Template talk:Infobox television channel/Archive 2

Colours change

Option 1

{{{name}}}
Terrestrial

Option 2

{{{name}}}
Terrestrial

Voting

• Support > Option 2 - Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 15:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Just to note that the template has been protected as it is highly visible/used and changes effect multiple pages. Please discuss changes here first, and then add a request to edit if changes need to be made. Thanks :) SkierRMH (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the slogan parameter

I'd like to suggest that the slogan parameter be removed from this template. {{Infobox company}} has already removed the slogan, and the argument to remove slogans is valid for this template as well (see Template Talk:Infobox Company#Slogans). Slogans change very rapidly, while most of the other information will remain static. Yngvarr (c) 23:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} How about changing "adsl" to "broadband", since other dsl formats and cable broadband are being excluded. Saved45 (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone opposed to the adsl/broadband change? The only reason I'm hesitating, is because the user who made the request is very new. But if no one objects, I'll proceed. --Elonka 22:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Placing request on hold, since more details are needed. In the template, there are multiple uses of "adsl": "adsl serv 1" "adsl chan 1", up through 20 for each. Are all of these to be changed to "broadband"? It seems to me that that might break the pages which are attempting to use this template. Or is some other change being requested? --Elonka 22:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

3G TV

is adding such mobile channels possible under avaliability? especially if these channels are simulcast of more mainstream broadcast channels

I don't know whose idea is it to add "3gmobile serv 1" as another parameter, which doesn't work in the real template simply because it wasn't updated for it. I noticed this as someone added this parameter in an article and nothing appeared.

I wonder if I should place {{editprotected}} because of this... Hytar (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Which logo should be used?

I have come across a situation where a logo has a number of different backgrounds. There is the logo as it appears on screen and in all the advertising, then there's a logo that appears on the channel owner's website and nowhere else. I've also noticed a slightly newer version of the on-screen logo which appears from time to time. None of these logos claims to be the "official" logo. Is there some preference as to which should be used? Do logos include the background colour? Is it better for the image in the infobox to be representative of the on-screen identity as seen by the viewing public? Astronaut (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge Proposal - Solution Presentation

I have posted a potential solution for the merge proposal from August of last year at Infobox Broadcasting network. Please visit and provide feedback. Krocheck (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Code updates

{{editprotected}}

Requesting sync with the sandbox to port this template to WikiTable syntax and bring the styling in line with that of other projects. Next step is a full migration to the {{infobox}} base class. A comparison between old and new is located at the new text cases page; only minor changes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. I had a quick look through the code and couldn't find any problems. Additionally I was in favour of the minor changes and liked the default to PAGENAME if name= is not specified. If there are any problems just let me know and any other admin should feel free to revert me, though hopefully this will not be necessary. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Code problems

When the code was updated however, some of the logo images have disappeared into text because they don't have an image size associated with them (see this edit, for instance before I added the image size. Nate • (chatter) 17:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please re-sync with the sandbox to fix this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

IPTV over ADSL?

It appears that some IPTV services, such as Sky Angel and U-verse, are no longer limited to just ADSL, and I would imagine this number will grow as broadband continues to be more widely adopted. So, should "IPTV over ADSL" be changed to just "IPTV"? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 20:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I don't understand why this is specific to ADSL when there are no other IPTV options in the template. For example, Magnet Entertainment in Ireland provide IPTV to both ADSL and FTTH customers, so currently the template makes information about Magnet's services incorrect. --Zilog Jones (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Since I posted this over four months ago, I've gone ahead an made the transition. As far as I can tell, the term IPTV no longer pertains solely to the ASDL service. If there are any problems noticed, let me know. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove of Channel params

I'd like to propose the removal of the various cable/sat channel parameters:

• terr serv 1
• terr chan 1
• sat serv 1
• sat chan 1
• cable serv 1
• cable chan 1
• sat radio serv 1
• sat radio chan 1
• iptv serv 1
• iptv chan 1
• online serv 1
• online chan 1
• 3gmobile serv 1

These parameters really do not serve any valid purpose on most of the television channel articles, as most vary so much by region, provider, etc that they just say "varies" or "check your local cable operator". Wikipedia is not a TV guide and we really shouldn't be in the business of trying to tell people where they can find the channel on their specific provider/location, that's what their own guides are for. Further, they are frequently disputed and cause problems in articles with fans or detractors of some services mass editing articles to promote or remove channels, or to promote unnotable providers. The best solution, to me, is to remove all of these options. They would be akin to listing which booksellers carry a book - excessive, trivial information that is not unique nor highly relevant to the channel. If there is anything notable or unusual in where the channel is available, its better noted in the prose. Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - the channel provider parameters serve a useful purpose, not just for telling people where a channel can be found, but its position and its importance within a television platform, something that could not be, in my view, easily integrated into the article text. It is possible for this information to be vaildated, many articles or channel lists do publish the channel numbers where these channels can be found which can be verifiable. Your arguments would effectively argue that the whole infobox holds unverifiable, trival information (maybe aside from the ratings parameter). Aside, we have whole articles dedicated to lists of the channel numbers you wish to remove fully from all articles (ie. List of channels on Freeview (UK), List of channels on Sky Digital) - would these need to be AfD'd? --tgheretford (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Question. I understand most of your points -- although I'm not sure I always agree. One I don't understand is how a channel's "importance" is demonstrated. Is the idea that people tend to use low numbers -- or something of that sort? That's intuitively attractive, until considering that a company may be trying to "push" a less interesting / less known / more profitable channel. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's known, at least on the satellite platform in the UK, for major companies running TV channels to purchase channel numbers further up the EPG from smaller, less known and less popular channel operators (ie. the lower the channel number, the more likely it will be found when someone zaps around for channels, the more popular it will be, the more reliable sources are available and more notable it will be) and ultimately these deals make money and news articles. It is of course just one small way of demonstrating a channels importance, but it should be a part of that - hopefully the article will also contain references throughout demonstrating its notability (which many don't). --tgheretford (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose The channel provider parameters are widely used correctly within the uk tv channel article because we removed any bad references of check local operator etc, this is only a problem with american tv channels article from what i cna see and i suggest that if it says check local provider to remove it, the informaiton is not trivial it shows information on where the channel is placed if it got a high epg number then the channel is regard as being high piriorty or more poplour so it givesa insite into the channels proformance.

Comment - Given that cable and terrestrial channels are highly variable based on location, there is a strong argument for their removal. But on the other hand, satellite and IPTV channels don't vary from area to area (to an extent), and for example, in the U.S., there's really only Dish and DirecTV that compete for satellite TV. Given that it is not reasonable to delete some fields yet keep others, I'm leaning towards delete all, but I just don't know. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This is american problem, within the uk there is not many cbale companies or many tv provider full stop--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm in favour of deleting these. I can see an argument in, say, identifying that ITV1 has historically been channel 3 on British television sets, but I'm not sure that this translates globally to the extent that it would be appropriate in the general infobox. Furthermore, as I'm wont to remind people, material which isn't included in the article body should not be present in the infobox - it's an at-a-glance summary for comparative purposes, and shouldn't contain unique information in the first place. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Question - Radio station articles have the same situation with frequencies, which rarely, if ever appear in the article text, but do appear in the infobox. Could this argument be applied to FM/AM/SW/LW/DAB/DAB+/DMB/HD Radio frequencies in the relevant radio station infobox. Would this consensus to delete channel provider parameters here have to apply to the frequency parameter in that infobox? --tgheretford (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. the argument that what isn't included in the article body should not be present in the infobox could also be applied to the picture format parameter - I have never seen any mention of 576i or HDTV or the like ever mentioned in the main article text. Consistency, that's all I am asking. --tgheretford (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Could it, yes, but it would need to be discussed there. Would also agree that picture format is unnecessary, but that should probably be discussed separately. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I went looking for guidance or comments about the notion: "things in the infobox should also appear in article", and didn't find much. Where is that? One reason I ask is that CobraBot adds several things automatically to infoboxes — things such as Library of Congress Classification numbers. Since it's automatic, obviously that information will not necessarily appear in the text. Should it? Is it really necessary? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not specifically codified: in actual fact a general introduction to the concept of infobox templates is something that's on my to-do list. It stems from two different observations: that infoboxes are always presented as being summaries of articles (which implies that they only contain repeated information) and that they are hidden or inaccessible to some readers and in some formats (for instance, they're exempt from MOS:COLLAPSE, which means they may be hidden from screen readers). Furthermore, it's a commonsense approach to ensuring that they don't get filled up with trivial cruft on a subject, and a good way of ensuring that material is always tied to a reference (because people sometimes get antsy about {{fact}} tags in infobox templates, but wouldn't consider removing such a tag from a fact in the article body). The primary sticking points I can see to this general rule are things like vital statistics for athletes: people seem to expect that height, for instance, is present in infobox templates for athletes even if it's omitted from the body. Tying this back to the issue of radio station frequencies, I would consider that a piece of info which belongs in the article body. It's certainly something which belongs in the bodies of UK radio stations IMO. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems fairly clear to me that the parameters of television stations vary from market to market, and it would be most appropriate to have those elements of the infobox which only make sense in certain markets be placed in a market-specific infobox. Thus, I don't find the arguments of the UK editors upthread to be particularly convincing. One of the first principles of software design is "don't generalize from one example", because the slots in the cognitive framework of that instance may not match anything else. But given knowledge of the way broadcasting varies around the world, the obvious Right Thing would be to make an {{Infobox TV service (generic)}} with a couple of parametric sections that can be filled in by parent (national or regional) TV station templates. 121a0012 (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What evidence is there to suggest that this maket-specific information is not simply trivia which could easily be omitted? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Alt text

{{editprotected}} The logoalt= parameter currently works as a caption. It's probably better to use the real alt text option. Here's the change needed to do that. --h2g2bob (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably, but we shouldn't change the function of a param without knowing what the consequences are. So I will add a new "caption" option, and add a tracker for the old "logoalt" option. With that all current usecases can be fixed. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_TV_channel/tracker

That's a neat use for WhatLinksHere :) It looks like a handful of pages are using logoalt as a caption, eg: "Channel ident (2005-present)". I've left a note on the wikiproject talk pages asking to rename logoalt to logocaption, and then re-use logoalt as the alt text. I'll wait for a response to that before doing anything else. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I've changed the pages currently using logoalt= to use logocaption=, so it should be ok to change the template now. The change I made to the sandbox is this diff, which renames logoalt to logocaption for the description under the logo, and then re-uses logoalt as the alt text. I left a note on the wikiprojects (1, 2) with no objections. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I changed the pages first because the handy tracker would stop working once the template was changed --h2g2bob (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks --h2g2bob (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear admins

This template page really needs to be updated and maintained. I see obvious typos in cap and punctuation. It also appears to be incomplete, with no info to explain several parameters. Should we use the {{start date}} for the launch paramenter? serioushat 06:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please add one more item about the channel headquarter

as examplyfied by

• http://ten.com.au/contact-us.htm

--222.64.29.221 (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.sbs.com.au/shows/aboutus/tab-listings/page/i/10/h/Contact/

--222.64.29.221 (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.abc.net.au/contact/abc_offices.htm

--222.64.29.221 (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ch 1

Channel One being replaced by Challenge on 1st Jan re The Airwaves 23/11/10 if someone can insert this - thanks Cyclips (cycl) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclips (talk • contribs) 19:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition of new parameter

I am proposing an additional parameter to the template, this new parameter "Type"{{{type}}}, would reference the specific genre of the channel. My impetus for the addition is it that every television network is different and most are genre-based like Nickelodeon and YTV are both kids and family-oriented channels.

This particular parameter is already included in Template:Infobox Network (which is not commonly used within television network articles), and I was going to propose a merger of that template into this one due to its similarities (although parts of the Infobox Network template also are similar to Template:Infobox Broadcast and could be marged with that template as well), with some select parameters that are exclusive to that template added to this one, although for now I chose only to do this proposed addition. Please weigh in, as to whether only the "Type" parameter should be added to the Infobox television channel template or if parts of the Template:Infobox Network template should be merged into both the Infobox Broadcast and Infobox TV channel template. (TVtonightOKC (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

Remove limitations on number of rows?

This template currently limits the number of cable/satellite/terrestrial/etc. services that can be listed for a channel. For example, no more than 20 cable services and 30 satellite services will appear in the infobox, even if editors have added more information in the infobox's source code.

I was just trying to add a couple of countries to the "Satellite" area of the "Availability" section of the Al Jazeera English infobox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_English). I discovered that both pieces of information I was going to add are actually already there in the infobox code, but they aren't displaying on the page because of the above-mentioned limitations.

Is this an intentional limitation in the infobox parameters to keep them from getting unwieldy? I found some basic help info about infoboxes, but it did not indicate whether they should be restricted in length. It seems unfortunate (and unfair) that information for a certain channel is only available for countries that happened to be entered before the limit was reached. Bayguy42 (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"Share source" parameter

Such data must come from the reliable sources. That is why market share number should never be shown if the share source parameter is empty. Artem Karimov (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well it all needs to be sourced, really. Do you have a rough idea of how many articles would this affect? If there's a lot that need sources here then I think it would be better to hold off making this change until a consensus is formed. We don't know if perhaps some of this information is sourced elsewhere in the article. Or people might prefer to flag any unsourced data initially instead of removing it. Tra (Talk) 22:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Normal external links vs. Template:URL

All of the major infobox templates (Template:Infobox person, Template:Infobox organization, Template:Infobox musical artist, etc) have switched from using normal external links ([http://example.com Link title]) to using Template:URL ({{URL|example.com}}) for the website parameter. This template is benefitial because it provides useful microformats that bare URLs cannot. Therefore, I think the template documentation should have this as the recommendation for the "web" parameter. If no one disagrees with me, I'll change it to that in a week. Trinitresque (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Trinitresque (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

new version in the sandbox

after the update to {{infobox}} to use lua, there is no longer a limit to the number of label/data items. I have created a version using {{infobox}}, which is the sandbox. see testcases for a comparison, including one with all of the parameters active (even undocumented ones). the new version will appear visually shorter, due to the use of default cellspacing and line height. otherwise there should be no real difference in functionality or appearance (some very minor things, like fixes the alt text in the image). Frietjes (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I totally support the new version. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

in that case, I will enable the edit request. please update the template to use the version in the sandbox. Frietjes (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the update! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Replace "Internet television" with "Streaming media"?

Hello, anyone who may be reading this. I wanted to broach the subject of updating this template so that the information that currently displays underneath the "Internet television" heading would appear under a "Streaming media" heading instead.

This issue came up as part of some work I am doing as a consultant to C-SPAN. It was brought to my attention that in the C-SPAN infobox there is a link to C-SPAN's live stream under the "Internet television" heading. However, this isn't really Internet television. For clarity, the parameters in the template appear as follows:

| online serv 1 =

| online chan 1 =

I understand that C-SPAN is in a bit of a unique situation here because the network offers all of their programming online for free, which other networks do not do. However, many other networks do provide some of their programs online and updating the template to create a "Streaming media" section would create a place in the infobox to include a link to a network's online media website. Related to this: after looking at many Wikipedia articles on television networks I noticed that the "Internet television" parameter rarely appears. It seems that making this change would make this parameter more useful to a variety of networks' articles.

Thanks for taking the time to read this. I'm interested to hear what others think. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with this, other than the possibility of lots of spammy links to YouTube or Livestream channels being added. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Huntster, thanks for your reply. I hadn't thought about this change leading editors to include links to YouTube, etc., but it is an interesting point. My thinking is that because this is such a specific infobox, and by specific I mean an infobox that is unlikely to be improperly used in articles about things that are not television channels, it seems unlikely to me that a "Streaming media" heading / parameter would be misused, at least not on a wide scale. If we were discussing adding this parameter to the infobox template for a person or a company, then I think you are right, we would be opening a Pandora's box of spam links.

Is this a change you'd be willing to make? Or do you suggest we look for more editors to weigh in? So far I have posted messages on the Talk pages for WikiProject Television, WikiProject Media and WikiProject Internet and I'd like to know that there was consensus for it. And to be honest, I have limited experience in making changes to infobox templates so if this is something you're experienced in I'd be interested in hearing what you suggest. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, it's not a hard change to make, but I'd like to see if there is any additional commentary over the next few days. If there is none over the next several days, I'll try to remember to update the template, though I admit I'm rather forgetful. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I just checked the wikiprojects where I'd posted about it, and I don't see anything else there. If nothing by next week, I'll drop you a line! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

With no objections and plenty of time,  Done. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Huntster, much appreciated! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Use of national flags?

Hi, are there any guidelines in favor of or against the use of national flags in the Country parameter of this infobox? Example: Nick Jr. (Latin America) The Country parameter doesn't have a description of contents. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOXFLAG. Frietjes (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, that'll do. Thanks Frietjes! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Key people

Key people parameter doesn't seem to be working. Hope someone will fix it soon.--Abhishek Jacob (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Still not working --Tv's emory (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

'Founder' attribute

Would it be desirable to have a 'Founder' attribute? For example, this would be used by the The Real News page.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Web --> website

For consistency with Template:Infobox television, shouldn't |web= be changed to |website=? Also, the parameter should probably be coded to format automatically, with a default label like "Website". See infobox here for instance. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a fairly simple change to make website the primary parameter with web as an alias so existing uses still work and we could use that to implement auto formatting as you suggest. I don't see a downside to this. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: What's the best approach here, RfC? Not sure how many eyes are here, well technically there are 40 eyes watchisting this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

For now, wait to see if anyone else responds. You've already raised this at WT:TV. Have you also notified WikiProject British TV/Channels and WikiProject Television Stations? --AussieLegend (✉) 00:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Not yet. Will do. Thx. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

There's zero reason for this to not be allowed. I've updated the template to allow for both parameter names. Whether or not the documentation changes to use "website" instead of "web" can be further discussed. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I like consistency in wording between the templates, so if "website" is used on more of the television related templates, I'm for that change.--Gonnym (talk) 09:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Huntster. As pitched, these templates should all be consistent so I think the label that is automatically formatted should be "Website" so if anyone wants to discuss thaaat... Also for consistency, we might consider adding a website_title parameter, in case someone wants to gussy up the description with "Official website" or something fancy like that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I personally have no issue with changing the described parameter name to "website", but more of a consensus is probably needed. However, I would strongly oppose adding the ability for users to change the title to something other than "Website". It's all about standardisation, after all. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Bump: Hey AussieLegend, any idea what the next step is here? Should I go find a template writer or something to change |web= to |website=? Also, I've seen no conflict over the use of "Website" as the label. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Nobody has commented to the contrary and such a minor label change doesn't shouldn't be controversial anyway, as it's just the addition of "site", which is consistent with general usage anyway. Try an edit request and see what happens. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! It would be appreciated if you'd please change the default label for website from "Web" to "Website" to make this template consistent with Template:Infobox television, which uses the default label "Website". Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The label is "Website". Alakzi (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

LOL. Well, there you go. I didn't even bother checking the code to see what the label was. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Headquarters?

Where are the instructions on how to use the Headquarters field? Is this for an address or a city/nation? Relevant edit here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 September 2015

The "logosize" parameter is entirely broken. Please fix it. Mdrnpndr (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not broken. Try taking the square brackets out of the filename. Alakzi (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:Alakzi: Good call, thanks! Mdrnpndr (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit protected

Could I change the "Availability" paragraph to a collapsible list? Just like the same template on Chinese Wikipedia.--Dabao qian (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

This can be discussed in general below, in order to process an edit-request though we need a "complete and specific description of the request", preferably in Template:Infobox television channel/sandbox. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Reply: I have put the new version of this template into the sandbox subpage. Could administrators patch it to the main page?--Dabao qian (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Such a change is something that shouldn't just be decided. Please give others an opportunity to weigh in on this decision before making the request again. Primefac (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is the intent of the "sister channels" parameter?

And can it be added to the documentation?

I have a bit of a dispute with User:Jasonnguyen2606 on this, and some others. The example in this case is Time Warner, which owns a number of channels, but these channels don't REALLY work together. Whatever "sister channel" means, it implies some relationship IMO more than "has the same corporate parent". Look at the "sister channels" list for CNN: is it useful to say that it's Turner Classic Movies, Cartoon Network, and HBO, channels that have nothing to do with one another and don't coordinate in any meaningful way? It's like listing Tim Hortons as a "sister restaurant" to Burger King because they both have the same corporate parent in Restaurant Brands International. If a reader is truly interested in corporate ownership links, they can click on the "parent" field of the infobox.

"Sister channels", IMO, should be things like CNN & CNN International, or for an example that doesn't use the same name, HBO & Cinemax - HBO and Cinemax are one organization with the same employees, are usually sold together, and they bundle movie rights between the two. There's a strong and notable relationship, much more so than between random brands owned by Time Warner. Any thoughts? Objections if I update the documentation myself? SnowFire (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Sister channel definition, it should be for channels where they freely mix programs across both channels without thought like Disney Channel has sister channels Disney Junior and Disney XD, or MTV and VH1, ESPN and ESPN2, FX and FXX. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you, of course, but that article is totally unreferenced, and also includes the unreferenced line "However, in other cases, these cable or satellite channels may only share common ownership.", so it is sadly not a super-authoritative take on the topic. :( SnowFire (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 August 2017

Could someone please add a Subsidiaries parameter to the infobox (like the company infoboxes have) so I can e.g. list Cinemax in a separate field on the HBO article (it is a subsidiary, not a sister channel) Thanks. Pariah24 (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

As per the above section, and the discussion here I also propose the parameter Sister channels be changed to Channels in network or something of the like, as there is a disagreement on the definition of sister channels, which is really just a neologism derived from sister station and doesn't have much usage in reliable sources. Pariah24 (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa. Let's actually talk this out first before we make an edit request? I haven't even replied yet. Give me a sec.

Short version: I don't think your definition of "sister channels" is even appropriate for the infobox. See my comments above. By your definition, we should have an infobox element in every company owned by Berkshire Hathaway of the hundreds of other companies owned by Berkshire Hathaway. That's not a useful field IMO, whatever it's called. SnowFire (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits} 01:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't think that adding a parameter to a template would be something controversial that requires consensus, but whatever. I was trying to avoid the issue by not calling them sister channels. But by all means let's make this as complicated as possible Pariah24 (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pariah24:, re your reply on Talk:HBO: FWIW, I wasn't trying to make things "as complicated as possible" before, merely wanting to ensure we got it right first, as your proposed parameter addition didn't sound like it would help much.

If there's truly no definition for "sister channel", maybe it should be removed from the Infobox params entirely? Alternatively, if you really think there's some value in the list of "same corporate parent", create a field that is unambiguously that: "Other Channels owned by Parent" and have it immediately beneath parent or the like. That caption sounds really ugly and long and written by a Martian, so maybe a snappier and more concise version, but I can't think of one that doesn't sacrifice clarity.

Anyway, I think I'd be happy with keeping the name "sister channel", but requiring that a reference be added for every addition or the like if we want to be strict on this, since it's a mushy term that's hard for Wikipedia editors to know when it qualifies, apparently. In Cinemax's case, this would be super-easy as a quick Google returns multiple hits (e.g. https://qz.com/248195/why-the-fastest-growing-cable-channel-couldnt-get-anyone-to-watch-the-premiere-of-its-most-ambitious-show/ ), so I think that's a sign it's on the right track. Then, if you feel the current-ish "other channels owned by parent" is useful, maybe add THAT param to the infobox instead? I still somewhat question its usefulness, but would find that a more acceptable compromise myself. SnowFire (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 November 2017

Please add in a Parent option as shown in the template documentation. Mark999 (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Mark999 (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. I've removed it from the documentation since it has never been supported. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC about sister channels

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus: there is an argument for using ownership, another for using sources that specifically call them sisters, and a strong voice to forget the whole thing if there is any doubt. --GRuban (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

---

What specifically qualifies two television networks as sister channels? If the only metric is ownership, is it necessary or desirable to list every channel in a particular network in an infobox, even if those channels have no similarity or shared programming whatsoever? Any additional input from other editors would be appreciated. Relisted by Cunard (talk) at 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC). Pariah24 (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• I would say groups that are owned by one company would work for input with sister stations (e.g.: TV Land, Nick Jr., MTV, Nickelodeon, TeenNick, BET as The Viacom Group, akin to how Fiat, Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, Ram etc are all owned by FCA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelpTheBear (talk • contribs) 20:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Seems like nobody showed up, but I said my piece above. "Same corporate ownership" is an unworkable standard that also isn't interesting enough for the infobox. "Sources referring to X & Y as sister channels" is better, even if it will take time to get every infobox to use that standard. SnowFire (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
• This is an interesting question. Under the true definition of sister station then it is indeed every channel with a common owner, and I would be quite happy with only listing truly related channels, but the issue becomes defining which channels have a direct relation. For example, it is obvious BBC One has direct relations with BBC Two as both carry similar programming and indeed share some, as does BBC News and BBC Parliament, but would BBC One and BBC Parliament be sisters? What about BBC News and CBeebies? E! and Bravo share common audience and both feature female-oriented reality shows, but does Oxygen fit the 'sister channel' mould - it targets females also but recently refocused from reality shows to true crime docos. 7HD is mostly a simulcast of Seven Network so would be obvious sister channels, but would Seven Network and sub-channel 7Two be sisters? What about the Racing.com channel, which solely airs live horse racing 24/7, but the Seven Network carries the major races each year? It may prove far too complex to determine the criteria of a sister channel in some way other than ownership. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Αvoid altogether would be my position. The criterion is obviously ownership, since any other criterion would involve unacceptable levels of subjectivity. But ownership is extremely hard to define. In what way is ownership established? What percentage of ownership passes the threshold for sisterhood qualification? Do we take into account the cases where a relatively small percentage in a corporation of a highly diluted ownership gives the small percentage very strong leverage? What about entirely non-interfering ownership, whereby management also directs the affairs of other media, including stations? The issue of ownership is so fraught with complexity that, in my humble opinion, trying to simplify things down to cases of "sisterhood" seems to be well intentioned but seriously misguided, and in the end unnecessary. -The Gnome (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Per Sources. (Summoned by bot) As stated by others, there are shades of gray in both ownership and programming similarities. Infoboxes are very poor for listing gray areas; they are designed for just the opposite. So, yeah, maybe the easiest solution is to forget the whole thing. But, they aren't all gray; what about when it's "obvious" that two stations are sister stations? It would be the job of the infobox to list those. Of course, per WP standards, we avoid mere editor option and go by what the sources say. If the significant sources list something as a sister station (or similar wording), we should state it as such in the infobox and cite it. If not, don't. (That will likely notably reduce the number of sister stations we list, but it won't be zero.) --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2017 (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.

What's up with the display for audience share?

If you use all three of the audience share parameters, the display looks a bit unusual. Take a look at ABC News (TV channel) for example. Notice how it displays as "Audience share 1.9% nationally (2016 ratings year, ^[1])" what's with the comma and space before the reference? It doesn't look right at all. Shouldn't it be something like "1.9% nationally (2016 ratings year)^[1]", no need for a random comma and with the reference outside the brackets as it's referring to the whole value? – numbermaniac 09:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Uk-roi tv net infobox/service listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Uk-roi tv net infobox/service. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Gonnym (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Feature request (April 2019)

Can't this infobox template be made collapsible? It would be useful when an article has to host this template for more than one. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 17:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. * Pppery * _{has returned} 02:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's suppose someone wants to put this template at the Cartoonito article. Cartoonito is a brand name of TV channels and blocks aimed at preschool children, with presence in multiple countries. Putting the template only at the top of the article would imply that a single version of Cartoonito is broadcast worldwide, when in reality (and technically) it's not. So the editor tries to put the template every section without a separate article, but because of the template's lengthy nature, it will make the entire article look cluttered. Putting {{-}} at the end of every section is obviously not an option, too.

For that matter, shouldn't this template be able to collapse entirely, or at least the "Availability" part made collapsible? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 16:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. The case you presented isn't really applicable, as it isn't a TV channel, as it is the name of a group of TV channels. A different infobox would be more suitable. Having multiple infoboxes, especially the 8 that would be added on Cartoonito is a bit over the top. I would say that the infobox is more suited to a dedicated page for each individual TV channel. Furthermore, in specific cases like this, a template change is less desirable. You can use {{Collapsed infobox section begin}} to collapse a section of a infobox.

Also, if you want to have a parameter in the infobox, you will need to get consensus to support the request. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Strongly oppose any collapsible option (per MOS:DONTHIDE). Taking your Cartoonito article as an example, none of the entries there needs an infobox. They barely have enough information for a single line, so why would you need to summarize the information in an infobox? --Gonnym (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Deprecating slogan=

Slogans are not encyclopaedic content, they are marketing devices. Mission and slogan have both been removed from {{infobox organization}} and slogan should be removed from this template as well. Guy (help!) 00:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

"Sister" channels

I suggest changing "Sister channel(s)" to "Sibling channel(s)," because assigning gender to TV channels is silly. :) Trivialist (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 May 2020

Please consider increasing the number of valid channels for the sat serv/chan and cable serv/chan parameters. The template currently supports 30 satellite and 20 cable channels at most. However, the template on CNN International lists 35 satellite and 35 cable channels - the current limits mean that the last 5 satellite and the last 15 cable channels are going missing from the displayed output. In a larger example, BBC World News has 37 satellite and 45 cable channels entered in the template, which means that 7 satellite and 25 cable channels (more than half!) are not displayed in the rendered template.

Perhaps the number of supported satellite and cable channels should both be raised to something like 50. Thank you very much! – numbermaniac 07:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but that is an absolutely ridiculous number for an infobox. Put them in a table somewhere in the article by all means, but the infobox is supposed to be a brief summary of information from the article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/2020 Infobox television channel redesign proposal

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/2020 Infobox television channel redesign proposal. Raymie (t • c) 07:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Raymie: Please add "audience share" parameter. I guess you might had removed it mistakenly. Thanks--202.78.236.6 (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@202.78.236.6: My reasoning for removing it is much the same as that previously discussed in 2017 on the radio side. See Template talk:Infobox radio station/Archive 2#"Share" parameters considered harmful. Raymie (t • c) 18:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Raymie: I'd like to make a suggestion to move up the ownership and history sections in the template code to both be placed before the programming section of the table to be more consistent with the previous layout. How the sections were laid out resembled the code layout of the television station infobox; however, for that template, the sectioning kept each integer's arrangement basically the same from that template's prior layout. It doesn't necessarily fit as well here, given that the TV station infobox had a technical information section that followed the history section, the history section has more available data points and the programming section (which consisted of a list of the applied station's subchannels and, in some cases, an accompanying generic list of affiliations) was arranged to mesh with the analog/digital/virtual channel integer preceding it. I'd also suggest looking at consolidating the ownership and history sections in this template into one section, on account of the limited amount of data integers used and use of the close date and former names integers varying more widely with the TV channel template compared to the TV station template (in most cases, the launch date is the only integer in that section that is used and visible). TVTonightOKC (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Missing para

Raymie, Tempo TV is using |founder= but it is not displayed. I don't see anything wrong. MB 14:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@MB: It won't show without |founded=. Raymie (t • c) 16:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Raymie, The documentation does not list a dependency. It also says not to use |founded= unless it is different than |launch_date=. In this case, they are both 1990, so the founded date should really be removed since it is redundant. It could be argued in this case that |founder= should not be used due to non-notability. But in general, I think founded should display regardless of other parameters. Hidden dependencies just cause trouble, IMO. MB 20:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

MB, that was how the template was previously set up pre-code overhaul. Would you rather have it be a separate label/data? Raymie (t • c) 20:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Raymie, I do think that would be cleaner; it would be simple and avoid the problem with this infobox. There should be a way to have launch date and founder. MB 23:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Raymie (t • c) 23:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)