Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Inspired by parameter

Is it possible to add an "Inspired by" parameter on the template? I noticed some TV series use "Inspired by" instead "Based on" according to their on-screen credits. "Inspired by" isn't the same thing as "Based on", vice versa. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't find any passed discussions about this. I think this makes sense. |inspired_by= could be a quasi-alias of |based_on= and change the heading name if used. I would say one or the other should definitely be used if implemented. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I would urge caution on this. It is ripe for WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. For example I like thinking that Northern Exposure was inspired by Local Hero (film) but that is as OR on my part as it can be :-) IMO it is better suited for prose in the production section of an article. In any event the info would definitely require reliable sourcing. MarnetteD|Talk 18:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

If I understood the proposal correctly, it would only be in instances where an explicit "Inspired by" credit appears for a series, much like how series include "Based on" credits now. As with anything, sure there will be uses that go against what was intended, but I believe the current thought of adding it is in the right place. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah apologies for missing that. As credited is fine but if any info is available that enhances that listing a mention in the body of the article I think it would enhance a readers understanding. MarnetteD|Talk 19:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Favre1fan93 is correct. I said according to their on-screen credits which isn't WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@YoungForever and MarnetteD: The sandbox is currently adjusted to make this happen. Test cases can be seen here. The first one is just with |based_on=, second is with just the new |inspired_by=, and third is if you use both together, only |based_on= will show up. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Since you do a lot of work on the TV templates and have template edit privileges, have you seen this discussion? I believe this is good to be added, and if you agree, could you move the sandbox version here to the live template? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree it looks good. Thanks for your work on this Favre1fan93. MarnetteD|Talk 23:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Added it. Please update the /doc (parameter section and templatedata). --Gonnym (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I've updated the doc. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Thank you for creating the test cases to make it happen. — YoungForever^(talk) 03:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Thank you for implementing the |inspired_by= to the template. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Starring order for online shows without traditional credit sequences

Are there any thoughts about how to deal with webshows on Youtube or streaming shows such as Critical Role that have a cast, but lack "traditional" intro or outro credits that could provide a starring order? Should other title sequences be used, if they exist? Should starring order simply be alphabetized? --Arcaist (contribs • talk) 11:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Alphabetical seems a good alternative when there is no title/credit sequence. Though if there is a host-like role, perhaps list them first? Critical Role does complicate matters here because they introduced a credit sequence from C1E50. HarmonQuest gets around the problem by just not listing the cast in the infobox – though I don't recall if it has a title sequence or not (should be able to check this evening). Little pob (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with these shows, but the first video I pulled up on Critical Role on YouTube ("Curious Beginnings | Critical Role | Campaign 2, Episode 1") list the cast in the video description so if they usually do that then I would go with that ordering. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a logical solution. Unless someone gets to it first, I'll check the early C1 episode descriptions tonight. Little pob (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Checking at random from both before and after Orion left the show (C1 eps 1, 2, 3, 24, 27, 28, 115), there are no show credits listed. So it looks like credits in the YouTube video description is a Campaign Two thing. Little pob (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

With TV shows, is the procedure to do the cast order from the first season or to do the cast order from the most recent season? Critical Role is split into campaign 1 & campaign 2, so I guess we could consider those seasons 1 & 2. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

You start with the cast order from season 1, episode 1. If that remains the same for the entire season, then come season 2, episode 1, if there are any newly added cast members (regardless of what the season credit order is) you add them to the end of the season 1 list. For example, if season 1 has credits A, B, C, D, E for the entire season, and come season 2, the cast is A, C, D, F, G, H, the order on the main article simply becomes A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Narrated parameter

Can we all agree that the Narrated parameter should not be used unless someone is actually credited as "narrator" or "narrated by" (e.g. Love Life (American TV series)), and that it should not be used on TV series such as Magnum, P.I. where there is no credited narrator and a "voice-over" narration is provided by one of the series' regular characters?

If so, I propose the Infobox documentation for the Narrated parameter be changed to something like "The show's credited narrator(s) (if applicable). Years or seasons should not be included. (emphaisis mine) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I support the proposal as worded. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Support as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I also support this as well. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, no opposition so far. I'll give this another day or two, and if there are no objections, I'll go ahead and update the template documentation as this appears to be a "non-controversial" change/update. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Original network

Anyone has any feedback on what an "original network" is? How should we list television series that switched main networks during its run?

How should we list the original network for Ang Probinsyano which moved from ABS-CBN to the Kapamilya Channel.

For a brief background, the government did not renew the franchise of ABS-CBN which meant that the network is not operational, and the company owner set up a second network Kapamilya Channel, a pay television network while renewal of the franchise in the congress is still pending. New episodes of the series has been broadcasting in the new channel.

Should we list both channels with years when each of the channel was the main network in the Infobox or just ABS-CBN with a footnote explaining the situation? Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The original network is, as implied by the title, the network on which the program originally aired or was released. For programs that moved networks, it is simply a matter of listing the networks in chronological order. Years or seasons are not used in the infobox. Instead, this should be addressed in the prose. If new episodes are still airing on ABS-CBN then there is no need to alter the infobox at all, and the airing of episodes on the new channel in addition to the original should be addressed in the prose. However, if all new episodes are being aired on the new channel only then the infobox code would be:

| network            = {{plainlist|
* [[ABS-CBN]]
* [[Kapamilya Channel]]
}}

--AussieLegend (✉) 06:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of specifying the original network is to avoid having a list of all subsequent networks that episodes may air on, so if there was a second network that had encore airings of episodes we wouldn't want to include that. We also don't want a list of different networks from different countries that have aired the series. But if the series moved to a new network for new episodes at some point during its run, which is what this situation sounds like, then you would add the new network as an additional original network (since it was the original network for certain episodes/seasons of the series). - adamstom97 (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I can see value in the dates being added to the infobox, but think that it would work better in a situation where we have |network2=, |first_aired2= and |last_aired2=, so that the infobox will show:

Original network: ABS-CBN
Original release: date-date
Original network: Kapamilya Channel
Original release: date-date

This style can actually also work for revival situations like in Twin Peaks. --Gonnym (talk) 08:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. And yes new episodes are airing in the second network. I also agree if the second option could be implemented could be helpful as well.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd argue that there is no need for the second option. By its very nature the infobox is supposed to be brief. Any network/channel changes and relevant dates should be addressed in the prose. Typically people seem to want to jam as much as they can into the infobox and that's not right. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I could not agree more partially with AussieLegend. Some editors tend to include every secondary networks on the | network which is not acceptable. Typically,

| network            = {{plainlist|
* Original network (year range) or (season range)
* Moved to network (year range) or (season range)
}}

is acceptable as we do this for a lot of TV series. Here are some examples: Lucifer (TV series), The Killing (American TV series), Arrested Development, Unreal (TV series), The Mindy Project, and Search Party (TV series). — YoungForever^(talk) 19:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Aussie and Young, I don't think we need to add a second set of parameters, and can be covered by the formatting Young presented above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Just pointing out that you can't be an agreement with both, as Aussie specicially mentioned he's against using years/seasons. Gonnym (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Different situation, same topic

Found a situation with another show which I guess falls under this topic but is throwing me off only because of the part about not including foreign broadcasters. But with Curious George seasons 1-9 first aired on PBS Kids in the United States from 2006-2015, not a problem. Seasons 10-12 first aired on Family Jr. in Canada from 2018-2020. Followed by season 13 released on Peacock (streaming service) in 2020. Seasons 10-12 never aired on PBS Kids, but the three seasons are included with season 13 on Peacock while seasons 1-9 stream on Hulu. So would Family Jr. be considered a first-run network even though it's in a different country or would it just be PBS and Peacock with the release dates of the latter four seasons in the U.S. being officially released on July 15? TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: You might want to use |first_run= as well. So |network= would be PBS Kids, Family Jr., and Peacock (with appropriate years) and |first_run= would be "Canada (2018-2020)". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Use of first_run like that would be misleading as the parameter is for "The country or region where the show was first broadcast." As with all content that might confuse readers, it's best to address it in detail in the prose rather than introducing ambiguities into the infobox. The infobox isn't the only part of the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Plural [production company/ies?]

Was looking around the archives to see if this issue had been brought up before and [this thread] (and in turn, [this one as well]) seems to be the closest one related to my concerns.

The unfortunate thing is, the more recent thread died out after one reply while the older one did not get any replies. My intent is to revive this issue with this new thread because unlike the situation with "people" and "peoples", "company" and "companys" is a little... strange, so to speak, to look at.

Options brought up in both threads include "Production company(ies)" and "Production company/ies". Personally, I'd like to suggest "Production compan(y/ies)", but I can see why it wouldn't be as ideal as the first two suggestions.

In any case, they're much more comforting to look at than what we have now, which is "Production company(s)".

Thoughts?

Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 23:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

What I implemented on Template:Infobox character was alias parameters for plural which when used makes the label plural. I think that makes the most sense. --Gonnym (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that would be preferable to "Production company(ies)" or "Production company/ies" which both look odd to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Gonnym and Adamstom.97, thank you both for your responses. Any chance we can implement alias params to the template now? I never thought of that possibility since I'm not strong with wikitables and parameters... Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 14:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I concur, having |company= give Production company and |companies= give Production companies would remove some of the ambiguity and "oddity" of the current setup. Granted, someone would need to manually go through and update the extant uses to reflect the change, but it's not something that needs to happen immediately. Primefac (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Picture format

Hi everyone - the directions specify not to use: 4:3" or: 16:9", but I see it used constantly - I'm fine to revert these, right?

Also, should shows shot on film, transferred to 480i tape, and then remastered in HD later (specific examples: Happy Days, Scooby-Doo, Where are You!) just have "Film" listed as the picture format?

--FuriousFreddy (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine to remove aspect ratios. The picture format should be the format that was first aired. If a filmed program was first aired in NTSC, then NTSC should be used and so on. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggested parameters?

Right now there's only one suggested parameter for this template per the TemplateData: the image. As a result, if you start a new instance of this template with VisualEditor, that's the only field that shows by default. What other fields would be most commonly desired by people creating articles that use this infobox? Raymie (t • c) 07:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• My problem with suggested parameters is that even if left blank the visual editor adds them. That's an awful design. --Gonnym (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with Gonnym but the most common fields are:

| name
| image
| image_alt
| caption
| genre
| creator
| developer
| writer
| director
| creative_director
| presenter
| starring
| judges
| voices
| narrated
| theme_music_composer
| opentheme
| endtheme
| composer
| country
| language
| num_seasons
| num_series
| num_episodes
| list_episodes
| executive_producer
| producer
| editor
| camera
| runtime
| company
| distributor
| network
| picture_format
| audio_format
| first_aired
| last_aired
| website
| production_website

This is based on the number of infoboxes that I fix daily. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

list_episodes

It seems to me that the |list_episodes is just as useful when the list is in the same article, so I have started a discussion on the policy that appears to discourage this.

Jim Craigie (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

"Aired" or "Broadcast"?

Taking into consideration the variety of articles that use {{Infobox television}}, are the parameters first_aired= and last_aired= appropriate, or would first_broadcast= and last_broadcast= be more appropriate? Not every show was transmitted only through airwaves. Aired is pretty specific, while broadcast is non-specific.
Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 07:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Parameter missing in syntax and example in Usage

Is | name = deliberately or accidentally missing from the syntax and example in Usage (before the Parameters sub-heading)?
Jim Craigie (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• In 99% of the situations it is not needed as the page title is used. --Gonnym (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation of "Chronology" needed

The description of |preceded_by= and |followed_by= makes reference to a predecessor or successor show without specifying if this should be understood to be with the respect to the chronology of the storyline or of the broadcasts. Thus, if a show B is a prequel to show A, it is a predecessor in the story timeline but a successor in the broadcast timeline. Which one was intended? It would be nice to get this clarified in the description. jmsofia (talk) 01:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

These parameters are normally from a real-world perspective, so a prequel would be in |followed_by= as far as I understand it. See Breaking Bad, where both the prequel show Better Call Saul and the sequel film El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie are listed in |followed_by=. El Millo (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Facu is correct in what the parameters mean (real world, not in world). But I also feel like the text we have in the doc is very poorly written and could use a rewrite to be clearer. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Add Fandom Pages

Fandom is mostly used for Television Programmes, You should make a entry in the infobox. by [[User:FunctionalMetatable FunctionalMetatable]] (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

why strange title formating?

For me it looks rather strange formatting the page titles this way, see for example Talk:Man in the Mirror: The Michael Jackson Story#Title in strange font??.

Could someone please tell me the reason for formatting titles with this template that way?, i would prefer having the title formatted as normal pages are or at least don't use a stile that makes letters like a J looks like some strange character (see screenshots there)...

Thanks in advance --2001:16B8:6099:FD00:1843:53BC:DC7C:C347 (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not because of this template. The general font your web browser uses for Wikipedia (either by default or because you chose it) is different from the one I have for example, and likely different from the one most people have. That's why the J's are "weird", probably because the italic uppercase J in that font looks like that. El Millo (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Runtime and/or num episodes

As it currently stands, the runtime field is only supposed to detail per-episode length. More often than not, this is completely fine and appropriate, but in some cases, such as certain mini-series like Battlestar Galactica, it is not followed, instead given the total runtime. Zack Snyder's Justice League is another example; the upcoming miniseries is made up of four 60-minute episodes, so it stands to reason that the running-time be listed as 60 minutes, and the number of episodes be 4. The problem is that the num_episodes field is only to be updated as and when episodes are aired, of which none of these episodes have. This leaves us with an issue, since we can only list the per-episode length, giving the impression that the total runtime for the four episode series is a single hour. Multiple users have had to revert good-faith edits changing the runtime to 240 minutes (four hours) since we cannot, currently, include the number of (unaired) episodes in the table also, leaving us with an incomplete set of data.

Now, I'm perfectly happy to continue reverting these edits, but this does raise the question of how this template can be improved to account for such circumstances going forward. The way I see it, we have two options: a) we alow the total runtime be included and keep the num_episodes criteria as is, or b) since we know there are four planned episodes, we allow this information in the num_episodes field (or add a new field for expected episodes). I'd appreciate thoughts and input. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 13:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Runtime should probably be excluded along with the number of episodes until an episodes is released. While yes, for the JL example, we can put "60 minutes" right now, once episode one releases it could be 54 minutes or 68 minutes etc. so it should be added then to accurately reflect what the runtime is, not the generalized one now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Probably an unpopular opinion, but I find the runtime parameter for the series very pointless. Each episode on broadcast television can be slightly different. There are even special episodes which are longer. So what's the point? The runtime should really only be handled at the episode level, where it has any relevance. --Gonnym (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I can see this, but I also feel like with pre-streaming series, having it in this template can give the general idea that episodes are either an hour or half-hour long (which translates usually to 42 and 22 minutes, respectively with commercials) outside of "one-off" episodes. But yes, series today, is a bit of a crapshoot about this. Like take The Mandalorian for example. Going in to it, we thought it would be a "typical" hour-long drama, but episodes have erred more towards the 30 minute mark than the hour mark. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, most episodes do not have articles of their own, and it's still useful to have an overview of how long the episodes are, and what's the range from the shortest to the longest one is useful as well. El Millo (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that its useful giving a range. If we take Favre's example of The Mandalorian, how is 32–54 minutes useful? What does it tell you about the series? Wouldn't it be more useful instead adding the length of each episode to the {{Episode list}} template? While not every episode has an article, every series article should have an episode list. --Gonnym (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I though that by handled at the episode level you were referring to episode articles. Including it in {{Episode list}} would be a viable option. I don't know if it would be more useful though, and we would be trading a bit of info at the infobox for a bunch more info in the table. But I'd be for it. El Millo (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

To be fair I did mean at the episode level, meaning article, but if it's still needed, then the episode list is the other logical place where individual episodes have representation. --Gonnym (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't be in support of adding them to the episodes tables, at least not as a column. I'm okay with having them in the infobox as it exists now, but would be open to wording saying something like "if episode articles exists for the series, keep the information there". That way, if episode articles don't exist for every episode, the info remains in this infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I have to question what problem, if any, moving the runtime from the infobox to an episode list will solve? so far as I can tell, all we'd be doing is moving the same information from one point in the article to another (and potentially duplicating it four times). I would image this is the reason it was placed into the infobox in the first place. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 11:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

That's true. Most episodes of most TV series will have very similar if not identical runtimes. El Millo (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Clobbered parameter

Resolved

|released= is a synonym for |first_aired= but if a template has |released=some date followed by |first_aired= (with no entry), then nothing is displayed. MB 15:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, that is as intended. |first_aired= has precedence over |released=. There is never a reason to have both in the template, and this silent error is working as intended. --Gonnym (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The documentation says "use either but not both". If you use just |released=some date followed by |first_aired= (with no entry), then nothing is displayed even though the editor thinks they are using just one because they have only given a value to one. Templates should not do this without at least generating a warning. MB 19:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, as an experienced T.E., do you have any comment on this? MB 23:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I've changed it to use {{if empty}}, removing the oddities of having a blank-but-in-the-template parameter messing up the values. Primefac (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Company(s)

@Gonnym: I understand your reasoning for reverting back to company(s), but I think there are better solutions available. A quick Google leads me to believe that "company(ies)" is a technically correct and accepted, if inelegant, option. "Company(s)", however, appears to be fundamentally wrong. Alternatively, we could simply change it to "companies" since it would not be incorrect grammar when a list of companies only contains one entry. Your thoughts? -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 14:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I oppose the reversion to "company(s)". It's just grammatically wrong. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

FYI, this was previously discussed recently here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Whilst I agree that company(ies) might "look odd", it's better than company(s), which is fundamentally wrong. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 15:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

As I said before in the linked discussion (which I completely forgot about), a plural parameter is something I can support. I can also support having this label always plural. --Gonnym (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

To circle around to my comment from the last go-round, why not just add a new parameter that switches the function? It would require manually updating existing transclusions, but would technically solve the problem of "ugly vs accurate". Primefac (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, would that require the editor to choose between using |company= and |companies= or would it automatically update if more than one list entry is detected? -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 15:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Having |company= and |companies= change the text in the label is the "easy" way to do it. In theory we could set up a {{str find}} that could (in theory) check for the common indicators of multiple companies (e.g. <br>, commas, etc) in order to switch the label.Primefac (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC) (for the record, I don't really care what's done, I just know that often I end up coding these things, so the simpler we can go, the happier I generally am)

If there is some good system that can catch the many ways editors add multiple entries (templates, breaks, commas, etc) then that could be used for the entire template. --Gonnym (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Lua, really... and writing a Lua module for one parameter is kind of silly. Primefac (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

There's a nice template, {{detect singular}}, that does this. See {{infobox settlement}} for usage. Here's the usage in that template: {{#if:{{detect singular|{{{area_code|}}}}}||{{Main other|[[Category:Pages using infobox settlement with possible area code list]]}}}}}} – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

That would seem to tick all of our boxes - one parameter, but dynamic display of the label to match. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

While I understand the desire for two separate parameters, I think if what Jonesey95 suggested of using a single parameter to adjust the label, we should use that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

/sandbox has been modified with {{detect singular}} for all plural labels. Please take a look and see if this isn't breaking anything. --Gonnym (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I did a far-from-thorough test on a live article using /sandbox and everything seemed to worked properly. If we can guarantee that nothing is broken, I don't see why this solution couldn't be used more widely. Nice work, Gonnym (and Jonesey95, Primefac for the suggestions). ---- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 10:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

What's in the testcases also looks fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Network parameter

Should the network parameter be renamed or redescribed? I see on e.g. Soccer Saturday and QI a number of networks listed, not just the original location of the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.7.102 (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Music parameter

In the template instructions, there is no |music= parameter indicated, but the template does contain one. If used, it renders "Music by" in the infobox as shown here, whereas if you use |composer=, it renders "Composer" as shown here. Is this by design? If |music= is supposed to be an alias of |composer=, (or vice versa), then shouldn't they both render the same way? And if they're supposed to be used differently, it would seem we need to add |music= to the template instructions and clarify what it's for. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

If I had to guess (without having looked at the code or its history) the template was changed/updated but the /doc was not. Primefac (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed this too. The documentation was correct back in 2015 when there was a |theme_music_composer= displayed just before |opening_theme= and |composer= was displayed a little farther down. Then there was a merger with {{Infobox television film}} which caused this. |music= sounds to me like it should be an alias for |composer=. If theme_music_composer is used, it displays with the "Music by" label instead of the old "Theme music composer" label that is still in the documentation. (The two can both be specified without any warning message).

I think theme_music_composer should probably be restored to the way it was before the merger, and music/composer be combined instead (with a warning if both are used). Frietjes, Jonesey95, or Primefac? MB 01:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Showrunner parameter

Seems like an obvious parameter to have, considering most shows have at least one showrunner, so is there some reason why this template can't have a basic showrunner parameter? Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 19:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Because showrunners are executive producers, which is where they are typically already listed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Sometimes I really do ask bad questions. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 23:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

That isn't a bad question. I even had to re-educate myself, because initially I thought we had that parameter but then I remembered that these are producers of a show and they are listed in (sometimes multiple areas) of the infobox, just not specifically one called "Showrunner", as that's not a specific credit that you see on a show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Starring

The starring section, should this only be used for the actual main cast? Or also for one episode people (Guest-role) who happened to get main-on-end billing for the one episode they were in? Not looking for a discussion, just an honest question. --Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It is for series regulars of a show. There have been exceptions, like Amber Benson who was a recurring guests for seasons on Buffy and literally got her "series regular" credit in the episode that they killed her off. So, special guest stars are not actual "stars" of the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. So, it does not apply to one-episode people (guest-role) even if they received main-on-end billing? Just to be 100% sure.--Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

What does the episode say? Is it just listing names. Does it say "Special guest star" or "guest star"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Nothing, episode is done. Few actors (starting with the 2 main characters) are mentioned then it changes over to the credit list. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

If the show doesn't distinguish main cast from guest stars, then you go by reliable sources. If no reliable source indicates that said actor is a "main character" (i.e., series regular), then they don't go in the infobox. Like I said, they could be a series regular for 1 episode, but that's a contract thing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this information and your help :) Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bignole: This user is most likely trying to gather information in regards to WandaVision. There has already been a lengthy discussion on that series talk page how to handle starring roles given its unique use of credits (essentially credits for a feature film, not a "normal" television series). What you've stated Bignole has not contradicted anything that's been discussed there and I feel I need to state that for you Scenarioschrijver20, as we are following what the credits state in the 2 (out of 9) episodes that have released. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Actually it was not about that, however, I see where you were coming from. But it was an actual matter of curiosity. I, however, do feel the need to mention that what was said most certainly does contradict some of the stuff said in the discussion. But as was said, let's wait until the final episode and then see how to credit certain people. Also a request, kindly put further responses to this on my talk page as to not clutter this talk page. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 February 2021

Change:

| class50 = url | data50 = {{#if: {{{website|{{#property:P856}}}}} | [{{{website|{{#property:P856}}}}} {{#if: {{{website_title|}}} | {{{website_title}}}|Website}}] }}

To:

| class50 = url | data50 = {{#if: {{{website|{{#property:P856}}}}} | [{{{website|{{#property:P856}}}}} {{#if: {{{website_title|}}} | {{{website_title}}}|website}}] }}

The word website after the website title shouldn’t be capitalized per MOS:CAPS

Ponydepression (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. The word "Website" here is used instead of a website title, AFAICT, as shown in the template's documentation. Can you point to an article or test page where "Website" appears after the website title? – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The Apprentice (American TV series) is where I noticed it. Ponydepression (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I see what you mean now and withdraw my request. Thank you. Ponydepression (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

That page's infobox was not following the template instructions. It was indeed showing "Website" after some text, but I can't think of a way at the moment to work around editors' errors of this type within the template code. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Producers question

Yes, I checked the archive of the talk page. Just wanting to reclarify- only those listed as 'producer' should be listed in the 'producer' field, and those listed as 'executive producer' should be listed in the 'executive producer field', correct? Nothing should be listed such as 'co-executive producer', 'associate producer', 'line producer', 'supervising producer', etc?

I'm not cleaning these up myself, I was only trying to look for some examples, but wouldn't it be fine to remove some of the people listed in those fields on articles like Hey Arnold! or Rocko's Modern Life if what I said above is correct?... or are there some exceptions based on how some shows have credits and/or local consensus? Magitroopa (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I've also started a similar discussion regarding Template:Infobox award and how they handle producers at Template talk:Infobox award#Producer parameter- EP?. I would assume both there and here will end up with a similar response... Magitroopa (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

You are correct in your statement: only those listed as "producer" or "executive producer" for the parameters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Original network again

As per my understanding original network means the main network a certain series is aired, and subsequent broadcasts (reairs, simulcast) are not meant to be included. But I noticed that the usage guideline for the original network field does not explicitly mention this.

The original network(s) on which the show has appeared. Do not add foreign broadcasters here. Use links if articles are available.

— Original network usage guideline for Infobox television

While "foreign broadcasters" typically would exclude most broadcasters which reairs in the material on their own countries/region. It does not explicitly exclude domestic secondary broadcasters which may be reairing the series at a different time period or simulcast the same series.

For example, see ASAP (Philippine TV program), a variety show, which was broadcast in ABS-CBN since its first "episode" in 1995 until 2020, when ABS-CBN stopped broadcast operations, then like most series of ABS-CBN, ASAP was picked up by ABS-CBN's pay channel Kapamilya Channel. However ABS-CBN Corporation subsequently made the show available to Jeepney TV, A2Z, Metro Channel as well, all of which are related to ABS-CBN the company. Then to makes things more muddy, ASAP was also made available by ABS-CBN in TV5, its rival network. The problem is IPs and some users keep including these secondary channels. So I'm requesting to make the usage guideline on original network field less vague.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Game Show/Starring/Years Aired Questions?

Hello all, I know there is a policy for not including seasons starred or years starred with hosts, casts, and/or narrators? While I can somewhat understand the reasoning for casts, could someone explain why the policy is like this for narrators (where they exist) and/or game shows hosts and announcers because it looks more confusing without them? And then regarding the "first run/years aired" section, I'll use an example. Last time I checked the Will & Grace page, it said years aired as "(insert date) 1998 - (insert date) 2019". Can someone explain why it's not "(insert date) 1998 - (insert date) 2006, (insert date) 2017 - (insert date) 2019" or "(insert date 1998 - (insert date 2006; revival (series) (insert date) 2017 - (insert date 2019)? The show wasn't on the air continuously or even fairly regularly between 2006 and 2017, so I have never understood this policy. I know another editor's logic was using Curb Your Enthusiasm and its "distanced" seasons, but isn't that a rarity compared to most shows? Thanks, EPBeatles (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Episodes

The documentation states Value is incremented when new episodes air. I propose to change that to Value is incremented when new episodes air, or are introduced in previews. Often at the end of an episode there is a preview of the next one, which makes it manifest that a new episode is ready and has already been programmed. --Gciriani (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)unsigned comment added by Gciriani (talk • contribs) 00:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I feel like that would be more confusing for readers, if we show a number that does not match the number of released episodes and also does not match the total number of episodes for the series/season. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: I see nothing wrong with as it is now. Previews are just previews, they do not guaranteed that they will air as TV schedules are subject to change when they decided to move things around just few days before after the previews. Value is incremented when new episodes air, or are introduced in previews. would just confused editors and/or readers. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I concur with the two responses above, take this example into consideration to understand why: in January 2021 NBC slated it's Chicago Wednesday lineup to begin airing on January 6, with promos released a week before on December 30, if not earlier, two hours before they were pulled from the schedule to air capitol riot news coverage and the air date was bumped to January 13 ([1]). Point is schedules can change on an instant so it's best not to update until it airs. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

See also WP:CRYSTAL, point 1, which agrees with the above discussion. It is better to wait until the episode has aired. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Announcers

Can we get a section for announcers? It seems ridiculous to call them narrators.98.13.8.89 (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

You are looking for the |presenter= parameter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Animators

What is this bit for? Is it for actual animators of a cartoon, or outsourcers? It doesn’t specifically say what it’s for.Luigitehplumber (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

An actual person who animated something, not companies. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@LTPHarry:@Favre1fan93: Then why is this section almost never used? Wouldn't it be better to reach public consensus proposal on using it as simply "Animation services" for primary outsourcing teams? It seems like it would be of better use than what it was originally set up for, especially when I've never even seen individuals (which would be too many Korean names, frankly) listed under this section?--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gonnym: As the main editor of this template, surely you have seen first-hand how severely underused the "Animators" line has been used if at all on Wikipedia articles for Western animation. With a proposal like this, we wouldn't have to use the company section to add a note on outsourcing animation teams which make up a huge majority of the cartoon industry. Instead of having a note on every article like this, we could give the primary animating team(s) their own line and streamline the production section. This would be in similar likes to how the animanga infoboxes have animating studio(s) listed. And yes, I am aware of the production differences between western cartoons and anime.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Per documentation, outsourced companies shouldn't even be noted in the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

“animator - The animator or animators of the show.” Where specifically does it say it can’t be outsourced animation companies (BESIDES Production companies)? On top of that, I thought I explained clearly how a simple change or line addition could easily solve this problem instead of just adding a note onto [Production company A][note]. With WP:CON, this could be fixed with a public consensus vote. Instead, use sourced prose in the article's Production section to explain these details., but why?--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

|animator= refers to the person or persons who animated the content. Per documentation for |company=: The names of the production company or companies that funded/organized series production. Note: sub-contractors hired to perform production work, e.g. animation houses, special effects studios, post-production facilities etc. should not be included here, as this may create confusion about the nation(s) of origin. Instead, use sourced prose in the article's Production section to explain these details. (bolding mine). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

We're talking about the animators line, not production companies.GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

'Company' parameter question

The template docs say for this parameter, "The names of the production company or companies that funded/organized series production. Note: sub-contractors hired to perform production work, e.g. animation houses, special effects studios, post-production facilities etc. should not be included here, as this may create confusion about the nation(s) of origin...."

While it's not clear, I assume that so called "vanity card" production companies for the showrunners and producers should also not be listed in the infobox for this. But the template docs do not actually makes this clear. (Would these fall under the "sub-contractors hired to perform production work"?...)

Should something about this be added to the template docs to clarify this? Because this issue keeps coming up at a variety of articles, where some editors want to add the "vanity card" production companies to the infobox... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, following up – I assume that "vanity card" production companies for the show creators/showrunners should be listed, but other ones should not? Is there some criteria here to help determine inclusion? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

For people like me who had never heard the name "vanity card", see Production logo. Can I break the question down into a practical example? Are you asking if e.g Line of Duty should have BBC as well as World Productions? - X201 (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

No – some shows include vanity cards/productions logos at the end for Executive Producers, etc. – people who don't necessarily "fund/organize series production", at least not directly, or who are just given a credit for not really doing any real work on the series. IOW, there are definitely cases where not all productions logos listed in the end credits should be included under the company parameter. What I was looking for on practical guidance on figuring out when productions logo "companies" should be listed under company in the IB, and when they shouldn't... As far as I can tell, there isn't any, and we are forced to 100% rely on secondary source coverage to determine whether entities should be listed under company or not. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Technically, showrunners (and some EPs) are responsible for managing production, hiring and managing production crew, overseeing editing and post etc, and they usually do that through their companies which makes them qualified as organizing production. So far, I have not come across a film/series that with closing cards credits for companies that didn't produce, fund or organize production. The only exception would be companies that receive production credit as part of their royalties for producing or creating the original concept. But even in such cases, since they're contractually obligated to receive a production credit per WGA guidelines regardless of their direct involvement, we would still need to recognize them as production companies. If we focus only on physical production, then we would be leaning towards VFX, animation houses and post-production facilities which is the opposite of what this parameter should be. Do we have any known case of a show where a company credited in the closing production cards/vanity cards wasn't involved in production, funding, organizing or contractually required to receive production credit due to royalties? — Starforce¹³ 20:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Fixes for strange styling on mobile

Opening a TPER per my post below (WP:TPEBOLD). — Goszei (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
There is a strange CSS interaction on mobile that I believe I have fixed in the sandbox (see diff: [2]). There are no visible changes on desktop mode (see [3]), but in mobile mode, the title and headers become styled and sized as I believe are intended (see [4]). If there aren't objections, I will open a TPER in a about a week. — Goszei (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Vague "Country of origin"

Hello, there is some dispute on what the "country of origin" for the Netflix series Trese. I hope, I could have some feedback on how to deal with this issue. I'm under the impression that the country of origin should be the "country of production" (aka. the "nationality" of production companies involved"; rather than the dominant nationality of the cast, the nationality of the director/producers, or the country of origin of the source material.

In Trese's case it is:

• Based on a Filipino comics (Philippines)
• Have a Filipino and Filipino-American cast (Philippines)
• Produced by the Singapore division of the BASE Entertainment (Singapore) - which probably employs Filipino animators (but that is just speculation on my part)

Then I found out that there is no explicit instruction on what "country of origin" should be on the field usage guide unlike the infobox's film counterpart.

It would be helpful if some sort of consensus is reach on how to list the "country of origin" not just for Trese's case.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The proper venue for this discussion is Talk:Trese (TV series). Please do not post the same discussion in multiple places. See WP:TALKFORK. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Pardon, I intend this to be the main discussion page. I have posted it here first, since it concerns not just the page but I'm asking for clarification on the "country" field on the infobox itself. The discussion on Talk:Trese (TV series) asks users to refer to this section. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Pages using infobox television with editor parameter

Favre1fan93 as the one who created Category:Pages using infobox television with editor parameter can you shed light on what is needed to be done with this category? It has 10,333 pages in it now, which at a size this large it loses any ability it be helpful. The template or the category also don't explain what needs to be done with it. Gonnym (talk) 08:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

That was created when |editor= was shifted to an actual film editor, and |news_editor= was created. If I recall, the goal was to ensure any pages previously using |editor= (which at the time was a mixture of both film and new editors) were switched over to |news_editor= if need be. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Is this still needed or can it be removed? Gonnym (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I would say at this point, the amount of news programs using the incorrect field are minor at this point and not worth the category. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Status parameter

Hi! I want to suggest a "Status" parameter with "Ongoing"; "Ended"; "Canceled"; "Canceled/Ended"; "Canceled/Spin-off" options! This could be useful for those who have not seen the series and want to know does it have ending or not! – Vilnisr ^{T | C} 19:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't the "original run: August 12, 2010 - " or "Original run: August 12, 2012 to August 12, 2018" give away the fact that it's still on-going or ended? A series isn't its spin-off, so that isn't related to status...we also have a section that covers related shows in the infobox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

But nothing in template gives information does show have an ending or not, For example Debris (TV series) was canceled without ending, the original run dates doesn't give such information. For example, I like tv shows, but don't want to spend a time on unfinished shows, if i look for such information here, its quit complicated to find it. I think it would be very useful in infobox. – Vilnisr ^{T | C} 15:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

That's not the purpose of the infobox. That is information that would require context, specifically plot information. You can say a show as abruptly cancelled, but that does not meant that the storyline wasn't wrapped up at the time it was cancelled. Not all shows end on cliffhangers or have seasons without resolving all the main story elements. Additionally, there are plenty of shows that have planned end dates that still don't resolve everything and leave people feeling dissatisfied with the ending (e.g., Game of Thrones, Dexter, etc.). The infobox could not tell you that without context and we don't put context into the infobox. It's supposed to be just basic data elements to summarize the article. If you want to know if you should invest your time in a show, then I would suggest talking to people that have seen it and find out if it resolves itself or not.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thats what I Want, to add information about show ending, is it finished or not, options "Ended"; "Canceled"; "Canceled/Ended" would give such information, and I think it is basic and quite important information. I don't see a reason why it can't be added to infobox and have to be hidden somewhere in text as usually it is.– Vilnisr ^{T | C} 15:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I defer to my recent response as to why it isn't and shouldn't be. Not to mention, the average reader is not going to know that there is a specific difference between "cancelled" and "ended". If it's cancelled, then it's ended. Whether it was a planned ending or an unplanned one, it's still ended. I'm sure others will have opinions. If you don't get a lot of response here (which wouldn't be surprising because most people don't monitor template pages) then you can bring it up at WP:TV or WP:MOSTV.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll agree with Bignole, an actual difference between cancelled and ended would need to be explained outside the infobox to be useful. MB 20:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Delinking website_title parameters

I have added simple code in the sandbox to remove wikilinks from the |website_title= parameter values, since wikilinks are not allowed inside external links. You can see the current code breaking an external link in this revision of Karthika Deepam (Telugu TV series). I have not deployed the new code, since Gonnym is working in the sandbox also, but as you can see from the testcases page, it should be safe to deploy. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

If your change works, don't let me stuff stop you from moving it to live (just don't make my changes live yet). Gonnym (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Any way to add grosses

I can't figure out any way to add the box office gross. The workaround of embedding infobox films doesn't work. So please add a method to be able to add box office gross. It may not be necessary for films that don't earn anything, but it would be useful in ones that do earn a good amount. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain in what situations a TV film would get box office gross? Gonnym (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Some TV films get released in theatres. It's obvious. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you give an example? Gonnym (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

You could just use {{infobox film}} for such rare cases. MB 13:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Wife of a Spy is an example. And the infobox film doesn't work embedded. I could just replace the infobox television with infobox film, but I will be removing the work done by other editors. Also when films are primarily meant for TV and are broadcast on TV first, but only later released in cinemas, it doesn't seem right to me to do it. Do you think I should still use infobox film? AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Lets wait and see what other regular watchers here have to say about your request first. As a personal note (again, my personal opinion), I find the separation of television films and theatrical film infoboxes really awful. Gonnym (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I put a sample infobox using film on the article TP.

• Not supported: genre, composer, executive producer, network, picture_format, audio_format.
• Supported with different name:editor, company, first_aired.

I wonder if some of the fields in television are really important enough for the infobox (they don't pass the test for film). If there were consensus to remove some, and possible add some to film (like genre - that strikes me like something I would expect to see in the infobox), then these two templates would be similar enough to merge. MB 15:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I was more thinking that TV films should use the {{Infobox film}} and the only parameter that template would need added is |network=. Gonnym (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense. {{Infobox television}} says it CAN be used for TV flims, while film just says it is for "motion pictures", which certainly does not preclude TV films. The reason I mention this is that there are editors that change the infobox from film to television for TV films (without making ANY parameter changes). MB 16:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but do you think I should replace the infobox yet? Or just leave it be? AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Name parameter category

Category:Pages using infobox television with unnecessary name parameter tracks articles using |name= matching the article name and therefore unnecessary. Most templates have a name parameter that is usually the same as the article and technically unnecessary, but we don't care about this elsewhere. This category has over 43k articles. I think any attempt to remove the parameter would itself be unnecessary and pointless. I find this cat to distracting when glancing at the list of hidden categories of an article to see it there are actual things to be fixed. Any objection to removing this? MB 02:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you first ask the purpose of the category instead of thinking that it is pointless? There are several reasons to keep it:

• The |name= parameter is one of the highly targeted parameters by vandals to change. The reason for this is it has a very high visibility and in less watched episode articles can be there for a longer period. I'm speaking from experience as someone who has fixed a lot of these.
• The parameter is also misused quite a lot. Editors use the name parameter to either add to it or instead of it alternative titles (which should use |alt_name=) or native titles (which should use |native_name=).
• It also is not updated a lot of times after a page moves or complies with MoS style which results in names being inconsistent throughout the article.
• When eventually cleared from unnecessary name usages, it will be much easier to identify what usages are left and how to handle them correctly.
• Finally, while not as a good reason as the above, it reduces the amount of text in the article which makes editing a cleaner experience.

Just because the category is large is not a reason to remove it. Stuff will be done eventually and it will be empty. Gonnym (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

How to represent production / air frequency?

What is the best way to represent the production or air frequency of a show? Some are daily, some are ~weekly (where "weekly" can mean anywhere between 52 to 13 shows per year), some are adhoc / irregular, and they sometimes change over the lifetime of a show... is there some way to show these details using the template? Should we consider a "frequency" attribute or something? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

That information is better presented in prose. Gonnym (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Add module options

Hi template editors,

Would it be possible to add module options? As not all TV show or program titles are in English.

Template:Infobox person (data64 to data69) is a good example that allow editors to add up to 6 different modules.

If possible, please add after data51. It would be appreciated by many editors. Thank you. Flipchip73 (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

We don't add random empty parameters. What parameters are you missing? Gonnym (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm looking to have an option to add miscellaneous module(s). For example, South Korean TV show and program editors usually will include Template:Infobox Korean name at the end of the main infobox. If the width of the main infobox (ie template:Infobox television) changes, the Template:Infobox Korean name would not change in width as both are not linked. Flipchip73 (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you wanting to add the native name of a South Korean show? If so, use |native_name=. Gonnym (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The parameter |native_name= only shows the native name, wherelse the Template:Infobox Korean name allows editors to include Hangul, Hanja, MR and RR. The template is shown or displayed at the bottom of the main infobox. Flipchip73 (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The infobox, and the article in general, should not translate the name of the show into each language in the world, or even each language the show was broadcast at. It should list two names - the English name and a native name, if not in English. Gonnym (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Gonnym,

Nevermind, adding 12 lines of code seems quite difficult for you, I will stick to the template:infobox to work with. It is painful to use, but less troublesome with typing. I'm not angry with you, just that I'm unable to convince you. Have a good day and thank you for your time. Flipchip73 (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Flipchip73, I found Those Who Cross the Line which was coded with a manual infobox to replicate {{Infobox television}}. Please to not do this. If there is a project consensus to change the infobox in any way, the changes would obviously not be reflected in this article. I changed the article to use the approved infobox. Please to the same in other articles that have a cloned infobox. I also removed all the collapsed info per MOS:COLLAPSE. Please follow the WP:MOS. MB 17:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I have added the standard |module=, which is found in many infoboxes and can be used to embed child infoboxes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

And I've reverted. Establish consensus for the change. Clearly there wasn't one here yet. Gonnym (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Those Who Cross the Line is great example of a what not to do. Gonnym (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

What is controversial or harmful about having a |module= parameter so that people can embed child infoboxes as needed? This parameter is used uncontroversially in many infoboxes. Template editors should not revert other template editors' harmless changes without a good reason. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure mean, template editors that see an ongoing discussion which has no consensus should not boldy edit it anyways. {{Infobox television}} will not need any nested infoboxes like some other infoboxes do. A |module= parameter is also a open invitation for editors to add any garbage they want. A need should arise before a change is done. So far the need for a native title is already handled by |native_name=. Gonnym (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Add "IMDb-id" parameter

Please add a parameter called "IMDb-id" to this template so that it can be linked to its corresponding page in IMDb website. Mohammad ebz (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It is definitely inappropriate as it is not a reliable source at all. IMDb can only considered as an External link at the bottom of an article which is {{IMDb title}} — YoungForever^(talk) 07:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

What does it have to do with the accuracy of the information source ?, it is just an external link; If so, Wikipedia is also unreliable. The IMDb website is a center for movie and series information and is improved by its users almost like a wiki.

I suggested it only because the breadth and popularity of the IMDb website on the Internet is great and it is better to put it in the information box. (I have nothing to do with the accuracy and precision of the information contained in IMDb) Mohammad ebz (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Most external links other than the websites were removed from the infobox years ago. Gonnym (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

For reference, imdb and tv.com were removed as parameters in 2009, based on the "film" infobox also removing external links. The discussion is in the archive here: [5]. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Putting a limit to number of genres

I would like to purpose limiting the number of different genres listed in the infobox to five. This can be a soft limit that allows for exception, but I think that it would be good to at least have a suggested limit because I often see infoboxes get overfilled with an excessive amount of genres that aren't really defining to the show, but one source describes it as such, so it can't just be removed as unsourced. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what a good limit would be, but guidance about it actually being "defining" may help as one source suggesting a genre that is not generally supported shouldn't be enough to include it. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@adamstom97 I definitely support adding guidance that the genres must be defining, but I think 5 is great for a soft limit. It's very rare that a show really has more than 5 defining genres (not counting genres that are redundant with each other). JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

logo parameter

In popular series and movies, there are often famous logos and posters, and it is better to have a parameter called logo in the template so that the logo is placed below or above the poster.

So please add this parameter. Thankful Mohammad ebz (talk) 08:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mohammad ebz: The logo is almost always on the poster. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

But sometimes the logo of a series becomes very popular and it is better to show it separately Mohammad ebz (talk) 06:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There does not need to be a special parameter for the logo, if it makes sense to use the logo to identify the series with then it can go in the normal image parameter instead of a poster. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Cameras

The last discussion on this topic was held about thirteen years ago. I am talking, of course, about the single-camera vs. multiple-cameras parameter. Is it necessary? Someone, back in 2009, said it was, and that the distinction sets the tone. While this is true, should it be in the infobox, and should it be linked? As an average person, I would say the average person does not know the difference between a single-camera take vs. a multiple-camera take. This, I infer, leads to readers clicking to another page for an explanation. Now, I like to stay on pages I want to read without having jargon confuse me. Anyone else? Also, how are we editors supposed to know what to put for what show? Most shows don't have a reliable source stating the format in which it was shot. This was an issue over at 'film' with the deletion of a category listing aspect ratios. Since the infobox is already crowded as it is, should this information be included? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

There is at least distinction in each set up, in that many sitcoms are multi-cam, while dramas tended to be single cam. Does that warrant included and distinguishing in the infobox? Probably not, because the vast majority of projects will fall in line with their "expected" camera set up, and it many only really matter when one goes against the expected norm. In which case that can be covered in the Production section of the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I personally believe that most technical parameters shouldn't be part of the infobox as they don't offer the same summary value that other parameters do, and unnecessarily make the infobox longer. Most aren't even mentioned in the article (which does not follow MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). Gonnym (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Writer parameter - Written by

Please see a relevant discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_film#Writer_parameter_-_Written_by. Debresser (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Bot needed

Could someone make a bot to remove the "name" parameter for all shows in Category:Pages using infobox television with unnecessary name parameter? Per the category's description, "Articles that use Infobox television with a |name= parameter which matches the PAGENAMEBASE value. Usages should be removed as the infobox already performs this task automatically." Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to ask the dumb question, in my "before" duty as a botop, but... why is this a thing? Why do we care? (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

See Template_talk:Infobox_television/Archive_12#Name_parameter_category for the answer I got to this question. MB 17:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I rarely disagree with Gonnym, but most of those reasons sound like reasons to do the reverse, actually, and check whether the |name= field doesn't match the page name. Primefac (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Primefac. It doesn't matter if the infobox has a name. Most infoboxes have a name field and it can be confusing to editors to not see a name. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I also would agree - we could reverse the category. However, I did submit a bot request for myself. I know of at least three users who have been working on this category manually (including me), two of whom are using AWB (including me). Since it is primarily just a minor edit, it's probably better to run it as a bot so that editors following various pages can ignore it. I had been considering submitting it as a bot request before, but hadn't done so until this question motivated me to submit it. I'm already enabled for AWB and have been running a simple regex on this category manually. To do it as a bot, I would just have to get the bot account enabled for AWB and then approved as a bot (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/ButlerBlogBot) ButlerBlog (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Just noting in this discussion my view that |name= is a standard infobox parameter and removing it here will lead to more confusion. The fact that there can be some many different names (e.g. image=, image_name=, image name=, photo=, Photo=, static_image_name=, etc.) for equivalent fields is a tremendous waste of time for editors who work in multiple topics. We should move towards more standardization, not less. MB 14:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Please show where and what confusion this would cause. Gonnym (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

To clear up some things here. There is already a category that checks if the name does not match - that is regardless of this one. As I've stated, most vandalism target the most easy target, which is the name, removing it gives them one less visible win. This is also a parameter which suffers from pointless fixes - page moves, MoS style changes, etc, need to update the field. The fact that a lot of other infoboxes have a pointless parameter does not mean we need to keep doing this. {{Infobox television}} and {{Infobox television episode}} have received major behind-the-scenes updates over the past year+ which included streamlining stuff, making things more automatic and allowing for things to be discovered and fixed. Editors need to stop clinging to the old days and let computers do the automatic stuff. To note, over 10k pages have already been cleared from the category since November with no issues so far. Gonnym (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am less concerned about OTHERSTUFF and more concerned that there is consensus, given that it's a prerequisite for my bot. If there is no significant opposition to this move away from "the norm" (i.e. is MB the only holdout?) then that's fine, I'm just attempting to do my due diligence.

Also, in case you're wondering, I might disagree with the task but I will generally not stand in the way if I'm in the minority. Primefac (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Just for reference, I would add that of the users I know who are working on the category, we've already removed it from about ~12k entries so far. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Please show where and what confusion this would cause - That was explained. It's a standard parameter in infoboxes and not seeing it causes confusion. I've seen a few infoboxes where |show_name= has been restored because editors thought it was missing.

Editors need to stop clinging to the old days and let computers do the automatic stuff. - Normally I'd agree but people are not computers and sometimes you just have to let them have it as they want it, at least that's been my experience in programming for 47 years. It's not limited to computers either, it extends to a lot of fields. From personal experience I can say that I get really frustrated when the automation in my car does something that I specifically didn't want to do. There's also a few examples in Wikipedia where this isn't the case. I had several infoboxes that automatically generated coordinate strings based on simple inputs but Wikpedia decided that wasn't the thing to do and now all coordinate strings have to be entered manually. It affected a lot of infoboxes, not just mine.

To note, over 10k pages have already been cleared from the category since November with no issues so far. - As I've said, I've seen a lot of infoboxes where |show_name= has been restored. If we remove this parameter I expect to see te same thing. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I have the category on watchlist so I can say with a very firm certainty that if the parameter has been restored, it was less than 10 times (in over 10k pages). I also have all the other maintenance categories on my watchlist, and even there almost no page has returned. Additionally, while it might be standard in infoboxes, even in the television area we have |title= for the episode template, |season_name= for the season template and while we have |name= here, until very recently, it was |show_name=. If the television editors managed to handle this myriad of parameter names, I'm sure they can manage this. Also worth noting, that from my experience editors copy what they see, and if they (eventually) don't see the parameter in use, they just won't use it. Gonnym (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I would concur with Gonnym that from personal experience editors copy what they see on another article as opposed to going to the template docs. This is evident from working through the maintenance categories in television. If a parameter is removed from use and we get the maintenance category cleared, the likelihood of it being used in the future would likely be minimal, if at all. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I can say with a very firm certainty that if the parameter has been restored, it was less than 10 times - Maybe you're not looking at the right category. I check Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters almost every day, sometimes 2 or 3 times, and I can guarantee that |show_name= has been returned many more than 10 times since we changed it.

If a parameter is removed from use and we get the maintenance category cleared, the likelihood of it being used in the future would likely be minimal, if at all. - That's totally incorrect given my experience over the past years. |show_name= has been returned a lot of times, |imdb_id= was removed several years ago but it keeps getting added, completely invalid fields are often added and I've seen runs where very old versions of the infobox are added. Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters often has 5-10 entries to fix every day. Add that up over a year and it's quite a lot. I know that somebody else is clearing the cat as well, so there are additional entries to those that I've had to repair. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I came across some pages where the |name= parameter was removed, and I'm unclear about this being an improvement. When I previewed the page with and without the parameter, the version without always had higher CPU and LUA time usage. Doesn't this cause increased server load? It certainly doesn't save any memory, since it creates a whole new revision (several kilobytes) to remove a few bytes. On a personal note, I do a lot of my editing offline in a text editor, often working on multiple articles, and I find it very useful to have the name parameter right there at the top of the wikicode, to quickly confirm which article the wikicode belongs to. I'm sure that I'm in the minority, but this could be a significant problem for editors who work the way I do. Perhaps there should be some sort of consensus before making wholesale changes like this? – Reidgreg (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure that I'm in the minority... You're not, there is currently no firm consensus that this should be done, but while it gets discussed a number of users are manually removing it anyway. Primefac (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

If there's no consensus, it shouldn't be a maintenance category, which it has been since at least last fall (I started working on it in November). And while the passage of time does not equate to consensus, the existence of a maintenance category on the project page would lead users to act on it. Approx 20k articles have been edited so far (around half the original), and that has brought seemingly little discussion considering the number of edits. Some of the people working on it may not necessarily be aware of the current discussion (and I use the term "current" somewhat loosely as there has been 2 weeks between this and the last comment in this thread). Personally, based on the earlier discussion (March 3-9) I put the pause on what I was doing but with no clear outcome based on the above discussion, I started back doing a few yesterday (which was before I saw your additional comments above, @Primefac:, and hence I am putting the brakes on again). Which brings me back to my original quandary: If there's no consensus, it shouldn't be a maintenance category. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that gnomish minor edits which didn't affect the appearance of the articles went uncommented. Page watcher A assumes that editor B knew what they were doing, and editor B assumes that category creator A knew what they were doing.

I've searched high and low at Wikipedia:Categorization, Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization, Wikipedia:Creating a dated maintenance category, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories, and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (just the main page, too many search hits in its archives to be useful) and while there was information about what maintenance/tracking categories are and how to make them, I didn't find anything about why/whether they should be made, under what circumstances/criteria – such as having prior discussion or consensus. I'll try to ask around. In the meantime, I opened a Category for discussion thread on it. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)