Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 14

Number of series/seasons

I'd like to propose that we switch the order of |num_seasons= and |num_series=. While the typical use for |num_series= is for the UK version of a season, there's also pages like this that list separate series, so I'd like to change:

| label22     = <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr> of seasons
| data22      = {{{num_seasons|}}}
| label23     = <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr> of series
| data23      = {{{num_series|}}}

to:

| label22     = <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr> of series
| data22      = {{{num_series|}}}
| label23     = <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr> of seasons
| data23      = {{{num_seasons|}}}

so that in the linked case, it is listed as series then seasons then episodes. Consensus? Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support: As far as I can tell, the only time the two parametres will be appearing together is in a case like the one Alex linked to, in which it makes sense, I think, to list them series then seasons then episodes. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand. Why does the linked article use both num_series and num_seasons? The instructions specifically say "Use one or the other, not both". num_series is not meant to be for an entire television series. It's supposed to be the UK and Australian equivalent of a US (and ironically Australian) season. The infobox itself is supposed to be used in TV series articles, not lists of series. That article is really where {{Infobox media franchise}} should be used. If anything, the infobox should be coded to prevent use of both. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Because in the television series area of the MCU, there was 4 total series and 8 total seasons. Yes, it assumes the UK-equivalent of a season, hence why it says not to use both (though Doctor Who is another case that uses both, for good reason), but it could also mean the American equivalent of a program. There's no reason for it not to. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The linked article is only about television series, not a media franchise, it just so happens to be about more than one, and the infobox is not 'Infobox television series', it is 'Infobox television', so it is still appropriate in this case. For |num_seasons=, we have been saying "8 (across 4 series)", but Alex has noted that |num_series= exists, albeit for a different meaning as you note, and that for the context of this article (and any other like it) it would be more useful to use both, using num_series not as it was originally intended, but to replace the "(across 4 series)" we were adding to |num_seasons=. I think that this is a good idea, and that we should rewrite the instructions to say that |num_series= should be used for either replacing |num_seasons= if appropriate or for counting number of separate series if appropriate. And if we can all agree on that, I think we should swap the order around as Alex has suggested here to make more sense for cases such as this (which would not affect cases unlike this, given that the two parametres should never appear together in those cases). - adamstom97 (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Furthering the above change, I would add a small modification to the code, and swap the order only if a new parameter was specified (e.g. |series_first=y), as for the case of Doctor Who, |num_seasons= needs to precede |num_series=, given that the show aired under the guise of "seasons" first, and then under the guise of the newer UK-based term "series". Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

in the television series area of the MCU, there was 4 total series and 8 total seasons. - So there were 4 UK series and 8 seasons of a US television series? That's what the infobox says now.

@Adamstom.97: - The linked article is about a number of television series, not a single series and this infobox has always been used in articles about a single television series. It was created specifically for that purpose, and the instructions reflect that. Template:Infobox television series is a redirect to {{Infobox television season}}, because "series" sand season" are equivalents, which is why we don't use both num_series and num_seasons. There is no infobox directly suited to a list of series, but the only infobox that caters specifically for multiple series is {{Infobox media franchise}}.

Remember, we write articles for ALL readers, not just those who are fans of a particular franchise, and the infobox used here as an example is ambiguous to the average reader. That's why Infobox media franchise lists TV series by name and not the number of seasons/series and episodes. That information is included in the individual series articles. This infobox is used by over 36,000 articles and we shouldn't be making changes to fix non-standard use in 1,2 or even a handful of articles. You can see that in another discussion on this page we're proposing to remove colour that is only used in 14 articles --AussieLegend (✉) 00:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend:, I understand your points, but {{Infobox media franchise}} is inappropriate for the linked article, as it is appropriately used at Marvel Cinematic Universe. I do not see the issue of adapting the standard TV infobox for use here. (Note List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films uses the standard film infobox {{Infobox film}}). I will also note that the previous coding of the infobox on that article was | num_seasons = 8 (across 4 series). I felt that was the best usage, per the documentation, and the fact I didn't think |num_series= could be used when |num_seasons= was. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Just because it's used in one article doesn't mean that Infobox media franchise can't be used in another, provided the fields are used in accordance with the instructions. The infobox doesn't declare "Media franchise" in the articles in which it is used. Like you, I didn't think |num_series= could be used when |num_seasons= was used. I thought that the infobox was coded to prevent this. If we fixed that, it would break the use at the linked article, and therein lies the problem. When fields are used in the wrong way, it can cause problems when changes are made to templates. We base changes on correct usage, and don't take into account incorrect and obscure usages. If one of those usages is broken then users just have to accept it. I upgraded an infobox a few years ago after editors had become used to using hacks and another editor and I had to go through several thousand articles to fix problems. Template:Infobox protected area of Australia was horribly out of date and lacking essential functionality when I fixed it in 2013.[1] It required hacks in most articles in which it was used and two years later, I still have 77 articles that need fixing. We shouldn't be adapting specific purpose infoboxes used in 36,000+ articles for use in 1 or 2 non-standard articles. Nor should we be encouraging their use in such articles. The previous wording you mention (| num_seasons = 8 (across 4 series)) seems a far better way to get around the "problem" that started this discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Just want to say, we can't exactly "fix" the issue of them being able to be used at the same time, given that some articles need them to be used at the same time, as they have had both seasons and series released. So, "fixing" it is really a no-go anyways. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Alex, do you know of any examples, outside of where we tried using it, that both need to be used? And Aussie, the media franchise infobox has too many unneeded, excessive parameters to be used at the List of MCU TV series article. That is why the general TV infobox worked, because, while not conventional, it was adapted to suit the total series' needs with the info that is only specific to TV series (the production and release bits for example). And up until this request (not blaming or anything), it worked out fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't actually have to use all the parameters in the infobox, only those that are needed. even the actual franchise article doesn't use all of them. However, I don't really see an issue with using this infobox with the code you mentioned. At least that way, the parameters are being used correctly (well almost). --AussieLegend (✉) 06:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I've added code to the infobox that puts articles using both num_seasons and num_series into Category:Television articles that use both num series and num seasons. At this time, only Doctor Who and List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series are members. We'll have to wait and see if more are added. Can somebody please explain why Doctor who uses both? --AussieLegend (✉) 08:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I already have. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that. Still, I really don't see that as justification. It's a UK series, so "series" seems appropriate. Use of "seasons" implies a US program, not a UK programme. It's just local terminology. Theoretically we could just use one parameter for all. Just out of interest, is there a reliable source explaining use of seasons for the early years? --AussieLegend (✉) 08:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You'll find sources all over the article; for one, the main BBC site lists them as Seasons/Series (change between Page 1 an 2). There's no changing them except without an extensive discussion, as this is how the separation between the classic and revived episodes have always been distinguished. One parameter for all of them would not be sufficient for this article. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little bit dubious about listings on websites. Modern listings often screw up old terminology, replacing old terminology with new. You can see an example of why I'm dubious here. I disagree that the article couldn't use just one parameter because it did just that until 16 October 2010, when num_seasons was added without any discussion on the talk page.[2] However, if we assume the usage at Doctor Who is appropriate, swapping the order of num_seasons and num_series would not be, as the listings would no longer be in chronological order. That leaves, at this time, a single article which, as already shown, can use only num_seasons. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And that is your opinion, and it is noted. However, given that it is directly from the BBC, where the series is produced, then it complies with policies as a reliable source. And if you wish to change the naming scheme that has had universal consensus for many years, then I recommend you take this up at the Doctor Who WikiProject page. However, for now, we should go back to the intended discussion of the inclusion of both parameters on the originally-linked page. As for the chronological order, I've already covered that as well (search for "series_first"). And per WP:CON, consensus does not necessarily mean unanimity - are you able to provide another editor minus yourself who disagrees with changing the original use to a more updated one alongside the documentation? Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Consensus also doesn't mean "majority rules". We're dealing with an infobox used in 37,281 articles and the limited involvement here really doesn't justify the changes, especially when we're doing it for a single article. We can continue to use the existing infobox in both articles but, as Favre1fan93 has pointed out, List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series previously used | num_seasons = 8 (across 4 series), and that worked fine. Instead of recoding the infobox, the article should comply with the infobox instructions, which have also had consensus for many years. I note that the article did comply until two days ago, when you changed it,[3] apparently without discussion, which is apparently what prompted this discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did change it as a bold edit, which prompted Adam to post on my talk page at User talk:AlexTheWhovian#MCU TV series, not to disagree but to note how he agreed with the edit and see if there was a way to reverse the order - that is what prompted this discussion. And yes, the instructions has had consensus for many years, but things like this can always be subject to change to suit what is needed. While it may only affect two articles, it is not affecting any other articles in any manner, especially in any negative form. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually it only affects a single article. Doctor Who is fine the way it is. That you may have one supporter who agrees that the infobox instructions should be violated on one article out of 37,281 still doesn't justify adding extra code to the infobox just to fix one non-compliant article that complied until 2 days ago. Why not just make the article comply again? It's a lot easier. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You insist on making it a "violation", yet I'm trying to make you see that the word "series" has two meanings, and this could easily be adapted to suit both of those meanings. Allowing the use of the series parameter on the MCU TV Series page allows for a more compact way of displaying the data, instead of needing to add appended small text to the seasons parameter. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

MCU
No. of seasons	8 (across 4 series)

MCU
No. of seasons	8

As far as this infobox is concerned num_series has a single meaning and a single purpose. The instructions say "num_seasons or num_series The number of seasons (US) or series (UK) produced. Use one or the other, not both. The parameter should only be incremented once the first episode of that season or series has aired". It's clearly talking about the UK equivalent of a season. When you use a template in a way that contradicts the instructions, that is a violation. You're advocating a change to justify a violation in only 1 out of more than 37,000 articles when there is nothing wrong with the way that the article was 3 days ago, when there was no violation. No other articles will benefit from this change so "adapting" the infobox will have no real benefit, except to that one article, and that's a benefit apparently only seen by two editors. In fact the change will be detrimental as it requires extra code to make seasons and series reversed just for that one article.

Allowing the use of the series parameter on the MCU TV Series page allows for a more compact way of displaying the data - That makes no sense. Prior to your edit the information was all on one line. Now it takes 3 when you include the blank line between "No. of seasons" and "No. of series". How is that more compact? It's also confusing, as it seems to indicate this program has had 12 seasons/series and makes the reader wonder why the two are separated. The previous version was unambiguous. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, would adding a "No. of shows" parameter solve this? I think it's weird to open with "No. of seasons" and have the number of actual shows we're dealing with relegated to parentheses. The number of shows is an important basic fact about the MCU, whereas their total number of seasons is basically trivia that I've never heard anyone discuss (except here!). —Flax5 13:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Slight tangent, but does anybody actually know when and why the UK TV industry phased out the "seasons" terminology in favour of the more ambiguous "series"? Are there any shows other than Doctor Who that were produced across this period, and if so, should they also use both terms, and count seasons and series separately? (I think it might clarify things if we had different parameters for old UK shows and new American ones rather than using "seasons" for both, but I'm not sure what they should be called.) —Flax5 13:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

They didn't actually phase "seasons" out, they phased it in. When I was a kid in the 1960s the UK programs all referred to "series", which is why we here in Australia used the term. We only used "seasons" because that's how the US programs were referred to. The term "series" had its roots in the old "radio serials" that were popular before the advent of TV. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Strange. The terminology currently used by the BBC had me believing that "season" was the standard term used when the original Doctor Who was broadcast. I assumed it must have something to do with the serialised nature of the show at that time, or maybe the fact that they originally broadcast episodes all year round. If this is some kind of strange revisionism on the BBC's part, is it really accurate to continue using "seasons" on Doctor Who at all? Would something along the lines of "No. of series: 35 (26 classic + 9 revived)" make more sense, maybe with a footnote? —Flax5 13:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I suspect it's the Americanizm of the English language that has been going on since the '80s and '90s. It's been especially the case in the past decade or so that a lot of traditional UK English terms have given way to more US terms. A lot of the younger people are unaware of the "correct" terminology and so have changed things to the American version. In 1998 in Australia, one Act of Parliament (I think it was the ASIO Act) was completely revised because somebody had edited and spell-checked it using the default US dictionary in Microsoft Word, instead of the Australian dictionary. A silly example is "ass". The US uses "ass" while the UK/Australian term is "arse" and I know a lot of younger people who think "jackarse" is the Australian term for "jackass". This is why I asked about references for use of "seasons" in Doctor Who. It just doesn't seem right. Right until Tom Baker left Doctor Who, which is shortly before I stopped watching it, "series" was the term used. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The term "season" was in use at or before that point, see for example

• Lofficier, Jean-Marc (1981). The Doctor Who Programme Guide - Volume 1: The Programmes. London: Target Books. ISBN 0-426-20139-6.

which covers everything up to Tom Baker's departure, and speaks of "First Season" through to "Eighteenth Season". More info at WP:WHO/MOS#Terminology. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I know that we prefer to use series of show, but I think Flax's suggestion of adding |num_shows= is a good one. That way we can clean up the article in question, set a nice precedent for any future alike articles, and not affect any other article. Then, after the discussion above, I would suggest just using |num_series= for Doctor Who, and either saying "35 (26 classic + 9 revived)" or just "35" and leaving the explanation for the rest of the article. I suggest this because it seems unclear whether the BBC actually used thise terms at the time and it seems confusing to say 26 series and 9 seasons together - someone who doesn't understand the infobox instructions would probably assume that this is a similar case to the MCU list, not a grouping of the different seasons. Anyway, if you guys agree with these two solutions, then the infobox can be coded so that |num_season= and |num_series= cannot appear together again. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I definitely disagree. How it is listed at Doctor Who should remain, as listing 35 series is incorrect per the terminology that Redrose64 linked to in their previous post. Whether or not the BBC used those particular terms at the time is irrelevant - times change and so does terminology. If something like |num_shows= were introduced, then the MCU article could be modified accordingly, and the Doctor Who article could be left as-is, as the two would no longer be "similar cases". Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no need for num_shows at all. No code change is required to support Doctor Who as it stands and the infobox can easily be coded to ensure that num_seasons and num_series can't be used together while not affecting Doctor Who, all in an extra 129 bytes. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Aussie. num_shows doesn't need to exist, the MCU article should be changed back to the way it was, Doctor Who should stay the same, and the other coding to prevent the two from being used elsewhere should happen. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm restoring the MCU article to the previous formatting. If we want to proceed with the other formatting we stated (only allowing either season OR series, outside of Doctor Who), that's fine with me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Color subpage

So stemming from the above issue, do we really need {{Infobox television/colour}}? Based on all we did the past year or so regarding updating color usage on the project, this seems unnecessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no need for it at all. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Updated in sandbox. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Commenting it out works too, but I don't see why, if it's not going to be reinstated. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Previous attempts to permanently remove the colour have met with opposition. I've commented it out for now to see if anyone objects. You can ask a million people to discussions and only 3 will turn up, but take away their colour and they're more likely to join in. If nobody complains in a few days, we can delete it totally. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair point. And if we do delete it, we should also delete the subpage, so someone who might go snooping and finds it will try to reinstate it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It may also be good to look at the talk pages for the series effected, because users are more likely to bring up the question of the color gone there, then the project page or here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Already done by AussieLegend. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

For the record, the pages we need to watch are:

• Talk:Angel (1999 TV series)
• Talk:Buffy the Vampire Slayer
• Talk:Entourage (TV series)
• Talk:Firefly (TV series)
• Talk:Futurama
• Talk:House (TV series)
• Talk:Mad Men
• Talk:Sex and the City
• Talk:The 4400
• Talk:The O.C.
• Talk:The Simpsons
• Talk:The Sopranos
• Talk:The X-Files
• Talk:Veronica Mars --AussieLegend (✉) 02:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I say we give maybe a weeks time to see if anything turns up. And if nothing, proceed with full removal and deletion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

As someone involved in Veronica Mars episode articles, I have to say that I like the new singular color. I was a bit confused when the template started to change, but after finding this thread, it makes more sense now. I never quite understood why those few lines in VM articles were bright green. :) Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 03:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Add host to show?

I want to add three hosts to show. How do i do this on Let's Get Married (Russia) Moscowamerican (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Date within the same year

Back at this discussion, it was mentioned that dates of the same year should be displayed as "April 28 – October 21, 2016" (for example). Instead of creating a new parameter in {{Start date}} as suggested, I've created a multitude of examples and edge-cases in my sandbox that covers same-year dates per the discussion listed, through my module sandbox (suggestion, this could be implemented at Module:Infobox/dates). Then all we need to do is change

| data41      = {{{first_aired|{{{released|}}}}}}{{#if:{{{last_aired|}}}| – {{{last_aired|}}}}}

to

| data41      = {{#invoke:Infobox/dates|dates|{{{first_aired|{{{released|}}}}}}|{{{last_aired|}}}}}

and the dates will be listed correctly. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Why Module:Infobox/image when we're talking about dates? That seems a bit close to Module:InfoboxImage, which is all about images. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. Busy day, wrong word. Corrected. All and any metadata is also kept. Alex|The|Whovian^? 21:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I've created Module:Infobox/dates with the working code from my sandbox. The only edit requires to this template is the code in my first post. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. Would you mind putting your code in the sandbox and moving the tests to /testcases, as per the standard naming for these pages? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Code is in the sandbox; the test cases that already exist between the live and sandboxed versions can be seen to remain identical to each other (the test cases in my sandbox are just for the dates themselves, not the usages of the template). Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm hesitant, because although I recognise the work you have put into coding and testing this, it is still an ugly hack. You are using one template to package the raw data and then another module to unpackage and repackage everything again. Would it be better to develop a template/module (e.g. {{start and end date}}) which will take both start and end dates, apply the logic you have put into Module:Infobox/dates and also emit the appropriate microformats? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

PS I see a template called this already exists. I wonder if it has been developed to do this job? Pinging User:Netoholic to comment. It could obviously use the repeated month/year logic though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, {{start and end dates}} was intended to be a companion to {{start date}} & {{end date}} for exactly this sort of scenario, but I had trouble implementing it and I'm not totally convinced that it's worth using. Its preferable for start and end dates to be defined as separate parameters of a template, and then let the backend handle the formatting. When you combine start/end into one parameter, you lose some granularity of control over the output. I think @AlexTheWhovian: has a good solution. -- Netoholic @ 20:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

{{Start and end dates}} is a great idea and all; however, the edits I propose mean that no page other than this needs to be edited, and no new format needs to be introduced, confusing editors who are used to the template as it is. The module also makes sure that all metadata is kept as-is, and it may be a hack of sorts, but nothing terrifyingly bad or anything that users without programming experience need to know about or learn. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

For Module:Infobox/dates, I've moved the sandbox to Module:Infobox/dates/sandbox, and the test cases that were in my sandbox to Module talk:Infobox/dates/testcases. Netoholic, I've also update the code to throw an error if the date order doesn't make sense, as you added to my sandbox (this cases still exists at the new test cases page). Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Revert me if I'm out of line here, but I implemented it at {{Infobox television season}}, and it works fine, such as at Vikings (season 3) (MDY), Doctor Who (series 9) (DMY), Once Upon a Time (season 4) (MDY–MDY+1) and Once Upon a Time (season 5) (MDY–present). Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I would not oppose this as a temporary fix, but I feel we can do much better. I envisage something like

|released={{start and end dates|April 28, 2016|October 21, 2016}}

where your clever code would be called by {{start and end dates}}. Of course we would need a bot to help us to fix these. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. My edits would require no mass changes to usages of this template, whereas that particular edit would 1) require us to no longer use {{start date}} and {{end date}} and use plain format, and 2) that is not the intended usages of the {{{released}}} parameter; the two dates should be listed separately under {{{first_aired}}} and {{{last_aired}}}. Perhaps we should get the opinion of more than one template editor? Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

In which case, Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is a "consensus" needed? What is it needed for? There's already been a discussion about this, linked in my original posts and there is literally zero things wrong with what I have suggested. And I'm pretty sure it's also the only reliable method without mass changing every page that uses this template. I request you revoke your previous post and get yourself up to date with this discussion. I requested the opinion of another editor, not an instant result made. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The {{edit template-protected}} template is not for requesting opinion, it is for bringing in a person with the appropriate user right to make the edit which has already been agreed upon. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

And it actually was agreed upon. "Looks good. Would you mind putting your code in the sandbox and moving the tests to /testcases, as per the standard naming for these pages?" Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Getting "consensus" on this soon would be great. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm in support of Alex's proposed method, to keep the individual use of Start and End date templates and the metadata they each provide (yet format them correctly per the MOS on date ranges). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Since there has been no further comments on this, other than support for it, I take it that there is consensus and have therefore reopened the request for its implementation. I would also note the lack of issues with the implementation of my fix at {{Infobox television season}}. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done  Stick to sources! Paine  02:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

splitting release into start and end dates

Sorry I am late to return to the discussion. I am happy to support the change as a stopgap measure, but would anyone be interested in helping to sort this out properly? I propose that the template should accept raw start and end dates, i.e.

|first_aired = April 28, 2016
|last_aired  = October 21, 2016

and let this template do the magic formatting and metadata. This would require the help of a bot of course. But the end result would be a more robust template which is easier to use. Would this have support of people here? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

It would be necessary for the template to accept dmy formats as well as US formats. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Any date recognised by the #time parser function would be acceptable. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't have my support. I believe that it's fine the way it is. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Why not if we can make it better? What are the disadvantages? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

No need to fix what isn't broken? And I'm pretty sure that almost every template uses {{start date}} and {{end date}} for the metadata that it provides. This removes that. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

They would still be used but they would be applied by the template, not in the article. That's how it should have been implemented originally. No need to get editors to deal with technical stuff; they just put the dates in and the template deals with the rest. It will also be much easier to make changes such as the above without resorting to kludginess. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for saying the work I've contributed "looks good", then refer to it as "kludginess". There's nothing wrong with it. There's nothing technical a regular editor needs to know about it. Whereas the latter would be the case were it changed to your suggestion, as the template would need to convert the month names to numerals, and use multiple regular expressions. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

It is kludgy and I'm not sure how you can deny that. It's no criticism of you as your module has made the best solution in a bad situation. Indeed I credit you for spotting the problem and finding a way to solve it. But we should aim to fix these properly. For a "regular editor" the change would mean typing

|first_aired = 28 April 2016
|last_aired  = 21 October 2016

rather than the current situation:

|first_aired = {{Start date|2016|04|28}}
|last_aired  = {{End date|2016|10|21}}

Do you still say that the current method is easier than the proposed method? Yes of course there will need to be more technical wizardry in the template, but that's what we template editors are here for, is it not? To sort out the technical code so that article editors do not need to worry about it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do say that the current method is easier. That way when an editor edits the sandbox version of this module, they only need worry about one line for the dates, and not a massive amount of random gobbledegook that the "experienced" template editors put in because only they need to understand it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I endorse the idea of switching to two parameters, for start date and end date. I'd really like to have them sync up with Wikidata properties for start time and end time. --Netoholic @ 20:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Netoholic: I'm not sure what you're talking about. The code already uses two separate parameters for |first_aired= and |last_aired=. This discussion is about changing the way they are used. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed edit to budget line in infobox

WikiProject Film recently reached consensus on an edit to that project's infobox, to include, where known both gross and net budget. Please see discussion at Template talk:Infobox film#Request for comment. Gross budget figures (pre-tax-incentives) appear to be available for TV series as well; see http://www.esd.ny.gov/Reports/2015_2016/FTCP_4Q2015_Report.pdf, for example. Would it be consistent to add to this template's budget field a note saying " 'gross' and 'net', when applicable, should be parenthetically added beside the figure(s) in the existing budget field, using the {{Plainlist}} template" ?--Tenebrae (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Television budgets are few and far between, so it would not really be applicable to add to the infobox, to service the few over the many. If budgetary info can be found, anything applicable would be appropriate in an article's production section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

....And misreading partially the question and what we actually have for parameters, the budget parameter as it is now is mainly for television films, after we merged two infoboxes. However, as far as I've seen, many television films use the film infobox, not this one. So reanswering, it would be fine I think to adapt the decision made for the film infobox, however, the parameter is still only meant for television films, not television series, per the reasons I gave in my first response. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Until the merge, television films should have been using {{infobox television film}}. After the merge they should be using this infobox. Where they use {{infobox film}}, they should be converted as they should never have used that infobox. I don't see a need to add a note endorsing something that is not currently forbidden. Doing so is unnecessary instruction creep. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Invalid date range

Infobox television/Archive 9
Original release
Release	7 December (2015-12-07) – 10 December 2015 (2015-12-10)

Infobox television/Archive 9
Original release
Release	December 7 (2015-12-07) – December 10, 2015 (2015-12-10)

Why does the code

{{Infobox television
|first_aired = {{start date|2015|12|7|df=yes}}
|last_aired = {{end date|2015|12|10|df=yes}}
}}

produce an error message "Invalid date range", or, more importantly, how can that be fixed? Note that the same code without |df=yes does not give that error.

{{Infobox television
|first_aired = {{start date|2015|12|7}}
|last_aired = {{end date|2015|12|10}}
}}

Cheers, -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

This is being caused by a recent edit to the infobox. I've reverted the change until the issue can be fixed, hopefully by AlexTheWhovian, who wrote the code. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: The issue has been fixed, per the new module's testcases. The edit can be reinstated. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done --AussieLegend (✉) 07:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 May 2016

Please add a num_cycles parameter option to be used in addition to num_seasons and num_series. The term "cycle" is synonymous with series and seasons in some countries. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: The change is feasible, but this is the first time I ever heard "cycle" being used for "season"/"series". Are folks who work on TV shows or WP Television aware of this and also feel a need for it? — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done Through Google, I found several sources that use the term. We also use it in a few major articles, such as America's Next Top Model. ~ Rob^Talk 01:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware that America's Next Top Model uses cycle, but when I did a search I couldn't find other programs that did so, and reliable sources referring to America's Next Top Model even use season. It's a little strange that after 11 years and 37,000 uses of the template, we've never discussed this. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Revert - this "cycle" usage is not in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). Needs more discussion. -- Netoholic @ 02:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

 Reverted — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Netoholic: I'm a bit confused by your comment. While the naming convention uses season and series as examples, it never says those are preferable terms, and it also only applies to article titles. What do you see this use of "cycle" in the infobox not being in line with? ~ Rob^Talk 03:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: "Cycle" seems to be a term that that America's Next Top Model uses to refer to itself. It isn't, though, an industry term nor used in any other case that I can find. Even the show's press release for the upcoming episodes uses "season" throughout, and "cycle" not once. That term seems to be limited to use only within the narrative of the show, and also, since it is only one show we're talking about, that term shouldn't be integrated into this template where its presence can confuse or complicate matters. (03:21) Added: As I look more into this, it seems that "cycle" is a term pulled from the fashion industry ("fashion cycle", denoting the rise and fall of trends) and integrated into the narrative of these Top Model shows. This makes me even more convinced that this isn't a television term appropriate for this infobox, nor article titles. -- Netoholic @ 03:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

A quick look reveals some pretty screwed up articles. I found some season articles using this infobox instead of {{Infobox television season}}. Although they cover a single "cycle" they were using num_cycles, with the data in the field not making any sense at all. These same articles included some of the parameters from Infobox television season that obviously don't work in this infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

"location" parameter documentation

I was just alerted to this, due to AussieLegend's edit over at Supergirl (TV series) here. Why is the parameter only allowed if it is different than the country of origin? For example (still using Supergirl), Supergirl is an American (United States) production, that filmed in Los Angeles for season 1, and will move to Vancouver for season 2. Los Angeles =/= the United States. I think I understand why this wording was here, because we don't want to duplicate country of origin, if a specific location can't be obtained. So I think the documentation for this parameter needs to be updated to the following, or the like (changes in bold): "Production location, i.e. where the show is/was shot. If the location is the same as country of origin above, and a more specific location is unknown, leave blank." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The normal assumption is that the filming location is in the country of origin, so there is no need to specify it if the filming location is in the country of origin. In the past, for TV series that are filmed in multiple locations, we've had long lists of locations in the infobox. Including an address in the country of origin is unnecessary minutiae, but your proposed wording would allow that. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

True, but knowing where in that country is also helpful. The US is a big place (as with other countries), so that can't really define the location used to film. And you know I don't mean adding a specific address Aussie. To solve that, here's new wording: ""Production location, i.e. where the show is/was shot. This field should include the most prominent city or cities where the show was filmed. If more exist, they can be noted in the article's production section. Leave blank if the field is simply the same as the country of origin field."

There has been plenty of past discussion about this in various venues. It's probably best to raise this at WT:TV. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Once on this page, over four years ago. I am in support of Favre's suggestions of change. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Once on this page, but as I said, there has been discussion in various venues, which is not limited to here. Discussing this at WT:TV and gaining more input won't hurt. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

In the interest of uniformity, I'll drop a line at WT:TV to direct users here to discuss. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Notifying some regular editors of the TV project to this, if they choose to comment, so it doesn't go by the wayside. @Bignole, EvergreenFir, Cyphoidbomb, Geraldo Perez, Robsinden, AngusWOOF, Dark Cocoa Frosting, Adamstom.97, and Drmargi: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The current description says "Production location, i.e. where the show is/was shot. Leave blank if same as country of origin above." Why would that need to be tweaked? And Supergirl would be like MacGyver, listing both primary locations of filming (Los Angeles, Vancouver). Also if a production is held primarily at a certain studio locale, this can be specific as with The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Because, as I mentioned above (again using Supergirl's first season as an example), it is a United States CoO, and it films in Los Angeles. Los Angeles is not the United States. How is listing "Los Angeles" in the production field inappropriate? I understand if a series can't source a specific location and that is the same as the CoO, not to list it, because that is overkill. But if you can list the specific city, I don't see how that is wrong to do so. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I see this field used all that much. I wasn't even aware of it. Why is it that we need a "location" field? I mean, most shows have a central filming location, yes, but they also film is various other locations. For instance, Smallville filmed in LA and Vancouver, as well as other parts of Canada. Just seems odd and a good way to end up with a giant list of filming locations. That's just me and not wanting bloat in an already large infobox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, if it stays, then I would assume you would include a specific location. The idea of "filming" being in "United States" doesn't make sense for how it corresponds with Country of Origin. You film in cities, not just a country.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

As I explained above, the normal assumption is that the filming location is in the country of origin, so it doesn't need to be mentioned. The location field is just supposed to capture the "unusual" situation where filming does not occur in the country of origin. It's not supposed to capture specific addresses. For Supergirl, while Los Angeles is not the United States, it is in the United States, so it doesn't need mentioning. However, filming in Canada should be mentioned. That said, I really don't see the need for the parameter. It's not as if filming somewhere else is unusual. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see what the issue is. Per the description quoted by Angus above, if you actually know the filming location (rather than just the country of origin) then you add it. We know the filming location for Supergirl season one (LA), which is obviously more specific than the US, so we should add that. And now that it is moving to Vancouver, we should add that as well. I don't see why this needs to be discussed. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I mean if you want to remove the field altogether, I'd be okay with that. Because any filming location information would in theory be sourced in the article already. As a comparison, the film infobox (which we at times share reasoning and overlap with) doesn't include anything like this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

if you actually know the filming location (rather than just the country of origin) then you add it - It has always been the case that the field is just for the country of filming, not for a specific location. As an example, an anonymous editor tried back in 2012 to add something implying that specific locations were OK but it was quickly reverted.[4]

As a comparison, the film infobox (which we at times share reasoning and overlap with) doesn't include anything like this. - I always assumed that the field was a carry-over from {{Infobox film}} but this doesn't seem to be the case. I'd support removing the parameter. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Joining the conversation late just to say I'm rather indifferent about it. Location param doesn't add much, and some shows are shot in far too many locations to list out in the infobox. But at the same time, I'm not eager to remove it entirely. (Though I could easily get awb to remove it quickly enough). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request

Fanofbfolders (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Marked as done, since there was no request. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Error message and tracking category for unsupported parameters

I have added error tracking for unsupported parameters. See Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters. A red error message appears when you Preview the article, between the edit screen and the rendered preview. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

In the category, the articles are sorted by the name of the parameter that is unsupported. You will notice that there are a lot of articles listed under "S" that use the |status= parameter. I saw a few mentions of that parameter in the talk page archives, but you might want to determine whether this parameter should be part of the template before a helpful gnome removes it from all of the articles.

Let me know if you would like the template, or the error check, to be modified. I will watch this page for a while. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I almost wish you hadn't done that. Not knowing how many infoboxes are wrong made things less scary. No, status is a deprecated parameter, but it was never actively removed from infoboxes. It might be useful to implement Module:Check for unknown parameters at {{Infobox television season}}. Do you use a script to sort parameters alphabetically? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I know, ignorance is bliss. I do use a script. It's in my vector.js file if you want to take a look at it. It is not fully automated and does not always work, so tread carefully if you use it.

I have added the check to the television season template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks like there are at least 2,500 articles that use |status=. You might want to file a Bot request to remove that parameter and its value. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to just have AWB go through all of these articles to adjust, possibly with @AlexTheWhovian: and @EvergreenFir:'s attempt to update all to the new granularity parameters? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 and Favre1fan93: I've still got a lot to go through but I can add a regex line to remove |status=. Bot might be easiest in the long run though as I'm not moving all that fast. Just to be clear, the task is to remove the parameter |status= and its content from the infobox, right? Any chance you know if that parameter is unique to the infobox and not contained in, say, the citation template? Knowing that makes the coding easier. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I edit a lot of citation templates, and I've never seen |status= in any of them, so you should be clear there. If you're looking for a way to prevent false positives, you could look for values of the |status= parameter that appear on the (outdated but probably useful) list at this discussion. Using those values will probably allow you to fix 70–80% of the articles without false positives. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

That is indeed useful! I've yet to figure out a good way of getting regex to stay within a particular template (if you know of a way, I'm all ears... sick of |title= getting hits in wikitables and citation templates). I thought [^FOOBAR] would help, but it only considers single characters). Let me whip up the regex real quick. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like |setting= is another one being caught by that maintenance category. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at User:Jonesey95/AutoEd/unnamed.js for a regex that limits replacement to Cite templates. It will fail (safely, proposing no changes) if the template contains another template, e.g. a {{plainlist}} inside of an infobox, but it works well otherwise. You still have to supervise it, but it helps.

Something like this may work for you:

Find this: ({{\s*[Ii]nfobox television(?:[^}{]*(?:\{\{[^}{]*}}[^}{]*)*))\|\s*status\s*=\s*[parameter value]\s*([\}\|])

Replace it with $1$2 or \1\2, depending on your regex processor. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Cool, thank you for that! The one I cobbled works well so far (see Special:Contributions/EvergreenFir). Was using \n\s*\|\s*status\s*\=\s*(?:ended|canceled|cancelled|ongoing|returning|airing|new\sseries|on\shiatus|in\sproduction|current|upcoming|finished|running|completed|continuing\sseries).* and replacing with null. Skipping pages that do not contain \|\s*status EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: I tried out your code and came up with (\{\{\s*[Ii]nfobox television(?:[^}{]*(?:\{\{[^}{]*\}\}[^}{]*)*))(\n\s*\|\s*status\s*=.*) and replace with $1. Seems to be working so far. Think it's a safe bet to just remove the entire parameter line. Do you see anything wrong or potential false positives with it? If not, I think we could request a bot to do the rest of the category. Could also have it search for other deprecated params ((status|setting|FOOBAR)) and just have it run a few times on each page until there's no changes to me made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I always prefer to have a backstop of ([\}\|]) to detect the next parameter or the end of the template. You could so something like \|\s*status\s*=[\da-z\s_-\(\)\[\]]+([\}\|]) to capture any value of the status parameter containing numbers, letters, underscore, hyphen, parentheses, or square brackets. I'm not a regex wizard, but I prefer to have a few null edits rather than a bunch of erroneous changes. If you want to make your life easier with AWB, you could turn off general changes so that the proposed edits are very easy to spot. I think you can also have multiple regexes so that you could remove |setting= and other common unsupported parameters all at the same time, as I have done with my unnamed.js script. As for a bot, I think there is too much weird stuff in infoboxes, and I would recommend AWB or manual fixes only. It won't take that long. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Alright! Thanks for the input! I'll add the ([\}\|]) as a fail safe. And yeah, multiple rules makes sense. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: I finished my first pass through the category. Removed about 4000 pages from it. Will make another page to keep whittling it down. I refined my regex coding as I went along and as I noticed more common param issues. Hopefully I can get the category under 1000 pages. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, great work! I have done the same sort of thing with error categories: create a regex, run through the category with it, refining as I go, and then run through again with the improved regex. Keep refining and running, and you should be able to clear out the vast majority of junk, leaving a few hundred unusual cases that need to be dealt with manually. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Second pass and now down to 1,324 pages in the category. I'm sure I've made a few errors (if you catch them, just revert me and I'll fix it). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

•  Done Category cleared. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

number of episodes (confusion)

Number of episodes is currently "Number of episodes (aired so far)". Some editors not familiar with Template:Infobox television (uh, me) intuit that as "Number of episodes (scheduled)." which can be confusing (to me and maybe to others too). Did I overlook an Episodes scheduled tag or equivalent? --Naaman Brown (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL may apply. There's no hurry to talk about what might happen in the future. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

If a limited series (miniseries) has announced a scheduled number of episodes, isn't that expected to happen rather than might happen? Does WP:Crystal apply if it has been announced and is anticipated rather than merely speculated? --Naaman Brown (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The episode numbers get updated once an episode has aired. Only in special cases, does the number indicated produced episodes, such as a case in which the series was scheduled but got pulled or canceled. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it applies. The infobox is a place to list what has happened, not what will happen. You can, however, add the scheduled number of episodes into the article in prose format (for example: The first season of Wolf Creek will consist of six episodes, and it is set to premiere on 12 May 2016). Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

We really don't need to discuss WP:CRYSTAL here. The instructions for the parameter say that num_episodes should be "The number of episodes released. This 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." Even if there is an announcement that x episodes will air, if only 4 episodes have aired, you need an inline citation that explicitly confirms episode 5 has finished production before you can add episode 5. Such sources are rarely available. Note that an announcement that x episodes will air is not a source you can use, without resorting to WP:SYNTH. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the current wording of the documentation and the wikitext comment in the example box puts an undue emphasis on the broadcast of episodes in contrast to their public release. In particular, "The number of episodes released" vs. "the number aired" are often different for mixed on-demand and broadcast releases. Sometimes only temporarily as released episodes are broadcast later, and other times permanently, when episodes are not burned off after cancellation . Also, as it reads now, every Netflix series requires an inline citation for this parameter because they have zero aired episodes. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 11:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Released

The parameter |released= is shown in the example and the doc, but not used in the template itself. Should it be removed or replaced?--Auric talk 16:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

| data41 = {{#invoke:Infobox/dates|dates|{{{first_aired|{{{released|}}}}}}|{{{last_aired|}}}}} --AussieLegend (✉) 16:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This is merely implemented as an alias. The problem is that it doesn't display any information in the Original release of the infobox if there is also |first_aired=, in the case where the original release of a series begins before the first broadcast.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Episode count showing up as "n/a"

It seems the episode count is now showing up as "n/a" at Bizaardvark, as the |num_episodes= parameter is not filled in because no episodes have aired yet. I'm not sure when this change was made, but I don't think this is really useful, as in most cases when it's not filled in, it's because no episodes have aired yet, and in most cases, there is an "Episodes" section in the article anyway, which either contains a list of episodes or a link to it. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It was added in April 2015, but I agree, it should just not be included if the number of episodes isn't set, and just include the link. Alex|The|Whovian^? 17:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The instructions for list_episodes say "If a Wikipedia 'List of' article exists for the show's episodes, put its name here." List of Bizaardvark episodes does not exist, so there should be nothing in the field. If that were the case, n/a would not be displayed. The problem here is that list_episodes is not being used in accordance with the instructions. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

So, list_episodes should never be #Episodes, you're saying? I believe that the documentation should most definitely be updated. Many one-season series use this format; I see nothing wrong with it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 July 2016

For the parameter |show_name=, please allow for an alternative parameter name of |name=. The |name= is used on {{Infobox film}} and when editors change the infobox from film to television (e.g., in this edit), the parameter becomes broken and appears in Category:Pages_using_infobox_television_with_unknown_parameters. I encountered this issue a large number of times when originally clearing out that category with AWB and allowing for the alternate parameter name seems like an easy solution to the issue.

Please ping me in reply or if there are questions. Thank you.

EvergreenFir (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir:  Done Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Query: What to do with 'First_aired'/'Last_aired' parameters and multiple airing venues?

What are we supposed to do with the First_aired/Last_aired parameters if a TV show airs on one network for, say, one season, and then aired on another network or in syndication for a second season? The specific example I'm referring to here is Finders Keepers (U.S. game show). TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 31 July 2016‎ (UTC)

Those parametres are for the initial run of the show, so first aired is for the first ever broadcast of the first episode, and last aired is for the first ever broadcast of the last episode. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

This has previously been discussed in relation to other programs. There should only be a single date, and nothing else, in these fields. I've fixed the article in accordance with the infobox instructions and the outcome of the previous discussions. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Question, then. What about series with revivals? For example, Doctor Who and The X-Files each have more than one pair of dates, and I'd bet many more pages at Category:Television series revived after cancellation do too. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Would it be beneficial to add "Revival release" parameters to put two dates for that? I specifically say "Revival" over say, "Second release" to not include, as with this example article, series that start up syndication, or the like. But to use it solely for articles like X-Files or in that cat that you linked Alex. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I would have thought that the Last aired would just get changed when a series is revived, since that date no longer refers to the airing of the last episode. A further explanation of when the original last date is and when the revival began can be added to the lead and body. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

When a series is revived, last_aired is changed to |last_aired=present once episodes start airing and remains that way until the series ends again. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

But that would be factually incorrect. For example, X-Files has not been running from September 10, 1993 to the present day. I believe that this is another case where the documentation needs updating; I'd agree with Favre's suggestion. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The first_aired - last_aired range doesn't say any series has been continuously running. It just displays the dates that the first and last episodes aired, nothing more. Every series has gaps between episodes airing. Look at a program like Sherlock (TV series), that has 2 years between series, 3 for the latest, and has only aired 9 episodes and one special in 6 years. It has effectively been 3 miniseries of 3 episodes each. Daredevil (TV series) is having a 2 year gap between the 2nd and 3rd season. Hotel Hell has a 2 year gap between seasons too. We can't be overly specific in the infobox, it's just a quick summary. That's why we provide links to the episode list, so readers can find out the specifics of when episodes actually aired. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Realistically, none of those examples provided fit the criteria of the original question, as none of them were cancelled/concluded and then brought back to air. We don't have to be greatly specific, no, but we don't have to provide as least information as we can, though. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that they don't fit the question's criteria. They were simply presented as examples of TV programs that have not aired an episode in a long time. As I said, last_aired simply denotes the last time a new episode of the series airs, nothing more. It has nothing to do with whether or not a series has been revived. If a series ends without a formal announcement, last_aired remains as present until a formal announcement is made, or until 12 months have aired since the last episode aired. If there is a need to note that a series has been revived, then perhaps |revived_series= needs to be added to the infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Change "original release" back to "original run"

I think we should change the section of the template that says "original release" back to "original run", because I think "original release" would only be suitable for writing about a television movie. I don't think it makes sense to put on an article about a series, because obviously separate episodes of a series are aired. Tjdrum2000 (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

What about series that are released all at once, like Netflix's shows? Saying that they were originally released on a certain date and other series were originally released over a certain date range works for both situations, but original run only applies to traditionally broadcast series. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

All series that run are released, but not all series that are released are run. The current term is acceptable. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

"Editor" parameter misused

I just recently learned that the |editor= parameter is only meant to be used for the content editor(s) of a political show. There are many articles that misuse this parameter, so perhaps we need to rename it to |content_editor= and go through existing uses of it and remove the inappropriate ones. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd support creating |content_editor=, but |editor= should stay to indicate Film editors, which is what I'm assuming is how many articles are using it now. That is an acceptable parameter to include under the "Production" heading for nonpolitical shows, and it would be necessary if the infobox is used for television films. This change would affect the few articles that are using it correctly currently (a small number I'm assuming), while no change would be needed on the articles using it "incorrectly". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I would be fine with having |editor= for film editors. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Prior to this edit on 16 February 2013, the instructions for the field simply said "The editor or editors of the show". The edit was apparently made as the result of this unanswered question 2 days earlier. The question acknowledges that the field was as many seem to think for film editors, yet the change was made to the personal preference of the editor who asked the question. Looking at the field from the POV of most editors who, from my experience, never seem to bother looking at instructions, what is the difference between "content editor" and just "editor"? Surely an editor edits content? And, for those who do read the instructions, what relevance are "film editors" to a template that, until relatively recently, only catered for television programs? {{Infobox film}} was the infobox for films. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Aussie, are you saying, then, that the parameter should be left as is, and should cover both film editors (ie the people who composite together the footage shot to make the episode) and "content"/news editors, with the documentation reworded to notate such? And if we should split out to specifically notate these "content" editors, maybe the param should be |news_editor=? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think something more specific as you've proposed, is probably a wise choice if the intention is to create a new parameter. There are a lot of TV articles out there, and I'm not sure the global community is going to be able to figure out what "content_editor" is. I too thought this parameter was just for regular video editing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I mean, common sense would generally veer towards the parameter being about film/video editing, and the original wording was vague. But I don't know how the editor who made the change felt it meant what they changed it too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H, AussieLegend, and Cyphoidbomb: So this discussion went a bit stale, but can we implement the changes as discussed? Have |editor= be for film editors, and create a new parameter (we said |content_editor= but whatever would be the best wording) for the news editors? And then we'd have to search through articles using the parameter and adjust as needed (which I'm presuming would be a small number that would need to change). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi F1F93, I support |editor= to mean the person who sits in the video editing bay. |content_editor= I fear is far too broad and I can see legions of ignorant users mistakenly using that, because everything on TV is "content" and "editor" is the person who sits in the editing bay. Instead I support the creation of |news_editor= for news editor unless someone can think of a reason why that's too narrow a label. My feeling is that with a clear description in the documentation, it shouldn't be an issue. Ex: "|news_editor= This field should be used to indicate the senior reporter who oversees the writing of news and magazine video content." (or whatever the proper clear definition is.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I would support that. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

A film editor should in the pecking order come below cinematography. As in example of a political programme an editor is usually the last named reflecting the responsibility as a film director in a drama would have. REVUpminster (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Great. So @AlexTheWhovian and Cyphoidbomb:, can either of you make these changes for us since you have template editor rights? The current |editor= should be moved below |cinematography=, and where |editor= currently sits, should be the new parameter, |news_editor= (News editor). We'll also need to see what articles are currently using |editor= and which of those need to become |news_editor= now (because a bunch are using it to represent film editors), maybe in a tracking category? Let me know if anyone has any questions, and I'll also update the documentation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian just pinging you again to see if you saw this to implement it. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry; saw it, completely slipped my mind. I'll take a look at it today for you! Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Favre1fan93  Done Changed order of parameters, and added tracking category for usages of |editor= to Category:Pages using infobox television with editor parameter (needs creating). Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I created the cat. Didn't realize 5,000+ articles were using the editor param. Hopefully there is only a small amount that need changing. Its just a matter of finding the right ones... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)