Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Clarification of the "Location" parameter

Why must you ask editors to leave the "Location" parameter blank if the production location of a program (i.e., where it is or was shot) is the same as its country of origin? This makes absolutely no sense as I interpret the word "location" as referred to in the parameter as the exact facility where the program is recorded, not necessarily the country. Seth Allen Discussion; Contributions 22:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

So..does this mean you want to include the "location"? I don't understand your reasoning. A user removed the location of a page. Tinton5 (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Even though Blue Mountain State is made by Vancouver-based Lionsgate and is for the US-based-but-seen-on-either-side-of-the-border channel Spike i have always been found of : country of origin: Canada and location: Montreal. Sadly, too many people love to make the location of production into the location the show is set in. I would be in favour of including it if available to a more specific degree than simply the country of origin. Singapore is one of the few places where the city of production and country of origin would not be more specific. ;) Naming the sound stage(s) used at which studio might be getting into too much detail for the summation in the infobox. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 01:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Per a discussion on WP:ANI, I have been bold and changed the documentation to read "Production location, i.e. where the show is or was shot. Leave blank if you only know the country and it's the same as country of origin above." I think that makes more sense and allows editors to add more exact details if known. Thanks  ⊃°HotCrocodile…… + 22:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Start date brackets typo

Should be "{{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}}" not "{{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}]", a bracket was switched.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

On the "first aired" field, it looks like there might be an error with the "Start date" mini-template. It says <!-- {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}] -->, when I think it should say <!-- {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}} --> Notice the difference between a ] and a }. Can this be fixed to have the right punctuation?

dogman15 (talk) 08:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That was just a typo on the documentation page. The documentation is not protected, so don't hesitate to make corrections yourself. — Edokter (talk) — 10:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 April 2012

Add the Simple English link

Tate Brandley Stockwell 19:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is usually not required for edits to the documentation, categories, or interlanguage links of templates using a documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage. 117Avenue (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear

I know it states that if a logo image is being used in the infobox that a caption isn't necessary, but to be really clear does that also apply to intertitle images. Just to differentiate between an actual logo, png, svg image like this File:The Legend of Korra logo.png or an actual intertitle/screen capute with the logo in it like this: File:Avatar-TLAlogo.jpg. QuasyBoy (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

list_episodes field

The following relates to both the "|list_episodes=" field in this template and the "|episode_list=" field in {{Infobox television season}}. Since most episode lists are at "List of <foo> episodes" is there a reason why the content of the "|list_episodes=" field should not be generated automatically based on the contents of "|show_name="? It seems common in season articles these days to fill the "|episode_list=" field with "[[List of <foo> episodes|List of ''<foo>'' episodes]]" and automation would negate the need to add a piped link. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Do we need two templates?

Do we really need both {{Infobox television}} and {{Infobox television season}}? Both templates use common fields although some, like "|list_episodes=" and "|episode_list=" serve essentially the same purpose but have different names. Those fields that aren't common could be enabled or disabled as necessary by a "|type=" field (where type=series or season, defaulting to series since it's used in more articles). {{Infobox television season}} is only used in 1,640 articles, while this template is used in 23,758 (that seems an interesting statistic given that there are more seasons than TV series) but that many changes are easily handled by a bot. Just a suggestion, but I thought I'd put it up for discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Limits on number of names

There's apparently a consensus on limits for number of writers (5), but why not for any other category? For example, Glee has 6 editors mentioned- I have a hard time believing many people care at all about who edits a show, if not removed completely I'd think not listing if over 3 would be fair. A rule about not listing for producers, Cinematography, directors about similar numbers makes sense too. In some shows lists of cast regulars over the course of the series gets pretty long (Glee's another example there) but at least those are the people everyone actually sees. Even then, we might want to have a concensus on limits (maybe if over 8, only list regulars for more than one season/the entire run/75% of the run/etc; if over 10 list in main article and put a link to that section in the infobox). --208.38.59.161 (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I came here to post something similar, can we please have "Don't use if the show has many (5+) writers." added to other entries including Director and possibly a slightly higher limit for starring? Those fields are being taken out back and beaten with a rusty wrench over at Game of Thrones (TV series).Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

C'mon guys, someone must be monitoring this.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• I posted below and then read this post. The editor section surely dose not relate to film editors or it would come after the director of photography but refers to a content editor such as on a news programme. This category needs to be made clear.REVUpminster (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Language section

This has recently been edited from Please link to a language to Please don't link.... What is the consensus as I am confused as I did not think you could change a protected page.REVUpminster (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The template is protected, but the documentation subpage is not so (unfortunately) anyone can edit it without consensus for the changes. However, WP:OVERLINK does say to avoid linking the names of languages, so that seems a reasonable change and, since that has wide consensus outside this template, it should be followed. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Infobox colors

I work on a lot of television show articles, and I've been seeing some inconsistencies with the color used in various articles. Most use the standard purple with black text but I've noticed on shows for children in particular, some are just in arbitrary colors like hot pink with white text (ie Winx Club for instance). Some of the colors are a bit difficult to read and I'm wondering if we should discuss using the same color throughout the project just for uniformity. I know other infoboxes, such a actor/person and film are fairly standard and can't be changed. Perhaps we should do the same? Thoughts? Pinkadelica^♣ 22:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I've discovered this as well. I think we just need to disable the bgcolour and color text parameters.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing on this page that even suggests that bgcolour and colour text are intended to be used at all, and it seems that editors of kid's cartoon pages will persist in using them for the infobox template. There has been no suggested reason as to why these colors should be used in the infobox, and my attempts to remove them have been reverted on several pages with no explanation. It would just be better to eliminate these parameters entirely.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of declined requests at Template talk:Infobox television/colour. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking we remove the functionality completely as there's no standard for when something receives a custom color in the first place.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you. However this feature seems to have been widely used by a lot of editors so I think a discussion should take place on your project talk page to make sure there is support for this change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done for now. I'd have actioned this except I seem to recall that the people who write The Simpsons articles are adamant about retaining their own yellow colour. Any chance we could get some input from the TV project or the Village Pump? If it's generally agreed that we no longer need the colouring at all (and I agree that it's arbitrary and pretty pointless in the very best of circumstances) then we can nuke the colour override entirely. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Over three years ago, code was added to the template to add articles that use colour to Category:Television articles that use colour in the infobox.[1] As of right now, of the 24,559 articles that use the template, only 364 use colour. I cant see that the colour parameters were ever in the documentation. The only discussion about this seems to have been here. The Simpsons, and several other shows, are not in Category:Television articles that use colour in the infobox because colouring is handled by {{Infobox television/colour}}. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with this proposal. If an Infobox has unfortunate colours, or low contrast, change it in that article. Discuss it with the editors involved if it's reverted. Wikipedia is supposed to function by consensus, not small cabals who discuss things amongst themselves in some obscure template talk page and impose their will on the unwashed masses. I note for instance that the Winx Club article complained about above now has standard (boring) colours after some editor changed it on 25th June. Was that so hard? The original colour scheme like most such, was not "arbitrary" but chosen to reflect an aspect of the show's design. My own opinion is that the default purple background is so dreary and ugly that almost anything is an improvement. Barsoomian (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Your rational contradicts itself. I agree that "Wikipedia is supposed to function by consensus, not small cabals who discuss things amongst themselves". That is why I feel articles shouldn't be allowed to have their own local consensus, and use a colour that is against a bigger picture consistency. If you would like to discuss which colour should be used for the template, sure let's do that, but it shouldn't be decided on an article-to-article basis. 117Avenue (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What contradiction? You want to negate the decisions of numerous article editors without notice on the affected articles' talk pages, by making a change agreed to by the handful who are aware of this discussion. The motive seems to be "Those guys at Simpsons won't listen to me, so I'll just end-run the whole boring consensus idea and remove the feature." Barsoomian (talk) 07:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It would appear that the colours were never meant to be customisable on a wide basis, as they have never been documented. The parameters only exist to be used by the 15 programs in {{Infobox television/colour}} for the reasons explained at Template talk:Infobox television/colour#Colour eligibility. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Never "meant to be"? That's a religious argument. The fact is, this feature is being used, and I for one can't see any reason to forbid it. Poor documentation isn't a reason to remove a feature, there are plenty of useful features that would affect. Barsoomian (talk) 07:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The point is, these articles shouldn't be using it. The colours were added to compensate for the articles that were using colour before the templates were standardised and for which it would be difficult to remove the colouring. The one big reason for standardising is accessibility. Many of our readers are sight impaired and readers with little vision or colour blindness have problems reading some of the weird colours that are chosen. We can't ignore those people, we have to provide content that they can read. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I knew you'd get around to citing the accessibility shibboleth again. It's just an excuse for micromanaging and overriding all other concerns under the banner of helping the disabled. Has any person with disability complained? Well? Of course, that never stopped you from removing features you disapprove of under that excuse. How do you claim to speak for them? Let's convert Wikipedia to Braille. Let's get rid of all images. Let's make all text 24 points. How about if a particular colour scheme is illegible, JUST SAY SO and fix it. Most of the customised ones I've seen are more legible and certainly more attractive than the ugly default purple anyway. If legibility was the one and only criterion, it would be white on black. Barsoomian (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say local consensus to have certain infoboxes reflect their content (i.e. The Simpsons with yellow) is alright, as long as it is not an arbitrary choice without any value added (i.e. if there was a local consensus for The Simpsons articles to use pink). This stance would seem to be supported by WP:Deviations. As was mentioned above, we should also, always, take into consideration WP:CONTRAST, when moving away from the default colors which exhibit the proper contrast. Chickenmonkey  08:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I am for uniformity and against "I like this special color better than the standard one", particularly for recent TV shows without wikiprojects (!= taskforces). But to implement this, there should be a wider discussion than just on this template page. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I have a compromise. Edit this template, so that it only receives colour deviations from the indefinitely fully protected sub-template. This way, all additions must be discussed first, and we can ensure the program meets the criteria at WP:DEVIATIONS. 117Avenue (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I always thought this was already the case. Did I miss a change to the template allowing everyone to change it themselves somewhere down the line? I'm not very active on Wikipedia at the moment, so I apologise if this is a stupid question. --Dorsal Axe 22:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The parameters used by {{Infobox television/colour}} are undocumented but they exist and it's possible for anyone to add colour to the infobox, as was done with this edit. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it was added six years ago tomorrow, with instructions to see the talk page for further explanation, no one commented on it, but two months later it was removed from the documentation. 117Avenue (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Back to the question at hand. We should remove support for colouring-up the various boxes and doing so here is a good start. The core idea behind 'deviations' is that you shouldn't. It's always the pop-culture doing it, too. Infoboxes and navboxes should bee seen as part of the site, not as part of an particular article. The job of styling the look of pages is falls to the site style sheets and skins. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

  I've been mostly separated from this discussion because I just expected something to come about from it. The color formatting is entirely unnecessary, no matter how grandfathered in things like the Simpsons pages are. I decided to bring this forward because there is some individual who feels the need to customize the colors on the templates in a method that makes it impossible to read. Color combinations like gold on navy blue or white on lavendar, just because the show's logo uses those colors (as an individual who consistantly edits some Disney Chanel cartoon pages insists) should not be allowed. It's much easier than restricting the template to using the presets in the sub template that no one's touched in years. The colors can be kept outside of the main article, and restricted to the seasonal episode lists, which is where it seems these colors actually have some use.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"based_on" parameter

Would there be any objections to a "|based_on=" parameter in this template, much like the one at {{Infobox film}}? Cliff Smith 19:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Year ranges

I thought I had read about this issue somewhere before, but I can't find it. Can we have some clarification on the standard procedure or consensus on the use of parenthetical year ranges in infoboxes? When should they be used, and when shouldn't they be? Is (0000–) or (0000—) acceptable? Is < small > acceptable or not? --Musdan77 (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Plurals

Shouldn't the plural in the parentheses for the parameter "Production company" be written as "Production company(ies)" or some deviant of that? Just a minor concern. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Runtime

I've noticed that a lot of new editors, and readers, don't understand that runtime is supposed to be without commercials. (e.g. this edit) Perhaps a minor change should be made to the template so that " minutes (without commercials)" is automatically appended to the field to avoid any ambiguity, since most people don't seem to bother looking at template instructions? --AussieLegend (✉) 06:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't get why runtime without commercials is used any way, I mean they don't refer to themselves as a 45 minute long show, they refer to themselves as an hour long show. I think it should reflect the length of the time slot they're filling. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 20:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Different countries, and even different networks in the countries, have different rules and regulations regarding the number/time of non-program content that may be aired during an hour period. Ads and other non-program content is not part of the program so it makes no sense to include it in the runtime. The runtime without commercials is a constant, so it makes far more sense to use that. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, and also respectfully contend that your argument doesn't debunk anything of what I said. The length of the time slot the show is filling is consistent unless it's a special, the amount of commercials isn't always consistent. Also let's look at show guides like TV Guide they list shows by the length of the time slot they're filling, not the length of the show minus commercials. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 00:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The timeslot isn't consistent though, it varies. Maybe it's a constant in the US, but in other countries timeslots vary, so calling a program with a 46 minute runtime an hour-long program is ambiguous. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I get the feeling you're exagerating the inconsistency in other countries, please provide proof. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 01:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Many BBC programmes are 58 minutes long to fill a 1 hour slot with no advert breaks. When shown on commercial stations abroad they can fill a 90 minute slot. Likewise 44 minute programmes from america are only shown on the BBC in a 45/46 min slot. Merlin and Dr Who are made to fill commercial stations one hour slot but only 45 mins in Britain except when repeated on commercial satellite station in the UK with adverts when they are on hour. Worse old 50 minute programmes like Randall and Hopkirk are cut to the 45 minute format to get in more adverts although there was such an uproar I think they now fill a 65 minute slot. Years ago an episode of the old Hawaii 50 was cut from 50 mins to 35 mins to fill a slot. So after my rant here I think running time should be the original uncut time as was filmed or as the infobox wants an aproximation to cover minor censorship cuts such as the series Hunted. REVUpminster (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The Australian ABC is a non-commercial network, so all these "60 minute" shows are actually scheduled as 45 minutes as broadcast there. In Hong Kong, one network ATV is doing poorly in selling ads, so shows often run with few ads, especially late at night. (Even 60 Minutes is nowhere near an hour long.) Also, even in the US, the length of shows that are "one hour" isn't constant over time or between networks. E.g., HBO "one hour" shows might be 58 minutes long; in the 60s, Star Trek: The Original Series episodes are 50 minutes. By 2001, Star Trek: Enterprise was down to 42. So labelling all these as "60 minutes" would not only be incorrect numerically, but implies they are the same length, which is also untrue. And many people are now watching online versions of the shows, either legally or otherwise, and these are commercial free, or by DVD, and this is only getting more prevalent. The ads aren't part of the shows and aren't seen by all viewers anyway, and shouldn't be counted as such. Barsoomian (talk) 08:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

End date

I noticed this template only allows to add the final air date after its happened. While this fine for shows that stop suddenly, however, for shows that have an announced end date, I think it should be able to be added. I mean it's already added to article itself usually so why not put it in the template too? I think having the article differ from the template in this manner only serves to confuse readers, if only slightly. Therefore, I propose the end date be opened up to announced end dates too. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 20:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This would inevitably mean people making guesses as to the end date, quite likely good guesses, but still the finale isn't over till the fat lady bows. The infobox also only states the number of episodes and seasons that have actually aired, whether there is a firm order (or heartfelt wish) for more episodes to be made or not, so it's consistent with that. The only part of the infobox that is complete fantasy and WP:CRYSTAL is the insistence that a series is "present" unless explicitly cancelled. So shows can and are stated to be on air for years after the last episode has aired and the sets struck. I've tried to get some logic in that, but got shouted down by people who react as if pointing out a show isn't currently being broadcast is pointing a gun at their puppy. My point is that the "end date" is actually called "last_aired" so it should be that. The date that the last episode aired. Whether that happens to be the series finale is a different thing entirely, but the "last aired" date is simple and factual historical event, not a speculation that a show will either finish at an announced date, or will by default go on forever, the latter being the current ridiculous situation, even though the continuation of a TV show is a desperately unpredictable and unlikely event in most cases. If and when a show starts a new season we obviously should state that and revise the "last aired" date, as it's no more fixed or permanent than the total number of episodes. We don't wait till the show is declared cancelled before we count the number of episodes, we just have a running tally. There used to be a "status" indicator in the infobox, which could have clarified such situations, but that was removed. So now the infobox for shows like Primeval is simple, clear and wrong. Barsoomian (talk) 09:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Rating

I'd like to request an addition to the template. It would be a rating slot so TV shows would have a TV-G, TV-PG, TV-14 Rating Etc. on the info box. §h₳un 9∞76 00:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This is something that pops up periodically and there has never been any consensus to add it, only opposition.[2] --AussieLegend (✉) 01:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Coaches

Hi, do you think we could have a Coaches section for The Voice (both UK and US versions) --MSalmon (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This template is currently used in 25,575 articles. Parameters used in any template must be useful for tmajority. Adding specialised parameters used for only 2 articles are unlikely to gain any support. I note the coaches are all listed in the infobox as judges, is this correct? If they are in every episode surely they qualify for inclusion as starring? --AussieLegend (✉) 11:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I only know they are reffered to as coaches throughout the show in the UK version, not sure about the US version. --MSalmon (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

There is this infobox template: "Infobox reality music competition" -- but that's actually for a season article. I don't know if it could be used for the main series or not. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest addition of "Influenced by" and "Influenced"

I think that it will greatly benefit Wikipedia if people can instantly see what influenced what just like in the articles of philosophers or programming languages. I also wrote my proposal here and here.--80.218.156.126 (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with a parameter such as this is that people continuously add items without a source and/or not being supported by the article body (WP:OR). That doesn't mean it can't be done, but it would need to have consensus. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm for the introduction of that new tag. What do you think? Where should it be discussed? Here, right?--80.218.156.126 (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Head writer

Back in 2006, there was a brief discussion about having head_writer as a parameter, at a time when there wasn't a writer parameter. It didn't get much discussion back then, but since its easy to find nearly 400 uses of "head writer" in existing articles, and over 170,000 hits for the term on IMDb, I'd like to get feedback from some of the 117 editors interested in this template as to whether you think adding "head writer" would be an good idea. Thanks in advance — 68.165.77.155 (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Editor

This section needs clarification; Is it as I believe for content editor of news/political programmes such as Panorama and Newsnight or as many seem to think for film editors. If it is film editors surely it should be after director of photography. Comments please. REVUpminster (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 January 2013

I was thinking that the template should say "Original language(s)," not just "Languages" to be clearer, or to stop readers from thinking that the series/movie got dubbed when it really didn't. That should help.

166.137.100.42 (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

What specific change are you proposing? Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done, seems straightforward enough. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Labels should revert to singular form

A number of the labels have the optional pluralised "(s)" on the end. It's fairly common practice for these kinds of labels not to be pluralised, leaving the singular form of the label to be applicable if there are multiple entries in the field. Singular should be the default, unless the field would always result in multiple entries, and then the plural form should be used. Labels in question: Creative director(s); Composer(s); Original language(s); Executive producer(s); Producer(s); Editor(s); Location(s); Production company(s). I propose we take all of these back to singular. Any objections? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Last_Aired

Hi, I'm hoping to get some clarification and edification about the use of the fundamentally-flawed "last_aired" field in infoboxes, because its use/misuse is driving me a little nutty. I know there has been debate over this before, (Archive 4 and 5) but I'm not certain what the official position is, and I'm desperately trying to avoid reading the textwalls of rage. As editor Barsoomian pointed out here, shows just end. This appears to be the case with networks such as Nickelodeon, who, unlike NBC, don't typically pen press releases proclaiming "This show is canceled." To make matters worse, since Nickelodeon doesn't seem to really have "seasons", and they tend to trickle new episodes over months or even years (ex: Fanboy & Chum Chum and Robot and Monster), it becomes even more difficult to point at these shows and say, "definitely cancelled". Compounding the frustration, are the legions of children on both sides of the fence who eagerly add last_air dates to shows they hate, only to be reverted by the kids who still have hope the show will continue to air. Can it be appropriately assumed that if a pickup is not announced at the following year's "Upfront", that the show has been cancelled? And more importantly, should the "last_aired" field be used to indicate the last date a new episode was aired, rather than an "end date" for the series? I feel like a goon every time I revert a "last_aired" submission for shows that demonstrate little indication of returning. Thank you for helping me work through this tough time in my life.  :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 March 2013

Could someone please add a "Based on" field to this infobox, perhaps after the "Created by" field? Many television series are based on existing series, films, novels, comics, and so on. For example, the editors of the Sherlock (TV series) article have resorted to a [makeshift solution] with a bolded note about Arthur Conan Doyle's source material shoehorned into the field intended for the names of the creators, and the editors of Hannibal (TV series) have inaccurately [given] Thomas Harris creator credit for the TV show, with parentheses explaining the nature of his involvement.

I think that it would be much neater, more informative and more straightforward to add a field specifically for the source material and its author; this would have the added benefit of being consistent with Template:Infobox film, which already has exactly the feature I'm proposing. —Flax5 19:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I second this, was actually about to ask the exact same thing before finding it already posted. Many TV series (True Blood, Hannibal, Elementary, The Vampire Diaries, Pretty Little Liars, Game of Thrones, Haven to name a few off the top of my head) are based on novels or pre-existing materials and right now there is no good way of acknowledging them. I think a based on template should be added. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been nearly three months, can we get a decision on this? —Flax5 22:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion - I've implemented it. For the future, note that you'll usually get a quicker response if you add your suggested template code to the sandbox. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. —Flax5 14:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Location parameter

I feel the explanation for the location parameter should be edited slightly, by simply removing the part that says "Leave blank if same as country of origin above." This is rarely ever followed (rightly so), so it'd be nice to just see that sentence eliminated. Strictly speaking of American-produced TV, 95% of the time, a show will be shot in the U.S., obviously. Just because an American show is shot in America, doesn't make it's actual shooting location not important. It's important and notable that say, Breaking Bad shoots in New Mexico, or Homeland shoots in North Carolina, and The Walking Dead shoots in Georgia. The only time using the location parameter is unnecessary if it's for like a sitcom that shoots on sets in a warehouse in Los Angeles. Anyway, I just feel that part is dated and rarely followed, thus, should be updated. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I would have to disagree that this guideline "is rarely ever followed". The only person I have ever seen reverting the guideline is you. As you suggest, 95% of US shows are filmed in the US. Shooting in numerous states the US has become more common, with production companies choosing to go where it will be cheapest (i.e. incentives). Is it that notable that a show is not filmed in California that it needs to be mentioned in the infobox? Not really. There is plenty of room in the production section to discuss the exact location(s). This isn't the 1950s, when most shows were shot on an LA soundstage. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I've only really reverted/added back the info a few times, filming location info has pretty much always been included in the infobox as far as I can remember. Anyway, you said, "This isn't the 1950s, when most shows were shot on an LA soundstage", correct...meaning aren't the filming locations notable? How is the filming location any less notable than say, the audio format, the ending theme, or editors, etc. Most of everything in the infobox is discussed in the article, in more detail, that's not really a good excuse. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Deviser and devised by credits

ITV's Endeavour (TV series) is a show written and devised by Russell Lewis. As enumerated in BBC Commissioning, a "deviser" is a standard showrunner role; it is similar to the creator role, though devising is based on another creator's work, similar to the "developer's" role that Ronald D. Moore had on Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series). As a standardised role defined by the BBC and also used by ITV, I believe "Devised by" should be added to the infobox. Thanks. 72.244.204.252 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Genre parameter

Hi, I floated this question by WP:TV. I was curious to find out if there's a rule/guideline that governs the appropriate usage of the genre parameter. I've seen a number of TV show infoboxes with very specific descriptions of the show's humor styles, e.g., "gross-out humor", "slapstick", "off-color humor". Some examples of these: Sanjay and Craig, Fanboy and Chum Chum, Ren and Stimpy. I've also seen a number of shows where very broad, obvious, indisputable genres were used, e.g., "Sitcom", "Adult animation", "Animated sitcom", like for Seinfeld and Family Guy. The Infobox television template points to Television program#Genres for examples, and I don't see categories like "black comedy" or "farce". How detailed should these genre descriptions should be? Obviously we should use sources if we're going to get into nuance, but I also see this being a perpetual source of frustration-- editors battling over their specific interpretation of a show's genre. "No, it's surreal humor!" "Nuh-uh, it's surrealism!" Thanks for your input. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

While we're at it, it would be great if we could get a more descriptive explanation for the "format" parameter. It currently reads "The format of the show", and no one really seems to know what that means – most articles don't use it at all, and many that do (such as The Simpsons and Family Guy) use it interchangeably with "genre". —Flax5 18:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was confused by that as well! Thought maybe it had something to do with UK shows. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Format vs Genre: The Final Battle!

That's it, we're gonna handle this format parameter once and for all! (I say, hoping naively that my sheer enthusiasm will lead to wide community interest and a permanent resolution!)

FACT: Template:Infobox television has a format parameter, and nobody seems to know how/if it should be used, or why it's still there. The lack of proper explanation is harming television articles, because well-intentioned editors, many of whom are children, have no idea what to put in these fields, so they guess. "Hmm, [[Booger humor]] sounds about right." Or editors will look at other articles to see what a "proper" usage of format is. But of course, there is no proper usage, because format was replaced by genre long ago.

BACKGROUND:

Jan 2005: The template as it was originally created. Format is there. All is quiet.

Dec 2005: Jeff Q proposes that format be changed to genre because "format" is ambiguous. Jeff Q is a sage man!

Feb 2006: Discordance changed format to genre but then changed it part-way back anticipating collateral damage.

Feb 2007: A time when format doesn't exist, having been replaced with genre

Mar 2007: Format returns inexplicably.

Sep 2007: KyuuA4 says format implies medium, such as Live Action, Broadway Play or Animation. The ambiguity continues!

Mar 2009: TheDJ explains that format is deprecated, having been replaced by genre. AnmaFinotera proposes its removal.

Mar 2010: Other editors are still confused. AnmaFinotera again proposes its removal.

SOLUTIONS:

PROPOSAL A: Listen to Jeff Q and AnmaFinotera! Cut the format parameter. What type of fallout will occur? Is there an easy way to fix it? Anyone talented enough to write a bot that can delete the parameter and its contents from every page that uses the parameter? Or can we generate a list and team up to do it manually?

PROPOSAL B: Change the description of the format parameter from "The format of the show" to something like, "Do not use. This parameter was replaced by genre." Then, we suppress format from displaying on any pages that use infobox television. This will allow us time to remove the errant data, without confusing casual readers. Then, we re-word genre with clear examples, so that children know "booger humor" doesn't belong there, but "sitcom" or "drama" does.

PROPOSAL C: Keep both genre and format, but clearly differentiate the two. Genre=comedy, drama, thriller, news. Format=animated series, sitcom, soap opera, magazine. (Or whatever.)

Whatever we decide, we need a solution that improves clarity, to help cut down on the extra work and confusion. We've ignored Jeff Q and AnmaFinotera for too long! Thank you for your time. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The parameter for Genre already exists. So, it would be redundant to utilize Format to include Genre. Just to pull out some examples:

• The Walking Dead (TV series)

Format used to denote the story telling style, to distinguish episodic vs non-episodic style (questionable)

• Full House

Format used to denote "genre" (incorrect)

• Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

Format used to denote "genre" (incorrect)

• The West Wing

Format used to denote "genre" (incorrect)

• The Cosby Show

Format parameter not used at all

• The Lucy Show

Format parameter not used at all

• Breaking Bad

Format used to denote the story telling style, to distinguish episodic vs non-episodic style (questionable)

• Lost (TV series)

Format parameter not used at all

Conclusion. Eliminate the Format parameter, as many articles use it to label Genre. A number of series do not even use the Format parameter at all, and they can go along well without it. Therefore, Format parameter is not particularly needed. By elimination, that will force articles to properly use the Genre parameter; and thus, any confusion on its use would be eliminated. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 07:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't know about this discussion (including previous) before, but interestingly enough, just about a week before this section was started, I had added a link for format in the parameter's explanation. And, yes, there should be a better explanation given ("Proposal C"), but the link certainly does help. Whenever I see an infobox using format for genre, I correct it. But, most show's infoboxes don't need to use the Format parameter at all. It should only be used for shows where the format is out of the ordinary. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your input. From what I can tell of the edit history and of the discussion history, "Genre" was created to replace the ambiguous "Format", so from my perspective, anybody who uses "format" to mean "genre" is using the field "correctly" (or more accurately, they're using a deprecated/abandoned field "correctly"). There is sufficient overlap between the two categories to suggest that they are the same thing, and I think we might be trying to ret-con what the fields mean (Which is fine, if we all agree to back Proposal C). Is "soap opera" a genre or a format? Is news a genre or a format? Is live-action a genre or a format? It seems to me that if we were to treat entertainment like animals, there should be some clear taxonomic hierarchy a la: Kingdom=Entertainment, Phylum=Television/Movie/Radio/Porn, Class=Serial/Special/Feature, Order=Daily/Weekly/Annual, Family=Sitcom/News/Reality, Genus=Live Action/Animated, Species=Slapstick/Magazine/Human interest, or something along those lines. But we only have two categories, and they both seem to mean the same thing as far as the community knows. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was going to refer to the List of genres article, but after taking another look I saw that a lot of what's listed as genre were actually formats. So, I have restructured the section, putting the genres under their respective formats. And instead of answering each of your questions here, you can see the answers by going to List of genres#Film and television genres. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That list looks a lot better! May I ask if you have a preference about what to do with the format parameter? Proposal A, B, or C? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Line breaks

Hi, I wonder if there is some way to prevent the unsightly display of "Original language(s)" as:

Original language
(s)

This occurs in IE; not sure about other browsers. Example article exhibiting the problem: Inside Claridge's.

This particular one seems to wrap because it is the longest, but it would be as well to treat all the entries ending "(s)" the same, I think. 86.176.208.198 (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

this is browser dependent, but I added some nowrap to this line, which should fix it for you. Frietjes (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Neat, thanks! 86.176.208.198 (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Listing judges

Hi, is there any specific order in which the judges of a show need to be listed? --MSalmon (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it should follow the casting order, since judges technically are the "stars" of the series. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with livelikemusic. –anemoneprojectors– 23:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Credit order means the order that they first appeared so that is what we should follow --MSalmon (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll just quote the Attributes section: "Cast [members] are listed in original credit order followed by order in which new cast joined the show." (and yes the judges on a competition show are the starring cast) When you think about it, most every list on WP is in chronological order. This one is no different. Now, as far as the order of those that started at the same time, I think it should be in the order that the names appear in the intro. If the names aren't shown on screen it should be in alphabetical order by last name. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 October 2013

The website_title parameter should treat blank values just like non-existent ones. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 06:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

fixed. Frietjes (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 October 2013

Further to my reply to a comment another user left above, the parameters production_website and production_website_title should be renamed to website_2 and website_2_title respectively (the naming should be consistent with the format used by show_name and show_name_2, after all). Aliases should obviously be used to avoid breaking existing usage. For consistency, the default title should also be changed to: "Secondary website"

The reasoning for this is that the documentation page states that the former parameter should be used for the following: "A secondary official website"

Again, I doubt such changes would be controversial - particularly with the use of aliases as well as that comment by the other user mentioned above. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a request that needs discussion and consensus. The template is transcluded to over 28,000 articles and renaming the parameters would necessitate changing every use of the "production_website" parameter. The present parameter is unambiguously titled while the purpose of "website_2" is ambiguous for those who don't bother checking the instructions - how many times have we seen |location= used incorrectly. To be brutally honest, I don't see a need for "website_title" at all as it's almost always used for "Offical website" when that's the default use for the field. I really don't see a need to include a "distributor website", which seems to be the prime reason for inclusion of "production_website_title". --AussieLegend (✉) 09:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If you continue to oppose this, I will have little choice but to remove both parameters from the documentation entirely as their use is documented incorrectly. Also, you're ignoring what I wrote above and you don't seem to understand the concept of aliases. Seriously, get a WP:CLUE. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Are these links worthwhile as they often disappear when a show stops being made. Many are already in external links and do not work. Even the wayback machine does not store all pages as I have found when looking at web pages over 10 years old.REVUpminster (talk) 10:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider proposing that Wikipedia remove all external links while you're at it? Oh, and don't forget those online references - those links can break too, of course! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

@Dogmaticeclectic, "I will have little choice but to remove both parameters from the documentation" seems like a threat and "Seriously, get a WP:CLUE." is uncivil at best. There is no justifiable reason for removing valid parameters from the documentation, to do so would be considered disruptive editing.

@REVUpminster, It's very common across Wikipedia to include an official link in the infobox as well as in the external links section, but I can see where you're coming from.

As a further, general comment, the claim that "the naming should be consistent with the format used by show_name and show_name_2" is flawed. "Show_name" unambiguously identifies the purpose of the field as being the name of the show. "Show_name_2" indicates a second name for the show. "Website_2" does not speciy the purpose of the site. Following from this, "the documentation page states that the former parameter should be used for the following: "A secondary official website" is deceptive. It actually says "A secondary official website (usually hosted by the network or production company)." That, along with the parameter name, clearly indicates it for the production company's website. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You're the one being deceptive: "usually hosted by the network or production company" is not the same thing as "hosted by the production company". By the way, since the Wikipedia community apparently considers pretty much any editing to potentially be WP:DE, I don't particularly care about that, and since your responses ignore my previous comments I don't particularly care about applying WP:CIVIL in this case either. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

As I said, "along with the parameter name" it indicates the field is used for the production website. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

In any case, you haven't provided valid reasoning as to why the production website is more important than that of the network or distributor. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I never said that it was more important than that of the network so I don't need to justify something I haven't said. I have noted that the production company makes the program ut I can't see why the distributor's website is relevant.[3] How many websites do we need to include? Do we start adding individual TV station websites? We have to draw a line somewhere. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Look, what I want is for the infobox to have parameters for two official websites of whatever type happen to exist for a particular show. What is your problem with that? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

We don't add parameters every time somebody wants one unless there's reasonable justification for them and an expectation of usefulness. You haven't provided justification. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

There are four types of official websites for a show that I'm aware of: main, network, production, and distributor. The first of these is obviously more important than the others, but I don't see why, of the latter three, any one is more important than the others. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The "main" and "network" websites are usually the same thing and hosted by the network that first airs the program. As I've indicated above, the production website (when available) often gives additional production information that usually isn't available elsewhere. The distributor's website though, well you've got me there. I assume there was a reason that you wanted to include it. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Your first sentence is absolutely wrong. Many, many shows have entire websites about them, as well as subpages at the network's website. As for production and distributor websites, they often provide the same type of information, but production websites don't always exist, hence my request! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 October 2013

A production_website_title parameter should be added. (No, I haven't discussed this, but I highly doubt it would be controversial.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

|website_title= is understandable because there are a lot of articles that use "Official website" as the title but what is the alternative to "Production website"? --AussieLegend (✉) 02:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"Distributor website", perhaps (assuming an actual production website doesn't exist) - or if going by the documentation, "Network website" (assuming an actual full-fledged website does exist). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Why do we need to include the distributor's website? The production company makes the show and the network airs it so I can see justification for both of these, but what benefit is there having a distributor's website. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

What if no production website exists? (For that matter, what if no main website exists?) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Then we don't need to list anything, just like every other parameter in every infobox when we don't have content for it. What does the distributor's website give us? --AussieLegend (✉) 10:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

What does the production website give? Why not simply remove that parameter altogether? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The production website can provide additional production information about a series that is often difficult to find at other sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

See my response below. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

En dashes

As seen here, for instance, the "first_aired" and "last_aired" parameters of this infobox create a spaced en dash, which is contrary to WP:DASH. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Date ranges in the infobox are supposed to be complete (e.g. 11 November 2013) so use of a spaced en dash is appropriate, per MOS:ENDASH. The use in The Panel (Australian TV series) is incorrect. In such cases, which are the exception rather than the rule, it's necessary to manually format the date range. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Is the production website parameter correctly named?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the production_website parameter be renamed to website_2? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as nominator: "There are four types of official websites for a show that I'm aware of: main, network, production, and distributor. The first of these is obviously more important than the others, but I don't see why, of the latter three, any one is more important than the others." Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose conditionally My first reaction was "this will just confuse the children who edit the kids' TV articles." The "website" parameter is already vague and results in junk websites. Most folk who dabble with infobox edits probably never read the descriptions at Template:Infobox television, either. Doubling up the vagueness with "website_2" seems to invite more questionable websites. Something more like "official_website_2" would make more sense to me. Also, what would the impact of this change be? Would we have to manually rename this field on every article that uses it? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "Would we have to manually rename this field on every article that uses it?" Aliases... in any case, though, I would conditionally support this proposal if the existing website parameter were renamed accordingly as well. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments above. "Website_2" is too vague and, as Cyphoidbomb and I have both said, people often don't read template instructions so we need to at least try to make parameter names unambiguous. I agree with Cyphoidbomb that "website" is already vague. We should really add an alias called official_website to the template and deprecate website. That would leave us with official_website and production_website, neither of which are vague in their purpose. We really don't need website_title and production_website_title. The nominator has not demonstrated how "main" and "network" websites are different to each other, nor has he demonstrated "distributor" websites that provide the same information as production websites, so I don't see why we need to justify modifying the template to provide extra functionality that will likely never be widely used. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cyphoidbomb, It'll just cause confusion. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Cyphoidbomb, adding/renaming parameters with vague keywords are most likely fuss maker. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 13:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• @User:AussieLegend: "Many, many shows have entire websites about them, as well as subpages at the network's website." Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you've said this but can you provide an example? Presently, in the vast majority of articles we use the network's website, which is consistent. Why should we use your example instead? --AussieLegend (✉) 11:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Broadcast section for foreign titles

Quick question: A show like Oggy and the Cockroaches is a French series. What should the Broadcast section look like? Should it still only contain a prose description of the English-speaking nations that aired the series, or should it contain the French-speaking countries only? My instinct is English-only, but I thought I'd pass it by the community first. Thanx. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Cyphoidbomb, in my view, it is quite clear that both should be included. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

My problem with Europe

I recently discovered via an old USA Today article that the entire first season of Cow and Chicken premiered in Europe before it did in the US. I take it that means something should be added to the "first_run" param, but what? The documentation says, "The country where the show was first broadcast." Europe is, unfortunately, many countries, and I don't feel that listing all of them would be the best solution. Should it just say "Europe", or something else? Also, wouldn't this mean I have to change the "first_aired" date to the European one instead of the American one? Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Paper Luigi, would it be possible to simply try to find out the specific country the show first aired in? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The source only states, "The network ordered 13 episodes of the show, which have already aired in Europe on TCN, and Feiss is working on 13 more." Although its headquarters is in the United Kingdom, Cartoon Network (Europe) broadcasts not only in Europe, but also in the Middle East and Africa. According to my research, it was the sole European Cartoon Network around at the time, and even more countries received its feed then than now. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 19:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Paper Luigi, my opinion is as follows in light of the additional information you provided: "first_run" should indeed state "Europe" (with the source you mentioned referenced somewhere in the text of the article), the infobox documentation should be updated to reflect this, and "first_aired" should remain unchanged per the infobox documentation. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Dogmaticeclectic. I've made the changes to the Cow and Chicken article and I feel as though your opinion is correct. I don't know how I would go about changing the infobox documentation though. Does consensus need to be reached? Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 20:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

@User:Paper Luigi: WP:BOLD Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again! Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 20:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

@User:Paper Luigi: No problem. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Are the website parameters correctly named?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the website parameter be renamed to official_website and production_website parameter renamed to official_website_2? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as nominator: I agree with the point regarding the current vague naming of the former parameter several users made above. At the same time, I think the scope of the latter should be broadened somewhat per my comments above. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose As explained above, there is reason to rename |website= to |official_website= but |production_website= should remain as is. Dogmaticeclectic's suggestion is contradictory. He proposes giving one parameter a less ambiguous title, which I agree with, but he then proposes to make the other parameter more ambiguous. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, "official" is an overused term. 117Avenue (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • User:117Avenue, could you provide more reasoning for your opinion? The current reasoning seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Something is only official if a widely recognized organisation declares it official. Here on Wikipedia people have been going around calling everything "official", that it has lost its meaning. Why do we need to label something official? If there are more than one, how can it be official? 117Avenue (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
      • User:117Avenue, I think the first sentence in the paragraph above is absolutely incorrect. As I see it, in the context of a TV show, an official website is any website directly connected to any entity directly connected to the production of the show, full stop. In my view, this includes production companies, original distributors, original networks, etc. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Anything connected to the show? If everything is official, the word is redundant, and not needed. 117Avenue (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
          • User:117Avenue, I specifically mentioned the production of the show - not just the show itself. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per AussieLegend, Seems all rather pointless to me, All in all imo seems fine as it is. -

-→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This is unuseful and a massive refactoring and readjustment may be needed which is going to involve a ruthless effort. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 19:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

@User:AussieLegend: I would like to clarify my reasoning regarding the second parameter. Let's say a show has a separate website, such as showname.com, as well as a subsection (let's say a major one) at the network's website, such as networkname.com/showname. However, this show's production company happens not to have a website (and let's say the distributor doesn't either).

Currently, what would happen is one of two things. In one scenario - and the one supported by the current parameter name - only the first of the two existing links is provided, which in my opinion does a disservice to Wikipedia readers. In the other scenario, the parameter is used as if it already has the name I proposed and both links are provided. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority of shows have one website, "official_website_2" would have a very limited use. (You've never provided an example of such a use) Your proposal effectively deprecates "production_website" but without any explanation as to why this should happen. Many articles use this parameter, so we need good reason to drop it. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

User:AussieLegend, my proposal does not deprecate that parameter in the least. Current usage would be able to continue unchanged with the addition of an alias. The only change in the case of the second parameter is that it broadens its scope (while still restricting it to official websites). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Your proposal didn't state that. Regardless, it's still renaming an unambiguously named parameter to something that is ambiguous. And, you still haven't given an example of a TV series where this would be useful. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

User:AussieLegend, I'm unfortunately only really familiar with articles that I have significantly edited myself, and this is especially the case regarding articles about TV shows - so any examples I give you may very well have been created by me in the first place. However, I do not think there is anything ambiguous about the name of that parameter in the proposal - it is clearly to be used for a secondary official website. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, what exactly is a secondary official website? This was the issue with "website_2" in the failed proposal above. Tacking "official_" in front of it doesn't make it any less ambiguous as TV programs generally only have one official website. (The official website is generally regarded to be the official website in the country of origin.) Without any examples there is nothing to support your claim that there are secondary official websites. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

User:AussieLegend, here's another example situation. A show has a website showname.com and a major subsection at a distributor website distributorname.com/showname but no subsection of a production website productioncompanyname.com/showname (nor any subsection of a network website networkname.com/showname). Could you let me know what you recommend should be done in this situation given the current naming - and why? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a real world example of this? Let's stick to those and not hypotheticals. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

User:AussieLegend, I already explained about that above. What would a real-world example add to this discussion anyways, other than showing that yes, such situations can in fact occur (which is theoretically extremely likely among the immense existing number of shows)? (Also, I would ask that you not change the indentation back - this is a different scenario, and in any case indentation has gone quite far already here.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

A real world example might provide some justification that the changes that you are proposing are warranted. Without any real world examples there simply is no reason to support them. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request

Please replace the lines

| label1      = Also known as

and

| label35     = Original channel

with

| label1      = {{nowrap|Also known as}}

and

| label35     = Original channel

to prevent the seemingly unnecessary linewrap of, respectively, "as" and "channel". 213.246.118.248 (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Conditional support only if span style="white-space:nowrap" is used in both cases; oppose otherwise: consistency is important! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Please put your requested change in the sandbox and let's see some testcases showing it working correctly and not breaking other stuff. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Technical 13, I don't think that kind of stuff should be requested for such a simple change. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

DE, if I wasn't so busy, I would have just done it myself and not have cared much. However, I have a ton of other stuff I need to get done for the immediate foreseeable future, so if someone wants to throw it in the sandbox and see how it's going to look on the testcases page, I'll be happy to apply it to the live template. Alternative is to wait for a TE with more time on their hands and a clearer head than I have or wait for me to have time. Thinking just getting it in the sandbox will be the fastest. Technical 13 (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I did what's been suggested and also added style="white-space:nowrap;" to a couple of other labels that might wrap awkwardly. 213.246.118.248 (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Done in a manner that uses a much smaller footprint and achieves the same result. Due to the the fact that a table is used for these, using &nbsp; instead of regular spaces on the longest required parameter and any longer, desired, optional parameters is all that was needed to achieve the same result. Technical 13 (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent change

A change has been made to the template which is now causing the hidden menus in infoboxes (like here) bleed into the drop down link. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• 213.246.118.248 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) or DE, please address this issue and create working code and testcases and I'll re-apply this request. Until then, I'm reverting. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Format parameter of Template:Infobox television be deleted?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The "format" parameter at Template:Infobox television appears to be a deprecated parameter, having been replaced by genre long ago over concerns that "format" is an ambiguous terminology that creates confusion. The parameter has not been officially retired or deleted, so the confusion persists. There are three proposals on the table so far: A) Delete the format parameter from the template once and for all. B) Leave the parameter, but clearly mark it as obsolete in the template description. C) Re-define what "format" means for those who edit television articles. For context, history and scope the main discussion is here. 20:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support C. I'd rather that it be properly described. It could be used for animated/live action, serial drama, etc. I don't have a problem with it being discouraged or even deprecated, but it does seem to have some potential for usefulness (which is currently not being met, apparently). I'm sympathetic to the point of view that it's more trouble than its worth (due to being confused with genre), but I think we should try option C first before we deprecate it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I can see how it causes confusion. To me format implies either NTSC or PAL, or it could be used to denote whether a particular program is serialized or stand alone. It's just too confusing and I agree that it should be retired. Wickedlizzie (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support per Wickedlizzie's reasoning. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support also per Wickedlizzie's reasoning. – Recollected • 06:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support C and oppose all others: I don't see how, for example, it is supposed to be indicated that a show is an animated series without this parameter. The genre parameter is completely different in that it covers drama, comedy, etc. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The Genre parameter currently points here for examples. Animation is listed as a genre, with various subgenre. Doesn't mean it couldn't change, but that's currently how we're set up. RottenTomatoes lists the genre for the film Rugrats in Paris as Animation, Kids & Family. Metacritic lists the genre for the TV series Phineas and Ferb as Comedy, Animation, Kids. Our reliable sources aren't even making a distinction for "format". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page you linked to actually mentions "formats" as well. In any case, the "series" part definitely doesn't fall under the genre parameter. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Partly support C, oppose A and B A category like 'Animation' really describes a medium, not a genre as such; ones like Dramatic programming or the Format categories in the Television drama series infobox don't really fit as genres either. Metacritic just seems to be treating Genre as a dumping ground for categories/tags of various kinds: it and Rotten Tomatoes are RS for facts about shows and their reviews, yes, but they're not the kind of source you'd necessarily expect to an have encyclopedia-quality classification scheme. I don't know what to do with Format in the infobox - I think we may need to find a domain expert, or at least a suitable guide or source of emulation - but I don't think we should just hack out Format until we do have an answer, especially since it might prove necessary to put Format (or something like it) back in again. RW Dutton (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

@RW Dutton: Hi, thanks for your response in this desert of discussion. :) I agree that there has to be a better way to classify television programs, as "animation" could be considered a medium or a format, just as "live-action" or "weekly series" could also be considered formats, even though they seem to be unrelated concepts. However, I haven't yet been able to garner ample opinions on this discussion, let alone tackle something as big as taxonomic classification. I would like to point out that the parameter has been problematic for 8 years and the longer it sits without being addressed, the more conflicting information it generates. Additionally, Template:Infobox film doesn't support a genre parameter at all, so another answer might be to remove both the format AND genre parameters from the infobox and to let the article convey the relevant info. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support A "Format" is far too broad a term to nail down for this template. I see no example that has been brought up which shows the "correct" usage of this field. Considering the film infobox doesn't even list genres, why should television shows have two parameters? It seems like an unnecessary and confusing classification, and I'll welcome its removal. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 21:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support D just to be difficult. Let's re-purpose "format" to mean 4:3 (full screen), 16:9 (widescreen), 16:10, etc... Technical 13 (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose D as redundant given that this is already almost precisely the purpose of the picture_format parameter. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.