Template talk:Infobox television channel/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I suggest "slogan" or "motto"

be added as a template parameter. soibangla (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Soibangla, this parameter is generally being removed from infoboxes. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#Removing slogan parameter from Infobox radio station and Infobox television station and some of the comments in Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/2020 Infobox television channel redesign proposal. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Sammi Brie, Are you going to get primebot to remove these too? It has been over a month and there was no objection here (I realize you weren't the one that changed the template, but if you are coordinated the removal from the others...) MB 23:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes MB, I have asked for this. PrimeBOT has been very tied up with deleting some 200 Z number templates that had tens of thousands of transclusions, but it has been requested. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Availability section

I just noticed this, but the "Availability" section of this Infobox is showing up on articles where there is no data to show (defunct channels). I don't remember this occurring before. One example is Cable Music Channel. If this was already brought up, disregard my post.Msw1002 (talk) 05:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Msw1002, there's some quirkiness with the autoheaders under it because those fields that Cable Music Channel does not call are actually coded into a child infobox. I'm a bit lost on how to handle it myself. If I hide it, it forces "Links" to show up instead. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

web/website

Raymie, I found an article today using both |web= and |website=, and there was no warning of conflicting parameters. It looks like if just one is used, there is no problem. If both are used, the value in website is used (which may be blank) and overrides whatever is in web=. Not sure if there are other parameters with potential conflicts. If there are just a few articles using web=, we could find and fix them and deprecate the para. Or we (you) could add the conflicting para code here. MB 01:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

MB, should I just get rid of |web=? There are also a couple other parameters with aliases: |tv_stations=/|tv_transmitters= (without underscore), |image_alt= and |alt=, and |language=/|languages=. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if there are not many uses. Do you want to add a tracking category so we can see the extent of the problem? MB 01:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I might, since as an alias it does not split out in the template data report. The other param ones I'm probably keeping. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow, MB, it comes out to at least 3,200 pages from briefly having a category in page. Guess I have to roll this in the PrimeBOT slogan-removing task that's delayed because it's substing out the Z templates. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok we could just keep it as an alias for website, but add a "clobbered parameter" check to catch only those cases where both are used - those are the only ones that really need to be addressed. MB 04:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The first two I picked randomly from the cat were only using web=. MB 04:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that might be the way to go, to catch these clobber cases. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

It would probably save a lot of "cosmetic" edits (I don't think the "cosmetic bot day" every got approved!) MB 05:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I need PrimeBOT to run anyway to ax the slogan tag, so I've simply added that to the request. It might be a while with all those Zs to remove. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Sammi Brie, I was thinking about this again. What will Primebot do? I thought it only removed deprecated template parameters. In this case, it can't remove web or website since either could have a good value. Does it do more? Like only remove a para if it has no value. That would, hopefully, leave a small number article for manual cleanup. MB 15:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I just moved house and my PC is still in storage (which has all of my AWB settings), so this bot run is still probably a week or two out (sorry for the delay). If there's an issue with web/website and you are looking to get rid of "web", then I would do a check to see which parameter is used and store the value under |website= (or just keep website if web is also populated). Primefac (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the guidance. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd actually advocate going with your initial idea mainly because you also have a |webcast= parameter which then leads to ambiguity to what |web= was the editor referring to. And we all know editors always manage to surprise us. Gonnym (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we should deprecate |web= and only use |website=. But to do this properly, we have to manually determined what value to use in any articles that use currently have a value in both parameters. We shouldn't just blindly remove |web=. I believe Primefac is saying he can 1) remove web= if it is empty, 2) move values from web= to website= if website= is empty, 3) do nothing if both have values. After the bot run, anything left can be fixed manually. MB 16:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Correct. Primefac (talk) 08:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

As an update, it might take a while to populate but I've set up a page for the clobbered params. I haven't edited any yet (still working through the slogans of a different template) but they mostly look like straight duplicates. Might still be worth cleaning them up manually since there are only 0. Primefac (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

14 Done. A few were straight duplicates. Several had one value that I moved to |webcast=. If that is all there are/were, |web= can be completely removed now. MB 15:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

0 left in Category:Pages using infobox television channel with parameter web but I'm tired and headed to bed. Once those are done |web= can be formally removed. Primefac (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. MB 22:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Can Category:Pages using infobox television channel with clobbered web parameter and Category:Pages using infobox television channel with parameter web be deleted? Gonnym (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Primefac (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Awards parameter

I suggest adding an "awards" parameter where awards received by the TV station/channel can appear listed in the infobox. Mercy11 (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Mercy11, is there a specific award you're thinking of? Awards are definitely not for the infobox, in my view. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not an expert in awards or even Emmys but two I can think of would be the Emmy Awards and the International Emmy Awards. They have various subcategories, including International Emmy Awards Current Affairs & News. Mercy11 (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Awards would be a cruft magnet galore. These infoboxes have had enough of them that we've had multiple redesigns to slim them down. Where relevant, that is content for the body, not the infobox. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Please, no. There are so many awards that stations get every year (including unsolicited ones, ballot-stuffed honors like a newspaper giving out 'best television station', and controversial paid 'honors' such as WeatheRate), and it would just be unneeded for individual television stations or networks. Internationally, that's not even getting into the territory of glorified employee banquets with cameras such as the TVB Anniversary Awards (only TVB actors/crew can get that trophy) and authoritarian nations. Nate • (chatter) 02:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC for removal of "Availability" section

Should the Availability section of the template be removed? Gotitbro (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Need consensus for a template module that has caused contention between multiple editors on different articles (back and forth removal/addition). I personally see no encyclopedic value for this information per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. These are mostly unsourced channel numbers which I don't think are valuable at all, multiple channel service catalogues exist for this, this should not be Wikipedia's purpose. There are a plethora of cable, satellite, streaming, IPTV, terrestrial etc. services and these channel numbers keep changing frequently; people keep adding them to articles which in many cases takes up more space than the content itself. Gotitbro (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• Last year, I led a major technical overhaul of this long-neglected template and cut down the capacity limits significantly (when some thought they should be increased, among the most ridiculous ideas I've seen peddled on this encyclopedia). I also have implemented a policy where television channels that are so broadly available (e.g. dozens of countries in a region or something like BBC World News) that including this information would result in an unacceptably long infobox should not have it at all except for terrestrial carriers. (Ideally, all the listed providers should be in the same country.) I am a bit hesitant to support this yet, but its removal could very well reduce the high maintenance load on these pages. Note that removal would require a PrimeBOT task 30 run to be done efficiently. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  Did think about terrestrial channel numbers but then haven't really seen them being used ({{Infobox television station}} already serves that in a sense). Doing away with all the clutter seems better. Gotitbro (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  The case where you'd need terrestrial numbers in that box is the European one. It could even be said that's information worth keeping in the infobox in that particular case.

  Infobox television station and Infobox television channel are solutions for countries with different kinds of ways of organizing TV service. The former is used in countries where stations tend to be individual in character, restricted to a specific area, and own their own transmission equipment, with major users including the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, Argentina, and Mexico. Infobox television channel is used for terrestrial services in places like European countries, where a single service, e.g. BBC One or Disney Channel (Spanish TV channel), may have one number nationally as part of a national digital terrestrial television system (the archetype cases would be the UK, France, Spain, Germany, etc.)

  Historically, WikiProject Television Stations (now a task force) focused almost exclusively on the former (and even then concentrating on North America) and not on the latter, or on the other category of users of Infobox television channel: pay TV services on cable, satellite, etc., including in the United States. One of the reasons I've been so adamant about increasing its scope to include all of the types of articles I've described is because this caused neglect in the support infrastructure around those other pages and because people outside of the project logically thought they belonged in the scope anyway. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  This would mean that they are just territorial re-broadcasts of the channels, making them not highly different from the other params to be removed. While I could see some value here, going to rely on NOTDIRECTORY again for this one. For listing individual stations/broadcasters the separate template exists. Gotitbro (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Absolutely support removal per WP:NOTDIR. Consensus has been to delete full lists of company channel lineups (AfDs like this, this, this, [[1]], etc.), and there's no difference in listing constantly-changing channel numbers as a guide. Belongs off Wikipedia -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Gotitbro. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support with conditions. The inherent problem with the "Availability" section is twofold:

1. It is almost impossible to properly source channel placement on pay TV operators, and even then, the burden of editing when a channel placement is changed is needlessly complicated.
2. Inadequate international concerns. Much of the template in general was designed with United States television stations and channels in mind, which is fine except for one thing: the U.S. is a major outlier regarding the structures of broadcasting, especially the network-affiliate model and pay television. The freeview method of broadcasting pay channels via terrestrial means is not the case here (although attempts had been made in the past and ATSC 3.0 is hinting of a similar concept).

Basically, I am in agreement with Sammi Brie in retaining any and all freeview information and renaming the section to reflect as such. The rest—cable, satellite and IPTV—can go. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 17:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Implementation

@Gotitbro, Wikipedical, Favre1fan93, and Nathan Obral:

I'm proposing a three-fold implementation schedule:

1. A PrimeBOT 30 run to remove all of the cable, sat, satradio and iptv parameters.
2. A review of the contents of the online parameters (some may contain webcast links to be provided by the |webcast= parameter, which arrived in 2020 and thus underused) before their removal.
3. Trimming terrestrial lists. Ultimately, there will only be 2–3 terrestrial options supported.

Does this work out? If so, I will ask PrimeBOT to make the change. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll need a full list of params to remove for the run, but since it looks like there's consensus I can make it happen. Primefac (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Here they are, Primefac: cable_chan_1 (through _10), cable_serv_1 (through _10), sat_chan_1 (through _10), sat_serv_1 (through _10), satradio_chan_1 (through _2), satradio_serv_1 (through _2), iptv_chan_1 (through _8), iptv_serv_1 (through _8). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll get to this soonish. Primefac (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done with my part. Primefac (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I’m in support. Simple, straightforward and will help the ibxes a lot. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 20:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Just saw this implemented; agreement that this has been needed for years. I'm ready to see the 'channel vandals' who threw in local cable positions or false satellite positions and ignored multiple warnings that we're not Channel Guide magazine either leave in frustration or be ignored because their template edits now scream into the void. I'm also ready for the multiple online services (or ones which use us to SPAM their illegal services) to be removed; I'm tired of having to remove randomly popping up "Jim Bob's 100% I Promise Legal TV Streamin' Service for Wrassling" crap, or for like Newsmax TV, stream free on so many services that it's obnoxious when you can just say 'multiple services' in article text and be done with it. Eventually, there's going to be a big shakeout with satellite and cable and rerun channels as wireline fades away, and I'd rather not have to spend needless editing time removing things or detailing that 'on September 39th, 2024, DirecTV dumped Military History and Lifetime Real Women'. Nate • (chatter) 01:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mrschimpf That is a mood—and indeed one of the reasons this had to go was the fragmentation of how people consume TV from how things were even 5 or 10 years ago, let alone 15. By not removing the online parameters right away, I want to have enough time to save the appropriate webcast links. The TV station and channel boxes took years to get that field (unlike radio), and some of these can actually use it. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Does this edit follow this consensus? Seem to be similar strings https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BBC_One&diff=1071809389&oldid=1071751528 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.25.197 (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Similar but not the same. Primefac (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Sammi Brie and Primefac: Sorry couldn't get here earlier (somehow slipped through), glad to see this was finally implemented and we can finally have some rest from the clutter ;D. Though I would've liked to see the whole availability section removed (do see some value in territorial params but not fully) this looks fine for the time being but as the edit linked right above and the comment by Mrschimpf show the online/streaming paras appear to be as much of a clutter and could well do with a removal. Gotitbro (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  I totally agree Gotitbro, but I wanted to get the webcast links moved where relevant. That parameter didn't exist until 2020, so often these types of links went in the Online section. Trust me, it's going once those links are combed through. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Terrestrial removal?

@Wikipedical: @Favre1fan93: @Sammi Brie: @Mrschimpf: @Primefac:

Many thanks to @Gotitbro: - although not an issue I discussed before, I did get feelings that these channel infoboxes were too cluttered. Probably very overdue but good to see the new cleaner format!

However, I think that it would be best to remove the terrestrial as well. I don't see any reason at all to keep one parameter while removing the others - either keep all or remove all. I just checked RT (TV network) and Channel One Russia, and it just does not look right to have a single listing for terrestrial and not others. @Nathan Obral: commented to keep Freeview channels but why? Wikipedia is global, not just to suit the UK's viewpoint. There are plenty of countries where terrestrial plays little role in broadcasting compared to the UK.

I Strongly support the removal of the terrestrial parameter as well. What do you all think? --Jf81 (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Jf81, Freeview is mentioned as a point of reference because it's the first thing that came to both of us, and it applies to DTT systems cut from a similar cloth worldwide. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah @Jf81, Sammi and I are actually from the US and were trying to think of internationalization considerations regarding the field, and Freeview was the first thing. I am open to its' removal, especially if it's indeed counterproductive on a global scale. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 17:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The field has been abused in the past to put in obscure satellite coordinates that aren't usually needed by the vast majority of pay-TV users (and are usually sourced at a point in time eons ago from LyngSat, which I feel is an WP:OR-heavy site), so it really isn't needed. It's also very confusing as some cable networks as we know them in North America actually broadcast OTA in some countries, but require payment/decryption, so we're going into instructional territory at that point. Nate • (chatter) 02:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I will rarely depart from an opinion presented by either of these two, but I do think there is inherent value to terrestrial broadcast that isn't crufty. Many of the crufty satellite listings have been given the chop because they were in the "satellite" parameters. There are some dreadful uses of it, but those should be fixed. I kept terrestrial for a specific reason—because it had value to be in the infobox. To be a service broadcast OTA, in most countries, is quite important! Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's the best in the case of the RT example I gave above, which is an international channel and has a terrestrial listing for only one country there. Maybe such channels need a clean up. --Jf81 (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually I just noticed it is RT the TV network, much akin to ITV (TV network), and not a channel itself like for example RT UK. As a result I have removed the single terrestrial listing on the article as it's technically not supposed to have one. --Jf81 (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Sister networks parameter

Again, I feel like this needs to have some kind of limit, or just be removed entirely; with the Warner Bros. Discovery merger done, it became immediate to add more slurry to infoboxes like Discovery Family, where really the only related network in its genre is Cartoon Network, but you have every Discovery and Turner channel now listed in the box parameter. I removed another example in Discovery Familia where TBS, HBO and CNN were thrown in, along with every Discovery network and took it down to just the true sister and genre-related channels.

But really...outside a few outliers and unique cases, bottom templates now hold links to these sister networks, and it's become duplicative, and because there isn't a limit to the parameter, it often holds as much information as the corporate template alone. It should be removed...but I also know the m.wiki version doesn't show footer templates, so it's about balancing both audiences, I'm sure. Nate • (chatter) 04:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I concur it's a big issue. I've reverted several sister channel laundry lists from WBD article infoboxes, but quickly stopped when I realized how widespread a problem it was. To be honest, most noteworthy sister channels are probably already mentioned in the articles, so having a list in the infobox is probably redundant. I'm in favor of removing it altogether from the infobox. BilCat (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• There are, however, cases where a handful belong in the infobox, usually a subset of a massive navbox that is much more pertinent to the topic at hand (say, CNN International to CNN vs. Cartoon Network). The documentation TemplateData reads, List only the most relevant. If there are too many, consider finding an appropriate navbox. That said, the point about massive mobile audiences really does remain here. I'm not sure what to do, but removing this parameter is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, even if there's a LOT of bathwater. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

That why I think mentioning sister networks in the body or lead of the article is worth considering. In most cases, it's is probably already mentioned, and would be simple to add if it isn't. To continue the analogy, we're not throwing out the baby, but just taking it out of the tub once it's drained. BilCat (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I came to this template to see what the parameters of the sister entry was, after seeing someone link the likes of Adult Swim and HBO to CNN, here. In fact, this user has added a massive swath of links to many articles under the new mega Warner Bros. Discovery umbrella. Should these be rolled back? ValarianB (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, @ValarianB. For CNN, I'd only link channels with CNN in the name and HLN. The rest can be handled by appropriate navboxes. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ridwan97: Per the discussion here, please stop adding every channel owned by WBD as a sister channel, and it would be very helpful if you'd go back and remove your recent additions. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Another related thing just noticed on E!; the move of Category:Former WarnerMedia subsidiaries to Category:Former Warner Bros. Discovery subsidiaries. The category appropriately started as Category:Former Time Warner subsidiaries, which it should have remained until it was moved to the WM title last year, but now we have things like QUBE, Warner Music Group, and the Atlanta Braves which long ago left the Time Warner fold and are decades separated from WBD (or in QUBE's case, predated Discovery, Inc.) under this completely mis-named category, and I have no idea how to fix it. Nate • (chatter) 20:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mrschimpf: You don't need to take category splits to CfD, so you can just create "Former Time Warner subsidiaries" again with an appropriate note that there's an end date to when the topic had to be split from Time Warner. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I found out there were multiple cats involving WBD and Paramount Global speedy-redirected by Ridwan97 (talk · contribs) without even a glance at what they were redirecting. I took it to CfD rather than speedying it (along with removing PG cats for old studios) for future consensus solidification. Nate • (chatter) 23:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The same user, Ridwan97, has added Category:Warner Bros. Discovery people to John C. Malone. What exactly is Malones's connection to WBD? I couldn't find any in his article, so I reverted it. BilCat (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I completely forgot to comeback to tis topic after last week. Looking now, there's another one doing similar things, @BlossomTreenade:. Is this being coordinated somehow, I wonder? ValarianB (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea on coordination. Entertainment articles just seem to attract a lot of CIR users. But three months later, the long sister channel lists are still present on a number of WBD channel infoboxes. I'd really like to see the parameter removed entirely. It's useful if used properly, but it rarely is. BilCat (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)