:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97, Favre1fan93, X201, and AussieLegend: no one commented on this after I posted notices. How should we continue? --Gonnym (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I still say it should be outright removed and any website(s) can be kept to the external links sections. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Favre. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to deprecate "show_name" in favour of "name"

This infobox uses |show_name= with |name= as an alias. This is inconsistent with most infoboxes with |name= being the field normally used. This also causes an issue with the ongoing conversion of television film articles to use this infobox rather than {{infobox film}}. The field is normally overlooked when manually converting, resulting in Category:Pages using infobox television with alias parameters being populated. I am therefore proposing that we deprecate |show_name= in favour of |name=, with |show_name= becoming the alias. This will not affect any existing articles as |show_name= will still work. Articles can be "fixed" on an ad hoc basis unless somebody wants to organise a bot to change all infoboxes. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I suppose it would have to. (I actually forgot about that one) --AussieLegend (✉) 17:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok, support both parameter changes. I would actually prefer the end result to have a bot replace the parameters (User:PrimeBOT is set up to handle such operations) and then remove it from the infobox code. --Gonnym (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@AussieLegend and Gonnym: Actually, if we're going to make these adjustments, would it be better and potentially clearer to make |name2=, |alt_name=? I think just by looking at the parameter with that name, it is super clear what it should be used for. Right now, |name2= has ambiguity to what it could be used for in the template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
That seems quite appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Agree, I just hope that there won't be confusion between it and |alt=. --Gonnym (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The actual field is |image_alt= but it is interesting that I've found a lot of articles where image_alt has been removed because editors thought it referred to an alternate image, and "alt" when it has been included has been removed because editors thought it referred to an alternative name. I t seems a lot of people don't preview before saving. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The changes have already been made. "Title" is not appropriate; this is a template, not an article, and the default parameter in infobox code is "name". The aim of deprecating "show_name" was to standardise the infobox with others. "Title" goes completely against this. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
That's fair; I misremembered the parameter name in {{Infobox book}}. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Use of parenthetical years, seasons, and credits

Hello, I have a question about the use of parenthetical details in television infoboxes. When is it appropriate to use them, and when is it not? The template does not specify whether they can be used for director, theme_music_composer, composer, opentheme, endtheme producer, executive_producer, company, distributor, picture_format, or audio_format. I ask because most of these are presented with parenthetical details on the infobox for Dexter's Laboratory, and because there are not restrictions in place for these params, I'm not sure if I should leave these parenthetical details or remove them. Any guidance or clarification would be appreciated. Thanks, Paper Luigi T • C 18:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Linking to country articles

Having been reverted without explanation at Template:Infobox television/doc by Gonnym and AussieLegend, I am wondering why. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

You should be aware of why I reverted your changes because I've had to warn you on your talk page (twice) about edit-warring and refusal to discuss your preferred, undiscussed changes. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
You said that there was an "edit war", despite the fact that one reversion by each of two people does not constitute an edit war under WP:EW. Beyond that, you provided no objection to the edit in se. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
You made a WP:BOLD edit, it was reverted by Gonnym and then you reverted to your preferred version without even trying to gain consensus for your change. That was edit-warring. I reverted you and you reverted me 3 minutes later, again without even trying to gain consensus for your change. That was more edit warring. My objection was to you edit-warring, which is why I left the summary,"Your edit was opposed, please discuss on the talk page. don't edit-war", which you ignored. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
That was edit-warring. Did you read WP:EW? It provides that "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." A single reversion hardly constitutes "repeatedly". 207.161.86.162 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
You reverted twice, the second time after I wrote "Your edit was opposed, please discuss on the talk page. don't edit-war". That's clear edit-warring. Yes, I have read WP:EW, I have submitted many reports at WP:AN3 and almost every one has resulted in the reported editor being blocked. Stop fighting and take responsibility for your actions. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Changes to a documentation page of a template, especially one that is highly used as this one, should not happen without discussion. You've also changed a long-standing rule on what not to link without explaining, plainly saying Conforming with MOS guidance what guideline exactly was that? Your edit summaries shouldn't be cryptic. --Gonnym (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, why change it to most country articles? Why, in this instance, would links to some countries be okay, and others not? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The relevant MOS guidance from MOS:OL is as follows:

Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked: ...

  • The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of:
    • countries (e.g., Japan/Japanese, Brazil/Brazilian)
So, for example, Japan and Brazil would not be linked, but Bahrain would be. This is already established by a central consensus (which, while long-established, appears to have been discussed on the guideline talk page as recently as November). 207.161.86.162 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
You've also changed a long-standing rule I would hardly call it a rule (and all the less so if it is incongruent with the guideline on the subject). ... what guideline exactly was that? MOS:OL, which I discuss further below. But that doesn't explain why you wouldn't have used an edit summary when reverting – why is that? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't see where that guideline says to link to Bahrain nor did I see in the discussion. I reverted as you've changed the documentation page of a highly used template without any prior discussion. Should I have added a note "oppose undiscussed change"? Probably. Are you expecting a formal apology or something? --Gonnym (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't see where that guideline says to link to Bahrain nor did I see in the discussion. I didn't include suggest Bahrain was specifically mentioned my the guideline. Rather, it is clear from the guideline that countries "with which most readers will [not] be at least somewhat familiar" are typically linked, as is fitting with MOS:LINK § Principles generally. Do you read the guideline and the spirit thereof differently?
Should I have added a note "oppose undiscussed change"? Probably. Are you expecting a formal apology or something? I am not requesting a formal apology, but a brief "sorry" is typically offered by someone working in good faith to build a consensus in such a circumstance. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Why should Bahrain be linked? It's quite a well known country, as are most countries. What makes Bahrain stand out? --AussieLegend (✉) 10:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
If we're linking anything, why not link to Television in Bahrain and the like? I agree that in most cases the country link is unnecessary, but if we made it more relevant with a link to the country's "Television in" article. -- Netoholic @ 11:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I think the IP is misinterpreting the text they quoted from WP:OVERLINK. All countries fall under examples of countries, not simply the two (or countries "deemed on the level" of those two) they presented in the example. So their claim that Bahrain would need to be linked is incorrect; it wouldn't. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree, but I guess you can consider this a separate proposal to have the infobox link to the "Television in [country]" articles, which would be a novel use and not OVERLINK. -- Netoholic @ 20:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Linking simply a country name to "Television in [country]" would be an WP:EGG link. Readers would not know they are being taken to an article about television in that country. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_television/Archive_11&oldid=1135692944"