Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

Template-protected edit request on 29 May 2015

As I requested in the previous subject here, the Announcer field should be added to this template. This change will not add another line to any template, as currently the individuals are placed in the template, but just under an incorrect field name (Narrator). I've waited a week for comments with a friendly reminder 3 days ago with no comments so I'm requesting this be added.

I've made the changes to the sandbox here (from label16 onwards)-> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=664540252 Gonnym (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done You need to gain consensus to add this parameter. Lack of discussion in only 7 days cannot be taken as consensus to add a parameter to a template that is used in nearly 35,000 articles. This discussion doesn't appear to have been publicised. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

A few things. First, I've followed the guidelines concerning this change and after waiting 7 days without any comment at all, I was WP:Bold. You say this wasn't publicized, yet in our other discussion you told me to post this here and I did so and also said I did so. I do not need to post this everywhere as this change does not effect the 35,000 other articles (nothing was removed, and except a correct name added, no new data will be added to the templates as the people are already written). I'm really feeling as you are not discussing this change in good faith. --Gonnym (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

User:AussieLegend has serious WP:OWN issues. I suggest simply ignoring them in discussions like this and reporting them in case of edit warring. Mdrnpndr (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mdrnpndr:Please comment on content, not on the contributor. If you can back up your personal attack, please do so in the appropriate venue. If you cannot, don't attack other editors. You know far better than that. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gonnym:You still need to get consensus for such a change and, as you know, there has been resistance to the other parameters you've suggested from other editors. There are other places a proposal such as this needs to be published. WT:TV is a good one, as the editors there are the end users. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Does anybody wish to discuss the proposed addition? Alakzi (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bignole and Favre1fan93: - These are editors who have recently participated in related discussions at Template talk:Infobox television season. I've also advertised the discussion at WT:TV. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Gonnym, you said that "Announcer" is being mislabeled as "Narrator". To me, they are two different roles, can you provide an example of when you would need "Announcer" for an infobox though? The only one that immediately comes to mind is the "Price is Right".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Don Pardo - Saturday Night Live? Shadoe Stevens - Hollywood Squares? I too am curious about the proposed usage of this parameter, and I wonder if it will be mistaken for "commentator" (for example in sports shows). Are we talking about using it for the guy who basically just says "From Hollywood, it's the X show, starring John Doe!"? If so, I don't know if that's a significant enough role to spotlight in the infobox, but still curious as to usage. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I've actually already answered this when I made the proposal one topic above. Bignole, let me clarify, I did not mean (or even change in the code) "Narrator" to "Announcer" as I agree (and stated) that both are different roles. As for the examples: The Price Is Right (U.S. game show) and The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson - if you look at the infoboxes, you'll see the announcers are already listed under the "Narrator" field. As I also stated, I'm not even arguing adding new information to the infobox, these people are already in the infobox (and not added by myself), I'm just arguing that the field name does not represent the correct role and in addition to Narrator an Announcer field should be added. --Gonnym (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

btw, Cyphoidbomb Saturday Night Live does list Don Pardo in its infobox as Narrator (which again is not correct). --Gonnym (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to ruminate on this. It seems to me like a simple misuse of a parameter that might be more easily resolved by clarifying the template instructions, instead of adding more parameters to the infobox. Daniel Stern narrating The Wonder Years contributed significantly to the storytelling. On the other hand, Curt Chaplin, the People's Court announcer, is also the hallway griefer, and does play a significant part of the show. Hmm... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, it seems prudent to clarify the instructions so I've added a link to narration to narrator. Interestingly, the lead of Announcer is An announcer is a presenter who makes "announcements" in an audio medium or a physical location. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Its true, announcers do "present" stuff, however, as long as I'm not mistaken, for this template's purpose aren't we using the "Presenter" field for people who are actually hosting the show as in Survivor (U.S. TV series) and Top Gear (2002 TV series)? These two positions are different. Changing the people announcing to being "presenters" will again make this field wrong. --Gonnym (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I might be shooting myself in the leg, but since I'm not here for any personal gain, just to sort out the inconsistency in articles on the same subject, I want to raise a few more issues which I've noticed going over more articles. The "Announcer" role is mainly used in two TV formats - the game show and the late night talk show. Note: I've compiled a list of the pages I've checked with the results sorted for easy reading here. For the talk show format, the announcer is currently listed under 'narrator", for example The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, Late Night with Conan O'Brien and "starring", for example Conan (talk show), Jimmy Kimmel Live! and The Late Late Show with James Corden, with Conan's infobox entry also serving as a Side-Kick, Kimmel's entry getting "(announcer)" after the name and Corden's entry being also a band leader. Which leads me to the next two issues - Bands/Band leader and Side-kicks. Most articles already have the band information added under "Starring", some have only the band leader, others have the band leader and the band name. In Kimmel's case the entry gets "(band)" after the name. Two articles did not add the band information to the infobox (Tonight Starring Steve Allen and The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson, even-though its listed in the article). Side-kicks are listed in Late Night with Conan O'Brien, Jimmy Kimmel Live! and Conan (talk show), where again, Kimmel's entry gets a "(sidekick)" added and Conan's entry was also the announcer.

My question is then, do we (A) list side-kicks, announcers and bands under "starring", (B) list each entry under a new relevant field ("Sidekick", "Announcer" and "Band") or (C) remove side-kick, announcers and band information from the infobox (which will probably require some sort of RfC to change so many articles. (D) for completeness I'll add this option of leaving everything as is, but I don't see how this is a valid option as listing announcers under narrators misrepresents the role and the inconsistency across the articles with some having the information added, others don't and others add a note stating what the role is, just looks bad. My opinion is option B would best serve the articles with precise field names (so a reader won't have to guess who is the band leader, who the announcer is or who the sidekick is and without having to read the whole article, which is what infoboxes are for) as the information is already added and it seems the working-consensus is inclusion. --Gonnym (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Any comments? opposing ideas? conditional support? don't cares? Would appreciate any comment at all so I'll know what peoples thoughts are. --Gonnym (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as how no one commented and the closer of my edit request didn't even state an opinion on the issue raised, I started an RfC at the bottom of this page to get more eyes on this, seems very bureaucratic for this issue, but after 4 weeks with no replies on the matter this feels a lot like stonewalling. --Gonnym (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Years

Should years be included for anything (besides air dates). I am referring to production companies, locations, networks, original channel ect. or is it just the cast/presenters we do not include it for? -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 16:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that years for production companies are OK, but you should probably ask at WT:TV to gain more opinions. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

num_seasons

A question of mere curiosity on my part - should num_seasons still be included in an article when a series has had only one season before being cancelled? Given the fact that in this case, the series in question doesn't really have "seasons", it just has the episodes that aired. (For example, Firefly was cancelled after one season, and has 14 episodes; there isn't really any reference of "Firefly (season 1)", just "Firefly".) Alex|The|Whovian 07:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

One is still a number so, in the case of a series that hasn't been renewed but has aired episodes, the number of seasons is 1. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

What AussieLegend said. --Gonnym (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

num_episodes

Should num_episodes only be implemented when a new episode airs? Every TV series I've ever edited, this has always been the case, but now I'm editing another series where the editor believes that it should be updated to the count the complete series of eight episodes before it's started airing. Alex|The|Whovian 11:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The label is ambiguous, so it's probably OK to specify both, e.g. "0 (of 8)". Alakzi (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree Alakzi. Anything can happen to stop a show from finishing airing. Just because they say that they ordered them doesn't mean that they will air, especially new shows. FOX is notorious for cancelling series and not finishing the airings. It needs to be what has aired. There are other locations that can list what was ordered.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The current documentation says: "The number of episodes released. This episode parameter should only be incremented when new episodes air or when a reliable source can confirm that an episode has finished production. An inline citation is required if the total number of episodes produced is greater than the number aired, such as in the case of a show being cancelled.". I'm also leaning towards number of episodes being updated when a new episode airs (with the exception noted in the documentation regarding canceled shows with more produced than aired). However, whether this changes or not, lets keep the documentation updated to match. --Gonnym (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The documentation clearly says "The number of episodes released. This episode parameter should only be incremented when new episodes air or when a reliable source can confirm that an episode has finished production." We don't normally see reliable sources confirming completion of episodes, although it does happen, so this effectively means only updating num_episodes after the latest episode has aired. The "when a reliable source can confirm that an episode has finished production" is normally only used when we have a situation where a series finishes mid-season and it is confirmed there are still episodes that haven't been aired. There's nothing in the documentation that supports something like "0 (of 8)" and there has never been consensus for that sort of thing. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The relevant background to this is at Talk:Humans (TV series). The documentation is, it seems to me, entirely clear that we do not have to wait for an episode to air. The documentation has said much the same since 2007. If practice is at variance with documentation, then one or other should change!

I feel that, if we know (on the basis of reliable sources, natch) episodes exist, then we should show that. That's based on general principles like WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BALL. In the case of Humans, it is clear that there are 8 episodes. It is possible, if highly unlikely, that not all of these will air, but there will still be 8 episodes. (While I take the point about FOX, this is not FOX: this is effectively a short mini-series and it's in a UK context.) So the article should say that. If necessary, User:Alakzi's approach can be taken.

I am uneasy with the practice of incrementing counts as episodes air. That appears to be encouraging a sort of live reportage by editors as they watch TV that is entirely at odds with how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia based on reliable sources; we do not encourage edits based on direct observation by individuals. Reliable, secondary sources trump primary sources and definitely trump original research. If reliable, secondary sources say Humans is 8 episodes (and they do), then Wikipedia should say it is 8 episodes. Bondegezou (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You state that there's eight episodes, you've sourced this, yes, but nowhere have you given a source that they have finished production. That's your main contradicting argument here. Alex|The|Whovian 14:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Bondegezou, we do encourage direct observations...all plot summaries for TV and Film (and really all media) is directly observed and reported on Wikipedia. The difference is that the Infobox contains what has happened, not what "may" happen. We have other sections that do that. That is why you will see, "Network has ordered 8 episodes of Humans." in the prose sections, not the infobox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the sources previously provided are sufficient in the specific case of Humans: I refer readers to the discussion at Talk:Humans (TV series) so I may focus on the general point here.

Yes, WP:PRIMARY/MOS:PLOT does explicitly address the issue of plot summaries. It is also very clear that secondary sources are to be preferred and primary sources are only to be used "to a lesser extent" (WP:PRIMARY), noting even with plot summaries that "editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible" (MOS:PLOT). It is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that it privileges secondary sources; it is not designed for first-hand reports. Individual template documentation cannot ignore Wikipedia policy (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). I also note that an infobox is a "quick and convenient summary of the key facts about a subject, in a consistent format and layout" (WP:INFOBOX) or "that summarizes key features of the page's subject." (WP:IBT) And it should be short ("The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose"). If the main text talks about 8 episodes, the infobox should talk about 8 episodes. The point of an infobox is not to contain different interpretations to the text. Personally, a counter incrementing as each episode broadcasts does not seem to me to be what an online encyclopaedia based on secondary sources should be focusing on. Bondegezou (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest an approach that would certainly please me as a user of the information in the Infobox? Why not have two values in the Infobox, one that states the number of episodes in the series and one that states the number of episodes shown to date? In the example of Humans, it could then be indicated that there are 8 episodes ordered for the current series (or season, in American parlance) and that as of today, 5 of those episodes have aired? The number of episodes aired could be incremented each time a new episode was shown (presumably in the first market where it was appearing). That would certainly be helpful to me. When I look at the current Infobox, it seems to be implying that there are only 5 episodes in the series (season). Next week, when I look, it will say 6. If I'm recording the series and waiting to watch it in one go when I have the whole series, I won't know that I have the whole thing until such time as the number stops incrementing in the Wikipedia page. Even then, I can't be sure since it may just have been pre-empted for some reason with further episodes yet to come. It would be far more useful to me to know that there are, say, 8 episodes in the series and 5 have already aired. Of course the proposed numbers would have to be identified and distinguished so the label is open to discussion. I suggest something like "Episodes projected for current series" and "Episodes aired to date", although something concise that was going to be understood correctly would be better.

198.84.215.251 (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Years for judges (Idol, X Factor)

There seems to be on-going debate on this issue, so it must be brought up — should years be included on infoboxes for reality competitions, such as: The Voice, The X Factor and American Idol, or should they be excluded? livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed before (sorry don't know exactly where, but maybe the main TV project), but I believe consensus/understanding is not to include years. Similar to a non-competition show that has a main cast, years are not used in the infobox for them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if we've specifically discussed judges, but we treat "presenter", "starring", "judges" and "voices" in the same way. As the result of a discussion at Top Gear (2002 TV series) an editor sought clarification at WT:TV about presenters and the results of that discussion were as Favre1fan93 has indicated. That wasn't good enough for one editor at the Top Gear article, so I opened an RfC and that also closed with the same result. I've been lax and haven't amended the documentation to reflect the results of these discussions. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

As i said in your talk page. Template talk:Infobox Television says not to include years for judges. Please don't put Louis Walsh ahead of Simon Cowell, even though he was in more episodes. Simon was still credited ahead of Louis in the first season as was Osborne. Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 09:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I think its ridiculous to be honest that the years have been removed - why? Surely it makes more sense to have them there, otherwise it suggests that there are 10+ judges where we have not specified when they were judges. Feels like someone has decided to make change for the sake of change. ThatJosh (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Except that what you state is not the case - the above has been the case for years, so in actual fact, it is the article in question that is actually in violation. If you require the years to be present, have them in the article itself. The infobox needs no such clutter. Alex|The|Whovian 07:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, in The X Factor (UK TV series), the years/series for the judges are included in at least four places - a table giving an overview of the series, a text section about the judges, a table showing which categories each judge mentored each series, and a picture gallery. The infobox is just stating that the entire run of the show stars these people at various times, it's not saying each judge appeared in every episode. The infobox is meant to be a brief overview, not a replacement for the article, so the years are not required. –anemoneprojectors– 09:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I think years for judges and/or presenters for reality shows. Readers deserve to learn facts in a manner they prefer, whether that be pictures(photo gallery of judges with years), words(Season overviews, and numbers(InfoBox). For example, on a February 16, 2006 edit of American Idol[1], Brian Dunkleman is listed as being a presenter with the year 2002. Guidelines written from a sandbox someone made were not added to the template article until March 10, 2007[2]. So years have actually been used for nearly a decade, and over a year before guidelines came into effect. If years have been on the article for 9 years, it baffles me why we are removing them. I agree, we are changing it for the "sake of change". It does not clutter the infobox anymore than the years for the directors of American Idol. In fact, there are more years for the directors of Idol than there are for the judges. Arcticgriffin (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you. The reason it was changed was because it was never properly discussed. Once it was it was decided that years should not be included. I also have to disagree with you when you say it does not have clutter. To be honest it really does. A lot of shows (not all but a lot) have people coming in and out of the show e.g. 2002-2003, 2005-2007, 200-present. That is a lot of clutter to fit in one line. The whole point of the infobox is quick info quickly. Highlighting the key points not all the details. That is why the rest of the article exists. The infobox should tell you who is in it. The rest of the article should tell you when they are in it. Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 20:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

So, if that's the case then how about putting the the "present" judges in italics or something like that? (not bold though) --Musdan77 (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Articles are written for all readers, not just fans of a particular program. A casual reader would wonder why some judges are italicised and some aren't, so that would need to be explained in the prose, not the infobox. It's better to explain which judges are current in the prose and just leave the names in the infobox without any markup. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Using your same argument, if there's no distinction, "a casual reader" would think that all the judges (or hosts) listed are current. The infobox "summarizes key facts". Showing which are present and which are past is a key fact -- and not a "trivial detail". --Musdan77 (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The "key facts" are that the list of judges in the infobox are people who are now or have been judges, just as people listed under "starring" are people who are now or have been credited in a starring role. Italicising some judges and not others doesn't help the reader know that the italicised names are "current" judges. They still have to go to the prose to find out who are current judges so italicising names in the infobox is redundant at best. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think one could say it's "redundant" – but I said, "italics or something like that." I was trying to bring out some ideas. Musical artist infoboxes have "Members" and "Past members" for groups. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

If it is supposed to be useful for the "casual reader", shouldn't we only include the current judges, and remove all past ones? A "casual reader" only cares about what is current; they don't care about what has happened in the past. Researchers would want to know all listed years in a detailed timeline, so they would scroll down and read the article. I don't see any point in having judges from the past. This removes a whole bunch of what some people call "clutter". May I remind you that years have been used in infoboxes for judges/presenters on American Idol since February 16, 2006[3] and current guidelines were written over a year later on March 10, 2007[4]. And now, eight years later we decide to change everything?! How can you not agree that having 11 judges over a period of thirteen years is not confusing for the "causal reader"? Arcticgriffin (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The February 16, 2006 version that you linked to only shows a year for one "star", with the other 4 judges not including years at all. The 10 March 2007 version of the documentation doesn't say years should be included.[5] It merely says "Who stars in the show. Separate multiple people with line breaks". Years are not "Who stars in the show". Clearly there is no direction to include years and nothing really has changed regarding that. All that has happened now is that we have decided to clarify that years should not be included, since editors have taken it upon themselves to add content that has never been supported. You might note that the instructions at that time also say to use flag templates, but MOS:INFOBOXFLAG says not to do that, so it was removed. Consensus can, and has, changed over the years. As for including all of the judges, WP:TVCAST says Furthermore, articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series, so if you want that changed you need to take it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television, not here. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:TVCAST is about cast and characters lists in article body, not infoboxes. No one responded to my last post. So, what about subheadings of "Present" and "Past"? --Musdan77 (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Per the various discussions that we've had at the MOS and WT:TV, WP:TVCAST applies to the whole article, not just the article body. We don't use headings like "Present" and "Past". We list them in original credit order followed by order in which new people join a series. See MOS:TENSE, which says write all articles in the present tense, including for those covering products or works that have been discontinued. That precludes use of headings like "Past". --AussieLegend (✉) 20:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, you're taking things out of context. MOS:TENSE is talking about "Verb tense". It has nothing to do with lists, as in cast lists. And again, I refer to musical group articles as an example. In both the body and infobox (if relevant), they have lists for members "Present and Past" (or "Current and Former"). If that went against MOS, then it wouldn't be allowed. And like musical groups, if a show has ended then there would be no need to distinguish between present and past - because they all would be past. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Musdan77: You make a great point, I would actually agree with you. I think it should be only current judges listed in the infobox. It is very confusing to have a list of 10 former judges above the current ones when they are already listed in their own section. The main objective of an infobox is for quick info. Anyone who wants the current judges will just look at the infobox. Whoever wants to know past judges will look thought the article. I agree with you. -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 19:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Voices parameter

Hey all, it occurs to me that |voices= is pretty broad in its description:

Any voice artists used in the show. Separate multiple entries using {{Plainlist}} or {{Unbulleted list}}. Cast are listed in original credit order followed by order in which new cast joined the show. Years and/or seasons should not be included.

"Any voice artists used in the show" is cruftbait. By comparison, the |starring= is more restrictive by nature, since "starring" is typically a special credit given by producers and is not the same as "appearing in". I assume that |voices= is to be used in lieu of |starring=. If that is correct, should |voices= be clarified to only include starring voice acting roles? If my assumption is not correct, is there any other way to clarify this? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: The addition of fields for late-night talk show related articles

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 "Announcer(s)", "Band", "Sidekick" and "Correspondents" fields be added to Infobox television to sort out the inconsistency with such entries already added to the infoboxes of late-night talk show related articles? --Gonnym (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Currently in the infoboxes of articles about late-night talk shows you can find people who were Announcers and Sidekicks and even the show Bands listed under various fields as there is no dedicated field for them. Announcers can be found under "Narrator" (example: The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson) and "Starring" (example: Jimmy Kimmel Live!); Sidekicks under "Starring" (example: Late Night with Conan O'Brien); Bands under "Starring" (The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon); and Correspondents under "Starring" as well (example: The Daily Show). In addition, since there is no official place for them in the template, some articles have this information in the infobox, while others omit all or some of it (examples: Chelsea Lately not listing Chuy Bravo as a sidekick and Tonight Starring Steve Allen not listing Skitch Henderson as the band leader). As the current situation is that of an inconsistency, any result of the RfC will have to come to an outcome. Note: I'm not entirely sure how the module system works, but perhaps making this a module would solve any fears of "clutter" in the infobox. --Gonnym (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Please !vote for one of the options and avoid any threaded discussion in the supporting sections.

1. Option 1: Adding all of the following fields to the infobox: "Announcer(s)", "Band", "Sidekick" and "Correspondents".
2. Option 2: Adding all of the information under the "Starring" field without creating new fields.
3. Option 3: Removing all entries wrongly placed in the related articles and oppose creating new fields.
4. Option 4: Adding some of the fields and remove all other entries wrongly placed in the related articles (State which fields you are in support of adding).

Option 1: Adding all fields

1. Support. The current situation of everyone adding the information under whatever field they think is best is bad practice. The current infoboxes on late-night talk show articles show that editors are adding this information regardless of having a dedicated field for such information. This information hasn't been removed from these articles, which means that other editors have found that information to be a relevant for inclusion into the infobox. However, having it listed under other fields misrepresent the information added and causes confusion. "Voices", "Narrator", "Judges" and "Presenter" can all be said to be a variation of the "Starring" credit, yet we created dedicated fields for them and the same should be the case for talk-show relevant fields. --Gonnym (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose There has been no discussion at all regarding "Band", "Sidekick" and "Correspondents" so they shouldn't even be mentioned here. In any case, we really do not need to bloat the infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - If we need a better infobox for talk shows, maybe we should create one especially for that purpose, rather than adding four more parameters to this template. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Option 2: Adding all of the information under "Starring"

• Oppose No! The starring field should be restricted to people actually credited in starring roles. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - |Starring= is already frequently misused, with people incorrectly believing that starring is the same as appearing in. We shouldn't be manufacturing starring roles by adding Band, Sidekick, Correspondents, etc. to this parameter. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Option 3: Removing all entries wrongly placed and oppose creating new fields

• Support - If people want to cleanup existing articles then they should, but there is no need for all of these extra fields. I'm in two minds over announce but have to consider all of these as a package in line with the RfC question. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support with alternative - Erroneously placed content should be removed. Again, if there were a template specifically for talk shows, that might be a better fix. Someone did try to create one once, but it wasn't discussed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Seeing as how apparently its important to vote in all fields, I'll respond here as well. The working-consensus, which I understand due to the fact that most of late-night talk show articles have in one way or another included the information in their article infobox and which has stayed in those articles unchallenged, is to have this information included, I oppose removing them. I would however, support if only as a compromise option, Cyphoidbomb alternative infobox. --Gonnym (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Option 4: Adding some of the fields

• Neutral - I support people cleaning up existing articles but oppose creation of the fields that we haven't discussed. I'm in two minds over announcer so my vote here is neutral. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Replying to AussieLegend. 1. There actually was an attempt at a discussion here, which you choose to ignore. 2. You don't get to dictate the scope of the RfC. 3. You still haven't addressed the issue. --Gonnym (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

1. Regardless, these were not discussed by anyone.
2. The only mention of the extra fields was on this page. When you received no response, you should have publicised your new proposal at WT:TV, as I earlier told you was necessary.[6] It was clear that there was no interest in adding the new parameters by the people who actually use this template.
3. I've responded to your RfC. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Not replying to an issue is not a valid argument for opposing something. It might not interest some people, but they might not oppose it either, so you can't take from that anything. I've actually did publicized at WP:TV this proposal here. Oh, and claiming ownership ("by the people who actually use this template") is not the way to go, as I also edit TV shows articles. On a side-note, adding opposing votes in two sections seems to me a bit of bad etiquette since opposing options 1 or 2 can just be supporting option 3. By opposing you make it same like your vote has more weight than it actually does (as I could have just voted on opposing option 3, which I do). --Gonnym (talk) 09:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I am under no obligation to respond to anything you post and I have provided rationales for all of my opposes. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

No one said you are, but claiming people not responding = opposing, as was implied by your 2nd point, is wrong. --Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I never said or implied anything of the sort. I said that there was obviously no interest. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Then how did you reach the fact that there was no interest, when no one said they were against it? --Gonnym (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The distinct lack of responses clearly demonstrates a lack of interest. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Replying to Cyphoidbomb. I think creating a separate infobox is a bad idea, however, if that's the alternative compromise, I'll go along with it as its better than removing the information all together. --Gonnym (talk) 09:36, 23 June 2015 (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.

This template needs fixing

User_talk:Tony1#Script_fixes_on_Mr._Robinson_.28TV_series.29 Tony (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

creative_director parameter

I am unsure about the proper usage of the creative_director parameter in the context of a television series. I have never seen someone credited as creative director in a television series. The explanation in the documentation links to Creative director, where it says in the Film section "The creative director in the film industry is referred to as the production designer", and the linked page makes it clear that the production designer is the same thing in film and television. I would conclude from that that the parameter can be used for the production designer. However, I was explained given the opinion that putting the production designer is an incorrect use of the parameter.

Can the template documentation be changed to point out the correct use unambiguously, (or to clearly state not to use this parameter)? –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

My explanation on my talk page is definitely not fact, merely my opinion from what I've seen in my experience editing TV articles; just to clarify. However, my feeling is that since "creative director" is not something someone receives credit for, at least in the hundreds of TV series I've seen (and I'm quite versed in TV credits), so it should simply be changed to "production_designer" if that what the intention of the parameter is. It's also odd that the parameter appears so high in the infobox (again, if it's meant to be production designer). It would make sense for it to appear in the Production-specific area of the infobox along with all the other crew roles. Also, since we're at the idea of clarifying/changing parameters, editor (per the template) not being used for film editors is rarely followed, and the idea of it only being used for news shows seems quite odd. I don't see the rationale for it; it just seems arbitrary. Editors receive on-screen credit for TV series, so I don't see why it also can't include film editors. I've brought this up before, but the I believe the part "Leave blank if same as country of origin above" for location should be removed. It again, is rarely followed (I can point to several GAs/FAs that use it), seems arbitrary and doesn't make much sense. Production location is notable and if often discussed in the article, and limiting it to only shows that film outside their country make its use null and void for like 90% of TV articles (American TV, specifically). Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Is creative director the same as creative consultant as credited in tv series Department S and Randall & Hopkirk (deceased)? In theses programmes it was Cyril Frankel, an experienced film director, who did the first episode to set the tone for the rest of the series.REVUpminster (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Including a "Subscription Streaming Location" line item

Greetings all! I am here to start a dialogue with the Wikipedia community about including an additional line item below the Original Channel line which could be called Subscription Streaming Location(s). Here there would be a list of subscription streaming services (usually just one or two) where the show has been sold (either to Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu Plus, etc.). Ideally these would have external-facing hyperlinks to the pages where these shows actually live on those websites.

Just for some context, it's worth noting that the subscription streaming ecosystem and it’s interaction with the traditional cable and broadcast businesses is a matter of great discussion and interest in the entertainment community. For instance, Breaking Bad (Sony Pictures TV) was sold to Netflix, and many industry insiders believe that the show’s presence on Netflix helped it become such a significant hit for AMC (http://www.ew.com/article/2013/09/23/breaking-bad-creator-netflix-emmys). Now, when these streaming deals happen, they are often front page news items in entertainment periodicals (http://deadline.com/2014/08/the-blacklist-netflix-deal-2-million-825836/). For these reasons, I believe including SVOD information in a more prominent location on these pages is warranted, and I would welcome any feedback or discussion about this issue. In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I work in the entertainment industry for NBCUniversal, so I am unable according to Wikipedia's policies to make any changes to these pages myself. Thanks in advance! JeffreyReale (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This info isn't suitable for the infobox, given that it is not the "original" / "first" airing location, per the examples you provided. This field is similar to home media release, which are not given in this, or the season article infoboxes. However, the info is definitely suitable for certain articles, and can be mentioned in the article's "Broadcast" or "Home media" sections or even the reception section. And thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest regarding this subject, for everyone going forward. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Favre1fan93, nice to meet you! I do see your point from an article structure perspective, but I think that this information is way too important (from both a consumer and industry perspective) to bury in the home video section. Also these deals often have an exclusivity and high-profile nature that is not really comparable to home video releases. Wouldn't you agree that it's more useful to the Wikipedia user to see at a glance where the show is available? Maybe there could be a separate part of the infobox at the bottom under production website that would indicate where the show has been sold in the subscription streaming space. Would that address your concern? I think there is some room here to make these pages much more helpful to people researching TV shows. Thanks for the discussion; let me know what your thoughts are. JeffreyReale (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Rename network and channel parameters?

Hey all, is there any value to renaming |channel= and |network= to |original_channel= and |original_network=? Kids seem to think this field is for every network the series ever aired on. Ex: here. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The label in the infobox already says "Original channel" so if they're ignoring that fairly obvious point, then I doubt that changing the parameter name, with all the associated effort, is going to change things. By the way, channel and network are actually the same parameter. channel is an alias for network. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sadly, I figured this... My thinking was that if we replaced the default in the template with |original_network= that maybe it would propagate to new articles and prevent future muckups. :.( Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Related vs Preceded by / Followed by

I'm not sure if I understand the difference between |related= and |preceded_by=/|followed_by= and I don't think the instructions for the latter pair help to explain. A spin-off seems like it could both go in |related= as well as in |followed_by=. Any thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the best way to answer is to use shows I watch that utilize this (and hopefully it will then translate to you). Agent Carter (TV series) is a related show to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., because both deal with S.H.I.E.L.D. in the Marvel Cinematic Universe; the creation of it as the SSR in Carter, and the present day happenings in Agents. Now with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., there is currently a pilot order for a new series called Most Wanted, which is a direct spin off to Agents. So if that proceeds to series, Most Wanted would be used in the followed by parameter, while Carter stays in the related parameter. Does that make sense? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

NCIS: New Orleans and NCIS: Los Angeles both used NCIS episodes as backdoor pilots and the characters have crossed over on a few occasions. Based on the instructions, both NCIS: New Orleans and NCIS: Los Angeles are related to NCIS, but not each other. All are airing at the same time so none should be in preceded_by or followed_by. On the other hand, The Suite Life on Deck followed The Suite Life of Zack & Cody using most of the main characters so both series are related. Then there is Somebody's Gotta Do It, which is on a different network using the same host and the original concept that was presented to the Discovery Channel for Dirty Jobs. However, while you can probably add Somebody's Gotta Do It to |followed_by= at Dirty Jobs, you can't call the two series related. Let's not get started on the whole Chicago Fire/Chicago P.D./Law & Order: Special Victims Unit or Law & Order franchise/Homicide: Life on the Street situations. In short, yes, sometimes related can be preceded/followed by but not always. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Spin-offs certainly start after the parent series starts, but only sometimes do they have temporal overlap, and other times they overlap but end before the parent. If you consider the series as a whole and not just the starting time, a clear temporal succession can not always be established. Check Cheers with The Tortellis vs. Frasier.

Unfortunately it is a mess, e.g., Beverly Hills, 90210 is "followed" by Melrose Place (which started later and ended earlier), or Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul (which are merely related and not preceded/followed).

I would also value a clearer definition. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Still confused! - AussieLegend, Favre1fan93, et al, I gotta say, even with everybody's kind attempts to explain, I still don't understand the purpose of the fields. I'm looking at some Philippines TV articles, like here, where people are misusing it to indicate either:

Happy Days was |followed_by= Laverne & Shirley. Happy Days aired at 8pm and Laverne & Shirley aired at 8:30.

or

After the 8pm show Temperatures Rising was cancelled, it was |followed_by= Happy Days in the 8pm slot.

So I'm not alone in being confused. In 2007 there was some talk about deleting these. In the discussion someone notes that these are used a lot by reality shows and such like Big Brother. That sort of makes sense to me if we're considering each season of the show to be a different show. (Assuming that's accurate.) But otherwise, we need some clear explanation for the correct way to use these fields. In the example provided by Dark Cocoa Frosting, I don't see how Melrose Place follows 90210. Simply because they may take place in the same fictional universe but Melrose isn't a proper spin-off? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Update to channel and network parameter

I'd like to propose a change to this (which is different, and unrelated to what Cyphoidbomb was suggesting above). First, the parameter as it appears in the infobox should be changed from Original channel to Original network. Network is the more appropriate term as we use it. Here is an example to clarify my point: Shows air on the network, which is broadcast to viewers across various channels. WNBC is a channel that airs the NBC network. This wording still works with cable as well. Second, I think we should add a third alias to this parameter called |streaming_service= (or something similar), which would also change the parameter appearance to Original streaming service. With the ever growing number of shows releasing on Netflix and Amazon, "network" or "channel" really isn't the best term for either of those. If these proposals get support, a similar change would have to happen for the season infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

What sort of problems do you envision if |Original streaming service= is used in conjunction with any of the other labels? My (potentially irrational?) fear is that |Original streaming service= will be used whenever any show is released digitally, and we will constantly have to fix that. I do like the idea of changing "Original channel" to "Original network" but leaving it to be a blanket term for channel, network or streaming service. There are US television channels that are not really "networks", but we all know what is meant by that. Similarly, Netflix isn't a network or a channel, but I think we'll understand what is meant. Alternatively, we could try to brainstorm on a better label. "Original service"? Naw. "Original venue"? Naw... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a problem, if it was coded so that if both were used by chance, only the |channel= / |network= parameter would be shown. And what do you mean by what I'm bolding here: "I do like the idea of changing "Original channel" to "Original network" but leaving it to be a blanket term for channel, network or streaming service."? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Boy, I sure could have been clearer... Right now if we use |network=, the label in the infobox displays as "Original channel". I was proposing that we change the label to "Original network", because I believe that in common parlance, "network" is generally understood to be any delivery mechanism, be it a local TV channel, a proper air/cable network, or a streaming service.

"What network is it on?"

"Netflix or Amazon. I can't remember."

We would just have to clarify in the template docs that |network= is meant to include all original broadcast services. As for the other aspect of your comment, even if coded in the way described, while the infobox would not display anything weirdly, we'd still all be tasked to remove |streaming_service= any time anybody added it erroneously, because we are all good, conscientious editors, infobox clutter pisses us off, and we're all a little OCD. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I'm still on the side that I don't think it would be an issue adding a streaming service param, but would welcome more input. But it would definitely help the cause (or be in the right direction) if "Original channel" changed to "Original network", as the example you gave does help. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend and Bignole: Any thoughts on this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if I think we should have another parameter, but I definitely agree with changing it to "Network".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay. That's fine. @Cyphoidbomb: can you update the template here to Original network? I'll make the change at the season infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Episode title formatting

I recently posted the following question on Template talk:Episode list but since I didn't get a reply there so I'll try here: If a particular program doesn't strictly have a name, and is only refered to as something such as Episode 1, is it still appropriate for it to be included in quotes as "Episode 1" in the Title parameter, or should the RTitle parameter be used instead? The tempate documentation doesn't outright explain which is best in this situation or similar. -- User:Whats new?^(talk) 03:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

In such a case use the RTitle parameter. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Deprecate "image_size"?

Now that we have "image_upright", shall we remove "image_size"? I am viewing the image at 400px or scale factor multiplied by 400px. Everybody has preference. --George Ho (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, but I'm not too sure every user knows that they have the ability to change their preferred image viewing size in their preferences. I wasn't even aware of this until AussieLegend made the adjustment. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Company parameter

Hey all, I wanted to get some clarification from the community, as I've noticed Spin Boy 11 making good-faith edits like these [7][8][9]. It would seem to me that |company= is intended to indicate the company that funded/organized the production of the series in question, not the sub-contractors hired to perform the manual labor. Is this correct? The Simpsons, for instance, doesn't include the South Korean studio in |company=. Based on my experience, |company= and |country= are somewhat related. If we included Hong Ying Animation in |company= for Secret Mountain Fort Awesome that would likely inspire editors to change the infobox and lead to reflect an American–Chinese co-production, which, although it is somewhat accurate, is confusing since Hong Ying presumably didn't fund the series. (I don't know for sure, because the content was unsourced and Spin Boy didn't explain.) Would appreciate some input here, please. Naturally, the animation house should be mentioned somewhere in Production, I just don't think it belongs in |company=. The docs could also be tweaked to reflect the intended usage. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously and yes, you are correct. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

"Chronology"

The heading "Chronology" doesn't make sense when titles of "Related shows" are included (rather than "Preceded by" and/or "Followed by"). Can this heading be changed to "Related" (or something similar) which more accurately covers all three categories of related titles? —sroc 💬 17:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Runtime

Contrary to what Aussie Legend and a tag-teaming editor claim, the RfC absolutely said reliable sourcing is required for runtime.

Here are the exact words by the closing admin: "The point at issue was, narrowly, are we allowed to use running time figures measured by individual editors directly. The answer is an unambiguous "no"< for the same reason that we would not allow such sources for the height of an actor or the size of a building. --Guy (Help!) 18:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC) --Tenebrae (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The exact words by the closing admin do not say that citations are absolutely needed. In fact, the closer clarified this very point when he said The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes, or whether citation from a source linked within the body is acceptable ... The close speaks only to the question of whether personal observation is an acceptable source for a running time.[10] --AussieLegend (✉) 17:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Per this RfC's admin close of 21:28, 19 March 2015, TV running times, like movie running times, need third-party citation. Otherwise, it is WP:OR.

In the closing admin's words: "Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change WP:NOR to make an exception for such cases".

He reiterated it on this page under "Thank you, and a question": "A reliable third party source is required."

In other words, we follow WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Everything added to Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable source but not everything has to be cited. You don't seem to be able to differentiate between sourcing and citing, or to be able to understand the closer's clarification, which I see no point in repeating. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The admin who closed it says you're misinterpreting the close, so I'll thank you not to make unverified claims about me as well as about running times. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't misinterpret anything. The close was procedural, as stated by the admin in his clarification: Please do not be tempted to read anything into the procedural close of the RfC beyond the simple fact that no RfC can decide to allow original research of this kind.[11] It says nothing about the need to cite every runtime in every article, as you are well aware. This seems to be an additional requirement that you are forcing, despite what WP:V requires, and this has been questioned by another admin at WP:AN3. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The closing admin says you are indeed misinterpreting. Here are his exact words:

Runtimes must be sourced. AussieLegend knows this as he was part of the RfC. If AussieLegend is adding runtimes from personal observation, that is original research and forbidden by policy. AussieLegend also knows this. WP:NOR is canonical policy, not a guideline. If AussieLegend wants to ignore policy, then he will be blocked. The simple solution is to find a reliable source for the runtime, and cite it. Adding it without a source is not only a violation of policy, it is also disruptive, because AussieLegend knows that adding unsourced runtimes does not enjoy wither [either] consensus or the support of policy. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

--Tenebrae (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

That is not from the RfC close or the clarification of the RfC close. What I quoted was directly from the RfC. Everything added to Wikpedia must be sourced, but that doesn't mean everything has to be cited, as has been explained to you ad nauseam. Please, please, please take some time to read WP:V. There is a discussion at WT:V with some very good comments that may help you in this regard. The remainder of the comment clearly demonstrates that the admin has not bothered to actually investigate beyond reading what you wrote. As an example, the last time I actually added a runtime to an article was a very long time ago, but he seems to think I do it all the time based on what you told him. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Addition of science advisor

Please consider adding a science advisor entry to the infobox. Thank you. JeanLucMargot (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

"Original release" parameters documentation

The documentation of |released=/|first_aired= explains how to treat aired "preview" episodes, but does not explain how to include on-demand episodes. It seems that often a later broadcast is given preference because of the historical naming of these parameters, however, to the reader this all displays as "Original release" which does not discriminate between broadcast and on-demand. (As a technical remark, actually, the |released= parameter is just an alias for the |first_aired= and if both are present, the latter has priority.) However, nowadays what used to be traditional broadcast networks also provide the same content on-demand before and/or after the broadcast which leads to mixed release schedules, e.g., a first on-demand release with later broadcast.

Also the |last_aired= parameter needs an update in naming or explanation for mixed release schedules. As two recent examples, all Public Morals episodes were released on-demand by September 5, yet the "Original release" dates state October 20 as the time the last episode was finally broadcast, taking the "last_aired" parameter literally. Wicked City "aired" an episode on November 10 for the last time, yet here the "Original release" states December 30 which is when the last episode was released on-demand in the United States, not taking the "last_aired" parameter literally.

I understand that the strict distinction between on-demand release dates and broadcast periods used to be meaningful at a time when there was only Netflix and traditional broadcasters, but nowadays it just leads to confusion and complication. I also understand that the current parameter names must be kept for backward compatibility, but they all luckily display the same as "Original release". All of this could be made easy by taking whatever release date comes first for the first and for last episodes as "Original release" span. This is one easy rule that fits pure on-demand, pure broadcast, and mixed release schedules, and only requires an update to the documentation. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request

Multiple uses of this template use {{dts}} in the first_aired parameter, especially if the series has premiered and concluded in the same year, so that the dates appear as "May 7 – July 16, 2015" (for example). However, this is the incorrect usage of this template, per its documentation, and the documentation of this particular template clearly states that {{Start date}} should be used, so that the dates correctly appear as "May 7, 2015 – July 16, 2015" (for example). I have made edits in the sandbox to collect all the templates that use {{dts}} into a maintenance category (as of yet not created), checking for the presence of class="sortkey", which is only present in {{dts}}. If approved, I intend to do the same for {{Infobox television season}} (not protected). Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand that it was a typo, but your changes to the sandbox would put the articles into Category:Category:Articles incorrectly using Template:Infobox television with dts, which is not a valid name for a category. I'm only talking about the repeated "Category", not the inclusion of "Template:", although that may be an issue for other reasons. I can see the issue with using {{dts}} but we need an alternative. "May 7, 2015 – July 16, 2015" is not appropriate according to WP:DATERANGE, which says that "May 7 – July 16, 2015" is the correct format (see "between specific dates in different months"). --AussieLegend (✉) 15:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Would it be beneficial to propose a new parameter over at {{Start date}} to hide the year? That way, the template still collects the appropriate info it needs, but what is displayed would satisfy WP:DATERANGE. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hiding the year in {{Start date}} opens the door to vandalism which is not visible from the page itself.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

How so? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that, Aussie! Favre, probably by setting the parameters to something like {{Start date|2500|5|7}}, which (per above) the year 2500 wouldn't appear and May 7 would be the output, but it would mess up the hidden metadata. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

So, does anyone have any further ideas on how to implement the correct date range? If not, should the edits in the sandbox be implemented into the live version? Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Input alias

I noticed one page used no_seasons / no_episodes instead of num_seasons / num_episodes. I fixed it but am worried this might happen on other pages. Is there any way we can alias these so any pages calling on these NO inputs will give the info to the NUM inputs? Or can some bot detect when non-existant fields are called upon for this template and tag them for investigation and correction? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Replace all occurrences of {{{num_seasons|}}} with {{{num_seasons|{{{no_seasons|}}}}}}, replace {{{num_series|}}} with |{{{num_series|{{{no_series|}}}}}}, and replace {{{num_episodes|}}} with {{{num_episodes|{{{no_episodes|}}}}}}. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Please establish consensus for this change before reactivating the edit request. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

We really shouldn't be adding aliases for one-off occurrences. I've been editing TV articles for a long time and I can't ever recall having seen this mistake. If it was happening often, then there might be a case to do so, but if we add aliases "on a whim" it just serves to bloat the template. @184.145.18.50: Have you found any evidence of this happening elsewhere? --AussieLegend (✉) 06:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Update the template

I need your help. Every time I try to create an infobox television template, I see a screwed up infobox template.

Superman
Created by	Jerry Siegel Joe Shuster
Starring	Christopher Reeve
Theme music composer	John Williams
Country of origin	United States
Original language	English
Production
Running time	120 minutes
Production company	DC Comics
Original release
Release	1978 (1978) – 1979 (1979)

Could you please get that template fixed so that there won't be any more problems? AdamDeanHall (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@AdamDeanHall: Where are you trying to add it? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind. It's happening everywhere. There were no changes here. @AussieLegend and AlexTheWhovian: Is this a Lua module-template? Did something happen on that end? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Every time I edit a page with this template, the title on the top of the infobox is smaller and no longer in italics. Something must have changed. Random86 (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure... There's been no changes on Template:Infobox television, which uses Template:Infobox (no changes), which uses Module:Infobox (no changes). Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: Upon inspecting the element, I've found style="/* invalid control char */" in the header rows. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

So is that the issue? How could it be if no one has edited any of the places that would affect this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Given that with the above there's no actual styling going on, that'd be the issue. Don't quote me on this, but I have a feeling it's further down the Lua line. Something else that the above use must have been incorrectly modified. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I also got that problem. If a page hasn't been edited the title in the infobox is still in italics. But when you save your edit no matter where you added it the title comes as stated up there by a AdamDeanHall. Just to name a few; Empire and Frente al mismo rostro. Note: This only applies to pages that have undergone any of changes lately especially from March 10. To the admins, how can we solve the problem us as ordinary users? Could we force the italics by using double apostrophes? Please solve this problem.- Nyanchoka : talk 2 me 05:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nyanchoka: It is affecting all articles that use it. You may have "purge" the article if it hasn't been edited in a while for it to happen. Also, admins generally don't roam the talk pages of project templates. If the regular editors of the project can't figure it out, then we'll notify the admins or WP:VPT. @AlexTheWhovian: Can you compare the code here vs the season infobox? That one isn't being affected as this one is. (I just tested by purging both Agent Carter (TV series) and Agent Carter (season 1). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

{{Infobox television/colour}} contains a list of 14 TV series that are permitted to use colour in the infobox. That has had no changes either, but for some reason the links to it in Infobox television are what were causing the problem. I've commented them out for now and that seems to have fixed the problem. I don't know why 14 articles are permitted to use colour, when the other 37,103 articles using the infobox can't. If nobody complains about these programs no longer having coloured infoboxes, maybe we should just delete the links altogether, along with Infobox television/colour. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Not entirely sure why background colours would introduce a HTML comment into the style tag. I'd support the deletion of colours - there's no need for them. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The plot thickens.... This thread at the village pump revealed the same problem in {{Infobox television episode}}. Yes, the same solution fixed it. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

appears to be fixed after a hack to the colour subtemplate. Frietjes (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Using wikidata

Checkingfax asked on my talk page if it is possible to have the infobox automatically grab the url for the official website from wikidata. many infoboxes now support this, for example, see the website section in {{infobox telescope}}. I can add a similar feature here if there are no objections. Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't see how anyone would object to this. I'd actually prefer that you did it, as my experience with Wikidata is limited. Is there a list of the Wikidata values somewhere? That's been my big stumbling block. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

A lot of the multinational co-productions have official websites from multiple countries. For instance, the British-American Humans has both a UK Channel 4 and a US AMC official website. In the infobox, this can be included through the production_website parameters. How would wikidata reflect this? –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Dark Cocoa Frosting, one of the keys here is that the value from wikidata is used only if the parameter is omitted entirely from the infobox in the article (and a value exists at wikidata). so, you can prevent it from using the wikidata value by adding the parameter to the infobox in the article. Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax and AussieLegend: okay, now implemented. I also added a floating box in the doc indicating that this property is used. I can't remember the exact method for finding all the properties by name, but you can use the {{Uses Wikidata}} template to create lists. also, this works and so does this, but is not in a user-friendly format. Frietjes (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I actually found the list by searching for "Wikidata property" on Google. What mystifies me is who populated Wikidata. Pixies? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend, Frietjes, and Dark Cocoa Frosting: Answering and questioning in order:

Frietjes, does the website= parameter have to be removed so the infobox television will pull from Wikidata? On every other box I work on I just put website = {{official website}} and the connection is setup.

Then I do a Preview page to see if the article has an official website listed on Wikidata. If Wikidata has the data, the website link in the infobox will be in blue and be "official website" with a superscript external link flag on it. If Wikidata does not have the data a huge red error will show up in the infobox. At this point I switch into gnome mode, right-click (on a PC) to the pages Wikidata item, click on the +add link, pull up the "official website" property", click on it, go to the next box, insert the URL, wait for the save button to turn blue, and save the change. Going back to the article page you can refresh the article page and the red error will go away and be replaced by the "official website" external link.

While I am at Wikidata I stay in gnome mode and add other lacking details of the infobox to Wikidata (like birth date, birth name, given name, surname, producer, original release, record label, genre, created by, starring, country of origin). If items for the details cannot be found, then I add the item. I have over 1000 edits on Wikidata now.

Each article on Wikipedia has a Wikidata link on the left hand set of links (or right hand if you're in Iran or another RL country). If by chance the article lacks a Wikidata item you can add the item, but this is rare, as Wikidatabots scrub Wikipedia to add items, however they do not scrape any properties for the item, nor even an item description. You can add these easily, manually, just like on Wikipedia. The difference is that on Wikidata you have to find or create each item, then save each change as you move through the master item. You start by adding a property then adding the item.

Bonus: If Wikidata has an official website for an article then you can also put:

* {{official website}} in the External links portion of the article you are working on and the article will now pull the data from Wikidata. You can then delete the oldstyle crufty link from the External links section.

If you need help assimilating this, hit me up. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, y'all. I tested it.

Note: Wikidata must already have the Official website property added to the Wikidata item for the article page.

1. website= parameter removed: Wikidata creates an external link labeled "Website"
2. website= {{official website}}: produces this mess: [<span%20class="official-website"><span%20class="url">[1] Website] – which is a 404 because it includes the spaced word "Website" after the URL generated
3. website= left blank: produces nothing, even if Wikidata property exists

I would like to see: 1 ) "Website" changed to "Official website". 2 ) Return external link labeled "Official website" with data pulled from Wikidata. 3 ) Return result of "Official website" with data pulled from Wikidata.

This would make things easy to document, and to implement. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not necessary to use {{official website}} in the infobox at all, as it defeats the point of having Module:Wikidata in the infobox code. In order for this to work, |website= shouldn't exist in the infobox. If a website doesn't appear when website is missing, adding {{official website}} shouldn't make one appear, as it just tries to pull the same non-existent url from Wikidata. The naming of urls has been the subject of discussion and it was decided not to make the label "Official website". Instead, the status quo reigned and if you want to use a custom label, then you need to include |website_title=Official website. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I am suggesting that there be scenarios. Not everybody is going to know to omit the parameter, nor will they know to go to Wikidata to add a URL (official website) property to the article's Wikidata item if one is lacking. Official website is what the property is called on Wikidata.

There may be a local consensus to name the URL Website but the systemwide consensus on Wikipedia is to use Official website, at least when the data is pulled from Wikidata. For instance, in External links, only the Official website is permitted to be listed (as opposed to a WP:LINKFARM). Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} —Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I can understand the issue with having to physically omit the parameter. I cleanup a lot of TV infoboxes by substing User:AussieLegend/Infoboxes/ITV and this includes all parameters. Having to remove the parameter just so you check to see if there is a url on wikidata and then having to restore it is a nuisance at best, as it requires an extra step or two in the process. The label is just a matter of terminology. There are quite a few infoboxes that just use "Website" as the title. {{Infobox building}} (14,830 transclusions), {{Infobox settlement}} (453,308 transclusions), {{Infobox UK place}} (22,710 transclusions), {{Infobox person}} (215,632 transclusions) and {{Infobox organization}} (19,356 transclusions) are just a few picked at random. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi AussieLegend. Maybe I am misunderstanding you. If you go to an infobox that can be populated by WikiData, in most cases you just put in {{official website}} and WikiData will take it from there, if WikiData has an official website Property on the article's Wikidata item (the link to the Wikidata item can be quickly found on the left hand set of links on the English Wikipedia). If Wikidata lacks the official website property in the article's Wikidata item then you can easily add it. Then everything is happy.

The way Frietjes has set up the infobox television, the only way to pull up the Wikidata official website property from the article's Wikidata item is to remove the website = parameter from the infobox television. This is not the case in infobox person.

Now, on infobox people the system goes with the majority of infoboxes where you can pull from Wikidata by putting website = {{official website}} and Wikidata will take it from there if the official website property is populated on the article's Wikidata item.

Check out infobox person by going to Donald Trump and doing some test edits, previewing each one, and then canceling when you are done:

1. website = {{URL|http://www.donaldtrump.com|DonaldTrump.com}}
2. website = http://www.donaldjtrump.com
3. website = {{official website}}
4. website = {{Website}}
5. Try removing website =

Be sure to Preview after each edit, and be sure to cancel your last edit. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

{{Infobox person}} doesn't call Wikidata, so {{official website}} can be used to pull the information from Wikidata, but using {{official website}} on this infobox serves no purpose, as it pulls Wikidata automatically. {{Website}} is a redirect to {{URL}}, so your first and fourth examples are the same thing. That leaves #1 and #2, both of which work. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)